seventy elders, together with whom he judged the people; so should bishops and presbyters govern the church in common.*

(5.) They say, "Christ ordained twelve apostles and seventy disciples; therefore, the bishops succeed the apostles, the priests come in the place of the disciples." We answer: 1. Though there was a difference between the apostles and the seventy disciples, this is no argument for the princely pre-eminence in the Church of Rome. 2. Ignatius, in his epistle to the Trallians, says, "Be ye subject to the college of the presbyters, as to the apostles of the Lord." Though in the same he compares the bishops to Christ, the elders to the apostles; yet it is sufficient to our purpose that presbyters are also like the apostles. 3. We read but of two grades among the disciples of Christ, that is, of apostles and seventy disciples. In like manner the primitive church had only two sacred orders, that of priests, and that of deacons. 4. Ignatius, though the third bishop of Antioch, does not claim to derive his ecclesiastical pedigree from the apostles, for writing to the Antiochians, he says, "I do not command these things as an apostle."

(6.) The authority of the ancient fathers is quoted to support the princely jurisdiction of Roman prelates. On this we now remark, that though the ancient fathers constantly make mention of bishops, by them they mean either pastors of a congregation, or of a district of country, who had a number of fellow labourers of whom he was chief, or first among his equals in order and jurisdiction: or they mean by bishops, persons who, in process of time, had several presbyters and deacons under them in charge of distinct congregations, but these bishops were chosen and ordained by the presbyters, and they could do nothing without the consent or approbation of the presbytery or body of elders. But such bishops as these were very different persons from the princely monarchs in the Church of Rome, who bear the name of bishop, but who possess very few traits in common with the primitive bishops.

(7.) The authority of the Council of Trent is alleged. But the council itself was divided on this point, and their decrees leave the subject in an undefined state. Indeed, the decisions of this body will be entitled to very little credit by those who believe that ignorant and impious, factious men of violent party feelings and of uncontrolled and gratified passions, are very bad judges of the true doctrines and morals of the gospel. And if Roman Catholic authors are to be credited, such men were the fathers of the Council of Trent.

(8.) The argument from prescription is also sometimes referred to as of weight in this matter. They say that as they received it from the apostles, so they now possess the same incorrupted. The misfortune attending this argument is, that history and facts are against it. And though the name of bishop is retained, the office has lost so many of its primary elements of constitution, and so many additions have been made to its functions and powers, that when we compare the humble, self-denying bishops of the apostolic and succeeding ages, with the princely lords of the Church of Rome, we can find but few traits of character common to them and the bishops of primitive Christianity. Such a prescription then is as ill-founded in the mouth of Roman

* Hieron. ad Evagr.

Catholics, as the plea of the Jews, who claimed Abraham for their father, though they were destitute of his faith.

10. Secondly, we will adduce the testimony of Scripture and of early antiquity against the high claims of the Roman Catholic prelates.

(1.) Of the difference between presbyters and bishops there are three opinions, which may be stated here. The first opinion is, that all ministers should be equal, and that a bishop was not, neither ought to be superior to a priest.

The second opinion in the other extreme is that of the Roman Catholics who would not only have a difference, but a princely pre-eminence of the bishops over the clergy, and that by the word of God; and they urge it to be so necessary, that they consider those to be no churches which do not receive this hierarchy. How far some Protestants have adopted this doctrine it is not necessary now to inquire. The third opinion is between both, and is as follows, that though a distinction of bishops and presbyters cannot be directly proved from Scripture, yet it is very useful for the government of the church, in order to avoid schism, and to preserve unity. Of this opinion Bishop Jewel against Harding showeth Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Jerome to have been. Of this opinion was Bishop Jewel himself, and Bishop Whitgift, as well as Cranmer, and the early writers of the Church of England.

Without attempting here to decide respecting the comparative weight of the first and third opinions, we present the following arguments against the second, or that embraced by the Church of Rome.

(2.) According to the New Testament, presbyters and bishops in the apostles' time were all one. Acts xx, 17, 28. Those whom the apostle calls elder or presbyter, he also calls overseer or bishop. Tit. i, 5, 7. The same persons called elders are also named bishops. Also, St. Peter, 1 epis. v, 1, exhorts the elders to do the duties of a bishop or overseer. Hence we conclude, with Jerome, that a bishop and a priest are all one.

