greater than Presbyters, more by custom, than by any real appointment of Christ."

Prelatists claim from Jerome's accommodating the language of Scripture, "when one said I am of Paul, I am of Apollos," &c., that he means to affirm that Diocesans were first created upon the dissensions in the Church of Corinth. But Stillingfleet has well replied that this is impossible, since the proofs which Jerome adduces of the identity of Bishops and Presbyters are all of a later date than that epistle to the Corinthians. It is absurd to suppose that he meant to fix the rise of Prelacy at the time of the dissensions in Corinth, and yet bring all his proofs of the parity of Bishops and Presbyters from records of later times.

Besides, Jerome says that the distinction grew up "by little and little." He denies that a Bishop is superior to a Presbyter by divine appointment, or by any other right than a custom of the Church which grew up by little and little. Stillingfleet has well remarked, that if Episcopacy had first been instituted at Corinth on the occasion of the dissensions mentioned by Paul, then, of all places, we should expect to find a Diocesan at Corinth. But when Clemens Romanus writes to the Corinthians, he finds fault with their turning their Presbyters out of the Episcopate. He knows absolutely nothing of any Diocesan over these Presbyters.

The testimony of Jerome stands absolute and unequivocal, that Bishops and Presbyters were originally the same; that in ancient times the Churches were governed by the common council of the Presbyters; but that afterwards Episcopacy grew up "by little and little," from Presbyters elected to preside over the rest; and that the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters is not by any real appointment of Christ, but by the custom of the Church. And he appeals to Bishops and Presbyters that they both know it to be so.

But it is alleged that Jerome contradicts himself and maintains the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters. That you may have this objection in full force, I will here copy the passages as they are referred to in Chapin's Primitive Church (p. 200), with his capitals and italics, to set forth the important points with due prominence.

"The Epistle to Evangelum, if it be genuine, which some doubt, was written on hearing that some one had given Deacons preference to Presbyters, as though they were of a superior order." Upon this he says, "I hear that one was so impudent as to rank Deacons before Presbyters, that is Bishops. Now the Apostle plainly declares the same to be Presbyters, who are also Bishops." And after mentioning some of the duties of Deacons and Presbyters, he proceeds to quote Phil. i. 1; Acts xx. 17; Titus ii. 5-7; 1 Tim. iii. 8, in proof of the position he had before laid down, when he adds:

con.

"Who are significantly called in the Greek Episcopountes, from whence the name of Episcopi (Bishops) is derived." He then quotes from one CAIUS, a Presbyter, who says:-"In the See of Alexandria, from St. Mark the Evangelist to Heracleus and Dionysius, Bishops, the Presbyters always elected one from among themselves, and raising him to a higher rank, they called him Bishop; much as an army chooses an Emperor, or as Deacons elect one from among themselves, and call him ArchdeaIndeed, what can a Bishop do, that a Presbyter may not do, EXCEPT ORDINATION?" Then after saying that the same practice existed in all places, he adds, "Wherever the Bishop be, whether at Rome or Engubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexandria, or Tanais, he is of the same degree, and of the same priesthood, For all are SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES." And after some remarks concerning the Roman custom, he adds; "Let them know wherefore Deacons were established; let them read the Acts of the Apostles, and remember their condition. Presbyter is a title of age; Bishop of office. Wherefore [in the Epistles] to Timothy and Titus, is mention made of the ordination of Bishops and Deacons, but not of Presbyters, because in the Bishop the Presbyter is contained. We are advanced from the less to the greater; if, therefore, the Deacon is ordained from among the Presbyters, then is the Presbyter least; but if the Presbyter is ordained from among Deacons, then is the Presbyter of a higher order of the priesthood. And we know from Apostolical Tradition, taken from the Old Testament, that what Aaron and his sons and the Levites have been in the Temple, the same the Bishops, and the Presbyters, and the Deacons may claim as their own in the Church."

