great weight for their opinion, that if episcopacy be a divine institution, it must be essential to a Christian Church, if a ministry be so. But if a ministry be not essential to a Church, then they acknowledge that episcopacy is not. This question Ï shall not discuss at this late period of the controversy; nor indeed do I think, that it is a question a conscientious man would wait to have decided, were he about to make a choice of the Church to which he should attach himself. He would, it appears to me, reason thus. If episcopacy be a divine institution, it is my duty to become a member of that Church in which it is found, unless sinful terms of communion be required. Whether episcopacy be essential to the being of a Church, or not, certain I am that it is my duty to submit to a divine institution. By this submission, I shall be free from all doubts and difficulties; but should I act otherwise, I must rely altogether upon my own reasoning, and that of others. This may, or may not be right; but in the other case, I shall be perfectly free from all misgivings.' This appears to me to be the conclusion, at which a conscientious man would arrive.

Before I conclude this letter, it may be well for me to state, in what sense I consider episcopacy as resting upon the ground of divine right.

A thing may be said to be divinely instituted, in three senses. 1. As GoD positively ordains it by his own express command, or by the express command of his Son JESUS CHRIST. In this sense, I do not take episcopacy to be a divine institution. Nor in this sense is the Christian sabbath, or infant baptism, or the canon of Scripture, entitled to the sanction of divine institution.

2. A thing may be said to be of divine institution, when it is delivered by men divinely inspired; as are all those precepts and ordinances, delivered by the Apostles and Prophets, by divine inspiration. Every thing of that kind must be deemed of divine institution, because GOD, by his HOLY SPIRIT, has commanded it.

3. Whatever is founded upon a divine commission, as the preaching of the gospel, the administration of the sacraments, and the power of the keys, is of divine institution.

In the two last senses, I take episcopacy to be of divine institution. For, if the HOLY GHOST inspired the Apostles to establish episcopacy in the Church, it is certainly of divine institution, although there may be no express and formal precept for that purpose. Or if the Apostles, by virtue of the commission which they received from JESUS CHRIST, established episcopacy, it must, if not immediately, yet mediately, be grounded upon divine institution. For if the Apostolic commission was founded upon divine authority, as it certainly was, then all commissions derived from that source, and within the limits of that commission, are also mediately founded upon divine authority; and in this sense, at the least, every one that believes episcopacy

not to be a mere human institution, must believe it to have a divine sanction.

This statement is, I believe, agreeable to the sentiment of the best writers on our side of the question. I am sure that it perfectly coincides with the opinion of Bishop Saunderson. After observing that episcopacy is not founded upon a peremptory command of GOD in his word, he says, "There is a secondary and more extended signification of that term, [divine right] which is also of frequent use among divines. In which sense such things, as having no express command in the word, yet are found to have authority and warrant from the institution, example, and approbation, either of CHRIST himself, or his Apostles; and have (in regard of the importance and usefulness of the things themselves) been held by the consentient judgment of all the Churches of CHRIST in the primitive and succeeding ages, needful to be continued: such things, I say, are usually and interpretatively said to be of divine right."

Again he says: They, therefore, that so speak of this government as established by divine right, are not all of them necessarily to be understood as if they meant it in that first and strictest sense [as founded upon positive precept.] Sufficient it is for the justificatiou of the Church of England, in the constitution and government thereof, that it is (as it certainly is) of divine right in the latter and larger signification; that is to say, of apostolical institution and approbation; exercised by the Apostles themselves, and by other persons in their times, appointed and enabled thereunto by them, according to the voice of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and by virtue of the commission they had received from him."

"Which, besides that it is clear from evident texts of Scripture, and from the testimony of as ancient and authentic records as the world hath any to show, for the attesting of any other part of the established doctrine of the Church of England; so it is evidently deduced out of sundry passages in the Book of Consecration, and hath been constantly and uniformly maintained by our best writers, and by all the sober, orderly, and orthodox sons of this Church." n

Thus, Sir, I think it is as clear that the episcopal order is of divine institution, as that the order of Presbyters is. There is no positive precept which ordains the office of a Presbyter; but we see that order in the Scriptures, and we know that it was the sense of the Apostles, and of the whole primitive Church, that it was to be continued to the end of the world.

There is no possibility of guarding any doctrine of Christianity, or any of its institutions, from the cavils of men wedded to their own systems, and peculiar ways of thinking. There is no objection that has been made by the Presbyterians against episcopacy, that has not been made by Independents

SAUNDERSON'S Episcopacy not prejudicial to Regal power, Sect. ii. No. 3, 4, 6.

against presbytery; and what is not a little amusing, the Presbybyterians were obliged to have recourse to the weapons of Episcopalians, in order to defend themselves. It is curious to read the controversy between those two denominations of dissenters, as we have it in the jus divinum, &c. When the Independents denied the perpetuity of the ministry by an uninterrupted succession, the Presbyterian divines replied, “All that is written in the epistles concerning the ordainers and the qualifications of the ordained, is directed to Timothy and Titus." To prove the constant succession of the ministry, they argue, like staunch Churchmen-" That CHRIST was sent, and had his commission from his Father. That CHRIST, as he was sent of his Father, so he sent forth his Apostles. That the Apostles went about ordaining Elders in every Church, and that the Apostle Paul ordained Timothy and Titus. [Mark this.] That these ordained others, and that as Timothy was entrusted with the word of CHRIST, so he was commanded to commit the same trust to faithful men, that so there might be a succession of teachers." They also urge Matt. xxviii. 20, I am alway with you, even unto the end of the world. And 1 Tim. vi. 14, Keep this commandment until the appearing of our LORD JESUS CHRIST; and several other texts.

