episcopacy. To have done this, would have been to renounce infidelity. If the Scriptures have not the stamp of divinity, certainly the ministry, which was instituted to preserve and expound them, cannot claim any character of that sort.

Your next historian is Dr. Haweis. Did you quote him, Sir, on account of the weight he derives from his learning, or profound knowledge of antiquity, or consistency of character? Do you think that a man who despises learning, can be very learned himself, and who abuses all the fathers of the Church, can know much about them? Do you think that man's testimony is of much weight, who always takes part with heretics and schismatics, and commends Novatians, Donatists, Meletians, and Luciferians, while Catholic confessors and martyrs are treated with contempt, because they did not think as he does upon the subjects of predestination and grace? Can you think that man's opinion of any consequence, who says, that he "thinks episcopacy most correspondent to the apostolic practice, and the general usage of the Church in the first and generally esteemed purer ages," and yet can unite with those who have departed from apostolical practice, and are the avowed enemies of primitive usage? Can he be a proper guide to those who wish to be acquainted with the constitution of CHRIST's Church, who says, that " most of the Apostles lived and died among their brethren in Palestine;" that "all ecclesiastical officers for the first three hundred years were elected by the people ;" and that "Matthias was thus chosen to fill up the tribular number of the Apostles," as he expresses himself? Is that man a diligent and accurate historian, who talks of the "constitutions of Ignatius," meaning, no doubt, the Apostolical Constitutions, which were pretended to have been written by Clement; who calls Polycarp the disciple of Ignatius, when all the primitive writers assert that he was the disciple of St. John; who mistakes the name of an office for the name of a man, calling Pontius, the Deacon of St. Cyprian, Pontius Diaconus? Can, in short, that man, who is so spiritually minded, because he believes the doctrine of election and reprobation, be a sure guide to primitive truth and order, when he speaks contemptuously of the great lights of antiquity, the martyrs and confessors of the faith of JESUS; and when he rejects in a lump the testimony of the early writers of the Catholic Church? If such a man's opinion can be of any service to you, avail yourself of it, Sir; but we will be contented with the ancient fathers, as historians of the facts which were accessible to their inquiries.TM

I will close this letter with recommending as a counterpoise to your three historians, the Ecclesiastical Histories of Eusebius, Sozomen, and Theodoret among the ancients; Echard's and Du Pin's among the moderns; and, with them, Bingham's Antiquities of the Christian Church.

w See a Review of HAWEIS' Church History, annexed to SKINNER'S Answer to Campbell's Lectures, lately published by T. & J. Swords.

LETTER XX.

REV. SIR:

I HAVE NOW considered, as briefly as I well could, your manner of obviating the difficulties attending the supposition of a change of government in the purest ages of the Christian Church; and if I do not deceive myself, it has been demonstrated, that it was morally impossible, that such a change should have taken place before the Roman empire became Christian. The profound silence of all antiquity upon the subject; the impracticability of a change, considering the circumstances of the Church in the first three ages; the absurdity of the supposition, considering the nature of the human mind, which cannot act without motives; the extreme difficulty of perceiving any motive that could have actuated the breasts of the usurpers; the inconsistency of such a supposition, with the positive testimony of the fathers to the apostolic origin of episcopacy; the well known purity of the Church in the second century, when this change is supposed to have taken place; all these accumulated considerations place episcopacy upon high and impregnable ground. They afford what the great Chillingworth does not scruple to call a demonstration of the apostolic origin of episcopacy. The demonstration stands thus-" Episcopal government is acknowledged to have been universally received in the Church presently after the Apostles' times. Between the Apostles' times and that presently after, there was not time enough for, nor possibility of, so great an alteration. And, therefore, there was no such alteration as is pretended. And, therefore, episcopacy being confessed to be so ancient and catholic, must be granted to be also apostolic."

