1.  Vid. Grot. de jur. bell. & pacis, Lib. ii. cap. v. § 9.

2.  The Theatre is said to have commenced at Athens, but to have been so much disapproved of, both in Greece and at Rome, that it was allowed no permanency till the days of Pompey. Minutius Felix derided the Christians for abstaining from this amusement. It is not probable therefore that the first Christians required any reproof in any of the Epistles for this vice. But every abuse of it may find its correction in scripture. Morals and piety may be thrown into Dialogue without reasonable objection. But to turn these things into play, and the amusement of the reprobate, cannot be justified.—There is no fairness in arguing from what they might be, to prove the lawfulness of plays in the state in which they are, always have been, and will probably always be. That they are, and tend to evil is proved by the avidity with which they are frequented by even the worst members of society. They are calculated to excite the affections and passions in the highest manner, and so to render private happiness, domestic enjoyments, and religious observances insipid or disgusting. The reiteration of scenes of impurity, illicit amours, extravagant passions, jealousy, and revenge, will make a silent and secret impression upon the mind, and if they do not promote the same wickedness, they will at least render the mind less abhorrent of such crimes. True religion requires the exclusion of such imaginations, the immediate banishment of such thoughts, that we should mortify and deny ourselves; “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.” The cruelty and bloodshed frequently threatened, or resorted to in defence of false honour; the pomp, pride, and ambition not unfrequently exhibited upon the stage, must necessarily prompt to like feats in vindication of character, or at least lead to self-importance and fastidiousness; but the gospel teaches humility, self-denial, lowliness of mind; “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” When such representations please, they prove the mind corrupt, and become an index of the morals of those who are entertained with such spectacles. The Christian duties of meekness, silence, forbearance, humility, bearing the cross, faith, and repentance, are either incapable of being transferred to the stage, or if seen there are exposed to contempt, and ridicule. The addresses to Deity, and prayers there offered, are surely Heaven-provoking blasphemies. The Theatre interrupts religious, domestic, and public duties; it dissipates and fascinates the mind; weakens conscience, grieves the Holy Spirit, wastes property, and time; and unqualifies both for this, and the world to come.

Every one who attends is chargeable with the evil which obtains before him, for he goes voluntarily, he submits himself as to the matter of his amusement to others, and thus with the blessings of Providence, bribes the enemies of God to blaspheme him.

Some men of character for morals have countenanced, and some have written for the stage, perhaps they calculated upon what it might be, and aimed to correct the evil by drawing to it the more respectable of society. But the great majority of men are enemies to God, these will only be pleased with evil, and their pleasure will always be sought, because interest will compel to this. This is therefore doing evil that good may come; if indeed it can under any circumstances be good, to turn even correct performances, if such there were, into publick amusement.

After all there can be no hope of a total removal of this evil, yet we are on this account no more excused from bearing testimony against it, than from opposing other crimes which cannot be wholly prevented.

3.  The Hebrew word שאל which is here used, does not only signify commodavit, or usui dedit, or accepit, but petiit, or postulavit; in the last of which senses it is to be understood, in Deut. x. 12. What doth the Lord require or demand of thee, &c. And in Judges v. 25. where the same word is used, it is said, that Sisera asked water of Jael; not as one that was borrowing it of her, but as a gratuity for former kindness which he had shewn to her.

4.  From נשך, momordit.

5.  See 3 vol. p. 422.

6.  Mendacium officiosum.

7.  This is called mendacium jocosum.

8.  This is called mendacium pernitiosum.

9.  See Page 509.

10.  See Quest. LXXVIII. Vol. III. 170.

11.  See Quest. LXXXII.

12.  See Vol. II. 44.

13.  Κτίσις these mean the animal part of man.

14.  These several heads, concerning the aggravations of sin, are contained in three or four lines, which are helpful to our memories. Most of the heads of this answer, are contained in that verse, Quis? Quid? Ubi? Quibus auxiliis? Cur? Quomodo? Quando? And those that relate to our contracting the guilt of other men’s sins, in the following lines; Jussu. Consilio. Consensu. Palpo. Recursu. Participans. Nutans. Non obstans. Non manifestans. Incessans. Minuens. Non mærens. Solicitansve.

