60

that, in that age, a Bishop was elected by the people. The [Letter V. author demonstrates, that the people had no other concern in the business than to bear testimony to the character of the Bishop elect, and that the election was made by the Bishops of the province, without any thing like a polling on the part of 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 effects of it became so dreadful, particularly at Rome, that the emperor found it absolutely necessary to deprive them of that power.

Your next quotation does really surprise me. what to think-what to make of your management of this conI do not know troversy. Mr. M'Leod, I thought, deserved to stand first on the list of writers who quote texts of Scripture that have no more connexion with the subject than with the doctrine of the transmigration of souls; but you not only quote authorities that do not make for your purpose, but that are directly in point to ours. Thus, Ep. 32.-"Through all the vicissitudes of time, the ordination of Bishops and the constitution of the Church are so handed down, that the Church is built on the Bishops, and every act of the Church is ordered and managed by them. Seeing, therefore, this is founded on the law of GOD, I wonder that some should be so rash and insolent as to write to me in the name of the Church, seeing a Church consists of a Bishop, clergy, and all that stand faithful"—that is, a Church, let the number of congregations of which it may be composed be ever so many, must be under the presidency of a Bishop with his clergy, otherwise it is no Church. And is this parochial episcopacy?

But I suppose your design was to show your readers that the mode of expression, a Church, not churches, implied no more than a single congregation, and then the Bishop would be snugly seated at the head of it. But what use would there be of a number of clergymen to a single congregation? Of forty-six, for instance, at Rome? Of eight, at least, at Carthage? "Why, some of these were ruling Elders." What! some of these clergymen! Remember, that Cyprian uses the word clergyclericos. But your ruling Elders, by your own account, are not clergymen. In short, there is not a shadow of proof that there were any such creatures at Rome or Carthage.

Besides, when the Church of a city is spoken of, it is always mentioned, throughout the Scriptures, in the singular number, let the number of congregations be ever so many; but when the Churches of a whole province are mentioned, it is always in the plural number. Thus, the Church of Jerusalem-the Church of Antioch-the Church of Sardis—the Church of Ephesus-the Church of Pergamus; but when of a whole province, it is the Churches of Judea-the Churches of Asia-the Churches of Syria and Cilicia-the Churches of Galatia-the Churches of Macedonia-just as many Churches as there were cities, in

which were Bishops presiding over clergy and laity, let their numbers be ever so great. And we have uncontrollable evidence from antiquity, that as Christians multiplied in the neighbouring towns and villages, they were all annexed to the Bishop of the city, as far as the civil jurisdiction of that city extended. Your next quotation is from Tract. de Unitat. Eccles. "Our LORD speaks to Peter, I say unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, &c. Upon one he builds his Church; and though he gave an equal power to all his Apostles, yet that he might manifest unity, he ordered the beginning of that unity to proceed from one person. The rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was, being endued with the same both of honour and power. But the beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church may be shown to be one." Well, Sir, what is to be deduced from all this? That Cyprian considered Bishops and preaching Presbyters as of the same order? The only distinction between them, you say, is that " of president or chairman among them." Now, Sir, if I have not demolished this notion of parity by the evidence I have given, that a Presbyter was raised to the episcopate by a new ordination; that, in consequence he presided over all orders and ranks in the Church-that he had the sole power of ordination-the sole power of confirmation-that he had the supremacy of the keys that none could baptize, or administer the Eucharist, or absolve penitents, that is, restore them to the communion of the Church, without his authority; if, I say, I have not demolished the notion of parity by the evidence I have produced for these points, then it is impossible to prove any thing that does not admit of mathematical demonstration. History of every kind must be given up; no facts that have not occurred under our own eyes can be substantiated; we may talk of past events, and of forms of governments in days of yore, but they are all dreamsfictions of the fancy, which no sober man will ever believe. Nay, our very Bible must be given up; for we know not, upon this principle, who wrote it, nor when it was written, nor when the parts were compiled into one Sacred Canon; nor do we know that there were any miracles ever wrought, nor that any prophecies were uttered. But I hope there are many who will not subscribe to this extravagance; who will be convinced from the evidence adduced, that Cyprian held no such opinion as you ascribe to him.