When the assembly urge against the Independents the testimony of the fathers, the practice of antiquity, and of all former ages, for a succession of ministers, the fanatics pay them in their own coin, telling them that "corruptions, and antichristianism, and tyranny, came very early into the Church; that the mystery and the ministry of the man of sin were working in the first centuries; that in this apostacy, the Church, which had been a chaste virgin, became the mother of harlots and abominations-Bethel turned into Bethaven, and the ministry wholly lost under Antichrist."

To this the Westminster divines reply, that "the truths, ordinances, servants, and ministries of CHRIST, do not therefore cease to be of CHRIST, because some, either by mistake, or by design, shall say, they are of Antichrist—that it is a great cheat put upon the saints of GOD in this nation, in scaring people from the doctrine of CHRIST, by persuading them to avoid Antichrist." And, therefore, they earnestly intreat their respective congregations not to be affrighted at the bug-bear words Antichristian and Popish." They tell the fanatics, that "no true ministry, no true Church-that the LORD JESUS hath given the ministry to the Church, to continue till all come to the unity of the faith, which will not be till the day of judgment."

I shall make but one more extract from the Jus divinum, When the fanatics assert that the people have a right to ordain ministers, the assembly ask, "By what authority do you do these things, and who gave you this authority? Show us your warrant out of the word, Why was Titus sent to appoint Elders in every city? Might not the people say, what need Paul leave

Titus to do that which we can do ourselves? Add that which to us seems of weight, that all that is written in the epistles concerning the ordainers, and the qualifications of the ordained, is all written in the epistles to Timothy and Titus, who were church-officers. In the other epistles which were written to the Churches, there is no mention made of these things, which doth abundantly prove to us, that the work of ordination is a work belonging to ministers, and not to the people. And they alone

who have received this church-power from the Apostles, can transmit it to others." Here is the doctrine of uninterrupted succession most clearly. Now let us change but one word, and put Presbyter instead of people, and see how those reverend gentlemen plead the episcopal cause. "By what authority do you Presbyters do these things, and who gave you this authority? Why was Titus left in Crete, or Timothy in Ephesus, to ordain Elders? Might not those Élders say, what need Paul leave Timothy to do that which we can do ourselves? All that is written in the epistles concerning ordainers, is written in the epistles to Timothy and Titus, who were the church-officers for this purpose. In the other epistles there is no mention made of these things, which doth abundantly prove that the work of ordination is a work belonging to Timothy and Titus, and not to the Presbyters; and they alone who have received can transmit it." Thus the Presbyterian calls on the fanatic to show his commission; the Episcopalian, with the very same reason, calls upon the Presbyterian to show his. Where is the consistency of all this?

I have now, Sir, examined every thing material in your letter upon the Concessions of Episcopalians,' and I have shown that all the authors whom you quote (four or five excepted, whose works I have not,) maintained episcopacy upon the ground of apostolical and divine right. There is, indeed, a difference of opinion among Episcopalians with respect to the consequences of this principle, as there is among Presbyterians with respect to the consequences of the divine right of Presbytery; but this, in either case, does not affect the principle. It is, therefore, weak and sophistical to urge this difference against either presbytery or episcopacy.

I forgot, Sir, to make, in their proper place, a few observations upon what you ascribe to Bishop White. It may be well, although not in order, just to notice what you say. You assert that he maintains, that the doctrine which founds episcopacy upon divine right, has never been embraced by the great body of the most esteemed divines in the Church of England."

This may be true, and yet leave episcopacy upon as high ground as I wish to place it. By divine right, Bishop White means positive precept, or a direct command in so many words, that there shall be three orders in the Church-Bishops, Pres

o Letter VI. p. 239.

Letter XVIII.] RISE AND PROGRESS OF EPISCOPACY. 249 byters, and Deacons, and that they shall continue to the end of the world. There is no heterodoxy in this opinion. All the great episcopal writers acknowledge this to be the truth. But will you venture to assert, that Bishop White does not place episcopacy upon the ground of apostolical institution? You certainly will not; because the following quotation would stare you in the face. "There having been an episcopal power originally lodged by JESUS CHRIST with his Apostles, and by them exercised generally in person, but sometimes by delegation, (as in the instances of Timothy and Titus) the same was conveyed by them to one pastor in each Church, which generally comprehended all the Christians in a city, and a convenient surrounding district. Thus were created the Apostolic successors." Again: "It seemed good to the Apostles to appoint some of these with a superéminent commission, of which there were instances in Timothy and Titus; and the persons so appointed have handed down their commission through the different ages of the Church. This is the originally constituted order."P

Now (to use the words of Dr. Hobart with a little alteration) "if you will make these concessions, and hold this language, you fairly give up your cause. You maintain all that the Episcopalian could wish. And we shall be glad to hear on what grounds you will justify your rejection of the originally constituted order, and of degrees of the ministry, who had their beginning from CHRIST and his blessed Apostles."

It is now, Sir, very evident, that Bishop White holds the divine right of episcopacy in this sense; that it was instituted by the Apostles under the direction of the HOLY GHOST, and consequently, according to the will of our LORD JESUS CHRIST. He surely then is at variance with presbyterian parity.

I shall in my next, consider your letter upon the rise and progress of episcopacy.'

REV. SIR:

LETTER XVIII.

My labour is now happily drawing to a close. I have little more to do than to take a view of your fanciful statement of 'the rise and progress of episcopacy.' I do not conceive that it is necessary for me to do this; for if I have proved the fact, that episcopacy is an apostolical institution, all the efforts of your ingenuity to show that it took its rise long after the death of the Apostles, must be ascribed to the audacity of fancy,' and be deemed utterly inconsistent with the truth of history, No, Sir,

P HOBART'S Apology, page 139, 140,