Further: "Where hath the Apostle, in all that Epistle, (1 Tim.) spoken one word of the office of your Seniors, which you distinguish from a minister of the word? Where doth he give any such commandment concerning his office? Where doth he prescribe any such form and kind of government? If he keep silence in this matter through the whole Epistle, how dare you presume to say that to be commanded, which is not mentioned, and to make so much ado about nothing?".

Once more: "Examples of Churches there may be some, but not of your kind of Seniors. Precept and commandment for this kind of government, there is not one in the whole Scripture, or in any approved authority."P

The opinion of Whitgift with respect to Lay Elders is just this-He believed there were, in some Churches, a bench of Elders, who were consulted in the affairs of the Church, particularly in times of persecution; but that this was a matter of mere human expediency. And this he grounds altogether on the testimony of Hilary. But Scripture warrant, either of precept or example, he utterly rejects.

To conclude: I have consulted Guise, one of your own ministers, and I find he is against the Elders of his own Church, as you will find by turning to the place. I have also consulted the Continuation of Poole's Synopsis by a Number of Hands. They give the different opinions on the text in Timothy, but appear not to be able to give any for themselves.

And now what a strange thing it is, that an order of men superior to Deacons, and possessing spiritual authority, should be founded on a text of Scripture, which, to say the most of it, is perfectly ambiguous, and which has neither antiquity nor universality to countenance the interpretation given to it! If the advocates of papal supremacy had not more to say for themselves than you have to say for Lay Elders, I doubt very much whether they would not shrink from all dispute with Protestants, on the Pope's unwarrantable usurpation.

I shall now sum up, in a few words, the testimony of the fathers.

It is a universally received principle, that when a constant and uniform series of evidence for any fact is carried up to within a few years of the time when it happened, the fact is completely established. I have produced numerous testimonies from the writers and councils of the fourth century, that episcopacy was the government of the Church in that age. This you admit. I have also shown, from their explicit declarations, that they believed this regimen was of apostolic or divine institution. Jerome, as well as others, does most positively declare it to be His list of Bishops he runs up to apostolic appointment. In his whole series, he does not once give any note of distinction between the Bishops of his day, and those of the apostolic • Page 637.

So.

p Page 638.

age. He must have been destitute of common sense to give a catalogue of Bishops up to that source, if episcopacy had not begun till the second or third century. He must have been destitute of common honesty, to impose upon the world a succession of officers holding the same commission, when those of the first age held an essentially different commission. Precisely the same may be said of Eusebius, of Tertullian, and of Irenæus. They always designate the Bishop by the name of the city in which he resided, and never intimate that a mere Presbyter was the chief Pastor. They speak of numerous Presbyters and numerous congregations being in the principal cities; and that the Bishop presided over the whole; and, consequently, that he was a Diocesan. They give no intimation of any change in this particular, after the first century. In this high sense, they make Bishops the successors of the Apostles, and never once intimate that Presbyters succeeded to a supremacy of apostolic power. In the third century, Cyprian, and a great number of other writers, found episcopacy on apostolic and divine institution, and not one tittle can be produced from their writings to the contrary. In the close of the second century, Clemens of Alexandria, Tertullian, and others still earlier, rest episcopacy on the same ground'; and not so much as a shadow of evidence can be produced from them, that they thought it was a human invention. And in the beginning of that age, Ignatius, over and over again, enumerates the different orders of the Church, and repeatedly enjoins the inferior orders to be subject in spiritual matters to the Bishop, and declares this subordination of officers to be of divine appointment. And so complete is this evidence, that the most learned Presbyterian writers have never been able to show in what age prelacy commenced, short of the apostolie. The wide difference among them, proves almost to a demonstration, that there is not a single circumstance that can be advanced to prove episcopacy a human institution. And if this antiquity, this universality, and this general consent will not convince a man that episcopacy is a divine institution, all the principles of evidence must be given up, and we must govern ourselves, as to matters of fact, by whim, by prejudice, or by party spirit.

This constant and uniform testimony of ancient writers to the apostolic origin of episcopacy, affords an argument level to every capacity, and leaves no room whatever to fanciful conjecture concerning a change. A change could not possibly have taken place between the time when the canon of Scripture was closed, and the time when the Epistles of Ignatius were written. Nor will it help you in the least to pitch upon a period in the second or third century. Whatever time you may select, the fact that a change took place, must be proved by clear and substantial evidence. But this has never been done, nor ever attempted to be done with the least plausibility. The conjectures on this point are so wild, so extravagant, and so different in respect of time, that every impartial person must say, that your writers

know nothing about the matter. Take any period you please, ascribe the change to any motive you please, still we can show that you are in the region of chimeras. If you choose the second, or the third century, produce the record of the fact, name the author who mentions it, tell us the circumstance on which you found your conjecture, and we will give the evidence, whatever it may be, a fair and candid examination. This you have not done; this, in effect, you acknowledge you cannot do. Agree among yourselves, to what source this corruption (as you speak) is to be ascribed. You say, it was owing to depravity; Dr. Campbell says it was owing to piety. A wider difference there cannot possibly be. Piety, then, according to him, consists in disobeying a divine institution. Piety pretends to more wisdom than CHRIST possesses. Piety persuaded men out of their senses. Piety asserted a falsehood. Piety stopped the mouth, and arrested the pen of every Christian writer. Away with such conjectures! They are too gross, too palpably absurd for the belief even of children.