By the help of italics and capitals, Mr. Chapin, and other advocates of Prelacy, here make out something plausible to the EYE of a careless reader, while the impression, so made, is false to the sense. If the cursory reader casts his eye over the passage so garnished, what will he find?" What can a Bishop do that a Presbyter may not, EXCEPT ORDINATION?"-" Wherever the Bishop be-he is of the same degree-FOR ALL ARE SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES.". -"Because IN THE BISHOP THE PRESBYTER IS CONTAINED."-"What Aaron and his sons and the Levites have been in the Temple, the same the Bishops, and the Presbyters, and the Deacons, may claim as their own in the Church.”

This array is set forth constantly, by the advocates of Prelacy, to show that Bishops are divinely superior to Presbyters; that Bishops may of divine right ordain, while Presbyters may not; and that Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, correspond to Aaron, his sons, and the Levites.

Let us sift this testimony. Jerome begins with saying, "I hear that one was so impudent as to rank Deacons before Presbyters."

How does he prove that they are not so? By asserting the identity of Presbyters with Bishops: "Now the Apostle plainly declares the same to be Presbyters, who are also Bishops," and he

refers to the passages commonly cited, to show the absolute identity of the two. That is, Deacons cannot be superior to Presbyters, because Presbyters are not only equal to Bishops, but iden tical with them.

This is the proof. Will Jerome stultify himself in pressing the proof further, by proceeding to show that Presbyters are not equal to Bishops? He certainly does not. He quotes one Caius, to substantiate, not to deny what he has affirmed; viz., that Presbyters are, by divine right, identical with Bishops. What is the proof from Caius? Why this: that in Alexandria, the Presbyters elected one of themselves to hold a higher authority. That could not make him of a higher order. By divine right, and appointment, he was still a Presbyter, though by the election of his brethren, he was made their presiding officer, or moderator;-"Just," says Caius-" as Deacons elect one from among themselves and make him an Arch-deacon;"-yet he is but a Deacon in order; he holds no divine order above that of simple Deacon: but is in this respect a simple Deacon still.

What further proof from Caius? Why, that even at this day, Presbyters are so identical with Bishops, that there is nothing that a Bishop may do, which a Presbyter may not, except ordination. Here is no divine right alleged, but for the sake of or der, and by the election and appointment of his brethren, as Jerome has already affirmed-he has at this day, that pre-eminence assigned to him.

What further proof? Why this: that what this Bishop, so elected by his brethren at Alexandria, is, that all Bishops are, whether at Rome, Engubium, or anywhere else; one is as much a successor of the Apostles as another; Presbyters are, by divine right, everywhere equal with Bishops.

What further proof? Why this; that Paul, writing to Timothy and Titus, speaks of ordaining Bishops, but nothing of Presbyters, for the simple reason, that in the Bishop the Presby ter is contained;-and the Bishops mentioned by Paul to Timothy and Titus are on all hands admitted to be simple Presbyters. Our author wishes to show in this place, that the higher order of Bishop embraces the inferior order of Presbyter, while Jerome's argument, and the proof which he cites from Paul's Epistle to Timothy and Titus, show that the Bishop and Presbyter referred to, are absolutely identical.

But what concerning Aaron and his sons, and the Levites, as answering to Bishop, Priest, Deacon? Does Jerome, after building his argument entirely upon the identity of Bishops and Presbyters, now, at the very close of it, turn round and deny that same identity? By no means. The answer of Stillingfleet is conclusive on this point; "For the comparison runs not between

Aaron and his sons under the law, and Bishops and Presbyters under the Gospel; but between Aaron and his sons as one part of the comparison under the law, and the Levites under the other" (i. e., not between High-Priest and Priests, but embracing both together as Priests and making Levites inferior). "So under the Gospel, Bishops and Presbyters make one part of the comparison, answering to Aaron and his sons in that wherein they all agree, viz. the order of the Priesthood; and the other part under the Gospel answering to the Levites under the law.”—(Irenicum, p. 293.)

