could see none; and your determined adherence to what they would have deemed unreasonable, prolongs a controversy that might be settled in a few pages. This is to be lamented; but I see no remedy for it now. I must patiently follow you whithersoever you lead me.

There is another thing which ought to be noticed. You say the writings of the third and fourth centuries are suspicious. What do you mean by this? You certainly do not mean that there is any suspicion of their genuineness and authenticity. That would be too extravagant, and, consequently, would expose you to the contempt of every literary and reasonable man. What then are those writers to be suspected of? Of incompetency as to intellect? This you certainly will not maintain. Besides, does it require much intellect to know under what form of government we live? Are they to be suspected of combining from the beginning of the third century, and through all subsequent times, to make the people believe they were living under episcopacy, when they had eyes to see and ears to hear that they were not? In the name of common sense then, of what are they to be suspected? Is it that they were not men of truth? Who ever charged them with that? Are they not universally allowed to be men of distinguished virtue and piety? And did not many of them prove it by shedding their blood for their SAVIOUR? What circumstance then is it which obliges us to attach suspicion to their testimony? Will you say that the Church began to be corrupted in the third century? But that allowed, how would it help you? If the Church began to be corrupted, it must be either in doctrine or in discipline, or in both. About doctrine we are not disputing. The corruption then must relate to the discipline. But what writer ever charged the Church in the third century with relaxation of discipline? So far from it, that it is now generally thought to have been too severe; so severe that there is not a Church upon earth that would bear it. Was it that the lives of Christians were not so pure as they were in the second century? It is universally admitted, that the lives of those whose testimonies have been quoted, were distinguished for purity, and that there were myriads of the laity whose lives were equally pure. What is it then that attaches suspicion to the writers of the third century? Was it that there were some rites and ceremonies introduced into the Church in that age, which we do not perceive in the New Testament? We find that to have been the case in the second century; yet you allow the Church to have been pure at that time. The truth is, that rites and ceremonies, if they contribute to decency and order, promote, instead of lessening the purity of the Church. These are things indifferent, and are left entirely to the authority of every Church, in every age, and every country; and it is arrant fanaticism to maintain the contrary. Are your ministrations less pure because you wear a gown and band? And are ours less pure, because our ministers, besides these, wear a sur

plice? Is our communion and yours less pure because both celebrate it in the morning, although CHRIST celebrated it in the evening? Have both Churches degenerated from primitive simplicity, because the practice of not washing one another's feet is disregarded, although the SAVIOUR Set the example, and enjoined it on his Apostles? Need I go on asking such questions? Surely it is unnecessary. In what respect then was the Church corrupted in the third century ? It was not in her doctrines. She maintained every important doctrine of Christianity in its purity. It was not in her discipline, for that was remarkably strict. It was not in the lives of the clergy to any greater degree than in the second century; at least we have no documents by which that can be ascertained. Was it in the lives of the laity? It is natural to suppose that, as they greatly increased in numbers, there would be more numerous deviations from purity; but at the same time there would be an increase of the virtuous and pious. Indeed, the very circumstances of the Church lead us to this conclusion. Few or none embraced Christianity at that time but from conviction; and, as it was at the peril of their lives, they must have preferred the next world to this. No circumstances can we possibly conceive more favourable to virtue and piety, than those attending the Church at that time. Persecutions, even unto death, were frequent; and power, honour, and wealth, were entirely out of the question. Consider all these things, and then say why suspicion is to be attached to the writers of the third century. These things cannot indeed be said to the same degree, with respect to the Church in the fourth century; but if diocesan episcopacy prevailed in the third, it certainly did in the fourth.

Now, Sir, to your testimonies from the fourth century.

1. Hilary, in his Commentary on 1 Tim. iii. affirms "the ordination of Bishop and Presbyter is one and the same." Could he,' you ask, 'possibly have said this, if they had been different orders, and had received a different ordination?'