15.  See Vol. II. Quest. XXVIII, XXIX, and Vol. III. Quest. LXXXIX.

16.  See Vol. II. Quest. XLIV. Page 273-290.

17.  See Quest. LXX, LXXI. Vol. III. p. 66-96. and what was said under those answers, to explain the doctrine of justification.

18.  See Quest. LXXVI. Vol. III. p. 166.

19.  See Quest. LXXII., LXXIII. Vol. III. p. 98.

20.  To affect to honour the mercy of God, by supposing this is sufficient for all our sins, however persevered in, is to disparage his truth which has proposed terms of mercy, connected our salvation with them, and pronounced them exclusive. It is to imagine that Deity shall change his purposes; it is an affront to his wisdom to suppose that after he has placed us in a state of probation and made us accountable, no retribution should be made. It indicates insincerity, and not a real regard for the divine glory, to set up such a substitute for the gospel scheme of salvation.

To excuse sin by alleging our impotency to good, is disingenuous; because the party can be conscious of no obstacle, unless his own inclinations to evil can be so denominated. This excuse casts the blame on God. To persist in sin under such pretences, is to do evil that good may come, which, the Apostle of the Gentiles declares renders condemnation just; it is to sin that grace may abound.

To defer the acceptation of offered mercy, and put off the work of repentance, is unwise, as it is heaping sorrows against the day of bitterness; it is imprudent, because it is to remain at enmity with Him upon whom we depend, and to be liable at every moment of this uncertain life to be involved in everlasting despair. It is evidence of a very sordid mind to prefer the base gratifications of the senses, to the refined pleasures of virtue, and the beauty, peace, and comforts of holiness.

If the procrastination proceed from a dread of the labour of acquiring the knowledge of the truth, this will be increased by every hour’s delay, as the mind becomes thereby the less susceptible of religious impressions. The time in which the work should be accomplished also becomes the shorter; like a traveler, who has mistaken his course, the impenitent has every step to tread back again, and his time is proportionally curtailed. The truths of natural science flatter our pride and ambition, but those of religion humble and crucify them; the latter, being opposed to the carnal mind, disgust; if such disgust produce a delay of conversion, the truths which have once excited such aversion will be more likely afterwards to do it, because the mind by once having rejected them has become more sensual, and opposed to moral good.

The cares and business of life not merely pre-occupy the mind, and exclude the thoughts of religion, but augment our addictedness to earthly objects, and render progressively the mind more insensible to lessons of piety. In old age avarice or sensuality are often at the highest pitch; the man has become more impatient and irritable, tenacious even of his errours, and averse to changes, no change can be looked for but the great one, when the messenger arrives, who brings a scythe in his hand.

To defer conversion till death, that its terrors may dissolve the charms of the world, besides the hazard of surprise, is unreasonable, as it supposes mercy when we have persisted in rebellion as long as we can; it is to expect that God’s Spirit shrill always strive with man; it is highly presumptuous; and it exposes also to self-deception, as religion in that late hour must be the effect of necessity, and destitute of the fruits and proofs of holiness.

21.  I come now to say somewhat of the antiquity of Musical Instruments. But that these were not used in the Christian Church in the primitive times, is attested by all the ancient writers with one consent. Hence they figuratively explain all the places of the Old Testament, which speak of Musical Instruments; as I might easily shew by a thousand testimonies, out of Clement of Alexandria, Basil, Ambrose, Jerom, Augustine, Chrysostom, and many others. I can hardly forbear laughing, when I meet with some of their allegorical interpretations. Thus an Instrument with ten strings, according to them, signifies the Ten Commandments, as the unknown author of the Commentary upon the Psalms, among Jerom’s works, often explains it, In Ps. xxxii. 2. xliii. 4, &c. But the pleasantest fancy is the explication of those words: Praise him with stringed Instruments and Organs. Ps. cl. 4. “That the guts being twisted by reason of abstinence from food, and so all carnal desires being subdued, men are found fit for the kingdom of God, to sing his praises.” But Chrysostom talks more handsomly; “As the Jews praised God with all kind of Instruments; so we are commanded to praise him with all the members of our bodies, our eyes, &c.” In Ps. cl. And Clement of Alexandria talks much to the same purpose. Pædag. lib. ii. c. 4.

