in Holy Scripture, as Polycarp and Ignatius; others, there expressly named, as Timothy, Titus, and Clement, were Bishops while the Apostles lived, and what is more, were appointed by the Apostles; Polycarp by St. John, Clement by St. Peter, Titus and Timothy by St. Paul. Of this I produce testimony as follows: Concerning Polycarp: Irenæus, iii. 3. quoted by Eusebius iv. 14.Tertullian de Præscr. 32.-Eusebius iii. 86. ed. Reading.-Jerome de Scriptoribus 17. Concerning Ignatius: Eusebius iii. 36 and 22.-Jerome de Scrip. 16. Concerning Timothy: Eusebius iii. 4.-Jerome de Scrip.-Ambrose præf. in 1 Tim.-Chrysostom in Phil. i.-Epiphanius Hær. 75. Concerning Titus: Eusebius iii. 4.-Ambrose præf. in Tit.-Theodoret præf. in Tit. in the Commentary of Ecumenius. Concerning Clemens: Tertullian Præscr. 32.-Eusebius iii. 15.Jerome de Scrip. I might also produce equal testimony concerning others; namely, Linus, Dionysius, Onesimus, Epaphroditus, Caius, Archippus". Nor are these the only instances: the Evangelist Mark was a Bishop, and that during the very life-time of the Apostles. For Mark died in the eighth year of Nero, five years before the Apostles Peter and Paul were crowned with martyrdom. Nor was he the only one-the Apostle James was himself a Bishop. Concerning Mark we have the testimony of Jerome, Præf. in Matth. and Præf. in Marc. Concerning the Apostle James: that of Eusebius ii. 1. and vii. 19. using the authorities of Clemens and Hegesippus. Jerome de Scrip. 2. -Chrysostom, Hom. on Acts xv. 13, 14, 15.--Ambrose in Galat. i. 2. -Epiphanius, Hæres. 66.-Augustin, contra Cresconium, ii. 37. Shall any one then be offended with you for saying that Episcopacy has been received in the Church from the times next to the Apostolic? You have rather said too little; you might have said more, and that with the authority of antiquity-you might have said, in immediate succession from the very Apostles themselves; and what is more, that Apostles themselves were placed in the episcopal office. In this assertion there would have been no ground of offence; except perhaps, that you ought to have said, that the office existed, instead of speaking only of the name. For we have no dispute about the name, but about the thing. Now, either this was the case, or we must make one blot on all the writers of ecclesiastical history. If we enquire, when was all this done? Eusebiust can answer, "After the ascension of the Saviour;" and Jerome," Immediately after the passion of the Lord." If it be Linus-Eusebius iii. 4. Dionysius-Eusebius iii. 4. and iv. 23.-Jerome de Scrip. Epaphroditus-Theodoret in 1 Tim. iii. 1. Archippus Calvin Inst. iv. 3. 7.-Eusebius. + Euseb. ii. 1. Hieron de Ser. 2. enquired, by whom? Tertullian can answer, "Constituted in the episcopal office by the Apostles;" Epiphanius, "By the Apostles ;" Eusebiust," By the servants of the Lord;" Jerome, "Ordained by the Apostles," Ambrose §, "Constituted by the Apostles." Will, then, any one deny that James, Mark, Titus, or Clement, were Bishops by Apostolic right? Was any Apostolic act done by a right not Apostolic? But Apostolic right I consider to be divine: for nothing was done by the Apostles which was not dictated to them by the Holy and Divine Spirit. At least, if appointed by the Apostles, they were appointed by the same right as were those seven, whose appointment even yourself will grant to be of divine right. Deacons they are no where called in Holy Scripture, that title being merely adopted by the Church. I presume that what was done by the Apostles was done by divine right; and that it cannot be denied that their acts, (supposing them well authenticated,) and not their discourses or writings alone, were of divine right; and that not only St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians [. but those things which he set in order when he came, however little we know of them, were of equal right, that is, both by divine right, both proceeding from the Holy Spirit. Nor yet are they therefore to be reckoned articles of faith; for they regard things which are to be done in the Church, and cannot properly be reckoned among things to be believed, or articles of faith. I wonder to find you saying, that your countrymen complain of you without reserve; first, for pleading the cause of Episcopacy; which seems as if your countrymen were adverse to Bishops, unwilling to hear them defended, and desirous that they should be cast in their cause ; and secondly, for condemning Aërius, whom Epiphanius ** condemned long ago in Asia, Philastrius in Europe, and Augustin in Africa; whose name stands in the black book of heretics throughout the world; and stands there deservedly, for his daring, as you yourself acknowledge, to oppose himself to the consent of the universal Church. They then are the most to be complained of, who complain of you on such grounds as these. As for the keenness of criticism which you deprecate--no one intends it otherwise the very title of your work is objectionable +t, in both the words Pastor and Vocation. Both of these, as you apply them, *Tertullian de Præsc. Hær. 32. "Edant ergo origines Ecclesiarum suarum, evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis viris qui tamen cum Apostolis perseveraverit habuerit auctorem et antecessorem. Hoc enim modo Ecclesiæ Apostolicæ census suos deferunt sicut Smyrnæorum Ecclesia Polycarpum ab Joanne collocatum refert: sicut Romanorum Clementem a Petro ordinatum itidem. Perinde utique et cæteræ exhibent quos ab Apostolis in episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant." Hieron. de Scrip. 