It would have been better had you given the whole passage. It runs thus: "After the Bishop he places the ordination of the Deacon. Wherefore? but that the ordination of the Bishop and Presbyter is one. For they are both Priests, but the Bishop is the first, or chief Priest; for though every Bishop is a Presbyter, yet every Presbyter is not a Bishop. For he is Bishop who is first among the Presbyters. Finally, he signifies that Timothy was ordained a Presbyter, but because he had no other before him, he was a Bishop." Here Hilary means one of two things. Either, that the Bishop of his day had not a different ordination from the Presbyter; or that he had not, when St. Paul wrote his first Epistle to Timothy. If the first, then he contradicts numerous testimonies to the contrary, both in his own age and in the age of St. Cyprian. But if his meaning be, that the ordination of a Bishop and Presbyter in the time of the Apostles was the same, then he says just what we say; for a Bishop and

Presbyter being two names for the same officer, of course there was but one ordination. But Hilary does not infer from the community of names, that there was not an officer in the Church at that time superior to the Bishop or Presbyter, for he very well knew that the Apostles were superior, and consequently, that there were three orders in the Church; so that Hilary either way is of no service to you.

As to the rest of the passage, it is pointedly in our favour. "The Bishop," he says, "is the first or chief Priest;" the first, not merely in point of seniority, but in order and authority; such as the chief Priest was in the Jewish Church. For though he was a Priest, yet all that order were not High Priests, nor did they succeed to that office in the way of seniority; just so, says Hilary, "though every Bishop be a Presbyter, yet every Presbyter is not a Bishop."

Several of the testimonies which I quoted from Hilary in my second letter, set his sentiments in a clear point of light. He says, "In the Bishop are all orders contained, because he is the prince or chief of the Priests." Now, if there was but one clerical order in the Church, would not Hilary talk like a fool when he says, "All orders are contained in the Bishop?"

It is then evident, without any further quotations from Hilary, that he is decidedly prelatical.

Your next quotation is from Chrysostom, XIV. Hom. on Acts vi. You quote him as saying that, "in his time, such Deacons as the Apostles ordained were not in the Church." But what has this to do with diocesan episcopacy?

Your representation of Chrysostom is, I find by consulting the place, not correct. The whole passage runs thus: "What dignity then did they (the seven, commonly called Deacons) hold, and what ordination did they receive, is now to be learned. Was it the ordination of Deacons? This was not in the Church, but belonged to the economy of Presbyters. But as yet, there was no Bishop except the Apostles. Whence, I think, neither the name of Deacons nor Presbyters, was at that time clear and manifest; but presently, or soon after, they were ordained by that name.".

After considering this passage as attentively as I possibly can, the meaning appears to me to be this-That in the opinion of Chrysostom, the seven were not ordained to the Deacon's office, as it was afterwards when St. Paul wrote his Epistles, and in the succeeding ages; for the office of a Deacon and of a Presbyter was not instituted at so early a period by those names, but several years afterwards. This probably is the meaning of the passage. But not choosing to depend on my own judgment, I have turned to Bishop Taylor's Tract on Episcopacy, and I find that he has much the same opinion of the passage that I have. "What dignity had these seven here ordained? Of Deacons? No; for this dispensation is made by Priests, not Deacons." This is the expression in which the obscurity lies. The Bishop

goes on, "Theophylact, more clearly repeating the words of St. Chrysostom, pro more suo [according to his custom,] adds this'The name and dignity of these seven was no less, but even the dignity of Presbyters, only for the time they were appointed to dispense the goods of the Church for the good of the faithful people.' "Both those fathers believed that the seven were of the number of the seventy, and that they were Presbyters to whom the care of the common stock was committed for a short time. Whether this opinion is correct or not, it is very evident, that neither of them took this transaction to be an ordination to the office of a Deacon. In what respect then you can derive any advantage from it, is beyond my conception.

It is now evident that you have not given us so much as the words of Chrysostom; and consequently, we are not to look for his meaning from you. You make him say, "In his time, such Deacons as the Apostles ordained, were not in the Church." Whereas he says, that "The ordination of Deacons was not in the Church at that time ;"—that is, when the seven were appointed-" neither the name of Deacon nor Presbyter then appears." When he is allowed to speak for himself, his opinion is very different from that you ascribe to him.

