^;
	* ■if-
	'^-< 'Si'-.	V '^ if-

*04' ■

)-«■•' f. f"i A- - '?

i/' '•^- . . <''''

^v- 11/ *?^^ w- M"^ .sf

i-*'«'

^l^^..>-^

^*^f

* ... -i' t * .f *■■ ';

frf^

;," « 1 :*;■

J,,;l

r,j

,c. -w^-		■J^T ^
r," f;^ ■	t.	■•ii
1 r- ■	f	$ ...
t- >		t" , t ,	-i ■,
	jT	...t,. '
<"■,*. ■■■ ■ -r		'^"^' ti^iii'-.
J'V^ 1|?		4 -^ .'■> ■
h'- \¥,	#	/f '»	-v"

NYPL RESEARCH LIBRARIES

3 3433 07998408 8

/

^^u<i. ^.4^;U /31^L

A REVIEW

/

»r^i

SjH^^UIBS

OF THE

LATE REV. JOHN BOWDEN, D. D.

PBOFESSOB OF MOBAIi FHILOSOPHT AND LOGIC, AND OF B£LL£S LETTRES IN COIiTiaiBIA COLLEGE,

TO THE REV. DR. MILLER, One of the Pastors of the United Presbyterian Churches in the city Qf

New-York.

CAL>1LY CONSIDERED.

BY JAMES WILSON, A. M.

^laior of the Second Congregational Church in FroviJence ("R. /.^}

PROVIDENCE :

BROWN St DANFORTH, PKINTEr'S?

182*2.

NO,

/

RHODE-ISLAND DISTRICT.

Bk it Remembered, that on this 21st day of March, 1822, and in |]L. S.I the forty-sixth year of the Independence of the United States of Amorica, James Wilson, of said District, deposited in this Office, the title of ■\ Book, whereof he claims as author, in the following words, viz. " A Review of the Letters of the late Rev. John Bowden, D. D. Professor of Moral Philosophy and Logic, and of Belles Lettres in Coluirbia College, to the Rev Dr. Miiler, one of the Pastoi's of the United Presbyterian Churches in the city of New-York. Or, Episcopal Claims calmly considered. By James AVilson, A. M. Pastor of the Second Congregational Church in Providence, (R. i.)"

Ill conformity to an act of Congress of the United States, entitled " An Act for the encoiiraf^emeni of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts and books to the auihors a.id pronrietors of such copies, during the time therein mentioned, and also to an Act, entitled " An Act for the encouragement of learning, by seeming the copies of maps, charts and books to the authors and projjrie^ors of such copies, during the time therein mentioned, and extend- ing the benefit thereof to the art of designing, engraving and etching historic- al and other prints."

Witness .■ BENJAMIN COWELL, Ckrk of the Rhode'hland District.

^^.M.C A. Library

July. 04

INTRODUCTION.

It is by Christ himself expressly enjoined on his disciples, to have peace one nvith another. St. Paul extends this injunction still further : folloiv, says he, fieace with all men. Tliis, liowever, he elsewhere thus qualifies — If it be possible^ as much as lieth in you live fieaceably with all men. It was not unknqwn, either to the Saviour or to his Apostles, that offences must needs come ; conse- quently they knew that peaceful intercourse, without interrup- tion, was impossible, either with mankind in general, or with pro- fessed Christians of whatever name. For, harmony in all inter- course, without interruption, is attainable only where perfection in knowledge and holiness have an abiding and permanent residence. The controversy here impending, is not concerning the abstruse, doctrines of the creed of any sect, but refers simply and exclusive- ly to ecclesiastical regimen. It is a contest between Diocesan, or Canonical Episcopalians, and Dissenters from such Episcopacy. It is not, on either side, a strife for superiority. But on the Epis- copalian side, it avowedly, is a conflict for extermination ; and, on the part of Dissenters, simply, a warfare of self-defence. It is however to be observed, that all Episcopalians are not alike assum- ing and rigid. For some among them do not wholly unchurch all dissenting communities of Christians. They admit them to be churches of Christ, but in a censurable and irregular state. Nor, do they wholly deny the validity of their ordinations, and other ad- ministrations, although they regard them as in some degree doubt- ful. But the higher toned among them, and who take the lead in this controversy, give no quarter to dissenters of any name or sect. It matters not whether they be Presbyterians or Congrcgational- ists, Baptists or Methodists, or whatever else, without ceremony and without exception, tlicy unchurch the whole as schismaticks, condemn their ordinations as destitute of authority, and brand their Ministers and administrations, with the opprobrium of being the one a /cy ministry, and the other lay administrations. And liencc they regard dissenting Churches as being only voluntary societies, and as constituting no part of the visible body or Church of Christ. And hence also it is, that, as recently instructed by a Bishop, they Studiously shun all intercourse with dissenters " in objects purest

i^^y. M.C A. Library

religious." But notwithstanding these lofty pretensions, still, these devout prelates do not exclude from salvation, any a long dissen- ters, " who have unwarily been involved in honest error."

While in England, these arrogant assumptions of Episcopacy ■were nobly resisted, by numerous writers among the puritans and non-conformists of distinguished piety and talents, although sus- tained by the authority of the Throne, and by the no less abJe pens of British Prelates; yet, at the same time, in this country, these questions seem in a considerable degree to have lain dormant. But after these then colonies had become settled and compaiatively populous, Episcopal domination seems to have given rise to eccle- siastical discussions in reference to Episcopal ordinations, " which subject was warmly discussed near a century ago, by a Mahew, who then put it much at rest;" and althougli President Siilcs, in his own peculiar way and manner, sometimes glanced on this con- troversy, still it assumed no very imposing appearance until about the year 1804, when a series of publications made their appearance, disseminating the following doctrines, viz. " That the power of ordination to the Christian ministry, is, by divine appointment, A'ested exclusively in Diocesan Bishops; that where these Bishops are wanting, there is no authorized ministry, no true church, no valid ordinances ; that of course, Presbyterian, and all other Non- Episcopal churches and ministers, are not only unauthoriz^ o, and perfectly destitute of validity, but are to be viewed as institutions founded in rebellion and schism." These books were put into the hands of Non-Episcopalians. And to explain fully the designs of these measures, " they were accompanied with declarations, that a state of warfare with the Presbyterian Church, on the subject of Episcopacy, was earnestly wished for, and considered as one of the xnosi; probable means of promoting the Episcopal cause." Millkr.

It was under these circumstances, that Dr. Miller commenced his well-timed and learned defence of the institutions of that nu- merous and highly respectable denomination, to which he belong- ed, or as thus expressed by himself: " Under these circumstances, when we were virtually denounced and excommunicated ; when the name of a Christian Church was denied us ; when our people were warned to abandon the ministry of their Pastors, under the penalty of being regarded as rebels and sciiismaticks, both by God and man ; when son.e 'n our communion we e t erplexed, others, more discerning and beticr inlurmiid, rendered indignant, and when all

appeared to feel the propriety of vindicating the abused ordinances of Christ. Impressed wi'h this conviction, 1 addressed to you a series ot Letters on the Christian Ministry." Dr. Miller having thus from the press addressed his people, was in like manner replied to I'y Dr. Bowden, in twenty one Letters, contained in two vol- uiT.es. and occupyin,^ 66 2 pages. To these the former replied in another series, contained in one volume of 434 pages. But this controversy did not terminate here, as Dr. Bowden again replied in a third volume, containing 414 pages, and constituting in the whole 1076 passes.

As to the respective merits of the Letters of these distinguished champions of Presbytery and Episcopacy, they are doubtless view- ed differently, as the prejudices, the tastes, or the interests of read- ers may tend to dispose their understandings and judgments. But however the npinons of some readers may be thus influenced, there arc unquestionably others, whose judgments are guided only by truth and evidence. And while it is certain that Dr. Miller's dis- cerning friends must highly appreciate his learned and able vindi- cation of their system : still it is no less certain, that Dr. Bow- den's Letters are ^eneralhj looked up to, and relied on, by Episco- palians in these States, as the Pole Star of Polemirk Ep.ucofincy.

Nor is it to be expected that Episcop:dians will surrender their assumed positions, in consequence of any reasonings or arguments predicated on the elevation of lay Elders above ordained Deacons^ nor on tiie denial that the seven jifiocalypse stars and angels were the seven Pastors of these Churches ; nor yet again, on the reduc- tion in all cases of 4fiostolick Bis/io/ts, to mere parochial superin- tendents. Nor will it be possible to reconcile Presbyterians and Episcopalians together, until such time as each shall become wil- ling to take that middle ground which restores to the brethren in full assembly, on all" important occasions, the just rights and unal- ienable prerogatives which were conferred on them by Christ and by his apostles. But although it is designed in the following Review ..o endeavour to take this middle ground as far as warranted by Scripture, and by the legitimate usages of antiquity, still, it will bo deemed by Episcopalians as approximating too nearly to Presbytery, to become ever a centre, to which Episcopacy can gravitate. It is devoutly to be wished for, and ardently to be desired, that this con- troversy betwixt Episcopalians and Dissenters, may terminate in that unity of peace and friendship, which cemented by truth and love,

constitutes the Indubitable character of being truly Christ's disci pies. But how is this to be effected, while the exclusive claims of Episcopalians continue to be dogmatically asserted, and which ex- tend to the exclusion of all others from being true churches ? And \yhile Dissenters therefrom continue to consider their churches to be true churches, their Ministers to constitute a true ministry, and their administrations to be valid ? While each of these denomina- tions take and keep the ground which they have hitherto occupied, an imfiassable gulfih will be found ever to separate them, even to the latest periods of the duration of time. But let some superior »iW2rf arise, capable of grasping this whole subject, of developing all its mysteries, of unfolding and making plain all its intricacies, ^nd of shedding on it such a light of evidence and argument as shall satisfy the candid, confirm the wavering, and convince even the obstinate, and this schism will become healed. For, should this person be an Episcopalian, he will, if truth be on his side, place Jiis exclusive claims on such high ground, in respect to evidence and argument, that Dissenters, unable to reply or to withstand, will penittntially return to the forgiving bosom of the mother church. But, should these powers of research, of discernment and of reason- ing occur in some Dissenter, and truth prove to br^ on his side, the consequence will be, the inevitable reduction ol the exclusive claims of Canonical Episcopacy to a Itvel with the indubitable claims of pious and consistent Dissenter? of all denominations; for in this case, Episcopalians who shall he truly candid and sincerely pious, will become endued with such sentiments and feelings, as harmoniously to unite in deeds of charity, and in acts of divine worship, when occasions may require, with Christians whom before they unhappily had despised, and unbecomingly had slighted and shunned. But while the author of this Review cannot in the slight- est degree entertain the hope of conducting this controversy to a conclusion, auspicious as that which is above anticipated to become the reward of some future more able writer on this deeply inter- esting subject, yet he deems it his duty thus to cast his mite into the treasury of a polemick vindication of that numerous and riighly respectable denomination of Dissenters, with which it has b'.-come his happiness to have united. And althou.^h he is compelled to differ in some few respects from the ofiinions of Dr. Miller, and still more widely to dissent fiom those of the late Dr. Eowden, still he considers it due to both, to acknowledge, his being indebted to

Vll

each, for much important information, derived from their Letters, but more especially through the medium of the numerous and interesting translations made by the former, from the writings of the Fathers^ who flourished during the second, third and fourth centuries.

Nor will it be improper now to remark, that although the term Dissenters is here, and will occasionally hereafter be applied, to Christian denominations in these States, which are Non-Episcopal, ^ 3t, that when thus applied, it will be so used merely as an expli- cative, that is, to distinguish betwixt modern Diocesan Episcopal- ians, and all other Protestant churches within these States : For, as here, there is no national ecclesiastical establishment, incorpo- rating church and state together, consequently no Dissenters can Iiere exist. But in England and Ireland it is otherwise ; actual ecclesiastical establishments there exist, and, of course, real Dis- senters are there to be found.

SECTION I.

Doctor Eowdex in his first Letter to Doctor Mil ler, thus remarks : ^' In the prosecution of this important controversy, 1 shall not observe the course which you have taken, but shall nearly reverse it. And his twenty- fivsi and last Letter of his second volume he thus closes ; ** I shall now, Sir, take my leave of you, at least for a time ; whether I shall ever address you again, will en- tirely depend on yourself. Should you be disposed for any further discussion of this subject, you will not find me unwilling to meet your wishes. When the church to which L have the happiness to belong is attacked, irk- some as writing is at my time of life, I feel no backAvard- ness to exert the little ability I possess in her defence ; and it affords me no little pleasure to think, that I am at the same time defending the cause of almost every Thrist- ian church upon the earth." Following Ur. B.'s exam- ple, in reversing the order of discussion, I shall here commence by just glancing on this last clause of his last Letter then written. He had then toiled througli two volumes, containing together 663 pages, composed and written in vindication of '^' that churcii to which he be- longed.'' Although in an advanced time of life, he was still willing to defend Kpiscopacy, if attacked. i5ut he was amply rewarded for his toils, by the generous con- sideration, that, " while defending his own churchy he was at the same time defending almost every Christian church upon earth." Without detaining the reader's attention, to enquire what churches there were upon earth, which, although Christian churches, he had neglected to defend; it may be convenient here to en(piire, once for all, what significations are usually atta( hed by ICpisco- palians, to the terms church and churches. For fre-

10

qaently we hear among them of St. Paul's Church, St. Petpj'w Church, fit. Johu's Church, St. James' Church, St. Luke's, St. Patrick's, St. Munclieon's, and sometimes even of St. Mary's, and St. Catharine's Church, &:c. &c. even to the exhausting the names of no small portion of the saints on the Popish calleudar. And these names of the buildings are frequently transferred to the worship- pers who assemble within their walls. But the great absurdity of this transfer becomes distinctly obvious, when tv sometijies hear or read, in the same manner, of Christ's Church, and of Trinity Church, as if some of thosp churCiies, both buildings and people, belonged to the Lord, while the others belonged only to the saints. Thi^ misapplication of the term church, to buildings, and wiiich originated during the dark ages of gross super- stition, seems to have become at length, fashionable, and is sometimes practised by others, besides Episcopalians. But, a more appropriate use of this scriptural appellation, is, by the common consent of all Christians, made when applied to a whole body of Christians, adhering to one particular form of government and worship ; as the Latin Church and the Greek Church, the Church of England, of Jreland, and the ?i!piscopal Church in Scotland ; also^ the Church of Denmark, of Sweden, and the Syrian and Moravian Church, all of which are of Episcopal order. And in this sense of the term, as embracing a multitude of churches, we read and hear of the Presbyterian Church, the Congregational Church, the Baptist Church, and the Methodist Church. Although the Episcopal Church in these States has not been mentioned with Episcopal Churches first mentioned, it is not from any disrespect to them, but from other reasons. The other Episcopal Churches are for the most part, identified in a great de- gree, with the civil authorities of the nations, to which they belong. In these States it is far otherwise, and from this circumstance, the Episcopal Church here, if we ex- cept the Moravian Church, is perhaps, of all other can- onical and diocesan Churches, the most to be approved, of any in the whole world. In these States it appears there are nine Bishops, and consequently the same num- ber of diocesses. And here the term diocess leads to another signification of the term churchy because it is so

11

used, as to condense into one church, the whole number of churches under one Bishop, in ono diocess. As the geographical extent of one diocess is diiferont, in res[)ect to the extent of another, so the numbier ot churches in one, serves as no rule for the number contained in ano- ther diocess. Bishop Grisuold's diocess, which is co- extensive with iihode Island, Massachusetts, New- Hampshire, Vermont and Maine, contains only '< forty- six churches and twenty-nine clergymen." While Bisliop BrownelFs, although limited to the State of Con- necticut, counts therein no fewer than eighty churches, or, as expressed by himself, '^ eighty regularly organized congregations."' A.nd still diverse from tliese is Bishop Chace's diocess in Ohio State, comprehending an extent, '* greater than all the inhabited part of N^ew- England," but having at tl»e same time, fewer Ministers, and more feeble and smaller churches, than perhaps any other dio- cess in these States. But the diocess of Maryland, hav- ing fifty-one clergymen, and that of New- York, seventy- seven, they make in some degree amend,s, for the destitute conditi(m, in respect to Ministers, of other dio- cesses. It appears from the Rhode-Island Religious Intelligencer of September 15, 1831, that under these nine Bishops in these nine diocesses, there are ^^ two hun- dred Presbyters and forty-eight Deacons ;" but the pre- cise number of churches is not therein mentioned. From these correct views of diocesan h^piscopacy, as existing in these States, and which exists here, in its least offen- sive form, how evident is it to the well informed reader, that scarcely a shadow of reseml)lancc exists, except in the name, between this form of Episcopacy, and that which was instituted by the apostles, and which existed in the first and second centuries. During those early times of primitive Episc()[)al order, each church truly apostolick, had one Biahnp, nevevnl Presbiitersy and a Ij/urality of ffeacons. But at this time/o?7//-s/>, or four score or more cinirches, liave but one IVishop anuuig tlieiii all, several churciu's have not a siogle Freshyler, otlicrs have no Deacon, ami no small number among them can call eitlu>r a single Presbyter ov Deacon tlieir own Miuist'r: and yet, one of their iri>;ho|i.s has recent- ly in his charge to his clergy, a-isumcd it as exclusively

^

13

belonging to themselves, that they possess " the true prin- ciple of church unity, by the esssential bond of a regular- ly constituted ministry." But it is not the great defect of a regularly constiiuted ministry, which alone consti- tutes them Dissenters from original Episcopacy. The enormous extent of each diocess equally proclaims their departure from the correct regimen of early antiquity. Episcopal oversight was then in its largest extent re- stricted to an individual church, circumscribed within a single city and its immediate suburbs.

But the great extent, and tens of thousands of people, in the cities of New-York, Philadelphia and Baltimore, are not sufficient to engross the laborious and zealous at- tention of modern Bishops ; they must take charge of the whole State, too, as well as of the chief cities. And where there are not cities suffi< lent, either in number or ill population, to employ their wakeful attention, the happy expedient of combining State with State, even to such an extent as would admit of a population of mil- lions, affords them ultimately a sufficient sphere in which to employ their talents in the discharge of their Episcopal mission.

A pi'imitive Bishop, even in the largest cities, might, if in health, have walked in an hour or two from the centre to the extremity of his diocess. But a modern Bishop, with all the facilities of stages and turnpike roads, would sometimes require, it may be, a week or more to visit a single extremity of his far distant diocess. Even in the third century, when Episcopal ambition had made great efforts, and taken large stiides in extending the dominion of the Bishops ; still constant residence among the flock was deemed an indispensable duty in a Bishop ; even so much so, that " non- residence was considered a most heinous transgression ; insomuch that Cyprian, enumer- ating the sins that brought the wrath of tTod upon the church in the bloody persecution of Decius, mentions non-residence of Bishops as one." — (Bower's Hist. vol. 1, p. 106.) Were another Cyprian to rise up, in our days, it probably would perplex him much, so to fix the residence of one of these nine Bishops in his diocess, a.s that residence in one church should not prove non-r'si- dence in all the other churches of his extensive jurisdic-

tion. But under this view of such manifest discordancy betv/een modern and viaiitive fclpiscopacy, the admirers ol' Dr. Bowdeti's theorv must feel consoled in the belief, that in his Letters to 2 -r. Miller, he has proved that dioce- san Bishops are trul.v apostles, being clothed with the same authority, and invested with the same commission, which was conferred on Paul, and on the twelve. ^

This assumption of conferred apostleshi^ on Bisho'ps will be tested in the next section.

SECTION TL

Dr. Bowden in his ^enth Letter to "Dr. Miller thus observes : " It has always, Sir, appeared to me an un- warrantable liberty in our opponents, to assert, directly in the face of Scripture evidence, that the apostolick office was not desisjned for perpetuity. In what did that office consist? It consisted in preaching the Gospel, adminis- tering the sacraments, ordaining Ministers, and exercis- ing suftrem'' authority in the church. This was the whole of thc'iv commission as we have it in Scripture; although, no doubt, afterwards, they had much instruc- tion given tliem upon that head." (Vol. 1. p. 290.)

This reprcse^itation of the apostles' commission and office is at once exaggerated and defective. It is exag- gerated, in respect to investment with " supreme authority in the church." Itis defective through a designed omission of a cardinal and indispensable part of the commission and official duty of apostles,which was to perform miracles when occasion required them, in proof of their commission, in evidence of their doctrines, for the healing and relief of diseased and distressed persons ; and, foi* the infliction of just punishments on olistinate opposers of the Gospel, and on disturbers of tlie peace and purity of the church. Kach of these, viz. the exaggeration and the omission^ recpiircs a distinct discussion. The exaggeration of the a|)ostles' authority is here great beyond measure. It nev- er was Christ's design to institute a lordship over his church, in the office and persons of his apostles. Su- preme authority he thus reserved to himself " Ye call

14

me Loi'd and Master, and ye say well, for so I am/^

But on tlieni he strictly enjoined humility; for when "there .vas a strife aaiong tliein, which of them should be ihe greatest, he said unto them, The Kin^s of the gentiles exercise lordshi > over them, and they that exer- cise authority upon them are called benefactors, but ye shall not he so " ^^ Neither be ye called masters ; for onp is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are breth- ren." A.S the church was Christ's peculiar treasure, and the object of his most tender care, so he cautiously guard- ed ai;ainst the infringement of its rights, by assuming to himself alone, the excercise o^ supreme authority over it. As its ;lead and ii lawgiver, he prescribed in liis sermon ont !e mount, and in his other public discourses, the laws which should govern the lives and conversation of all his distiples. S)esigning iu due time, for the advancement of the best interests of his church, to subdivide it into nu- me'ous distinct churches, he instituted as the bulwark of the lights of all, by a sovereign decree, a popular su- prem' tribunal of final decision in each church, compos- ed, not of the rulers alone, nor of the brethren only, but of them conjointly, as constituting the body in its collec- tive capacity. This divine charter of ecclesiastical judicial rights, stands thus recorded in Matt, xviii. 15 to 18, inclusive. " Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone : if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church ; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, ^ whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven,"

But while Christ thus as the great Shepherd of his sheep, sedulously provided secure folds for his flocks, so he also raised up for their aid and direction, under shepherds, to wh )se care and ingatheiing he committed his /iheep in trust. For " He gave some apostles, and somt prophets p SLnd somQ evangelists ^ and some ^as^ors

10

and teachers : For the perfecting of the saints ; for the Avork of the ministry ; for the edifying of the body of Christ." For the perpetuity of the two latter orders, viz. oipastnrs and teachers, or, of Bishops and beacons, distinct and explicit provision was made, in the epistles to Timothy and fitiis; but, for the continuance of the three former orders, no special provision whatsoever, ap- pears anywhere in the New Testament. To the apostles, linder the forementioned restrictions, Christ committed, as to his chief Ministers, the authoritative exposition of the predictions of the Old Testament, in reference to himself and to his kingdom. To them also was confided, to teach unerringly the doctrines of the Gospel, as essential to salvation. And also to them, the alteration of the sab- bath, from tlie seventh to the first day of the week. And to them, together, with the evangelists, Luke aud Mark, it was entrusted to record canonically the ministry of Jolin the Baptist, the birth, and baptism, the discourses, prophecies, and miracles, and finally, tlie crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, of the Lord oflije. and giary. But to Luke alone, the task was assigned to record, the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, as well as also to record, much of the miracles, labours and success of seve- ral of tlie : J jostles and evangelists, duiing some considera- ble part of their ministry in the Gospel. And under the forementioned restrictions, it was given to the apostles, as guided and taught, by the influence of the Holy Spirit, to devise in addition to what Christ had himself instituted, such further arrangements in the government, disci- pline and organization of the Christian churches, as should be expedient for tlie right government of each church, in succeeding generations. The designed ominsion by the Doctor, of miraculous performances, as involved in the commission and office of the apos- tles, here demaiuls strict attention. Tiiis glaring omission Mic Doctor eii(le;ivoMrs thus to justify : " Here lies the fallacy. The miraculous |)owers of the apos- tles, are confounded with their authority, when they are as dill'crent things, as (pialitications Utv an otVue, and the office itself. These extraordinary powers were then the nipans. vouchsafed to the apostles, to insure success to their ministry ; but they mttde uo part of the comniis-

i6

sion, with which the apostles were entrusted.-' (Vol. 1, p. 190, 19 1«) 1 he Doctor must here be exonerative! from all intentional misrepresentation, although, not from de- signed omission, while at tlie same time, actiiil misrepre- sentation inadvertently fallen into, lies close at his door. For while he positively excludes miraculous powers from the apostles' commission, tlie evangelist iVlark as positive- ly includes them therein, thus : •' A.nd he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, and to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils." (iii. 14, lf».) But while the doc- tor stands thus acquitted of intentional misreprentatioU;, could the twelve have escaped severest censure, if, when commissioned to heal sicknesses, by miraculous power, they had refused so to heal them ? Or, if when thus commissioned to cast out devils, they had refused so to cast them out ? Aiid if it entered not into the commis- sion and office, of both Peter and Paul, miraculously to inflict severe punish nents on great offenders ; the form- er could not have been cleared from the crime of murder, in the case of A.nanias and isapphira, nor the latter from great cruelty, when he inflicted blindness on Elymas at Paphos. The Doctor's motives for thus endeavouring so unscripturally, to dissever the performance of miracles from the commission and office of the apostles, were os- tensibly, for the purpose of transmitting this office to a succession of Bishops, wholly destitute of this insepara- ble concomitant of real apostleship. And, in order to ef- fect in the apprehension of his readers, this disruption of miraculous duties and performances, from the office and commission of apostles, he resorts to the ill digested and feeble artifice of asserting that '' miraculous powers and apostolick authority, are as different tilings, as qualifi- cations for an office and the office itself." In order effec- tually to expose both the futility and fallacy of this mode of representation, we need only to attend to what Christ has said concerning himself and his mission, viz. " I have greater witness than that of John, for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me." " If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not sinned." As Christ

17

here expressly includes Lis miraculous works, iil the commission received from his Father, so the miracles which the apostles wrought, weqe equally involved in the commission which Christ gave them. And as the Lord Christ, had he neglected to have wrought miracles, would thereby have disobeyed his Father, and have rendered his whole mission abortive ; even so would it have been with the apostles. The neglect of performing miracles W(mld not only have utterly frustrated the gracious de- signs of Christ in his Gospel, but also, have involved iliose wicked and slothful servants in the greatest guilt imaginable. Nor will it avail to reply, that although miraculous powers were reqnisite for apostles in the in- fancy of tlie church, yet that in its adult state, such pow- ers might well be dispensed with, and consequently that apostles in succeeding ages needed no miraculous pow- ers : For the answer to this is short and conclusive, viz. Neither are apostles requisite in an adult state of the church, for if they were, miracles would not have ceased in any generation of the church.

