In that age, est commotions, and most virulent animosities. men loved misery; but now they abhor it. Then art and intrigue possessed magical power, and were irresistible; now, their influence may be effectually counteracted. In short, a total revolution has taken place in the human mind, as well as in the Church. Its principles, its motives, its feelings, its powers, have undergone a complete change. Surely, Sir, I need not go on naming other distinguished lights of the Church in the second and third centuries. I need not say any thing about Hegesippus, and Justin Martyr, and Melito, and Polycrates, and Theophilus, and Irenæus, and several others in the second century; and Miltiades, and Minutius Felix, and Alexander of Jerusalem, and Cyprian, and Cornelius, and many more in the third century; several of whom left writings behind them, in which there is not a tittle about a change of government; and all of them were men of distinguished piety, eminent virtue, and respectable talents. To talk of these men being either usurpers themselves, or encouragers of usurpation, either by word or deed, in others; or of even keeping silence during its progress, or after it took place, is such an outrage committed upon probability, that it is inconceivable to me how any one can possibly be guilty of it. Yet such is the fact, that you are guilty of it, whether it can be accounted for, or not. You go on, Sir, in the same unvaried strain of conjecture and fancy. You think it probable that the little that was written on such a subject, [a change of government,] would be lost; because the art of printing being unknown, and the trouble and expense of multiplying copies being only incurred for the sake of possessing interesting and popular works, it was not to be expected that writings so hostile to the ambitious views of the clergy, would be much read, if it were possible to suppress them.' It seems, then, that you know, or at least think it probable, that in several works which are lost, there was some account of this revolution. Was there ever such an argument as this from a man who wishes to be deemed a reasoner! At this rate, what is to become of the best attested facts? A sceptic has nothing to do but to say, it is probable that the little that was written' in opposition to those facts, is lost; but if we had those writings, it is very likely that we should have a very different story. Or if the art of printing had been known, it is very probable that those books which contradict the alleged facts, would have been so much multiplied as to preclude their total destruction, and then those pretended facts would appear gross impositions. What a sweeping way of reasoning is this! Might not the Deists, at this rate, argue against the Gospel history, that 'perhaps there were accounts published concerning our blessed SAVIOUR by good hands, directly contrary to those in the Gospels now extant, although they are entirely lost, as many books of the adversaries of Christianity are known to be? And how easily may they argue against the reasonableness of our receiv ing the books of the New Testament upon the testimony of the fathers, that we know not what they all thought; that many of them are lost, which, perhaps, contradicted the testimony of the remaining part? Would it not be a sufficient reply to such persons, that "nothing can be more unreasonable than to reject the concurrent testimony of all, or most of the writers extant, upon so groundless a supposition as this? Nay, that it is more reasonable to think, that the writers not extant, bore witness to the same things, and that if they believe any thing upon the testimony of past writers, they ought in reason to believe this, because the same surmises lie against all historians ?”b I have now, I flatter myself, proved the extreme weakness of your reasoning to show the possibility and probability of a change from presbytery to episcopacy. And if the human mind cannot act without motives; if no motive can possibly be assigned consistently with the universally acknowledged principles of human actions; if a change which deprived the Presbyters of the Church of their most sacred rights, was in the highest degree calculated to produce the most violent opposition, and the most rancorous enmity-if, notwithstanding, no opposition was excited, and not a hint given by any writer of antiquity that such a revolution took place; but, on the contrary, if every author who mentions the subject, founds episcopacy upon apostolical institution; then the conclusion is irresistible, that no change took place; but that from the beginning of the Christian Church there was no such thing as parity, but a real distinction of office and character. Notwithstanding the reasoning upon which I rest this conclusion is drawn from the nature of the human mind, from the well known circumstances of the Church in the second and third centuries, from the universally acknowledged virtue and piety of those who must necessarily have been concerned in this flagi. tious usurpation, and from the total silence of all antiquity upon the subject; yet, you venture to assert that a change was not only practicable and probable, but that it actually took place. Well, Sir, let us now try this point. And here I would observe, that all you have said to prove that a change actually took place, is nothing more than you had said in different parts of your book; to which I have given a very particular answer. But as you have, by way of recapitulation, again brought to view the same points, it may be expedient for me to repeat, in as concise a manner as possible, my replies. 