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 identical 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 order, 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 Presbyter 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

66

So

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). 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 he (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 Commission. 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 correspondence 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

under the Mosaic dispensation, three orders in the time of Christ; and therefore, three orders in the Christian ministry to the end of time.

This, too, is fanciful. It is true there were three orders of offices under the Jewish dispensation; but that dispensation was of temporary use and arrangement. The Abrahamic Church was long with no order at all. Why not take the analogy from this, rather than from a priesthood not pertaining to the covenant, and which was designed to vanish away?

But how were there three orders in Christ's time? It is alleged that Christ was one, the Apostles another, and the seventy a third.

But the seventy were no Church officers at all. Their work was special and soon completed.

It is alleged that the Deacons succeeded these. But the work of the seventy was to go throughout the villages and preach preparatory to Christ's personal visits; the Deacons were permanent officers in each Church, to see to its secular affairs. The Bible gives no intimation that they, in any way, take the place of the seventy; and there is no resemblance between the functions of the two classes of men. It is therefore not true, that Deacons came in the place of the seventy: and not true that the seventy were any order of Church officers at all.

If our Lord is one order in the ministry, then who succeeds him in that order? Our Lord is one; sole head over the whole Church. He has no peer nor equal. If the Church constitutes one, he can have but one successor. This argument, also, makes not for the Bishops, but for the Pope. If our Lord was the first order, then the Apostles were the second; and Bishops claiming to succeed the Apostles, must still look to an order above them; and that an order consisting of one.

But it is alleged, that when Christ departed, the Apostles were raised one degree from second to first: that the seventy were raised to the station which Apostles previously held, and Deacons created in place of the seventy. This is all fancy, and contradictory to fact. The Apostles were not ordained again to a higher order: the seventy, instead of being advanced to higher dignity, are absolutely mentioned no more; and in no sense did Deacons come in the place of the seventy. This is all an awkward and cumbrous piece of machinery, invented for the special service of Prelacy. And yet, when Doctors of Divinity put on their robes, and talk gravely about High Priest, Priests and Levites; Christ, the Twelve, the seventy; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons: Three orders:-how many people do not stop to examine, but receive it, as if it were not-what it is in reality