But tiie Doctor proceeds, ^* This sacerdotal commis- sion was to be conveyed by the apostles to others, and so on (o the end of the world ; for Christ assured his apostles, that lie would be with them, that is, wil!i the authority he had just given them, to the end of the world. This secures the apostolick office (more properly their autliority) in the churcli, as long as thereshalllje a church upon the earth. One would suppose that there could be no dispute among Christians, upon this point." (ibid. 290.) Had the Doctor been consistent with his own commeat, by continuing to substitute apostolick " autho-^ ritif^ for " apostolick office,'^ he would have greatly diminished all cause of " dispute among Christians on this point ;^^ because no well informed Christians doubi or deny the perpetual continuance of apostolick autliority in the Christian church, even to the end of the world On every Lord's day this authority is recognized, by all the churches assembling for divine worship, on the jirst day of the week, and not on the seventh. The addition ef the jVew Testament to tlie Old, proclaims, and wiU proclaim the continuance of apostolick authority, to the latest pnioil of future times. And whi4c ron<*i'«t<»n'i

18

Christians shall acknowledge the authortty of Christ, by a due observance of his ordinances, they '.vill at the same lime confess the authority of that commission which he gave his apostles to teach, to enjoin , and to record these ordinances ; and which commission thus to teach, to en- join and to record these ordinances, they will ever per- ceive to have been ratified, by the indubitable evidence of miracles. But consistent Christians, who can discover no evidence of any succession of existing miracles, must be compelled to reject every claim and pretence to a suc- cession of existing apostles, by whomsoever made. Had Dr. Bowden but duly adverted to the mission and insti- tutions of Moses, he would not have fallen into the glar- ing error, of confounding the authoritij of an office, with the office itself. The office divinely conferred on Moses constituted him lawgiver to Israel. But that office ex- pired with himself, while the laws he enacted, and the institutions he appointed, perpetuated his authority thro' many generations, even until superceded by the institu- tions of the Gospel. Joshua and a succession of Judges were indeed raised up in Israel, as rulers, after Moses ; but his office was conferred on none of them. They ruled indeed under the sanction of his laws, but no laW' giver appeared after him, in any wise like unto him, until Christ came, whose superior authority as a faithful "'on, abolished the inferior authority of a faithful servant.

As therefore the successors of Moses, although rulers over Israel, after his time and under his laws, were not themselves like him lawgivers ; so in like manner the apostles had successors as rulers in the church, after their time ; but these successors were not themselves apostles, but approved Presbyters, elected by the churches ; even one ciiosen by each church respectively, to the special oversight of itself. And for proof of this, the reader ^s here ref^-rred to the fifth Section, where he will find this pledge redeemed.

But before this subject of apostolick succession is here dismissed, it becomes proper to follow this strange prin- ciple to its final result of inevitable consequences. And for this purpose, we are to suppose every canonical Bish- op, or one constituted a Bishop by a third ordination, t© be truly an apostk; having the same commission and

19

authority which Paul and the twelve had. This princi- ple being thus once admitted, it inevitably will follow : That every doctrine offered for belief, and each injunc^ tion for the regulation of life and manners, delivered by siicli Bishops, whether of Greece or Kome, of Syria, or of Great- Britain, or of the United States, or elsewhere, or however repugnant to each other, or inconsistent with the scriptures such injunctions or doctrines may be, still, they are all, where made known, as indispensably obli- gatory, as the precepts and doctrines are which were delivered by Paul and the twelve — and for this short and plain reason, because precisely the same authority has enacted in each case. Nor can Episcopalians, until this point is given up, extricate their system from a confusion great as that wliich took place in the land of Shinar, when the language of the whole earth was confounded by dialects judicially inflicted on them at the tower of Habel. But as the Doctor has endeavoured to maintain this apostolick succession through the medium of Timotliy, Titus and other Evangelists ; and, as in order the better to effect this purpose, he has despoiled the churches of their elective rights , therefore the next section will be devoted to a vindication of these unalienable rights of each church ; and the section next succeeding be reserved for an illustration of the true office of Timothy, Titus, and of others, of like distinguished order.

SECTION III.

In the sixth chapter of Acts we have a circumstantial .account of the election of seven Deacons in the church of Jerusalem. This election was confided by the twelve apostles, wholly to the brethren met together in full assembly.

Of tijis fundamental and most authoritative precedent for all future elections, Dr. Howden appears to have taken no manner of notice. Nor can this omission be rea-^onably .irco'inted for, on any otiier principk", but that of his nnifinm liostility to popular elections of every kind. For winking out of siglit the glaring evidence of

20

argumentative analogy between this election of Deacons by the people, and the like election of Bishops or Pres- byters, called elders in the Acts, he thus abruptly and warmly addresses Dr. Miller : '^ What evidence is there that in the first century, Bishops, or Presbyters, were elected by the people? None at all ; on the contrary, it is evident from the New Testament, that they were elect- ed by the apostles, and that the people had no voice in the business. There is not a single instance that can be produced in opposition k) this assertion." (Vol. S, p. 15G.) So entirely and utterly destitute are these assertions, of every thing in affinity with reasoning, that in order to their refutation, they need only to be retorted. Thus, *^ What evidence is there that in the first century Bish- ops or Presbyters were elected by the apostles ? K one at all. On the contrary, it is evident from analogy in the election of Deacons, as recorded in the New Testa- ment, that they were elected by the multitude, and that the apostles had no vote in the business. There is no4 a single instance that can be produced in opposition to this assertion." (Retort.) Of a very different opinion from Dr. B. in respect to popular elections, was his con- fidential and favourite friend and father, Cyprian, of Carthage, who flourished about the middle of the third century. For this distinguished Bishop, writing *' h ot in his own name only, but in thut of an African Synod, to some people in Spain, who wished advice in a case in which the right of the people to choose their own Bish- op was immediately concerned ; writ* s thus : " A people who would obey the rules of the Gospel, should separate themselves from a sinful Bishop, and should not partake with a profane priest in his sacrifices ; especially since the, chiej' power of choosing worthy priests, and of re- jecting unworthy ones, is lodged in them : Nor do we find the apostles observing this rule only, in the case of Bishops and priests, but even in the ordination of Dea- cons ; concerning which it is recorded in Acts vi. 2, 3, 8Cc. Tlien the twelve called the multitude of disciples unto them, and said, Look ye out seven men of honest report, full of the Jtoly Ghost and of wisdom ; and the raying pleased the whole multitude ; and they chose Ste- phen^ &c. ,&c. Wherefore the rule which we have

handed down to us from God himself and from the apos- tles, should be observed with all exactness." (Miller.)

But Dr. Bowden, notwithstanding the implications coiitained iu these extracts from Cyprian's Kpistle to some people in Spain, asking his opinion as before stat- ed, and notwithstanding Dr. Miller's conclusive reason- ings therefrom, in favour of popular election. Dr. B. in his third vol. p. 119, thus replies : " In my second vol- miie, 1 there showed that there is not a single instance in tlie whole iNew Testament, of the people's electing their Bishops ; and I challenge you to give me one. I also showed that there is not the least shadoic of evidence for it in the second century. This irrefragably proves, that there was no apostolick precept or example for any particular mode of electing; and consequently, that it was left entirely to the direction of the church."

It is here much to be regretted, that the Doctor did not perceive, that his mere assertions in his second volume, required nothing more to refute them, than barely to re- tort them, in the manner as done above. Had he but duly adverted to correct rules of evidence, reasoning and deduction, he wcmld not have thus involved his argument in the gross inconsistency of attempting to derive an irre- fnii^abU' conclusion, from unproved premises. But it was doubtless the warmth of his zeal, misleading his better judgment, which induced him to write, ^' I there flowed," " 1 also showed," instead of 1 there asserted, I lLso asserted, &c. But on a questioH of that impor- tance and magnitude, which involves the inalienable rights of every church to elect its own ministers and pas- tors, slight proofs and probabilities should not satisfy any enquiier, wlieie stronger and more conclusive evidence ran be obtained. We therefore, in seeking proof in op- position to the Doctor's assertions, that in " the whole New Testament, there is not a single instance of the peo- ple's electing their Bishops, nor the least shadow of evi- dence for it in the second century ;" will not rest satis- fied barely with analogy in the popular election of Dea- cons in the mother church at .1-crusalem, however strong; that evidence may be ; nor will we content ourselves with the opinions and usages of Cyprian and of his as^c, foundet^ in part, on the authority of this apostolick in-

2%

«titution, nor yet will we repose on the detection and refu- tation of the J)octor's erroneous and feeble opposition thereto : but will resort to still further and more direct authorities. Aided by the criticisms of the learned^ we will in the first place appeal to the testimony of St. Luke, as recorded in Acts xiv. 23. In this verse Ave have information concerning ordinations performed by St. Paul, and his colleague Barnabas, during their joint mission among the Gentiles.

This verse has indeed been the subject of disputation, and has required the efforts of learned ingenuity, in order to overcome its difficulties. Its present transla- tion reads thus : ^' And when they had ordained them Elders in every church, and had prayed with fasthig, they commended them to the Lord on whom they believ- ed." The old English translation reads after this 3nan-

ner : ** gfnlT \xi\)tn t\)t^ f)Hh ortiainet)! ifjem ©lOtrs! bp

tltttiOV,'^ &c. Harrington's translation reads, »• Ordain- ed them Elders by the votes of the people,'' &c. Dod- dridge's translation and Paraphrase read after this form of words, and signification of terms : "^ And when they had with the concurrent suffrage of the people, constitut- ed Presbyters for them in every church," &c. &c. Dod- dridge however observes, that Hammond shews a few instances, wherein the disputed word, rendered ordained, was used where no voting was implied ; but further ob- serves he could discover no reason, why it should be so used, or understood in this case. We will now consult other authorities, and advert to other criticisms on this verse.

Dr. Adam Clarke, in his Commentary thereon, thus enquires and remarks : " But what is the meaning of the word >i6<§<)Tov»jo-«vT£f, which we translate ordained? '^i'he word ordain we use in an ecclesiastical sense, and signify by it the appointment of a person to an office in the church, hy the imposition of the hands of those who are rulers in that church. But ;^i£«g»rav;« signifies the holding up, or stretching out the haiid, as approving of the choice of any person to a particular work : whereas ;^s5«§«>^e(r«a; (cheirothe- sia) signifies the imposition of hands. '^ Zonoras gives the proper meaning of the word in the text, in his J^cholia upon the first canon of the apostles, Nhv p-n xueorcnx, KetXiiTxt, y^. T. ?^. ic Nowadays a course of prayers and in-

as

vocation on the Holy Spirit, when one is initiated into the priesthood and receives consecration, is called x««§«tow« cAeiro^oKia, so termed because the Bishop extends his hand over him whom he blesses, when he is chosen into holy orders. Anciently, the choice or suffrage was called cheirotonia; for, when it was lawful for the multitude in their cities to choose their priests or Bishops, they met together, and some chose one man, some another : but that it might appear whose suffrage won ; they say the electors did use ty-rimtv t«5 -/.itgeti^ to stretch forth their hands, and by their hand^ so stretched forth, or ?{^;, they were numbered who chose the one, and who the other : and him who was elected by the most suffrages, they placed in the high priesthood. And from hence was the name cheirotonia taken, which the fathers of the councils are found to have used, calling their suf- frage cheirotonia. St, Paul II. Cor. viii. 19, intimates that St. Luke was thus appointed to travel with him, jp(59Tov):(h*? vno ray wxAsir^wv, icho wtts chosen of the churches, Ignatius, in his epistle to the Philadelphians, uses the

same term wgrTrev £«•»» vfctv a; vcKXnTiec Qicu ;^^£(g«T»v)I»■«< t»«o->c<Sav,

ye ought as a church of God to choose your Bisliop." Much more on this sul)ject may be seen in Sir Norton KnatchbuU, who contends thai cheirotonia implies simply appointment or election, but not vrhat he calls ordination by the imposition of hands. 1 believe the simple truth to be this, that in ancient times the people chose by the cheirotonia f lifting ujjvfhandsj their spiritual pastor; and the rulers of the church, whether apostles or others, appointed that person to his oflRce, by the cheirothesia, or imposition of hands : and perhaps each of these was thought to be equally necessary, the church agreeing in the election of tlie person ; and the rulers of the church appointing by imposition of hands, the person thus elect- ad:' (A. Clarke.)

In the preceding imp<)r(:int criticisms, on this disputed text, we behold the cnibiKlKd authority of the Old Eng- lish Translutinn, JIarriu;i:;ttin's Translation, and J)od- dridgc^s Translation and Paraphrase. And lo these we perceive a«hled the ingenious and deep researches, and r.'indi<l and iiarnionising opinions of Zonaras, Knatch- buU :iin! Chukc.

Sri

Leaving these able and united criticisms on this text, to bear tlwiir own weiglit, and as proving, in opposition to Dr. Bowden^s assertion to the contrary, that there is in the Sew Testament ample evidence of numerous elec- tions by the people, even wherever Paul a?»d Barnabas ordained ; Iders in the churches among the Cxentiies ; we will now advert to his very positive denial of popular elec- tions during the second century, for on the election of a Bishop during this century, he says, in opposition to JJr. M. ^^ The people had no voice in the business. There is not a single instance that can be produced in opposition to this assertion." " No testimony ever has been or can be pro- duced to this purpose. Here then are two centuries, from which not a tittle can be drawn to countenance your assertions. But perhaps the third century will furnish you with sufficient evidence of this fact. But what, Sir, if it should ? That would not prove, that the people elected their Bishops in the first and second centuries. In the first, as we have seen, there is positive evidence against it : and in the second, there is no evidence for it.^^ (Vol. 2, p. 151.) It is truly matter of surprise, as well as of just regret, that a wi-iter of so much ability as the Doctor must have been, should thus, have suffered his zeal to betray him into such incoherent effusions as he has here permitted to escape from his pen. The examin- ation of his attempts to reason in support of these effusions of his fancy, will be deferred, until ois rash assertions here made, shall have first been duly attended to. As to his assertions in denial of popular elections in the first cen- tury, they have been already duly disposed of, as un- founded, and as contrary to substantial evidence against them. In respect to such elections in the second century, he asserts above, ^' there is no evidence for it.^^ In the foregoing extract from Clarke's Commentary, we are in- formed that, "• Ignatius in his epistle to the Vhiladelphi- ans, vvrites, " F" ought as a church of God to choose your Bishop.'' The question therefore here is, which is most to be credited ; Dr. Bowden writing in the nineteenth century, of what was done i'; the second century? Or, Ignatius, who had lived in portions of the first and second century, writing in the latter to a church, an'l instructing fhem to choose th§ir Bishop ? It is Hot necessary here to

35

expatiate ou Ignatius' superior advantages of know- ledge on this point, as, that he was conversant with the apostles and their institutions ; that he knew the manner of his own election to be Bishop of the church of Antioch ; that he knew how Polycarp had been elected Bishop at Smyrna, and Clemont at Rome, and that he was well acquainted with all the elections in his own time. But we are inevitably led to conclude, that this single testi- mony of Ignatius on this point utterly overthrows every mere assertion and cavil against zY, made by Dr. Bowdea in the IO76 pages of his whole three volumes. From his assertions we will now proceed to hear his manner of rea- soning ou this point, viz. <' Does Clemens Homanus inti- mate that the people elected Bishops ? Quite the contrary, as you very well know. He expressly asserts, that Bish- ops and Deacons were designated by the Holy Spirit for their respective offices. Does Barnabas countenance your assertion ? He has not a syllable upon the subject. Does Hermas ? He also is silent. Does Ignatius ? Very far from it. Does Justin Martyr, or Ireneus, or Tertul- lian, or Clemens of Alexandria ? No testimony ever has been, or can be produced to this purpose." (Vol. 2, p. 251.) Here we perceive eight of the fathers of the sec- ond century, summoned by the Doctor to testify against the election of Bishops by tiie people in that age ; but most unbappily for his cause, by his own voluntary con- fession, si'.r of them prove to be perfect mutes, viz. Barnabas, Hermas, Justin Martyr, Ireneus Tertullian and Clemens of Alexandria. He might, therefore, had he not designed to make an idle flourish with their venerable names, have suffered them to repose undisturbed, amid the obscure shades of antiquity. But his citation of Clemens Romanus and of Ignatius in this cause, was an act ill judged, and rash in the very last ilegree. In respect to the former, iiis very appearance in the Doctor's court, without a sin gle word uttered, was ominous in the case, for which cited. For, according to Bower's History of the Bishop^; of Rome, which is justly esteemed for its critical accu- racy, Clemens himself was ♦' unanimously chosen by the jieople and clers^y of Rome." (Vol. 1, p. 15.) In re- spect to what Clemens has said in reference to "desig- nation to office by the Holy Spirit," it is totally irrnh^ 1)

S6

vant to the question concernins; election, and implies only, the specified scripture qualifications, befitting Ueacong and iUshops to be elected. But if C'leinens proved in- auspicious as a witness, surely Ignatius proved tenfold more so, for, as already noted, it laid the axe to the root of the Doctor's ill conceived, ill judged, and ill conduct- ed opposition to popular elections during the first and. second centuries. But the Dr. having by some means dis- covered that popular elections had actually existed with- in the second, century, his ingenuity was directed to dis- cover means of accounting for this circumstance, without having recourse to any authority therefor, as derived from the institutions and usages of the apostles ; and therefore wiih great adroitness ascribes it thus to usurpation by the people. " In the next age, after Christianity was established, I allow, that the people in some places, assumed the power of electing the Bishop. But the ef- fects of it became so dreadful, particularly at Rome, that the Emperor found it absolutely necessary to deprive them of the power." (Vol. 1, p. 222.)

Dr. B. being hard pressed by Dr. M. on this point, endeavours to sustain his theory, and calls in Stillingfleet to his assistance, who with a better grace, but no less de- ceptive, observes, " The main ground of the people's interest was founded upon the apostle's canon (or rule) a Bishop must be blameless and of good report; and, therefore, the people's share, and concern, in elections, even in Cyprian's time, was not to give their votes, bat only their testimony concerning the good or ill behaviour of the person. That yet upon this the people assumed the power of elections^ and thereby caused great disturb- ances and disorders in the church. That to prevent these, many Bishops were appointed without their choice, and canons made for the better regulating of them. And, that when there were Christian magistrates, tliey inter- posed as they thought fit, notwithstanding the popular claim in a matter of so great consequence to church and state." (Vol. 3, p. 118, 119.)

Much error, with some shades of truth, are here to- gether artfully blended. For it is quite incorrect, that, the main ground of the people's interest in elections, was founded on the rule of Bishops being blameless and

of s;ood report, for it was no less founded on the rule tliat a Bishop should be apt to teach, and able by sound doctirine, both to exhort, and convince the gainsuyers. As the latter qualifications, without the former, would have been defective, so the former without the latter, could never have rendered any man an edify ing Bishop. The particular church, therefore, over which the Bishop was to be placed, was in its collective capacity, according to all just and true priuciples, the only proper and com- petent elective body, assembled, not indeed, merely, to give testimony of character, but, as in the days of l^aul and Barnabas, to choose their own Bishop by the cheiro- tonia, the holding up, or stretching out the hand. So that so far were the people from assuming the power of election, whether in the second, or in any other century, that it was always their right, even from he beginning. That the Bishops leagued together, whether in councils or synods, enacted canons, or formed rules, w hereby in many cases tliey usurped the powT.r of elections, by fraudulently and unjustly transferring it from the people to themselves, is neither to be questioned nor denied : for in the third century, and even in the age of I'yprian, which was about the middle of th 't centurv, they did. many such, and worse things, as we learn from Mosheim, thus treating of these very times, viz. *^ Th- face of things began now to change in the Christian church. The tiQcient method of ecclesiastical government seemed, in general, still to subsist, while at the same time, by imperceptible steps, it varied fnnn the original rule, or degeneratpd toward the form of a religious monarchy. For the Bishops aspired to higher degrees of power and authority tlian they had possessed ; and not only violated the rights of the people, but also made gradual encroach- ments upon the privileges of the Presbyters. And, that they might cover these usurpations with an air of justice, and an appearance of reason, they published new doc- trines c(mcerning the nature of the church, and of the Episcopal dignity. One of the principal authors in this charigc »)f the government <»f the church, was Cyprian, who pleaded for the power of the IMshops with more zeal anil veliemence than had ever been hitherto eni|)loyed in that cause. 'I'his change in the form of ecclesiastical

28

government, was soon followed by a train of vices, which dishonoured the character and authority of those to whom the administration of the church was committed. This is testified in such an ample manner by the repeated com- plaints of many of the most respectable writers of this a^e, that truth will not permit us to spread the veil, which we should otherwise be desirous to cast over such enormities among an order so sacred." (Vol. 1, p. 258, S59.) In respect to Stillingfleet's fore-mentioned state- ment of "great disturbances and disorders in the church," having resulted from popular elections, and as requiring the interference of Christian magistrates to suppress such elections ; it is, to say the best of it, an uncandid mis- representation. But i)v Bowden never once suspecting its correctness, as being tht' production of a Bishop's pen, not only adopted it as his own belief, but also, in an ag- gravated form, gave it as extensive a circulation as that wherein his Letters were read. And as appears from page 153 of volume 2, viz *" About the close of this (the third) century, I believe, the people of Home acquired great influence in the election of their Bishops ; but they exercised it in such a tuinultuous and scandalous manner, that Constantine, after he became a Christian, found it necessary to prevent them from interfering in elections." This statement is most egrei^iously incorrect, and that in almost every particular. It is so in reference to Constan- tine, who never did obstruct the election of Bishops by the Uoman people. It is equally incorrect in ascribing the suppression of populat election at Mome to any Christian magistracy, as it was retained by that people until A. D. 1181, whenit was subverted by the intrigues of their own Bishops. Nor is it less incorrect in brand- ing election by the people with the epithet of interjerin^s^, because election by them was but the exercise of a consti- tutional prerogative, exclusively their own. But to grat- ify the curiosity of the reader, as well as to illustrate this mysterious affair of magisterial nterferevce, it may be proper to state two historical events, which probably, in a confused manner, may have impressed the minds of Stillingfleet and Bowden. ' The former occurred at H ome, in the reign of Constantius, A. I). 356 ; and the latter took place in about te& years after, in the same city, dur

t9

iflg the reie;n of Velentinian. The former of these events wa-i occ;i8ioiK(l hy Mie injustice an«l t;yTanny of the lt'>m- per.)r himself, in hanisiiing Liherius, the lawful Bishop, because of his o[>|)Osition lo the Arians ; and in forcing Felix unlawfully on the Roman people, as their Bishop. '1 hese transactions >'-ower thus records. ^* His fate was no sooner known at Rome, than the clergy assembling the penph, bound themselves by a solemn oath, in their presence, not to acknowledj^e any other for their Bishop, so long as Liberius lived. Liherius being thus driven from his see, another was placed on it, in his room : the person whom the t^mperor and the Arian faction pitched upon was one Felix ; but the clergy could not proceed to a new election, withtsut an open violation of the oath they had taken. I'he people began to mutiny, and assembling in crowds, would suffer none of the Arian faction to enter their churches. The imperial palace, therefore, served instead of a church ; three of the Emperor's eunuchs represented the people ; and three Bishops, slaves of the court, viz. ?'-pictetus of Centemucelle, Acacius of Casarea, and Basilius of Ancyra, ordained the new elected Bishop. Thus was Felix chosen and thus ordained. As Liberi- us was greatly beloved by the people, the intrusion of Felix occasioned a great sedition, in which many lives were lost.'' (Vol. i, p. 133, 134.)

