Now, claiming, as we do, but not in exclusion of others, to be one communion of the catholic church; before we are cut off from this privilege, some promise or declaration of Christ, by which we are excommunicated, and by which the church of Christ is confined to the one communion of the prelacy, must assuredly be produced.

The assumption that they are the church, which prelatists so frequently make, we interpret as arrogance. Their retreat to the authority of the fathers, we regard as an avowal of the fact, that they have no sufficient evidence from scripture. These very pretensions, thus built upon the fathers, the best of those very fathers, as we have evidence to show, would most sternly rebuke. And to such an outcry against this tyranny over Christ's free-born subjects, would be added the loud and unmingled reprobation pronounced upon it by the fathers of the English church, and the noble army of modern reformers. Their history informs us, that they perilled life, endured the loss of favor and of fortune, and suffered even unto death, that they might establish and perpetuate the sole supremacy of scripture, and the inalienable right of appealing from the decision of man to the judgment of God, as the only test of the purity and the perfection of our faith; the only infallible rule

1) Upon the authority which is claimed for the early christian writers, Mr. Isaac Taylor remarks:

"It would be doing an injury to the reputation of the illustrious men whose writings are in question, if we were to speak as if they had claimed, in their own behalf, any such power to interpret scripture despotically; or to legislate for the church in all following ages. They do no such thing. Whatever may have been their faults, this impiety is not of the number. It is altogether the product of the wicked despotism of a late age. None do the fathers so grievous a wrong as do those modern champions of church principles who are attributing to them an authority which they themselves religiously disclaim. Who are the enemies of the fathers? the men who now are thrusting them, by violence, and against their solemn protest, into Christ's throne.

"The harsh treatment to which these good but greatly erring men must unavoidably be exposed, in the rude struggle which is yet before us, for rescuing apostolic christianity, cannot but do an injury to

their just reputation. In proving them to have grossly perverted the gospel, and to be among the worst guides which the church can follow, we are driven to the necessity of producing evidence which no motive less imperative would have led us to bring forward. The same happens in every analogous instance; to thrust a man into a position not due to him, is to expose him to the peril of being treated ignominiously.

"Let it then be clearly understood that, in vigorously contending, as we shall, for the paramount and unshared authority of the inspired writings, and in demonstrating that the strongest and most peremptory reasons of fact as well as principle, forbid the attempt to conjoin the records of the ancient church with them; we are at war, NOT WITH THE MEN whose writings are in question, but with those ill-advised champions of church power, in modern times, who have put these writings in the room of God's word. It is the modern mystery of wickedness, not so much the ancient error, which we are laboring to overthrow." Anct. Christ'y., vol. ii., Eng. edit.

of faith and practice. "The Bible and the Bible alone, is the religion of protestants." "The religion of the protestants is the Bible. The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of protestants. Whatever else they may believe besides it, and the plain, irrefragable, indubitable consequences of it, well may they hold it as a matter of opinion; but as a matter of faith and religion, neither can they with coherence to their own ground believe it themselves, nor require the belief of it from others, without the most high and schismatical presumption."1 V. We therefore make this appeal, fifthly, on the ground, that the right and privilege to demand it is not only recognized by the fathers of the reformation, and by all the reformed churches, but is, as has been already in part shown, a right admitted and acted upon whenever needed, by our opponents themselves.

However far high-church prelates may be disposed to carry their sacerdotal claims of exclusive prerogative and authority, against those whom they denominate dissenters; yet are they obliged, in coming into collision with the Romish church, to fall back for protection, into this fortress of scriptural supremacy. Nor do they even decline to make such a retreat, when hard pressed by the force of some one of those protestant arguments, which may be termed—to use a military phrase-invincibles.

