ying

PAPIAS, a companion of Polycarp. "If I met any oid where with one who had conversed with the presbyters, enquired after the sayings of the presbyters, what Anin drew, what Peter, what Philip, what Thomas or James er had said." Would this father have called the Apostles presbyters, if presbyters were a different and inferior order to bishops ?

and

the la

* * *

IRENEUS, A. D., 202. "Obey those presbyters in the church who have the succession, as we have shown, from the Apostles; who with the succession of the episcopate, If I received the gift of truth." "We ought, thererecent fore, to adhere to those presbyters who keep the Apostle to doctrine, and together with the presbyterial succession do show forth sound speech."

rding

TERTULLIAN, A. D., 218. "Certain approved elders preside who have obtained that honor, not by price, but by the evidence of their fitness.'

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, writing about the same time. "One part of it," public worship, "is performed by the superior ministers, another part by inferior ministers. The superior part of it is performed by the presbyters; the infe rior, or servile part, by the deacons." This writer, throughout, speaks of bishops and presbyters as interchangeable terms for the same order.

FIRMILIAN, about A. D., 250. "All power and grace are placed in the church, where presbyters preside, in whom is vested the power of baptizing and imposition of hands, and ordination!"

JEROME, who has been called the prince of Christian divines, says, about A. D., 380, “A presbyter is the same as a bishop, and before there were, by the devil's instinct, parties in religion, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the churches were governed by the common council of presbyters. But, afterwards, when every one thought that those whom he baptized, were rather his than Christ's, it was determined through the whole world that one of the presbyters should be set over the rest, to whom all care of the church should belong, that the seeds of schism should be taken away." * "These things I have written to show, that among the ancients, presbyters and bishops were the same,

But by little and little, that all the seeds of dissension might be plucked up, the whole care was devolved on one."

AUGUSTINE, writing to the above, says, "The office of a bishop is above that of a presbyter, not by the authority of scripture, but after the names of honor, which through the custom of the church have now obtained."

CHRYSOSTOM, A. D., 407. "Presbyters were anciently called bishops and stewards of Christ, and bishops were called presbyters. For this reason, even now, many bishops speak of their fellow-presbyter and fellow-minister; and finally, the name of bishop and presbyter is given to each indiscriminately."

PELAGIUS, Contemporary with Augustine, restricted all church offices to priests or presbyters, and deacons, and asserted, that "priests or presbyters, without discrimination or restriction, are the successors of the Apostles."

BERNALDUS CONSTANTIENSIS, a Romanist, and zealous defender of Pope Gregory VII., says after quoting the above passage from Jerome, "Inasmuch, therefore, as bishops and presbyters were anciently the same, without doubt they had power to loose and to bind, and to do other acts which are now the special prerogatives of the bishop."

POPE URBAN II., says, "We regard deacons and presbyters as belonging to the sacred order, since these are the only orders which the primitive church is said to have had. For these only have we Apostolical authority."

ANSELME, Archbishop of Canterbury, who died about A. D., 1109, explicitly affirms, that "by the Apostolic institution, all presbyters are bishops."

NICHOLAS TUDESCHUS, Archbishop of Panorma, about A. D., 1428, says, "Formerly presbyters governed the church in common, and ordained the clergy."

THE OLD CANON LAW, decisively declares, "Bishop and presbyter were the same in the primitive church: presbyter being the name of the person's age, and bishop of his office. But there being many of them in every church, they determined among themselves, for the preventing of schism, that one should be elected of themselves to be set over the rest; and the person so elected was called bishop for distinction sake."

CASSANDER, a learned Catholic divine of the 16th century, in his Consolations, has the following passage. "In this one particular, all parties agree. That in the Apostles' days there was no difference between a bishop and a presbyter, but afterwards, for the avoiding of schism, the bishop was placed before the presbyter, to whom the power of ordination was granted, that so peace might be continued in the church."

We might have quoted more at large from the Fathers, and those who have succeeded them, in proof of this identity, and that presbyters ordained. But we prefer now to turn to the admissions of Episcopalians. The English Church from the first, affected a compromise between the antagonist principles of Protestantism and Popery, and hence the contradictory testimony which she gives on this subject. Says Macaulay in his History of England, "The founders of the Anglican church took a middle course. They retained Episcopacy, but they did not declare it to be an institution essential to the welfare of a Christian society, or to the efficacy of the sacraments. Cranmer, indeed, plainly avowed his conviction that, in the primitive times, there was no distinction between bishops and priests, and that the laying on of hands was altogether unnecessary." Again, he says, "The founders of the Anglical Church had retained Episcopacy as an ancient, a decent, and a convenient ecclesiastical polity, but had not declared that form of church government to be of divine institution. We have already seen how low an estimate Cranmer had formed of the office of a bishop." The following are some of the admissions of her founders, and eminent divines.