The second occurrence is detailed both by Mosheim and Bower. The former thus relates it, viz. "The see of Jlorae became in this century a most seducing object of sacerdotal ambition. Hence it happened, that when a mwv Pontiff was to be elected by the suffrages of the Prpshytcra and people , the city of Rome was generally agitated with dissentions, tumults and cabals, whose con- se(piences were often deploraI)lc and fatal. The intrigues and disturbances that prevailed in that city in 366, when ii|)on the death of Ijiberius. another Pontiff was to be chosen in his |)lace, are a sufficient proof of what we have now advanced. Upon this occasion one faction elected Daniasus to that high dignity, while the other party chose Ursicinus, a fJeacon of the vacant church, to suc- ceed fjiberius. This double election gave rise to a dan- gerous schism, and to a sort of (ivil war within the city ol* iiome, which was carried on >vith the utmost barbarity

so

and fury, and produced the most cruel massacres and desolations. This inhuman contest ende*. indeed in the victory of Damasus ; but whether his cause was more just than that of Ursicinus, is a question not so easy to determine Neither of the two, indeed, seem to have been possessed of such principles as constitute a good Christian, much less of that exemplary virtue that should distinguish a Christian Bishop.'^ (Vol. 1, p. 34?^, 343.)

Bower abundantly corrobor ites this narrative by Mo- shiem, but is much more full and circumstantial. But on a subject so humiliating to the Christian name, all that 1 shdU add from his account is, that " This riot began October 25, at eight in the morning, A. D. 368.''

But it should here be noted and observed, that these last recorded disturbances, Vv'hich happened in Valentin- ian's reign, like tiie former, under Constantius, are events which furnish melancholly evidence of the deplorable degeneracy of Bishops, Presbyters and people, in the fourth century. This degeneracy different writers have ascribed to a variety of causes. Some to the innovations made in the governmewt and discipline of the churches., by means of the substitution of the canons and decrees of Councils and Synods, for the better rules and instructions of the Holy Scriptures. Others have imputed it to the pride and ambition of the Bishops, and to the bitter and persecuting contentions of both the Orthodox and the Arians. But others again have considered it as chiefly resulting from that overwhelming tide of honours and emoluments, w hich inundated the church, after the coa- version of Constantine to Christianity. Is or can it rea- sonably be doubted, by any versed in ecclesiastical his- tory, that each of these causes contributed, conjointly with the others, its full portion of demoralizing influence, in effecting this degeneracy, so extensive in its progress, and so destructive in its effects. But Home, being im- perial, and more populous than the other cities of that age, the church in that metropolis became more readily and deeply tainted, with the spreading corruptions of those times, than the churches in the other cities of the empire. And from hence the foundation it appearswas even then laid, in that church, to become at length, #/te mother of harlots.

Nor can the fore-mentioned riots iu that church and

31

city, alluded to by Stillingticet and Bowden, afford mat- ter for any well grounded olyection to ecclesiastical pop- ular elections, in any church worthy of tlie Christian name : Nor yet, in any, had as even that in Home then was ; until, it can be proved, that the " Christian magis- trate,''^ Constantius, was not the real author of the out- rages of the first riot ; and that, in the second, Damasus and Ursicinus, were not the actual instigators and ring- leaders, in all the acts of cruelty then so disgracefully committed.

'i'he order and office of Timothy and Titus, wifl occupy the next Section.

SECTION IV.

Of all the sources to which Docter Bowden and other Episcopal writers have resorted, for materials, where- with to erect the fabrick of their claims of an exclusive nature, in behalf of diocesan Bishops, there is none, per- haps, on which they have placed greater dependence, than on the order and ofiice of 'I'imothy and Titus. These distinguished Ministers of Christ needed no in- vestment with oflRce, bnt what they received from their divine Master and from his apostles ; and which arebesi. learned from the New Testament. But different writers, for special purposes, have constituted them both apostles and Bishops. And thence, as a matter of convenience, have transmitted all this honour and authority to imme- diate successors ; and so on through a series of Bishops, down even to our own times. 'I'he glaring absurdity, however, of all such pretensions, to a succession of apos- tleship, has been the subject of special discussion in the second section, and therefore, shall not be here repeated. Nor is it necessary to attempt formally to disprove tho alleged apostlcship of these l)iirnir)g and shining lights of the Chrisfian chinch. To vindicate their evangelical mission, will ])e aloiu* sufficient. That they were evan- gelists, and neither a[)ostles nor Bishops, would never have been disputed, were it not for the purpose of magni- fying the episcopal office. W ith this view-, not only the

B2

office of apostles and evangelists has been invaded, but also the High Priestliood of the Jews, has been graspj'd at ; never once considering, that they knew not what manner of spirit they were of, and, that such pretensions '^ only mocked whom they were meant to honour.*'

Respecting the orders of Ministers placed by Christ himself in his church, St. Paul thus writes : *^ Ke gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers.'' ^J'he two latter orders he designed to be permanent and stationary, and there- fore gave express directions for their constitution : The three fjrraer being extraordinary, and of superior rank and >rder, were constituted such by Dhrist himself, while the pastors and teachers, although instituted by divine appoi 'tment ; yet were elected and consecrated to office by men. /\varis;elists. — Of this order. Hooker (whose ecclesiastical polity is by Exon styled " The great and impregnable shield of the church of Engla-.d") thus writes : " Evangelists were Presbyters of principal suf- ficiency, whom *he apostles sent abroad, and used as agents in ecclesiastical affairs, wheresoever they saw need. They whom we find to have been named in scrip- ture evangelists, are, Annanias, ApoUos, 1 imothy ; and others were thus employed." (Ecc. Polity, p. 28^.) Among these others here alluded to, we may discover Titus, Philip, Tychicus, Artima*, Crescens, Epaphro- ditas, and Silas : nor should Barnabas, Mark or Luke be omitted, who each stand iu the first rank of evangel- ists. Candour in a controversialist, is in a high degree hi'.nourable ; it evinces a greater regard to truth, than even to the cause which he endeavours to maintain. In this respect, Hooker just mentioned, excelled Bow- den ; for while the former frankly acknowledges Timo- thy to have been an evangelist, and consequently Titus to have be^n one also, the latter obstinately denies it of both ; and acting more like a lawyer, v/hose professioa is to wrangle, than like his venerable coadjutor just named, contends without any adequate proof, that Timo- thy and Titus were not evangelists, but were Bishops. His own words and reasonings shall now plead his cause : *^ ^V'hat proves to a certainty that they .were fixed Bishops, at least as much so as the exigencies of

the rliurcli in that day would admit, is the circumstance of their having successors in the very same authority, which they exercised at Ephesus and Crete : and for the proof of this, numerous testimonies have been adduced from the fathers.^' (Vol. i, p. 273.) The Doctor here referred to ten persons before named, and whom he ia this quotation styles fathers. But certainly they could not have been fathers of an early date, for Whitby com- menting on the Kpistle to Titus, writes thus : " The great controversy concerning this and the Epistle to Timothy, is, whether Timothy and Titus were indeed made Bish- ops, the one of Ephesus and the proconsular of Asia ; the other of Crete. Now, of this matter, I confess I can find nothing in any writer of the first three centuries, nor any intimation that they bore that name.'' But Dr. Whitby being an Episcopalian, was not difficult as to testimony on this point, and therefore adds, *^ But this defect is abundantly supplied by the concurrent suffrage of the fourth and fifth centuries." (ibid. 274<.) Testimonies of the fourth and fifth centuries on this point, must be powerful indeed, that can invalidate on this question, the profound silence of the first three centuries ; and set aside the very strong evidence of the New Testament, hostile to the Episcopal claims in behalf of Titus and Timothy. From Whitby's list of these writers, Dr. B. names the following, viz. Eusebius, Ambrose, Epiphan- ius, Jerome, Chrysostom, Leontius, Primasius, Theo- phylact, and OccumeT^ius. And before all these he pre- fixes Polycrates, whom the vigilant Whitby was unable to discover; and no wonder, for no more is known of his writings, than that " a fragment is preserved in Photiua Bibotheca, and quoted by Usher, in his discourse on Episcopacy. In that fragment it is said that I'imothy was ordained Bishop of Ephesus, by the great Paul." (ibid. 257, 258.)

As to any credibility of evidence contained in this al- leged fragment of Polycrates, it is of so uncertain and frivolous a nature, as to afford ground of suspicion, that the cause in which it is adduced was deemed desperate, And in respect to Kusebius, if he had tliis testimony of Polycrates in view, when he said, without giving any proof, " It is recorded in history, that Tiii|otijy was the r.

first Bishop of Ephesus,'^ certainly in this case, the latlef historian is as undeserving of credit, as the former is, to whom he alludes. And as Polycrates lived about the close of the second century, whatever he may have writ- ten, was probably accessible to 1^ usebius. But evidence on this point, is so obscure and uncertain from each of tiiese writers, that their united testimony amounts to nearly nothing in this controversy. Of the remaining ei^ht, called fathers by Dr. B. one was Theophylact, of the eleventh century, and another Occuraenius, supposed to have belonged to the preceding century, consequently neither should have been ranked with the fathers, as they belonged to more modern times. NoFf is their testimony of any higher authority, than merely that of their own comments on the Epistle«i in question. Five others, were Ambrose, Epiphanius, Jerome, Chrysostom, and Prima- sius, who wrote in different centuries, from the fourth to the sixth. But as the authority of their several testimo- nies, even according to Bowden himself, reposed chieily on their own comments on the Epistles last alluded to, they only instruct us to follow their example, and seek the decision of this question, in the New Testament alone. The remaining father is a late one indeed, as he did not flourish until about and after the middle of the ffth cen- tury. This was T<eontius, of Magnesia, who declared in the council of Chalcedon, ^* that from I imothy to their time, there had been twenty-six Bishops, of the church of Ephesus.'' This testimony may be true in the strictest sense of the terms here used, and yet Timothy not hav& been one of the twenty-six ; for the number here men- tioned does not include the time of Timothy's residence in ^"ipliesus, but only the time which had then elapsed from Timothy's departure from that city to the year 451 y when the Council had assembled at Chalcedon. ^ And certainly, if these expressions have any other significa- tion than as here explained, we are left to conjecture what that signification may be. Nor is it necessary, even if he meant to include I'imothy among these twenty-six, to reply here more particularly, as it will shortly be made to appear that Timothy was never Bishop of Ephesus, notwithstanding all that may have been asserted to the contrary by the Doctor's ten fathers, That these fath-

35

erSy as well as more ancient and primitive ones, were tiot implicitly, in all relations of facts, to be relied on, is. most clearly evident from this consideration, that they but too often suffered vague and uncertain traditions to supply the place of accurate records : and which is undeniable from the following contradictions discovered in their re- lations of facts, with which they ought to have been better acquainted, viz. In respect to the first Bishop of the church of Rome, ^^ Tertullian says that Peter w.is;'' while Iraenus, with much greater probability, calls ** Li- nus the first Bishop of Home.'' Again, Peter is made by Eusebius, the first Bishop of Antioch ; but in the twenty-second chapter of the same book, he contradicts himself f by making Eodius and not Peter, the first Bishop of that church Nor is Jerome less contradictory to him- self, by placing Peter both in the see of Rome, and in that of Antioch. (See Macknight's Commentary, vol. 4, p. 171.) But it appears to have been Whitby that in- duced Bowden to place an undue reliance on the vague testimonies of inaccurate writers, who often only conjec- tured, when they should have enquired and reasoned : For the former being determined to ascertain the truth, of " the great controversy concerning Timothy and Titus, wisely repaired to the New Testament ; but unable even by the Epistles to these highly distinguished Ministers of Christ, to establish their Kinsoyacy, he next toils through tlie works of the Christian writers of the first three centuries, but unable to discover therein ^' any inti- mation that they bore even the name of Bishops ; instead of then wisely abandoning the ignis fatuus pursuit, lie con- tinues the headlons; chase even to the eleventh ccuturv. And how great must have been his triumph, when he obtained the prize of l)eing assured, that '1 itus was act- ually made Bishop of all Crete and its hundred cities, and Timothy, not of Ephesus only, but also of ^' pro- cousiilur dsiOf''^ that is, of Asia Minor, so that not only the whole seven Hevelation churches, but many olhcrs also, were made subject to iiini, being all compieht luled within his see. liut Dr. (J. proceeds, " It has also been shewn, that it was not as Evangr lists they acted at Epiipsus and Crete; for an Kvangelist was one who -carried the s^ood news of salvation to the heathen j but

36

the people of Ephesus and ^ rete had been converted iu great numbers to the faith of Christ, before the appoint- ment of Timothy and Titus. I'he result of the whole, then is, that these officers were Bishops, in the appropri- ate, ecclesiastical sense of the word." (ibid. 27S.)

In order to invalidate the evangelical order and com- mission of Timothy, the Doctor endeavours to restrict the term Evangelists to the simple signification of a bearer of good news, and especially of the news of salvation to the heathen. And this verbal criticism he endeavours to sti'engthen by an appeal in his third volume, p 224, to Dr. Campbell, who among other particulars, states, that this term, " in the Acts is frequently used for expressing the first publication of the Gosfel, in a city or a village, or among a particular people." But without calling these significations of this term in question, may we not reason- ably doubt these meanings to be all that the scriptures design in the use of this term ? When we consult Ephe- sians iv. 11, perhaps it may tend to a correct conclusion on this point. And he gave some apostles ; and some jprophets ; and some evans;elists ; and some ^asfors and teachers.^' As it is manifestly certain that St. Paul has placed apostles and prophets in the Christian church, before those others mentioned which succeed, not inad- A'ertently, but designedly, because they were of liigher order and authority than the others ; so in like manner he has placed pastors above teachers, and unquestionably foi* the same reason, Nor can either of these conclusions be denied, without infringing on the i eputation of the apos- tle as a correct writer, and without exposing the objec- tor's own reputation to the just censure of deviating from a candid construction of the apostle's intention.

That apostles were above Christian prophets, both in rank and authority, appears further from I. Cor. xii. 28 : ^^ God hath set some in the church, first apostles, sec- ondarily prophets, thirdly teachers," &c. Under the appellation teachers, the apostle appears here to comprise all three. Evangelists, pastors, and teachers or Deacons ; nor will any consistent Episcopalian reject this constiuc- tion, that pastors mean elders or Presbyters, and that in this connexion teachers mean Deacons, as inferior in or- der to Presbyters or Bishops, so named in tjie Kew

Testament. iBut the remaining and chief question, tO be yet decided, in view of the preceding apostolick arrange- ment is, to what order do r vangelists beUmg? J hey are evidently below apostles and prophets ; and in this train, as evidently above pastors and teachers, or Presbyters and i'eacons. tor a continuance in the church no pro- "vision was made in respect to apostles and prophets, nor for the appointment and ordination of Evangelists. It was otiierwise in respect to pastors under the title of Bishops, and witii teachers, under that of kieacons. But we have seen above, that in I. Cor. iH.vangelists were prohahly included with pastors and Deacons, under the conmion title of teachers. Are we from hence, to infer, that v van- gelists were a connecting link between ordinary and ex- traordinary Ministers tf Christ? And, that in some respects like apostles and prophets, they were to be discontin- ued ; but, thar in other respects, they were (at least occa- eionally) to be continued as the exigencies of the church might require ? As Dr. B. consulted Campbell on the signiflcatiou of the term J^^vavgelistj as used in the Acts, so we willc(msult Macknight on its meaning in Ephesians, as above quoted, and which in his third note he thus ex- plains : '• » heir office was to preach the Gospel to the different Gentile nations. To fit them for this, ( hrist gave them the gift of tongues, whereby they were enabled to preach to every nation in its own language : also the gift of miracles, for the confirmation of their doctrine, and the gift o^ faith, to enable them to encounter dangers." Here it should be rtbserved, that while Macknight har- monizes with Campbell, in respect to Evangelists preach- ing ** the first good news of sulvation to the heathen ;'' so he also, is in harmony with the concurrent implica- tions of the New Testament, I)y justly elevating an Evan- gelist above a Bishop or pastor ; not merely in respect to higher ecclesiastical authority, but as having been en- dow* d with greater and higher qualifications of the Holy Spirit, for the performance of the more arduous labours to which they were called, in the fultilmcnt of their peril- ous missions An Evangelist of this high character was Barnabas. Such also were Luke, Mark, Silas, Apollos and others. And such, also, beyond all reasonable dojubt, were Timothy and Titus. The extraordinary

qualifications and endowments communicated to the for- mer by prophecy, and by the laying on of Paul's handS;, need not here be dwelt on. Nor is it necessary to dwell on the proofs, that might be adduced, to establish the fact, that the latter was evidently of the same order, as high in authority, and as much in the confidence of Paul, as Timothy was. But, iu addition to the usual labours of Evangelists, in fulfilling their ministry by preaching the gospel to the heathen, they also were called occasion- ally to travel and labour with the apostles, as their Sons in the gospel, and that not only in preaching to the heathen, but also in visiting and watering the churches already planted, as Mark did with Paul and Barnabas, and as Silas did with the. former in many churches, and as Apollos did at Corinth, as well as Timothy, Titus, Luke and others in divers churches newly planted : but all these itinerant labours, although performed not in new places, but in churches already planted, were nevertheless the la- bours of the Evangelists. And besides all this, the apos- tles commissioned Evangelists when occasion required, to visit, to excite to liberality, and even authoritatively to inspectf as well as to teach apostolick usages to organiz- ed churches, in things wherein they were unfaithful or de- fective. For Titus with another Evangelist was sent to Corinth, to obtain contributions for the poor in Judea, Sd Epistle viii. 18. And to the same church, both Tim- othy and Apollos were sent, the former especially, being invested with particular authority by 8t. Paul, and as thus expressed and implied in I. ('or. iv. 17? and xvi. 40, 11, IS, viz "For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the liord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church. Now if 1 imotheus come, see that he may be with you without fear ; for he worlceth the work of the Lord, as I also do, let no man therefore despise him ; as touching our brother Apollos, I greatly desired him to come unto you with the brethren ; but his will was not at all to come at this time, but he will come when he shall have convenient time." From the whole therefore, it will here conclusively follow : First, that Evangelists in the primary sense of e^;traordinary divine endowmentSf.

S9

as essential qualifications, ceased with the age of miracles. Secondly, that FiVan2;elists labouring with the apostles as theii- sons in theGospel.and specially commissioned by them became extinct with the apcstolick age. But that Evan- gelists in the lowest true sense of the term, even, as ])eing destitute of all miraculous endowment, as well as of any commission from an apostle, yet sent out by the churches to preach to the heathen, are designed to be perpetuated, as irrissionaries, until such time, as that the Gospel shall have been preached, throughout every nation in all the Tvorld.

That Timothy andTitus when at Corinth, as well as when fulfilling apostolick commissions in other churches, were Evangelists, is so obviously certain, that no candid and well informed person, can for a moment, either doubt or deny it. But the question here is, when the one was stationed for a time at Kphcsus, and the other at Crete, were they still Evangelists, or did they then become (as Dr. B. terms it) Bishops ecclesiastically such?" If they became then Bish- ops, it must have been through means of a popular elec- tion to that office, that they were constituted such. For, as has been estal)lished by indubitable proofs, in the preced- ing section, no person was or could, according to true apostolick usages have become a lawful Bishop, without such an election. But is there in the New Testament or elsewhere, the slightest evidence to be found, that they were so elected? In answer to this question, it can with perfect safety, most confidently be affirmed, that the slight- est proof for such an election, cannot anywhere be dis- covered. A consciousness of this was probably the cause why Dr. B. so obstinately denied the right of the church- es to elect their Bishops. And as neither of these Kvangel- ists was ever elected by the churches over which they re- spectively presided, so there is positive evidence, presi- dency was not permanent but transitory. For says St. Paul, *'I hesous;lit thee to abide s^i7/ at Ephesus, while I went into Macedonia.*' T besi)ni:;ht thee, not I ordained thee, as say the fathers. Timothy's stay in Ephesus, was a voluntary act, but had he Ijccu elected Bishop, and had accepted it, lie would have been bound to stay : for the apostles never besought Bishops, but commanded them to Abide with tho flock over which the Holy Ghost had mado

40

them overseers. And, it was upon this principle of Tim- othy's being not a stationary Bishop, but an itinerant, or an :wangelist, that the apostle adds. '"' Do the work of an Ecangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. Do thy diligence to come shortly to me. fychicus have 1 sf^nt to Kphesus. Do thy diligence to come before winter." (II. rim. iv. 5, 9, 13, Si.) Here every thing proves to demonstration that the apostle regarded i imothy not as a liishop, but as he ever had been, an Kvangelist : and as such calls him away to Rome, sending at the same time, a successor to hi , in the person of ' fychicus, another Kvan- gelist. Nor is there any well authenticated account to be found any where upon record, that Timothy ever again returned to Ephesus. And of this Dr. B was well ap- prized, for he candidly remarks, " After this event we hear no more of Timothy. (Vol. 1, p. 259.) This de- cision of the case of Timothy decides also that of i itus. For, if the former's residence for a season in one city, and superintendence during that time over a single church, did not divest him of his commission as an Evan- gelist of the highest order, and constitute him a located Bishop ; much less could the latter's itinerant residence in rete, and oversight of the churches in the hundred cities of that extensive island, reduce him to the rank and station of a Bishop, unless it was to the rank and pre- rogatives of an Arch- Bishop. If furtLier evidence be deemed requisite on this point, we find it furnished abun- dantly by St. Paul himself, in his instructions to Titus : ^*For this cause I left thee in Crete that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city. When I shall send Artimas unto thee, or Tychicus, !)e diligent to come to me to Nicopolis." — So plain is it here that Titus was left at Crete only until such time as he should be able to set the churches in or- der, and that he was then called away and a successor sent in his room, that no person can be mistaken on these points, unless he is determined he will not understand.. And it is here plain, that as Tychicus, as before seen, became Timothy's successor, so it is equally plain that Artimas, as an Evangelist, became at Crete the successor of 5'itus. \nd as there is no good evidence that ' ' imothy ever returned to Ephesus, so neitKer is there any that

41

Titus ever returned to Crete, for St. Paul thus agaiQ writes : '• Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me, for Demas hath forsaken me, and is departed unto Thessa- loiiica, Tremens to (Talatia, I itus unto Dalmatia." Krom the whole we discover in reference to i itus, that when he left Crete and met Paul at Nicopolis, he proceeded with this apostle to Kome, and from thence journeyed, not to Crete, hut to Ualmatia. But this discussion thus resulting inevitahly, in the utter subversion of all pretensions, de- signed to inxest Timothy and Titus with Episcopal commissions ; and in fully vindicating their claims to the highest authority of divinely endowed and duly commis- sioned Evangelists ; how far is it from Dr. Bowden's tr umphant conclusion ! " We have thus produced abun- dant evidence that 'J'imothy and Titus were the first Bishops of Ephesus and Crete, and that they had their successors. This is the point we wish to establish, and I think it is completely established." (Tol. 1, p. 264.) The intelligent and candid reader will please to examine, and judge for himself.

