conversant with the writings of Paul, would ever think of bringing against them.

This passage also establishes another point. It not only shows that the elders here to be ordained, were considered and denominated bishops, thereby proving the identity of the office designated by these names, but it likewise proves, beyond controversy, that in apostolic times, it was customary to have a plurality of these bishops in a single city. We have before seen that there were a number of bishops in the city of Ephesus, and a number more in the city of Philippi: but in the passage before us we find Titus directed to ordain a plurality of them in every city. This perfectly agrees with the Presbyterian doctrine, that scriptural bishops were the pastors of single congregations, or presbyters, invested, either separately or conjointly, as the case might be, with pastoral charges; but it is impossible to reconcile it with the modern notions of diocesan Episcopacy.

There is one more passage, equally conclusive in this argument. It is that which is found in 1 Peter v. 1, 2. "The elders (or presbyters) which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof (EXOXOROUTES, that is, exercising the office, or performing the duties of bishops over them) not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind." The construction of this passage is obvious. It expressly represents presbyters as bishops of the flock, and solemnly exhorts them to exercise the powers, and perform the duties of this office.

In short, the title of bishop, as applied to ministers

of the gospel, occurs only four times in the New Testament in three of these cases there is complete proof that it is given to those who are styled presbyters; and in the fourth case, there is strong presumption that it is applied in the same manner. On the other hand, the apostle Peter, as we have just seen, in addressing an authoritative exhortation to other ministers, calls himself a presbyter. The same is done by the apostle John, in the beginning of his second and third epistles "The elder (presbyter) unto the well beloved Gaius-the elder unto the elect lady," &c. Could more complete evidence be desired, that both these titles belonged equally, in the days of the apostles to the same office?

But it is not necessary further to pursue the proof that these names are indiscriminately applied in Scripture to the same office. This is freely and unanimously acknowledged by the most respectable Episcopal writers. In proof of this acknowledgment, it were easy to multiply quotations. A single authority shall suffice. Dr. Whitby confesses, that "both the Greek and Latin fathers do, with one consent, declare, that bishops were called presbyters, and presbyters bishops, in apostolic times, the names being then common." Notes on Philip. i. 1.

It being thus conceded by all intelligent Episcopalians that the names bishop and presbyter are interchangeably applied to the same persons in the New Testament, it becomes an important question, what class of officers were those to whom these titles were thus indifferently applied. Were they prelates? or did they belong to that class which Episcopalians denominate the second order of clergy, in other words, presbyters, strictly speaking, as distinguished from

*

bishops? In regard to this question, the advocates of Episcopacy are not agreed. On the one hand, Dr. Henry Hammond, among the most learned of their number, was very confident that all who bore the title of bishops, or presbyters, in the New Testament, were prelates, and that none of the second order of clergy were ordained during the period of the apostolic history, and, of course, not mentioned in that history;* and with him Bishop Pearson, and several other eminent English Episcopalians seem to agree. On the other hand, Dr. Hammond's contemporary, the learned Dodwell, was quite as confident that all the persons spoken of in the New Testament as bishops, were simple presbyters only; no bishops, properly so called, having been ordained until after the year 106; and with Dodwell, Bishop Hoadly, Dr. Whitby, and many others of equal name, are known, as to this point, fully to concur. It is perfectly evident that the compilers of the Episcopal form for ordination, as found in their Liturgy, both in England and in this country, considered those denominated bishops in the New Testament, as bishops in their sense of the word, i. e. prelates; and it is no less evident that most, if not all the advocates of prelacy on this side of the Atlantic, until within a few years, confidently maintained the same opinion. But it appears now to be the current doctrine among Episcopalians in the United States, that none of the persons called bishops in the New Testament were prelates, but all of them members o

* See Hammond on Acts xi. 30, and on Philippians i. 1. + Vindicia Ignatii-Lib. 2. cap. 13.

↑ See this utter disagreement among the most learned Episcopa lians placed in a clear and strong light, with appropriate reference: by Ayton, in the seventh section of the Appendix to his Original Cor stitution of the Christian church.

the second order of clergy, or mere presbyters. In other words, they confess that the title of bishop is always used in the New Testament in a Presbyterian sense, and invariably means common pastors of single churches. Now, until the friends of Episcopacy can agree on what they consider as the doctrine taught in Scripture on this subject, how is it possible to meet or answer them? Some of the most learned, able, and zealous of their number assure us that they can find no bishops, as distinguished from presbyters, in the New Testament; while others, no less learned, able, and zealous, with no less confidence assure us, that no presbyters, as distinguished from bishops, are to be found there.* This very strife in their camp is a fatal testimony against their cause. In one sense these parties are undoubtedly both right; for the different "orders of clergy" of which they speak are, indeed, not to be found in Scripture at all; of course, no wonder that those who search for them are perplexed and baffled. But when the reigning party contradict with so little ceremony both the letter and spirit of their own public offices, drawn up by the martyred fathers of their church, and rendered venerable by the lapse of nearly three centuries, it would really seem as if to them, as partizans, victory or defeat must prove equally fatal. If they fail of establishing their argument, their cause, of course, is lost. If, on the contrary, they succeed in establishing it, they dishonour the venerated authors of their formularies; and every time they use the "office for the consecra

* Bishop Onderdonk, in his "Episcopacy tested by Scripture," maintains, as stated above, that the men called bishops in the apostolic history, were all presbyters, or pastors of single churches, and that the apostles were the prelates of that period.

tion of bishops," they are chargeable with something which looks like solemn mockery of those who unite with them, as well as of the great object of worship.*.

But we have something more to produce in support of our system, than the indiscriminate application of the names in question to one order of ministers. We can show

III. That the same character, duties, and powers, which are ascribed in the sacred writings to bishops, are also ascribed to presbyters, thereby plainly establishing their identity of order as well as of name.

Had bishops been constituted by the great Head of the church, an order of ministers different from presbyters, and superior to them, we might confidently expect to find a different commission given; different qualifications required; and a different sphere of duty assigned. But nothing of all this appears. On the contrary, the inspired writers, when they speak of ministers of the gospel, by whichever of these names they are distinguished, give the same description of their character; represent the same gifts and graces as necessary for them; enjoin upon them the same. duties; and, in a word, exhibit them as called to the same work, and as bearing the same office. To prove this, let us attend to some of the principal powers vested in Christian ministers, and see whether the Scriptures do not ascribe them equally to presbyters and bishops.

*The intelligent reader will perceive that there is a reference here to the fact, that in the office for consecrating bishops, the third chap. ter of the first epistle to Timothy, and Acts xx. are directed to be read, which the compilers of the Liturgy thought appropriate Scrip. tures, as referring to prelates, which their wiser and more learned sons find have nothing to do with the occasion; but which they still continue to read!