But, Sir, I will not deprive you either of the words you have given us for Chrysostom's, or of the opinion you are pleased to ascribe to him; you can have them both, and welcome. What then? Your inference does not follow. It does not follow that, because ecclesiastical authority gave additional powers to Deacons, when no other order was injured by it, that the order of Bishops could have been introduced, when the whole order of Presbyters would have thereby lost some of their most valuable rights, and, in consequence, have been reduced to a subordinate grade. This would have been a revolution of a momentous nature, of which we should find enough in ecclesiastical history.

I am really ashamed to take up so much of the time of our readers in replying to things which have not the weight of a feather; and vexed to be obliged to waste so much of my own time, when I can employ it to a much better purpose.

Your other quotations are of equal importance with the last; yet I cannot well avoid noticing them. Were I not to do it, I am confident it would be said they are too hard for me.

You quote Basil, saying, "CHRIST says, lovest thou me, Peter, more than these? Feed my sheep. And from thence he gave to all Pastors and Doctors equal power; whereof this is a token, that all of them, as Peter did, bind and loose."

The injunction of CHRIST is, "Feed my sheep." The inference is, "From thence he gave to all Pastors and Doctors equal power" to feed his sheep. And do we not say, that all Pastors have equal power to feed CHRIST's sheep, by preaching his word and administering his sacraments? Have not Presbyters this power as well as Bishops? They surely have. In this respect they are perfectly on a level. The only difference is as VOL. II.-6

to the origin of the power; the Presbyter deriving it from the Bishop; the Bishop from the Apostles by succession. The power, when communicated to the Presbyter, is plenary; he has as good a right to preach and administer the sacraments as the Bishop. But this does not affect the Bishop's rod of discipline. And a Presbyter's having a right to preach and administer the sacraments, gives him of course the power of binding and loosing; that is, of repelling unworthy persons from the communion, and of receiving them again when they profess contrition and repentance. The Bishop's superiority in superintending, is not in the least affected; his business in all this, is only to see that these things be done; which necessarily implies that the power of the Presbyter to do them is complete. It is evident, then, that Bishops and Presbyters have equal power of preaching, and of binding and loosing.

You next quote one of the canons of the fourth council of Carthage. "Let the Bishop, when he is in the church and sitting in the presbytery, be placed in a higher seat; but when he is in the house, let him know that he is the colleague of the Presbyters."

My first observation is, that the most learned Presbyterian writers in this controversy acknowledge, that the distinction of orders took place a hundred years before the fourth council of Carthage. I have proved that Blondel, and the whole Provincial Council of Presbyterian Ministers which met in London in the seventeenth century, acknowledge it. They knew of this canon as well as you; but they did not draw from it your fancy, that Bishops and Presbyters were at that time equal.

2. I have proved, beyond the possibility of refutation, that diocesan episcopacy was universally the government of the Church at that time. So numerous, pointed, and decisive are the testimonies adduced, that you have not ventured to meddle with them. In this you have discovered prudence; and I wish I could add that you had discovered fairness, and ingenuousness in citing this canon.

3. I have proved, that in the third century the Bishops formed a distinct college, and this necessarily implies imparity. Blondel acknowledges this. And "Chamier had so just a notion of the true nature of a colleague, that he not only formed the Bishop of Rome's being so frequently and ordinarily called their 'colleague' by other Bishops, into an argument (and a solid one it is) against the Pope's supremacy, but he also affirms, that after the introduction of episcopacy, Presbyters neither were, nor were called colleagues to Bishops, upon this very score, that they had not equal powers with Bishops. And, therefore, (though a Presbyterian) he suspects the wording of the thirty-fifth canon, which requires Bishops, in ordinary conversation, to treat Pres

a Ex quo distincti cleri gradus, diversa Episcoporum et Presbyterorum collegia, &c. Apol. p. 162.