their age, the term bishop was not appropriated to an order of prelates, but was common also to presbyters. And as he shows that Cyprian first calls the apostles bishops, and the bishops of his time successors of the apostles, we must trace the commencement of the prelatic usage of these terms to the Cyprianic age. From that time to the present, the term bishop has been made to signify a prelate, and the term presbyter an officer who can have no existence but through the manipulations of a prelate; and no powers, rights, or authority, but what are conveyed to him by prelatic delegation; and yet, it is confessed that, in Scripture, both these terms meant one and the same order? Now, when a man changes his name, and assumes that of some other person, we must believe he has done so for some purpose of self-interest and advantage. And when prelates surreptitiously possessed themselves of the title bishop, and denied it, on pain of heresy and revolt, to presbyters, they must have had a reason. We insist upon it, that some satisfactory explanation shall be given of the fact, that the title of bishop, confessedly belonging to presbyters, should have been taken from them and given to prelates. As to the plea of modesty, set up by Theodoret, it is perfectly ridiculous, in reference to those to whom were applied the lofty and profane titles of Pontifex Maximus, Summus Pontifex, Summus Sacerdos, Princeps Sacerdotum, and the like. And besides, this plea of modesty, however it might avail Ignatius, who denied that bishops were successors of the apostles, or even Ambrose, who said, 'I do not claim the honour of apostles, for who had this but those whom the Son of God himself chose,' '4 will render but little service to those who now asseverate their claims to be true and lineal successors of the apostles, with all possible effrontery and shamelessness. What, then, was the reason for thus tampering with the divine authority; for thus casting imputation upon the divine wisdom; and altering a divine arrangement? One of their own party has said, that 'a self-originated upstart may take a man's name, and claim his inheritance; but when his title comes to be examined, the true right will appear, and justice will take place.' 5 And so will it be in the present case. For the change in these names manifestly proves that a change had taken place in the relations of the two offices or orders to which they had been applied. Otherwise, the change would have been unnecessary, and sound policy would have forbidden it, since a veil of mystery is hereby artificially thrown upon the

3

1 Guide to the Ch. vol. ii, p. 63. Lond. 1804. 3 See Dr. Willet's Synopsis Papismi. p. 273.

2

2 See Faber's Diff. of Roman. p. 81. 4 Wks. tom. iv, p. 1, in Dr. Wilson's Prim. Govt. p. 141. 5 Jones's Wks. vol. iv, p. 495. Essay on the Church.

6 See this argument employed by Burnet, on the xxxix art. p. 436.

subject, which would never have existed, if the original name of apostle had been suffered to remain unaltered.'1 Nor can all the skill of man wipe off from prelatists, the unescapeable imputation, that by this exclusive appropriation to the order of prelates, of the term bishop, which belongs exclusively to presbyters, they intended to palm the order of prelates 'upon the world, under the cover of a divinely instituted title, and thus to procure for it that divine origin, authority, and preeminence, to which it has no scriptural claim. Nor have all the learned advocates of prelacy, with all their sophistry, been able to defend her, in this matter, from manifest sacrilege, and a violation of the sacredness of divine truth.' 2 And if prelatists will resent this charge as calumnious, let them inform us when, where, by whom, and upon what authority, this change was made, and why that title, which was signed, sealed, and delivered over to presbyters, as their perpetual right, was employed by prelates, to cover the nakedness of their pretensions to a divine charter?

How different is the meaning conveyed by the same word, at different times, may be at once seen by a reference to the term imperator. While Rome was free and enjoyed her republican form of government uncorrupted, this title designated only an officer in the army, of the same rank and power with his brother officers. But when Julius Cæsar had enslaved his country, and overturned the government, he appropriated this title to himself and his successors; and, hence, the term imperator, which formerly signified an officer of equal rank and powers with others, came to mark out one who held supreme authority over all others, both in the army and the state.

Now just as it was in ancient Rome with the term imperator, was it in the ancient church with the term bishop. Bishop in the Scripture, and in the apostolic churches, signified only a minister of the gospel, of equal rank and authority with his fellow ministers, however otherwise denominated. But when prelates had arrived at their supremacy in the church, or rather were securing to themselves the attainment of power, they appropriated the exclusive application of this title, and of course all the powers it originally implied; and thus covered their usurpation of the rights of the clergy, under the shield of a scriptural title, and a divine right.

It is said, indeed, that this reasoning from the names, bishop and presbyter, is a mere verbal and flimsy sophistry, and that the question cannot be one of words.' But this

1 Dr. Chapman's Sermons to Presb. of all Sects, p. 239. Vind. p. 258.

2 See Bishop Bull's

surely is an after thought-a refuge from evident defeatand a most dangerous, as well as delusive artifice. For who are such word-mongers' as these same prelatists? I am sorry,' says one of themselves, that this seems to be the plan commonly adopted by the tractators,1 (that is the high churchmen.) Under a phrase which may be interpreted in various ways, they lay down a certain doctrine, and then quote as supporters of their views, all those who have defended any doctrine that has borne the same name,' and thus do they delude their people by playing upon this very term, bishop, and upon its use in ancient writers in a sense entirely different from theirs. Let us, however, test the validity of this objection. We mutually believe in the fundamental doctrine of our Lord's divinity. Now is the argument for this doctrine founded on the unquestionable fact, that the same divine names, titles, and attributes, are indiscriminately applied to each of the persons in this glorious godhead, a mere verbal sophistry-to be at once overthrown by the retorted cavil, that this doctrine cannot be made a question of words? Surely not. And neither is the argument founded upon the application of the very term now given to prelates, to presbyters, for the identity of these officers, weak or invalid.