If, therefore, we require the most clear, irrefragable, and indubious scripture proof, for this divine right of prelates, and for this passive obedience of all but the favored few; they will themselves teach us how to frame our apology. Thus, in arguing against the great protestant doctrine of private judgment, (which we had supposed was now a received, and not a disputed truth among protestants,) Mr. Newman asks: "Can any one text be produced, or any comparison of texts, to establish the very point in hand, that scripture is the sole, necessary instrument of the Holy Ghost in guiding the individual christian into saving truth."2 Now, surely, to say the very least, it is as important to establish, by such positive scripture evidence, the divine right of prelacy, as the co-ordinate authority of tradition. Take a second illustration, from another Coryphæus among modern high-church writers. Mr. Palmer, in arguing against popular election, as sufficient to constitute any man a minister, says: "But the grand, and unanswerable proof of its unscripturality," is the fact, confessed by the most ardent advocates for such election, that "no case occurs in the inspired history, where it is mentioned that a church elected its pastor. This

1) Chillingworth's Wks., vol. i., ch. 7, § 56.

2) On Romanism, p. 199.

fact, says he, "is undeniable, and it is conclusive." Now, in the same way we argue, if there is any passage in scripture, by which prelates are empowered with all the prerogatives now claimed, and this, too, as a hereditary right, to be carried down by personal descent, to perpetuity-let it be shown; or otherwise we must affirm that this very silence of scripture is a conclusive and unanswerable proof against them; "for it is not to be supposed," says this same writer, "that scripture would omit all notice of the very essentials of the christian ministry."

"How is it possible," asks Bishop Taylor, "that the scriptures should not contain all things necessary to salvation, when, of all the words of Christ, in which, certainly, all necessary things to salvation must needs be contained,-there is not any one saying preserved but in scripture alone."2 "An opinion," says Mr. Newman, "which, in addition to the indirect evidence resulting from the foregoing remarks, seems to be sanctioned by the concluding words of St. John."

"4

But still further, when we demand, that the evidence thus to be produced from scripture, shall not be constructive, and inferential merely; we are sustained in this position, by Bp. Onderdonk himself, who in his tract on this subject affirms that "against the taking for granted any mere hypothesis, all sound reasoning protests." He further says, "the right of these elders (or presbyters) to govern and ordain, cannot be claimed, as resulting from construction or implication," since "nothing of implication can be valid here." Now, if this is true of the claims instituted by presbyters, it must be equally true as applied to the assumption of prelates, since their exclusive supremacy cannot be deduced from construction or implication.

If prelacy, therefore, as Mr. Palmer teaches, is to be ranked under the head of rites and ceremonies, then it cannot be made a fundamental doctrine; nor of the substance of the faith. If,

1) Palmer, on the Church, vol. i., p. 171.

2) Dissuasive, part 2., B. 1, § 2. 3) On Romanism, p. 365; see also pp. 366, 367.

4) Episcopacy tested by Scripture, in Works on Episcopacy, p. 424.

5) Ibid., p. 432. We cannot refer to a stronger exhibition of our position in all its fullness and in every particular, than to Bishop Onderdonk's charge on the Rule of Faith, forming Tract No. 67, or the Protestant Episcopal Tract Society. See especially pp. 38, 39, where he argues against infallibility-lays

down the very principle contended for-and urges the very demand we press. In his Vindication of the Church of England, Bishop Bull alleges it as one of the errors and corruptions of the church of Rome, that she maintains "that all things necessary to be known and believed unto salvation, are neither in express terms or by necessary consequence, delivered and contained in the holy scriptures; and that there is need of the tradition of the church, as a supply in this case." Oxf. ed., p. 10.

71.

6) See Palmer on Ch., vol. 2,

p.

on the other hand, it is a necessary article of faith and of fundamental importance; then it cannot be so regarded without explicit scripture warrant.1 On the contrary, to make that a necessary doctrine, which scripture does not make necessary; is, we are told, "sinful and detestable in the sight of God;" for says Mr. Palmer, "the church of Christ would be apostate, if it taught positively what was false in faith, or contrary to the gospel of Christ." Those who reject such articles when made necessary, were those articles, in their proper degree of relative importance even scripturally true, "are neither heretics nor schismatics in the sight of God, and are therefore in a state of salvation." Nay, we are still further taught, that many things may be "theologically and absolutely true," and yet "not properly articles of faith, necessary to salvation, because they involve questions of fact and of human reasoning which are not selfevident, and on which men may be divided without doubting the doctrine of revelation itself."*

"The pure word of God" in short, "means the doctrine CERTAINLY REVEALED by Jesus Christ, neither mutilated nor corrupted:" and if any body of men, be they prelates of the English or of the Roman school, "should be guilty of such rejection or contradiction, and obstinately persist in them, it would," says Mr. Palmer, "be apostate and cease, ipso facto, to be a church of Christ." In arguing against the Romish doctrine of the unity of the church, as implying union under one spiritual jurisdiction or government of any kind, Dr. Barrow also says, "It is reasonable that whosoever claimeth such authority, should, for assuring his title, show patents of his commission, manifestly expressing it; how otherwise can he justly demand obedience, or any with satisfaction yield thereto ?"

