cases may be put, in which it is plain that the substance of the work in which men can do a great and necessary good, is of the law of nature, though the regulating of it, in point of order, may be by positive law; but the cessation of the obligation of the positive law about order, does not absolve us from the common law of nature; for then it should allow us to lay by humanity."

This he applies to the subject under consideration, and very pertinently infers, "It is better that men be disorderly saved, than orderly damned; and that the church be disorderly preserved, than orderly destroyed." All men who have ability, are obliged, by the laws of both nature and revelation, to instruct the ignorant, reprove the wicked, and comfort the distressed; and a bishop must have more authority over the conscience, than God Almighty pretends to, before he can cancel this obligation.

Objection. "But the regular clergy are quite sufficient, without the intrusion of others." That they are self-sufficient, was never doubted; excessive modesty does not rank among their failings. There are ten thousand parishes in this nation. Suppose, on an average, two hundred persons attend every parish church; and this is an over, rather than an under calculation; the sum total is two millions—not a fourth part of the population. Must the rest all perish, rather than an unordained man shall attempt their conversion? Yes, says bigotry; but charity is indignant at the thought.

If episcopal ordination be necessary, the ordainers must be scriptural bishops. If any sort of bishops will do, some denominations of dissenters are at least on a level with the church. The Moravians have bishops; and to mention no more, even the greatest heretics of all, the Wesleyan Methodists, have two bishops in America. But these, it will be said, are not true bishops; that is, they are not scriptural; for if they were, no christian could object to them. Let us then

* Disputat. p. 155.

inquire, whether those in the church of England be such as the New Testament requires; for, if not, they can have no more authority, and be entitled to no more attention, than the bishops among the sectaries.

I. A bishop is required to oversee and feed his flock. (Acts xx. 28.) But our bishops do neither; they never saw one in four of their flocks, nor spoke a word to one in fifty of them. To say that the bishops employ other persons to superintend and instruct them, is to make those other persons, and not the bishops, their pastors.

II. In the days of the apostles, there were many bishops to one congregation; as at Ephesus, (Acts xx. 28,) and Philippi. (Phil. i. 1.) With us there are hundreds of congregations to one bishop.

III. In the primitive times, bishops and presbyters were the same; this we shall prove as we go along, -now they differ as much as master and servant.

IV. Our Lord does not allow his ministers to assume honorary titles. "Be not ye called, Rabbi." (Matt. xxiii. 8, 9.) To understand the import of this term, it may be necessary to remark, that the Jews had divinity schools or colleges, where the youths, destined to be teachers in their synagogues, were instructed in the ancient Hebrew language, the law, the rites and ceremonies of worship, etc. Literary titles were conferred upon the students: The highest academical honour was the title of Rabbi; which term denoted not merely a teacher, but a man of learning, and may, therefore, as Campbell has remarked, "be fitly expressed by the English term doctor." Our bishops make a great parade of their learning, and assume the highest literary title appropriated to ecclesiastics, that of doctor of divinity.

In the same passage the apostles are enjoined to call no man father upon earth, because the use of this term, in a spiritual sense, is restricted to "our Father who is in heaven." In contempt of the authority of Christ, and the paternity of Deity, our bishops style themselves "right reverend fathers in God."

The apostle Peter advised aged men to assume the office of bishops, but expressly charged them not to be as "lords over God's heritage." (I Peter v. 3.) It might have been supposed that this apostle would be regarded by our prelates, as it is from him they pretend to derive their spiritual descent. But no;

instead of rejecting this title, they apply it to themselves in a two-fold sense; they are church-lords, and state-lords; lord bishops, and lords of parlia

ment.

Without enlarging upon this subject, enough has been said to show, that the bishops of the church of England are not such as the apostles constituted in the primitive churches; for this reason they cannot possess any exclusive power of ordination, which is. all that the argument requires.