Ordination is reserved for the discussions of the next Section.

SECTION V.

Ordination by imposition of hands with prayer, as prac- tised among Episcopalians, and as zealously asserted by Dr. Bowden, is threefold, and in its fullest extent, neces- sarily successive. First, thereby, a candidate for the ministry is constituted a Deacon. By its second adminis- tration, the Deacon is raised to tl.c Priesthond. But a third ordination is indispensable, in order to elevate a Priest into a Bishop. But bctore we proceed to investi- gate the origin and authoiity of this system of a threefold ordiniition. it becomes important t(» enquire from whence this idea of a Christian Priestliood derived its birth. lu the New I'estament, no other Christian Priesthood is rerogni/cd. but that of Christ hini'jelf, and who, in his f>wn person, is at once Hiii^h Priest^ Altar nnd Sacrijice. But while the New Testament atfords neither warrant

F

4^

for this belief, nor information of its origin, the ecclesias- tical historian distinctly traces it to its proper source ; for Mosheim thus informs : " The Christian Doctors had the good fortune to persuade the people, that the Ministers of the Clmstian church succeeded to the character, rights and privileges of the Jewish Priesthood ; and this per- suasion was a new source, both of honours and profit, to the sacred order. This notion was propagated with great industry some time after the reign of Adrian, when the second destruction of Jerusalem had extinguished among the Jews all hopes of seeing their government restored to its former lustre, and of their country arising out of ruins. Accordingly, the Bishops considered themselves as in- vested with a rank and character similar to those of the m^h Priest among the Jews, while the Fresbytprs re- presented the Priests, and the Deacons the Lentes. It is indeed highly probable, that this absurd comparison of offices so entirely distinct, arose rather through ignorance and error, than through artifice or design. The notion^ however, once introduced, produced its natural effects : for the errors to which it gave rise were many. And one of its immediate consequences was, the establishing a greater difference between the Christian pastors and their flock, than the genius of the gospel seems to admit. (Vol. 1, p. 176.) As to the ordination of Deacons and Pres- byters, ample authority therefor, unquestionably is found in Acts and in other parts of the New Testament. And although, it does not from thence appear necessary, that one should precede the other, yet, this practice where pursued, affords no serious ground of controversy be- tween Christian denominations, of whatever name. But the third act, or, a re-ordination of a ("resbyter, in order to constitute him a Bishop, is a species of re-ordination, as unwarrantable, and reprehensible, as re baptizing would be, where its first administration had been in strict conformity with Christ's express laws, enjoining its due performance. Some less discerning, than zealously te- nacious of this third ordaining act, have surmised and imadned, that this species of re-ordination may be implied in these texts, viz. " Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands oj the Jtresbytery,'^ "Wherefore 1 put thee

^3

ill remembrance, that tliou stir up the gift of God that is in thee by the flitting ai of mij Uunds.'^ But assuredly, there is nothing in tliese texts, to prove two ordinations, and consequently less, if possible, to prove a iMrd. For the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery , and tlie putting of the apostles' hands, appears to have been all done at one time : and probably at Lystra. (Acts xvi. 1, 3, 3.) On that occasion, it is highly probable that Tim- othy by Paul's hands became qualified by miraculous endowment, for the office of an Evangelist, and that through both Paul and the Presbytery, he became con- secrated from laical to clerical order. But, as both 1 bish- op Hoadly and Dr. Bowden appeared unwilling, or at least reluctant, to admit any act of ordination as implied in the above texts,''^ we may with safety conclude, that it is equally as absurd, to attempt to lay these texts as a foundation for a threefold ordination, as it would be to endeavour to erect a castle upon a cobweb. Although neither Uoadly nor Bowden have attempted to prove cither a second or third ordination of Timothy from the epistles directed (o himself, yet others have supposed it to be at once, both implied and commanded to be per- petuated through a continued succession, in il. Ilm. xi, S: "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." But certainly the things which were heard among many witnesses, could not have been an (ffflcef but must have been the halhnred doctrines of the gospel, in which Taul had in- structed Timothy probably, at Lystra. as above adverted to, and which doctrines \ imothy is here commanded to commit to faithful men, able to teach others also. And doubtless in the order of Divine Providence, these doctrines have been preserved pjire and uncorrupt in the New Testament, and from thence, have been <'.bly taught, by a suciessian (f faithfiif .Ministe s of varioug dcnowiniitinns. !!ad it been jxtssible ever to have diS(ov- ered in any p^rtof the ^ ew restament. or even in any of the authenlick writings of the Jafhers of the first or sec- ond cenlnry, any evidence of tlii species of ordination, the shar[)-sighted Cyprian would have discovered it, and

• Sc2 vol. I, p. 304) 305^

44

quickly have trumpeted its fame, in his numerous writ- iiii^!-, tliroui^Jiout all the churches of his age. Aud ftom that period down to the reformation, it would have occu- pied many pages, in hooks of successive writers, and without all doubt, have finally prevented a secession from Fpiscopacy, under the renovating labours of Luther, Calvin and their associates. But as »h\ liowden appears to liave obtained an intimate acquaintance with tlie apos- tolick fathers, and as there is a pecuiiar insi;enuity iti his methods of enquiry^ and in his chains f reasuning, we therefore in pursuing our enquiries in reference to the constitution of Bishops by re-ortlinations, will hovrow a leaf from his book, where he had treated of the election of Bishops and Presbyters in vol. 2, p. 250, 251, viz. thus : " What evidence is there that in the first rentury Bishops were constituted such by a thieefold ordination? None at all. Do the epistles to t imothy or Titus men- tion it? There is no intimation of it, neither in tiiem, nor in any other part of the New Testament. Does Clemens RoQianus intimate that Bisliops weie consecrated to that oflice by a third ordination? Quite the contrary, as you very well know. He expressly asserts tha* Bishops were designated by the Holy Spirit to this office. Does Her- mas ? He also is silent. Does Ignatius? Very far from it. Does Barnabas countenance your assertion ? He has not a syllable upoM the subject. Does Justin JVJartyr, or Ireneus, or lertullian. or Clemens of Alexandria? o testimony ever has been, or can be produced t < this pur- pose. Here then are two centuries from which not a tittle can be drawn in proof of a third ordination, or of the re-ordinati'tn of a Presbyter, to constitute him a Bish- op. But perhaps the third century will furnish sufficient evidence of this fact. But what if it should ? 'That would not prove that Bishops were so ordained in tlie first or second centuries. In the first, we have seen, that the texts in the epistles to Timothy, commonl,v relied oi, for this purpose, have no such meaning ; and that nothing to this effect appears any where in the New 'Testament. And we have discovered, that in the second century, the apostolick fathers knew nothins; at all about such ordina- tions. Well, then if this practice beean in the third century, and had its rise in the Cyprianick age, although

45

it may have continued without interruption from that peiiod down to the tioie of the reuumaiiun; ^>et a>^ iis coniineucemetit was not until about ilie middle oi the tliird cenLui-y, it can lay no just claim to the character of being apostolick ; but, must be regarded only, as an unnuthor- izfu innovtiti it(^ devised by the craft of men, whi( h the lapse <>f years has sanctified into veneration, in the minds ol millions, who believe in, and teach as a doctrine of divine autnority, this invented practice and trauition >if m. n '^ i^ut although this imitation of the Ooctor's in- genious raetiiod of reasoning thus terminates in the mani- fest subversion o^ the, re-orditiutiu of 3'*resbyt('rs, yet to obviate objections, and to remove all doubts of this sub- version fiom the minds of the most wavering, we will here dismi-s ht apostolick. fatheis, and turn our attention to other ivnrt'nes *'f note and fame ; even to tlie Doctor's distinguished coadjutors of modern times, and of whose leatned and laborious researches, he has diligently availed himself, in his polemick correspondence with liv. Miller. Foi' in his Letters we recognize the names of numerous Bishops, and of higher dignitaries, as well as of eminent laymen, no less zealous than ecclesiasticks, in the cause of modern Kpiscop?*cy. Nor should this be deemed sur- prisiugj when it is recollected that Kings and Queens are the avowed patrons of this hierarchy. From among the names al)ove alluded to, we select the following, viz. W hitgift, Bancroft, Hall, Usher. Leighton. Pearson, Tillotson. 'Sage, Dodwell, Burnet, Bingham, Wake, Potter, C handler. Slater, Hobart, Hoadly, W bite. And to these, others also highly respectable might be added. Duiiniq two centuries, these zealous advocates for modern Kpiscopacy have patiently examined in succession the remaining works and archieves of Christian anticpiity, for inform.Uicm on the objects of their jiuisuit And tlieir high attainments in necessary literature, in conjunction with their easy access to competent libranes, facilitated tiieir united and vigilant researches. '1 heir gleanings thus ac(|uired from the recognized usages of antiquity, so far as deemed favourable to modern Kpisropary, were poured with |»rofnse. hands into the treasury of the clunches of tlieir own persuasion, thereby, if possible, to establish Kpiscopal }tredominancy. But altiiough by

46

these means, thus furnished with all these stores of evi- den. e, and of arguments, what has Dr. Bowden accom- plished in this controversy? He endeavoured to consti- tute Bishops into apostles, hut has heen unable to eflFect it, as the second Section of this ;«evievi^ demonstrates. He denied the popular electicm of Presbyters and JJish- ops ; but the third Section disproves the truth and cor- rectness of these denials. He attempted to transform Tim- othy and Titus, from being Evangelists, into Bishops, but was inable, as the fourth Section nmply proves : and as already particularly noticed, he has without adecjuate means to effect his purpose, rashly undertaken to vindicate the re-oidinathn of resbyters, or the modern EpiscOjtal system of a ihreejbld ordination. For surely, a practice on which the whole exclusive claims of Fipiscopaiians altogether depend, for support, requires evidence no less powerful and explicit, than that, which justifies the sub- stitution of the first day of tiie week, for the seventh^ as the hallowed day for rest, and for the solemnities of pub- lick worship. For these exclusive claims amount lo no less, than an absolute unchurching of all denominations, whose ministerial administrations are not derived from, the imposition of the hands of re-ordained Presbyters. And therefore, the very existence of the Christian church, according to these principles, has depended in every age and place, and mast continue so to depend, on these re- ordinations. The substitution by Christians of the j^;5f day for the seventh day of the week, as holy time was surely not more important to the interests of religion a fid. of mankind, than the existence of the visible church is ; and yet the former required explicit intimations and apos- tolick injunction and example, contained in the Sew^ Testament; corrol)orated by the uniform practice of im- mediate and succeeding ages, to render it obligator^v on Christian posterity : But, without one solitary text from scripture, or, the testimony of a single apostolick father of the first or second century, or of any well au- thenticated example of such re-ordination, previous to the invention of the apostolick canons ; the SJoctor lia« at- tempted to impose on all Dissenters, under the peitaltj of excommunication, the belief in and iibmission to hi«: asserted authority of such re-ordiuatious.

But an important and interestins; question here presents itself to view, viz. If I>r. B. was in tiiis manner destitute of all competent means of evidence, to sustain by fair argument, this Episcopal system of re-ordinations, on what fouudation did he attempt to erect it ? The direct answer to this fair question, is found thus, in the Docti r'ri own words, in the 145th page of his third volume, viz. " With respect to the first age, 1 flatter myself that I have sufficiently proved, that ordination was confined to the apostles, and to that order who took their place. >uch as llraothy and '^Pitus, and that there is no instance in the scriptures, of Presbyters ordaining. And with re- spect to the second century, there is not a single instance on record among the orthodox, of any ordination at all ; 90 that a fanatick might with truth say, neither of us can prove that the rite of ordination was in use in the second century. But the answer is easy. It can be pro^ed that ordination was in use in the first century, and in the third ; there cannot, therefore, be any reason to doubt that it was in use in the second. If, then, it was con- fined by St. Paul to I'imothy and Titus, it would, of course, be confined to that order of men in the second ce'itury, as we know in fact it was. in the third, and sub- sequent centuries." Hut to what does all this amount? To just nothing, as respects the point in question. For, as respects the apostles, it has been proved, that their order became wholly extinct at their death. And as to Timothy and Titus being of an order which succeeded the apostles, and which was perpetuated through the second, third and succeeding centuries, it is utterly incor- rect, for it has been amply proved tliat their order was that of Hvans^plists of the his;hest ranJc^ and vot that of Bishops; and likewise, that they were the apostles' co- temporaries, and not their successors, and that like the former, their high office of Kvangelists expired with themselves, and cjmsequently was not perpetuated throngli succeeding centuries. This method of proof adopted by ;he Doctor was vague and indirect, and at best but a rope of sand, which could not adhere together. And as to his more direct attempt here, to prove re-ordination, it \9 as utterly inconclusive as the former was. He says. ^' It .:an be proved that ordination w as in use iu the first cen-

48

tury, and in the third ; there cannot therefore he any reason to dt'iibt that ii was in u.^e in (lit •.»■•( lui." \ ut what has all this to do vviti> re-ordiitati(.n.s? if he who should call in question, '» the use of Ihe rtte of ordin- ation in the second century/' might be deemed (as the Doctor expresses it) a. fanaticle ; how should the persoa be considered, who should coufiyund tha simjjh ordii. a- tinns of the iirst and second centuries, with ti.e t ompoimd re-ordination of the third and succeedins; centuiies ? Hut although unable to recognize even a single rp-orninition in the lirst age, or ordination of anj kind, as recorded by the orthodox in the second ; yet. in tlie thitd, re-ordii,a- tw>?.>* started u]) into I'reqnent and common use: For the Doctor thus proceeds, in reference to the customs of the Cyprianick age, or middle of the third ^entury, viz. ^' vv hen a see was caj/^/zica//?/ vacant, an election was made, differently indeed as to the mode, in different cliurches. The Bishops of the provimre, ^ least a num- ber of them, met for the purpose of ordainina; the Bishop elect His i rders as a Presbyter were not sufficient ; he received a new ordination. 'Ihus Cyprian was first a Presbyter, and afterwards ordained Bishop of Carthage. Thus C'yprian tells us that Cornelius had advanced gradually thiough all the inferior stations, and conse- quently had been a Presbyter before he was a Bishop, Yet we find when he was promoted to the see of Rome, he was ordained by sixteen Bishops. 'I'hus we find also in the promotion of Sabinus to the Kishoprick from whicii Hasilides had fallen, that he was ordained by the injjsosition of the hands of tlie Bishops present. I'hus Fothmatus, /Vchimnius, Optatus, Privatianus, Donatnlus and Felix, six Bishops, ordained a Bishop aiCapsis. ^ay, says Sage, this necessity of a new ordination for raising one to the F piscop •! power, was so i-otori' us theuj that the schysmaticks believed it indispensable ; and there- fore Novatimus. tb<mgh formerly a Presbyter, when he contended wnth Cornelius for the chair of Home, that he mii;ht have had the shew at least of a canonical ordina- tion, got three inconsiderate Bishops to come to the city, and then forced them to give him tlie Fpiscopal mission." (Yoi ', p 9^), 97.) Here it is expedient to advert to the phrase canonical ordination^ a« used ia ih« aibvve

4D

quotation. 'I'he literal signification of the term canon is rule. Its ecclesiastical import is, a rule for the govern- ment of the church. The term apastolical was usually added, to increase its importance and authority. The first canon respected the re-ordination of a Presbyter, to constitute him a Bishop. It reads thus : " Let a Bishop be consecrated by two or three Bishops.'' But there were several such canons relating to different regulations of eccbsiastical concerns. As to their origin and history, we thus learn it from the Doctor himself : ^' They are the decrees of synods, in the second and third centuries, published at the lowest in the third century, and collected at different times by different persons. The year 280, fixed by Bloudel, is too late ; but even then, they will bear complete testimony to the practice of the church in the third century." Giving here then <Jo the Doctor all the latitude he claimed as to these canons, what a wretch- ed condition in respect to authority and antiquity, are the re- ordinations of Presbyters brought to ! They originate not from the apostles themselves, but, from rules or can- ons importing by their title, to have been enacted by the apostles, who never saw or heard of one of them. Their real authors are supposed to have been Bishops, assem- bled in synods, but nobody can tell by whom, or where, or Avhen, they were enacted ; nor can any person tell by whom collected, or exactly, when first made publick, unless some time in the third century, and not quite so late, perhaps, as the year 280. But however that may have been, certain it is, that about the year 244, Cyprian of Carthage submitted to a canonical re-ordination, and at Rome Cornelius, the second re-ordained Presbyter on certain record, olitaiued an overrunning canonical ordina- tion ; for not two or three Bishops only, aided in the administration, hut sixteen. And at Capsis, another Presbijter received a doul»h* portitm of canonical benedic- tion, for six Bisliops performed the canonical ceremony of consecration. But on such authority as-this, no per- sons, if in tlieir sober senses, would regard tlie claims of the first <lay of tlie week, to be kept as holy time. As- suredly, were it but once ascertained, that the decree ordaining such ohsorvan(e, was not by Christ liimself, nor by liis apostles, as directed by him, but, by some

50

iinknown Bishops, in some unknown synod, ami likewise unknown in respect to time and place, and this observ- ance so enjoined, not certainly known to have taken place in the churches, until in the third century ; such a discovery as this, would without long delay, compel all true Christians to abandon the observance of the Jirst^ for that of the seventh day. And shall such an assumed and impotent siwihoYiij , as that which gave obscure birth to the misnamed apostolical canons, unchurch all Christ- ian denominations who refuse homage to such unauthor- ized mandates ? It matters not, that Cyprian, Cornelius^, or a thousand others, may have paid obeisance to innova- tors, or have bowed at the shrine of usurpers. The exam- ple of the multitude gliding softly with the current of opin- ions and practices, had then become popular through the artifices of the great, and the ignorance of the little, al* though it may have continued through many ages, is no more a justification for wrong and errour, than when it first commenced. He- ordinations of Presbyters were wrong in tlie third century, alike wrong in succeeding centuries, and are still so wherever practised : and for this short and plain reason, because they were never authorized either by Christ or by his apostles. And in this light it was, that they were viewed in the sixteenth century, when by millions wisely rejected at the reform- ation. That the re-ordinations of Presbyters were un- practiced during the second century, is virtually taught by even ]^owden himself, where he asserts that, " There is nut in the second century, a single instance on record among the orthodoxy of any ordination at all." (Vol. 3, p. 145. ) For had there been re-ordinations of this des- cription, it would have been next to impossible, not to liave recorded them anywhere among the orthodox. And if there were any such records among the schismaticks of that age, the Doctor very justly treated them with con- tempt, by disregarding them. Had there been canonical re-ordinafcions during any part of the second century, wou'd Hishop Sage, in his vigilant researches after them, have been put to the mortifying necessity of stopping short at the Cyprianick age ? For, beyond that period, a portentous silence existed amid the churches, writings rind records of the orthodox. Not even a lisp or whisper.

is to be beard, ol' apostoliek canons, of tbe wbolc or greater part of tbe Bishops of a province repairing to sees canonically vacant. No mention anywliere is made of three, six or sixteen Bisliops re-ordaining a Presbyter. Wiiat ! were they all "Nag's head re- ordinations, per- formed in private rooms, and robbing their friends of ihein- boasting?" as the Doctor has tauntinghj expressed himself. (Vol. ^. p. 7^-) J^it although a syllable could not be found in the two first centuries, to aftbrd the slight- est warrant for tliis practice, yet, says Sage, " the neces- sity of a ne.iv ordination, for raising one to the Kpispopal power, was so notorious then (in the third century) that the schismaticks believed it indispensable." Certainly this amounts to an humble confession made by even Sage bimseir, that this practice of new ordinations was but of recent date in the Cyprianick age ; for had it been deriv- ed from the apostles, and been the accustomed usage of tlie churches during the second century, it would have been both notorious and jjopiilar a century before either Cyprian or Cornelius, or their cotemporaries, w< re born. And yet. Sage appears to exult, because such neic ordi- nations were thus notorious and pojmlar after the middle of the third century. But the Doctor, who sometimes excelled in producing arguments irrelevant to the point intended, observes, that " Ignatius, according to the an- cients, was ordained by St. Peter, Bishop of Antioch." Although the expression ancients bere used, is too vague to be deserving of any just authority, yet, admitting what they are said to have asserted, to be strictly true, still nothing to the purpose is proved thereby ; because, ordi- niition by St. Peter, was not re-ordination by that apos- tle. And precisely to the same a])ortive eflect, is what be thus says in his third volume, of Polycarp : " We arc assured by Ireneus, who was Polycarp's disciple, that he (Polycarp) was ordained Bishop of Smyrna by the apostle John. Eusebins also bears testimony to thin fact." (p. ;377, 278 ) Much more, thus vague aiul in- conclusive, abounds in various (larts of the Doctor's three Vfdumes, which is generally undeserving of more partic- ular notice. But the f(»ll(»wing observations, copied by the Doctor from Shifcrs (f l^j^inal ffroHu;/itj deserve at- tention : " According to rertulliau, St. John placed Pol-

5S

ycarp in the cliurch of Smyrna, and St. Petey ordained Cleiumens in the church of Rome ; and Tertullian adds, that the rest of the churches could prove their Bisliops to be derived from the apostles, in tlie same manner : and calls these Kpiscopal sees the apostles' chairs ; as Ire- neus also tells us that the apostles delivered the church to these single Bishops, and their locus magisteriif or jplace ofgovernmfnt with them." (Vol. 3, p. 97.) And to all this, Ireneus still adds, *' The apostolick tradition is present in every church. We can enumerate those who were constituted Bishops by the apostles in U.q churches, and their successors even to us. By showing the tradition and declared jaith of the greatest and most ancient church of Rome, which she received from the ai>ostles, and which is come to us, through the succes- sion.''^ (Vol. if p. 163, lb3.) Although in the second /Section it has been clearly proved, that the office of the apostles, in respect to their exclusive powers, and which were many and diversified, expired with them- selves ; and in the thirds that the office of Timothy and Titus as Evangelists, and as sons in the gospel with the apostles, also terminated with the apostolick age ; yet it has nowhere in this Review been either denied or inti- mated, that special powers to lead in ordinations, were not transmitted to the angels or pastors of the churches ; but, on the contrary, such transmission of power was insinuated in the introduction. And it is now, here, expressly admitted, and designed to be maintained, as an indubitable fact, that one pastor, angel or Bishop, in each church, had a special power of superintendence over it, and of taking the lead with the other Presbyters therein, in the ordination of other Presbyters and Deacons, when required by the church. And herein is evidence of no inconsiderable harmony, between these views of p^^storal authority, and those above expressed by Slater, in these his appeals to the testimonies of Tertullian and Ireneus. And with these views and principles, even Presbyterians harmonize so far as to say, ^' Ihe Bishops of our church are the succeseors of the apostles, and succeed to as much of their authority or mastership as was intended to he perpetuated in the church." (Miller's secOnd series, p,

52

But notwithstandins; tliis visible accordance between Episcopaliiii'S on the one hand, and, of Presbyterians and Con£;regati:>iialists on the other; still, on a point vitally imjjortant in this controversy, opinions exist, as wide aphrt, as any two cardinal points in the heavens are IVom each other. And this j^oint is this asserted and denied lei;itimacy, of the re-ordination of l-'reshyters. But to what does all th.it i ertullian and Ireneus have above testified, amount ? On the jioiiit of re-ordination it a- mounts to just nothing. For it avails nothing to say, that Ignatius, or CUeniraens, or Polycarp, were ordained by apostles, when no mention whatever is made, that they were previously Presbyters and tliat their ordinations were re- ordinations. Of Polycarp it is said by Gambold, an ^ipiscupal writer, that *' as taken from authentick ac- counts, he received his hristianity from Boculos, Bish- op of Smyrna, by whom he was made Heacon and (ate- chist of that church ; and liaving discharged those oflBces witii universal approbation, he was, after the decease oV Boculos, made Bishop by St. John, whose disciple he had been with Ignatius." That Polycarp, a Deacon, whea elected by the church to the place of Bucolos, should be ordained, was unavoidable, because none but elected Pres- byters were qualified as ecclesiastical Bishops ; election by the church being the ecclesiafttical act, which consti- tuted a Presbyter a Bishop of that description, as will hereafter, be made more fully to appear. The election of Polycarp to the office of an ecclesiastical Bishop, was by no means a singular instance; for Ivleutherius, a na- tive of Nicopolis, but a Deacon in the church of Rome, was likewise so elected, A. D. 170, or as some say, in 176. And even Fabianus, a layman, was in like manner elected at Rome, in ^36. N or is it at all improbable, that similar elections occasionally took place in those early timi!s, in other chuiches besides those of Smyrna and Koine; consecpiently, in all such cases, ordination after election was indispensable, because as Jteacousov laick'Sf they were destitute of the true clerical or sacerdotal char- acter. And it is an imjiortant f)ict, which should neither be forgotten nor overlooked, that the lirst re-ordination at Rome, upon certain record^ was that of Cornelius, the twentieth Bishop of that chuich, and the immediate sue-

