be impossible to find any meaning in the command, or any power in the people to obey it." (James, Dissent and Church, pp. 53, 54.)

The arguments of Mr. Conder are reduced by a similar conviction to even narrower limits. "It is readily admitted," he says, "that dissenting controvertists, in attempting to make good every part of their system, have occupied positions hazardous, if not untenable, and that divine right and scriptural law have been on all sides too eagerly pressed into the service of hypothesis. An instance of this occurs in the stress injudiciously laid upon those precedents in the New Testament, which are usually held to be in favour of the right of the people to elect their own pastors. The truth is, that the circumstances attending the formation of many of the primitive churches, did not allow of such a right being called into exercise; nevertheless, that the ordination of pastors by the Apostles never took place without the consent of the people, is the admission of Doctor Barrow and other learned episcopal writers.

"Whatever be the ostensible source of a minister's official claims as regards his appointment by man, (and into this individuals may not feel themselves concerned to examine,) of his character, his conduct, his doctrine, they are commanded to take account, to bring them to the test of the law and the testimony. We are to try the spirits whether they are of God; to search the Scriptures whether the things declared unto us be so; to beware of false prophets. These are duties of personal and universal obligation, and upon these considerations rest both the validity

and the importance of the right for which we contend, as arising out of the very nature of the obligation." (Book ii. chap. ii. § 14.)

These passages contain the main strength of the argument from Scripture. There is one more text upon which great stress is commonly laid by writers of distinction among our opponents, and which must therefore not be omitted. It is those words of our Saviour, uttered in reply to some who saw a man casting out devils in Christ's name, and who forbad him because he followed not with them. (St. Mark ix. 39.) It was chosen for the motto of a pamphlet by one of the most learned of the baptist communion (Kinghorn) in a controversy on episcopacy; and it stands prefixed, as the text, to the famous discourse of Mr. Binney's, entitled "Dissent not Schism." In one part of that discourse he says, "I could quote many other passages in illustration of the general argument, but I content myself with adverting to that which I have selected as my text: 'Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and we forbad him, because he follows not with us. And Jesus said unto them, Forbid him not.'" And the observations of Mr. Conder on the same passage show how convenient he esteems it to the support of the schismatic cause. "Our Lord's reply stands on record as a reproof of the officious zeal of those, who in a similar spirit of worldly wisdom and sectarian policy would impose on the church, laws which Christ has not imposed, and exclude from the ministry those whom He has not excluded. Forbid him not; for he that is not against us, is for us.”

SECTION IV.

We proceed to the arguments of dissenters against ordination by bishops from the writings of the apostolic fathers, with which we close their objections on this head.

These arguments are extremely few. Towgood has this passage: Clemens Romanus, one of the apostolic fathers, says, they appointed bishops by the consent of the whole church. (Epist. ad Cor. cap. xliv.-Towgood's Letters to White. p. 198.) Mr. James refers his readers to a passage of the same father, on the authority of Barrow, that the Apostles did not ordain pastors over the churches without the consent of the people. (Dissent and Church p. 54.) The same writer affirms that the mode of the popular election of bishops prevailed in the early ages of the christian history; adding, that if any episcopalian entertain any doubt on the subject, they may con sult the first and second chapters of the fourth book of Bingham's Antiquities of the Christian Church. They must, if they please, dispose of that very learned authority before they can expect us to relinquish so natural, useful, and ancient a right. We can defend it from Scripture and their own most established authorities." (Page 54, note.)

Such are the arguments of our opponents against the church on the subject of episcopal ordination, derived from the three sources of reason, Scripture, and primitive practice.

Connected with this branch of our inquiry is the prelacy of our bishops, or their precedency of rank

and authority over the other orders of priest and deacon. We make this the fifth division of our subject, and subjoin the objections.

SECTION V.

The course commonly pursued in this matter, is to deny the existence of more than two orders of ministers in the apostolic churches, and to assert the independence of congregations.

The first writer whom I shall cite in this instance, is Mr. James. As reason appears not to have been made the basis of any arguments in this case, I proceed at once to Scripture. Our author seems perfectly satisfied that "the New Testament mentions only two kinds of officers as belonging to the church of Christ." "The question at issue between the episcopalians and dissenters is, whether there are three kinds of permanent church officers mentioned in the New Testament, or only two. The prelatists contend for three; the latter affirm that there are only bishops and deacons. By bishops are meant the same officers as in other places are called elders, pastors, or rulers, i. e. teachers of religion having the care of a single congregation. The naked question between us is, whether bishops and elders be the same officers: now that the affirmative of this question is true, is as clear to me as that either of them is mentioned in the word of God.

"Let us examine the celebrated passage in the twentieth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles; at the seventeenth verse it is said, And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.'

6

They came, and Paul addressed to them the affecting charge contained in the latter part of the chapter. At the twenty-eighth verse he says, Take heed, therefore, (ye elders) unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers,' (episcopous). The English reader should understand, that the Greek word for overseers is bishops, and so it ought unquestionably to have been translated. If it be the same persons that are called elders who are addressed as bishops, it proves that the words are convertible, as designating the same office." Mr. James means that St. Paul called elders or presbyters, bishops; and that therefore bishops were only elders or presbyters in the scriptural use of the word, that is, merely pastors of single congregations.

66

The Apostle, in writing to the church at Philippi, begins his Epistle thus: Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.' Here mention is made of bishops, but nothing is said of elders, there is no allusion whatever to a third order. Why? Because it may fairly be presumed there was none. Would the Apostle have mentioned deacons, an inferior order, and omitted elders, if there had been elders as distinct from bishops?

"If we refer to the Epistles of Paul to Timothy and Titus, we shall find proofs equally conclusive that the two terms designate the same office. No mention is made in his Epistle to Timothy, where he states the qualifications of church officers, of any third order bishops and deacons are specified, but

: