REV. SIR:

LETTER IX.

We have one more uninspired writer to consult, Clemens Romanus, Bishop of Rome. The passage which Episcopalians quote from this venerable Bishop, is in his first Epistle to the Corinthians. The genuineness of this epistle is, I believe, doubted by none. The passage runs thus: "Seeing, then, these things are manifest to us, [Christians,] it will behove us to take care that we do all things in order, whatsoever our LORD has commanded us to do. And particularly, that we perform our offerings and services to GoD at their appointed seasons; for these he has commanded to be done, not rashly and disorderly, but at certain times and hours. And, therefore, he has ordained, by his supreme will and authority, both where and by what persons they are to be performed. They, therefore, who make their offerings [in the Church] at the appointed season, are happy and accepted; because that, obeying the commandments of the LORD, they are free from sin. For, the High Priest has his proper services; and to the Priests their proper place is appointed; and to the Levites appertain their proper ministries; and the lay-man is confined within the bounds of what is commanded to lay-men."

From this whole passage it is evident, first, that Clemens inculcates upon the whole Church, (for the epistle is addressed to the whole,) obedience and subordination in their respective stations. This, he says, is God's appointment, and, therefore, not to be dispensed with. He argues (as will be seen by consulting the whole epistle) from the evident subordination throughout the whole natural world-from the subordination every where observed in military affairs; and, lastly, from the subordination established by GOD himself in the Jewish Church. The inference, then, necessarily must be, (supposing Clemens to reason with any degree of propriety and force,) that there must also be subordination in the Christian Church. In an army, he says, there are different orders of officers-in the temple-service, there are different orders; but, Sir, upon your hypothesis, in the Christian Church there is no difference of orders; and yet, you consider Clemens as arguing from this subordination of officers in an army and in the Jewish Church, to prove the necessity of subordination in the Christian Church, in which there is but one rank of officers. If you say, it is enough to make good Clemens' reasoning, that there be a distinction between the clergy and the laity; and that, upon this ground, he might exhort the latter to be obedient to the former in all spiritual matters: I answer, no; that is by no means sufficient. For this epistle is directed to the whole Church of Corinth-to the clergy as well as to the laity. With respect to the former, therefore, it was, in the main,

useless. There being no subordination of ranks among them, of course there were no superiors to be obeyed. The laity, indeed, might have been exhorted to obey their pastors, because GOD had made a distinction between them; but to urge this upon the clergy, by analogical reasoning, from a diversity of ranks among the officers of an army and the priests of the temple, when there was no difference of official rank in the Christian Church, would, it appears to me, be too weak and inconclusive reasoning to be ascribed to Clemens. The argument has no kind of force, but as the Christian Church in this respect resembles the Jewish. And this kind of analogical reasoning must have been peculiarly forcible to those who were so well acquainted with the ministries of the temple as Christians were in the time of Clemens. Let us do all things (to paraphrase the passage)" in order-let us regard times, and seasons, and persons-let all ranks in CHRIST'S Church confine themselves to their proper stations-the laity to theirs; the High Priest (using the language of the temple) to his; the subordinate Priests to theirs; and the inferior ministers, the Levites, to theirs." This makes the whole consistent, pertinent, and conclusive.

It is an extremely irksome business to be obliged to notice every observation that an author makes, or else be charged with not meeting him at all points. Were it not for this consideration, I should not notice the following observations.-' As well might it be contended that Clemens would have the Christian Church organized like an army; and that he recommends four orders of ministers, corresponding with the four classes of military officers to which he alludes. How wonderful must be the prejudice that can make this use of an allusion! And above all, how weak and desperate must be that cause which cannot be supported but by recurring to such means!'

To your declamation, Sir, I have nothing to say; but to what has some little appearance of reasoning, I thus reply.

