to every Minister of Christ, in every age, as it does to a Bishop. The Lord made no distinction; and the servant that attempts it, attempts a tyranny over his brethren for which he has no divine warrant. To see that our Lord intended no such thing, let us hear him in other places, on the same subject. "But be not ye called RABBI for one is your Master, even Christ; and ALL YE are brethren. And call no man your FATHER upon the earth for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called MASTERS for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." Matt. xxiii. 8-12. "But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to RULE over the Gentiles exercise LORDSHIP over them; and their GREAT ONES exercise authority upon them. But so shall it NOT be AMONG YOU: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." Mark x. 42—45.

But it is said, and contended for, that Bishops are now what the Apostles were in their time. To be sure some things are excepted, as the pretence would otherwise immediately refute itself. Let us hear Bishop Taylor. "In the extraordinary priviledges of the Apostles they had no successors, therefore of necessity a successor must be constituted in the ordinary office of Apostolate. Now what is this ordinary office? Most certainly since the extraordinary (as is evident) was only a helpe for the founding and beginning, the other are such as are necessary for the perpetuating of a Church. Now in clear evidence of sense, these offices and powers are Preaching, Baptizing, Consecrating, Ordaining, and Governing. For these were necessary for the perpetuating of a Church, unless men could be Christians that were never Christened, nourished up to life without the Eucharist, become Priests without calling of God and Ordination, have their sinnes pardoned without absolution, be members and parts and sonnes of a Church whereof there is no coadunation, no authority, no Governour. These the Apostles had without all Question, and whatsoever they had, they had from Christ, and these were eternally necessary, these then were the offices of the Apostolate, which Christ promised to assist for ever, and this is that which we now call the Order and Office of Episcopacy," p. 14, 15. "The Apostolate and Episcopacy which did communicate in all the power, and offices which were ordinary and perpetuall, are in Scripture clearely all one in ordinary ministration, and their names are often used in common to signify exactly the same ordinary function," p. 15. "Imposition of hands is a duty and office necessary for the perpetuating of a Church, ne gens sit Vnius ætatis, least it expire in one age: this power of imposition of hands for Ordination was fix't upon the Apostles and Apostolike men, and NOT

communicated to the 72 Disciples or PRESBYTERS; for the Apostles, and Apostolike men, did so de facto and were commanded to doe so, and the 72 never did so, therefore this office and ministry of the Apostolate is distinct, and superior to that of Presbyters, and this distinction must be so continued to ALL AGES of the church, for the thing was not temporary but productive of issue and succession, and therefore as perpetuall as the Clergy, as the Church itself," p. 27.

.

"For farther confirmation," says Bingham, "of what has been asserted, it will not be amiss here to subjoin next a short account of the Titles of Honour which were given to Bishops in the PRIMITIVE CHURCH. The most ancient of these, is the title of APOSTLES; which, in a large and SECONDARY sense, is thought by many to have been the ORIGINAL NAME for BISHOPS, BEFORE the name Bishop was appropriated to their Order. For at FIRST they suppose the Names Bishop and Presbyter to have been common Names for ALL of the First and Second Order; DURING WHICH TIME, the APPROPRIATE Name for Bishops, to DISTINGUISH them from mere Presbyters, was that of APOSTLES. Thus Theodoret says expressly, 'The SAME PERSONS were anciently called promiscuously both Bishops and Presbyters, whilst those who are Now called Bishops, were” (then) "called APOSTLES. But shortly after, the name of Apostles was appropriated to such only as were Apostles INDEED; and then the name Bishop was given to those who before were called Apostles.' Thus, he says, Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philippians, and Titus the Apostle of the Cretans, and Timothy the Apostle of the Asiaticks. And this he repeats in several other Places of his Writings."

6

"The author under the Name of St. Ambrose asserts the same thing; That all Bishops were called Apostles at first.' And therefore, he says, that St. Paul, to distinguish himself from such Apostles, calls himself an Apostle, not of Man, nor sent by Man to Preach, as those others were, who were chosen and sent by the Apostles to confirm the Churches.' Amalarius cites another Passage out of this same Author, which speaks more fully to the purpose: They,' says he, 'who are now called Bishops, were originally called Apostles: But the Holy Apostles being DEAD, they who were ordained AFTER them to govern the churches, could not arrive to the Excellency of those First; nor had they the Testimony of Miracles, but were in many respects inferior to them: Therefore they thought it NOT DECENT to assume to themselves the Name of Apostles; but dividing the Names, they left to Presbyters the Name of the Presbytery, and they themselves were called Bishops.'