Besides, the ancients thought it unlawful to use those Instruments in God’s worship. Thus the unknown author of a Treatise, among Justin Martyr’s works: “Q. If songs were invented by unbelievers with a design of deceiving, and were appointed for those under the Law, because of the childishness of their minds; why do they, who have received the perfect instructions of grace, which are most contrary to the foresaid customs, nevertheless sing in the Churches, just as they did, who were children under the Law? Answ. Plain Singing is not childish, but only the Singing with lifeless Organs, with Dancing and Cym-bals, &c. Whence the use of such Instruments, and other things fit for children, is laid aside, and Plain Singing only retained.” Resp. ad Orthodox. Q. 107.

Chrysostom seems to have been of the same mind, and to have thought, the use of such Instruments was rather allowed the Jews in consideration of their weakness, than prescribed and commanded. In Ps. cl. But that he was mistaken, and that Musical Instruments were not only allowed the Jews, as he thought, and Isidorus of Pelusium, (whose testimony I shall mention presently) but were prescribed by God, may appear from the Texts of Scripture I have before referred to.

Clement, as I have mentioned already, thought these things fitter for beasts, than for men. And though Basil highly commends, and stifly defends the way of Singing by turns; yet he thought musical Instruments unprofitable and hurtful. He calls them, the inventions of Jubal of the race of Cain. And a little after, he thus expresses himself: “Laban was a lover of the harp, and of music, with which he would have sent away Jacob: If thou hadst told me, said he, I would have sent thee away with mirth, and musical instruments, and an Harp. But the Patriarch avoided that music, as being a thing that would hinder his regarding the works of the Lord, and his considering the works of his hands.” Comment. in Is. c. v. p. 956, 957. And a little before, he says thus “In such vain arts, as the playing upon the Harp, or Pipe, or dancing, as soon as the action ceases, the work itself vanishes. So that really, according to the Apostle’s expression, The end of these things is destruction.” page 955.

Isidore of Pelusium, who lived since Basil, held, music was allowed the Jews by God, in a way of condescension to their childishness: “If God” says he, “bore with bloody sacrifices, because of men’s childishness at that time; why should you wonder, he bore with the music of an harp and a psaltery?” Epist. lib. 2. ep. 176.

Nay, there are some ecclesiastical officers in the Church of England, who, for their very profession and employment, would have been kept from the communion of the Church, except they desisted from it. So we are informed by the Apostolical Constitutions: “If any come to the mystery of godliness, being a player upon a pipe, a lute, or an harp; let him leave it off, or be rejected.” Lib. viii. c. 32.

From what has been said, it appears, no musical instruments were used in the pure times of the Church. It became Antichristian, before they were received. Bellarmine himself does not deny, they were late brought into the Church. “The second ceremony,” says he, “are the Musical Instruments, which began to be used in the service of the Church, in the time of Pope Vitalian, about the year 660, as Platina relates out of the Pontifical; or, as Aimonius rather thinks, lib. iv. De gestis Francorum, c. 114. after the year 820, in the time or Lewis the Pious.” De Missa, lib. ii. c. 15. Item, De bon. Oper. lib. i. c. 17.

Dr. N. would hardly have denied, the Church of Rome was become Antichristian, when they were first brought in; even though we should allow Bellarmine’s first date of them to be the true one. But a Reformed Divine may well be ashamed of that antiquity, that does not exceed the rise of Antichrist. But I am fully satisfied both Bellarmine’s dates are false, and that instrumental music, in the worship of God, is much later than either of those accounts allow. For as to Platina, he seems to suspect the truth of what he wrote: “Vitalian,” says he, “being careful about the worship of God, made an ecclesiastical rule, and ordered the singing, with the addition (as some think) of organs.” In Vital. Again, Bellarmine’s Aimonius is not the true Aimonius. For (as Dr. Cave says) Aimonius of Fleury, who wrote, De gestis Francorum, flourished about the year 1000; and his History, which begins at the destruction of Troy, is brought down as far as the coronation of King Pipin, or to the year 752. For what comes after that, and makes up the fifth book, and the latter part of the fourth, is the continuation of another hand. Hist. Liter. p. 597.

