"colleagues, and called to the same function, one, under the pre"text of a new title, arrogated to himself a dominion over others."* Again, "Hence learn that all pastors are equal both in their "vocation and function; and that there is no prelatical tyranny "constituted. It is necessary, indeed, that, among brethren, there "should be some one to convene the college, to state the business, "and, when it is necessary, to write and speak in the name of the "college. But this person, to avoid the odium of prelatical ty"ranny, may be called superintendent. The power of superinten"dents ought to be temporary and definite, not perpetual.”+ Again, "Is the title of bishop common to all ministers of the word ? "Yes, certainly. For Paul, in the first chapter of the epistle to "the Philippians, represents many bishops as belonging to one "church. The titles bishop, pastor, presbyter, are, therefore, 66 synonymous. Bishop is a term expressive of duty and care, not "of dignity."-Again, "The popish bishops are false bishops; "not successors of the apostles, but of Balaam, cruel, heretical, "enemies of Christ, who esteem the episcopate on account of its "introducing them to great riches. While Paul comprehends "under the name of bishop, all pastors, the papists will have it "that none is to be held as a bishop but the one who is chosen by "the college to preside over his brethren."

The learned Junius, an eminent Dutch professor of divinity, who lived at the commencement of the reformation in Holland, and who was, of course, nearly contemporary with Luther, wrote very fully and explicitly in support of Presbyterian principles. In his work entitled Ecclesiastici, he decidedly, and with great learning, maintains, that pastors, ruling elders, and deacons, are the only three scriptural orders of church officers; that pastors, or ministers of the word and sacraments, are the highest order, and, of course, are invested with the power of ordaining, that the second class are men of distinguished piety and prudence, chosen from among

* Loci Communes, p. 197. Fol. Quint. Basil. 1608.

+ Loci Communes, p. 197

+ Ibid. 202.

§ Of this illustrious reformer, it is related, that he preached in the city of Antwerp at midnight, with no other light than that which was produced by the flames of burning martyrs.

the members of the church, to assist the pastor in the government of the church; and that the deacons are appointed to collect and distribute the alms of the church. He affirms that these three orders are set forth in scripture, and existed in the primitive church. He declares that a scriptural bishop was the pastor of a single congregation; and that giving this title, by way of eminence, to one of the pastors in a city or district, was a practice introduced after the time of the apostles, and is to be considered as a departure from the primitive model.*

The same writer in his Animadversions on cardinal Bellarmine, is still more pointed and positive against the claims of diocesan episcopacy, and in favour of the Presbyterian doctrine of parity.It is really amusing to trace the popish cardinal through all his reasonings and cavils, and to observe what a remarkable coinci dence there is between him and Dr. Bowden ; and it is no less worthy of notice that Junius, though he wrote nearly two hundred and fifty years ago, and, of course, many years before the synod of Dort, argues as uniformly and strongly in favour of Presbyterian principles, as any champion of presbytery that ever appeared. I cannot forbear particularly to observe, that Bellarmine turns in every direction, and strains every nerve, to set aside the testimony of Jerome; and for this purpose, in almost every instance, employs exactly the same arguments and the same subterfuges with Dr. Bowden: While Junius pronounces and proves his arguments to be futile, and his subterfuges unavailing, and the testimony of that celebrated father to be precisely what the friends of parity have ever considered it.t

The learned Sadeel, a French protestant divine, contemporary with Calvin and Beza, has frequently been represented by episcopal writers, as friendly to their claims, and even as acknowledging the apostolical institution of episcopacy. What the opinions of this reformer really were, will appear from the following quotations. In answer to a learned popish doctor, who, like some of

* Ecclesiastici, sive de Nat. et Administrat. Ecclesiæ, &c. Lib. I. Cap. 2, 3, 4.

†Fr. Junii Animadversiones in Bellarm. controv. v. Lib. 1. cap. 5, 6,7. No intelligent reader will fail to observe how almost universally reformers, synods, confessions, and learned divines of every name interpret Jerome precisely as I have done.

our zealous Episcopalians, warmly contended that the power of ordination was confined to diocesan bishops, he declares, "This "Sorbonne doctor objects, that our ministers are only presbyters, "and not bishops; and therefore could not ordain other ministers, "since only bishops have a right to ordain. That this opinion is "false, I shall immediately show. It is evident, from the word of "God, that bishop and presbyter are the same. This appears from "Titus 1. 5, from Acts xx. and from Philip. 1. 1. But the doctor "will reply, that the names are indeed used interchangeably in the passages above stated; but that the offices themselves are care"fully distinguished in scripture. But, I answer, when the pres"byters are called bishops, the apostle is, in such places, treating "not of the names and titles only, but of the office and function it"self. For when he exhorts the presbyters of Ephesus to the right "exercise of their office, he adds this reason, that the Holy Ghost "had constituted them bishops; and, therefore, he says, not that "they were only called so; but that they were, in very deed, con"stituted such bishops. So that the answer touching the confusion "of names is quite overthrown.-But the Sorbonne doctor tells us "that Paul enjoins Timothy to lay hands suddenly on no man, and, "therefore, none but Timothy had the right of ordination. But "this conclusion is utterly without foundation; for Timothy is also "enjoined to reject fables, and to give attendance to reading, ex"hortation, and doctrine, &c. Did Timothy, therefore, arrogate "all these things to himself alone? Did they not belong to pres"byters, who, by Paul's testimony, laboured in the word and doc"trine? Timothy's episcopacy at Ephesus cannot be made good "by any testimony of Scripture." Again-" If we allow to pres"byters the right to preach the gospel, to administer baptism, and "to celebrate the Lord's supper, upon what imaginable ground can "we deny them the right to ordain? Therefore such as exclude "presbyters from the right to ordain, show themselves to be gross