To these testimonies from Scripture the greatest number and weight of the ancient fathers testify. It is the opinion of St. Chrysostom, who (Hom. 1, in epis. to the Philippians) teaches that the name of bishop in the time of the apostles was attributed both to bishops and presbyters. So also Theophylact, Ecumenius, Jerome, Bede, Anselm, the Angelic Doctor. Into this opinion almost all the Latin and Greek fathers have gone. And if they are the interpreters of Scripture, certainly they ought to decide this matter against the Church of Rome. Indeed, such distinctions as they now make between presbyters and bishops are utterly inconsistent with a common name, office and rank. There have been found, however, among the ancients, as among themselves, persons of different sentiments.

Theodoret, in his comment on 1 Tim. iii, asserts that in the apostles' time the bishops were called apostles, and those who were properly presbyters were then denominated bishops. On this opinion we remark: 1. It is more probable that bishops should be called apostles after the apostles' time than during their lives; but after the departure of the apostles, the ancient bishops refused to be called apostles, as is plain from both Ignatius and Cyprian. 2. The case of Epaphroditus, who is called apostle or messenger, is not an instance in point, Phil

iv, 18; for he is simply the messenger of this church, to bear their bounty of benevolence to St. Paul. 3. The ministers or pastors of the church were sometimes called apostles, in respect of their pastoral office, 1 Cor. viii, 23; but not in that large sense in which the apostles were so called. So the word deacon or deaconship is sometimes taken for any office or ministry, as the apostleship is so called. Acts i, 25. And Timothy an evangelist is called a deacon, that is, a minister. 1 Thess. iii, 2. As the apostles, then, in a particular acceptation of the word, were called deacons, so bishops and pastors might be called apostles. 4. That none in the apostles' time were usually and properly called by that name but the twelve, to whom were afterward joined Paul and Barnabas, is manifest from Scripture: "Christ chose twelve, whom he named apostles," Luke vi, 13. The name therefore of apostle must be conferred by Christ. And St. Paul saith, (1 Cor. xii, 28; Eph. iv, 11,) that "God gave some to be apostles, some pastors and teachers," and all are not apostles. If then some were apostles and some pastors, the pastors could not be apostles.

Epiphanius believed or gave as his opinion, (Heresy 75,) that those were properly called bishops who are the same that were afterward called by that name; but that the name bishop was never applied to presbyters. Bishop Pearson and Petavius follow Epiphanius. It is sufficient to state here, that St. Paul, in writing to the Philippians, (ch. i, ver. 1,) addresses the bishops and deacons. From this we infer that the Philippian bishops must have been the same with elders, or they could not have been diocesan bishops.

We give below, on the point in hand, the arguments which Mr. Willet, a minister of the Church of England, used in 1634, in answer to Bellarmine, who maintained, that in the apostles' time the names of bishops and presbyters were confounded, being common to all ministers; but that the offices and functions of all were distinct.

"Answer. First, Saint Hierome showeth out of St. Paul, 1 Tim. iii, where he describeth the office of a bishop, that not only the name of a bishop and a priest was taken for the same, but the office also; because the apostle requireth the same properties and qualities in them both : de presbytero reticetur quia et in episcopo, presbyter continetur: there is no mention made of a priest, because he is contained under a bishop.-Hieron. Evagr. And in the same epistle he urgeth that place, Titus i, 5, 7, where the apostle doth not only give the name of bishops to priests, but requireth the same gifts and qualities in them both. Secondly, Saint Chrysostom useth the same reason.* Inter episcopum et presbyterum interest fere nihil, &c.: There is almost no difference between a bishop and a priest, because that unto priests the care of the church is committed, and that which the apostle said of bishops doth agree unto priests. Thirdly, Saint Ambrose also, upon the same ground, thus writeth:† Post episcopum diaconatus ordinationem subjecit, &c: He doth place the ordination of a deacon after a bishop: why? because there is but one ordination of a bishop and a priest: for both of them is a minister, (sacerdos,) yet the bishop is the first among the priests. Fourthly, Likewise,‡ in these words, out of Isidore, they conclude thus: Unde ad Timotheum de ordinatione, &c. Hereupon the apostle, writing to Timothy, of the * Hom. ii, in 1 Tim. † Comment. in 1 Tim. iii. Concil. Aguisgran. cap. 8.

ordination of a bishop and a deacon, speaketh nothing of priests, because he comprehendeth them under the name of bishops. Secundus etenim gradus pene conjunctus est primo: For the second degree is almost all one with the first. Thus, by the judgment of these learned fathers, there was small difference between the names, so between the offices of priests and bishops in the apostles' time. And thus much concerning the testimony of Scripture.

"Argum. 2. Archbishops and primates have the same right of jurisdiction over other bishops which bishops have over simple priests; but their authority and jurisdiction are rather grounded upon the ancient custom of the church, than any apostolical injunction or institution in Scripture. Ergo.