Farther, that these instruments were not used in God’s worship, in Thomas Aquinas’s time, that is, about the year 1250, he himself is witness. “In the old Law,” says he, “God was praised both with musical instruments and human voices, and according to that Psalm xxxiii. Praise the Lord with harp, sing unto him with the psaltery, and an instrument of ten strings. But the Church does not use musical instruments to praise God, lest she should seem to judaize. Therefore, by parity of reason, she should not use singing.” Secunda secundæ Questio 91, art. 4. & conclus. 4. The like objection is made by our author. But Thomas answers: “As to this objection, we must say, as the philosopher, Lib. viii. Polit. that Pipes are not to be used for teaching, nor any artificial instruments, as the harp, or the like: but whatever will make the hearers good men. For these musical instruments rather delight the mind, than form it to any good disposition. But under the Old Testament such instruments were used, partly because the people were harder and more carnal; upon which account they were to be stirred up by these instruments, as likewise by earthly promises; and partly because these bodily instruments were typical of something.” Upon which place Cardinal Cajetan gives us this Comment: “’Tis to be observed, the Church did not use organs in Thomas’s time. Whence, even to this day, the Church of Rome does not use them in the Pope’s presence. And truly it will appear, that musical instruments are not to be suffered in the ecclesiastical offices we meet together to perform, for the sake of receiving internal instruction from God; and so much the rather are they to be excluded, because God’s internal discipline exceeds all human disciplines, which rejected these kind of instruments.” Cit. Hoffm. Lex. voce Musica.

If any one objects the practice of some foreign churches, I answer with Mr. Hickman: “They are laid aside by most of the reformed churches; nor would they be retained among the Lutherans, unless they had forsaken their own Luther; who, by the confession of Eckard, reckoned organs among the ensigns of Baal. That they still continue in some of the Dutch churches, is against the minds of the Pastors. For in the National Synod at Middleburg, in the year 1581, and in the Synod of Holland and Zealand, in the year 1594, it was resolved, That they would endeavour to obtain of the magistrate the laying aside of organs, and the singing with them in the churches, even out of the time of worship, either before or after sermons: so far are those Synods from bearing with them in the worship itself.” Apol. p. 139.

The Church of England herself had formerly no very good opinion of these musical instruments; as may appear by her Homilies: “Lastly, God’s vengeance hath been, and is daily provoked, because much wicked people pass nothing to resort unto the church; either for that they are so sore blinded, that they understand nothing of God or godliness, and care not with devilish malice to offend their neighbours; or else for that they see the church altogether scoured of such gay gazing sights, as their gross phantasie was greatly delighted with; because they see the false religion abandoned, and the true restored, which seemeth an unsavory thing to their unsavory taste, as may appear by this that a woman said to her neighbour: Alas! gossip, what shall we now do at church, since all the Saints are taken away; since all the goodly sights we were wont to have are gone; since we cannot hear the like piping, singing, Chaunting, and playing upon the organs that we could before? But, dearly beloved, we ought greatly to rejoice and give God thanks, that our churches are delivered out of all those things, which displeased God so sore, and filthily defiled his holy house, and his place of prayer.” Hom. of the place and time of prayer, part. 2. p. 131.

A great number also of the Clergy in the first convocation of Queen Elizabeth in 1562, earnestly laboured to have organs, and that pompous theatrical way of singing laid aside, and missed the carrying it but by one vote, as I observe elsewhere. And in this Archbishop Parker concurred with them, or at least did not oppose them.

I will add one or two testimonies of Papists against this cathedral way of worship. The first shall be Polydorus Virgilius.

Having taken notice of Austine’s dislike of that way of singing in his time, he thus proceeds: “But in our time, it seems much less useful to the commonwealth, now our singers make such a noise in our churches, that nothing can be heard, beside the sound of the voice; and they who come there (that is all that are in the city) are satisfied with the concert of music, which their ears itch for, and never mind the sense of the words. So that we are come to that pass, that in the opinion of the common people, the whole affair of religious worship is lodged in these singers; although, generally speaking, there is no sort of men more loose or wicked: and yet a good part of the people run to church, as to a theatre, to hear them bawl: they hire and encourage them; and look upon them alone as ornaments to the house of God. Wherefore, without doubt, it would be for the interest of religion, either to cast these jackdaws out of the churches; or else to teach them when they sing, they should do it rather in the manner of reading, than bawling; as Austine says Athanasius ordered, &c.” De Invent. Rer. lib. vi. c. 2. p. 379.

