repress every such feeling in them all, Christ utters the words, which have been quoted. These words certainly discouraged all wishes for peculiar authority in the minds of the Apostles, as Ministers of Christ; and informed them, that the proper destination of the ambitious among them was the place of a servant, or minister, to the rest. In other words, Christ required them to be, and to feel themselves to be, equals; and forbade them to assume any authority over each other. The conduct, which Christ required of them, must, it would seem, be the proper conduct of all succeeding ministers. An absolute equality is plainly here commanded, so far as the Apostles were concerned. It ought to be shown, that the case is not directly, and entirely, applicable to their followers in the sacred office. Let us suppose, that Christ had given the converse directions. Let us suppose, that he had directed James and Peter to be rulers over their brethren. Would not this fact have been pleaded, as decisive authority for the same distinction among succeeding ministers? The mere shadow of such a distinction in favour of Peter, easily shown to have no substance, has actually been relied on by the Church of Rome, as a solid foundation of the high pre-eminence, assumed by the bishop of that city over all other ministers of the Gospel.

Correspondent with this address, and pointing to the same object, is the instruction given by Christ in Matt. xxiii. 6-12; while observing the conduct of the Scribes and Pharisees. Concerning these men our Saviour observes, They love greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But, he adds, be ye not called rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ. And call no man father upon the earth: for one is your Father, who 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 whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.

The Scribes and Pharisees loved, and sought, external distinctions, uppermost rooms, chief seats in the Synagogues, greetings in the markets, and titles of honour. Against this spirit, and its consequences, Christ here warns his Apostles. As their only final security against the disposition, he forbids the Distinctions, and Titles, to the acquisition of which its efforts were peculiarly directed. Succeeding ministers are certainly no less interested in being secured against this temptation, danger and sin, than the Apostles were and what was the means of their safety must be equally necessary, and equally useful, to their followers. Had the assumption of these titles and distinctions been enjoined upon the Apostles; the injunction would have been pleaded by succeeding ministers, as an ample warrant to themselves for assuming the same titles, and aiming at the same distinctions. To the Apostles they were prohibited. Why, according to the same mode of infer

ence, they are not prohibited to succeeding ministers, I confess myself unable to explain.

2. The fact, that, wherever the Officers of the Church are mentioned together, no more than two classes are ever mentioned.

In the former discourse, I made several observations concerning the address of the Epistle to the Philippians, which, as specified in the first chapter and first verse, is to all the Saints, that are in Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons. It will be unnecessary to add any thing, here, to what was then observed concerning this passage.

In 1 Tim. iii.; St. Paul instructs him, at large, in the qualifications of Ecclesiastical Officers; and discusses this subject in form, and more extensively, than we find done in any other part of the Scriptures. But even here we find no other officers mentioned, beside the sixos; Bishop, or Overseer; and the diaxovos, Deacon. Is it not strange, if there had been an intermediate Officer, distinguished both from the Bishop and the Deacon, and known by the title of Elder, that there should be here no mention of such an Officer? The character and duties of an Elder are on all hands acknowledged to be more important than those of a Deacon. Yet these are particularly pointed out; while of those not a hint is given. It is further to be remarked, that the office and duties of an Elder, as distinguished from a Bishop, are no where exhibited to us in the New Testament. The text, certainly, is not such an exhibition. The Elders, here mentioned, were, plainly, all such, as of right, and by divine authority, exercised the office of a Bishop. For this silence on a subject, confessedly of serious importance to the Church, it is believed, no reason can be given.

When certain men came down from Judea to Antioch, and distressed the church in that city, by teaching, that the Gentiles ought to be circumcised in order to their salvation; Paul and Barnabas, with certain others, were sent up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders, about this question. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the Church, and of the Apostles and Elders. And they declared all things, which God had done with them. And the Apostles and Elders came together, for to consider of this matter. After the deliberation was ended, we are told, that it pleased the Apostles and Elders, with the whole Church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas. They wrote letters by them after this manner: The Apostles, Elders, and Brethren, send greeting unto the Brethren, who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia. See Acts xv. particularly verses 3, 4, 6, 22, 23.

Concerning this interesting recital I observe,

First. That the Church of Antioch sent their messengers to Jerusalem, to obtain a decision concerning a question, incomparably more important than any other, which agitated the Christian world during the first century.

Secondly. Under the immediate instruction of Paul and Barnabas, it is impossible, that this church should not have known the proper tribunal, to which their messengers were to be sent, for the purpose of obtaining this decision.

Thirdly. They actually sent them to the Apostles, and Elders, at Jerusalem.

Fourthly. When these messengers were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the whole Church, and of the Apostles and Elders.

Fifthly. All the observations, made on this occasion, were addressed to the body just specified. The messengers propounded their communications to this body. Peter and James began their speeches on this occasion, with Men and Brethren.

Sixthly. This body sent chosen men of their own company authoritatively, with Paul and Barnabas: viz. Judas and Silas, chief men among the brethren.

Seventhly. The letters, carried by these messengers to Antioch, were written in the name of this body, after this manner: The Apostles, and Elders, and Brethren, send greeting unto the Brethren, and Disciples, who are in Antioch, &c.

Eighthly. This body decided the question submitted to them; and the Holy Ghost approved of their decision. Their language is, Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain, who went out from us, have troubled you with words, &c.; saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law; to whom we gave no such commandment. It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you. We have sent, therefore, Judas and Silas, &c. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden, than these necessary things: that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, &c. The slightest attention will convince any man, that the authoritative determination of the great question concerning circumcision was accomplished, with the approbation of the Holy Ghost, by the Apostles, Elders, and Brethren: not by the Apostles; not by the Elders; not by both; not by the Brethren; but by the united voice of the whole body. This, the language already recited irresistibly declares.