S4i

cesser of Fabiauus, the lay pastor elect. Aud to this fact, another nearly allied, no less certain, and equally- important, should be added, viz. the re-ordination of Cyprian at (arthage, about seven years before that of Cornelius, and during the life of Fabianus, above men- tioned ; and which re-ordination, according to Lord King, was probably the first of that kind, on indubitable reco:d, in any rhurch, until that late period. !t is true, however, that Or. B. in vol. 3, p. ;27j asserts, that " c'iabinus a Presbyter" was thus ordained : But this, if true, must have been towards the latter part of the second century, after the fall of iiasilides. And that it was otherwise, we again learn from the Doctor, in the 145th page, where lie thus observes : *' With respect to the second century, there is not a single instance on record among the ortho- dox, of any ordination at all." If then he obtained in- lormation concerning Sabinus, that he was a Presbyter and re-ordaiued, only from vague report, or from his own. imagination, or yet from the records of schisinaticks, it is, in either case, destit ite of all weight in this controversy. And even if it were to be found on records as credible as those of Carthage and Home, it would only go to show, that the leaven of the apostolick canons had already be- gun to ferment in the minds of those Bishops, who first devised the plan of canonical ordinations, for the purpose of unduly exalting the ^selves above the other Presbyters. And when we take into view, the tendency of the occa- sional ordinations of Deacons, after election, to suggest the idea of ordaining anew Presbyters also, and find the neic ordinations of Cyprian and Cornelius so nearly con- nected in respect to time, with that of Fabianus, it becomes highly probable, that tiie first hint of re-ordaining Pres- byters, was derived from the ordinations of Deacons, aud of laicks elect. And what still adds to this probability, is, the eagerness discovered among the Pastors of those times, to assume to themselves the honours of the High Priesthood among the Jews, while they endeavoured to pacify the Presbyters with the title of Priests, and the ])eacons with the place of the Levites. For, it appears from this circumstance, that aggrandizement in office had, even at that period, obtained a seduct've influence over the minds of the chief rulers in the churches. —

6b

That the successors of the apostles to the chief over sight of the churches, were neither apostles nor Evangelists, nor re-ordained Presbyters, but merely Pres- byters, elected by each church for that express purpose, will appear still more clearly and indubitably evident, if we duly attend to Ireneus, who exhorts thus : " Obey those Presbyters in the church, who have the succession^ as we have shown from the apostles/' And which, as heretofore noticed, he had thus shown : " The apostolick tradition is present in every church. We can enumer- ate those who were constituted Bishops by the apostles in the churches, and their successors even to us, who taught no such thing, by showing the tradition and declared faith of the greatest and most ancient church of Rome, which she reeeived from the apostles, and which is come to us through the succession.^'

Here express mention is made of an apostolick tradi- tion, but whether oral or written, is not intimated ; pro- bably the apostles never committed it to writing, for if they had, it could not have been called tradition. And whether any of the churches ever recorded it, is not here, either asserted or denied : most probably they acted on it without recording it. It cannot be doubted but it re- ferred to the government of the churches, and in the con- nexion here used, it is reasonable to suppose it referred particularly to the constituting a succession of Bishops as pastors or cliief rulers in the churches. Indeed all this is so probable, that it will not be denied by any. But still it remains to be decided how Ireneus meant, that these chief rulers were to be apostolically constituted through the succession. In explanation of this particu- lar, he directs us to the practice, as he calls it, of " the great and most ancient church of Home.'' For by the ** declared faith of that church," he appears to intend, that their faith in the apostolick tradition, is declared by their practice in constituting iiisliops. But where or how are we to learn what the practice of that church was, from the time of the apostles down to the time of Ireneus ? He iiad, no doubt, access to records which to us are inaccessible ; yet this circumstance should bv no means deter ns from making all due eii(|uiry, and espjitially a-j it appears that Ireneus has himself ^iveu a

S8

list of at least four of this succession, expressly named. by Dr. Miller, iu his second Series, page i'/^. But there were at least twelve iu this succession, including lanus as the first, and Eleutherius as the last, he being coteinporary with ireneus. Dr. Miller indeed objects to the correctness of the list £;iven by the fo ementioned fa- ther, as diflferin^from that given by lertulliau and others ; but these differences will in no wise affect the point in debate, or the certainty of an actual succession, as meant by Ireneus. The succession, as thus maintained !)y the latter, appears to be adopted by \rchibald Bower, iu his History of the Bishops of Jlorae ; while the succession at Rome, as given by 'J^ertulliau, seems to have been adopt- ed by Robert Adam, in his Religious World Displayed. It may be proper to give both iu this place. The former order of succession stands thus. viz. Linus, Cletus or Anacletus, element, Kvaristes, Alexander, Sextus, Tel- esphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, 80 er, and Eliuthi- rus — A. D. 176. Of this order of succession f'almet appears to approve. But the second order above men- tioned is after this manner, viz. !^t. Peter, Jinus, Cletus, Clement, Anacletus, Kvarastes, Alexander, Sextus, Telesphorus, &c. after the same manner as the foregoing to Bileutherius — A. D. 177- In these two historical or- ders of succession, the difference, as to date, is but one year ; and in respect to persons. St. Peter is included in the latter, but excluded from the former; while also, in Bower, Cletus and Anacletus constitute but one person — although Adam considers them as being two different Bishops of the church of Rome. But in this controversy it signifies nothing which of these orders of succession is preferred to the other, as the point here to be ascertained is not which Bishop preceded or succee(ied the other — but in what manner was each constituted a Hishop in that church ; because the mode of such constitution, whether by a popular election alone, or by a re-ordination, was, according to Ireneus. the declared faith of that church, in tlie apostolick tradition to which that father had appealed. And this appeal may well be considered not merely im- portant in the decision of this much contested and deeply interesting question, but likewise as providential, and that for two reasons; first, because no other church ap-

pears to have Leen so careful in preserving a correct rec- ord of their Bishops in succession, as the church of Rome ; SLUf] secondl;v, because from that church all the Bishops in modern times of the Latin churches in Europe and elsewhere, and more especially in England and in Amer- ica, profess to have derived their hpisco|»acy, and of course, their ordinations. In respect to this succession, as recorded by Bovver, although in a variety of instances he distinctly dates it from election or appointment, yet he never once exi\icii[y dates it from consecration or re-ordi- nation. And, as heretofore mentioned, Cornelius, the twentieth Bishop of this succession, was the^?'S^ elected Presbyter whom he mentions as having been re-ordained. But how came Bower to be thus remiss in not distinctly recording the re-ordinations of the first nineteen Bishops ? Was he a Dissenter, and opposed to re -ordinations ? No ; he was a rigid Kpiscoj)aliau, and believed in re-ordina- tions as firmly as any man. Why then was he not as particular to record neia ordinations of Presbyters, as to record their elections to oflBce ? The only good reason that can be given for this is, that he was an honest man and a faithful historian. He wrote fcom books and re- cords. Had he found credible ancient records of re-ordi- nations previous to the Cyprianick age, he would not have failed to have recorded them. But as he found authen- tick and correct accounts and dates of the " declared faitli of that church," in the election of their Bishops to the apostolick succession, he therefore acquitted himself with honour, by making a faithful record of what he had truly found. Nor will an appeal to R. Adam, who was as staunch an Episcopalian as Bower himself, change this state of the question, as respects a new ordination of Pres- ])yters ; for, although he records by date 252 elections of Bishops in succession at Rome, he never, even in a single instance, records a re-ordination, in any case whatever: Imt uniformly, throughout the whole succession, dates the Episcopacy of each from his election. With this concat- ination of evidence thus adduced, and fully in view, it is unnecessary to resort to furllier proofs that the apostolick tradition directing the churches liow duly to constitute Bishops ecclesiastically such, was not by a new ordina- tion, but simply hs a jinpuhr election: yet, as corroho-.

5b

rating these well established facts, it will not be improper here to introduce a concise quotation or two from Jerome's well known comment on < itus i. 9, and from his epistle to Evagrius. In the former he thus writes : '^ Before there were, by tiie instigation of the devil, parties in reli- gion, and it was said among the people, / am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephaa, the churches were gov- erned by the common council of Presbyters. But ujter- wards, when every one thought that those whom he bap- tized were rather his than Christ' s, it was determined through the whole world, that one of the Presbyters should be set above the rest, to whom all care of the church should belong, that the seeds of schism might be taken away.'' " As, therefore, the Presbyters know, that by the custom of the church, they are subject to him wiio is their President, so let Bishops know, that they are above Presbyters more by the custom of the church, than by any real appointment of Christ^ in the epistle to Kvagrius, he observes thus : *' As to the fact, that afterwaids one was elected to preside over the rest, this was done as a remedy against schism ; lest every one drawing his proselytes to himself, should rend the churck of Christ." Although Jerome did not flourish until af- ter the middle of the fourth century, yet, such was the well known extent of his reading and knowledge, and the integrity of his character and zealous attachment to truth, as well as his efforts to promote the purity and good order of the church in his time, that his testimony and opinions concerning the condition and usages of the churches from the time of the apostles, should not be deemed unworthy of respectful attention. And certainly so far as weis;ht duly attaches to Jerome's authority in these quotations, its preponderance evidently falls into the scales of the preceding exposition of Jerome's testi- mony concerning the apostolick tradition, which was de- chired by the church of Rome, when it constituted Bishops by election^ and 7wt by a new ordination, of the Presby- ters thus made Bishops. For it is only in this view of Episcopacy, as constituted n t by a new ordination, but by election, that he was consistent, in asserting to Eva- grius, " As a factf that one (Presbyter) was elected, to fireside over the rest^ as a remedy against schism. And

liad he uot considered this constitution of Bishops* t» have been founded only on a traditional ecclesiastical election, and not on a divinely instruted re-ordination, he never could consistently have appealed in so publick a manner, to the certain knowledge of the Presbyters, and through thera to the Bishops of that age, as he has thus done : " A.s therefore the Presbyters know, that I)y the custom of the church, they are subject to him who is their President, so let Bishops know that they are abore Presbyters, more by the custom of the church, than by any real appointment of ChristJ^ And of such impor- tance in the estimation of the celebrated Hooker, were these observations of Jerome, as to extort from him the following comment, viz. " On the other side, albeit Bish- ops may avouch, with conformity to truth, that their au- thority had descended from the very apostles themselves : yet the absolute and everlasting continuance of it, they cannot say that any commandment of the Lord doth en- join ; and therefore must acknowledge that the ychurch hath power by universal consent, upon urgen^cause to take it away." (Kcc. Polity, p. 350.)

Condensing here into one view, these corroborating testimonies of Ireneus and Jerome, concerning the elec- tion of Presbyters by the churches, as successors to the apo-stles. combined with Hooker's candid comments on the latter, and adding the whole to the preceding em- bodied evidence to the same purpose, and contained im 4he former part of this Section ; all that can fairly be demanded in respect to sue essors to the apostles l)y Kpiscopalians, on the one hand, or, that consistently, can by Hsscntevs, be granted on the other hand, is simply this. viz. That i)y a tradition present in all the churches in the time of Ireneus (that is, in the latter j)art of the sero'id century) the apostles before their decease h;ifl advised the churches to elect a Presbyter in each, ^^ ho should preside over the other Presbyters, and over the whtde asseiubly, for the healin:; and prevention of schi-^ms But, that no express command to this jiurpose, citlier by Christ biiiiseir, or by liis apostles, is any where to l)e, found u|M»n credible or ' nit he niirlc record.

But, i)efoie Nve proceeil to the <lis! ussions of anollier Section, it will be both conveuicut aud in point, to notice

60

in this place, an objection made by Dr. B. to Dr. M. viz- <* If a Pves!)yter be not a IJishop till he receive a call from a congregation, and take the charge of it, then he is a Bisliop in virtue of a call, and not in virtue of a divine commission. Consequently, a Presbyterian Bishop is the mere creature of the people, and not a Bishop erapovsr- ered to feed and govern a flock by authority from the great lead of the church. If this. Sir, be the extent of your claim, as it certainly must be, if consistency be pre- served, we shall not be disposed to think you can de- press yourself much lower,'' (Vol 3, p. 333.)

According to this method of reasoning, the first nine' teen Bishops of S:{ome, and all the other ecclesiastical Bishops previous to the (^^yprianick ag-s were but the mere creatures of the people, and nearly as much de- ^ressed as Dr. Miller's Presbyterian Bishops, for they were all but mere Presbyters, elected into Episcopal office by their respective flocks. Nor Avere they able to extricate themselves from this condition of dependence, until such time as canonical re-ordinations came oppor- tunely to their relief; for by means of this ingeniously devised ceremony, they soon arose from being only the restricted and limited overseers, to become the actual lords and masters of the churches. And by this happy expedient of a re-ordinaton, the people became impres- sed with imaginary ideas, of higher sacerdotal character being imparted to the Bishops, than had been by their first ordination, when constituted such Bishops as tliose were, whom Timothy and Titus ordained, and as men- tioned in the New Testament. A.nd to this was after- wards added the successful stratagem of wresting in most places the power of election from the hands of the Pres- byters and people, and of transferring it into the hands of the Bishops, when assembled for the performance of the canonical ceremony of a new ordination.

By these, and by such like means it was, that the churches became at length the degraded vassals of a cor- rupt and domineering prelacy ; for provincial synods first forged their chains, which afterwards were riveted by general councils, authorized by edicts from imperial thrones

In the Section next succeeding, it is designed to advert

61

part'culany to sundry extravaeiant assertions, concerning Ewiiscc.pa V, mfide l;y Or. B. and by another Episcopal Wf ter. »lsfi 'o advert to the Doctor's iiidecoious attacks on the Reformers, on Presbyterians, and on the Method- ists.

SECTION VT.

In t':e Doctor's fifteenth Letter, he thus observes : ^^It appears from history, tliat every chunli upon earth, be- foie iiie vejui ni'iiioKi .vere t^piscopal, and that there were no disputes abuui ecclesiastical res;iiiieH before that period. It must therel'ore strike every vpjlectiug mind as a most wonderful thing;, that for 1500 years there should have been no diversity of opinion upon the subject of Kpisco- pacy." hurely it is no very flattering encomium on Kpiscopacy, that under one form or other of its govern- ment, alt that mass of corruption accumulated, which disfigured, debased and overwhelmed the churches of the jtas/^ and of the West, so as to have subjected the former to the ignominious yoke of Mahometan bondage, and the latter, to all tlie miseries resulting from Papal errours, peisecutions, and abominations, of manifold names and descri^'tions.

Although wu distinctly marked systems of Kpiscopacy existed in the * hristian church previously to the reform- ati(»u, jet both together did not occupy 1.300 years. Nor had even the ciiurch itself th^n existed so long, nor did .Toiiij the liaptist commence his ministry 1 500 years be- fore liUtlier commenced the arduous enterprise of reform- ing a (iebaricil ai\d corrupted Kpiscopacy.

The N hri'^tiaii church (ommenced on the day of Pen- tecost, A. D. 33, and from that perio<!, during tiie lives of the aposties and Evangelists, it was principally gov- erned by these extraordinary and itinerant ministers of Christ, iiut after their decease, during a period of about one hundred and fifty years, each church eleded one Presbyter, and siibje( ted itself to his special oversight as Uisljop, ruling over them in coin ert with the other Pres- byters, according to the laws and rules of the gospel, as

OS

prescribed iu the New Testament. This was the first and genuine form of ecclesiastical Episcopacy, which ex- isted previously to the third century in the Christian church. The second form of Episcopacy, as heretofore specially noticed, was that which originated from the apostolick canons. It appears to have obtained ce- lebrity in the Cyprianick age, and by generally sub- vertins; lawful popular elections, and substituting there- for unauthorized re-ordinations, at length terminated its career of subversion and innovation, in an inundation of corruption, which deluged the churches under the hie* TSivchj of tlrck- Deacons, Jrch-Bishops, Patriarchs, Car- dinals and Popes. With these incontrovertible facts full in view, how surprising beyond all measure is it, that Dr. Bowden should so incautiously have asserted, that during " 1500 years there was no diversity of opinicm on the subject of Episcopacy " But leaving this actual diversity, both iu opinion and practice, on the subject of Episcopacy, which during many centuries proved so in- jurious to the best interests of the church, previous to the reformation ; we will now attend the i>octor, while ex- pressing both regret and gratification, at events resulting from the reformation ; for in vol. 3, p. 69, he thus re- marks : " The few deviations from Episcopal regimen, which unhappily occurred at the reformation, are but as the dust upon the balance ; and if we must count num- bers, this mode of trial, as well as every other, is decid- edly in our favour.^' This exulting appeal to numbers, as a substitute for argument, is worse than none ; for on this principle, the heathens can, in respect to religion, triumph over all others, the Mohommedans over the ilo- man Gatholicks, and these latter over all Protestants, of whatever name. And yet, weak and deceptive as this appeal to numbers, and their increase, is, another dis- tinguished Episcopalian besides the Doctor, seems to repose some confidence therein, for Bishop Brownell, in kis charge to the Kpiscopal clergy in Connecticut, in June, 1831, after impressing on them the " duty on all proper occasions, to hold up to view the distinctive prin- ciples of their church," he then added, " It is by these means that the Episcopal church in Connecticut has ac- quired her growth. A century ago, she raimbered not

6a

more tlian eighty families within this State. She caii now count as many legularly organized congregations." ]Nor can it be uninteresting to the reader to attend to this eloquent Bishop, ^^ hile gently rebuking a remnant of puritanical apathy to the Liturgy, still but too visible- amimg both tlie clergy and people of his churches. "The^ fault which we thus deprecate, is not occasioned by any inherent defect in the Liturgy. In part, it may have been inherited from our Pni'itamck ancestors : who, in their zeal for reformation, were disposed to recede as far as possible from the church of Uome, and accounting as mere formality, that appearance of deep devotion widch characterized her worship, were led to undervalue tliis most essential part of divine service." But returning to the Doctor's assertion, that ** nine tenths of the Christi.-.u world are Fpiscopalians," in it, we discover a manifest identification of Protestant Episcopal churches with the church of Rome, as sister churches. And this taken in combination with liis expressed regret, at the deviations from Episcopacy at the reformation, proclaim the Doctor to have been as true a son of I' piscopacy in any form, as that woman proved herself to be the true mother of the disputed child, which rather than to have it divided by the sword of Solomon, she was willing to abandon icliole to her rival. And from hence, without breach of chari- ty, we may well conclude, that rather, than that Pres« byterians, Independents, Congregationalists, Baptists, IVleihodists. or any other Dissenters, should have origin- ated from the reformation, he would have preferred that all who composed these sects, had continued to be Roman Catholickft, for then the whole ten parts of the Christian world would have continued Episcopalians. Nor is it in tlie slightest degree unlikely that Bishop Brownell is • qiially libeml vvitli the Doctor, in his sentiments to- wards the lioman C'atholicks, and equally illiberal to- wards Dissenters of ull denominations ; for, in addition to his expressed disa[>piobalion, already noticed, of the conduct of tlie Puritans, in their rejection of the papal Liturgy, he (bus furtlier addresses his clergy : -'With regard to our ujiion with other religious denominations, we may cordially associate and co-operate with them in nil Kpcular all'airs : in all humane, literary and charitable

64

objects : nor should (lifferences of faith create any diffi- culties in the way of social intercourse and good neigh- bourhood; but in objects purely leligious, we can form Tio union with other denominaticns wjth wliidi we are surrounded, without either al)andoning important princi- ples, or incurring the imputation of sectaiian bigotry," " Nor let us think that we are violating any principle of Christian charity, when we freely avow and fiimly main- tain our distinctive principles. The first and moi^t essen- tial of these distinctive prij)ciples, is, ihaf there were instituted in the churchy by Christ and the opnstlpSf three distinctive s;rades of Ministers, with the distinct- ive power of ordination in the first gvade ; that the min- istry thus constituted, has been, continued, by succession, to the present day ; and that no man or body of men pos- sesses the right, to alter what was thus established. W ith regard to this principle, there can be no compro- mise, [t must be inscribed on the banners under which you are enrolled, and maintained by an appeal to those passages of scri|«ture, and a reference to those historical authorities by which it is so fully established.'' (p. 20;, SI.)

In the preceding Sections, those imFsages of scripture, and historicid authorities, thus referred to by the Bishop, have been fairly discussed, and found to afford no just support for these distinctive princiijle- ; but, on the con- trary, so far as these principles involve a threefold ordi- n' tion, as constituting three distinctive grades of Min- isters, these discussions furnish conclusive evidence, that such ordinations are wholly destitute of all divine and ap '^tolical authority.

Hu' to return to the controversy as conducted between D' s. Miller and Bowden, it is to be regretted that crimi- nation and recrimination obtained an unpleasant admis- sion thereinto ; but justice demands the assertion, that if the former erred in this respect a little, the latter repaid him therefor seven fold. As it is not designed in this Review, to widen the breach between brethren, or, by stir- ring up the angry passions, to provoke Dissenters and Episcopalians to hate each other, many things in this controversy will be passed over in silence, which other- wise, might have required particular notice. But not

65

wiilistanding tliis forbearance, where it may be requisite to refute calumny, whether against distinguished indi- vidnals, such as Luther and Calvin, and others, who are therein unjustly stigmatized, and against religion and morality themselves, asiin the cases of Grruet and Ferinus; and also, against whole communities of pious and exem- plary Christians, whose ordinations and gospel adminis- trations are unjustly traduced. But all this will be attempt- ed without railings, or unjust aspersions against any who think or act otherwise. We will therefore begin here with Luther. Against this great reformer and his col- league, Carolastadius, the Doctor thus exclaims : " Were Iiuther and Carolastadius Bishops ? It is well known they were not. Yet they could quarrel, and disgrace the reformation by their incessant jarring. The latter was at last banished by the Elector of Saxony, at the instiga- tion of Luther. Bishops had nothing to do with these contentions, which were enough to make a Christian iveep/^ (Vol. 2, p. 245.)

Upon the credit of Maclaine, the translator of Moshi- em, we are warranted to consider this angry attempt to fix a lasting stain on the memory of those distinguished reformers, as greatly exag^^erated, for he thus asserts, in a note, vol. 4, p. 307 : '' Carolostadt, after his banish- ment from Saxony, composed a treatise against enthusi- asm in general : this treatise was addressed to [iUther, who was so affected by it, that repenting of the unworthy treatment he had given to Carolostadt, he pleaded hit? cause, and obtained from the Elector, permission for him to return into Saxony."