2

We are, however, reminded, that in the New Testament, ALL the names of the officers of the church are used interchangeably. Thus our Lord himself is designated as an apostle, a bishop, and a deacon; and the apostles, also, are described as ministers, that is, deacons, and their office as a ministry. Now, we may admit all this, and yet deny that, in any given case, the deacons are called either bishops or apostles. In one sense of the term deacon, (a minister,) all are deacons that are ministers, although, in its official sense, neither Christ, nor the apostles, nor presbyters, are deacons, and therefore deacons are never called by their titles. The words, therefore, are not used indiscriminately or synonymously. On the other hand, bishops are not only called presbyters, but presbyters are just as freely called bishops, and the same individuals, in the same breath, are called both bishops and presbyters. These terms are, therefore, used indiscriminately, and are synonymous, and, being both applied to the same thing, must refer to one and the same order. And we cannot but regard this elaborate exposure, of what is termed a flimsy sophistry of names,' as, after all, a very poor reply to the fact, that in the inspired word of God the name bishop is applied to presbyters as their characteristic title, and as little better than solemn 2 See this argument urged by Perceval on the Ap. Succ., and at great length by bishop Onderdonk.

6

1 Goode's Divine Rule of Faith, vol. ii, p. 100.

trifling.1 Neither is it true, that we base our argument upon the mere fact, that both these names are common, but upon the fact, that the qualifications and characters, the work and office, to which these different titles are given, are one and the same, and are identical. But prelatists, on the contrary, argue that diocesan prelates are the same as the primitive bishops, and when asked for a reason, they can give no other than that both are called bishops, although the work, duty, and office, of each is as different as presbytery and prelacy, and are inconsistent and incompatible. So that, after all, it is to prelatists we are indebted for this flimsy argument, ad nominem, while we alone argue ad rem.2

3

Bishops and presbyters then, are in Scripture one and the same order, and since, as archbishop Laud teaches, our Lord made the twelve disciples bishops, and gave them the name of bishops as well as of apostles,' and since this name is confessedly the Scripture title of presbyters, presbyters must be the true and valid successors of the apostles. The custom of the church, as Whitgift confesses, and not the authority of Scripture, must be sought for the true foundation of the prelatic office. Scripture knows only presbyterbishops, but no bishops of presbyters. Presbyters are bishops according to the scriptural canons; prelates are bishops by virtue of the ecclesiastical canons. Prelates are bishops in phrasi pontifica, presbyters in phrasi apostolica, and they alone can be traced up to apostolic origin and institution.

But to all this it is confidently objected, that there is, in the New Testament, a very careful distinction between 'apostles and elders,' (Acts, xv, 2, 4, 6, and xvi, 4,)+ by which it is shown, that the apostles are superior in ministerial power and rights.' Now that the apostles, as such, in their character of inspired and extraordinary officers in the church of God were distinct, and distinguished from the presbyters, or the ordinary ministers of the churches, no one was ever foolish enough to question. That they were, in this respect, very different, is freely allowed; but that, in this respect, the apostles had any successors, is what we confidently deny. These expressions, then, most assuredly do not teach that any other difference existed between the apostles and presbyters, than what must exist between apostles and prelates, and to assume, that because the names of the apostles and presbyters are coupled together by the conjunction and; therefore the one, as ministers, represented a permanent order in the church higher than the other, is surely too flagrant a begging of the entire question, to be

1 See Boyse's Amcl. Episc. p. 207. 3.On the Lit. and Episc. p. 195.

2 See Powell on Ap. Succ. 2nd ed. p. 301. 4 Bishop Onderdonk Ep. Tes., by Scr. pp. 14, 15.

for one moment tolerated. Until it can be shown that the characteristic distinction of the apostles was their superiority in ministerial rights, as an order in the church, this attempted argument is worse than idle. It may, however, be still further objected, that, granting presbyters and bishops to be of the same order, they may be different degrees of the same order. But this evasion cannot avail. It is, in the first place, suicidal. For among bishops it is denied that there is any difference in degree, although archbishops preside in all convocations, and have other prerogatives. Now, either such presidency constitutes a different degree, or else it can effect no such change among presbyters. The same is true of the order of deacons, which admits of no higher and lower degrees, however varied in its stations, and must therefore be true of the order of presbyters. The apostles, again, were all of one order, and yet do many prelatists, as well as Romanists, insist that Peter had a kind of presidency among them. But do they therefore allow that he was, as papists affirm, of a different degree? By no means. Finally, as all difference in degree must come from difference of power given in ordination; and since, as Hilary affirms, and the body of the ancient church teaches, for a long period bishops and presbyters had but one imposition of hands, their powers must have been equal, and their degree, as well as order, the same.2

Presbyters then are the Scripture bishops, and therefore the true bishops, and the true successors of the apostles. This title of bishop, prelatists have unlawfully taken from presbyters. And, as a stolen title vests not by use, so is there no prescription that can make this good to prelatists.3 Every minister, therefore, of all denominations, may now, as they are actually doing, resume the title of bishop as their inalienable prerogative.

CHAPTER V.

PRESBYTERS ARE CLOTHED BY APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY WITH ALL THE FUNCTIONS OF THE MINISTRY.

I. PRESBYTERS ARE DIVINELY AUTHORISED TO PREACH THE

GOSPEL.

WE are now brought to another branch of our subject. Having shown that the bishops of Scripture are in name and office presbyters, we are led to enquire whether these 1 See Barnes's Episc. Exd. pp. 106, etc. 2 See Jameson's Cyp. Isot. pr. 221, etc. 3 See N. Y. Rev. Jan. 1842.