But perhaps corruption stands a better chance of succeeding. This corruption on which you place so much dependence, was confined either to the few ambitious prelates, or it was general among the clergy and laity. If the former, how came the corrupt ambition of the few to prevail over the piety and purity of the many? Ambition must be supported either by the arm of power, or by popularity. The civil arm was extended for the destruction of the whole Church, and not for the support of any particular order in it. Popularity is out of the question; for by the supposition, the great body of the clergy, and the laity being pure, must necessarily have been opposed to the ambition of the prelates; and their opposition must necessarily have defeated the scheme. It then remains that there was a general corruption among the clergy and laity; and that out of this corrupt mass, a few enterprizing, ambitious men, acquired a superiority over their brethren. But would not this general corruption produce general ambition? Would not this general ambition have produced the most serious commotions, the most violent conflicts, the most inveterate party spirit, the most scandalous intrigues, and, of course, the most disastrous consequences to the Church? If success attended the prelates (as it seems was the case) would not resentment have produced remonstrance from the clergy and laity? Would not every mouth have been open, every tongue have been employed against such an iniquitous usurpation? Would every page of history, every sentence of the fathers have been free from complaint? Would all have become so suddenly, and so much in love with this successful attempt as to hush it up; and that so completely as to prevent a single hint of it from descending to posterity? If men can believe these things, they certainly can believe any thing that suits their prejudice.

But perhaps the change was brought about by very slow and imperceptible degrees, The very nature of episcopacy precludes

that. If any change took place, it must have been all at once. It was a change from congregational parity to diocesan imparity. It was the assumption of an important prerogative, that of ordaining the clergy. This indeed would necessarily draw after it some others. Now could any subtlety have effected this? Could any art have persuaded the Presbyters that they had no right to ordain, when they had been all along, from the apostolic age, exercising that right? Could a moderatorship, though for life, have led to this result? Could your moderators ever persuade their brethren, that they had no right to ordain? Would it be possible, by any art or subtlety, to convert all the Presbyterians in the world into Episcopalians? I am sure you will think the question ridiculous. But ridiculous as it is, the change took place upon your hypothesis. It took place, too, nobody knows where, nor when. What! were Presbyterians differently constituted then from what they are now? Were they so corrupt as to change presbytery for episcopacy? Or so blind as not to see what was going forward against their rights? Or so mild as to shut their mouths against usurpation? Or so perfectly convinced that presbytery was a bad government, that it was necessary to change it? One or more of these things must be assigned; and whichever may be assigned, it proves a bad cause supported by contemptible assumption.

This refuge, therefore, that episcopacy was gradually and imperceptibly introduced, is effectually precluded by the very nature of the institution. There is but a step from parity to imparity. The imparity in this case is the assumption of an exclusive right of ordaining. This must be assumed at once, or not at all; for there is no intermediate step from the floor of equality to the chair of superiority. The ascension into that chair depended solely, after the apostolic age, upon the simple circumstance of election. Could the Presbyters, (and if you please join the people with them,) elect a man to the episcopal office, and not know that they were electing him? The object was specific, the elevation of one man above his fellows. The office was well known; the authority on which it rested was well known. The mere pretence to apostolic usage could have deceived no man. All knew the practice of their own time; all knew the practice of the times before them, from infallible testimony. None complained; none uttered a syllable of discontent. Universality and antiquity pronounced episcopacy a divine institution.

The conceit, then, that episcopacy is the fruit of corruption, and that it was introduced imperceptibly, is perfectly ridiculous; and every attempt that has been made by ingenuity to give plausibility to this conceit, does but prove the position, that prelacy is not the work of man, but of GOD.

As it is probable that I shall have to recur to this train of reasoning, I shall not pursue it any further in this place; but shall proceed to review the Scripture proofs of episcopal pre

eminence. I shall begin with what we deem proof for this preeminence in Timothy and Titus.

1. The office of a Bishop implies the exclusive right of ordaining. This was committed to Timothy-Lay hands suddenly on no man. To this you reply with some warmth-'Shall we never have done with this begging of the whole question, in a manner so unworthy of logicians and divines? Suppose they were empowered to ordain? What then? Do we not consider Presbyters as invested with this power? And is it not the great object of Dr. B.'s book to show that it was otherwise? Why then does he attempt to impose upon his readers by taking the main point for granted?' Curious enough! I take the main point for granted, when I produce from the Scriptures several passages, which show that the power of ordaining is not given to Presbyters. And to prove that it was not given to them, I show from the express words of the text, that those very Presbyters, and all orders in the Church, were subjected to Timothy's authority. Now, if those who govern, and those who are governed, are of the same order, then I certainly beg the question; but if they are not; if authority implies superiority, and superiority inferiority, then I certainly gain my point.

Lay hands suddenly on no man;-that is, do not admit into the sacred ministry any without due examination. Is there any one associated with Timothy in this injunction? None. There were Presbyters at Ephesus, but they are not so much as mentioned. Can we then infer from this text that they had a right to ordain? Certainly we cannot. Where then in the Scripture shall we find it? Is it in the transaction at Miletus? St. Paul sent from Miletus to Ephesus, and called the Elders of the Church. When they arrived, the Apostle gave them this solemn charge-Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the HOLY GHOST hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Here is not the least intimation to these Presbyters, that their commission implied the power of ordaining. There is no mention of the qualifications requisite for the persons that were to be ordained; nothing but to take care of their own conduct, and to feed with the word of life those over whom they were placed. But he gives very particular directions to Timothy, concerning those Presbyters whom he should ordain. Is it not wonderful that St. Paul should not intimate in these two texts, that Presbyters were commissioned to ordain, when the occasions so naturally required it? Again: St. Paul charges Timothy not to receive an accusation against an Elder but before two or three witnesses; but he gives no such charge to the Elders or Overseers of Ephesus. He also says to Timothy, Them, the Elders, that sin, rebuke before all, that others also may fear. Nothing can be more absurd than to suppose, that those Elders who were subject to the censures of Timothy, were possessed of equal powers with him.