The quotation that you have given us does not convey the least hint of parity between Bishops and Presbyters; but it positively asserts an equality, both in honour and power, between Peter and the rest of the Apostles. They were all perfectly equal; and, as Cyprian repeatedly asserts, that Bishops are the successors of the Apostles, it follows, with strict logical propriety, that there is not, as he speaks, any Bishop of Bishops. This is the very argument which Cyprian uses to prove, that the Bishops of Rome had not the least authority over other Bishops;

and nothing could be more to his purpose. It is the very argument which Protestant Episcopalians use to demolish the Pope's supremacy. But it seems you are content, if you can get any shadow of argument against us, to allow Peter some superiority over the other Apostles. He must be, at least, the president or chairman of the apostolic presbytery, according to your mode of reasoning; for unless he be, he can be no type of the Bishop, who, you say, is the president or chairman among his clergy. This must be the point of similitude, otherwise there is none at all. But what, Sir, put it into your mind, that Peter was the chairman of the apostolic college? Did Cyprian? No hint of that sort in him. Do the other fathers of the first three centuries say so? Nothing like it. Do the Scriptures? He must be sharp sighted that can find it. Does it appear to be so from the account we have of the council of Jerusalem ? Quite otherwise. St. James appears to have been the president of that council; and for no other reason, that we can conceive, but his being Bishop of that city. What, then, can be the ground of this notion? Is it the circumstance of his receiving his commission before the other Apostles? Cyprian knew that he did so; but, notwithstanding, he asserts the equality of the other Apostles. All the use he makes of that circumstance is by way of illustration, not of strict reasoning. He does not infer from it Peter's superiority, but uses it merely as a circumstance illustrative of the unity of the Church. This liberty of alluding to texts of Scripture, from which no conclusive proof is intended, was very common among the fathers, and Cyprian very frequently uses it. He evidently proceeds here upon an allusion to the singular number, because CHRIST commissioned Peter in the first instance; but in his 33d epistle he expressly asserts, that the Church is founded upon Bishops, in the plural number. After citing Peter's commission, he says, " From thence, in a regular succession downwards, we date the ordination of Bishops, and the course of ecclesiastical administrations, so as that we understand the Church to be settled upon her Bishops, and every public act of hers to be managed by them." Now, Sir, is it not really very weak to infer from a mere fanciful allusion to the singular number, in order to give some sort of illustration to the principle that the Church is but one, that Peter was at the head of the apostolic college, as a primus inter pares, [first among equals,] and that, therefore, a Bishop is no more in the presbytery? This inference is altogether gratuitous, and the premise, from a Protestant, is perfectly astonishing. I am sorry to find, Sir, that you reason, or make Cyprian reason, precisely as the Papists do, with respect to Peter. I am sorry to perceive this glance at Rome. Principiis obsta [resist beginnings] is a wise maxim. I hope we shall all be governed by it.

o See Dr. M.'s third Letter, p. 79. The note at the bottom of the page savours pretty strongly of the old leaven.

