preposterous. Nothing but the notoriety of the fact, could have prevented inconsistency and contradiction in their accounts of this matter. Truth is always the same, simple, uniform, and consistent; but error and falsehood are so varying and irregular, as always to betray themselves. However convenient it might have been for the Bishops to have it believed, that their office was divinely instituted, yet, if there had been no foundation in fact for such a belief, it is a most unreasonable supposition, that such a notion should have obtained currency in the first four centuries, when there were so many whose learning and talents could have disproved it, and whose prejudice, or passion, on numerous occasions, would have done it. Nay, it would be incredible, were we ignorant of their characters, that all the Bishops in the first three ages, were so depraved as to destroy that government, which, they knew, CHRIST left in his Church. But we know to a certainty, that they were generally men of very distinguished virtue and piety, and that many of them were martyrs for the religion of CHRIST. Such men would not alter divine institutions; and before the establishment of Christianity, they could not. Nay, after that event, had the arm of power been stretched out in support of the ambitious pretensions of the Bishops, there would, undoubtedly, have been some opposition, some dissatisfaction, some remonstrance, some record of the matter. But no, there is not the least hint of any thing of the kind. The writers before this supposed event, as well as those after it, speak the same uniform language. Turn to which class you please, and you will find perfect harmony and consistence. Let, then, the early writers of the Church be put upon a fair trial; let their testimony be equitably examined, as in all other cases of fact, by the stated laws of evidence; and I am well satisfied, that, however the advocates for ministerial parity may, by their ingenuity, puzzle and confound the real merits of the cause; or, by their glosses, assumptions, and confident assertions, mislead the judgment of the prejudiced and unwary; yet, the testimony of the fathers, on this subject, will be deemed decisive by every impartial mind.

But it seems, after all the evidence we have produced in favour of diocesan episcopacy, not the least advantage has been gained by it. You tell us very confidently, in your third letter, that, on such a subject, even if the fathers were unanimous, we might and ought to hesitate, if nothing like what they intimate were to be found in the word of God.' Now let our readers judge between us; let every man acquainted with the nature and force of evidence, judge between us. I say, on the contrary, that if the fathers unanimously assert the apostolic origin of episcopacy, although there be not found one syllable upon the subject in the word of GOD, their testimony, upon every fair principle of evidence, must be deemed decisive.

To prove that my opinion is correct, I have but to give a short view of the nature of the evidence. The question is, whether

the Christian world could be assured, fifty years after the event, that a particular form of government was established in the Church of the Apostles, when there was no particular record made of it at the time? They certainly could. The government of the Church was not like a solitary fact, without notice, and without consequences. If it were universally episcopal in the beginning of the second century, it must have been in consequence of its having been so in the first; and the universality of it in the first, could have been owing to nothing less than apostolic authority. For, had it been left to uninspired men, we may be assured that different forms would have taken place, as there is nothing about which men differ more than modes of government. When, therefore, the Christians of the second century saw the episcopal regimen descend every where from the apostolic age to them, their testimony that the fact was so, is absolutely decisive. There was no possibility of mistake in the matter. Thousands who lived in the second century, had lived a part of their lives, and a great part too, in the first. They must, therefore, have seen some of the Apostles, and, with their own eyes, the government which they established. Polycarp was one of these; Ignatius was another. The latter spent nearly the whole of a long life in the apostolic age; and, according to the ancients, was ordained by St. Peter, Bishop of Antioch. Polycarp was the disciple of the Apostle John; and there must have been myriads in the Lesser Asia, who had been instructed by his preaching. There could not, therefore, have been the least difficulty in determining, with absolute certainty, under what regimen the Apostles left the Church. Men that have eyes to see, will see; and that have ears to hear, will hear, what is continually in their view, and within their hearing.

Of such facts, men want no records; and if records were produced in which there was some obscurity, they would immediately make their own senses their commentator, and would never be so infatuated, as to interpret an obscure passage or two in the record, in direct opposition to the report of their senses. Plain facts are not like speculative opinions; susceptible of any shape under a skilful hand. Men will believe their senses, let theorists say what they will.

Your observation, then, that even the unanimous testimony of the fathers to episcopacy, does not oblige us to yield our assent to that form of government if the Scriptures are silent about it, is contrary to the common sense and practice of mankind. In the histories of all nations, we find no records coeval with the first establishment of their government. Every man who has read the history of the Roman Empire, believes, that monarchy was its first form of government; yet, there are no records coeval with the establishment of that government. The earliest writers depend upon uninterrupted, unvarying tradition. This is the case, I believe, with all other ancient governments: where the records go back within a century or two of the origin of their

policy, all mankind are perfectly satisfied; and that man would be deemed unreasonable, who presumes a change took place, when there is not the least appearance of it.

These reasonings and facts do, in my opinion, prove, that we should act very unreasonably, were we to hesitate a moment in giving our assent to the position, that episcopacy is of apostolic origin, although it should turn out, upon examination, that the Scriptures are perfectly silent upon the subject.

To the assertion we have just been examining, upon the common principles of evidence, may be added another of your strange assertions, that the fathers are not unanimous, but contradict one another.' That this is a gross error, I am persuaded every impartial person will be satisfied, who duly weighs the evidence I have adduced. They all, either in direct terms or by necessary inference, ascribe episcopacy to apostolic institution. Not one of them says, it was not so. Not one of them gives a hint that episcopacy is a human institution. They, indeed, in

a few instances, when there were no particular reasons for distinguishing the orders of the Church, give the title of Presbyter to a Bishop, because he really is a Presbyter; as the Jewish Scriptures (I am ashamed to mention it so often) generally give the title of Priest to the High Priest. But to infer contradiction from this is abusing words and perverting reason.

But still farther: It was morally impossible that there should be any contradiction. The government of the Church was not involved in obscurity. If it was Presbyterian in the second age, the writers of that age must have known it; and to suppose some of them asserted presbytery, and some episcopacy, is perfectly ridiculous; as ridiculous as it would be some ages hence, for any one to assert, that from the days of Calvin to the eighteenth century, some of the presbyterian clergy declare that their Church had the episcopal form, and others that it had the presbyterian. And the former might have some little show of truth given to it, by producing several instances of Presbyterian ministers calling themselves Bishops; and particularly by quoting some detached passages from your 'letters,' and giving them an artful touch or two, you might be made to appear as staunch an Episcopalian as I am. There is no kind of difficulty in all this; of which I could soon convince you could I prevail upon myself to indulge in such puerile amusement.

We have now, Sir, I think, quite enough about the fathers, and I flatter myself that they are altogether on our side of the question. I shall now proceed to examine the holy Scriptures, after having first made some observations on a passage in the first epistle of Clemens Romanus. But with this, I shall begin my next letter.

REV. SIR:

LETTER IX.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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