1. You urge the indiscriminate use of Scripture titles. This has been fully answered over and over again. It has been evinced, that the community of names amounts to nothing at all. There were, during the lives of the Apostles, three orders in the Church-Apostles, Bishops or Presbyters, and Deacons; and in the next age, the successors of the Apostles were styled Bishops, þ HOADLEY'S Brief Defence of Episcopal Ordination, p. 18, 19. who had under them, Presbyters and Deacons. This is generally the language used by the writers of all ages succeeding the first; and whenever the fathers style a Bishop a Presbyter, which is very seldom, it is done with propriety, as the greater implies the less. "It is not necessary to repeat the proof of these positions. They will, therefore, be assumed as established points." But when you tell us, that, 'in the writings of the third century, we begin to perceive a style of expression indicating a commencement of a distinction between Bishops and Presbyters,' you assert what has been abundantly proved to be erroneous; for I have shown that the writers of the second century, particularly Ignatius, used the same distinctive language; and that arose not from 'a change in the nature of the office,' but from the fact, that the Bishops succeeded to the Apostolical pre-eminence; and that, therefore, there was no alteration in the regimen of the Church, as Presbyterian writers gratuitously assert. 2. You repeat your declaration, that Jerome, Hilary, and Chrysostom, writers of the fourth century, maintain that a change took place after the apostolic age; but I have shown from their express assertions, that they held episcopacy to be an apostolic institution; and their testimonies are so pointed and unquestionable, and so formally stated, that they must silence even prejudice and sophistry themselves. Were not these learned men as likely to understand the subject on which they wrote as any of the present day? Is it credible that they should be totally deceived concerning a fact, which, if it did not fall under their own observation, must have been personally witnessed by their predecessors? It is not credible. Yet unless we suppose these writers to have been either deceived or dishonest," the episcopal form of Church government was of apostolic and divine institution. 3. You observe that 'Prelacy was first embraced in populous and wealthy cities.' This is perfectly correct. It was first embraced in Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, &c.; and, from these seats of primitive purity, it spread into the neighbouring countries, and became general. You next observe, that 'Hilary and others declare that many of the African Presbyters continued to exercise the ordaining power until the middle of the fourth century.' I have fully proved, in my second letter, that Hilary says no such thing. The word he uses is consignant, not ordinant. Consigno was generally applied to baptism, sometimes to confirmation, but perhaps never to ordination. Who the others are that bear this testimony, you have not told us, and, therefore, it is needless to inquire. If you, Sir, have discovered any thing of this kind, it is more than any of your predecessors discovered. The secret was certainly worth disclosing. Next, Sir, you inform us, that the Churches in Scotland c Page 305, remained Presbyterian in their government, from the introduction of Christianity into that country, in the second eentury, until the fifth century, when Palladius succeeded in introducing diocesan Bishops;' and you say, in a note, that this fact is ascertained by the writings of Major, Fordon, and Archbishop Usher.' Well, Sir, if this be true, here is something that looks like an exception to the general rule and practice, from whatever cause it proceeded. But if this whole story should turn out to be a mere fiction, it will certainly put you into a very unpleasant predicament. Let us give this point a fair examination, and see how the matter will terminate. It is, I believe, universally acknowledged, that the first inhabitants of North-Britain, of whom we have any records, were the Picts, who are supposed to have been a colony from Scandinavia. According to Bede, who wrote seven hundred years before Fordon, the South Picts were converted to the