In the preceding letter, I showed that Presbyterian writers are at variance, when they attempt to assign the century when episcopacy first appeared in the Church; and also observed, that this difference among themselves affords a strong presumption that they are all wrong. I would now observe, that as they cannot agree with respect to the time, so neither can they with respect to the source of this usurpation. The generality ascribe it to wicked ambition, rendered successful by general corruption. But the celebrated Dr. Campbell takes very different ground. He condemns those who ascribe the change to corruption; for that, he says, is ascribing it to what did not exist. The Church, he assures us, was in great purity, and the clergy were distinguished for their virtue and piety in the second century; and you make the same acknowledgment. He ascribes the change not to vice, but to virtue; not to corruption, but to piety. Well, Sir, where are we now? According to the learned Principal, virtue and piety changed presbyterian into episcopal govern

ment. Who then would not wish, that the offspring_of_so venerable a parent were suffered to exist in peace? And what an implied reflection upon presbyterian parity, that the interests of religion required its abolition! But what sort of virtue and piety could that be, which led the Presbyters to offer to a few of their own order, episcopal pre-eminence, and those to whom it was offered, to receive it; both parties well knowing that it was contrary to the will of CHRIST? And what were both parties to get by thus depraving the government of the Church, and violating a sacred institution? They certainly could expect no reward in the next life for their transgression. And what did this life offer to the Presbyters for degrading themselves, and to the Bishops for receiving this unchristian boon? To the former, imagination can give no equivalent; as to the latter, did they derive from it wealth and secular advantage? No; poverty and contempt were their certain portion. Had they less suffering and greater security? No; but almost inevitable death, and every species of torture. It seems, then, that no motive can possibly be assigned, either on the ground of virtue, or of corruption, for this wonderful change.

The mode which the learned Principal adopted to account for this extraordinary revolution is, if possible, worse than yours. It is ascribing to piety, what nothing but monstrous depravity could have suggested; it is ascribing to the human mind (as your hypothesis also does) action without motive, which is palpable nonsense; it is supposing the Bishops to be idiots, in accepting a superiority, from which no advantage could result, either in this world or in the next; and, lastly, it supposes (as the ground usually taken does) that all the subsequent writers and councils were grossly ignorant, or stupidly credulous, in regard to the apostolic origin of episcopacy. Thus much for Dr. Campbell's speculation.

Ja

The fact being thus, I think, established, that diocesan episcopacy was sanctioned by the Apostles, and that it was not the offspring of human ambition, as you unjustifiably assert, I have no need of taking notice of what you call 'a sketch of the rise and progress of this remarkable usurpation. For all you have said from page 321 to page 329 is nothing more than what you had said in a more diffused manner throughout your book; to every article of which, a sufficient answer, (I flatter myself) has been giveu.

Before I pass on to your concluding letter, I shall make a few observations on the testimonies you adduce from Gregory Nazianzen. You say, 'That the synods and councils which early began to be convened, were, in fact, thus employed by the ambitious clergy, to extend and confirm their power, might be proved by witnesses almost numberless. The testimony of one shall suffice.' You then quote Gregory as saying, 'that he was

a Page 321 et sequent.

desirous of avoiding all synods, because he had never seen a good effect, or happy conclusion of any one of them; that they rather increased than lessened the evils they were, designed to prevent; and that the love of contention, and the lust of power, were there manifest in instances innumerable.' And afterwards speaking of the council of Constantinople, which met in 381, he remarks These conveyers of the HOLY GHOST, these preachers of peace to all men, grew bitterly outrageous and clamorous against one another, in the midst of the Church, mutually accusing each other, leaping about as if they had been mad, under the furious impulse of a lust of power and dominion, as if they would have rent the whole world in pieces. This was not the effect of piety, but of a contention for thrones.' Again: 'Would to God there were no prelacy, no pre-eminence of place, no tyrannical privileges; and that we might be distinguished by virtue alone. This right and left hand, and this middle place, these higher and lower dignities, and this state-like precedency, have caused many fruitless contests and bruises, have cast many into the pit, and carried away multitudes to the place of goats.' Upon these quotations, you ask, 'Would an eminently learned and pious Bishop have spoken thus, if he had considered prelacy as of divine appointment? ›

