Chillingworth does not scruple to call a demonstration of the Apostolic origin of Episcopacy. The demonstration stands thus" Episcopal government is acknowledged to have been universally received in the church presently after the Apostles' times. Between the Apostles' times and that presently after, there was not time enough for, nor possibility of, so great an alteration.

(6 And, therefore, there was no such alteration as is pretended. And, therefore, Episcopacy being confessed to be so ancient and Catholic, must be granted to be also Apostolic."

In the preceding letter, I showed that Presbyterian writers are at variance, when they attempt to assign the century when Episcopacy first appeared in the church; and also observed, that this difference among themselves affords a strong presumption that they are all wrong. I would now observe, that as they cannot agree with respect to the time, so neither can they with respect to the source of this usurpation. The generality ascribe it to wicked ambition, rendered successful by general corruption. But the celebrated Dr. Campbell takes very different ground. He condemns those who ascribe the change to corruption; for that, he says, is ascribing it to what did not exist. The church, he assures us, was in great purity, and the clergy were distinguished for their virtue and piety in the second century; and you make the same acknowledgment.. He ascribes the change not to vice, but to virtue;

not to corruption, but to piety. Well, Sir, where are we now? According to the learned Principal, virtue and piety changed Presbyterian into Episcopal government. Who then would not wish, that the offspring of so venerable a parent were suffered to exist in peace? And what an implied reflection upon Presbyterian parity, that the interests of religion required its abolition! But what sort of virtue and piety could that be, which led the Presbyters to offer to a few of their own order, Episcopal pre-eminence, and those to whom it was offerred, to receive it; both parties well knowing that it was contrary to the will of Christ? And what were both parties to get by-thus depraving the government of the church, and violating a sacred institution? They certainly could expect no reward in the next. life for their transgression. And what did this life offer to the Presbyters for degrading themselves, and to the Bishops for receiving this unchristian boon? To the former, imagination can give no equivalent; as to the latter, did they derive from it wealth and secular advantages? No; poverty and contempt were their certain portion. Had they less suffering and greater security? No; but almost inevitable death, and every species of torture. seems then that no motive can possibly be assigned, either on the ground of virtue, or of corruption, for this wonderful change.

It

The mode which the learned Principal adopted to account for this extraordinary revolution is, if

possible, worse than yours. It is ascribing to piety, what nothing but monstrous depravity could have suggested; it is ascribing to the human mind (as your hypothesis also does) action without motive, which is palpable nonsense; it is supposing the Bishops to be idiots, in accepting a superiority, from which no advantage could result, either in this world or in the next; and, lastly, it supposes (as the ground usually taken does) that all the subsequent writers and councils were grossly ignorant, or stupidly credulous, in regard to the Apostolic origin of Episcopacy. Thus much for Dr. Campbell's speculation.

The fact being thus, I think, established, that diocesan Episcopacy was sanctioned by the Apostles, and that it was not the offspring of human ambition, as you unjustifiably assert, I have no need of taking notice of what you call "a sketch of the rise and progress of this remarkable usurpation."* For all you have said from page 321 to page 329 is nothing more than what you had said in a more diffused manner throughout your book; to every article of which, a sufficient answer (I flatter my, self) has been given.

Before I pass on to your concluding letter, I shall make a few observations on the testimonies you adduce from Gregory Nazianzen. You say, "That the synods and councils which early began

2

to be convened, were, in fact, thus employed by the ambitious clergy, to extend and confirm their power, might be proved by witnesses almost numberless. The testimony of one shall suffice." You then quote Gregory as saying, " that he was desirous of avoiding all synods, because he had never seen a good effect, or happy conclusion of any one of them; that they rather increased than lessened the evils they were designed to prevent; and that the love of contention, and the lust of power, were there manifested in instances innumerable." And afterwards speaking of the council of Constantinople, which met in 381, he remarks" These conveyers of the Holy Ghost, these preachers of peace to all men, grew bitterly outrageous and clamorous against one another, in the midst of the church, mutually accusing each other, leaping about as if they had been mad, under the furious impulse of a lust of power and dominion, as if they would have rent the whole world in pieces. This was not the effect of piety, but of a contention for thrones." Again: "Would to God there were no prelacy, no pre-eminence of place, no tyrannical privileges; and that we might be distinguished by virtue alone.. This right and left hand, and this middle place, these higher and lower dignities, and this state-like precedency, have caused many fruitless contests. and bruises, have cast many into the pit, and carried away multitudes to the place of goats." Upon these quotations, you ask, "Would an eminently

learned and pious Bishop, have spoken thus, if he had considered prelacy as of divine appointment???

To this question I answer without hesitationYes, he might have thus spoken in perfect consistency with the belief that Episcopacy was of divine origin. Was there ever a more fallacious mode of reasoning than this? Bishops have abused their authority, therefore the office is not of divine appointment. Some councils have done more harm than good; therefore councils are pernicious. Whither. will not this sophistry lead us? Certainly, Sir, farther than you desire. Many of your readers, no doubt, will stop precisely at the point at which you would wish them to stop; but others will" push you over the precipice" with the conse quences of this fallacy. The Papists will tell you, that reading the Bible has produced heresies and. schisms; therefore it cannot be the duty of the laity to read it. The Quaker will tell you, and with truth, that Presbyters, as well as Bishops, have been proud, and contentious, and ambitious; and, therefore, we are better without them. The Deists well tell you, that Christianity has occasioned seditions, rebellions, wars, massacres, and innumerable other mischiefs; and, therefore, it cannot be of divine institution. Whither will not this sophism lead us? It has deprived us of the Bible, of a ministry, and of religion altogether. It will also deprive us of civil government. Under every form much mischief has been done. Great injustice,