In an evil hour for Episcopacy, she fastened upon this passage to make Jerome contradict himself, by a seeming acknowledgment of a divine right of Bishops above Presbyters. His whole argument begins and ends with the affirmation, and the proof that Bishops and Presbyters are, by divine appointment, one and the same. Instead of a contradiction, it is as strong a corroboration of Jerome's previous testimony as can well be given; that by divine appointment Bishops and Presbyters are the same; that in primitive times they were identical; that Bishops grew up into a superior order by little and little, from a human appointment as moderators; and that this both Bishops and Presbyters of his day know to be true.

Their testimony

We have now done with the Fathers. sweeps the claims of Prelacy away as with the besom of destruction. Adducing their real testimony, which Perceval and other Prelatists are so careful to suppress, and clearing away the perversions of those parts of the testimony of the Fathers, which the advocates of Prelacy adduce; the evidence stands forth clear, consistent, and uniform, affording no manner of support to the Episcopal claims; but making it certain, that the entire fabric of Prelacy grew up by gradual ursurpations, and is as baseless of all divine authority, or of primitive institution, as the domination of the Pope or the false prophet.*

*The learned Stilling fleet comes to this conclusion with regard to the testimony of the Fathers. "For as to the matter itself," says be (p. 301, Irenicum)" I believe upon the strictest inquiry Medina's judgment will prove true; that Hierom, Austin, Ambrose, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, were all of Aerius's judgment, as to the identity both of the names, and ORDER OF BISHOPS and Presbyters."

Churchmen are fond of saying that Stillingfleet afterwards changed his mind. After proving by matters of fact the novelty and idle claims of Prelacy, he did, indeed, afterwards, become a Bishop and a bitter enemy to all dissenters from the Church of England. Bishop Burnet says of him, that, "To avoid the imputation that book brought on him, he went into the humors of a high sort of people, beyond what became him, perhaps beyond his own sense of things." The arguments of his Irenicum against the divine right of Episcopacy, were, however, such matters of fact, that he was unable ever to renounce them, or set them aside. "The book," says Bishop White, "was, it seems, easier retracted than refuted, for though offensive to many of both parties, it was managed with so much learning and skill, that none of either side ever undertook to answer it."

XXVIII.

INFERENTIAL PRESUMPTIONS.

High Priests. Priests and Levites. Three Orders. The Apostolic Com. mission. Claims of Diocesans to be Vicegerents of Jesus Christ.

Ir is alleged that the three orders, Bishop, Priest and Deacon, come in the place of the three orders, High Priest, Priest and Levite.

This is mere fancy; the Bible gives no intimation of any such thing. Bishops coming in the place of the Jewish High Priests! When was such a claim made by the Apostles? Where is there the faintest intimation of such a thing in the Word of God?

If this fancy were true, and if the argument drawn from it had any weight, then it would go, not for the claims of the Bishop, but for the supremacy of the Pope; since, from the nature of the case, there could be but one High Priest in the world.

But the fancied resemblance fails. There is no correspon dence between the functions of the Jewish Priesthood, and those of the Christian ministry. Every priest must have somewhat to offer; the Christian ministry cannot be a priesthood, since the offerings and sacrifices of the Jewish law were but types of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ. The substance being come, the shadows pass away; there is no more any Priest, or altar, or sacrifice, since Christ, by one offering of himself, hath for ever perfected them that are sanctified by him.

The High Priest entering within the vail to make atonement for sin, was a type of Christ entering into the holiest place of the true tabernacle, obtaining eternal redemption for us. For any man, therefore, to claim to come in the place of the Jewish High Priest is a deep injury to the sole priesthood of Christ.

The claims of Episcopacy, on this ground, are worse than simple error; they are injurious to Christ, and subversive of the entire truth of the Gospel. They should never be tolerated for a moment, but met with the most pointed and indignant rebuke.

But we hear the advocates of Prelacy harping still upon the mystic number THREE. It is said that there were three orders