Christian faith in the year 412, by Nennianus, a British Bishop, who had been educated at Rome, and who, of course, would plant episcopacy among them. I know it may be said, upon the authority of Prosper, a contemporary writer, that Pope Cœlestine sent, in the year 431, Palladius, whom he ordained a Bishop, to the Scots that believed in CHRIST. Now, the question is, who are meant by the Scots? According to Usher, Stillingfleet, Lloyd, and, I believe, the generality of historians, those who are now called Scots, are the descendants of a colony from Ireland, which was anciently called Scotia. If so, Palladius' mission was not to the people now called Scots, but to the people of Ireland. One thing is beyond dispute, because all history asserts it, that Palladius did preach the Gospel in that country before St. Patrick, and converted a few to the Christian faith. And it appears from another passage quoted by Bishop Lloyd from Prosper, that this is the true sense of the passage just produced. "Coelestine having ordained a Bishop for the Scots, while he endeavours to keep the Roman island Catholic, hath also made the barbarous island Christian.' Where, as by the Roman island, he means Britain, which other writers likewise call by that name; so, by the barbarous island opposed to it, he means Ireland."a Bishop Lloyd, to settle this point, quotes several other authorities. First, Nennius, who says, that" Bishop Palladius was sent at first (before Patrick) by Cœlestine, the Roman Bishop and Pope, to convert the Scots to CHRIST;" adding, that "Palladius went from Ireland, and came into Britain, and died there in the land of the Picts." Lloyd next quotes Probus, in the life of St. Patrick. "Palladius had been sent there (before him) by Pope Cœlestine to convert this island; but God hindered him from converting that nation (of the Scots;) for these rugged and wild men would not receive his doctrine, nor would d LLOYD'S-Ancient Church Government, &c., p. 51, 52. e Col. 52, in Usher's Copy. he stay any longer time in a land which was not his; but was disposed to return to him that sent him; and when in order to this, Palladius had passed the sea, and was come to the confines of the Picts, there he died." Lloyd gives us also a similar testimony from Jocelin," who says, "Because the Irish believed not his (Palladius') preaching, but most obstinately opposed him, he departed from their country; and in his way to Rome, he died in Britain, near the confines of the Picts." And Lloyd further observes, that "it was above one hundred and twenty years, that the North Picts still continued in their Gentilism. And then, about the year 560, St. Columba, who was a Scot, came over out of Ireland, and having obtained the isle of Hy, where he founded a monastery, he and the monks that he brought with him, converted King Brudius and his nation to the faith of CHRIST."i It appears now, Sir, from these testimonies, that the people of North Britain were not (as you say) converted to the Christian faith in the second century, but in the beginning of the fifth, by Nennianus, a British Bishop, who, of course, would put the Church under an episcopal regimen; and that Palladius was not the planter of episcopacy among them, he having been sent by Cœlestine to Ireland, where he stayed but a short time, in consequence of the little success he had in that country. I know of nothing that can be opposed to this, but the testimony of Fordon. Let us examine what he says, and then we shall be at no loss to determine how the matter stands. This writer was a Priest of the diocese of St. Andrews, and Chaplain of the Church of Aberdeen. He lived in the time of the kings Robert the Second and Third, and compiled The History of the Scots in five books, bringing it down to the death of King David the First, in 1153; which, with continuations by other hands to the death of James the First, in 1437, is commonly known by the title of Scotichronicon, or the Scots Chronicle. Now, says Skinner in his Ecclesiastical History, "all he says on the subject is, that in the seventh year of the Emperor Severus, Victor, the first of the name, and fourteenth after St. Peter, an African, and son of one Felix, sat in the papal chair ten years, two months, and twelve days. Under him the Scots received the Christian faith in the year of our LORD 203." This, it seems is all the information that can be got from Fordon. He quotes no authorities; and as he lived one thousand one hundred years after the supposed conversion of the Scots, and contradicts authors who lived some centuries before him, his assertion, that Scotland was Christianized in the beginning of the third century, is not entitled to the least regard. About one hundred and forty years after Fordon, came out Hector Boece's history of Scotland, in the year 1526. He repeats f Vita Patricii, lib. i. col. 239. g JOCELINI Vita Patricií, c. 25 h See LLOYD'S Ancient Church Government, p. 57. k Vol. I. p. 27, 28. |