But i)r, B. still smarting under a few severe stripes inflicted by the rod of Dr. M. in reference to Episcopal " haresi/f contention and schism,'^ turns hastily from Luther, and attacks Calvin with much greater violence and acrimr)ny, involving at the same tirao, Presbyterian- ism, in all tiie consequences of this intemperate attack? ** A violent contest took place between Calvin and the Senate, about the election of a Minister. It produced almost sedition. Calvin's quarrels with Perinus pro- ceedetl to such a length, that the Council became furious against one another. And w hat do you think was the •Muse of it? WJiy, Perinus thought it was no harm to

T

60

jfecreate himself now and then wilh dancing. But Cal- vin, although no Bisiiop, played the tyrant, and forb :d that amusement, upon pain of excommunication. Ferinus "was not to be treated in that manner. He opposed such tyranny ; and two of the Ministers, who joined with him, were turned out of their living. 'I he conten- tion became general throughout the city, and the common council, taking dilTerent sides, almost cut one another's throats. Many more instances of tumults might be ad- duced, as proofs of the gentleness ofjmrify. One person was put to death for libelling Calvin. Another was banished the city for preaching against predestination. Servetus burned for heresy. So much for the mother church of Presbytery." (Vol. 2, p. 246.) That the great character of Calvin was obscured by some faults and weaknesses, cannot be denied by even his greatest admir- ers , but the age in which he lived, and the circumstances of difficulty in which he was placed, palliate in some de- gree, things, which otherwise, would seriously have mil- itated, both against his wisdom, and his Christian de- portment. Eut this in\ective by Bow den, is impotent in more respects than one. It is so in " commending, whom it was meant to slander." For in these States it is said, there are nine Bishops, two hundred Presbyters, and forty-eight Deacons ; in all, t^fo hundred and fifty -seven JHnisfers. But among all these Ministers, is it possi- ble, that tico could be found, who, at the hazard of cutting throats, or, of having tlieir own cut, would join a cabal, merely to defend the recreaiion of ditncingP Or if two such unworthy Ministers could be found, is there a single Bishop of the nine, with his other clergy, who would not by an act of excommunication, expel such sycophantick triilers and schismaticks, from desks and pulpits for which they were so unfit ! and from livings of which they were so truly undeserving? Alas! how very different was this truly laudable expulsion of two unworthy Ministers, by *^ Calvin and the mother church of Presbytery," from the expulsion oitwo thousand of the most worthy and best deserving Ministers in Kngland, who in 1662, were in one day, expelled from their pul- pits and livin2;s, by the Roijal head and IDishops of ano- ther mother churcU^ of known celebrity ! But at Grenevfto

«7

*^ anotlier was banished the city for preaching againsi' pHMlestination." This doctrine Mas held iu as high esiimation in that city, as the TAturgif is among Episco- palians. A. Minister of the latter denomination, preach- ing against the use of the Liturgy, would most assuredly be <|uickly expelled from the bosom of that community. But. '^ one person was put to death for libelling Calvin." This affair is thus impartially related by Mosheim. in vol. 4. p. 417, 418. ^* riiis cabal was composed of a certain number of licentious citizens, who could not hear the severe discipline of Calvin, who punished with rig- our, not only dissolute manners, but also whatever carried' the aspect of irreligion and impiety. This iriegulav troop stoofi forth in defence of the li( entiousness and dis- sipation fliat had reigned in their city before tlie reforma- tion; pleaded for the continuance of those broil, elit, b quefings, and other entertainments of a sensuil kind, an! employed all the bitternessof reproach and invective, all the resources of fraud and violence, to accomplish their purposes. Of this odious class w as Gruet, w ho attacked Talvin with the utmost animosity and fury. v'xW- in 'j; him Bishop, the neic i^ope, kc. 'I'his C«ruet den t'd the divinity of the Christian religion, the immortali.; of ihe soul, the difference lietween moral good and evil, and rejected with disdain^ the doctrines held the most sacied among Christians : for which impie'ies he was at last brought before the civil tribunals, in the year 15o0, iind was condemned to death." J5ut, '• Calvin caused :-erve- tus to he hurnedfor /iPj'es//.'' He did so in (;i;'i3. and in England, from 1355 to 1558 inclusive, more 'ban ono luindred and fifty persons, of hoth sexes, w e?e burned tg du.th for heresy, and yet, neither ( alvin. nor Fresbvte- rians, nor Dissenters of any other name, had any h;ind in Lhis barhiir. us tragedy. And this Dr. Siowden »iu,;it to have recollected. \\\v'\\ he regretted the departure fnuu Episcopa y at the reformation. But from the piecei'ing invectives against Presbyteiians, and tht'ir founder I al- vin, Afi persecutors, he elsewhere resorts to a deni.il of that reformer's ordination : '' Calvin liim>-elf was not ord.iine*!. if Beza, his friend and r lleaijtir. knew any thing about the- nutter; and yet, no (hniht he ordained iiumhera. Is it prouable, then, that the church of Gene-

va has a succession ?" And in vol. 2, p. 43, 43, he asserts much more to the same effect, and which he closes in these words : " It is then pretty clear, that Calvin had no other pretensions to the ministerial character, than wliat was founded on the election of him by the magis- trates and people of Geneva, to be their preacher and professor of divinity. And yet, no doubt, this lay pro- fessor of divinity ordained numbers ; and thiis a sjmri- ous brood of Ministers, even upon Presbyterian princi- ples, was introduced into that church ; and, consequently, there can be no probability of a clear, uninterrupted suc- cession from that source." To these unfounded accusa- tions, Dr. Miller replies in considerable length, and with such evidence and argument, as abundantly refute these slanders. -But, to such as may not have read his second volume, the following concise extract may be at once both necessary and acceptable : " Doctor Bowden asserts, on the authority of Dr. Learning, that Calvin was never ordained ; and represents that gentleman as having de- rived his information from Beza. I'he Doctor has suf- fered himself to be led astray, by an ignorant and dis- honest guide. Beza says no such thing. On the con- trary, after informing us that Calvin had frequently preached, while he was yet a youth, in the communion of the church of Home, and that he did this without hav- ing received any Popish orders ; Beza proceeds to state, that he was set wpart to tlie ministry, by the Presbytery of Geneva, in the month of August, in the year 1536.^' (Letter 7, p. 306.)

Nor is it against Calvin and Presbyterians only, that the Doctor inveighs with such intemperate zeal ; his philipicks against the Methodists, and their ordinations, are no less violent and indecorous. Dr. Miller having observed, " That in order to swell the list of Episcopal churches as much as possible, the Methodist chuixh was frequently represented as such :" Dr. B. among other things in reply, answers thus : ** Sir, it is impossible that you should be ignorant that we consider the Methodist Episcopacy as good for nothing. It is impossible that you should be ignorant, that our Bishops re-ordain all that come over from them to us. If even one of their Bishops were to conform to our church, he must submit

to be ordained, first a Deacon, and then a Presbyter. How is it, ihen. Sir, that you can intimate, that we atsiait the viethodist Kpiscopacy ? iVo, Sir, we not only con- sider thetn as uon- Episcopal ; but also as the most 'van- ton schismaticks that have ever disgraced the Christian church. Kor they agree with us in ail doctrinal points, they admit the validity of our episcopal onlers, and they have a Liturgy taken from ours, with no material alterations. They do not, i believe, often use it. Sor is it to be expected from a people so enthusiastick. 1/ikc the Phar sees of old, they say. and do not. They aihnit the propriety and expediency of a Liturgy, by establish- ing one, and they contradict and condemn themselves, by not using it." (Vol. 2, p. 73, 7*)

,^ad .r. il but calmly considered the duty of every man's taking the beam out of his own eye, before he attempted to take the mote out of his brother's eye, he probably would have dealt more gently witii the Episco- pal order and worship of his Methodist brethren : for a papal zeaiot, with much ajipearance of consistency, might, through the medium of the church of Kngland, have thus replied to the Doctor, in reference to his own asserted form of « .-piscopacy : *' V ou Episcopalians, of the church established by tlie laws of the realm of England, acknow- ledge us to be the mother church. You confess our ordi- nations to be valid, and their succession from the apostles to be w ithoHt interruption. V^our Liturgy you have taken princij)ally from ours ; and in your hierarchy of Deacons and Vrch-j)eacons, of Priests, Bishops and Arch- Bishops, as well as in your adoption of our sacerdotal vestments, y(m have conformed to us : while, at the same time, like a schismatical daughter, you have disgrac^Ml the Christian church, by nvost undutifully refusing to submit to ihe lawful successors of St. Peter, and by wantonly yielding yourself up to the will and dictation of mere laick'itj as your visible ecclesiastic heads, because array- ed in the robes of royalty, and decorated w itli crown<^, as the Kings and (|ueens of your nation And what is worse, your trans At'antick daus;hter^ on whom you have conferred ordination, thereby encouraging her lo conduct even more inconsistently than yourself, you thereby are become a partaker in her guilt. And how enormous is

70

the guilt of her transgressions, for she has presumed not only rp-shly to reform your liiturgy, but also your hifr- archy, by the stupid rejection of Arch-Deacons, Aich- .Bishops, Lord-Bishops, and of a visible head, thereby symbolizing in no small degree, with dissenting scliis- maticks, of every name, to the great disparagement of you her most graceless mother, and of me, her most bles- sed and venerubU grandmother J'^

But to return, whatever irregularity may appear in the Methodist Episcopal ordinations, canonically considered, still, in respect merely to validity, they must, however informal, be regarded as not inferior to those of the Pres- bytery ; while these latter must ever, in the estimation of all persons duly informed, be estimated to be of equal authority with all emanating only from canonical re- ordinations, in whatever form of Episcopacy, and w'iier- ever found now to exist.

Further examples of indecorous railing by the Doctor, to be noticed, and Congregational Ki/iscojpacy to be discussed, in the following Section.

SECTION Yll,

Dr. M. having asserted, '^ That primitive Episcopacy was idarochial and not diocesan,^^ thereby extorted from Dr. B. the following indignant reply ; " What proof can you desire more decisive than what I have given you, * ssat Congregational Episcopacy had no existence in the primitive ages? Sir, it is t\, mere whim , the produt ti(»a of that restless fanatical tribe that overthrew the church and state of England, in the seventeenth century. Calvin knew nothing about it ; he was a Presbyterian, as I sup- posed you were, till I saw your book. Beza knew nothing about it— John Knox knew nothing about it. Who did know any thing about it, till it was broached by the Congregationalists, near a hundred years after the reformation? I am astonished to find you an advocate for a system of church government, diflferent from that of the church to which you belong. Pray, Sir, who is the Bishop of the Presbyterian church in this city ? I know

71

wlio ouglit to be, if age, and venerableuess, and long set- vices, were lo decide the i]uestion. But, 1 am pretty confident, that you will not allow that venerable man to be your jBishop. No, Sir, you consider him as your colleague ; but no Bishop in the primitive church evei' considered Presbyters as his colleagues. You consider yourstilf as his equal, in everything relating to the church ; and, therefore, upon your own principle, for you to al- low a J>ishop to have some superiority over his Presby- ters, your (diurch is not founded upon the apostolical plan. You are not the first tiiat oppo'scd the governmeni of the church to which he belonged. Dr. (^ampbell did the same. While a Minister of the church of Scotland, and holding one of the most dignified, lucrative stations under its establishment, he was teaching his pupils to despise its government, and to adopt a system which, if carried into efiect, would totally overthrow it. You, in- deed, differ in one j)articulr.;- from him. He was an ene- my to vuliYiii; elders : You are an advocate for them. But this difference does not essentially afliict the main point. Congregational Kpiscopacy Vour scheme has a dash of Presbyterianism in it — his wants that ornamental circumstance ; but w liich of the two is the better, 1 shall leave to the taste of our readers to decide."' (Vol. t. p. 79, 80.) If tlie Doctor designed to have left the wiiole of this effusion, to the taste of his readers, most certain it is, that Unless their faculty for relishing subjects ex- hibited to the understanding, was greatly perverted, they could not have been highly delighted ; for every correct taste must greatly disrelish gross slanders, and j^ifftrij assertions, by whomsoever made. But passing over his indecorous attacks on Doctors Miller an(i Cam])bell, and, on Presl)yterinnism ; we will here advert only, to his illiberal and libellous attack, matle without any provoca- tion, on Congregationalism. *' Calvin knew nothing about Congregational Episcopacy — Beza knew notliing about it — John Knox ktiew nothing about it. Who did know anything about it, till it was broached by the Con- gregationalists, ucar a hundred years after the retornuv tion? Sii-, it is a mermchiin, the [iroduction of tliat rest- less, fanatical tribe, that overthrew the church and state of England, in the seventeenth century. -"' Such are the

7^

wild assertions of this overheated partisan. But had his .zeal not been thus surcharged, he must have recollerted what he himself well knew, that Congrgational (■ pisco- pacy was of very ancient date, and not the ^'mere whim^' of any modern ^"fanatical tribeJ^ For, when it served his jjurpose, in opposition to Dr. Miller's argument, de- rived from the Chorepiscopi of early antiquit^y in the church, as favourable to ordination by Presbyters ; he instantly recognizes Congregational i'^piscopacy as cvist- in^ in those remote ages of I'hristianity. A. short ([uotae. tion from Dr. M. and a few concise ones from Dr. B. will place this affair in its true light. '' it also appears, from the most authentick history, that the country churches generally maintained the primitive plan of gov- ernment much longer than those of the cities, and wer^ from one to two centuries later in receiving Episcopacy as a superior order. The Ministers of these country con- gregations were called Chorep'scopi, or country Bishops. They continued to exercise full !<piscopal powers a con- siderable time after the Presi)yters, v^itliin and near the great cities, had become subject to diocpsnns ; until at length, the influence of the Bishop of Rome, and some other ambitious prelates, procured a decree of the Council of Sardis, to suppress the C/iore^j/scopi entirely." ( Mil- ler.")

Bowden thus replies : " Here, Sir, you take for grant- ed what you certainly ought to have proved fully, viz. That the Chorepiscopi were mere Presbyters. Had you consulted such respectable authors, as Barlow^, Hammond, Beverage and Cave, perhaps, you would have received some benefit from the perusal. Had you only consulted Bin<:;ham, you w^ould have found him asserting, that even - BlcmdeL the great champion of Presbytery, has a long dissertation, to prove that all the Chorepiscopi mentioned in the ancient councils, were properly Bishops. And there needs no further proof of this (says Bingham) than what Athanasius says in his second apology, where he puts a manifest distinction betwixt Presbyters and the Chorepiscopi, &c." But Bowden still proceeds, mfull prnof of Congregational Episcopacy. ^* It being then suflBciently evident, that the Chorepiscopi were proper Bishops, the season assigned by the Coii»cU of ^ardis,

for the abolition of them, is of no manner of consequence as to the point under discussion. As you quote it, the reason is, \e vilescat nomen Episcopi ; that is, Lest the title of Bisliop be too cheap." But, " How does it make the name of a Bishop cheap, if the Chorepiscopi were only Presbyters ? I should suppose that it is an unnec- essary multiplication of Bishops, and placing them in obscure villages, that would be likely to make them cheap. To prevent this, and also to put a stop to the liberty which they took of ordaining without the license of the city Bishops, to whom they were subjected by the canons of the church (but not by the laws of the gospel) that degree of Bishops was abolished by the Council of Sardis?' (Vol. 2, p. 187, 188, 189, 190.)

This degree of Bishops, as the Doctor is here pleased to term their order, he has before asserted was that of proper Bishops, although not city, but village Bishops. And what sort of Bishops were village Bishops, if they were not truly, and in the most appropriate signification of the term, Congregational Bishops ? They had no oth- er diocess but what was comprehended within the com- pass of a single congregation. Even if the village were populous, one commodious place of worship might have admitted five hundred, a thousand, or more worshippers within its walls ; of what consequence, then, to Congre- gational Episcopacy is it, that neither " Calvin, nor Be- za, nor John Knox, knew any thing about it," when such an illustrious host as " Barlow, Hammond, Bever- ege, and Cave," appear to have known much about it ? And especially when Bingham, Blondcl, and even Dr. Bowdcn himself, all give us most positive assurance of its actual existence, when the Chorepiscopi, as proper Bishops, presided in villages, over Congregational churches, in the early ages of Christianity ? But how great was the dilemma into which Dr. Miller here led Dr. Bowden. Enclosed as in a'corner, the latter had i:o othet- alternative, but either to surrender the argument to the former, and admit the hated and dreaded claims of Pres- bytery ; or, in direct contradiction to his libellous defama- tion »)f Congregational Kpiscnpacy, to become a volun- tary advocate for the justice and consistency of its claims. As rtifi cwnncil of Sardis, or of STrfjicia. ns named hy

K

7-X

some writers, was that which most unrighteously decreed. the.abolitioQ of the village or country Bishops ; it may be necessary in this place to remark briefly thereon. It was, as we learn from Bovver, convened at the request of Julius, Bishop of Home, and of other Bishops, by the authority of the Emperois Constans and Constautius^ A. D. 347. It was at first generally attended by ther Bishops from the JEast and West; but before they had accomplished all their purposes, a great schism took place among them ; so that the orientals withdrew from the council. By this council several canons, however, were decreed : one in particular, which laid tiie foundation for the future arrogance of Home, and the vexation and de- basement of other churches in future times ; and this which thus destroyed the last vestige of the ecclesiastical rights of the smaller churches, in the extinguishment of the. Chorepiscopi. Of this council, whose decrees weie* thus so utterly destitute of prudence, and so thoroughly fraught with injustice, Bowei* thus remarks : *' It is to be observed, that the canons of this council were never re- ceived in the East, nor even in the West, by the Bishopf} of Africa ; and that they were not inserted by the Coun- cil of Chalcedon into the code of canons approved by them, as rules to be universally observed : so that, after all, the so much boasted Council of Sardicia, is a council of no great authority.'' (^ ol. l,p. 123.)

It seems to appear, however, that the canon which violated the rights of the village churches and Bishops, was readily acceded to by all the city Bishops. But wherefore, and by what authority, was this subversion of the just rights of the village and country churches, and of their true Bishops, thus effected ? Were these churches, like those of the cities, become ambitious, contentious, and voluptuous ? Or, were their Bishops, like many of the Diocesans of that age, become haughty, arrogant and heretical? No accusations whatsoever, of these kinds, were preferred, either against these churches, or against their Bishops. No, the alleged crime extended only to the Bishops, and according to Ur. Bowden, consisted in their taking the liberty '* of ordaining without the license of the cit^v Bishops, to whom they were subjected by the cmnons of the church.'' While tfae ostensible motive^ to

76

suppress the CJiorepiscojv^ icas, to prevent the " multi- plication of Bishops ill obscure villages, which would make Bishops cheap.^^ But why are these canons called the canons of the church? Had the Laity, or tlie Pres- byterSf or the Chorepiscopi^ or tlie villn^e churches, any voice in their enaction? There is no reason to suppose they had, but there is ample reason to believe, they were the decrees of the city Bishops alone ; becau^^e of such, the ecclesiastical councils were composed, which claimed the exclusive right of enacting canons for the church, [t therefore, was under the s/if'pr tyranny, of laws, enacted, judged upon and enforced, by self-created, deliberative assemblies, composed of ambitious prelates, that the vill ige churches and their Bishops, were thus unjustly deprived of their unalienable rights and prerogiiives. Nor will this self created character of these councils, be impaired, by ol)jecting, that imperial edicts authorized this Council of Sardis, and other councils ; because the origin and custom of Episropa' councils had taken place, long before im')erial edicts attempted to intermeddle with them ; and because the civil authorities seldom interfer- od, unless solicited by designing ecclesiasticks. \or had even imperial power itself, any right to meddle with ccrlesiastical arrangements, which had no reference le secular concerns. And, as to claims founded on the rights of ?<ipiscopacy, to legislate for the chnrclies, cither in general, or in j)arti( ular, as these councils did. they arc utterly and evidently nugatory. They havo no sup- port whitsoever from the New Testament, but are in direct opposition to the manifest condition of the se.en Bishops and churches, divinely niticed in the Vpocalyi)sc. And were further proof requisite, to nullify these arro- §)iit assuiiptions of Bishops, during the third and fourth centuries : it would be only refpiisite, to suppose the nine diocesan Bislioj)s in these -States, assembled ns a council, (say at Philadolpliia) without either siinisters or dele- gates from the several churches in their respective dio- cesscs. for the e\j>ress purpose of enactini; canons which should auflioritati\ely, and drply affect all the ec( lesi- astical interests of every Minister and ciiurch of their ordor in lhe>p Stiies. 'The jus- iruliu;natimi, wliich siuh A proceeding vs oald excite among Kpiscopalians in the^?

ye

States, is such, as ought to have bee» excited in all churches, whether of the cities or villages, agiiust the tiiihallowed assumptions and proceedings of the ancient councils, and more especially against those of JSardis. In respect to the village churches, ecclesiastical writers seem in general, to have but slightly noticed them. Eclipsed by the splendour, and hushed into silence, by the noise and bustle of the predominant city churches, they were much forgotten by ecclesiastical historians ; while at the same time the pretensions to superiority, between the churches of Home, Alexandria and AnUoch, and at length of Constantinople, furnished ample matter, for the record- ing pens of those contentious ages. H is, however, suffi- cient for the vindication of Congregational Episcopacy, to know assuredly, that such Episcopacy did exist, in the first and purest ages of the Christian church, and that when suspe!«ded, such suspension was effected through the jealousy and by the tyranny of an Episcopal con- federacy, which in the end, ssibjugated all the W estern churches to the will of papal supremacy ; and the East- ern churches, through their contentions, to the iron and galling yoke of Mahometan cruelty.

Shall we then, be surprised, that when the light of the reformation first arose on long benighted, and on long enslaved Europe, that neither Calvin, nor Beza, nor John Knox, k'ievv anything about Congregational Episcopacy ? They knew, indeed, too much about the abominations of papal Episcopacy, to be disposed, readily, to fall in love with Episcopacy, in any form whatever. Nor is it at all wonderful, that it required the lapse of near a century, after the reformation, before many of the Dissenters ac- quired as much, and more knowledge of Congregational Episcopacy, than was acquired in two or three centuries by Dr. Bowden and his coadjutors, who obtained only a glimpse of true Episcopacy in that form. Much slan- der has been unjustly thrown upon Congregationalists, because of Robert Brown's extravagant ideas of Inde- pendent churches. With equal propriety might the re- formation itself in England, be stigmatized with the much greater errours of Henry the t ighth. the first Boyal head of the Episcopal church of that nation.

3Sor is it ia any degree necessary here, to eul(^ize

57

Jolin l^obinson, as the corrector arid judicious reforMer of Brown's errours, nor yet, to extol him for ha\ing attained to more just and enlarged views, of ancient lon- greii;ational Episcopacy, than even Blondel, Barlow, H.immond, Heverege, Cave and Bingham, for his works and his wisdom, in reference to that subject, praise him, in more than a tiiousand of Zion's gates. But while Dr. B. and the fore- mentioned eminent writers thus contend for the ancient existence of Congregati(»nal Kpiscopacy ia village churches, we are not for a moment to imagine, that in those imes, this form of Kpiscopacy was confined to churches in villages only, but had also, in numerous in- stances, a like existence in churches, in diflferent cities. For although in Vntioch, in ? Iphesus, in Corinth, in Alexandria, in l»ome, and in Carthage, and in many oth- er large cities, there is sufficient reason to conclude, that, towards the close of the ^7*s/, and during the second c^n- tury, the cliurches became too numerous to assemble togt^ther with convenience for publick worship in on^ congregation ; yet, there is no satisfactory evidence that this Was the case in smaller and less populous cities. And if we are to give credit to Mosheim, this was the fact; for h-iving carefully examined this suhject, with his extensive means of information, he thus asserts : *' A Bishop, during theirs/ and seror^rf century, was a per- •on who had the care of one Christian assemhly, which, at that time was, s;enerally speaking, small enough to be contained in a private house.'' And it should not here be forgotten, that both in every age and in every nation, there has always been a greater number of small cities, or compact towns, than of great and overgrown cities. And to this consideration it should still be added, that in those times, the overwhelming population in all places was that of Gentiles and Jews, and not of Christians. In view of all tliese particulars, a denial of Congrega- tional Kpiscopacy. such as Br. Bowden has made, in his abusive effusion l)efore noticed, must appear truly extra- vai;ant, to every candid and impartial person, who at- tends duly to this suhjoct. But still in respect to prin- mple, it signified nothing, whether each church was numerous or otherwise ; in either case, each was circiira- fcribed within the limits of one city, and itu immediate

7».

vicinity, whether of large or of small extent. And the church, whether composed of one, or of more congrega- tions, still, in each, there was but one court of judicature , in which, when discipline required punislunent, it was injlicted by the vote of many. II. Cor. xi. 6. Each church in its collective capacity, constituted its .>wq legislature f and its own elective assembly, in which were elected Deacons and Presbyters, by the suffiage and at the discretion of the body. And, as demonstrated in the jifth Section of this Keviev/, in tliis elective assembly by its vote alone, a Presbyter was constituted an ecclesias- tical Bishop, without any additional ceremony, or act of ve-ordination. This form of Episcopacy, whether it bo called Congregational or Diocesan^ was the true Episco- pacy which took place towards the close of the first ^ and which continued nearly into the beginning of the third century ; and which is thus corroborated by the testimony of Mosheim, when treating on the usages of the second century : " One inspector, or Bishop, presided over ench Christian assembly, to which office he was eleded by the voices of the whole people. To assist him in this labori- ous province, he formed a council of Presbyters, which was not confined to any fixed number. To the Bishop and Presbyters, the Ministers or Deacons were subject, and the latter were divided into a variety of classes, as the different exigencies of the church required. During a great part of this century, the Christian churches were independent of each other ; nor were they joined together by association, confederacy, or any other bonds but those of charity. Each Christian assembly was a little l?!tatej governed by its own laws, which were either enacted, or at least approved by the society. But in process of time, all the Christian churches of a province were formed into one large ecclesiastical body, which, like confederate States, assembled at certain times, in order to deliberate about the common interests of the whole. To these assemblies the name of synods was appropriated by the Greeks, and that of councils ^ by the Latins ; and the laws that were enacted in these general meetings, w ere called canons, that is, rules.

