power," irresponsible and uncontrollable, is not apostolic,however it may be ancient christianity. There is not, we repeat, a single text in the Bible, from which they are fairly deducible. Indeed, we have already shown, that but few of the advocates of this system have been hardy enough to bring prelacy to the test of scripture at all. It is allowed by most, that the doctrine is not there, in any degree of plainness; by many more, that it is the result of a legitimate legislative power possessed by the church, and that it is, therefore, binding; by others, that the polity of the apostolic ages was of necessity immature and unfitted for the perfect condition of the church; and by still others, that no form of polity is, in itself, enjoined, required, or essential. Nor have those, who venture to test episcopacy by scripture, been able to agree among themselves on the first principles of their sacred institutes. Some base their theory on the extinct Jewish sacerdotal orders; some make Christ the first link in the chain of prelates, and the first of the order; some trace their high pedigree to the apostles; some transform the humble presbyters, as referred to in the epistles, into prelates. All are obliged to dress up the missionaries of the cross, who went forth as evangelists to preach the gospel, and to set in order what was wanting in the incipient and chaotic mass which formed the crude materials of the early church; in the pontifical robes of gowned and mitred prelates. Nor is there one advocate, who can stand firm on the foundation of scripture, and build from its materials ALONE, the fabric of prelacy. We find even the crowned champion, who has lately carried off the laurels, (episcopalians being judges,) in his battle for the scriptural authority of episcopacy, actually substantiating, as we have seen, an arch stone of the whole building, on the authority of a father, who lived in the fifth century! According to some, the essence of episcopacy consists in three orders, essentially distinct, and ordained de jure divino, and by inspiration of the Holy Ghost; so that the one cannot perform the functions of the other with any propriety, nor with any efficacy whatever. But it is now granted, by Mr. Palmer, that the orders of bishops and presbyters are identical, differing not in essence or nature, but only in degree and in a very few functionary offices." The order of deacon, he says, is not a spiritual order at all, but only a temporal order, and not formally possessed, either by their

1) See Wks. on Episcopacy, p. 420. See Episcopacy Tested by Scripture, by Bishop Onderdonk, and generally.

2) Palmer on Church, vol. ii. pp. 375, 400, 398, 403, 439.

ordination or by the ritual, with any cure of souls, or jurisdiction, or power of celebrating divine service, or any duties, other than of a "temporal, or at least a very inferior character."

In short, there is no unison whatever among prelatic divines, except in the opinion, that prelacy must be upheld and maintained.2

"My antiquity is Christ Jesus," said Ignatius; and we deny the authority of this true and only valuable antiquity, for this system of prelacy; as it assumes to be the only efficacious fountain of that plenitude of episcopal grace, which is to flow, in augmenting power, along the growing lines of apostolical descent.

It is not our purpose here to enter into the argument from the identity of bishops and presbyters, as the one order of the christian ministry. This position, as we have shown, is now in some measure granted by one of the ablest advocates of the prelatic system, and will come under review at another stage of our discussion.3 Nor is this question essential to the present inquiry, which is-supposing this distinction to be allowedDo the scriptures teach, that the order of prelates is essential to the continuance of the church, so that without it, the church is deprived of its vital organ,-its brain,—the very source of all its living energies? Do they teach, and where do they teach, that this order, by divine appointment, is the sole and exclusive fountain and depository of heavenly influences: and that through it, as such, these influences would be continued, in an unbroken personal succession, along which this electric power might invisibly and potently communicate itself, to the end of time? This is the fact to be made plain from scripture; and that, too, not by strained analogies, or far-fetched inferences, or fanciful and gratuitous interpretations, between which and those adopted, as the basis of the papacy, there is no essential distinction; so that, if prelacy be true, and on these grounds; the papacy cannot be proved untrue.*

When we come to substantiate, as we hope to do, the scriptural claims of presbyters to the true apostolical succession, we shall feel called upon to advance those scriptural grounds, upon

1) Palmer, pp. 408, 375, 404, 405. 2) See Note A.

