serves rather to confirm than to invalidate this conclusion.But we are gravely told, that some of the early fathers declare, that these Angels were single persons, and bishops. Though this is not that Scriptural testimony, which we are now demanding, yet we will admit the fact. Some of the fathers do say so. And some of the fathers go further, and tell us that they were Archbishops; nay, some of them even go so far as to mention the names of these Archbishops; though, unfortunately, they disagree among themselves in making out a list of the names, and, therefore, excite a suspicion that all their testimony on the subject is unworthy of credit. But, further, it is certain that some other fathers, equally entitled to respect, represent these angels, not as individual bishops, but as collective bodies. Now which of these early writers shall we believe? No wise man can be at a loss to answer. Their mutual contradictions to teach us to put no confidence in this kind of testimony.

I will only add, that the learned advocate for prelacy, Mr. Dodwell, expressly gives up this whole argument. In his book, entitled, one Priesthood and one Altar, published in 1683, he expresses the opinion commonly held by episcopal writers, that the Angels of the seven Asiastic Churches were diocesan bishops; but in his Parænesis, published about twenty years afterwards, he explicitly renounces this opinion; and, while he expresses much uncertainty with respect to the character of these angels, and concedes the impossibility of deciding who they were, he rather intimates his belief that they were itinerary legates, sent from Jerusalem, answering to the seven spirits, mentioned Zech. iv. 10, that are the eyes of the Lord, which run to and fro through the whole earth.

VI. The last argument deduced by the friends of episcopacy from Scripture, which appears worthy of notice, is that which is founded on two parallel passages, one in 1 Cor. xii. the other in Ephes. iv. The former is in these words-And God hath set some in the church; first, Apostles ; secondarily, Prophets; thirdly, Teachers; after that miracles; then gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. The latter, as follows

and to afford no solid evidence in favour of either episcopacy or presbytery.

K

And he gave some, Apostles; and some, Prophets; and some Evangelists; and some, Pastors and Teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, &c. In these passages, the friends of episcopacy assure us, there are various orders of Christian Ministers, and only enumerated, but also expressly said to be set or fixed in the church by its great Head. There must, then, say they, be various orders of clergy, by divine appointment, to the end of the world.

But if these passages of Scripture are considered as representing the ordinary ministry of the church, in all ages, they prove by far too much. They prove that every regular church must have more than three orders of clergy: They prove that, among these, there must be Apostles and Prophets, as well as Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers: They prove that no true church is without miracles, gifts of healing, and diversities of tongues: And, if the order of arrangement is that of dignity, they prove that governing the church is among the lowest grades of ecclesiastical duty. The friends of episcopacy will, perhaps, say, that some of the offices and gifts here enumerated, were extraordinary, and confined to the apostolic age. This is readily granted. It is too obvious to be denied. But the moment our episcopal brethren take this ground, they surrender the whole argument founded on these passages. For if all the offices enumerated in these passages were not fixed in the church, and if the whole enumeration were not intended as a model for us, the principle of the argument is abandoned.

:

But, admitting, for the sake of argument, that the various classes of Gospel ministers here enumerated were all intended to be perpetual in the church: admitting all the difficulties with respect to Prophecy and Miracles, which no church now claims, to be surmounted and admitting also, that the number of orders enumerated, can, by some process of ecclesiastical arithmetic hitherto unknown, be reduced from four or five to three, the number of which Episcopalians are so fond; there is still an unfortunate circumstance, which effectually deprives them of all benefit from the argument; or, father, which turns it against them. It is this: All the classes or denomination of ministers here enumerated are represented in the New Testament, as vested with power to ordain,

and as actually exercising this power. The ordaining power of apostles is disputed by none. Prophets and teachers, we have seen, performed an ordination at Antioch; Timothy and Titus, who were evangelists, exercised the ordaining power at Ephesus and Crete; and presbyters ordained Timothy to the work of the ministry. Now if these different denominations correspond with the three orders of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, in modern times; then it follows, that the power of ordination, instead of belonging exclusively to the first of these three orders, belongs equally to them all. A consequence which, though perfectly reconcilable with. our doctrine, is absolutely destructive to the episcopal scheme.

