Again Paul (Titus i. 5) says" and ordain elders (Presbyters) in every city." Describing their qualifications, he says, "For a Bishop must be blameless;"-the Bishop and the Presbyter are one and the same.

Now that word Bishop, so regularly interchanged with the word Presbyter, is in no instance interchanged with the word Apostle in the New Testament. It was never, in a solitary instance, used by the Apostles or their contemporaries, to dignify a Diocesan Bishop, or an officer, distinct from, and above, a Presbyter. THE BIBLE BISHOP, IS UNIFORMLY THE PASTOR, OR ONE OF THE PASTORS, OF A CONGREGATION; never is the name Bishop given to a Diocesan, or an Apostle, either by the Apostles, or in the Apostolic age. It is absolutely certain, that for a hundred years after Christ, the name Bishop, whether used by Apostles or Fathers, signified the Pastor of a Church; never a persou holding a degree above that office.

And yet, I apprehend, that till quite recently, the mass of the common people, who have entertained Episcopal views, have rested upon the name Bishop, in the New Testament. Till recently the mass of Episcopalians have not dreamed that their Diocesans were not Bible Bishops, but veritable Apostles. The views of their learned men were confused and contradictory. The learned Dr. Hammond maintained that all who bore the title of Bishops or Presbyters in the New Testament, were Prelates; and that none of the second order were ordained during the Apostolic history. Dodwell on the other hand maintained, that Bible Bishops were simple Presbyters; and that no Prelates were ordained till in the second century. Owen observed, two centuries ago, that "the most learned advocates of Prelacy begin to grant, that in the whole New Testament, Bishops and Presbyters and Elders are every way the same persons in the same of fice," (vol. xx., p. 394). At the present day, all well-informed Episcopalians fully admit this to be true. Thus Bishop Onderdonk, in his work on Episcopacy, says (p. 12), "It is proper to advert to the fact, that the name Bishop, which now designates the highest grade of the ministry, is not appropriated to that office in the Scripture. That name is there given to the middle order, or Presbyters; and all that we read in the New Testament concerning Bishops (including, of course the words "Overseers," and "oversight" which have the same derivation), is to be regarded as pertaining to the middle grade. It was after the Apostolic age that the name Bishop was taken from the second order, and appropriated to the first, and when we

**

find in the New Testament the name Bishop, we must regard it as meaning the Bishop of a parish, or a Presbyter. The Bishop of a diocese, or the highest grade of the ministry, we must seek

* *

there, not under that name, and INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY NAME AT ALL." "The word Bishop," "in Scripture, means a PRESBYTER, properly so called."

With this view, Chapman, Chapin, Bowden, and all modern Episcopal writers fully agree.

This, however, is a point in which the framers of the PrayerBook were unfortunately "overseen." In searching the Scripture for something to read at the ordination of a Diocesan Bishop, they could find nothing to the purpose at all, save one or two passages which use the word Bishop; and in which, it is now unfortunately discovered, that the word signifies no diocesan at all, but the simple Bishop or Pastor of a single Church; a mere presbyter. But there it stands, as the Epistle to be read at the ordination of a Diocesan: "This is a true saying, if a man desireth THE OFFICE OF A BISHOP, he desireth a good work.' "A BISHOP then must be blameless." Or as a substitute for this, the passage in Acts xx. is set down, "From Miletus Paul sent to Ephesus, and called the Elders of the Church;"" And said, take heed to the flock which the Holy Ghost has made you overseers” (original 1×0лoυ5-Bishops). And our good Diocesans at the ordination of a brother diocesan-in full canon. icals and with all gravity, continue to read these passages, as though the word Bishop here meant (as they know it does not) a diocesan bishop, and not a simple presbyter! Why do they do this? Why do the people suffer it? Are they willing to pass this word Bishop, knowing it to be, for their purposes, base coin? or are they to be slaves, in perpetuity, to an old form, which they know is-in relation to the purpose for which they use it a falsehood? or is it because, forsooth, some Scripture must be had, and they may as well use this for want of a better? Surely, surely, if a Diocesan be such an essential cornerstone and pillar to the very existence of a Church, some Scripture ought to be found which can, by some decent pretext, be used with some pertinency at his ordination. Surely, surely, if Apostles had successors, it is wonderful that the record should be made so abundantly of inferior officers, but no record of the ordination of a successor Apostle! If there is such a record, pray let us have it in the Prayer-Book. If there is none, then tell the people plainly at such an ordination, that a deed is doing, for which you find no warrant or example to read them from the Word of God.

3. APOSTLES.

These needed qualifications possessed by none since their day. They were appointed, in their peculiar office, to a work which was finished when they died. Their number was limited.

Their office was special, peculiar and personal. They could

have no successors.

1. They were personal witnesses of the resurrection of Christ: it was essential that, as such, they should have seen the Lord.