There is not the same reason for supposing that Clemens would have four ranks of officers in the Christian Church, because he mentions four in the Roman army, as there is for supposing that he would have three, because there are three in the Jewish Church. I know, indeed, that in strict logical reasoning, as Clemens mentions four ranks of officers in the Roman army, and three in the Jewish Church, it cannot be determined from these allusions how many orders there are in the Christian Church, whether four or three. But it is enough for my purpose, that Clemens' analogies imply a difference of orders; and parity being once destroyed by his mode of reasoning, there cannot be any doubt whether the officers of the Christian Church compose four or three orders. A difference of orders being once admitted, certainly, Sir, you can have no doubt that it is the distinction of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon, corresponding in gradations of rank with High Priest, Priest, and Levite.

This, I think, is quite sufficient to prove a diversity of ranks in the Christian, as there was in the Jewish Church.

Your next passage from Clemens is the following: "In countries and cities where the Apostles preached, they ordained their first converts for Bishops and Deacons over those who should believe," &c. From this passage you infer, that there was but one order of ministers in the Church, Presbyters or Bishops.

Now let it be remembered, that in the time of Clemens, the title of Bishop was not appropriated to the first order, but was indiscriminately applied with that of Presbyter to the second. Then the orders of the Church, according to this epistle, were Apostles, Presbyters or Bishops, and Deacons. This is beyond contradiction. The usual way of evading this is, by asserting that the apostolic office, as to every thing of an extraordinary and miraculous nature, was to cease; and that as to their ordinary powers, the Apostles were perfectly on a level with the Presbyters of the Church. That the apostolic office in every thing of an extraordinary nature was to cease, is granted; but that in their permanent authority the Apostles were on a level with the Presbyters, I utterly deny. To say that they were, is to contradict all antiquity. The primitive fathers acknowledged none to be the successors of the Apostles, in their reserved, ordinary powers of government, ordination, confirmation, and censure, but those whom they afterwards peculiarly called Bishops. And what Clemens says, is by no means inconsistent with this; for he knew very well that the Apostles, in their ordinary character, were superior to Presbyters and Deacons; and, therefore, from the enumeration, it appears that there were three orders of ministers in the Church of CHRIST.

Before I conclude this head, it may be well to notice a trifling objection, or rather cavil, which is usually made by our opponents, when urged by the testimony of Clemens, in favour of different orders in the Christian ministry. They say, that he does not mention any Bishop at Corinth when he wrote his epistle. This is undoubtedly true. Nor does he mention, that he himself was Bishop of Rome when he wrote; yet all antiquity asserts the fact. The epistle runs in the name of the whole Church of Rome, and is addressed to the whole Church of Corinth. Of that Church we have no records till the second century. Then we read in a fragment of the history of Hegesippus, preserved by Eusebius," that Primus was Bishop of Corinth by succession. From that time, history takes notice of a chief pastor established over it; but we have no list of the names of the Bishops who governed that see during the first century. But who can doubt that the Church of Corinth had the same episcopal establishment that Ignatius, a short time after, assures us all other Churches had, "to the utmost bounds of the earth?"

I would observe further, that this arguing, or, to speak more properly, cavilling from the silence of an author, against any

a Eccles. Hist. Lib. IV. cap. xxii. p. 182.

fact in question, can never be admitted without the most pernicious consequences. The Scripture, and some of its most important institutions, would be materially affected by it. For instancesome have asserted, that the first institution of the Sabbath was by Moses in the wilderness; and they attempt to prove it by saying, that there is not the least hint in the Pentateuch that it was kept by Adam and his posterity, till after the exit of the Hebrews from Egypt. Consequently, say they, when Moses speaks of that institution immediately after the creation, he speaks by way of anticipation. This is the opinion of Paley, Heylin, and others; but to me it appears a violent construction of the words of Moses. So again, in the case of the Christian Sabbath; there is no mention (say they) in the New Testament, that it was instituted by CHRIST, or by his Apostles, under the direction of the HOLY SPIRIT; and that is undoubtedly true; but it by no means follows, that it is a mere ecclesiastical institution, resulting from human prudence. From the silence of the Scriptures, the Socinians also argue against the continuance of the sacrament of baptism in the Church. CHRIST, say they, ordered his Apostles to baptize and disciple all nations; but when converted to the faith, he does not command that the sacrament of baptism be continued; and, therefore, it ought not to be administered after a nation becomes Christian. All this I take to be mere cavilling, and hardly deserving an answer. Exactly of a piece with it is the inference of our opponents, that the Church of Corinth was not episcopal, because there is no mention of a Bishop in the epistle of Clemens; when it appears from Ignatius, but a short time after, that all the world was episcopal.