These councils, of which we find not the smallest %raco before the middle of this century, changed the whole

5^

face of the chuicli, aud gave it a new form ; for by theui^ the ancieut privileges of the people were considerably diminished, and the power and authority of the Bishops greatly augmented. The humility, indeed, and prudence of these pious prelates, prevented their assuming all at once the power with which they were afterwards invest- ed. At their first appearance in these general councils, they acknowledged that they were no more than the del- egates of their respective churches, and that they acted in the name and hy the appointment of their people, liut they soon changed this humble tone, imperceptibly ex» tended the limits of their authority, turned their influence into domininii, and their counsels into laws ; and openly asserted, at length, that Christ had empowered them to prescribe to his people, authoritative rules of faith and manners.^^ (Vol. l,p. 174, 1/5.)

In some one or other of these councils, and by some aspiring prelates, thus therein assembled (but no person can tell when, certainly, or where, or by whom particu- larly) was that canon, illicitly framed, which served in the Cyprianick age, as ajJi'^tence for the re-ordaining of Presbyters, elected to the Kpiscopal office ; and on the suppo^^ed authority of this thus fraudulently fabricated canon, it is, that the Episcopalians of our time, presume to condemn the ordinations among other denominations, although no less valid, but far more regular than their own. For, as the validity of the Episcopal office wag established by a popular election only, and not by a new ordination, it follows, that in every instance, through every age, where a popular election was neglected, and a new ordination substituted in lieu of it, such pei-son, if a Presbyter before, remained still but a Presbyter, nor had he thereby any further Episcopal character or authority conferred on him, than he before possessed, except what jiri'Judice and ignorance in the eyes of the multitude, might have imparted to him : or if in a national church, what mere civil authority might invest him with. But as to the usages of true apostolick Episcopacy, he would remain still but a mere unelected Presl)yter. "VV'iiile in this urKpiestionably ( orrect view of thi"^ subject, every Presbyter, whether at or alter the reforn»ati(m. who WHS elected an pastor, whether by a Presbyterian, Inde

80

p£Dilent, Congregational, or Baptist church, he became thereby, without a new ordination, its true Bishop or overseer, upon his acceptance of that office, according to the usage of the apostolick churches, and to which, Ire- neus, as before noticed, referred at Home, whose first nineteen Bishops were constituted such, merely by elec- tion, without any re -ordination.

But this leads us to the important question, how shall we, consistently with these views, be able to trace a pro- bable succession? Shall it be through the line of the Bishops of Home? Or, through that of the English Bishops ? Or again, is it to be sought for in the line of Presbyters ?

As to succession on just principles, in the church of Rome, however clogged and oppressed with the leaden, weight of a canonical ordination, and however tarnished with the vices of the Pontiffs and people, through many centuries ; yet, its validity should be admitted, while ia principle and practice, the unalienable right of electioa was inviolably maintained, in that church ; but, when- ever this once ceased, the true succession in that lin» ceased also. For, in ancient times, where this principle was either forcibly or fraudulently violated, no canonical ordination was esteemed to be of any value, but was invariably disregarded, and treated even with contempt. This was exemplified particularly, even in the Cyprian- ick age, in the case of Novetianus, the competitor of Cor- nelius, who, although re-ordained by three Bishops, was nevertheless rejected and despised, because elected only by a minority. It was likewise the same at Carthage, ia the case of Felicisimus, although re-ordained by jive Bishops. But during even the succeeding century, the church of Home continued so tenacious of this vital prin- ciple of a popular election, that even the tyranny ef th» Kmperour ronstantius. was unable to subdue it, when he unjustly expelled their lawfully elected Bishop, and endeavoured to impose a non-elected, but re-ordained Bishop on them, in the person of Felix. Their indig- nant opposition on this occasion, is thus related by Bow- er : '» Felix was hated to such a degree, that of all the inhabitants of liome, not one ever appeared in the church while he was in it: nay^ he was by all avGided erea i»

81

the streets, and other publick places, as if he had carried about with him a contagion. ^^ (Vol. 1, p. 146, 147-)

This watchful jealousy of that church, was probably the mean of preserv ing with the exercise of its elective rights in the choice of its Bishops, an unbroken succession in that line, perhaps longer than in any other Western church of that age : for it appears to have continued therein, at least in a considerable degree, until in the year 1181, when Lucies 111. through the intrigues of former Bishops, was elected, not with " The consent and appro- bation of the clergy and people, which had hitherto always been esteemed necessary to ratify the election, and which was not so much as demanded, but the affair was transacted by the college of Cardinals alone, who have continued to maintain that exclusive and important privilege even to our times." (Mosh. vol. 3, p. 474.) As all pretensions to succession in this line, at Rome^ since the unlawful election of Lucies III. are but an in- sult to reason, and a mere mockery of common sense ; we will from thence, turn our attention to the English Bishops. But, are we likely to succeed better in this line, tlian in that of Rome ? Certainly not. For should it even appear that English ordinations were derived from Rome before the year 1181, what evidence is there that their Bishops were without interruption lawfully elected from that period down to the reformation ? But were even this proved, still the succession was unques- tionably lost in that line, since the time of Henry the Eighth. For all elections of Bishops in that church, from that period to the present time, have been apostol- ically unlawful, being performed not ecclesiastically by the church, but schismatic ally by Kings and Queens. Bishops so elected, would have been excommunicated in tlie first, second, third, and, in later centuries. No churches in those early ages, that were orthodox, would then iiavc submitted to one of them. It is true, they are Bishops and Lord Bishops, according to the laws of th& realm of Cireat- Britain ; but according to primitive eccle- siastical laws and usages, they are but mere unelected Presbyters.

It is a principle laid down by Dr. Bowdcn himself, md a just one, too, ^' That what were the rights ojf J

83

Christians in the apostles' days, the very same, neither more nor less, are the rights of Christians at this day. (Vol S, p. 269.) This correct principle, if but once adopted into full belief, and immediate practice, by all the Episcopal churches in the United Kingdom, although it would restore to them true Episcopacy, and confer due honour on the true Head of all Christian churches ; yet it would revolutionize the whole hierarchy. But surely no event seems less probable, when we duly consider, that a revolution of this nature would inevitably forever interrupt those rays of royal favour, in which these churches have basked, during successive generations. Seeing then that the chain of succession is thus broken in the links of many generations of the Episcopacy, both of Rome and Great-Britain, shall we abandon the pursuit as hopeless ? Or, turning from perverted forms of Episco- pacy, shall we repair in search of succession, to the hum- bler line of Presbytery ? And assuredly, if not retained ?ind transmitted through this line of sacerdotal endow- ment, we may abandon forever all rational expectation of tracing, to a certainty, its present existence, in any of the hierarchies, whether East or West, or North or South.

It being a fact established by evidence, beyond all possibility of refutation, that a popular election of Presby- ters, without re-ordinations, was the apostolick mode of constituting Bishops ecclesiastically such, as practised in the churches, from the days of Ignatius to some time in the third century ; it of course follows, that none of those Bishops were thereby removed further from being laicks, or invested with more of clerical character, than they before possessed, although by this ecclesiastical election, chosen as -pastors to the chief oversight of the whole. In this luminous view of the subject, it may be perceived, that the canonical re-ordinations introduced into the Cy- prianick age, and which the corruptions of succeeding generations have perpetuated, instead of adding validity and sanctity to what God had before rendered valid and sacred, has only clogged and embarrassed the simple institutions of the apostles, by annexing thereto the ex- cressences of mere human inventions. And from hence, we may see more clearly, the perfect consistency of what Jerome has said in reference to this election, viz.' *' One

83

(Presbyter) was elected to preside over the rest, as a rem- edy against schism, lest every one drawing his proselytes to himself, sliould rend the church of Christ/''

So augmentation of sacerdotal endowment was hereby either intended or communicated to tlie elected Presbyter, in the estimation of Jerome ; but tins elevation of one Presbyter above his brethren, was designed simply, for the prevention and healing of schisms. And had this apostolick practice, according to its original intention, been but rigidly adhered to, without innovating thereon, by the addition in time, of unwarranted re-ordinations, not only would schisms have been prevented, and the rights and privileges of the Presbyters and people been IMeserved ; but likewise the ambitious projects of assum- ing prelates being nipped in the bud, the unrighteous decrees of synods and councils would never uulia[)pily have superceded the maxims and doctrines of the gospel. As, therefore, through the imprudence and errours of the churches, Episcopacy was suftered to disiigure itself with mock ordinations, to trample on the rights of boih Pres- byters and people, and finally to perpetrate on itself the crime of ecclesiastical suicide, by not compelling it to submit to a lawful ecclesiastical election ; are we from, hence to infer, that the principles of a sacerdotal succes- sion do not still radically, however informally, subsist by a Christian ministry in the churches of the ever blessed Kedeemer ? Certainly not. For, as large an endow ment of sacerdotal character exists now, in every Presbyter, as did in the Presbyters of the iirst and second centuries ; and each Christian church of this age, possesses as just a right, when necessity recpiires, to elect a Presbyter for its lawful pastor or Bishop, as any Christian church of former generations. \nd this brings us to the \ cry point to which this controversy regularly conducts us. For, having ascertained as above, the failure of succession tjjrough unlawful elecfions, in the Episcopal line-s of both KoQic and the English hierarchy; so have we dislinctly recognized by inevitable implication, its vital existence in the «hain of Presbytery, by reason of ample sa* crdotal endowment. And this involv(;s an ample refutation of Dr. Uovdfii's fallacious argument on this very point, and on wiiich he thus expresses himself, viz. <' When

84

the reformation began, all the churches in Europe were iLpiscopal, and all the Presbyterians then existing, had been ordained by Bishops. But no Bishop ever gave a Presbyter authority to ordain. The utmost authority is to f reach the word, and to administer the sacraments. Whence, then, did those Presbyters who first ordained, derive their authority ? The office of a Presbyter is a gift mediately from Christ. But a person who receives a gift, receives just so much as the gift implies, and not a tittle more. But the power of ordaining was not a part of the gift to the Presbyters at the reformation. How, then, could they ordain others, when they were not em- powered so to do ? There appears to be a difficulty here : How is it to be removed?" (Vol. 2, p. S78.) This diffi- culty is already removed. No Bishop has power in the orflination of a Presbyter, either to impart to him, or to withhold from him, the power to ordain others. It be- longs to those who ordain Presbyters, to impart to them a sacerdotal character or commission. But to each church it aj)pertains, to elect ecclesiastically to the office of Bish- op, or pastor. The consequence therefore is, that power, or right, to ordain, is mediately from Christ through the church, which elects the Presbyter into the pastoral or Episcopal office, and not through the Bishop, who had ordained him Presbyter. And from hence it follows, that those churches, whether Presbyterian, Independent, Bapdst, or Congregational, and whether at or after the reformation, which elected Presbyters as their pastors, thereby conferred on them a more regular ecclesiastical authority to ordain others, than the Bishops themselves had, who ordained these very Presbyters, prior to the reformation : because, all such Bishops, although canon- ically re-07'dainedy but not ecclesiastically elected, were mrtually but mere unelected Presbyters, and, of course, not of the same rank and ecclesiastical authority as the Bishops of the second century were, who were all eccle- siastically elected, but of whom, 7iot one was canonically re-ordained. And happy, yea, thrice happy, most assur- edly, for the world, for the church, and for the Bishops themselves, would it have been, had this uncorrupted simplicity of primitive Episcopal constitution and regimen been but rigidly retained, and scrupulously adhered to.

85

in every condition of the Christian church. For had each chun h steadfastly maintained in all cases, its unaliena- ble light of election, and all the churches /j'Otrrtet? on the unauthorized assumptions of the Bishops in synods and councils, to institute new ordinations, of which the apos- tles knew nothing ; we never should have heard of gen- eral councils decieeing laws, for the regulation of the fiiith and manners of (ilirislians, which were before better regulated in the Holy Scriptures. Had it not been for these ambitious projects and enterprises of the Bishops, and this unwarv supineness of the churches, the latter would nevei* have lost their liberties, nor the formei have become the oppressors even of Monarchs, and the most barbarous persecutors of Christians. It was in conse- quence of this deplorable supineness on the one hand, and of tills successful combination of the Bishops on the other hand, that in process of time. Bishops became Pa- triarchs, and Patriarchs became Popes. For had it not been f(U- these omissions and assumptions, we never shuuld have read of a suppliant Emperor of Germany, in the person of Henry IV. standing at the gate of Pope Gregory VII. during three days, in February, lOTT? fastin.., his feet bare, his head uncovered, and no other raiment but a wretched piece of coarse woollen cloth wrap- ped round his bo -y ! Nor should we, but for these, have ever heard, of Frederick I. sirnamed Barbarossa, acting as equerry, in 1 155, by holding the stirrup of the Pontiff Adrian IV. Nor should it be deemed an exaggeration, thus to consider the fore-mentioned mistakes of the early churches, and gross errours of their aspiring Bishops, in concurrence with other events and circumstances, as radi- cally laying the foundation of the tyranny and persecu- tions of the Papal church ; for liad the churches of the third century I)ut arrested and defeated the machinations of the Bishops of ihat age, and have preserved their ecclesiastical equality and independence, as they might and ought to have done, Rome could never in her Bish- ops have tyrannised over sovereign Princes, over the other churches justly jealous of their rights, nor over the innumerable myriads of Christians whom she slew in her wars ; and whom she immured in the dungeons, tortured, tm the racks, and consumed in the flames, of the Inqui-

86

mtion. It was the infelicity of England, and more especially of Ireland, as well as of other nations in Eu- rope, that in the sixteenth century, Papal superstitions had so darkened and enfeebled the minds of the great majority of the people, in respect to the true nature and best interests of Christianity, that multitudes of them were nearly insensible of their degraded condition ; while, at tlie same time, no inconsiderable number of the better informed and more discerning among them, sensible of their deplorable state, were disposed to seize any 0)»por- tunity of breaking the shackles wherewith they were so ignominiously fettered. Neither the intolerable haughti- ^ness of Jacket, Arch- Bishop of Canterbury, nor the humiliation of Henry II. when scourged by the Monks, at the instigation of the Pontiff Alexander III. by \vay of penance for the tragical death of the former, who fell a martyr to his own obstinacy and ill-deserviugs, were yet forgotten by the Monarchs of England, when Henry VIII. from motives best known to himself, determined in reforming the church in his dominions, to throw off tlie galling and oppressive yoke of Rome. But, he resolved at the same time, to transfer supreme authority over the church, from the Pope to himself, and to transmit it, with his crown, to his successors.

Henry's reign, together with those of his immediate successors, Edward, Mary, Elizabeth and James I. evinced the determination of the throne to fashion the church according to its own will, by shaping it on such moulds as royalty might devise. Under Mary the Pro- testant Bishops gloriously attained to croivns of martyr- dom. But Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, and Bonner, Bishop of London, by their horrible barbarities, in obse- quious obedience to the will of their detestable mistress, branded their memories with eternal infamy.

Elizabeth, however illustrious in policy, in extent of power, and in successful enterprise, was nevertheless no true friend to ecclesiastical rights, or to liberty of con- science. A friend to the reformation, so far as it accorded with her ideas of prerogative, as avowed head of th© church, consequently, she regarded her willf and not Christ's law, as the standard whereby it should be ruled- It therefore is not surprising, that the counsels of the wise

87

and lenient Grindall should be rejected for those of the more rigid Whitgift. James found in Bancroft an advo- cate to his mind, contending for the divine right of Kings and Bishops. While Charles obtained in the overheated zeal and rash measures of a Laud and Staflford, all that an imprudent King could have desired, who unjustly con- templated the subjection of church and state, to the ex- travagant fancies of an unbridled ambition. It was under these royal heads of the established church in Great- Britain, acting in concert with the views and counsels of these and such like Lords spiritual and temporal, that the Dissenters from the establishment were grievously harrassed and oppressed by the unjust measures of the High Court of Commission, and by the no less arbitrary decisions of the Star Chamber. By these, and by such like men and measures it was, that Christian affectioa and veneration were alienated from a churchy symbolizing in no small degree with Rome, in its secular head, in its canonical hierarchy , in its formulary worship, its monk- ish vestments, and in its superstitious saint days ; and yet, still above all, in its anti-Christian persecutions.

It was in those days of high handed assumption in church and state, and under these circumstances of Epis- copal and royal oppression, that Presbyterianism acquir- ed increased inllucncc and numbers, both in England and Scotland. And in those times also, the Lidependents and Congregatioiialists arose successively into notice and respectable influence. For the former being persecuted in Kngland, sought and fou!id an assylum in Holland ; where, being under no embarrassments from existing establishments, they closely and judiciously examined into the original form and government of the primitive Christian church, and consequently, from the fullest con- viction of what, under these circumstances, appeared to them their right and tlieir duty, they devoutly transform- ed Independency into Coni^regational Episcopacy. It is unnecessary to relate here, their emigration two centu- ries ago, to these shores of New- England, w here Divine Providence has granted them an open door, a secure retreat, and an ample inheritance. But it is of the utmost consequence, to all the best interests of their posterity, that they barter not away the ecclesiastical polity an(l

88

simple forms of publick worship transmitted to themj through manifold privations and sufferings, by their jjions forefathers, so far as copied from the instructions of the New Testament, and as derived from the practice and usages of the Christian church, before synods and coun- cils had marred them by canonical innovations. Dr. Bowden's violent and unprovoked attack upon the Con- gregation alists in England, has been already slightly no- ticed. In that attack he pronounced Congregational Episcopacy to be ^' a mere whim, tbe production of that restless, fanatical tribe^ that overthrew the church and state of England in the seventeenth century." In re- spect to Congregational Episcopacy, although thus de- nounced as a mere whim of the seventeenth century ; the Doctor had himself recognized its existence in the early centuries of Christianity, when the Chorepiscopi, accord- ing to his own account, presided as true Bishops, over the village churches. And as to his attack on the Eng- lish Congregationalists, who lived in the time of Charles I, it is incorrect in the extreme, because if a meritorious deed, the Congregationalists deserved but a small part of the praise, and if the contrary, but a small proportion of the censure, as this overthrow of the church and state of £<ngland was not effected by the Congregationalists, nor by them, aided by the Independents and Presbyteri- ans ; but, by them altogether, in concert with the civil Independents and zealous Republicans of the English na- tion. But the Doctor, from inveighing against Dissenters from the established hierarchy in England, directs his attacks against different denominations in New-England. ^^ There are (says he) numerous congregations in Aew- England, who are, as to ordination, Presbyterian, al- though as to government. Congregational ; and they also have had frt^quent contentions, and numerous schisms.^^ *^ It is very certain (he adds) that several sects make no pretensions to succession, and therefore no care is taken to preserve it. This is the case with the Baptists, Inde- pendents and others. In New-England there have been numerous insi^nces o^ lay OTdmsdions, consequently all derived fro a that source have no pretensions to succes- siau." A.S recrimination is not here intended, all dioce- san schisms, of whatever complexion, age or nation; will

89

altogether be passed over in silence. But the assertion that ichole sects, and these, too, the Baptists, Independ- ents and others f make no pretensions to succession, sa- vours so strongly of hyperbole, as to be unworthy of any admission into sober controversial discussions. Nor is his declamatory assertion, in reference to these denomina- tions, in respect to numerous lay ordinations in New- Kngland, either less slanderous, or unjust, than that be- fore mentioned, is extravagant and unfounded ; for in re- spect to tliem he asserts, that ^' In JVeir -England them have been ?iiimej'OMS instances oi lay ordinations." Or- dinations in New- England have ever been transactions of great notoriety ; consequently if numerous lay ones have indeed taken place therein, it became impossible to con- ceal them. And it was incumbent on the Doctor, when he thus publickly impeached and stigmatized the ordina- tions of New-England, to have produced indubitable proofs of the numerous facts and instances of numerous lay ordinations. The Baptists undoubtedly are dispos- ed to deny and repel this accusation in reference to them- selves ; as, if we except the Scotch Baptists, the others appear to be scrupulously attentive to the preserva- tion of succession, in their ordinations, in these Eastern States. Independent churches here, were but short liv- ed, and never numerous, nor did any long retain the prin- ciples and practice of Independents, consequently ordina- tions of any kind, among churches of Independent princi- ples, were never numerous in New-England, for the majority of their Ministers, at the early settlement of this country, had prior to their emigration, been non-conform- ists, ordained by the English Jiishops. Nor does it dis- tinctly appear, that more thaii two lay ordinations, act- ually such, ever occurred in those churches : the first was at Woburn, Massachusetts, in 164'^, and the last at Stratford, in Coiniecticut, in I6G.1. This last instance was the lay ordination of Israel Chauncey, and wiiich was so unpopular, that in derision it was " termed the leathern mitten ordination, because it has bren the tra- dition that Elder IJriiismaid laid on hands witii a leath- ern mitten." (Trumbull's Hist, of Con. vol. 1, p. 489.) But in order duly to account for tliis circumscribed and ti'ansient aberration from correct views^ by a portion of

M

9l)

the first emigrant pilgrims to these shores ; and which resulted, in some few instances, of irregular ordinations , it will be expedient very briefly to advert to the events and circumstances, which imperiously led them to encoun- ter the hardships of this perilous emigration. Of these complicated and imperious events, Trumbull, in his His- tory of Connecticut, thus writes : " In 1620, a number of pious people, part of Mr. John Robinson's church and congregation, who by the violence of persecution, had beeii driven from their pleasant seats and enjoyments in lingland, arrived on the coast ; and after braving every danger, and enduring almost every hardship and distress of which human nature is capable, effected a permanent settlement in this part of North-America. They gave it the name of New- Plymouth.'' " At this time liberty of conscience could not be enjoyed in the parent country. No indulgence was granted even to the most pious, loyal, and conscientious people, who would not strictly conform to the habits, ceremonies and worship of the church of England. All non-conformists were exposed to fines, imprisonments, and the ruin of their families, fortunes, and every thing which ought to be dear to men. The most learned, pious, orthodox and inoffensive people, who did not conform to the church of England, were treated by the King and his Bishops, with far greater severity, than drunkards, sabbath breakers, or even the most notorious debauchees. They were condemned, in the spiritual courts, without juries, without having the witnesses against them brought into court, to depose face to face ; and, sometimes, without knowing the crime alleged against them, or who were the witnesses by w hom it was proved. Many of the pious people in England were so harassed and persecuted, for their non-conform- ity, that they determined, if possible, rather to make settlements in a dreary wilderness, at the distance of three thousand miles from their native country, than endure the persecution and sufferings, to which they were constantly exposed from the hands of those, who ought to have cherished and defended them. This cruel treat- ment of our venerable ancestors was the cause of the settlement of the J\'ew-England colonies and churches.^' (Vol. 1, p. 3, 4, 5, 6.)

91

While the above quotation presents a just picture of the complicated sufferings an-! oppressions inflicted by the rulers of the church and state, on non- conformists of all descriptions in England, so the following extract from the same historian, exhibits a small portion of the perse- cutions of worthy puritan Ministers, as exhibited in the case of the Rev. Thomas Hooker, viz. '* In 1630. the Rev. Thomas Hooker, a gentleman of great abilities, and a famous preacher, at Chelmsford, in the county of Essex, was silenced for non- conformity. I'o escape fines and imprisonment, he fled into Holland. He was held in such higli and universal esteem among his acquaint- ance, that forty-seven Ministers in his vicinity petitioned the Bishop of London in his favour. These were all conformists, and witnessed for Mr. Hooker, that they esteemed him, and Jcneiv him * to be for doctrine orthodox, for life and conversation honest, for disposition peacea- ble, and no wise turbulent or factious.' However, as he was a non-conformist, no personal or acquired excellen- cies, no testimonials of his good conduct, nor prayers of his friends, could save him from persecution and deposi- tion.' (ibid, p. 10.)

