in different ranks; and as the Apostles settled the churches, they appointed different orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons."* What say you to this! It is really unfortunate that your statements should be so repeatedly contradicted in express terms. Let me refer you, also, to the history of the reformation, by this learned Prelate, where you will find him saying that to maintain that Bishops and Priests are not distinct orders is to follow the schoolmen and canonists of the church of Rome, the very dregs of popery.t What strong language! And, yet, in the face of such passages as these, you represent Bishop Burnet as referring the superiority of Bishops over Priests to mere human policy. What confidence, pardon me, sir, can the public place in any of your statements!

I pass on to the celebrated Bishop Stillingfleet, from whom, the advocates of parity have, so frequently, and so copiously, borrowed.

Stillingfleet, it is true, maintained, at one period of his life, that neither Episcopacy nor Presbytery is prescribed by God; supposing the form and order of the ministry to be left to human discretion. In defence of this idea, he produced, at the early age of twenty four, a work entitled the Irenicum; but when his mind had become matured by age and study, he changed his opinion, and explicitly avowed such change. He even went so far as to apologize for the work."Will you not allow one single person who happened to write about these matters when he was very young, in twenty years time of the most busy and thoughtful part of his life, to see reason to alter his judgement." Here, sir, is an express recantation of the opinions of which you avail yourself.

The following passages are from an ordination sermon delivered by Stillingfleet in the year sixteen hundred and eighty four. "I cannot find any argument of force in the New Testament to prove that ever the Christian churches were under the sole government of Presbyters." "This

succession was not in mere presidency of order, but the Bishops succeeded the Apostles in the government over those churches." "There is as great reason to believe the Apostolical succession to be of divine institution as the canon of scripture, or the observation of the Lord's day."

* Burnet's Exp. Ac. 25.

+Ibid. vol. I. p. 366. Preface to the Unreasonableness of Separation.

See what this learned writer says on another occasion! "They who go about to unbishop Timothy and Titus may as well unscripture the epistles that were written to them, and make them only some particular and occasional writings, as make Timothy and Titus to have been only some particular and occasional officers." "We have no greater assurance that these epistles were written by St. Paul, than that there were Bishops to succeed the Apostles in the care and government of churches."*

How could you arrange Stillingfleet among those who place Episcopacy on the ground of human appointment! When he had expressly retracted his early opinions, and had set forth the superiority of Bishops, from the time of the Apostles, in so plain terms. You do, indeed, say that he made a kind of vague and feeble recantation. Vague and feeble! Are the passages which I have quoted of that character? And, sir, you not only thus misrepresent the change in the opinion of Stillingfleet; but, directly, ascribe his conduct to the desire of preferment. This, surely, is going a great way. Still, too, his name is left in the list of those who consider the superiority of Bishops to Presbyters as founded in mere human institution. Talk not, I beseech you, of the arts, or the uncharitableness, of your opponents.

I have thus taken a brief notice of the opinions of Cranmer, Whitgift, Burnet, and Stillingfleet, four of the learned divines whom you class under your first division of Episcopal writers. It would be easy, on this part of the subject, to enlarge greatly. A volume would not suffice to go fully into it. But I have said enough to shew that your statement of the opinions of others is utterly erroneous. mer, Whitgift, Burnet, and Stillingfleet, all assert, in express and unqualified terms, the divine institution of Episcopacy. A few observations, now, upon your second class of Episcopal writers.

Cran

"They suppose that the government of the church by Bishops, as a superior order to Presbyters, was sanctioned by Apostolic example, and that it is the duty of all churches to imitate this example. But while they consider Episcopacy as necessary to the perfection of the church, they grant that it is by no means necessary to her existence."t

Charge to his clergy.

Letters, p. 12.

These writers consider Episcopacy as an institution of Christ and his Apostles, to which all churches are sacredly bound to conform. This is strong language; setting forth, indeed, the great principle upon which the standards of our church are founded, and for which all consistent Episcopalians contend. Do they still hold that Episcopal ordination is not essential to the existence of the church? How much

more liberal are they, then, than you and your friends! For you not only declare that Presbyterial government alone is conformable to the divine plan; but you say, no church without a ministry; no ministry without outward ordination ;* no outward ordination but such as is Presbyterial ;† thus making Presbyterial ordination absolutely essential to the existence of the church, and to all covenanted title to salvation. I am far from blaming you for this conclusion. It results, inevitably, from your premises. For if an ordin ation be necessary to convey the sacerdotal office, and if God has given to a particular set of men the power of ordaining; then, ordination, by any other set of men, is a mere human ceremony conveying no anthority to act in the name of Christ. You say that the great Head of the church constituted a ministry, upon the system of parity, and gave to this ministry alone the power of ordaining; following the position up to its true conclusion that ordination is, altogether, invalid, except when performed by Presbyters, agreeably to the plan laid down in the gospel. You reject, then, the reasoning which you impute to the Episcopal divines whom you quote, and refuse to imitate the liberality you ascribe to them; while, for very obvious reasons, you make that liberality a theme of praise,

If you believed in the institution, by Christ and his Apostles, of distinct grades of ministers, with the power of ordaining lodged in the highest grade, would you admit ordination, performed by the second grade, not at all commissioned for the purpose, to be valid ? The position carries absurdity upon its very face; amounting to this, that ordination is an act performed by authority from God, but is just as good when performed without his authority, as with it. No. The claims, of all consistent Episcopalians, and of all consistent Presbyterians, are equally exclusive, and must be so from the very nature of things. For, if God has given

*Presbyterian confession of Faith. Letters, p. 347. Ibid.