I have now produced all the testimonies from the fathers that appear to me necessary to establish the apostolical institution of diocesan episcopacy; and I cannot but flatter myself that the evidence is clear, positive, and decisive. It has been admitted to be so up to the middle of the second century, by our most learned opponents, Blondel, Salmasius, Daille, the Westminster Assembly of Divines, and others. And they admit, that the epistles of Ignatius are decidedly in favour of episcopacy; and, by consequence, if they subscribed to their genuineness, they must give up the cause. I cannot think that it is any breach of charity to say, that this was the true motive of their opposition to these epistles. We are very apt to be satisfied with very weak objections to the truth of what we wish to be false; and with very slight reasons in favour of what we wish to be true. Good men as well as bad, are too much under the effect of this weakness ; and it often determines their judgment when they have not the least suspicion of it. In this way, I reconcile my assertion with charity.

I have now, Sir, adduced a large portion of the evidence that is to be found in the primitive writers, in favour of diocesan episcopacy; and I think I may safely say, in the words of VOL. I.-10

Bishop Hoadly, that "we have as universal, and as unanimous a testimony of all writers and historians from the Apostles' days, as could reasonably be expected or desired. Every one who speaks of the government, of the Church in any place, witnessing that episcopacy was the settled form; and every one who hath occasion to speak of the original of it, tracing it up to the Apostles' days, and fixing it upon their decree; and what is very remarkable, no one contradicting this, either of the friends or enemies of Christianity, either of the orthodox or heretical, through those ages in which only such assertions concernng this matter of fact could well be disproved. From which testimonies I cannot but think it highly reasonable to infer, that episcopacy was of apostolical institution. Were there only testimonies to be produced, that this was the government of the Church in all ages, it would be but reasonable to conclude it of apostolical institution; it being so highly improbable that so material a point should be established without their advice or decree, when we find the Churches consulting them upon every occasion, and upon matters not of greater importance than this. But when we find the same persons witnessing not only that the government of the Church was episcopal, but that it was of apostolical institution, and delivered down from the beginning as such, this adds weight to the matter, and makes it more undoubted. So that here are two points to which they bear witness, that this was the government of the Church in their days, and that it was of apostolical institution. And in these there is such a constancy and unanimity, that even St. Jerome himself (who was born near two hundred and fifty years after the Apostles, and is the chief person in all that time whom the Presbyterians cite for any purpose of theirs) traces up episcopacy to the very Apostles, and makes it of their institution; and in the very place where he most exalts Presbyters, he excepts ordination as a work always peculiar to Bishops. So that supposing there be nothing in the New Testament concerning the superiority of Bishops to Presbyters; and nothing of any confinement of the power of ordination to that superior order; yet there may be sufficient evidence of apostolical institution from these testimonies. And if there be sufficient evidence of this, by what means soever it came to us, it ought to be received. Now, that this ought to be accounted sufficient evidence by our brethren in this case, is plain from their receiving the same testimonies in another most important point, which is not, and could not be plainly settled in the Scriptures themselves. For it is upon the testimony of ancient writers in all ages, that they as well as we, believe the books of the New Testament to have been extant from the Apostles' days; and to have been written by the Apostles, or by persons approved of by them. And this, indeed, makes me the more solicitous to establish the credibility of this testimony of the ancient Church concerning episcopacy, because I fear the objections with great zeal advanced against it, will be found at last