Trinity; and when we ask for its bishop, we shall only find a rector, whose scriptural title, qualifications, and prerogatives, have been usurped by a diocesan, the limits of whose authority are bounded only by state lines-when we ask for its eldership, who occupied a middle position between the pastoral bishop and the deacons, we find them non est inventus-when we ask for its deacons appointed to attend to its temporal affairs, we are referred to inventions foreign to the Bible, to church-wardens and vestrymen, but as to the deacons of the Jerusalem Church and the primitive ages, we find them expunged and succeeded by an order essential to the economy of no particular church, and confined to none. Episcopalians should cease to quote this Father. His tone of address may be dogmatic enough for Gregory or Aquinas, but his ecclesiastical order does ill-service for his friends. When we read his address to the Church of Magnesia, "Seeing, then, I have been judged worthy to see you, by Demas, your most excellent bishop, and by your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius, and by my fellow servant, Sotio, the deacon, I determined to write unto you;" we cannot fail to see a good parochial pastor or Presbyterian bishop, exchanging Christian salutations with his brethren of the same faith and order. The resemblance is perfectly unique, and might be of service in other quarters.

Another consideration will show the non-episcopal character of the early church. As the early bishops were parochial, there could have been no diocesan bishops. As each church had its own deacons, elders, pastor or bishop, there could have been no such functionaries without making four orders. Nor is this all. As there were none others than parish bishops, in them must have been lodged the right of ordination. When one of these primitive bishops died, his successor, must, of course, have been ordained by the pastors of single churches. There was no diocesan bishop to go round for this purpose. Be it remem bered, that ecclesiastical historians are unanimously agreed on this, that whatever orders of church officers there were, say in the second century, they were all the officers of one church. There was no higher order than the bishop of a single congregation. WHO ORDAINED, THEN, THE

SUCCESSORS OF THESE PRIMITIVE BISHOPS? There was no prelate to ordain a prelate, and those who performed the ordination rite could confer only what they had themselves received. Hence, when there were no diocesan bishops, there could be no bishops but parochial. It would have been a farce for these parish bishops to have ordained a diocesan. He, in turn, could have conferred only what he had received. This fact, while it nullifies the prelatic scheme, reveals its origin. The first diocesan bishops were simply elected to their office, as a Congregational Association, or a Presbytery would elect a Moderator. This is a well established fact in church history. Says Jerome, one of the most illustrious of the Fathers, "The presbyters always chose one of their number, placed him in a superior station, and gave him the title of Bishop: in the same manner as if an army should make an emperor, or the deacons should choose from among themselves one whom they knew to be particularly active, and should call him Arch-deacon." This Father also states it as a historical fact, that this election of a superior order of ministers, was introduced by degrees, by "little and little." Episcopalians often call upon us to account for the general prevalence of their system within a few ages of the Apostles. We might retort by calling upon them to account for the origin of Archbishops, Metropolitans, and Patriarchs, for which they confess there is no scripture warrant. Monks, presbyters, and bishops-the champions of orthodoxy and heterodoxy-Catholics and Episcopalians-Lutherans and Presbyterians-Ancients and Moderns-unite in the statement, that Prelacy has no scripture origin, and no warrant but human contrivance. The learned Mosheim, refers its origin to the necessity of having Moderators in the provincial councils. These Moderators, in time, became diocesan bishops. Such is the opinion of all impartial historians. The honest enquirer after the scriptural foundation of Episcopacy, will be compelled to say bishop Croft,* I hope my readers will see what weak

66

with

*To avoid encumbering the pages with unnecessary matter, references to the particular chapter and page of an authority, are not generally given. The reader may rest assured, that no quotation is made in an unfair and garbled manner, but so as fully to express the opinion of the

writer.

There proofs are brought for this distinction and superiority of order. No scripture, no primitive general council, no general consent of primitive doctors, no, not one primitive Father of note, speaking particularly, and home to our purpose."

had

par

the

new

call

TE

SECTION VI.

THE PUREST CHURCHES IN ALL AGES HAVE GENERALLY BEEN
OPPOSED TO EPISCOPACY.

From the confident tone in which High-Churchmen sby speak of their system, we should suppose that Episcopacy was universal in the Christian Church, till it was interrupted by Calvin and his over-zealous reformers. The truth is, the Episcopal Church stands alone in the Protestant world in its regard to Prelacy. We have already established the non-prelatic character of the early church. When, however, the system became established, and was succeeded by the corruptions of the dark ages, it is demonstrable, that the pure church in the wilderness, the remnant who never bowed the knee to Baal, still held to the parity of the ministry.

