Bishop Taylor here actually* perverts the sense by a false translation. He renders σuvegyos, my "compeer," in order to raise Epaphroditus, as a prototype of modern Bishops, to equality with Apostles. He would thus make Priscilla and Aquila, (Rom. xvi. 3,) Apostolic compeers, Tous σUVERyous μov; and perhaps Priscilla would stand as a prototype for a race of female Bishops! Will he also make Apostles themselves compeers with God, because they were workers together with him, tov yag eσμev ovvegyol ? 1 Cor. iii. 9. The Apostle's language, however, is distinct, as before: "Yet I suppose it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, MY companion in labour, σvvepyor pov, but YOUR messenger, vμwyde aπoçoλov," Phil. ii. 25.

4. The early Bishops were indeed frequently called Apostles by ecclesiastical writers, because they then were the chief in preaching the gospel, and converting the heathen to God. This is what our Missionaries now do. They are the modern Apostles of Christianity. Xavier, who never was a bishop, was the Apostle of Japan. But when do our modern Bishops undertake this labour? At the time of the Reformation Latimer lashes them for their entire neglect of preaching. Stimulated by the zeal of other churches, a few persons have gone out from the Church of England as Bishops amongst the heathen, as the Bishop of Calcutta, &c. Let them have their due praise. The writer honors such men as the present Bishop of Calcutta. However they are not strictly Apostolical Bishops: they generally go where the laborious Missionary has FIRST laid the FOUNDAThere perhaps has not been a single instance for the last 1000 years of a Bishop deserving the title of Apostolical Bishop, by going to preach Christ where he was not named. Away, then, with all this parade about

TION.

Apostolical Bishops !

Another argument is attempted to be deduced from the HIGH PRIEST

* No man's name should shield him when he perverts the truth. This is not the only instance in which Bishop Taylor has been guilty of perverting the truth to serve a system. Quoting the annotation of Zonaras, p. 280, upon the twelfth Canon of the Laodicean Council,-" Populi saffragiis olim Episcopi eligebantur," he translates, "of old time Bishops were chosen NOT WITHOUT the suffrage of the people," instead of "By the suffrage of the people,"-and this is done evidently to weaken or alter the sense of the passage, as a proof of the people's power formerly in choosing the Bishop "By their suffrages." He tells his reader, p. 55, that Jerome is dissuading Heliodorus from taking on him "the great burden of the EPISCOPAL OFFICE." Now Jerome commences his discourse, on the subject, by saying, "Provocabis ad CLEROS ?"-"Do you now come to the CLERGY?" But then Jerome, in the next line, speaks of THESE CLERGY, without any distinction, as "SUCCEEDING to the APOSTOLICAL Degree," Here's the secret. So Jerome must be made to speak to Heliodorus about "the Great burden of the Episcopal office!" Again, in the very same page; "Feed the flock of God which is among you, said St. Peter, to THE BISHOPS of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Similia enim SUCCESSORIBUS SUIS Petrus scripsit præcepta, saith Theodorus, St. Peter gave the same præcepts to HIS SUCCESSORS which Christ gave to him," p. 55. Here he finds Theodoret speaking of APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSORS; so they must be made BISHOPS, though the sacred text expressly says they were "PRESBYTERS!" 1 Pet. v. 1-3. There is a very reprehensible attempt of the same kind, upon the 18th Canon of the Council of Ancyra, at page 176. The Church of England Divines never spare the Popish Divines when they detect them in such tricks; they boldly charge them with "Forgeries and Corruptions of Councils and Fathers." They do right. "Thou that judgest another thou condemnest thyself," if thou doest any of the same things.

HOOD among the Jews. The very learned Henry Dodwell, in his "One Altar," lays great stress upon this argument. See also Bishop Beveridge, Cod. Can. Ecc. Prim. Vindicat. Lib. 2, c. 11, sect. 9. It is a matter of regret to find such excellent men forced, by a false system, to such unsuitable arguments. The simple and true answer to all they can draw from this, is, that we have, as Christians, One, and ONLY one High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ. To attempt more than this runs direct into the Popedom. When will Protestant Bishops, and Highflying Divines, lay aside these foolish, Judaizing, Popish reasonings? The Continental Reformers spake strongly against these things; and they were afraid that the quantity of empty and popish ceremonies, as they termed them, left in the English church, would degenerate into something of this kind. The Letters of Calvin, Martyr, and Zanchy, shew this. That sainted youth, King Edward VI., thus speaks on this point: "Moreover, the PAPISTS say, that as under the old law there was a high priest or archbishop of the Jews, so there ought now to be a HEAD or supreme minister amongst the Christians. which I answer, that the priesthood of Aaron and Moses represented the SUPREMACY of our Saviour Christ, and not the Pope." See his Treatise against the Supremacy of the Pope. This, with other evidence to be adduced in the following parts of this Essay, will shew that this Succession scheme does not properly belong to the English Church, as Established at the Reformation, but that it is a corruption of later date.