3) For this discussion see our subsequent volume.

4) "Even allowing the truth and necessity of the doctrine of apostolical succession, there is still a most important question, viz. in what line of church polity was it to run? Was it to be prelatical or presbyterian? Now that this succession, as far as

it was transmitted at all, was handed over to presbyters or bishops the Word of God makes certain-but that it was given to any order of diocesan prelates, is what never can be shown, even were Timothy and Titus both supposed to be (incredible supposition) apostles." See Archer's Six Lect. on Puseyism, Lect. v.

which such claims are based. But in canvassing the scriptural title of this doctrine of prelatic succession, which is made to supersede and to overthrow every other, we cannot be expected to discover any such scripture proofs for its support, when even our opponents have failed to produce them from the divine record.1 On the contrary, as has been already seen, but little pretension has been made, by the ablest defenders of this system, to any thing like an express divine warrant.

As, therefore, those particular passages which are adduced in refutation of the claims of presbyters, and in substantiation of those of prelates, will be more fitly considered when we are prepared to advance our own demands, we will in this lecture present some general considerations, by which we would hope to show, that this entire scheme is most gratuitously ascribed to God's holy word.

Now, that we may not unnecessarily prolong this discussion, we would remark, that it has been fully and elaborately shown, by a recent and very learned episcopal writer of the evangelical school, that this whole system of high-church prelacy, and this exclusive claim to apostolical descent in particular, is in direct

1) That prelatists can make some show of scripture proof, and appear to rest upon it as authority, is nothing to the point, since, as Dr. Bowden allows, (Wks. on Epis. vol. i. p. 109,) "it is scarcely possible to produce texts of scripture for any point whatever, that may not be obscured by plausible objections. Ingenuity is never at a loss; and when it is excited to exertion by prejudice, and by an attachment to a particular hypothesis, it is extremely difficult to diminish its vigor, and to divest it of all its subterfuges."

"They cannot, however, prove," says Dr. Mitchell, in his Letters to Bishop Skinner, (p. 85,) "that any subordination, implying authority on the one hand and subjection on the other, existed among christian ministers in the apostolic church; nor can they find their three orders among the offices instituted by the apostles. Hence, lest the exhibition of the three orders, consisting of our Lord himself, his apostles, and the seventy, should not put to silence all gainsayers, they have recourse to the following curious stratagem. They fix upon a passage, in which Paul enumerates eight different orders of ecclesiastical officers, who were all supernaturally endowed and set in the church,

not by the apostles, who were themselves one of the eight orders, but by Jesus Christ. Without deigning to give a reason for their rejection of five of those orders, as not making part of the apostolic model, they do, without any ceremony, seize upon three, and then hollow in the ears of the presbyterians, "these SEEM to be all the standing orders established in the church. Behold the divine model of the 'sacred hierarchy.'-Adopt it and be saved, or 'reject it, and go to perdition, as you please!""

"I have looked over my Bible with some attention,' (says Sir Michael Foster, Knt, in his Examination of the Scheme of Church Power, 1736, p. 8,) "and do not find any of the powers his lordship speaks of vested in the episcopal order, exclusive of the church, or body of believers. I have likewise consulted some learned men who have made these matters their study, and they tell me, that none of the bishops of the first three hundred years after Christ claimed any separate exclusive powers for the exercise of church discipline, but left those matters to the provincial and diocesan consistories, which, in the purer ages of the church, were composed of bishops, clergy, and laity."

antagonism to the whole spirit and genius of our Lord's teaching. This heavy charge he substantiates by an examination of several of the most prominent of our Lord's parables and predictions. The same conclusion he has also drawn from an extensive induction of particulars in the Book of Acts, the first and the only inspired record of the early church; and in which, if any where in scripture, these doctrines must have been fully brought out.