Most people, when they read about a bishop in ancient times, associate modern ideas with the name. They conceive of a man who possesses thousands a year, rolling in a chariot, with a long train of attendants, living in pomp and pleasure, ranking with the first nobility of the land, and exercising spiritual jurisdiction over hundreds of churches, and hundreds of thousands of souls. But the truth is, the bishops for the three first centuries were, in general, very poor, and often selected from the lowest orders of society. For some time after, they claimed a superiority over presbyters, they each presided over one congregation only, which was frequently very small. When missionaries, who were usually called bishops, first visited a country or province, they generally commenced their labours in the principal cities; and when small societies were formed in the adjacent villages, ministers were appointed for each of them, called chorepiscopi, or "village bishops." When the great Gregory Thaumaturgus was made bishop of New Cæsarea, there were only seventeen christians in the city. His ministry was very successful at home; and, as a missionary, he preached and formed societies in some towns in the neighbourhood. He ordained Alexander, a collier,

bishop of Cormana, a small place in the vicinity, where he had made some converts. *

To hear some people talk on the necessity and importance of episcopal ordination, one would suppose that our Lord or his apostles had clearly explained the difference betwixt the episcopal and presbyter offices, had restricted the power of ordination to bishops, and had made the imposition of their hands essential to the validity of the ministry. But nothing to this effect can be found in the New Testament.

It is not pretended that the Scriptures afford the shadow of evidence that any apostle ordained a single bishop, except Paul; nor that he ordained one besides Timothy. This must have been a criminal omission, if it be true that there cannot be a church without a bishop, nor an orthodox bishop without episcopal ordination. Ecclesiastical historians have, however, supplied the defect of the sacred Scriptures upon this

* Baxter's Disput., p. 186, 187. In the preface to this part of his work, Mr. Baxter has given an amusing account of the election of Alexander. When Gregory conferred with the society about the choice of a pastor, the simpletons were for having a man of rank and shining abilities. While they were debating upon the subject, Gregory recollected the circumstance of Samuel anointing David, a shepherd, king over Israel; he therefore desired them to inquire, whether they had not among the lower orders, persons eminent for piety, and possessed of ministerial qualifications. This roused their indignation, and one of them had the insolence to tell him, by way of derision, that if he wished them to take a bishop from the scum of the people, they might as well choose Alexander, the collier. Gregory sent for him, and Alexander was introduced among them, ragged, and besmeared with grime and dirt, which excited general laughter. Gregory withdrew with him, examined him, and found him to be a man of parts and piety; he instructed the collier what to do, and returning to the assembly, preached on the nature of the pastoral office. By and by, Alexander, who was a comely looking man, was again presented to the brethren, purified from the filth of the flesh, and decked out in the canonicals of the episcopal order. What a change in the man! and what a change in the assembly! The poor collier was now chosen bishop, with only one dissenting voice! How many of our Newcastle and Kingswood colliers would look grave, and learned, and spiritual, and noble, were they only dressed in petticoats and powdered wigs.

1

subject. They inform us that the apostles ordained James bishop of Jerusalem, that Paul ordained two or three bishops of Rome, and that John did little else, for many years previous to his death, than travel through Asia ordaining bishops for the churches. These accounts are entitled to about as much credit as the vulgar stories concerning mother Shipton.

The only evidence to prove that Paul ordained Timothy is derived from 2 Tim. i. 6: "Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands." Not a hint is dropped here about an ordination to the episcopal office. It was the common practice of the apostles to put their hands on persons recently converted. Peter and John laid their hands on the disciples at Samaria, and they received the Holy Ghost. Paul laid his hands on all the disciples at Ephesus, and they received the Holy Ghost. (Acts viii. 14—17; xix. 6,7.) Were all these christians, by this ceremony, consecrated bishops? No churchman can assert this, because he cites these texts in support of confirmation, as practised by the prelates.

Mr. Baxter observes, upon the passage under consideration, that "it may be imposition of hands in confirmation, or for the first giving of the Holy Ghost after baptism (ordinarily used by the apostles) that is there spoken of. This seems probable from the apostle's annexing it to Timothy's faith, in which he succeeded his mother and grandmother; from the effects of it, the spirit of power, of love, and of a sound mind,' which are the fruits of confirming grace; and from the admonition to not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord,' which is also the fruit of confirmation."*

The apostle exhorts Timothy, "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." (1 Tim. iv. 14.) If the other text refers to ordination, so does this. Were there two separate ordinations,

*Disput. p. 205, 206.