To

Again, the case of Timothy and Titus is brought forward to support this scheme. "As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine," 1 Tim. i. 3. "Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands." 2 Tim. i. 6. "For THIS CAUSE I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain ELDERS in every city, as I had appointed thee." Titus iv. 5. These are the principal passages on which the stress is laid. From these passages an attempt is made to prove that Timothy and Titus were made Bishops in the modern sense of these · terms; the one, of Ephesus, and the other, of Crete; that they had the government of ministers as well as of the people; and that, as such, they had the sole power of ordaining other ministers. The reader must be struck with the shifting, Protean character of this scheme. We have just seen an attempt to make them Apostles; and the authorities they use say "that those who are now called Bishops, were called Apostles, and that anciently Bishops and Presbyters were the SAME PERSONS, i. e. that present Bishops and Ancient Bishops are NOT the same. But here, in the case of Timothy and Titus, we find the ground is changed, and an attempt is made to claim superiority for modern Bishops from Timothy and Titus as ancient Bishops. The reason of this shifting character is plain enough-its ablest

advocates find no foundation sufficient and firm beneath them. A sure sign of a weak cause!

Now, in the first place, we may remark, that whatever they were, their special duties, as above signified, cannot be brought in as a rule for a standing order of men, with the same powers and authority; (1,) because there is no intimation of any such thing in the text; (2,) because they had the direct or immediate authority of the Apostles for what they did, which none others can plead ; (3,) because some steps might be necessary in places where a ministry had never existed amongst a newly gathered people, which are not necessary after the establishment of a Church and its Ministry.

But, Secondly, Timothy and Titus are never called Bishops in the Scriptures. The subscriptions at the end of the Epistles are of no authority; but only mere human tradition. And even were it proved that they were called Bishops, as the word was then used, it would not follow that they were Bishops in the sense of our modern High Churchmen. It will be seen, as

we proceed, that Bishops and Presbyters, in the Apostles time, were identical. To prove their point, therefore, our Succession men have not only to prove that they were called Bishops, but they must also prove them, as Bishops, to have had powers, &c., incompatible with Presbyters as Presbyters. Now, as to Timothy, he is called an Evangelist: “But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the WORK of an EVANGELIST, make full proof of thy ministry." 2 Tim. iv. 5. The first Evangelists, like the first Apostles, had superior gifts, as is evident from Ephes. iv. 11, and modern Bishops can no more claim this office than any other Minister. As to the argument from Tradition, for their being Bishops, we shall see what that is worth by and bye.

Thirdly, Timothy had most evidently Presbyterian ordination; and, therefore, according to such men, could be nothing more than a Presbyter: "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the PRESBYTERY." 1 Tim. iv. 14. The Episcopal Succession Divines strive hard to avoid this, and to give Apostolical Ordination, by pleading, 2 Tim. i. 6, " Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands." To understand this passage, the reader should keep in mind that the conferring of the Holy Ghost, as to miraculous powers, belonged peculiarly to the Apostles, as a PROOF of their Apostleship: "Now when the Apostles, which were at Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John; Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost; For as yet he was fallen upon none of them; only they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon SAW that through laying on of the Apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he

offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost." Acts, viii. 14—19. "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and THEY SPAKE with TONGUES, and prophesied." Acts, xix. 6. The Apostle, therefore, laid his hands on Timothy, that he might be blessed with some of those miraculous gifts. This was a distinct matter from Timothy's Ordination. This is the true meaning of the passage in question. 2 Tim. i. 6.

