WE have seen that the New Testament, instead of supporting the Episcopal scheme, furnishes evidence against it. This is acknowledged by many Episcopalians.

Here our inquiries might end. For the Holy Scriptures must be our guide on this subject, as well as on any other. If the authorized founders and guides of the church saw proper to establish general principles of church government, those principles should govern us. Now, if I mistake not, it has been made evident, that presbyters and bishops were originally officers of the same order; and that the members of the church should act in matters of discipline.

The great reason which is urged by Episcopalians to justify them in departing from the Scripture standard and in establishing prelacy, is, that prelacy was introduced at an early period in the Christian church.

I encounter this argument at once with several inquiries.

First. Were the early fathers guided by divine inspiration, and thus qualified and authorized, as infallible guides, to make alterations in the order which the apostles had established? If they were, then we ought to submit to their decision as readily, as to the decision of the apostles. But this no one maintains.

Secondly. Were the early Christian fathers instructed by the apostles to make the alteration intended, and to introduce prelacy? If there is any evidence of this, it must be found either in

the instructions of the apostles recorded in the Scriptures,

the testimony of the early fathers, that they received oral instructions from the apostles in favor of such a change, though the instructions were not recorded.

Let us look at the first of these suppositions. In the Acts of the Apostles and in the epistles, we have particular instructions in regard both to the ministry and the church. But does it appear that they said, or in any way intimated, that although, for the time being, they established only one order of ministers, called presbyters or bishops, they would have three orders established in following ages? They directed that presbyters should be ordained in every city. But did they signify that, after a while, a prelate should be ordained over presbyters? The subject being of great importance, it is reasonable to think that something, like what I have suggested, would have been found in some part of the New Testament, if the mind of the apostles had been in favor of the change alluded to. But where do you find it?

Look then at the other supposition. Do the early fathers testify, that the apostles gave oral instructions, which are not recorded, that there should be three orders in the ministry? Do they inform us, that there was an unwritten tradition handed down from the apostles in favor of prelacy? In the writings of the Christian fathers there is, in my judgment, no evidence of this, but much to the contrary. I cannot go into an examination of this subject, but others have done it. And I recommend to you a careful perusal of the best works which have been written on both sides of the question.

But early practice is appealed to. Prelacy, it is said, generally prevailed very early; and it can hardly be supposed that this would have been the case, without some warrant from the apostles.

It is admitted that prelacy did at length obtain a general prevalence in the church. But it is important to inquire, when it thus prevailed. There is clear evidence, that during the age of the apostles, and for more than fifty years after, the churches were taught and governed by presbyters; that those

who were called bishops, were the same as presbyters, and were pastors and overseers of particular churches, and that there was no officer of superior rank, having authority over inferior orders of ministers; and also that the members of the church acted in matters of discipline, according to the direction of Christ in Matt. xviii. But instead of undertaking to present this evidence before. you in detail, I can do little more than state the positions which I think tenable, and refer you to several works of a high character, in which the subject is handled particularly and fully.

Pedobaptists have sometimes been charged with an inconsistency, because they derive an argument in support of Infant Baptism from Ecclesiastical History, and yet deny the force of the same argument when urged in support of prelacy.

A statement of the case, just as it is, will show, that the charge has no foundation.

The chief historical evidence in favor of Infant Baptism does not, in my view, arise from the fact, that the practice did at length generally prevail in the early ages; but from the testimony of the fathers, that it was received from the apostles. In their practice, early Christians did, in many things, deviate from the principles established by the apostles. Hence it is evident, that the mere prevalence of any practice in the fourth, third, or second century, cannot be considered as proving its divine origin. But it is admitted on all hands, that the Christian fathers were upright men, and that their testimony, as to matters of fact within their knowledge, is worthy to be relied upon. Now it was doubtless known among them, what the apostolic institutions were; just as it is known among us, what were the original institutions of our Puritan forefathers in New England. Those who lived in the second, third, and fourth centuries had such means of information, that they cannot be supposed to have fallen into any mistake. They were honest men, and cannot be supposed to have given a false testimony. And their testimony is, not only that Infant Baptism was universally practised among Christians, but that it was delivered to the churches by the apostles. It is chiefly from this testimony as to the origin of the practice, and not from the

mere fact of its prevalence, that I would argue in support of Infant Baptism. Now to make the cases parallel, you must have the testimony of Christian fathers not only that prelacy generally prevailed at such a time, but that it was handed down, as a divine ordinance, from the apostles. You must have their testimony, that prelacy had uniformly existed in the Christian church, and was received from the inspired apostles as a permanent institution. If such a testimony could be produced, who would not acknowledge its weight?

But we have testimony that prelacy was not received from the apostles. And to place the historical argument for Infant Baptism on the same footing with this, it must be shown that, while Infant Baptism was universally practised in the days of Origen, Augustine, Pelagius, Tertullian, etc., the fathers, at least some of them, declared, that it was not the practice in the Christian. church originally, but was, for special reasons, introduced afterwards. If any evidence like this could be adduced, we should be obliged to abandon the historical argument for Infant Baptism, and to acknowledge that, so far as the testimony of the fathers goes, the Baptists are right.

In opposition to prelacy, we have just such testimony from the fathers, as I have hinted at. Chrysostom says: "The presbyters were formerly called bishops; and the bishops, presbyters." Theodoret says: "Those who were called bishops evidently held. the rank of presbyters." But Jerome, who lived in the latter part of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century, gives the most particular testimony. "In the judgment of Erasmus, Jerome was without controversy by far the most learned and most eloquent of all the Christians, and the prince of Christian divines;" and he was unquestionably familiar with the history of the Christian church from the beginning. His testimony is found in his Annotations on Paul's Epistle to Titus, where he gives an account of the nature and origin of the office of a bishop. He says: "A presbyter is the same as a bishop. And until there arose divisions in religion, churches were governed by a common council of presbyters. But afterwards, it was everywhere decreed,

that one person, elected from the presbyters, should be placed over the others." Referring to Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, which was addressed to the saints "with the bishops and deacons," he observes; "Philippi is a single city of Macedonia; and certainly there could not have been several like those who are now called bishops, at one time in the same city. But as, at that time, they called the same bishops, whom they styled presbyters also, the apostles spoke indifferently of bishops as of presbyters.' Jerome alludes to the fact, that Paul, having sent for the presbyters of the single city of Ephesus, afterwards speaks of them as bishops; and he refers also to what Peter says: "The presbyters who are among you I exhort, who am also a presbyter. — Feed the flock of God-taking the oversight, inoxoлouvres, exercising the office of a bishop, etc." "These things," Jerome says, "we have brought forward to show that, with the ancients, presbyters were the same as bishops. But in order that the roots of dissen sion might be plucked up, a usage gradually took place, that the whole care should devolve upon one. Therefore, as the presbyters know, that it is by the custom of the church that they are subject to him who is placed over them; so let bishops know, that they are above presbyters rather by custom than by the truth of our Lord's appointment."

Many of the advocates of prelacy in the English church, as well as elsewhere, admit the identity of bishops and presbyters in the primitive church, and that the distinction, which prevailed in the third and fourth centuries, was unknown for a long time after the Christian church was founded by the apostles.

I have said, that the mere practice of the ancient church cannot in any case be adduced, as conclusive evidence of a divine institution. But in regard even to ancient practice, there is an obvious difference between Infant Baptism and prelacy. In the first place; there is evidence that Infant Baptism was practised universally in the early churches; while there is no such evidence, but the contrary, in regard to prelacy. Secondly; there is clear evidence, that prelacy was gradually introduced long after the age of the apostles, with a view to remedy existing evils. But