Next hear the judgment of Erasmus: “Let a man be more covetous than Crassus, more foul-mouthed than Zoilus, he shall be reckoned a pious man, if he sings those prayers well, though he understands nothing of them. But what, I beseech you, must they think of Christ, who can believe he is delighted with such a noise of men’s voices? Not content with this, we have brought into our churches a certain operose and theatrical music; such a confused disorderly chattering of some words, as I hardly think was ever heard in any of the Grecian or Roman theatres. The church rings with the noise of trumpets, pipes and dulcimers; and human voices strive to bear their part with them.—Men run to church as to a theatre, to have their ears tickled. And for this end organ-makers are hired with great salaries, and a company of boys, who waste all their time in learning these whining tones. Pray now compute how many poor people in great extremity might be maintained by the salaries of those singers.” In 1 Cor. xiv. 19.

Lastly, Lindanus says: “Who will compare the Music of this present age, with that which was formerly used? Whatever is sung now, signifies little for informing the people; which ’tis certain the ancients always designed.” Panopl. lib. iv. c. 73.

Pierce’s Vindication.

22.  The first hymns of Gospel churches, were neither rythm, nor metre; and there was no version of David’s psalms, that could be sung before Calvin’s time.

23.  Ὑμνήσαντε.

24.  There is a difference between praising God, and instructing men.

25.  The first christians composed and set to music their hymns.

26.  Grotius thought the first Gospel hymns were extemporary. Basnage from Tertullian says; “neither the prayers they made to God, nor the hymns which they sung to his honour were reduced to rule; every one drew them from the Holy Scriptures, or from his own treasure, according to his genius.” A council of 70 bishops, A. D. 272. charged among other things against Paulus bishop of Antioch, that he abolished the Psalms, which were sung in gloriam Christi.—When the Ariam sang the doxology Glory be to the Father, the orthodox added, and to the Son and Spirit. Vide Dr. Latta, and Mr. Tod, on Psalmody.

27.  See Mr. Richard Allein’s essay on singing, chap. iv. who seems, in my opinion, in the whole of his short performance, to argue with a considerable degree of candor and judgment.

28.  See Sidenham’s gospel ordinance concerning singing, &c. and Hitchen’s scripture proof for singing, &c.

29.  It cannot be denied that the Psalms of David are called indifferently by these three names, psalms, hymns, and songs שיר, מזמר, תהלה, ψαλμὸς, ὑμνὴ, ὀδη, and sometimes the same psalm is called a song or psalm, as in the title of Psalm. lxv. or a song of a psalm [as the LXX. render it, ὀδη ψαλμοῦ.] And in Psalm cv. 2. when it is said, Sing unto him, sing psalms unto him; שירו לו זמרו לו the former word signifies to sing a spiritual song; the latter to sing a psalm; or, as the Septuagint render the same word, in 1 Chron. xvi. 9. an hymn [Ἀσατε αυτω και υμνησατε.] See Sidenham’s gospel-ordinance, &c. chap. ii. and Ainsworth on the title of Psalm liii. whom he therein refers to.

30.  See Vol. I. 48. 69. Quest. III. and IV.

31.  See Quest. LXVII, LXVIII. Vol. III. p. 16.

32.  Many instances of this might be produced, viz. Gen. iii. 15. instead of, it shall bruise thy head, they render it she; by which they understand the Virgin Mary, shall bruise thy head, that is, the serpent’s. And, Gen. xlviii. 16. instead of, my name shall be named on them, which are the words of Jacob, concerning Joseph’s sons; it is rendered, my name shall be invoked, or called upon by them; which favours the doctrine of invocation of saints. And, in Psal. xcix. 5. instead of exalt the Lord thy God, and worship at his holy hill, they read, worship his footstool; which gives countenance to their error of paying divine adoration to places or things. And, in Heb. xi. 21. instead of, Jacob worshipped leaning on the top of his staff, they render it, he worshipped the top of his staff. And, in Heb. xiii. 16. instead of, with such sacrifices God is well pleased, they render it, with such sacrifices God is merited; which they make use of to establish the merit of good works.