2. 1 Cor. xi. 34. Euseb. iii. 36. § Ambr. in Gal. i. 19. Eph. Hær. 75.-Aug. de Hær. 53.-Philast. in Bibliotheca Patrum.-See also Bishop Hall, Episcopacy by Divine Right, part ii. sect. 19. ++ De la Vocation des Pasteurs. Par Picrre Du Moulin, Ministre de la Parole de Dieu en l'Eglise de Paris. Sedan, 1618. are innovations, known to none but this present century, and only to a part of this. Who among the ancients ever applied them in such a sense? The title Pastor, you will find, is scarcely ever used by them, excepting when they speak of Bishops; which use of the word St. Peter taught them, when he connected the titles Pastor and Bishop in speaking of our Saviour. And you will not meet with any instance - in which they have used this word to designate those who, either in the cities or in the country, had the cure of certain portions of the people, divided by parishes: but that Presbyters (urban or rural) were deputed by the Bishops for this office. For, in the primitive age, Presbyters formed a part of the Bishop's family, and received their daily subsistence from the Bishop's household, before the modern distinction of parishes. The word Vocation, too, in the sense adopted by you, is equally foreign to the language of the Fathers, who use instead of it ordaining, or constituting. The very name, too, of Minister, by which you designate yourself, is a word of the same character: the Fathers would not have understood it, unless when used to denote a Deacon; as corresponding with the Greek diakovos. But you must be pardoned: you are forced to speak in the idiom of your own Church, which has no Bishops, and has different Presbyters, different Deacons, and, I may add, a different vocation, from those which the ancient Church acknowledged. For my part, I, most sincerely, and particularly desire, both for yourselves and all the reformed Churches, that all points of faith may continue to you established as they now are, but that in matters of dis.. cipline God may grant to you a Church Polity not differing from that with which he has blessed us; namely, the spiritual government of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, such as we find in the History of the Church, in the Synods, and in the ancient Fathers. To these, unless self-love greatly deceives me, our's are as nearly as possible, conformed-conformed, I mean, in constitution, not in merit; though I would that they resembled them in this also. Nor do I think that the constitution of any Church on earth accords better with the intent of Scripture, or with the practice and order of the primitive Church, than that which flourishes in our country. I send you what I have here written, that if you please you may keep it by you. Be assured, moreover, that I have always been a lover of peace, both from temper and from principle. This disposition is also required by my time of life, which warns me to prepare for my departure;-and is especially required in the subject of a King who takes for his motto those words of our Saviour" Blessed are the peacemakers." I engage, too, that I will never side with the severe, and never consent to measures which are not moderate. And I will, as far as I can, put favourable constructions on your words. For it is with us, as it was with Augustin, whose sentiment it is: "It is one thing that we inculcate, and another that we experience." (To be continued.) favour he stood high, he was appointed to the Bishopric of St. David's, on the translation of Barlow to the See of Bath and Wells. On September the 9th of that year, he received consecration by the hands of the Archbishop of Canterbury--Holbech, Bishop of Lincoln, -and Ridley, then Bishop of Rochester,-in the Archbishop's house at Chertsey. This promotion was far from being any addition to his happiness; on the contrary, it only paved the way to the misfortunes of his subsequent life. Indeed he was permitted afterwards to enjoy but little of liberty, for, on the fall of his Patron, the Duke of Somerset, he became a ready prey to malicious persecutions, against which he had no longer sufficient power to shield him, "proving unhappy," as Strype observes, "by his preferment unto a Church, whose corruptions while he endeavoured to correct, he sunk under his commendable endeavours." With that activity which distinguished him, not long after his entrance on his