SERMON VI.

PROV. Xviii. 17.

He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbor cometh and searcheth him."

BUT it is urged,

3. "That the Apostles, while they lived, held a station in the Church superior to all other ministers; that Bishops are the proper successors of the Apostles; and that they hold a corresponding superiority of character and office.'

But it cannot be shown, that bishops are more properly successors of the Apostles than presbyters, This is precisely the point in debate. But this the advocate of prelacy, for want of proof, very prudently assumes.

On the contrary, it has been fully demonstrated, as may be presumed, that presbyters are, to all intents and purposes, true and proper successors of the Apostles as members or representatives of the permanent ministry. This must be admitted, unless the whole train of evidence, which has been adduced, can be set aside.

To their preeminence, it has likewise been shown, that the Apostles could not possibly have any suc cessors. The diocesan bishop can make no preten.

*Sermon 3, Prelim. 3.

L

sions to the superior authority of an Apostle, unless he can verify his claim to act under the same special Commission by the same proofs. St. Paul did not expect to be received in this exalted character, He apwithout exhibiting the signs of an Apostle. peals to the whole Corinthian church. signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.”* If then the bishop claims to be the successor of the Apostles in their superior character, let him produce the same credentials. Let him, with a word, heal

"Truly the

the sick, open the eyes of the blind, unseal the ears of the deaf, and make the dumb to speak. Let him, by the imposition of his hands, communicate to his con verts the miraculous gifts of the HOLY GHOST; and let him smite obstinate offenders with death or with blindness, as Peter did Ananias and Sapphira, or as Paul did Elymas the sorcerer. Let him verify his pretensions by these credentials, by these signs of an Apostle, and we shall not be the last to acknowledge him in his Apostolic character. Let him produce these credentials, and if he be not an apostle to oth crs, yet doubtless he shall be to us.

But the truth is, the Apostles did not claim nor exercise their superior authority in their ordina This, it may ry and transmissible character. But if be presumed, has been fully evinced. the advocate of prelacy chooses to insist that they did, let him in the first place verify his assertion. This is indispensable. He cannot be

*2 Cor. xii. 12.

permitted, in opposition to so much evidence, to assume the principle. He must produce adequate proof of his position, before he can be entitled to proceed a single step in his argument. For, the superior authority of the Apostles, when they spake by the HOLY GHOST, forms no precedent for a ministry destitute of the gifts of inspiration and mira eles. He is under a necessity, therefore, to prove in the first place, by fair scriptural evidence, that the Apostles claimed and exercised their superior authority, when they did NOT speak by the HOLY GHOST.

But if the advocates of prelacy choose to persevere in their assumption, they will involve themselves in direct contradiction to their own principles. The Apostle Paul exercised authority over Timothy and Titus as decisively as over any other ministers.* But the advocates of prelacy insist with one voice, that Timothy and Titus were diocesan bish. ops. If then the superior authority of the Apostles be a precedent for that of any part of the permanent ministry, we must have, upon Episcopal principles, four orders instead of three. We must have a distinct and superior order of Patriarchs or Archbishops to correspond with the Apostles; we must have

*Of this there can be no doubt. To mention nothing more, St. Paul, by his Apostolic authority, assigned them their several missions, and prescribed to them the duties which they were to perform. And if he did not use his Apostolic "rod" over them, it was unquestionably because they did not deserve it,

another of Bishops to correspond with Timothy and Titus; besides the two inferior orders of Priests and Deacons. But these same learned advocates main tain, with no less zeal and perseverance, that there are no more than three orders in the ministry. Hence, some of the most eminent divines in the church of England, foreseeing this inevitable consequence and embarrassment, have entirely abandoned the argument.*

But the advocates of prelacy have attempted to derive another argument from the Angels of the sev en churches in Asia.

*The advocates of prelacy have taken great notice of the Apostle James as Bishop of Jerusalem. From this circumstance, however futile the argument, it may be necessary to bestow some attention upon it. Bishop Skinner, in his defence of Episcopacy, page 188, considers the history of the council, Acts xv. one proof of this supposition. He observes, that, "after Peter, Barnabas, and Paul had severally delivered their opinions upon the subject before them, James spoke last, introducing his discourse with this address:

Men and brethren, hearken unto me," and closing it with a decisive sentence, which delivered by him as presiding in the Council, put an end to the controversy? This is the proof.

But surely some angel must have "purg'd with ei phrasy and rue the visual nerve," before he could have descried that St. James presided in the Council, and dictated to the Apostles, as Bishop of Jerusalem. If this be correct, the Bishop of Jerusalem must have

They observé,

4. That "these Angels were individuals, who presided over the seven churches; and who, of course, could be no other than Bishops."

But it is obvious that this argument is of no va lidity in support of the Episcopal cause, unless they can establish, by scriptural authority, several points, which they have assumed. They must prove, that the Angels signified so many individual minis ters; that each of these ministers presided over his

been indeed a wonderful character. He was superior to the whole college of Apostles. He must have been upon Episcopal principles, at least the Bishop of Bish ops. Indeed, upon these principles, it has been shown that the Apostles in general were nothing less than Pa triarchs or Bishops of Bishops. The Bishop of Je rusalem then, possessing a right to preside over them and dictate to them, could have been nothing less than the Pope. He must have enjoyed the preeminent title and authority of the Bishop of the Bishops of Bish орв

But those advocates of prelacy, who are more mode rate in their pretensions, still contend with great inflexibility, that he was the proper diocesan bishop of the church in Jerusalem. But, in the rapidity of their flight, they have not condescended to prove that Bishop James possessed superior authority, and not merely superior dignity, nor that he enjoyed the exclusive power of ordination, that distinguishing prerogative