for perpetual duration.”* And the very learned Bishop Beveridge himself, another exclusionist, makes substantially the same acknowledgment. He says, "Nothing can be determined from what the apostles did in their early proceedings in preaching the gospel as to the establishment of any certain form of church government for perpetual duration."t

But let us proceed to the attempts made to find something in Scripture to support this scheme.

§1.-The COMMISSION of Jesus Christ to the Apostles.

Their first argument is taken from the commission of Christ to the apostles: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." The scheme of high Churchmen asserts that this commission belongs to bishops alone, as the exclusive successors of the apostles, and as the sole rulers and ordainers of all other ministers to the end of the world. The proof is wanting: though Archbishop Potter tells us, that the 66 before us passage contains a full declaration of our Lord's intention." It would be idle to quote the attempts to supply this want of proofs by the reiterated assertions of these writers on the subject. The reader may see them in Bishop Taylor, sec. 3, Dr. Hook's Two Sermons, &c. The great reformers of the English Church thought very differently from these men; for they appointed this very commission as a part of the solemn office for ordaining all presbyters: thus most decidedly determining that they believed this commission to belong to all presbyters, as well as to bishops. There is not, indeed, a single syllable in the passage about distinct orders of bishops and presbyters. The whole commission plainly belongs equally to every minister of Christ, in every age, as it does to a bishop. The Lord made no distinction; and the servant that attempts it, attempts a tyranny over his brethren

* De Nupero Schismate, sec. 14.

+ Cod. Can. Ecc. Prim. Vind., p. 317. Lond., 1678, 4to.

Matt. xxviii, 19, 20. § Church Govern., p. 121, ed. Bagster, 1838.

for which he has no divine warrant. To see that our Lord intended no such thing as this proud scheme, let us hear him in other places on the relation of ministers, one to another. "But be not ye called rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which 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 he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.' "But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise LORDSHIP over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: and whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." The only just conclusions that can be drawn from these passages are, that all ministers of the gospel are equal by divine authority; and that the only important distinctions before God will be those of deeper piety, more devoted labours, and greater usefulness to the church of God. "Whosoever will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all."

Great dependance is placed by others upon our Saviour's words on John xx, 21–23, “Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them: and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." Now this is just as inconclusive as the other; nay, the very indefiniteness of the Saviour's language, in both passages, is against them; for, had he meant what they would have him to mean, he would, in a matter, according to this scheme, so all-important, have said so; but he did not say so, which proves decidedly that he did not mean so. And here also, again, it is unfortunate for these writers, as belonging to the Church of England, that her reformers have indisputably shown, that, in their views, this whole pas* Matt. xxiii, 8-12. † Mark x, 42-45.

sage, whatever power and authority it conveys, belongs PROPERLY to presbyters, as well as to bishops, by applying the whole to presbyters in the solemn act of their ordination to the ministry. We speak of the Book of Orders, or the Office for ordaining Priests (presbyters) and Bishops, as it was constituted by the great English reformers; and as it continued till 1661, when it was altered to what it is at present. See section vii, of this Essay.

§2.-The Claim of APOSTLESHIP for Bishops.

But it is said, and contended for, that bishops are now what the apostles were in their time. To be sure some things are excepted, as the pretence would otherwise immediately refute itself. Let us hear Bishop Taylor: "In the extraordinary priviledges of the apostles they had no successors, therefore of necessity a successor must be constituted in the ordinary office of apostolate. Now what is this ordinary office? Most certainly since the extraordinary (as is evident) was only a helpe for the founding and beginning, the other are such as are necessary for the perpetuating of a church. Now in clear evidence of sense, these offices and powers are preaching, baptizing, consecrating, ordaining, and governing. For these were necessary for the perpetuating of a church, unless men could be Christians that were never christened, nourished up to life without the eucharist, become priests without calling of God and ordination, have their sinnes pardoned without absolution, be members and parts and sonnes of a church whereof there is no coadunation, no authority, no governour. These the apostles had without all question, and whatsoever they had, they had from Christ, and these were eternally necessary: these, then, were the offices of the apostolate, which Christ promised to assist for ever, and this is that which we now call the order and office of episcopacy. The apostolate and episcopacy which did communicate in all the power, and offices which were ordinary and perpetuall, are in Scripture clearely all one in ordinary ministration, and their names are often used in common to signify exactly the same ordinary function."* "Imposition of hands is a duty and * Pages 14, 15.