Christ, speaking of his death and resurrection, said to the Eleven, and "Ye are witnesses of these things." When one was to be chosen in place of Judas, to fill up the number twelve, Peter said (Acts i.), "Wherefore of those men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus Christ went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day when he was taken from us, must one be ordained to be a WITNESS WITH US of his resurrection?" Here was one special qualification and work of the Twelve. Many were personally cognizant of the facts pertaining to our Lord's resurrection; but out of that number must one be ordained, to be with the eleven, a witness (a special official witness) of these things.

The case of Paul corroborates this view, "The God of our Fathers hath chosen thee that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just one, and shouldst hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be HIS WITNESS unto all men, of what thou HAST SEEN AND HEARD. Accordingly, Paul himself says, "Am I not an Apostle? HAVE I NOT SEEN JESUS CHRIST ?" Will any modern Diocesan venture to abide a similar test of Apostleship?

2. Apostles, as such, were endowed with miraculous powers. This Christ promised them; this they received. If it be said that others besides Apostles wrought miracles, the answer is plain others may: but he who claims to be an Apostle, Must. For Paul says (2 Cor. xii. 12); "Truly the SIGNS OF AN APOSTLE were wrought among you in signs and wonders and mighty deeds." Those who pretend to hold the Apostolic office at present, should in all fairness be required to show the signs; otherwise it may be said concerning them: "And hast tried them that say they are Apostles, and are not; but hast found them liars."

3. The Apostolic office was peculiar, inasmuch as, like the Prophets, they were inspired teachers of Divine Truth. The Holy Spirit was promised, to guide them into all truth, and to bring all things to their remembrance. On this ground, their writings are received as records of the Holy Ghost. If others may be inspired, Apostles must be; or they are false Apostles. Surely our modern Diocesans cannot claim this prerogative; and if they should, some of their writings constitute " another Gospel," the most trustworthy of their own number being judges.

4. The Apostles were a limited number; the "Twelve Apostles." The case of Paul specially and miraculously called and qualified, “like one born out of due time," is the only exception.

The appointment of Matthias was not to continue the succession, but to supply a substitute to one of the Twelve. Even if they might have successors, those successors should not exceed the number twelve. But, besides filling a vacancy in the original number, there is no record of appointing a single successor. When James was slain (who is claimed as Prelate of the most important See on earth), then we should naturally look for the appointment of a successor, if successor there was to be. But there is none.

Even down to the close of Revelation, we find allusions made to The Twelve. The Holy Jerusalem (Rev. xxi.) has "Twelve foundations; and in them the names of the TWELVE APOSTLES OF THE LAMB."

5. When the twelve were dead, the name, Apostle, was applied to no man on earth. No man claimed to be an Apostle. No man pretended to hold their office for a long time. The name and the office vanished away. Nor has there been a time since, when Prelates would dare to assume the official title, though they claim the office. The common sense of Christendom is against it. Apostle Brownell, of Connecticut! Apostle Doane, of New Jersey! How it sounds! Who ever heard, in Scriptural times, of Apostles of particular Dioceses? Whittingham, Apostle of Maryland! Onderdonk, Apostle of Pennsylvania! Onderdonk, Apostle of New York! The very style is so revolting and absurd, that to adopt it would be death to the prelatical claims. But if they in reality hold the office, they should, in all conscience assume the name.

XXV.

APOSTLES NO SUCCESSORS.

Argument from the name. Epaphroditus, Andronicus, Junia. Argument from the powers exercised. Bishop Onderdonk's argument examined. Laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.

DIOCESAN Bishops claim to be Apostles; successors of the Twelve in their peculiar office. Bible Bishops they confess they are not; if they are not veritable Apostles they are nothing. We have seen the Apostolic office to be, in its very nature, special and temporary; that though a vacancy was filled to complete the number twelve, yet no record was made of the appointment of any successor; which appointment, in the Episcopal scheme, ought to have been one of the most important things, and to have appeared most fully and minutely on the sacred pages. We have, therefore, a right to demand of any who claim this office, to show that they have seen the Lord, that they are inspired, and that they can work miracles. These are "signs of an Apostle," which no one who claims the office should omit to furnish.

We will, however, attend further to the Episcopal arguments. It is alleged;

1. That others besides the twelve, and besides Paul, were called Apostles; and that therefore both the office and the name were common; and if so, then the office was communicable and permanent.

Thus Bishop Onderdonk, in his work, "Episcopacy tested by Scripture," contends that Sylvanus and Timothy were called Apostles, and that, "Besides Andronicus and Junia, others could be added to the list." Epaphroditus and Barnabas, it is contended, are so added.

This is nothing to the purpose, unless it can be shown that they are called Apostles in the peculiar and official sense. Even Bishop Onderdonk elsewhere argues largely that nothing is to be determined by the name; that the officers, of which he is a successor, are to be sought for in the New Testament, "independently of any name at all." Here the exigencies of Prelacy demand that something should be made of a mere name.

Unfortunately for Prelacy, however, the word APOSTLE in its primary and common meaning, signified one sent, a messenger;