You appear to me, Sir, to be apprehensive that your inference is not very tenable; and for that reason, I suppose it is, that you have pressed Dodwell into your service. That learned man, you inform us, 'makes Peter the type of every Bishop, and the rest of the Apostles the type of every Presbyter.' I am really astonished, and to tell you the truth, not a little displeased at your method of quoting authors. Am I to look through all the works of Dodwell for what you ascribe to him? If you took the quotation immediately from him, (which I very much doubt,) why did you not note the book and the page? Surely it was very easy to do it. Whatever, Sir, you may think of the matter, I believe every candid reader will agree with me, that you are not entitled to any answer when you quote in this manner. However, as my patience is not yet exhausted, I have carefully looked into those writings of Dodwell which are in my hands. These, I acknowledge, are not all his writings. I have none but his Cyprianic Dissertations, his book on Schism, and his Reply to Baxter. I have also, his Life, by Brokesby. In that, I see nothing for your purpose; but I found in it, what I thought a probable clue to your quotation. I immediately turned to Dodwell's seventh Cyprianic Dissertation, in which he reasons strenuously against the Papists, who found the supremacy of the Pope upon the commission given to Peter. By consulting that Dissertation, I found that you had not fairly represented Dodwell's sentiments upon that point. He asserts, that the declaration of CHRIST to Peter, in consequence of the noble confession he had made, did confer a particular honour upon him, but no degree of power or authority above the other Apostles-that they were all equal by their commission; but that he, ut inter pares, unus tamen reliquis emineret--that is, that he, as an equal in power, shone with superior splendour. He further thinks, as Cyprian does, that our SAVIOUR'S declaration to Peter, prior to his commissioning the other Apostles, was a circumstance intended to point out the unity of the Church-non_id cine certo arcanoque consilió a Servatore esse factum. But he argues strenuously against the Papists, for founding the Pope's supremacy upon this honorary circumstance. He shows, that all the Apostles were invested with equal authority, and that there is no Bishop of Bishops, as Cyprian speaks. He maintains, that as unity began with Peter, so it was afterwards extended to the whole college of Apostles, to whom the Bishops succeeded, and became the principle of unity to the whole Church. He asserts, that as unity began with one, that is, with Peter, so it is continued with one, that is, with the one Bishop of a diocese. In this respect, he thinks Peter was a type of every Bishop; but he no where says, that the Bishop was no more than primus inter pares, or, that the rest of the Apostles were types of the Presbyters. He does not mention the Presbyters at all, nor give the least hint that he thought them equal, either in order or in degree, with the Bishop. Nor indeed could he, without the VOL. I.-6

most palpable inconsistency. His well known doctrine is, that the Bishops are in the Christian what the High Priest was in the Jewish Church; and that the Presbyters of the former correspond with the Priests of the latter. He maintains, that Bishops are of a superior order to Presbyters, by being invested with the sole power of ordination and confirmation, and with a supremacy in the government of the Church; and that this superiority is by divine institution. That this was Dodwell's doctrine, you will soon be convinced, if you will look into his Cyprianic Dissertations, and his Discourse concerning the one Priesthood and the one Altar. I will give you one quotation from the latter, without subjecting you to the trouble of reading almost the whole book before you find it. It is near the close, p. 388. "Is not," says he, "the Bishop as apt as ever to signify a principle of unity, and to represent GOD and CHRIST under the notion of a head? Nay, does not his Monarchical Presidency over his brethren of the clergy, pecularly fit him for such a signification? And does he not the more naturally represent GOD and CHRIST in the notion of a head, by how much he is more like in their monarchy, I mean over that particular body, over which Bishops were at first placed by divine institution? Or do they think them less of divine institution now than formerly?" I refer you also to the 9th chapter of the same book, the title of which is, "The Christian Bishops were answerable to the Jewish High Priests."

We have, for the present, said enough about Dodwell; and, from what has been said, it will, I think, appear to every impar tial reader, that you have either taken what you have ascribed to him, upon trust; or if you have read any of his works, that you have greatly mistaken his meaning, and consequently, greatly misrepresented him.

Your next and last quotation from Cyprian is as much in your favour as the preceding. Ep. 3. The Deacons ought to remember, that the LORD hath chosen Apostles, that is, Bishops and Presidents; but the Apostles constituted Deacons, as the ministers of their episcopacy and of the Church."

Now, I think it would puzzle any man living to perceive in this passage the least appearance of Presbyterian parity. Where does it lie? In what words? In what circumstance? In what intimation? I am totally at a loss to perceive it; but I am at no loss to perceive, that Cyprian makes the Bishops the successors of the Apostles, and episcopacy, such as he himself held, to be of divine institution. I can also perceive, by reading a little farther on, that Cyprian says, "You will make very proper use of your episcopal authority, either by deposing or excommunicating hini, [the Deacon complained of,] as you shall find most expedient." This, Rogatianus, to whom the epistle was addressed, could do by virtue of his episcopal authority. He did not want the aid of the people, nor of ruling Elders, nor even of preaching Elders. He could do it alone, if he thought proper. This, I think, looks very much like episcopal pre-eminence.