"It was just that the institution of so great authority should be fortified with an undoubted charter, that its right might be apparent, and the duty of subjection might be certain."

"If any such authority had been granted by God, in all likelihood it would have been clearly mentioned in scripture; it being a matter of high importance among the establishments of christianity, conducing to great effects, and grounding much duty."

1) See in proof Newman on Rom., pp. 225 and 260. Palmer, vol. 2, p. 74. Obj. iv.. and vol. 1, p. 92, and vol. 2, p. 328, 362; Keble on Tradition, p. 30 and p. 74 and 77, 4th ed. Sententia Johann. Davenantii Episcopum Sarisburiensem Cantab., 1640, pp. 9, 22, 30, 35, in the Old South Ch. Lib. Also his Adhortatio, &c., cap. ii., p. 49. In ibid., p. 45.

2) Palmer, vol. 2, p. 110, 111.

p. 86.

3) Ibid., vol. 1, p. 109, and see

That the

4) Palmer, vol. 2, p. 262. 5) Ibid., vol. 1, p. 45. 6) Ibid., vol. 1, p. 64. church has authority only in things indifferent, see also Jones (of Nayland) Works, vol. 4, p. 429, and vol. 2, p. 346.

7) Works, vol. 1, fol. edit., p. 771, 2d and 5th.

8) See ibid., p. 551.

We are thus particular in illustrating the fact, that in arguing with Romanists, or upon any other important subject than the powers of the ministry, churchmen avouch to be true and valid, the doctrine we have laid down; because in reference to this subject of prelacy as being jure divino-such a demand for a distinct, certain, and clear revelation in the word of God, has been generally denied. The appeal to scripture, as the only standard by which the merits of this question can be tested, has been set aside for the decisions of councils, and of fathers. And as this is a point of great practical importance-and goes far to invalidate the theory in question, we will here present unanswerable evidence for its truth, reserving some further testimony, for the concluding argument under this branch of our subject.

Archbishop Whitgift explicitly avows it as his opinion, that the question was not whether "the platform of discipline" drawn up by the puritans "were fitly used in the apostles' time-but may now well be used in sundry reformed churches. This," says he, "is not denied." He maintained, that "though the holy scriptures were a perfect rule of faith, they were not designed as a standard of church government and discipline; but that this was changeable and might be accommodated to the civil government we live under; that the apostolic government was adapted to the church in its infancy, and under persecution, but was to be enlarged and altered as the church grew to maturity and had the civil magistrate on its side." "The diversity of our times from the apostles, requires a diverse kind of government and of ordaining of ministers."

That this was the early judgment of the English church, Dr. Willet affirms. "The third opinion is between both; that although this distinction of bishops and priests, as it is now received, cannot be directly proved out of scripture, yet it is very necessary for the policy of the church, to avoid schisms, and to preserve it in unity. Of this judgment Bishop Jewel against Harding showeth both Chrysotom, Ambrose, and Hierome to have been. And among the rest, Hierome thus writeth, "Apostolum perspicue docere &c." that the apostle teacheth evidently that bishops and priests were the same; yet he holdeth this distinction to be necessary for the government of the church. "Quod unus post electus est, qui coeteris prae

1) See quoted in Neal's Puritans, vol. 1, p. 240. Mr. Keble denominates Whitgift "the church's defender," see Primitive Tradition, p. 102. He is also called "the Church of England's watchful

patron." Pref. to Saravia's Priest-
hood. Oxf., 1840. p. 5.

2) Ibid., p. 237, and p. 465.
3) Whitgift Def. of the answer

to the Admon.

4) Syn. Pap., p. 273, fol.

5) Defens. Apolog., p. 248.