not a word is said of elders. If elders were a distinct office, why were they left out, and the qualifications of deacons, confessedly inferior officers, stated? But still stronger is the proof derived from the commencement of the Epistle to Titus, chap. i. 5—7. For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee. If any be blameless, &c. For a bishop must be

blameless as the steward of God.' If this do not convince them, it is hopeless to attempt by demonstration itself to produce conviction. Titus was to ordain none to the eldership but such as were blameless, because a bishop must be blameless. If the terms are not convertible, where is the force of the Apostle's reasoning? It has been argued, however, by the churchman, that it appears most clearly from the holy Scriptures, that a bishop is superior to a presbyter. There is no accounting for the illusions of our mental optics. But in what part of the Scriptures is this superiority discovered? In the following: For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.' (Titus i. 5.) 'I besought thee still to abide at Ephesus (where were many presbyters), that thou charge some that they preach no other doctrine.' (1 Tim. i. 3, and vi. 3.) Against a presbyter receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.' (1 Tim. v. 19.) If then to order things left undone; if to ordain presbyters in every city; if to charge presbyters to preach sound doctrine; if to receive accusations against presbyters; if all this does not

prove, argues the churchman, that a bishop is superior to presbyters, we know not by what facts superiority can be proved, nor in what language superiority can be expressed.

"Can the churchman be in earnest when he talks of this as most clearly proving from the Scriptures the superiority of the episcopal to the presbyterian office? We may be sure that this is all that he can find to support his position; but whether it most clearly proves his point, let any candid reader judge. How does it prove the point? This is not stated, but I presume the force of the proof lies in this. Timothy was a bishop, and ordained elders, and as the ordainer is superior to the ordained, therefore a bishop is superior to a presbyter. But this is assumption-assumption all, and not most clear proof. It is assumed, but not proved, that Timothy and Titus were bishops in the usual scriptural sense of the term. Their mission was clearly of an extraordinary nature, and had little in common with the pastoral and scriptural office. Again, it is assumed that ordination necessarily infers superiority of office in him who performs it. Is this the case in the Church of England? Virtually, the king ordains all the bishops and archbishops; nominally, the dean and chapter elect; and ceremonially," bishops ordain bishops. If the two archbishops deceased together, who would consecrate their successors? Let the churchman's argument be resorted to for a solution of the difficulty, or rather the circle of difficulties with which he is now encompassed. Will he still maintain that the ordainer is necessarily superior to the ordained? Why,' says Milton, should the per

་

formance of ordination, which is a lower office, exalt a prelate? Verily, neither the nature nor example of ordination doth any way require an imparity of character between the ordainer and the ordained: for what more natural, than every like to produce his like; man to beget man; fire to propagate fire; rand in example of highest opinion, the ordainer is inferior to the ordained; for the pope is not made by the precedent pope, but by cardinals, who ordain and consecrate to a higher and greater office than their own.' But I refer to better authority than the practice of the Vatican-I mean the practice of the Apostles. If Timothy was a bishop, then he was ordained by inferiors, for he was set apart by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. (1 Tim.iv.14.) Paul an Apostle, and Barnabas, were ordained to a special mission by the prophets and teachers of the church at Antioch. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. (Acts xiii. 3.) What now becomes of the clear proof from the holy Scriptures of the superiority of bishops to presbyters? It must be recollected, that the question is not whether this distinction or superiority were or were not introduced at an early period of the christian history, subsequently to the days of the Apostles, but whether they were set up by apostolic authority and sanction. My appeal is to the New Testament, and if prelacy cannot be found there, my argument, in all that I contend for, is sound my principles and practice as a dissenter are justified, and the claims of the Church of England to an apostolic institution are shown to be unfounded. badmit the probability, that before the third century

I

closed, the distinction contended for by episcopalians existed, and so also did many other innovations and corruptions." (James's Dissent and the Church of England, pp. 42—50.)

Doctor John Pye Smith takes the same ground, on nearly the same authorities. His ninth thesis, in his Letter to Professor Lee, is this: "that the will of Christ notified in the New Testament, authorizes only two orders of ministers in the organization of churches; the one, that of pastors, called also presbyters as a name of respect, and bishops, as a title of office; the other, that of deacons, which is a lay office, appointed for the due administration of the temporal affairs of the church." The texts on which he builds his theory, are Acts xx. 17, 28; 1 Tim. iii. 1, 2, 8; Tit. i. 5, 9; Philip. i. 1. These appear to be the same as those quoted and referred to by Mr. James. The Doctor's comments are of a similar nature.

Mr. Conder's statements are as follow: "Protestant nonconformists hold that there are two distinct orders of ecclesiastical officers, and only two specified in the New Testament as having the superintendence of christian societies-bishops and deacons. By bishops, they understand the pastors, or ruling elders of the congregation by deacons, the stewards appointed to manage the secular concerns of the church, more especially to take care of the poor." (Book ii. chap. 2, § 9.) "We now proceed to the consideration of that higher official character which we find referred to so often in the New Testament, under the titles of presbyter or elder, and overseer or bishop; the identity of whose rank and office, is the principal subject of controversy in relation to the primitive form of ecclesiastical government.

That the term elder, and the office of bishop, are ascribed in the New Testament to the same individuals, is a point clear beyond all dispute. The passage in the twentieth chapter of Acts, ver. 28, would be sufficient to establish this position. It is not less certain, that elders and bishops are never referred to in any one passage as coexisting different orders. We read repeatedly of the apostles, the elders, and the brethren of the church at Jerusalem. In the Epistles to Timothy and Titus also, the offices of bishop and deacon are specifically adverted to, while no mention is made of elder in the same connexion. When the title of bishop occurs, that of elder is dropped; and when the apostolic writers speak of the elders, they are silent with regard to bishops. Had there been more than two orders in the church at Philippi when St. Paul addressed to them his Epistle, it cannot be imagined that he would have omitted to specify the third in his salutation, especially since the deacons, whom he does mention, are supposed to have sustained the inferior station. Had he associated the words elder and deacon, it might have been contended, that under the former term, more than one description of officers was included; but the title of bishop is confined in its application to one. Again, when we read of elders being ordained in every church, no mention is made of there being likewise bishops appointed. Lastly, the Apostle, when specifying the requisite qualifications of a christian bishop and of a deacon, is wholly silent as to the qualifications of a presbyter.

"Bishops and deacons appear to be the only