It

to a particular order of men the power of making a Priest by ordination, then, ordination, by that order of men, does really create a Priest, because it is the exercise of a power which God has bestowed, and which he only can bestow. Then, too, ordination, by any other set of men, to whom God has not given the power, does not create a Priest; being a mere human act without any authority whatever. is ridiculous, therefore, to say that God may have instituted distinct grades of ministers, with the power of ordination in one of these, and yet that ordination by another of the grades, not entrusted with the power, is valid. Not less ridiculous is it to say that God has created a ministry, consisting of Presbyters, upon the footing of equality, and yet that ordination, performed by any other set of men, will create a Priest, equally with ordination by the men specially empowered for the purpose. You and your friends take very good care not to run into the one absurdity; while you are uncandid and unjust enough to inveigh bitterly against your opponents for steering clear of the other.

If Episcopal ordination be of divine institution, then Episcopal ordination alone can create a minister of Christ; and if a ministry be essential to the church, Episcopal ordination must be equally essential.

In the same way, if Presbyterial ordination be of divine institution, then Presbyterial ordination alone can create a minister of Christ; and, a ministry being essential to the church, Presbyterial ordination must be so too.

You say lay ordination is good for nothing. Why? Because there is no divine authority for it. For the very same reason we say Presbyterial ordination is good for nothing. And if Bishops be superior to Presbyters, possessing alone the power of ordaining, our conclusion, you yourself being judge, is irresistible. All, then, who hold that Episcopacy is an Apostolic institution, must, if they act upon your principles, equally hold that Episcopal ordination alone is yalid, and, of course, is just as essential to the existence of the church, as a ministry is essential to such existence.

It would seem impossible that there should be any difference of opinion upon so obvious a point. The Apostles were divinely commissioned to establish the ministry. They did establish a ministry in distinct grades; giving to the highest grade the power of ordaining. So say the standards of our church; and so you represent the writers, under your second division, as saying. Admitting all this, how

can ordination by Presbyters be valid? They have never, according to the supposition, been empowered to ordain. If, then, ordination by them will create a Priest, it is of no sort of consequence whether ordination be performed by those whom God has authorized to perform it, or by those whom he has not authorized to perform it.*

* Some few divines of the church of England have made a distinction between apostolic institution, and divine origin. It would be just as correct to make a distinction between apostolic doctrine and divine doctrine. Every institution of the Apostles, resting upon general and permanent reasons; every institution, indeed, not manifestly local, or temporary, in its nature, is binding upon all suc ceeding ages of the church. There are occasional doctrines, and occasional practices of the Apostles; the latter naturally supposing, and arising out of the former. How are we to distinguish? By a sound interpretation. Let the nature of the case, the tenor of scripture, and the testimony of antiquity, be our guides. How are we to ascertain the meaning of any one passage of scripture? How shall we tell when a text is to be taken in the figurative; when, in the literal sense? How shall we distinguish between a temporary doctrine, and a permanent one; between an article of faith, or fundamental principle of religion, and an inferior truth of scripture ?

The first day Sabbath, for example, rests altogether, upon apostolic practice or institution. There is no command, immediately from God, directing a change from the last to the first day of the week. Apostolic institution is, then, divine institution. Christ was in all that the Apostles did; and it is as absurd to say that we are not bound to observe those general institutions which, as inspired governors of the church, they established, as to say that we are not bound to believe the doctrines which, as inspired teachers, they delivered.

But

It was a custom, in the time of the Apostles, to meet for public worship, in secret places, and under locked doors. Here apostolic practice is, plainly, not intended to be binding. There is no difficulty in seeing this. The nature of the case tells us at once. the change of the Sabbath, from the last to the first day of the week, is of a different nature; being calculated, not for particular states or conditions of the church, but for all states and conditions of it.

Our Savior himself instituted the sacerdotal power. He consti tuted the Apostles, Priests and Governors of his church; authorizing them to regulate its affairs, and provide for its continuance; directing them to send others, as he had sent them. Well, the Apostles ordained. Whence did the ordained person derive his commission? Surely from Christ; the Apostles acting merely as his agents; exercising a power which he had given them, and which he had directed them to exercise. The commission flows from Christ through the Apostles as his agents. Then the commission is divine. Let us advance a step further. The Apostles created distinct grades of ministers. That is, they gave to some