bishopric, he resolved to make a visitation of his diocese, learning that it was overrun with great corruptions. But what attracted his notice particularly, as requiring his prompt interference, was the gross example of corruption which had been reported to him as existing in the Chapter of the Church of Carmarthen, where two principal men, Thomas Young, the Chaunter of St. David's, and Rowland Merick, one of the Canons, who had before acted as Commissioners of the diocese, had spoiled the Cathedral Church of crosses, chalices, and censers, with other plate, jewels, and ornaments, to the value of five hundred marks or more; which they had converted to their own private benefit. The same persons had also sealed many blanks, during the vacancy of the see, without the King's license or knowledge. These circumstances coming to the ear of Ferrar, he issued out his commission to Edmund Farlee, his Chancellor, for visiting the Chapter, as well as the rest of the diocese. This commission proved the beginning of sorrow to himself. It happened that the Chancellor in drawing up the requisite form, had worded it incorrectly. For instead of asserting the King's supremacy, it was couched in the old form used under the Papal ascendancy; though the Bishop professed to visit in the King's name and authority. This informality afforded a handle against him to the two individuals who had been guilty of the acts of spoliation. Availing themselves of the absence of the requisite authority for legalizing the commission, they not only refused to obey it, but in their turn became aggressors, and accused the Bishop of a præmunire, as having exceeded his powers. With them also was leagued against him, his ungrateful Registrar, George Constantine, a man on whom he had bestowed preferment. So that his very first exertions in reforming the abuses of his Clergy being impeded by this trivial error in the form of the proceedings, were the means of involving him in calamity. At the instigation of these persons and other enemies of Ferrar, information was laid before the Council by Hugh Rawlins, a Priest, and Thomas Lee, brother-in-law to Constantine; highly inculpating "This was a conspiracy of his enemies against him, and of wicked fellows who had robbed the Church, kept concubines, falsified records, and committed many other gross abuses." Sutclif's Answer to Parsons's Threefold Conversion of England, quoted by Strype. New Testament, and on the manner of interpreting it, and ascertaining its sense. If we differ, it is on this point, (and after all I may be in error)-that the expressions in question, have, in the language of the New Testament, a peculiar force and character, and that most probably, by derivation from Hebrew expressions, of assent and affirmation, which they nearly resembled. In a word, were I asked how our Saviour, evidently meaning to give a direct and solemn affirmation, came to use (according to the rendering of the Evangelists) the expressions ou Ayers-ou as,—I should not say in reply, such expressions are direct affirmations in the Greek language; but they are Hebraisms, having the force of an affirmation, and to be explained most directly as Hebraisms; although expressions somewhat similar are to be met with in the Greek writers, serving to illustrate them. January 8, 1825. I am, Sir, yours, &c. H. R. M. NONJURING CLERGY. SIR, To the Editor of the Christian Remembrancer. Ir has long been a subject of regret, that we have no good history of the Nonjuring Clergy. However mistaken their principles might be, yet the manner in which they abandoned their preferment to preserve their consciences, at least deserves applause. I therefore hope, that some of your correspondents may be induced to turn their attention to the subject, and to collect whatever can be now gleaned relative to the Nonjurors. If a general enquiry was instituted, sufficient materials. might be collected to form a complete history, which would most probably fill a volume. The number of Nonjuring Clergy, exclusive of the dignitaries, did not much exceed two hundred, and if their names could be recovered, and likewise the livings they possessed, the necessary particulars could be easily transmitted to any person desirous of undertaking the work. The time when the Nonjurors flourished is not so distant, but that private memorials respecting them may yet be obtained, and a diligent search of parish registers, as well as the registers of the respective dioceses, would supply whatever might be necessary as to the dates of institution and deprivation. The life of Archbishop Sancroft, by Dr. D'Oyly, may be considered as the commencement of the history now recommended. In the hope that this notice may attract the attention of some of your readers, I remain, yours, &c. A. B. York, December, 1824. AMERICAN EPISCOPAL CHURCH. RECENT accounts from America represent the General Theological Seminary as increasing in the number of its students, and receiving |