this concession they fairly give up their whole cause. For, it follows irresistibly, as we have shown,* that the presbyter possesses, with these powers, not only the right, but is under indispensable obligation, to perform all the functions of the ministry.

Authority to rule in the church is ascribed to the presbyter. This is denied by the advocates of prelacy. But it appears strange that they should deny it, when it is so well known that the title of elder or presbyter, and not that of bishop, is expressive of the dignity and authority of the officer.

*Serm. 1, Inquiry 5, & Serm. 2, Quest. 1, 2, & 3.

The absurdity of the supposition, that the Apostles established Episcopacy, has been shown, Serm. 2, Quest. 2. But we may be permitted to make some additional remarks upon this view of it. The advocate of prelacy has almost excluded himself, by his hypothesis, from any pretension to scriptural proof. But he should recollect that the scriptures were given by the HOLY GHOST, not for the exclusive instruction of the age in which they were written, but for the instruction of all future ages. Now, can the Episcopal advocate expect to persuade any reasonable man, that the HOLY GHOST has been so negligent or improvident, that He has given us no particular account of the diocesan bishop? According to the Episcopal system there can be no valid ministry, no sealing ordinances, no regular discipline, no visible church, without the bishop. And yet the HOLY GHOST has taken so little notice of this all-important officer, that the advocates for prelacy dare not undertake to determine, by

It may, however, be easily proved. It is indis putably conferred upon the presbyter or elder, in some of the passages which have been already recited. You will permit me to repeat to you one or two of them, in proof of this point. In his farewell address to the elders or presbyters of Ephesus, St. Paul charges them; "Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the HOLY GHOST hath made you overseers," or bishops, “to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”*

The Apostle Peter likewise expressly ascribes this authority to the elders or presbyters. "The elders" or presbyters" which are among you I ex

*Acts XX. 28.

1

the scriptures alone, so much as the name by which he was then called. The inferior order are noticed in every church, and their qualifications, duties and pow ers particularized. Is it possible then to believe, that the HOLY GHOST has completed the canon of scripture, and given us no certain account of that superior order, without which the visible economy of the gos pel cannot subsist?

The advocates of prelacy are under the necessity of supposing, that the superior order had some name before the Apostles were dead, and that it was afterwards changed for that of bishops. They generally espouse the hypothesis of Theodoret, a zealous advo cate of prelacy, who flourished A. D. 425. This is, that, "those now called bishops, were anciently called

hort, who am also an elder" or presbyter," and witness of the sufferings of CHRIST, and also a par taker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of GoD which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind."*

In these passages, both the Apostles expressly ascribe to the elders or presbyters all the authority, which any officer can have a right to claim or exercise in the church. The presbyters are explicitly required to feed the flock or the church of God, that is, to discharge the office, and perform all the duties, of a pastor or shepherd to them. And if this be

*1 Peter v. 1, 2.

apostles; but in process of time the name of apostle was left to them who were truly apostles, and the name of bishop was restrained to those who were anciently called apostles." On 1 Tim. iii. It does not appear, that the ingenuity of the prelatists had hit upon this fortunate solution of the difficulty, till about the time of Theodoret. Nor was his intrepidity sufficient, as his language implics, to assert that they were "truly apostles," but rather a spurious kind. But a moderate degree of reflection will be sufficient to convince a sensible man, that the hypothesis is altogether incredible. The Episcopal advocate supposes, that they were primarily called Apostles, as the peculiar successors of the first Apostles, by the special designation of the HOLY GHOST. But if this be a correct representation of the case, they had no right to give up the title of their order given them expressly by divine appointment. It

not sufficient, they are charged no less explicitly to exercise the office, and fulfil all the duties of a bishop over them. This authority was conferred upon them without the least reference to any superior, by whom their future conduct was to be directed or controlled. On the contrary, they were equally and expressly enjoined to exercise this care and superin tendence over the church.

But from the natural ambition of the human heart, St. Peter appears to have been apprehensive, that some of these presbyters or their successors, at least, would be disposed to aspire to higher authority, and attempt eventually to establish a spiritual tyranny. As soon, therefore, as he had commanded them to discharge the office of pastor and bishop, he adds this solemn admonition; "Neither as being lords

was given them for the special purpose of designating their character, authority and functions; it was peculiarly necessary for this purpose;-how, then, could they relinquish the name, without a most culpable violation of the express institution of the HOLY GHOST? It cannot be ascribed to their piety and modesty, for it must necessarily have been an impious modesty,-a modesty which no good man could practise.

And as they had no right, so they had no possible inducement, to relinquish the name. This title was the characteristic of their origin, their order, and their authority. What inducement then could they have to give up the title conferred upon them by divine appointment, and assume the title of bishops, which had been by the same authority appropriated to the

over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock."* The Apostle was sensible that they were clothed with authority, which was liable to be abused to usurpation and oppression, if he did not in fact foresee this event. He was, therefore, solicit ous to give them this impressive warning. Nor was he less anxious to impress upon them their equal subjection to CHRIST alone, and their high respon sibility to him to use their power without abusing it. With this view of their accountability to the Great Shepherd, he was equally desirous to excite them to a humble and faithful discharge of their office, by the encouragement of an imperishable reward. He, therefore, added the assurance, no less monitory to the ambitious, than consoling to the faithful, pastor; "And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye

*Verse 3.

subordinate and inferior order? What inducement could they have to confound in this manner the clear and unequivocal character of their just claims, and of the order established by the HOLY GHOST? What inducement could they have to relinquish a title, which conciliated the obedience, and attracted the veneration, of all classes in the church, for the inferior title of bishops, to which no such honor was due? No good man could possibly feel himself under any obligation thus to degrade his proper dignity and authority; and we may be sure that no wicked man would have any temptation to do it.

But this supposed change of titles would have been in a manner impracticable. The title of Apostles, beH