33.  There is indeed, one verse in Jeremiah, chap. x. 11. that is written in Chaldee; which, it is probable, they did not, at that time, well understand; but the prophet, by this, intimates to them, that they should be carried into a country where that language should be used; and therefore the Holy Ghost furnishes them with a message, that they were to deliver to the Chaldeans, from the Lord, in their own language. The gods, that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from these heavens.

34.  See Vol. I. Quest. IV. p. 69, & seq.

35.  See Quest. CLIX, CLX.

36.  Θεοῦ και ἐσμεν συνεργο.

37.  Vide T. Williams on the Song of Solomon.

38.  Vide Table of the Order of the Prophecies. Vol. I. p. 55.

39.  The word is שלו, which being neither a root to any other word, nor derived from any other root, by which the sense of Hebrew words is generally known, nor found any where in scripture, excepting in those two or three places which refer to this particular dispensation of providence; it is an hard matter to determine the sense of it, without comparing these two scriptures together.—It occurs Numb. xi. 31, 32. Exod. xvi. 13. Psa. cv. 40.

40.  See the epistle to the Hebrews, chap. v. to the x. inclusive, and 2 Cor. x. 1-6.

41.  See Vol. I. p. 78.

42.  See Lightfoot’s Harmony of the Four Evangelists. And his Harmony of the New Testament, Vol. I. p. 268.

43.  This is called Synecdoche.

44.  This is called a Metonymy.

45.  See more of this in an ingenious discourse on this subject by Smith in Solomon’s portraiture of old age.

46.  Vid. Cic. in Orat. pro Planc. florem equitum Romanorum ornamentum civitatis, firmamentum reipublicæ publicanorum ordine contineri. And in his oration, ad Quintum Fratrem, he has many things concerning the dignity of the publicans, and their advantage to the commonwealth: accordingly he says, Si publicanis adversemur ordinem do nobis optime meritum, & per nos cum republica conjunctum, & a nobis, & a republica disjungimus. And, in his familiar epistles, Lib. xix. Epist. x. he calls them, Ordinem sibi semper commendatissimum; & ad Atticum, Lib. vii. Epist. vii. he says, Cæsari amicissimos fuisse publicanos.

47.  See Joseph. Antiquit. Lib. xiii. Cap. ix. And we have an account of their pride and insolence in the same author, chap. xviii. and of the great disturbance that they made in civil governments, if chief magistrates did not please them.

48.  See Joseph. Antiquit. Lib. xi. Cap. viii.

49.  See Tertull. in præscrip. adv. Hær. Cap. xlv. and Epiphanius, in Hær. Cap. xx.

50.  That Herod was disposed to make alterations in the Jews religion, by adding to it a mixture of several rites and ceremonies, taken from the Heathen, is affirmed by some. See Cunæus de Rep. Hœb. Lib. i Cap. xvi. who quotes Josephus as saying, that he altered the ancient laws of their country.

51.  See Vol. III. p. 495.

52.  Sacrament is the word used by the Vulgate for mystery, and this is a much more probable meaning of the term as used by the early christians.

53.  Και σημειον ελαβε περιτομης, σφραγιδα της δικαιοσυνης της πίστεως.

54.  When these two are distinguished by divines, the one is generally called, signum significans; the other signum confirmans; or, the former is said, significare; the latter, obsignare.

55.  It were to be wished, the inspired books had been more generally honoured, as the only sufficient rule of judgment, by those who have wrote in favor of episcopacy, upon the plan of a DIVINE RIGHT; and the rather, as they speak of it, not merely as an institution of the gospel, but an essentially necessary one: insomuch, that gospel ordinances will be invalid, unless administered by those, who have been episcopally vested with holy orders.

In a matter of such momentous concern, they would not have acted an unworthy part, if they had confined their pleas to the sacred writings; producing such passages from them as speak to the point, not implicitly and darkly; but in peremptory and express terms, so as to leave no reasonable room for hesitation or doubt. It would be dishonourary to the BIBLE, and a gross reflection on the penman of it, to call that an “appointment of Christ,” and an “essentially necessary” one, which is not contained in this sacred volume, and with such clearness and precision, that sober and impartial inquirers may readily perceive it to be there, without foreign help to assist their sight. And yet, such help is made necessary by episcopal writers. They scarce ever fail of turning us to the FATHERS in vindication of their cause; hereby virtually reflecting disgrace on the scriptures, as though they were insufficient, simply of themselves, to bring this controversy to an issue.