"This is what those Authors infer from the Identity of the Names, Bishop and Presbyter, in the first Age: They do not thence argue (as - some who abuse their Authority have done since) that therefore Bishops and Presbyters were all one; but they think that Bishops were THEN

distinguished by a more APPROPRIATE NAME, and more expressive of their Superiority, which was that of Secondary Apostles." Bingham, p. 21, vol. 1, fol. Lond. 1726.

"The Learned Dr. Hammond advances an Opinion about this Matter, which is something singular. He asserts that in SCRIPTURE-TIMES the Name of PRESBYTERS belonged PRINCIPALLY, if not alone, to BISHOPS; and that there is no Evidence that any of this second Order were THEN instituted, tho' soon after, he thinks, before the writing of Ignatius's Epistles, there were such instituted in all Churches. The AUTHORITIES HE BUILDS UPON are Clemens Romanus, and Epiphanius, who say, that in some Churches at first there were Bishops and Deacons, without any Presbyters." Ibid. p. 75.

So Dr. Hook:-"The officer whom we now call a Bishop was at FIRST called an Apostle, although AFTERWARDS it was thought better to confine the title of Apostle to those who had seen the Lord Jesus, while their SUCCESSORS, exercising the SAME RIGHTS and AUTHORITY, though unendowed with miraculous powers, CONTENTED THEMSELVES with the designation of Bishops. After this, the title was never given to the second order of the ministry.” Dr. Hook's Two Sermons, pp. 5, 6.

These extracts are important. Let the reader remark,

1. That they shew that BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS were not only nominally but REALLY the SAME in the TIME of the APOSTLES. These Divines are shy in saying so, but this is clearly the fact. "The SAME PERSONS," says Theodoret, "were anciently called promiscuously both Bishops and Presbyters." Now here is one class of persons called "the same persons,” and these are expressly said to be both Bishops and Presbyters. Then he observes as to the other class, "Those we Now call Bishops were" THEN "called APOSTLES." He here distinguishes the Bishops in his time, by saying they were such as were formerly called Apostles, from Bishops in the Apostles time, who, he says, were then the same as Presbyters; and speaking to the FACT only, he says the Bishops in his time exercised the duties which Apostles did in their own times. Now this evidently makes the Bishops in his time different from the Bishops in the Apostles' days; and proves, as far as his authority goes, that anciently APOSTOLICAL BISHOPS and PRESBYTERS were REALLY the SAME. Dr. Hammond's views prove the same. Presbyters, of what they please to call the inferior or second order, he says were NOT instituted in SCRIPTURE TIMES. The consequence then is inevitable, that IN SCRIPTURE TIMES, PRESBYTERS of the first order, and BISHOPS, were ONE and the SAME ORDER. BY DIVINE RIGHT, therefore, on the premises of our opponents, they have equal power and authority. The only difference is, they wish to make this second order of Presbyters, as they term it, of human origin, instead of the order of Bishops as Superintendents. This is false and preposterous. It is the

Bishops as now, and not the Presbyters, who are of human origin. However let the reader mark well how they betray the consciousness that Bishops and Presbyters were the same in SCRIPTURE TIMES. Failing therefore to make their Bishops SCRIPTURE BISHOPS, they try to make them PROPERLY APOSTLES. It is enough for our argument that modern Bishops are NOT SCRIPTURAL BISHOPS; and therefore their Episcopacy is of no divine right.Now for the Apostleship of Bishops.