A considerable number of Mr. Hooker's congregation, and otiiers with them, who highly esteemed him, came over in 1633 and settled at Newtown, since called Cara- brid2;e. " Vt tlieir desire, he left Holland, and arrived at Boston in 1633. With him came over the famous Mr. John Cotton, Vlr. Samuel Stone as an assistant in the ministry. Mr. John Haynes afterwards Governor of Connecticut, Mr. Goff, and two hundred other passen- gers of importance to the colony." And such were the continued oppressions of the High Court of Commission, the persecutions of tiie Star Chamber, and the tyrannical decisions of the Bishops' courts, that multitudes of the puritans, with numerous non-conformist Ministers, fleeing fnim tlie desolating storm, sought and found a refuge in the infant colonies, And so great were tlie numbcMs of the adventurers, that ''• in I6i3 the first twenty tl)Ousand souls who came over from Kns;land, settled thirty-six chunhes. And in 1650, there were fortif cinirches in New- England, which contained spvrn thnusaitd seven hundred and ffty communicants.'' (Styles' Manuscript Lectures, &c.)

In respect to the number of Ministers, who arrived in those times of adversity, with portions of their dispersed •flocks, >eale, in his History of the Puritans, thus in- forms us : '^ l"he chief leaders of the people into tliese parts, were the puritan Ministers, who being hunted from one diocess to another, at last chose this wilderness for their retreat. 1 have (says he) before me, a list of seventy-seven divines, who became pastors of sundry little churches and congregations in that country, before the year 1640, all of whom were in orders in the church of Kns:;land, The reader will meet with an account of some of them in this History." (Vol 2, p. 233.) Ac- cordingly, he afterwards distinctly mentions Dr. KUiot^ Rev. Messrs. rhomas Hooker, John Cotton, John Dav- enport, rhomas Sheppard, John Norton, and Richart] Mather. And likewise. Rev. Messrs. Rogers, Newman, and Cbauncey. The latter afterwards became President of Harvard College. It was under these circumstances, of a recent emancipation from the galling yoke of Episco- pal and Star Chamber bondage in England, that the Congregational churches in New-England w ere formed ; and called Congregational, because these '^ churches originally maintain, d, that the right of choosing and set- tling their Ministers, and of exercising discipline and performing all juridical acts, was in each church, when properly organized ; and they denied all external or for- eign pow er of Presbyteries, synods, general councils, or assemblies."

It was thus circumstanced, and under the impressions unavoidably resulting from an indignant recollection of the manifold wrongs and complicated injuries inflicted by diocesan measures and influence, on non-conformists of every description ; that the delegates and ministers of the ISew-England churches assembled at Cambridge, and in 1648 devised a phitform f(n' the future government of the churches which they represented. The consequence was, that from a just abhorrence of Episcopal domina- ti >n, an undue leaven of Independent principles unhap- pily crept into the operations of that assembly, whereby each chun h was unwarrantably authorized to assume, by a delegation of brotherhood, the power of or- daining its own pastor. But this offensive article soon

9S

became obsolete, and uniformly as justly unpopular m piactice, a» for a slioil se »son it ha i heen unjustly popu- lar in theory. t)ut the foUowini^ highly important and authentick communication sheds ample light on these interesting transactions of the early churches and Minis- ters of New-England :

" Cambridgp, Februarij 7y 18?S.

" The Cambridge Platform admitted lay ordinatioB in theory; but that there were numf^rous instances of lay ordinatio I in x\ ew- i' ngland at any period, or during the whole period since its settlement, may very safely be denied. Lay brethren inducted the first Ministers of the New- England churches, and this was called ordina- tion ; but it was no more than a re-induction of those who w ere already vested with oflTicial power. All these Ministers were ordained before, by the Bishops in Eng- land ; and they did not renounce that ordination. Thus for example, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Davenport, Mr. Hooker, Mr. Bulkeley of Concord, and Mr. N'oyes of Newbury, adhered to their former ordination in England, by the Bishoi'S, though not regarding them as diocesan Bishops, but as I'reshiitevs, From this time, some of the ordained jMinisters present laid on hands in ordination. For a while, indeed, the delegated l)rethren joined with them, *^ in token of subjection of the church to the pastoral care of the Minister ;" but before the year 1660, it became a custom for the ordaining Ministers to perform the w hole service. In the early history of New-England, not more than one instance of lay ordination, properly so calh-d, seems perfectly ascertained ; and thi'* was under the in- spection of Ministers ordained by Bishops in England, one of whom prayed at the solemnity, and all gave their approbation, and right liand of fellowship, which has been considered as amounting to their performing the ordination themselves. This instance occurred at Wo- burn, in 161-2.

Upon the publication of the Cambridge Platform, in 1648, the Dissenters in England, while they a|)proved of it in general, yet, excepted againsi /r/?/ ordination ; and their arguments in the *' Jns Divinum Ministerii Evan- geliri." sn-m to have convinced the New-England Min- isters of theii- mistake. The fact, however^ is, that the\

did not practise upon that article of the Platform, and it soon became obsolete. Of this fact, beside the evidence o: our early histories, the *^ Katio Disciplinae Fratrum !Nov-4nglorum," published in 17-6, is sufficient proof.

Tlie Say brook Platform wa^ adopted by the Connecti- cut churches in I7O8 ; and at the same time, it was agreed, that the " Heads of agreement assented to by the Lnited Brethren, formerly called Presbyterian and Con- gregational, in Kngland, be observed by the churches tiiroughout that colony. The 4th and 5th articles of these "^ Heads of Agreement," under the head " of the Miuistry," are as follow :

IV. That in so great and weighty a matter as the calling and chusing a pastor, we judge it ordinarily re- quisite, that every such church consult and advise with the pastors of neighbouring congregations.

V. That, after such advice, the person consulted about, being chosen by the brotherhood of that particular church over which he is to be set, and he accepting, be duly orditrnedf and set apart, to his office over them ; wherein it is ordinarily requisite that the pastors of neighbouring co^'igregations concur with the presiding elder or elder Sf if such there be.

As corroborative of the above circumstantial and high- ly satisfactory answer, by the Rev. Dr. A. Holmes, to certain enquiries made by the author of this Review, sundry interesting particulars are here subjoined, from Trumbull's History, relative to the Congregational churches in that State ^' The first churches, though their numbers were small, and they had to combat all the hardships, dangers and expense of new settlements, com- monly supported two able, experienced Ministers." *^ The six first towns in Connecticut and New-Haven enjoyed the constant labour of ten able Ministers. As other towns settled, churches were gathered and Minis- ters installed or ordained. Fourteen or fifteen of these Ministers had been episcopally ordained in England, bef >re they came to America. From these Reverend fathers the Mini-ters of Connecticut trace their ordina- iinna ; especially from Mr. Hooker, Mr. Warham, Mr. Davenport, and Mr. Stone. Some or other of these as- sUii'A in gathering the churches, and in ordaining the Ministers settled in their day.'' (Vol. 1, p. ^9^, 293.)

95

111 respect to those few instances of ordination above mentioned by Dr. Holmes, wberein during a short season, delegated lay brethren laid on hands in concert with duly ordained pastors ; such ordinations, however irregular in respect to formality, yet, in respeVt to validity ^ were not thence justly to be condemned. And in justification of their validity, the following principle, laid down by Dr. Bowden himself, will correctly apply, viz. " Indeed, to me it appears, that the person who uses the words, by which the commission is conveyed, is the sole ordainer, ^ and "that the others, who lay on hands, let them be even apostles, or Bishops, do no more than express approba- tion. For the officer who uses the words conveying the commission, either has the power sini^ly to invest the ordained with valid authority, or, he has not. If he has not, then tiie others who concur with him have not ; for fifty cyphers will not make a unit. If he has the power, then the hands of the others are totally unnecessary, merely, as to the conveyance of the commission ; al- though, not so as to the solemnity and dignity of the transaction, and for the purpose of expressing approba- tion. Accordingly, it is a matter that is not disputed among Presbyterians, whether a single Presbyter would not convey as valid an authority, as a hundred united ; nor, among Kpiscopalians, whether the consecration of a Bishop, by a single Bishop, would not be as valid as by a plurality. The consecration, indeed, would not be canonical ; but that is a very difftrent consideration. The canons of the church rest u|)on ecclesiastical aiilho- rity ; but the validity of the commission uf)on the compe- tency of the ordainer, and ultimately, upon divine autho- rity. A number of ordainers is, therefore, unnecessary, and there is notliing added thereby, to the validity of the commission conveyed by the presiding officei-.^' (Vol. 1, p. 306, 307.)

This very explicit principle, thus laid down, so far as true and correct, removes all doubt concerning the actual ciiararter of the fore-mentioned imposition of lay hands, in concert witii duly ordained pastors, taking the lead in acts (»f ordination ; because from hence it is evident, that however \vrong, merely in respect to due forms, yet that ta reference to validity^ these lay brethren were but mere

96

m/pherSf impairing, iu no dei^ree whatever, the authority of the commissions of the Ministers, thus informally or- dained. But tliis principle is deserving of further con- sideration, because it draws the lines distinctly, between canonical and diclne authority. For herein it is truly and justly observed, that ^^ The canons of the church rest upon ecclesiastical authority ;'' while herein, also, it une- quivocally is acknowledged, that neither these canons, nor this ecclesiastical authority, are derived from, or re- pose on, divine authority. But on this ground, it may well be asked, what becomes of the re-ordination oi" Presbyters, in order to constitute them ecclesiastical Bish- ops? The canon which enjoins such re-ordination by two or more Bishops, proves to be a mere human assump- tion, and which lawfully may be omitted. But where can any substitute for this nullity be found ? Will the ^solemnity and dignity of this transaction, when perform- ed by two or three Bishops, be a warrant for having done that, which no divine command had ever enjoined ? All that can justly be offered in excuse for such a consecra- tion, is, that those Bishops, who without a divine war- rant, re-ordain a Presbyter, act therein only as mere cyphers ; and quite as irregularly, as any lay brethren, who ever may improperly have interfered in any ordina- tions, either in New-England or elsewhere. Nor can the justice of this censure be disproved, until an explicit divine warrant for the re-ordination of a Presbyter, in any mode, can distinctly be produced. A.s to Dr. Bow- den's assertion concerning New- England, that numerous lay ordinations had taken place therein, although un- founded in fact, yet, it must be admitted, that mere ap- pearances seemed in some degree to give it countenance ; because lay re inductions, as mentioned by Dr. Holmes, or lay installations, as denominated by others, were in the early settlement of this country, called ordinations, which circumstance, taken in connexion with a few in- stances of the lay imposition of hands, in concert with duly ordained Knglish Ministers, then elected as pastors, and one or two actual Independent or lay ordinations, all together served as a plausible authoiity for the fore- mentioned slanderous allegation.

But to return to the leading and fundamental points of

d7

tliis controversy, it is here proper to remark, that High Churchmen, if they would place their exclusive claims on a basis immoveably steadfast, it will be necessary they sdiould perform what Dr. Bowden toiled hard to effect, but was utterly unable to accomplish. They must prove, that to perform miracles, constituted no part of the duty of the apostles, as enjoined on them by their commission. They must produce demonstrative proof, that the cliurches before the third century, did not by a popular election, constitute Presbyters into ecclesiastical Bishops. They must, in opposition to the indubitable evidence of the New Testament, disprove the evangelical mission of Timothy, during a short season at Ephesus, and of Ti- tus, during a like period at Crete : and contrary to all probability, must, by vague traditions and wild assertions of writers of tlie fourth and of later centuries, establish the former, Bishop of Ephesus, and the latter of Crete and its numerous churches. And lastly, they must prove by better evidence than has yet been brought forward in this controversy, that the re-ordination of Presbyters reposes for autliority not on the apostolick canons, but, on evidently explicit authority from the apostles themselves, either by positive precept, or, by such well attested exam- ples, exhibited by the apostles in their own jiractice, as will admit of no reasonable doubt or denial. For, when once Episcopalians shall have produced this train of proofs and evidence, and which Dr. Bowden neither did, nor could produce, then, but not until then, may they consistently proclaim their Bishops apostles, and de- nounce as invalid, all ordinations which have not origin- ated beneath the imposition of their liands.

But, preparatory to a conclusion of this Keview, it may be expedient to advert concisely to *' The distinctive principle of three grades of Ministers divinely instituted in the Christian church ;" and as expressly mentioned by Bishop 15rownell, in his charge to his clergy. These grades, as thus assumed to belong to modern Episcopal- ians of diocesan order, are deceptive in the extreme, and that in a variety of respects. A Deacon, according to tlie order of tlie New Testament, had the special care of the poor, A rhurcii- warden has now tliat(har!;e committed tD him. Each primilive church Jiad Uiereiu a plurality

Qf Deacons : A. plurality of modern cliiirches are now frequently, and for the most part, destitute of a single Deacon. Each primitive apostolick church invariably elected all its Deacons : ]So Episcopal churches now elect their Deacons. Each church of the early and purest ages, had therein a plurality of Presbyters : But a single Presbyter now, has often to supply a plurality of E^pisco- pal churches. During the second century, a Bishop invariably presided over only one church : But now, as invariably, he presides over a variety of churches. And in addition to these numerous instances of glaring non- ("onformity, we are compelled to subjoin that notorious departure from apostolick usage and authority, as before distinctly noticed, of constituting Presbyters, nut by a lawful popular election, into ecclesiastical Bishops, as was the practice previous to the Cyprianick age, but, of cre- ating them Bishops, by a re-ordination altogether un- known to, and unsanctioned by, the apostles. Ncr should it be either overlooked or forgotten, that on this very unauthorized and innovating new ordination of a Freshyter, High Churchmen suspend the validity of all other ordinations, of all baptisms and celebrations of the Lord's supper ; and finally, on this very act, suspend even the existence of the visible church itself: for with them it amounts to a maxim, ^* That a neic ordination is requisite, in order to constitute a Presbyter into a Bishop ; that none but Bishops can communicate the sacerdotal character ; therefore, that there can be no true Ministers without them, and consequently, without them, no true church. This is the mode of reasoning of one class of churchmen.'' (Bowden.) But another class of churchmen think and reason very differently. To this class the pious and celebrated Dr. Scott appears to belong ; and he thinks, writes and reasons after this manner. ^^ It appears to me at least, that neither Episcopacy, nor any other species of cliurch government, can be proved from scri])ture to be exclusively of divine authority. But a moderate Episcopacy has many advantages to recommend it ; and the high claims of exclusive authority, which soon began to lie advanced and exercised by that order, and all the abuses of anti- Christian tyranny, supply the best arguments to those^ who would entirely exclude it

99

ffoon the cliurcli. In this, however, as well as in otlier things, very much remains to be remedied and rectified, amoni^ every description of Christians, before matters can be reduced (o the scripture standard." (Commentary on Acts XX. 17.)

That the " anli-Christian tyranny of the Episcopal order,'' as here well expressed, in former ages, furnishes the '^ best arguments to those who would entirely exclude it from the church,'' is an assertion not easily to be refiit- ed. And Ur. Scott's further remark, that " Very much remains to be remedied and rectified, among every de- nomination of Christians, before matters can be reduced to the scripture standard,"is deserving of the candid and serious consideration of every Christian community. And perhaps reformation, in respect to a restoration to the true temper and spirit of Ciiristianity, as taught and exercised by tlie founders of the Christian cliurch, is equally important with reformation in other respects. Yov whatever importance may duly attach to valid ordin- ations, to requisite government and discipline, to a due administration of ordinances, or even, to the hallowed truths of the blessed gospel itself; yet, ultimately, what will all these together avail, if unconnected with supreme love tw God, and with its counterpart, love and good will to men?^ b^or rites and forms, ceremonies and ordi- nances of worship, correct creeds, and duly authorized administrations constitute only the mere form, while obe- dient love to God, and active benevolence to mankind, operate, as the life and soul of all true religion and god- liness. \or can the true worshi[q)ers of tlie Fatlier of Spirits, when duly actuated by a lively fiilh in tlie ascend- ed Redeemer, and cheered !)y the consolations of the Holy Spirit, restrain their enlarged semis, from expand- ing with a generous glow of brotlierly h>ve to true I hris- tiaiis of whatever name. To sucii of Kpiscopal denomi- nation wiiik' thus intluenced. how irksome must he that Jinperi'»us mandate whi( li prohiliits intercourse with other Christians, in " all matteis purely of a religions nature.'' But I'iiristians a ho acccile not to diocesan dogmas, al- tlioui:!" t'i'is. (»r olherw ise frowned on Jind -piiiiied by Jli^h Ciiurchmeu; s^ill cordially tender to all \\ ho love

100

our Lord Jesus Christ in truth and sincerity, Uie righi hand of Christian friendship and fellowship.

Should Episcopalians of all classes in the Protestant churches, on more full, candid and luminous investiga- tions of this subject, become induced to adopt, in reference thereto, the fore-mentioned mild and moderate views and sentiments of Or. Scott, much thereby would be effected, towards healing that scliism, which so long has grieved Zion's best friends, and afforded too much cause for tri- umphant exultation to her worst and most inveterate foes. But a lasting and radical healing of tliis schism can never take place, until such time, as the contending denominations shall cordially admit, so far as validity is involved, a mutual equality on each side, in ordinations and in all connected gospel administrations. This once effected. Judah would no more vex Ephraim, nor Ephraim envy Judah : But all true Christians uniting in harmony of love, the strife would be, in serving Christ, who should contribute m<)st to the best interests of his kingdom, ia promoting the welfare of the whole. This condition of the church once arrived, rapidly would the gospel win its ■widening way, until Messiah^s reign, extending from sea to sea, should with each river from its head, revolve through all its meanderings, to earth's remotest bounds.

JSTote referred to in 'page 99. Dr. Scott's observation that " Much remains to be remedied and rectified, among every description of Chribtians, before matters can be reduced to the scripture standard," is so evidently just and important, as to be worthy, not only of the consideration, but like- tvise of a practical application, by all Christian sects, so far as fur- ther reformation may be effected in the present subdivided condition of the Christian church. Congregational and well ordered Baptist chu'^ches are, as respects ecclesiastical organization and discifilinpy nearly alike in all important concerns, modes and subjects of bap- tism excefited. These denominations harmonize with the scriptures and with each other, in a popular Tribunal from whence issue all final decisions of censure to the guilty, and of acquittal to the inno- cent. The elective power in thp se der^ofninatigns is, according to

101

scripture, duly deposited in each church, in the brotherhood, who elect by popular suflFrage to the pastoral, and to the Deacon's office. The elecicd candidate to the former office, if a laick^ is duly conse- crated a Bishop by prayer, accompanied by the imposition of hands usually of three or lour duly ordained pastors of other churches. But their Deacons, although ever a plurality in conformity with scriptural examples, yet are but rarely ordained to office by the pastoral imposition of hands, and consequently are defective through this omission in an important scripture requisition. Nor have these denominations a regularly constituted Presbytery in each chirch, as was the Aisage of each primitive church. This defect» however, is less ihe/auU of these communities, than it is the una- %^oidable effect of the manifold " abuses" of former generations, alluded to by Dr. Scott. For the " Anti-Christian tyranny," ex- pressly mentioned by him, sowed such discords amongst Christians, and so impaired confidence among them, as still renders the re-union of numbers sufficient to admit of Presbyteries like those of the primitive churches now, in a great degree, utterly impossible. But this defect of a regularly constituted Presbytery is in many church- es of Congregational and of Baptist order remedied, in part, by a per- manent committee, elected to office during good behaviour. These without the name virtually constitute a Lay eldership ; and in con- cert with the pastor and Deacons, usually prepare all important business, previously to its being finally decided on by the brethren, in full assembly.

Providence, May I, 1822.

lOS

Introduction, explanatory of the reasons and designs oi this Re- view ; page 3 to 7, inclusive.

SECTION I. Dr. Bowden*s order of discussion adopted, p. 9. Terms church and churches, noticed, p. 10. Number and extent of Diocesses in these States, and of Bishops, Priests and Deacons ; different, how- ever, from those of the first and second centuries, p. 11, 12. SECTION II. Dr. B.'s definition of the apostolick office examined, p. 13 to IT. Transmission aad perpetuity refuted, p. 17 to 19. SECTION III. Popular election of Elders or Presbyters, and of ecclesiastical Bishops strenuously denied by Dr. B. ; but fully maintained and established by evidence and reasoning' not to be refuted, from p. 20 to 31.

SECTION IV. Timothy and Titus declared by Dr. B. to have been, the former Bishop of EphesuSf and the latter of Crete. The Doctor's proofs and arguments fairly tested, and found to be inconclusive. The office of an Evangelist explained, according to the instructions of the New Testament, end from that source, in connexion with other respectable authorities, proved beyond the possibility ot all reasona- ble doubt, to have been not Bishops, but Evangelists of the highest order. P. 31 to 41, inclusive.

SECTION V. Ordination of Deacons and Presbyters scriptural. But the latter not necessarily subsequent to the former, p. 42. The re-ordination of Presbyters, in order to constitute them ecclesiastical or diocesan Bishops, a practice founded only on unwarranted usurpation. The real authors supposed to have been some anonymous Bishops. This innovation became popnlar about the middle of the third century, or during the Cyprianick age. Its continuance from that period through successive ages to our times, no justification of it. Popu- ular election and not re-ordination, the only valid mode of consti- tuting true and lawful Bishops. This well estaljlished by the

103

practice of the true primitive churches, but more especially by the church of Rome, through a succession of her first nineteen Bishops.- The testimonies of Ignatius and Jerome brought into view, and facts from A Bower and R. Adams. See from p. 41 to 60, in- clusive.

SECTION VI.

Dr. B. and Bishop Brownell apparently more attached to Roman Catholicks, than towards Protestant Non-Episcopalians, p. 62 to 64. Luther, Calvin, and the Methodists vindicated against indec- orous attacks made on them by Dr. B. p. 65 to 70, inclusive. SECTION VII.

Congregational Episcopacy grossly slandered by the Doctor, p. 70, 71. Led into a sad dilemma by Dr. Miller. Is compelled to admit either Presbytery or Congregational Episcopacy ; prefers the latter, p. 73. Village or Congregational Bishops called Chorepis' cofiiy vindicated by sundry Episcopal writers, contrary to other parts of their system, p. 73, 74, 77. John Robinson in view, ibid. Canonical Episcopacy and councils not truly primitive, but innova- tions, p. 78, 79, 82. Succession in the church of Rome how long duly retained, and its influence on the church of England, p. 8 1, 82. Succession retained only in the line of Presbytery, p. 83, p. 84 to 86, inclusive peculiarly interesting. New-England ordinations slandered and vindicated, p. 89 to 92. An important communica- tion from Dr. A. Holmes, of Cambridge, p. 93, 94. Dr. B.'s prin- ciple concerning ordination justifies some of doubtful complexion, p. 95, 96. Recapitulation and conrlnsion to the end of the Re- view.

^jr

AUb 2 7 1963

M. t

MM

1? :-^j

■■'f ^^ /'^

^iNrlii

^i- '"■■■^ ^r a

>r *:f

"i^'l^ -

n' z^-

I 4 .. >:

(. -'^ -J' t^. .

K/ *i. ..-^

1 . t

t .'f

i< >i

.v t

•*-^^v%%:

1^ .«5; ^ 4P^

« . •« .v«

ci' .--^^ 'a

« «.

A^ a

4 d',. M- ■^■■

,^ f-'M-.^^'

W,M-,

1., %>

*.i.iif

»*..*

' '. " " r:as:.^,..*^
iiL
1^^^^^ ^^^^^	^^^^^ ^^^^M
llB	■ ■
^^^^^H ^^^^^1
^^^^^1 ^^^^^1	^^^^H ^^^^^1
^^^^* ^^^^*	^^^^
^^_ ^^H	■■ ^Hi
^^H ^^H	^^H ^^H
^^^^1 ^^^^B	^^^H ^^^^1
^Hl IHi
^^H ^^H
IHI H^H
	■ ■ ■ ■

•£'■ .f.' I-

^4-^

r »: t-...^.

:^:-^f,^':3*.

;;- . f

.. ..K.P

I^^:.iS..J-

'i	%^	;t	^
	h.		1
%		a
	t		'^

■■■( .ft

t'-i*i*6'V**-'

^-z:*i&:^'

^'^■^

m M

^^, .^

& w

;C >fi

1 ^ *.,

f'.3 "*^

:-L ' ^f -^1 '^ --^

^ ^1

■■■ ■ ■■!

BHHI

■■■9 ■ ■ ■ w

■■■■

'a:,..«.

^1 .1.

^.'■€^..;^T, .:

^;a'^':$}^ 1 '^^.l^^.-.^-^-^.-

14 .•

,% 43 *4 •:4» . > '^

^-^ /t .. a

■.=. .•• ^ •£ „"«

a; *

. •^ ^

&a.a.,.^