Ninthly. There was no Bishop in this assembly: that is, in the Prelatical sense. James, whatever was the fact afterwards, was not now such a Bishop, The Letter does not go in his name, nor with any authority whatever, attributed to him, except as an Apostle, and as a member of that deliberative body; and in neither character any farther, than that he had one voice in the decision of the Assembly. As no such Bishop, or Bishops, are mentioned in any part of the transaction; it is impossible, that any person, possessed of modern Episcopal authority, should have been present at this meeting.

Tenthly. This Church had, at this time, existed fifteen, or sixteen years; and for about twelve, was the only Christian Church in the world. One would suppose, it must have been established in the

proper Christian order. There were Elders in it: and, as the number of Christian Jews, here, amounted to many thousands; it is highly probable, that these Elders were numerous. The Church was, also, immediately under the eye of the Apostles. If Prelatical Bishops were a part of the Christian economy, I am unable to conjecture why a Bishop was not established before this time in Jerusalem. There were, also, no such Bishops in the Church at Antioch; nor in those of Syria, and Cilicia. The Brethren of the Church at Antioch sent the messengers. The letter was addressed to the Brethren of the Church at Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. Thus I think it clear, that there was not a single such Bishop in the Christian Church, at this period.

3. Bishops are very little spoken of in the Scriptures.

There are but seven passages in the Scriptures where Bishops are mentioned: the Text; Acts xx. 28; Phil. i. 1; 1 Tim. iii. 1,2; Titus i. 7; 1 Pet. ii. 25. All these have been repeatedly mentioned, except the last, which is thus written: For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls: that is, to Christ.

In no one of these passages is there the least mention of any distinction between the Bishop and the Elder, in character, power, authority, duty, or office. On the contrary, the fact, that there were several Bishops in Philippi, and Ephesus, is a complete proof, that there was no Prelatical Bishop in either of those cities. They plainly were both under the government of a number of coordinate Ministers, holding the same office. There is no reason to believe, that other churches were constituted in a different man

ner.

4. I illustrate the same truth from the Manner, in which ministers are spoken of in Titus i. 5-7. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Elders in every City, as I had appointed thee. If any be blameless; the husband of one wife; having faithful children; not accused of riot, or unruly. For a Bishop must be blameless as the Steward of God. The reason, here given by St. Paul, why Titus should ordain, or constitute, Elders in every city, who should be blameless, is, that a Bishop must be blameless.

If a Bishop was the same person with an Elder; the applica tion, and pertinence, of this reason will be obvious: but, if they were different persons, it seems difficult to conjecture why it should have been assigned. The word, Elder, appears to me to be the proper and peculiar title of the officer; and the word, Bishop, to be merely descriptive of one, and that a subordinate one, of his employments; viz. Overseeing the affairs of the church: Preaching being evidently the supreme employment of a Christian Minister. This title, as was formerly observed, was derived from the Jewish economy; and was therefore naturally, and in a sense necessarily, adopted by Jews. Accordingly, it is applied no less than nine

teen times in the New Testament to ministers of the Church; and most clearly as their usual and appropriate title. In this view of the subject, the passage may be paraphrased in the following manner: left thee in Crete, to ordain, or constitute, Elders of the Church in every city. These officers must be blameless: for men, whose duty and business it is to oversee others, must themselves be blameless, as examples."

But if Bishop and Elder denote different officers, the passage must be paraphrased in this manner: "I left thee in Crete, to constitute Elders in every city. These officers must be blameless for a Bishop, a man, an officer, to whom is committed the superintendence of Elders, ought to be blameless."

I think this argument cannot be attributed to St. Paul.

Should it be said, that Bishops are themselves Elders, as well as Bishops; and that the Apostle has referred to this fact, in the reason which is here given: I answer, that this supposition does not remove the difficulty. The reason, given by the Apostle, does not depend at all for its force, and pertinence, on either the title, or the office; whether supposed to be mentioned, or alluded to. Its whole force is derived from the employment of the Elder; and lies in this; that a man, who has the oversight of others, ought himself to be blameless; because he ought to be an example of those, whom he oversees; and, I presume also, because he ought not to give occasion to any for blaming the Ministry of the Gospel : just as St. Paul directs the Corinthian Elders to give no offence in anything, that the Ministry might not be blamed. Had sidomos, in the text under consideration, been rendered as in Acts xx. 28, and as I think it ought plainly to have been rendered here, Overseer; the soundness of the Apostle's reason would have appeared so clearly, as to have prevented most of the debates, which the text has occasioned.

With these, which appear to me the only defensible views of this text, I consider it as furnishing immoveable evidence, that a Bishop and an Elder are the same Officer.

I have now mentioned every passage in the Scriptures, which I remember, where Bishops are even glanced at, or the existence of such an order of Ministers, as distinguished from Elders, is directly countenanced, even in the opinion of its advocates. If the distinction between Bishops and Elders can be found in the language of Scripture, it is found here. But here no distinction, of this nature, can be found.

Accordingly, a multitude of Episcopalians, both Bishops and others, readily acknowledge, that this distinction is not capable of proof from the Scriptures. The following specimens of this acknowledgment will suffice for the present purpose. In a celebrated work, called "The Institution of a Christian Man," approved expressly by Archbishop Cranmer, Bishops Jewell, Willet, and Stillingfleet, and the main body of the English Clergy, together with