It is unnecessary for us, as this work has been republished, and is in circulation among us, to enter at length into this same argument. We would, however, call attention to a few remarks. When prelatic writers quote in proof of their exclusive powers such passages of scripture as these,-"as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you”—“I am with you always, even unto the end of the world"-"I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed me,”—it is sufficient to reply, that their applicability depends on the assumption as true, of the very question in dispute; and that they can have no pertinency whatever, as an argument in favor of prelates, until the appointment of such an order of ministers, as of permanent and necessary standing in the church, has been otherwise made plain. Until this is done, we claim all such passages, in all the fulness of their meaning, for the ministry of the church in

i.

1) See Ancient Christianity, vol.

See also Potter on Ch. Govt., pp. 124, 125, who explains the parables as referring to church offices while there is manifestly no allusion to different orders, but to one only.

2) See Percival on the Apost. Succ. p. 61.

3) Paley, after quoting these very passages, (as my Father hath sent, &c.,) adds: (Works, vol. vi. p. 91,) "These are all general directions, supposing, indeed, the existence of a regular ministry in the church, but describing no specific order of preeminence or distribution of office and authority. If any other instances can be adduced more circumstantial than these, they will be found, like the appointment of the seven deacons, the collections for the saints, the laying by in store upon the first day of the week, to be rules of the society, rather than laws of the religion-recommendations and expedients fitted to the state of the several churches by those who then administered the affairs of them, rather than precepts

delivered with a solemn design of fixing a constitution for succeeding ages.

"I have been sometimes disposed to think," says Dr. Mitchell in his Letters to Bishop Skinner, (p. 87,) "that 'Lo, I am with you always unto the end of the world,' means, 'I will never cease to support the religion which I have commissioned you to publish;' and that it is parallel to the promise which follows: 'On this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it;' and that both promises refer rather to the stability and duration of the religion itself, than to those of the highest order of its ministers. I was the more confirmed in this opinion, by having read that christianity has subsisted in some places, and even flourished, independently of diocesan bishops. But it seems I have been in a mistake. Both the passages referred to, must relate to the duration of episcopacy, till the heavens and earth fly away: so that 'On this rock will I build my church' must signify, 'On this rock will I

general. And since it is not disputed that presbyters were divinely instituted as a perpetual order in the christian ministry; while for the order of prelates, we boldly deny that there is any warrant from God; therefore do we appropriate these glorious declarations-until wrested from them by well-grounded assurance to the order of presbyters.

It is "indeed," says Dr. Mitchell, in his Letters to Bishop Skinner, "an apostolic precept, which, our vindicator does not suffer us to forget-'obey them that have rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give an account.' But the obedience and submission here enjoined, of whatever nature they may be, are exacted from the people to their pastors, not from one order of ecclesiastics to another. Nay, I can produce some passages in which all christians, both pastors and people, are commanded to 'be subject to one another, and to submit themselves one to another, in the fear of God.' But I have not met with a passage, which says either explicitly, or by implication, 'presbyters and deacons, obey them that have the rule over you, for they watch for your souls.' When high-church shall show me a passage to this purpose, I shall acknowledge that her divine model, like the image of the great goddess Diana, and the Paladium of Troy, undoubtedly fell down from Jupiter."

2

It is certainly very remarkable, that we may apply to presbyters the words of Jablonski, as quoted by Mr. Percival, and which he applies to prelates, "that there is no doctrine or tenet of the christian religion, in which all christians in general have, for the space of eighteen hundred years, so unanimously agreed, as in this of 'presbytery, as being a certain and necessary order of the christian ministry.' "In all ages and times down from the apostles, and in all places through Europe, Asia, and Africa, wheresoever there were christians, there were also presbyters; and even where christians differed in other points of doctrine

build the episcopate,' and presbyterians and independents 'shall not prevail against it.'"

We will here present also the judgment of Archbishop Usher, as given by Dr. Bernard, (Certain Discourses by the late Archbishop of Armagh, Lond., 1657, p. 157.) "That last speech of our Saviour, (Matt. xxviii., Lo I am with you, &c.,) cannot be limited to the persons of the apostles, (with whose deaths these administrations did not expire,) but must be understood collectively of the whole body of the ministry, then, as it were, in their loins who should