THE WALDENSES, are an illustration. By all Protestant writers, they are regarded as the purest part of the church for several centuries preceding the Reformation. According to Reinerius, the oldest authority on their tenets, "They hated the very name of bishop." "They held," says Eneas Sylvius, that " among priests or ministers of the gospel, there is no difference." The Episcopalian Faber, who regarded them as God's faithful witnesses during the dark ages, quotes Pilichdorf, as saying, "They rejected the consecration of bishops." In the Waldensian Confession of Faith, drawn up A. D., 1220, speaking of the rite of confirmation, they say, "It has no ground at all in scripture that it was introduced by the Devil's instigation, to seduce the people; that by such means they might be induced the more to believe the ceremonies, and the necéssity of the bishop." Cardinal Bellarmine and bishop Reynolds have acknowledged that they rejected Prelacy, and all admit that they are now Presbyterians.

120

THE CULDEES, form another instance. These were the early religious order of Great Britain, who, from the second to the fifth century, spread the gospel through the greater part of that island. All writers are agreed as to the purity and simplicity both of their doctrines and their lives. That these Culdees were Presbyterians, is now, we believe, pretty generally acknowledged. Their bish ops were only parochial bishops, and received their ordination from presbyters. The venerable Bede, writing about A. D., 731, gives us an account of one of these ordinations. Fordun, Major, Boethius, Scottish historians who wrote previous to the Reformation, and were Prelatists, assert that, "The Scots, following the custom of the primi tive church, had teachers of the faith, and dispensers of the sacraments, who were only presbyters or monks." "The Scots were instructed in the faith, by priests and monks, without bishops." "Palladius was the first who exercised any hierarchical power among the Scots, being ordained their bishop by the Pope, whereas, before, their priests were, by the suffrages of the people, chosen out of the monks and Culdees." It is worthy of note, that Gildas, an ancient British author, A. D., 564, always speaks of bishops or presbyters, implying their identity, and discarding the copulative conjunction and, which he would not have done, had he regarded them as fundamentally distinct orders.

THE MORAVIANS, are anti-prelatical in their constitution. They derive their origin from the Greek church in the ninth century, and have been for ages celebrated for their adventurous and successful missionary enterprises. They have bishops in their churches, but they are merely presid ing presbyters, and they emphatically renounce for them all claim of divine right.

THE BOHEMIAN BRETHREN, were antagonist to Prelacy. The Episcopalian Dr. Heylen, grants, "that they had fallen upon a way of ordaining ministers amongst themselves, without recourse unto the bishop, or any such superior officer as a superintendent." Says Eneas Sylvius, afterwards Pope, "one of the dogmas of this pestiferous sect, is, that there is no difference of order among those who bear the priestly office. In their book of discipline they prove,

that there is but one order of ministers of Divine right.” THE LOLLARDS, were of the same opinion. In English history, they are known as the followers of John Wicklif, "the morning star of Reformation," who flourished in the fourteenth century. This people were at one time so numerous, that we are told "if you met two persons in the highway, one of them, you might be sure, was a Lollard." Wicklif's unbelief in Prelacy is well known. "By the ordinance of Christ, presbyters and bishops were all one; but afterwards, the emperor Constantine, made bishops, lords, and presbyters their servants." "There was but two species of orders, namely, that of deacons and of presbyters. The church militant ought not to be troubled with three; nor was there any ground for it." It is confessed that if Wicklif and his followers had succeeded in reforming the English church, its Episcopacy would now have been numbered among the abuses of the past.

THE LUTHERANS, at the period of the Reformation, embraced the doctrine of ministerial parity, and established all their churches on its basis. The following, among many other quotations from the writings of Luther, will express his sentiments: "These were called presbyters, that is, elders, whom both Peter and Paul style bishops, that we may know that bishops and presbyters were the same." The confessions of the Lutheran churches are expressive against the dogma of Prelacy, that a bishop belongs to a higher grade and a presbyter to a lower. In some countries they have bishops by name, but they are merely presiding presbyters.

THE REFORMED CHURCHES, which were established in France, Holland, Switzerland, Geneva, and in some parts of Germany, abandoned the Episcopal system as unscriptural, and set up the Presbyterian as more in accordance with the Apostolic model. At the Synod of Dort, the English bishops and divines deputed there by King James I., gave their votes to the unanimous declaration, “As regards ministers of the divine word, they have every where the same power and authority."

Alike non-episcopal are the several denominations which divide between them the interests of the Protestant world. The only exception which can be taken, is in the