To this question I answer without hesitation-Yes, he might have thus spoken in perfect consistency with the belief that episcopacy was of divine origin. Was there ever a more fallacious mode of reasoning than this? Bishops have abused their authority, therefore the office is not of divine appointment. Some councils have done more harm than good; therefore councils are pernicious. Whither will not this sophistry lead us? Certainly, Sir, farther than you desire. Many of your readers, no doubt, will stop precisely at the point at which you would wish them to stop; but others will "push you over the precipice," with the consequences of this fallacy. The Papists will tell you, that reading the Bible has produced heresies and schisms; therefore it cannot be the duty of the laity to read it. The Quaker will tell you, and with truth, that Presbyters, as well as Bishops, have been proud, and contentious, and ambitious; and, therefore, we are better without them. The Deist will tell you, that Christianity has occasioned seditions, rebellions, wars, massacres, and innumerable other mischiefs; and, therefore, it cannot be of divine institution. Whither will not this sophism lead us? It has deprived us of a Bible, of a ministry, and of religion altogether. It will also deprive us of civil government. Under every form much mischief has been done. Great injustice, cruelty, and oppression of every kind, have been committed by rulers in all ages, and all nations; therefore, we are better without government. Language, says the misanthrope, is a great evil. It enables men to curse, and swear, and lie, and backbite; therefore they would do better without it. Food and drink are pernicious things, for thousands make beasts

of themselves, and sink both body and soul into perdition. Whither will not this sophistry lead us ?-But I am done; it is too apparent not be perceived, too pernicious not to be rejected.

Permit me, Sir, seriously to ask you, what was your object in presenting to your readers these quotations from Gregory? Was it to disprove the divine origin of episcopacy? That would be too absurd. Was it to show that he did not consider it as proceeding from that source? But what if he did not; it would not affect the evidence for it. It would amount to no more than opinion. I presume the object was, to prejudice your readers against episcopacy. If you could make a Presbyterian of Gregory, as he lived near the close of the fourth century, it would be a shadow in your favour. So valuable are the ancient fathers, if they can, by any means, be got to cast a favourable look upon ministerial parity! But how, Sir, have you discovered that Gregory did not believe episcopacy to be of divine origin? Is it from his condemnation of the abuse of the office? You will hardly answer this question in the affirmative. That would lead you into all the consequences of this species of sophism. Is it from the quotations you have given us? There is no assertion of that sort in them. Is it from his wishing that there were no dignities in the Church-no higher places to contend about? That wish, when properly understood, is perfectly consistent with a belief of the divine origin of episcopacy. The temporal prerogatives, great wealth, and high honours that were attached to the episcopal office, were merely accidental circumstances, and in no respect whatever necessarily connected with the office. The powers of a Bishop, like those of a Presbyter, are altogether spiritual, and, therefore, presenting nothing to gratify ambition, or to foster pride. It is, when faithfully discharged, a laborious, painful, and highly responsible office. I cannot conceive what there is in such an office, to induce any man to aspire after it, when neither wealth, nor temporal honours are annexed to it. But it has been too much the misfortune of the Church, to have her dignitaries overloaded with the distinctions of the world, which have a natural tendency to wean the mind from spiritual things.

In reading over that abstract of the works of Gregory, which Du Pin has given us, I cannot find a single expression that would induce one to think, that he did not believe the divine institution of episcopacy. It rather affords a presumption that he did believe it, that he himself was a Bishop. And in his seventeenth discourse about some difference that happened at Nazianzum, between the people and the governor, he tells him "that he should not take it ill, that he spoke to him with freedom; that the law of GOD subjects him to the commandment of his Bishop." "Now, with what truth could Gregory say so, if he did not believe that the episcopal office was of divine appointment? It is a necessary consequence of such a declaration.

b Du PIN'S Eccles, Hist. Vol. I. p. 166.