"THE NECESSARY ERUDITION OF A CHRISTIAN MAN," drawn up by the Convocation of the clergy, and published by royal authority as the exponent of the church's principles, affirms, "that priests and bishops, by God's law, are one and the same, and that the power of ordination and excommunication belongs equally to both."

"A DECLARATION MADE OF THE FUNCTIONS AND DIVINE INSTITUTION OF Bishops and PRIESTS," drawn up for the same purpose, says, "The truth is, that in the New Testament, there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in order, but only of deacons or ministers, and of priests or bishops."

刂

CRANMER, ARCHBISHOP OF CAnterbury. "The bishops and priests were at one time, and were no two things; but both one office in the beginning of Christ's religion."

* * *

BISHOP REYNOLDS. "All that have labored in reforming the church for 500 years past, have taught that all pastors, be they entitled bishops or priests, have equal authority and power by God's word." "Among us, we have bishops, the Queen's professors of divinity in our universities; and other learned men, as Bradford, Lambert, Jewell, Pilking ton, Humphrey, Fulke, who all agree in this matter, as do all divines beyond sea that I ever read, and doubtless many more whom I never read."

BISHOP CRoft. "The scripture no where expresses any distinction of order among the elders. We find there but two orders mentioned, bishops and deacons. The scripture distinguisheth not the order of bishops and priests; for there we find but one kind of ordination, then certainly but one order; for two distinct orders cannot be conferred in the same instant, by the same words, by the same actions."

DR. HOLLAND, King's professor of divinity in Oxford. "To affirm that there is such a difference and superiority, (between bishops and presbyters,) by divine right, is most false, contrary to scripture, to the fathers, to the doctrine of the Church of England, yea, to the very schoolmen themselves."

ARCHBISHOP USHER. "I have ever declared my opinion to be, that bishop and presbyter differ only in degree, and not in order."

66

BISHOP FORBES. "Presbyters have, by divine right, the power of ordaining, as well as of preaching and baptising." BISHOP STILLINGFLEET. It is acknowledged by the stoutest champions of Episcopacy, before these late unhappy divisions, that ordination performed by presbyters in case of necessity is valid."

SIR PETER KING, Lord Chancellor of England. “As for ordination, I find clearer proofs of presbyters ordaining, than of administering the Lord's supper."

DR. JOHN EDWARDS. "This, then, is the true account of the matter. Bishops were elders or presbyters, and therefore of the same order; but the bishops differed from the presbyters in this only, that they were chosen by the

elders to preside over them at their ecclesiastical meetings or assemblies.'

BISHOP WHITE, late diocesan of Pennsylvania. "Now if even those who hold Episcopacy to be of divine right, conceive the obligation to it not to be binding when that idea would be destructive of public worship; much more must they think so, who indeed venerate and prefer that form as the most ancient and eligible, but without any idea of divine right in the case. This the author believes to be the sentiment of the great body of Episcopalians in America; in which respect they have in their favor, unquestionably, the sense of the Church of England."

These admissions afford but a specimen of what might be furnished almost to any extent. With all candid minds it must be sufficient to settle the controversy. Why all these admissions against their own system, if truth did not compel them? Suppose that a long array of Presbyterian testimony could be produced, admitting that there were in the Apostolic church three radically distinct orders of ministers-that the first order only ordained— would it not in the eye of candor outweigh a mass of counter argument, however ingeniously and confidently set forth? But no such admissions can be produced. The Presbyterian is not compelled to testify against the theory and practice of his own church. He has not only the unsophisticated conclusions of his own mind in view of the fullest evidence for confirmation, but a host of Papal and Episcopal corroborations in addition. He has the admissions of the whole Protestant world, and a large part of the Episcopal Church, too, in his favor. Says Dr. Scott, the Episcopal Commentator, "Much labor and learning have indeed been employed, to set aside this conclusion, (the equality of bishops and presbyters,) but with little success, even by the admissions of decided Episcopalians." The Apostle said, that he could do nothing against the truth, but for it, and when High Churchmen and Puseyites will acknowledge the same, they will be rather infinite gainers than losers.