the King and Parliament, is this declaration: "In the New Testament there is no mention of any other degrees, but of Deacons or Ministers, and of Presbyters or Bishops."

The celebrated Hooker, in his Ecclesiastical Polity, says, "The necessity of polity and regimen in all churches may be believed, without holding any one certain form to be necessary in them all. And the general principles are such, as do not particularly describe any one; but sundry forms of discipline may be equally consistent with the general axioms of Scripture." To this declaration agree Bishop Stillingfleet, Dr. Edwards, and others. Dr. Raynolds, Professor of Divinity in Oxford, declares, that “all, who had laboured for five hundred years before his time, taught, that all Pastors, whether entitled Bishops, or Priests, have equal power and authority by God's word;" and this he declares to be the common judgment of the reformed Churches of Switzerland, Savoy, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, the Netherlands, Scotland, and England. Dr. Holland, King's Professor of Divinity at Oxford, says, that "to affirm the office of Bishop to be different from that of Presbyter, and superior to it, is most false; contrary to Scripture, to the Fathers, to the doctrine of the Church of England, yea, to the very Schoolmen themselves."

Bishop Burnet says, "I acknowledge Bishop and Presbyter to be one and the same office."

An act of Parliament, passed in the reign of Henry VIII. has the following words: "Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers, have no manner of jurisdiction ecclesiastical, but by, under, and from, his Royal Majesty." Accordingly, Bishop Burnet says, "the King gave Bishops their power to ordain, or deprive, Ministers; to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction; and perform all other parts of the Episcopal function."

To these testimonies, which might be easily swelled to a volume, I shall add only two of modern times.

Archdeacon Paley says, "It cannot be proved that any form of Church Government was laid down in the Christian Scriptures, with a view of fixing a constitution for succeeding ages."

The Editors of the Christian Observer, in their Number for March 1804, say, that "Episcopalians found not the merits of their cause upon any express injunction, or delineation, of Ecclesiastical Government in the Scriptures: for there is none."

Thus, I think, it may be fairly concluded, that the Scriptures have established but two classes of Officers in the Christian Church; viz. Pastors and Deacons.

Having thus examined the Scriptural account of this subject, I shall conclude the discourse with a brief investigation of the testimony, given concerning it by the Fathers of the Church. As I suppose this testimony to be the chief ground of reliance, on the part of those who contend for Diocesan Bishops; it will be of some importance to examine it on the present occasion.

Concerning this subject I make the following observations. 1. No Testimony from the Fathers can give divine authority to any Institution whatever.

The Fathers are merely human witnesses, and are to be regarded with no more confidence, than other human witnesses, of equal credibility. All things, necessary to life and godliness, are given to us in the Scriptures. The testimony of the Fathers can, therefore, add nothing to what is contained in them; can set aside nothing; can change nothing.

2. The testimony of the Fathers is far from deserving the credit, which is sometimes given to it. For,

In the first place, Those who have testified concerning this subject, have given erroneous testimony concerning other things.

Irenæus testifies, that Linus was made Bishop of Rome by Paul and Peter; and after him, Anacletus; and, after him, Clement. Tertullian testifies, that Clement was the first Bishop of Rome after Peter.

Eusebius declares, that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter. Again; that Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch. Again; that Euodius was the first Bishop of Antioch.

Jerome declares, that Peter sate at Rome twenty-five years, until the last year of Nero. And again, that Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch after the Apostle Peter.

Damascus, Bishop of Rome, asserts that Peter came to Rome in the beginning of Nero's reign; and sate there twenty-five years. Nero reigned but fourteen years; and, according to the united testimony of antiquity, put Peter to death.

Origen says, that he had read in the works of a martyr, that Ignatius was the second Bishop of Antioch after Peter.

Epiphanius declares, that both Paul and Peter were Bishops of Rome.

These instances prove, that the Fathers, however sincere, and however satisfactory their testimony concerning facts which passed under their own eyes, yet received traditionary accounts loosely; and both believed, and recorded, much of what took place before their time, without truth, or evidence.

Secondly. The works of several of the Fathers have been interpolated, corrupted, and partially lost.

Concerning the Epistles of Ignatius, which are peculiarly appealed to in this controversy, Mosheim observes, that he esteems "the authenticity of the Epistle to Polycarp to be extremely dubious; and declares "the question concerning all his Epistles to labour under much obscurity, and to be embarrassed with many difficulties." Where there is so much uncertainty, a safe reliance cannot be placed for the decision of any point, not otherwise supported.

3. The testimony of the Fathers does not prove the distinction contended for.

Even the testimony of Ignatius, were it admitted without a doubt, is alleged in vain for this purpose. The Bishop, of whom he speaks, is the Pastor of a single church; the preacher, as well as ruler, of that Church; a man, who performed all the duties of an ordinary minister. He exhorts Polycarp to preach; to see, that the widows are not neglected; to know all his parishioners,, even the men and maid-servants; and to inspect at least every marriage. In his Epistle to the Church of Magnesia, he speaks, also, of their Bishops, in the plural number.

Clement of Rome says, "The Apostles, knowing by Jesus Christ, that contentions would arise about the name, or on the account, of the Episcopate, or Oversight of the Church, constituted Bishops and Deacons the very language of St. Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians. He also uses the names, Presbyter and Bishop, to denote the same Officer.

Jerome says, that " A Presbyter is the same as a Bishop; and that originally, the Churches were governed by the joint council of the Presbyters."

Again; "Let the Bishops know, that they are greater than Presbyters, rather by custom, than by the real appointment of the

Lord."

And again; "Among the Ancients, Presbyters and Bishops were the same."

Polycarp, in his Epistle to the Philippians, says, “Wherefore you must be subject to the Presbyters and Deacons."