In order to reconcile the appeal that is so often made to the FATHERS with that honour which is due to the scriptures, the episcopalian plea is, that they consider these fathers, not as judges, but witnesses only in their cause. But what are they brought to witness? Is it, that episcopacy is an institution of Jesus Christ? If this is witnessed to in the sacred books, of which we, having these in our hands, are as good judges as they, it is sufficient. There is no need of any foreign testimony. If it is not, no other testimony can supply this defect. Are these fathers cited as witnesses to what was the practice in their day? This is now generally the pretence. They may, say the episcopalians, be properly appealed to, in order to know the truth of FACT in the ages in which they lived. And if, from their unanimous testimony, even from the first days of Christianity, it appears, that GOVERNING and ordaining AUTHORITY was exercised by Bishops ONLY, in distinction from Presbyters, and as an order in the church above them, it would argue great arrogance, if not obstinate perverseness, to dispute the divine original of episcopacy. But we must be excused, however perverse we may be accounted, if we cannot bring ourselves to think, that the practice of the church, since the apostles’ days, however universal, will justify our receiving that as an institution of Christ, and an essentially important one, which he himself hath not clearly and evidently made so, either in his own person, or by those inspired writers, whom he commissioned and instructed to declare his will: nor can we believe the great Author of christianity would have put the professors of it to the difficult, I may say, as to most of them, the impossible task of collecting any thing essential to their salvation from the voluminous records of antiquity. We are rather persuaded, he has ordered every article that is necessary, either in point of faith or practice, to be so fairly and legibly wrote by the sacred penman, as that there should be no need of having recourse to the ancient Fathers as WITNESSES, any more than judges, to ascertain his mind. To suppose the contrary, would, in reality of construction, substitute TRADITION the rule of essential truth, in the room of the SCRIPTURES, which were “given by inspiration of God;” or, at least make the former so much a part of this rule, as that the latter, without it, would not be sufficiently complete. Such dishonour ought not to be cast on the one only standard of the real mind of Christ.

The Bishop, in whose defence an appeal is made to antiquity, is not related, by his office, to a single congregation of christians only, with one or more Presbyters belonging to it; but his charge is a diocess, consisting of a number of congregations, greater or less, with their respective Presbyters. The inquiry therefore is, whether it be an UNIVERSALLY ATTESTED FACT, that episcopacy, in this sense, took place in, and through, the two first ages? A Bishop, at the head of a number of congregations, greater or less, is an officer in the church of Christ quite different from the pastor of a single congregation; though he should be called Bishop, as being the Head-Presbyter, or vested with the character of PRIMUS INTER PARES. It should be particularly noted, which of these kinds of episcopacy has the voice of the specified antiquity in its favour. It is willingly left with every man of common understanding, after he has gone over the following testimonies, to say, whether he thinks, that Bishops, after the DIOCESAN-MODE, were known in the first ages of the church?

The Bishop, for whom the fathers are called in as WITNESSES, is an officer in the church of an ORDER SUPERIOR to that of Presbyters, and as distinct from it as the order of Presbyters is from that of Deacons; the pretence being this, that Presbyters were thought to have, in primitive times, no more right to meddle with the peculiar work of Bishops, than Deacons have to concern themselves with the peculiar work of Presbyters. The question therefore is, Whether it will appear from the following evidence, to be at all a FACT, much less an UNIVERSALLY known, and certainly attested one, that there were Bishops, in this sense, in any church, in any part of the christian world, within the two first centuries?