office necessary for the perpetuating of a church, ne gens sit vnius ætatis, least it expire in one age: this power of imposition of hands for ordination was fix't upon the apostles and apostolike men, and NOT communicated to the 72 disciples or presbyters; for the apostles, and apostolike men, did so de facto, and were commanded to doe so, and the 72 never did so, therefore this office and ministry of the apostolate is distinct and superior to that of presbyters, and this distinction must be so continued to all ages of the church, for the thing was not temporary but productive of issue and succession, and therefore as perpetuall as the clergy, as the Church itself."*

"For farther confirmation," says Bingham, "of what has been asserted, it will not be amiss here to subjoin next a short account of the titles of honour which were given to bishops in the primitive church. The most ancient of these is the title of apostles; which, in a large and secondary sense, is thought by many to have been the original name for bishops, before the name bishop was appropriated to their order. For at first they suppose the names bishop and presbyter to have been common names for all of the first and second order; during which time, the appropriate name for bishops, to distinguish them from mere presbyters, was that of apostles. Thus Theodoret says expressly, 'The same persons were anciently called promiscuously both bishops and presbyters, while those who are now called bishops, were' (then) called apostles. But shortly after, the name of apostles was appropriated to such only as were apostles INDEED; and then the name bishop was given to those who before were called apostles.' Thus, he says, Epaphroditus was the apostle of the Philippians, and Titus the apostle of the Cretans, and Timothy the apostle of the Asiaticks. And this he repeats in several other places of his writings."

"The author under the name of St. Ambrose asserts the same thing; That all bishops were called apostles at first.' And therefore, he says, that St. Paul, to distinguish himself from such apostles, calls himself an apostle, not of man, nor sent by man to preach, as those others were, who were chosen and sent by the apostles to confirm the churches.' Amalarius cites another passage out * Page 27.

of this same author, which speaks more fully to the purpose: They,' says he, 'who are now called bishops, were originally called apostles: but the holy apostles being DEAD, they who were ordained AFTER them to govern the churches, could not arrive to the excellency of those first; nor had they the testimony of miracles, but were in many respects inferior to them; therefore they thought it NOT DECENT to assume to themselves the name of apostles; but, dividing the names, they left to presbyters the name of the presbytery, and they themselves were called bishops."

"This is what those authors infer from the identity of the names, bishop and presbyter, in the first age: they do not thence argue (as some who abuse their authority have done since) that therefore bishops and presbyters were all one; but they think that bishops were then distinguished by a more appropriate name, and more expressive of their superiority, which was that of secondary apostles."*

So Dr. Hook:-"The officer whom we now call a bishop was at first called an apostle, although afterward it was thought better to confine the title of apostle to those who had seen the Lord Jesus, while their successors, exercising the same rights and authority, though unendowed with miraculous powers, contented themselves with the designation of BISHOPS."+

The importance of these extracts must apologize for their length. Powerful efforts are sometimes made to hold up this system by claiming authority for it from the precedents of Scriptural bishops. This, however, its ablest advocates seem to be conscious is untenable ground. They find something more indefinite about the office of apostles. This makes it more easy to indulge in suppositions and assertions. Besides, the scheme is an imposing one: SOLE, exclusive successors of the apostles! What may they not do, if they can establish this? The world must bow to their awful authority. The pope has shown us what may be accomplished in subjugating the bodies, and souls, and substance of mankind, by one such successor: what would be the state of the world, then, were every bishop established as a pope in his diocess? To

*Page 21, vol. i, fol. Lond., 1726.

+ Two Sermons on the Church and the Establishment.