ly ignorant both of the nature of ordination, and of the pastoral "office." And in support of all this reasoning, and much more, which I am compelled to omit, he quotes the famous testimony of Jerome, and pronounces it to be conclusive. He quotes also Irenæus, Ambrose, and Augustine, as giving testimony which coincides with that of Jerome; and adds, "I cite these, because the

(6 papists esteem the authority of the fathers, more than that of "plain declarations of scripture."*

But, in addition to all this, there is testimony of a different kind. It not only appears, from the public confessions, and individual declarations, which have been quoted, that the apostolical institution of ministerial parity was believed by the Lutheran as well as the Reformed churches; but it is evident that they were considered by others as having avowed their belief in that doctrine.

The famous cardinal Bellarmine certainly understood the protestants of his day generally to hold the equality of bishops and presbyters by divine right. "If," saith he, "episcopacy be a 66 sacrament distinct from the presbyterate, it will be easy to prove "that a bishop is, both in order and jurisdiction, greater than a 66 presbyter, by divine right; which NOW, ALL THE HERETICS (the protestants) DENY." De Sacramento Ordinis, Cap. 5. And in his work, De Clericis, he makes a similar declaration in terms equally express. For having asserted that a bishop is superior to a presbyter, by divine right, both with respect to order and jurisdiction, he ascribes the contrary doctrine to Aerius, to Wickliffe, to the Lutherans, and the Calvinists. Cap. 14.

Crakenthorp, a learned divine of the church of England, contemporary with Bellarmine, speaking of Luther, and the other reformers on the continent of Europe, expresses himself in the following terms. "They have not, I know, bishops, distinct from "presbyters, and superior to them; but at the same time, they do "not teach, as Aerius did, that ministerial imparity is contrary to "the word of God. They do not condemn it. They hold that, by the word of God, and divine right, either parity, or imparity

Oper. Theol. Tom. 1. Tract. De Legitima Vocatione Pastorum Ecclessæ. p. 65-67.

+ Bellarmine was contemporary with archbishop Whitgift. It seems that, at that time, the cardinal knew of no protestants who held to the divine right of prelacy. It is evident, therefore, that this doctrine was then either wholly unknown in England, or maintained by so few, that they were not considered as worthy of being recognized as an exception.

"is lawful, and that every church has authority or power to "admit either the one or the other as it thinks best."*

On these documents I shall not trouble you with many remarks. They speak a language so uniform, decided, and conclusive, that it can neither be mistaken nor resisted. And they establish, beyond the possibility of dispute, that all the leading reformers were firm believers in the primitive parity of ministers. That this was the opinion of Luther, Melancthon, and all the principal divines of their communion, has been abundantly proved. That Calvin was uniformly of the same opinion, will be demonstrated in the next letter. That the Saxon, Helvetic, French, Belgic, and Bohemian Confessions, all declare in favour of this doctrine, as received and practised in the apostolic age, you have seen with your own eyes. And, finally, that Cranmer and his associates, who commenced the reformation in England, did also, at least at one period, concur in the same acknowledgment, has been placed beyond all reasonable doubt.

After viewing this body of testimony, what must we think of Mr. How's repeated declarations, that "the reformers, universally "admitted the apostolic claims of the episcopal constitution ;" that "Luther and Melancthon acknowledged the obligation of episco66 pacy; excusing their departure from it on the ground of neces"sity" that " episcopacy was never ranked, by the reformers,

Defensio Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ. Cap. 42. Sect. 6.

It has been said that Melancthon, on a certain occasion, expressed a willingness to submit to the power of prelates, provided they would become patrons of the reformation. This is true. It is also true, that the same pious and amiable, but too accommodating, Melancthon, when he subscribed the famous Smalkald Articles, annexed to his subscription a declaration, (which is still to be seen,) that he was willing to allow the pope a superiority over all other bishops, for the sake of the peace of the church; provided he would aid in reforming the church. And it is as true as either, that by these concessions, Melancthon gave great offence to the protestants of his own communion, and complains in one of his letters, of the resentment which they manifested against him on this account. See Melancthon's epistles, near the beginning of the volume. Having mislaid the notes which I made, at the time of perusing the passage, I am not able, at present, to make a more particular reference.