2. It follows, from this doctrine, that the order of modern Apostles, HUMBLY, though NOT PROPERLY called Bishops, originated AFTER the Apostles days, i. e. are of mere HUMAN, ecclesiastical origin. For if they succeeded the Apostles they could not exist whilst the Apostles lived; otherwise it would not be succession but usurpation, seizing the inheritance before it was void. Now this is substantially true. The quotation out of Ambrose by Amalarius says, "The holy Apostles BEING DEAD, they who were ordained AFTER them, &c." are the persons claiming this Apostolical authority. Very well: the Apostles did not give them it, for they were dead; it was either USURPED or HUMAN, which these advocates please. And Theodoret shews the same thing,-" The SAME PERSONS WERE ANCIENTLY called promiscuously both Bishops and Presbyters." Mark this! "Those who are Now called Bishops were (THEN) called Apostles." Here is another point. The NOW-BISHOPS were NOT the THEN-BISHOPS: modern Bishops and ancient Bishops are NOT the SAME. He proceeds,"But shortly AFTER" (Whitby translates," IN PROCESS OF TIME,")" the name of Apostles was appropriated (xarελiño, left) to such as were Apostles INDEED Tois dantŵs άmosóλois, TRUELY Apostles.—" And then,” i. e. “ in process of time," the NAME of Bishop WAS GIVEN to those who before (anciently) were called Apostles. According to Theodoret, then, MODERN Bishops are NOT the SAME as ANCIENT Bishops; therefore they are NOT Bishops by DIVINE RIGHT. As Apostles, they are NOT Apostles INDEED; but only nominally such. Their institution was after the APOSTLES' TIMES; and therefore merely ecclesiastical, or human, and not divine. They have, by ecclesiastical or human authority, the office of Visiting neighbouring Societies, and of superintending the Ministers of a CIRCUMSCRIBED DISTRict. This is a SHADOW of the work of the Apostles. ECCLESIASTICAL LAW that

MADE them, LIMITS them. Apostles INDEED were not of Ecclesiastical origin, but divine, and therefore their commission was UNLIMITED. Bingham's observation that during the Apostles' days, "The appropriate name for Bishops, to distinguish them from mere Presbyters, was that of Apostles." This is a bold fabrication by ecclesiastical writers. The Apostles are sometimes called Presbyters, but never Bishops, in the New Testament. the Apostles did know, perhaps, the appropriate name of Bishops. The general conclusion is plain! Modern Bishops are merely an ecclesiastical arrangement, and not of Divine right. To call them Apostles is not decent;

But

to claim Divine right for them as Superintendents of other Ministers, is a usurpation, and has frequently led to the imprisonment, persecution, and death of some of the best of God's ministers.

The order of Bishops, as Superintendents over other Ministers, is merely a human, ecclesiastical arrangement. This will be made abundantly evident in the following pages. But it is most important to this controversy, to keep in mind that it inevitably follows from the premises of our opponents, by which they endeavour to claim the "rights and authority" of Apostles for modern Bishops. And indeed Bishop Taylor more than once proves, unwittingly, the same thing for us. He tries to prove only ONE order, that he may give Bishops all power: in p. 48 and 56, he calls Episcopacy, "The only order." Grant it, that there was ONLY ONE order of Ministers by divine right. What then? Why, that either Presbyters have mere human authority, or, that Presbyters and Bishops are the same. The first, that Presbyters are not of divine authority, is flatly contradicted by Acts xx, 17 and 20; the consequence, then, from the Bishop's own premises, is inevitable, viz. that Bishops and Presbyters by divine right are one and the SAME ORDER!

66

3. The argument from 2 Cor. viii. 23, “Whether any do inquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellowhelper concerning you: or our brethren be enquired of, THEY are the MESSENGERS of the churches, and the glory of Christ:" will not help them. They wish to prove that these persons were a second race of Apostles, identical with our present Bishops. So Bishop Taylor, Sect. 4. Now let the reader consult 1 Cor. xvi. 3,-" And when I come, whomsoever YE shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem ;" and men CHOSEN of the CHURCHES to travel with this grace;" (19th v. of this chapter) and he will see that our translators have rightly rendered the word in 2 Cor. viii. 23, “Messengers.” Our advocates often wish to have hold of Titus as a prototype of modern Bishops. Bishop Taylor draws him in here. "Thus Titus and some other with him, who came to Jerusalem with the Corinthian benevolence, ARE CALLED 'AT050201 Exxλσv, the Apostles of the Churches. Apostles I say, in the Episcopal sense. They were none of the twelve, they were not of immediate mission, but of Apostolike ordination, they were actually Bishops as I shall shew hereafter." Dashing logic! "I say." Now it is unfortunate for these advocates, that St. Paul does NOT number Titus with these Apostles, or, more properly, Messengers. And for this plain reason: these messengers were persons CHOSEN by the CHURCHES; Titus was not, but only sent in company with them, by the Apostle. THEY, therefore, were the MESSENGERS of the CHURCHES, and they ONLY. If this unbishops Titus, these writers are to blame for it; I cannot help it. It shews the weakness of the cause when great men are pushed to such straits and mistakes to defend it. Phil. ii. 25, is referred to by them, but with the same success.

D