The Bishop, in whose favour the ancient Fathers are said universally to speak, is one to whom the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF GOVERNMENT has been committed by the appointment of Jesus Christ, or his apostles as commissioned by him. Says the famous Bishop Hoadly, treating of the government of the church, as belonging to Bishops only, in the above appropriated sense, “And here—I think I may say, that we have as universal and as unanimous a testimony of all writers, and historians from the apostles’ days, as could reasonably be expected or desired: every one, who speaks of the government of the church, in any place, witnessing, that episcopacy was the settled form; and every one, who hath occasion to speak of the original of it, tracing it up to the apostles’ days, and fixing it upon their decree.—Were there only testimonies to be produced, that this was the government of the church in all ages, it would be but reasonable to conclude it of apostolical institution;—but when we find the same persons witnessing, not only that it was episcopal, but that it was of apostolical institution, and delivered down from the beginning as such, this adds weight to the matter, and makes it more undoubted. So that here are two points to which they bear witness, that this was the government of the church in their days, and that it was of apostolical institution. And in these there is such a constancy and unanimity, that even St. Jerom himself traces up episcopacy to the very apostles, and makes it of their institution.”—He adds, “All churches and christians, as far as we know, seem to have been agreed, in this point, amidst all their other differences, as universally as can well be imagined.” One would suppose, from the peremptory manner in which this citation is expressed, that the FACT it affirms was so evidently clear, as to leave no room for the least doubt. Those, who may think it worth while to look over the testimonies brought to view, in the following pages, will perhaps, by critically observing their real and just import, be surprized, that any man of learning, who professes a regard to truth, should speak of it, and with such a degree of assurance, as the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF ALL AGES from the apostles, that episcopacy, in the impleaded sense, was the “form of government in the church in their day,” and that it was by “apostolical institution;” especially, if they should not be able to find, as it is certain they will not, so much as a single witness, for two hundred years, whose evidence is clear, direct, express, and full, in affirming, either that this was the form of government in the church, or that it was ever instituted by Christ, or his apostles: so far is it from the truth, that this is a FACT UNANIMOUSLY and CONSTANTLY TESTIFIED TO, even from the beginning, and through all ages.

The Bishop, for the support of whose claims antiquity is repaired to, is one with whom the SOLE POWER of ORDINATION is lodged; insomuch, that he only can convey holy orders conformably to the appointment of Jesus Christ; and should Presbyters presume to do this, they would take that upon them which they have no more a right to, than Deacons have to baptise, or administer the Lord’s supper. This part of the UNANIMOUS report of ALL AGES concerning the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT of Bishops deserves most of all the special notice of the reader; and he is particularly desired, as he goes along, to point out to himself, for his own satisfaction; or to others, for their information, any one among all the testimonies he will have placed before his view, that plainly and directly affirms the RIGHT OF ORDINATION to be peculiar to Bishops as a distinct order from Presbyters, and superior to them; or that this right was ever thus exercised by them. If he should not be able to do this, as unquestionably he will not, how strange must that affirmation appear, which says in the most positive terms, not only that this is FACT, but a fact CONSTANTLY and UNANIMOUSLY witnessed to by the fathers, in ALL AGES from the days of the apostles.

The Bishop, in whose defence antiquity is pleaded, is vested with the power of CONFIRMATION, according to the mode of the church of England; and it is appropriated to him as his right in distinction from all others. But I need not assure the reader, he will in vain look to find it a FACT, within the two first ages, that Bishops were either vested with, or ever exercised this power. For he must come down below these ages, before a word is said, by any one of the fathers, relative to this superstitious practice. Tertullian is the first that mentions it; and he mentions likewise some other corruptions, which had got mingled with christianity in that day.

In short, the question in debate, so far as it relates to FACT, is, not whether there were officers in the christian church, known by the name of Bishops in the apostolic age, and down along through the two first centuries? We join with the episcopalians in affirming this to be a truth universally testified to in those times: but the proper question is, what is FACT with reference to the ORDER of these Bishops, and the POWERS PECULIAR TO THEIR OFFICE, and as EXERCISED by them in it? The name of Bishop is one thing, and the POWER claimed for, or exercised by him, is another. The dispute is, not about the name, but the power appropriated to it. This therefore should be heedfully attended to by all, in their examination of the evidences that will be produced; and they may, in this way, clearly and satisfactorily determine, each one for himself, whether it be at all an attested FACT, much less a CONSTANT and UNANIMOUSLY ATTESTED ONE, from the apostles days, and down along through the two first ages, as well as after ones, that Bishops were vested with, and did actually exercise, the above specified powers, which are at this day claimed for them, as the appropriate work of their office by divine appointment?

CHAUNCY’S VIEW OF EPISCOPACY.