But suppose we grant to these divines that the Apostle joined with the Presbytery in Timothy's Ordination, what then? Oh, it would be Apostolical Ordination! and Bishops being infolded in the Apostles, it would be Episcopal Ordination; ergo, Timothy was a Bishop. If the argument were worth any thing, it would prove that he was ordained an Apostle. But it has no foundation. The Apostle Paul and Barnabas ordained Presbyters in every city; but they are never said to have ordained Bishops. I doubt not but High Churchmen think that it was very unfortunate that St. Paul was not as careful about Episcopacy as they are. They would have taught him how to write better. He should have written, that Timothy was ordained a Bishop by the hands of the Apostles. But he wrote, by the hands of the Presbytery. Sad stroke to High Churchmen! Now whatever hands might be employed, the denomination of a thing is always taken from that which was designed to be the chief cause or instrument in the act. This is a universal rule. The hands of the Presbytery are spoken of by the Holy Spirit as the chief instrumental cause in Timothy's Ordination; therefore the Ordination of Timothy was properly a Presbyterian Ordination. Bishop Taylor thinks it is necessary for those who believe that this was Presbyterian Ordination to prove that the Presbytery was NOT a company of Bishops. Ep. Ass. p. 191. What work such surmises make of sacred writ! As though the Apostle said one thing and meant another. "The Presbytery that imposed hands on Timothy, is, by all antiquity, expounded either of the office, or of a College of Presbyters," says he himself, in the very same page; and yet we are to prove that these were NOT properly Presbyters, before we can prove that this was properly a Presbyterian Ordination! That they might be Bishops, in a Scriptural sense, we all admit, because Bishops and Presbyters are, in the Scriptures, identical; but to contend that they might be Bishops, in the sense in which these men now use the word, would reflect on the Apostle in a manner one would not wish to describe. Yet so does bigotry blind the mind, that these eminent men make statements awfully disparaging to the very word of God itself. I charge them not with the intention of doing this; but I charge their arguments with the consequence. Let him clear them that can.

Fourthly, to argue, that because the Apostle says, he besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus, therefore it must mean he was Bishop of that place, is so puerile, as to be almost below notice. If he had besought Timothy to

make a temporary departure from Ephesus, this would have implied something like a residence there. But to beseech a young man, who was generally travelling with the Apostle, to abide still in some particular place, for a special purpose there named, "To charge some that they teach no other doctrine" and not a word about his Bishopric or residence being dropped, is all so void of proof of his being Bishop of Ephesus, that able men must be driven to severe shifts before they take up with such arguments to support so important a cause.

Fifthly, in Paul's final adieu to the Presbyters of Ephesus, Acts, xx. there also called Bishops, there is not a word about Timothy either having been, or being designed to be, placed as Bishop in that city.

The case of Titus is so similar to that of Timothy, that if Timothy's won't support this scheme they have no hope in Titus; and the above observations apply so sufficiently to both, that we shall not repeat them. There is not a single point in either of them, in proof of the Succession scheme, that would be depended upon by any persons who were not resolved, at all hazards, to say something to support a sinking cause. Perhaps we should not omit to notice, that the very Epistle to Titus shews plainly the identity of Bishops and Presbyters: "For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders (Presbyters) in every city, as I had appointed thee :-For a Bishop must be blameless, &c." Titus, i. 5-7. This single passage is enough to silence for ever all attempts to make Titus a prop for this doctrine of the order of Bishops, by Divine right, being superior to Presbyters; for it evidently speaks of them as being one and the same office. The parallel place in 1 Tim. iii. 1-7, does, on all just principles of exposition, come under the same interpretation, and implies that the Apostle taught both these distinguished men of God the same doctrine of the identity of Bishops and Presbyters ; and, therefore, neither of them, in their personal history, can be quoted as proofs of the contrary opinion.

The only remaining argument of which I am aware, is from the mention of the Angels of the Churches, in the Revelations. This is thought to imply, that some one person had the power and authority of a modern High Church Bishop in each of the then Asiatic Churches. This is the most like a case in point of any thing advanced in favor of this scheme. But, that it cannot be held as a good argument, the following remarks will shew:

1. It is a supreme rule of interpretation, that what is obscure must be interpreted by what is clear. Now it must clearly appear to an unbiassed mind, from Acts xx, 17—20, that the Church of Ephesus was governed by a NUMBER of PRESBYTERS identical with Bishops. In this solemn charge, and final farewell of the Apostle, whilst reviewing the PAST, and looking into the FUTURE, and giving, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, the best