And again; "Let the Presbyters be full of piety; merciful to all; bringing back them that wander;" &c. In the view of Polycarp, therefore, the Presbyters at Philippi did, and were, bound to govern that Church.

Tertullian, reciting the ordinances of public worship, and the government of the Church, says, "In all these things, certain approved Elders preside."

Irenæus, addressing the Heretics of that age, says, "We challenge them to show that tradition, which was transmitted from the Apostles by a succession of Presbyters." And again; "It behooves us to hearken to those, who are Presbyters in the Church; who, as we have shown, have their succession from the Apostles; who, together with the succession of the Episcopate, have received the certain gifts of the truth.”

Bishop Stillingfleet, remarking upon this passage, says, "What strange confusion must this raise in any one's mind, who seeks for a succession of Episcopal power over Presbyters from the Apostles, by the testimony of Irenæus; when he so plainly attributes Succession to the Presbyters, and the Episcopacy too, of which he speaks.

b

VOL. IV.

31

Firmilian, Bishop of Cæsarea, says, "that in Elders is vested the power of Baptizing, Imposition of hands, and Ordination." Hilary says, "The Presbyters were at first called Bishops." Theodoret says, "Of old they called the same men both Bishops and Presbyters."

Finally, Jerome says, that "the Presbyters of Alexandria ordained their Bishop for more than two hundred years from the first planting of that Church."

To these testimonies I shall subjoin a single modern one: that of Mosheim; who says, that "in the first century the rulers of the Church were called either Presbyters or Bishops, which two titles are in the New Testament undoubtedly applied to the same order of men."

From these testimonies it is, if I mistake not, clear, that the principal doctrine, maintained in this, and the preceding discourse, is the doctrine of the Scriptures concerning the subject in debate.

Another argument, alleged in favour of the distinction against which I contend, is derived from the character, and commission, of Timothy and Titus, as exhibited in the Epistles, addressed to them by St. Paul.

It is said that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus of Crete; and that, as such, Paul directed them to ordain Elders, or Presbyters, in the Churches at Ephesus, and in Crete.

To this assertion I answer in the first place. It cannot be proved, that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus, or Titus Bishop of Crete, in any sense; much less in the Diocesan sense.

The Scriptures say this in no place, and in no manner, whatever. Dr. Whitby, who was a zealous advocate for Episcopacy, declares, that he "can find nothing in any writer, of the first three centuries, concerning the Episcopate of Timothy and Titus; nor any intimation, that they bore that name." Indeed, he gives up this whole argument in form.

Secondly. It is certain that Timothy was an Evangelist; and therefore not a Diocesan Bishop, until after the second Epistle was written; because Paul directs him to do the work of an Evangelist in the fourth chapter of that Epistle ;* and directs him to come to him at Rome. An Evangelist, as you know, was an Itinerant Minister; and could not be a Diocesan Bishop; whose business it is to rule, and therefore to abide, in his own diocese.

Besides, there were other Bishops in Ephesus, when the first Epistle to Timothy was written: viz. those whom Paul sent for to Miletus.

The Truth unquestionably is, that Paul left him at Ephesus with extraordinary authority, as an inspired and eminent preacher, to charge some to teach no other doctrine than that which he had been * 2 Timothy iv. 5. + 2 Timothy iv. 9.

taught; nor give heed to fables, and endless genealogies. When this business, and other things naturally connected with it, were finished; he returned to St. Paul again. What is true of Timothy is equally true of Titus. He also resided in Crete but a short time before he returned to Paul at Nicopolis; and was not, so far as appears, ever settled in Crete at all: certainly not at the time specified in the Epistle. And except from the Epistle, there is nothing known about the subject.

Thirdly. Were we to admit, that Timothy and Titus were Bishops, and settled at Ephesus and Crete; it cannot be shown, that they had any other authority, than that, which all Ministers possess, except what was derived from this commission of St. Paul, their superior wisdom and piety, and their inspiration. Until this can be shown, the debate concerning this subject can answer no purpose, in the present case. But it cannot be shown.

Another argument for Episcopacy is derived from the 2d and 3d Chapter of the Apocalypse. Here the seven Epistles of Christ to the seven Churches of Asia are directed, each, to the Angel of the Church, specified in the Epistle. Now it is said, that the Angel denotes one Minister, superior to the rest in authority. Among these Epistles the first is directed to the Angel of the Church at Ephesus. Hence it is argued, that there was one Minister in the Church at Ephesus; and, therefore, in the other churches; who was superior to the rest, or, in appropriate language, a Bishop. To this I answer,

First; That, granting every thing, which can with any pretence be pleaded, the foundation of this argument is too unsolid and uncertain, to support any conclusion.

Secondly. The word, Angel, is often used in the Apocalypse to denote many. In these Epistles it seems evidently to be thus used; because in the four first of them, the singular pronoun, thou, is changed into the plural, you; while the same person is still addressed. Thus Christ says to the Angel of the Church in Thyatira, But unto you I say; 'Yun de λeyw; and unto the rest in Thyatira. This being allowed, and it certainly cannot be denied, the argument falls to the ground.

Thirdly. Should it be acknowledged, that there was but one Minister in each of these Churches at the close of the first Century; (the time specified) it will be nothing to the present purpose.

It is certain, that there were several Bishops in Ephesus, at the time, when Paul had this church immediately under his direction. These were all constituted Bishops by the Holy Ghost. This, therefore, was certainly an establishment of God. If, then, the Church at Ephesus, either voluntarily, or from some species of necessity, had changed this Institution; it had changed a divine Institution: a fact, which cannot possibly affect the present question.

Fourthly; The senior Minister in each of these Churches may have been the person, addressed in these letters.