"The second part of the reason is proved by the authority of Saint Hierome, or who else was the author of the book De Septem Ordinibus. Propter hoc est nuper episcopalis electio, &c. For this cause also, that is, the preserving of unity, the election of the bishop is referred to the metropolitan, &c., and now the chief priests begin to endure another priest above them, non ex jure, sed necessitate, rather of necessity than equity. Also the decree of Nicholas, the pope, can. 3, de Patriarch., Primates vel patriarchas nihil habere privilegii, &c.: We do determine that primates and patriarchs have no privilege before other bishops, nisi quantum, but as far as the sacred canons do grant, and ancient custom of old time hath given unto them. This also is affirmed by that reverend and learned prelate, B. Jewel, out of Hierome, (Defens. Apolog., page 123,) that bishops are subject to primates by continuance of custom, more than by precept of Scripture.”* Our author proceeds to show that the distinction between bishops and other ministers had no existence, or was very small, in the days of the apostles. Indeed, if such a distinction as exists between bishops and priests in the Church of Rome were by commandment and institution of Christ and his apostles, it would have been clearly enjoined on all churches; but this is not the case. Here then is the difference between the Church of Rome and us they say it is necessary to salvation to be subject to the pope, and to bishops and archbishops under him; which is a notable difference between the bishops of their church and those of Protestant churches.

The following is the concluding observation of Mr. Willet on the topic concerning which we have just quoted him above. "Wherefore," says he, page 276, "as we condemn not those reformed churches which have retained another form of ecclesiastical government, so neither are they to censure our church for holding still the ancient regiment of bishops, purged from the ambitious and superstitious inventions of the popish prelacy. Let every church use that form which best fitteth their state in external matters every church is free, not one bound to the prescription of another, so they measure themselves by the rule of the word; for if any church shall seem to prescribe unto another in those things wherein they are left free, that saying of the apostle may be fitly applied against them, (1 Cor. xiv, 36,) Did the word of God spring from you, or came it unto you only? God may give unto one church wisdom out of the word, to know what is best for their state,

as well as to another. And so I conclude this point, with that saying of Saint Augustine to the Donatist bishops, Tenete quod tenetis, &c. Exposit. 2, in Psalm xxi: Hold that which you hold: : you have your sheep, I have my sheep: be not troublesome to my sheep, I am not troublesome to yours.' So may we say to our sisters, the reformed churches, and they likewise to us: let them hold that government they have; we do not molest them in their course, neither let them molest us in ours."

(5.) It is readily admitted that there was a priority among the apostles themselves, although they were, in point of jurisdiction and order, equal. And in like manner there may be a priority of office and duty and oversight granted to some of the ministers of Christ in every age, and that too in accordance with Scripture. So Peter first openly confessed Christ, and he therefore was the first to open the door of faith to the Jews and Gentiles. So James, Cephas, and John were pillars. Paul was the apostle of the uncircumcision, as Peter was of the circumcision. The same may occur among Christian ministers. See 1 Cor. xii, 28.

(6.) Though it may be admitted, that to avoid schism and to promote union a difference of rank may be allowed in the ministry, yet the princely dominion of the Church of Rome cannot be admitted.

It is contrary to the express declaration of Christ: "And there was also a strife among them which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve," Luke xxii, 24-26. Here our Saviour forbids that there should be any such princely and pompous pre-eminence among ecclesiastical persons, as there was among civil rulers.

St. Peter is expressly against it: "Feed the flock of God which is among you; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock," 1 Pet. v, 2, 3. And are they not lords over the flock who challenge to be princes?

The identity and equality existing between bishops and elders in the apostles' time, as is manifest from the following texts of Scripture, are at variance with the usage of the Roman Catholic Church. Acts xx, 17, 28; Tit. i, 5, 7; Acts xv, 6.

(7.) If, in the former ages of the church, the bishops were in office and dignity superior to presbyters, there must have been three distinct orders of clergy, namely, bishops, presbyters, and deacons. But there were only two distinct orders of clergy distinguished in those times, namely, presbyters, or bishops and deacons. Phil. i, 1. St. Paul, in his epistle to Timothy, mentions only bishops and deacons. 1 Tim. v, 2, 8. In like manner Polycarp, in his epistle to the Philippians, says, "Be subject to the presbyters and deacons, as to God and Christ." Justin Martyr, in his Apology, says, "After the bishop gives thanks-those who are called deacons among us." Thus both Scripture and the earliest antiquity make mention only of two grades of church officers, namely, the pastors, who were called bishops or presbyters, and deacons. (8.) The testimony of the ancient fathers is against the lordly preeminence of the Romish prelates.