I have now given you, my brethren, a sketch of the strongest arguments deduced from Scripture in favour of episcopacy, with which I am acquainted. It is for you to judge whether these arguments do really establish the claim which they are intended to support. It is for you to judge whether they give even probability to this claim. Above all, it is for you to decide, whether they show that it is a claim of unalterable divine right, and its admission essentially necessary to the regular organization of the church, and the valid ministration of the sacraments. For myself, I must conscientiously declare, that the arguments attempted to be drawn from Scripture, in favour of prelacy, do not appear to me to possess the smallest degree of real force; and that even to concede to them the merit of plausibility, is more than an impartial judge would allow. I can truly say, that when I first approached the investigation of this subject, I expected to find much more in the sacred volume appearing to favour the episcopal cause, than I have since been able to discover. It did not occur to me as possible, that such confident appeals to Scripture could be continually made on grounds so entirely unsolid. I might have recollected, indeed, the decisive tone with which many ingenious and learned men have resorted to the sacred oracles to establish the supremacy of the Pope, and the damning sin of separation from the church of Rome. Nor ought we to be surprised that pious and learned men, of other denominations, should fall into similar mistakes, and express equal confidence of finding support where none is in reality to be found. The late Mr. Burke has somewhere said, "Let us "only suffer any person to tell us his story morning and evening

"but for one twelve-month, and he will become our master." Many zealous advocates of episcopacy have been so long in the habit of saying, and of hearing it said, that the Scriptures "clearly," "strongly," and "unquestionably" declare in favour of their system; and some of them so little in the habit of reading the refutations of this error, that they unfeignedly believe it, and scruple not to stigmatize all who do not see it, as given up to blindness and prejudice. But, happily, we have the sacred volume in our hands as well as they; and after the most dispassionate examination, are compelled to pronounce their arguments from Scripture, nugatory; their confidence totally unwarranted; and the whole system which they profess to found on the word of God, a fabric resting alone on human contrivance.

After this statement, you will not be surprised to learn, that the whole testimony drawn from scripture, in favour of diocesan episcopacy, has been pronounced altogether inconclusive, by some of the warmest and ablest friends of that system. The learned Dodwell, one of the great oracles of high-churchmen, frankly confesses, that Bishops, as a superior order to Presbyters, are not to be found in the New Testament; that such an order had no existence until the beginning of the second century; that presbyters were the highest ecclesiastical officers left in commission by the Apostles; and that the first diocesan Bishops were ordained by Presbyters, the last apostle having been dead a number of years before this new order was instituted in the church. And even those who attempt with confidence to found diocesan episcopacy on the Scriptures, exhibit such contradiction and confusion among themselves as entirely to invalidate the whole testimony which they would derive from this source. Scarcely any two of their great standard writers can agree upon any one principle of scriptural evidence. And accordingly, you have seen, that all the leading arguments drawn from scripture in support of prelacy, have been pronounced wholly untenable, and each in its turn surrendered, by a number of the most pious and learned divines of the church of England. Can Episcopalians, then, complain that we are not convinced by arguments, which some of the most competent judges among themselves have declared to be inconclusive and even frivolous ?

But this is not all: the great body of episcopal writers, even those who contend most earnestly for the scriptural evidence in

their favour, acknowledge, if I mistake not, that their system is not directly laid down in the word of God. In other words, they confess, that the Scriptures, taken absolutely alone, will not bear them out in their claims. But they suppose, and insist, that the facts which are mentioned in the sacred history, taken in connexion with the writings of the early Fathers, decidedly support this claim. That is, the New Testament, in its own divine simplicity, is insufficient for their purpose; but, explained, and aided, by the writings of fallible men, it declares positively in their favour.

Is it so, then, that a doctrine, held not merely as important, but fundamental; not merely as fundamental, but essential to the very existence of the church; without which her officers are unauthorized, her ministrations invalid, and her sacraments a nullity, cannot be maintained from the Bible alone? Is it so, that the Great Head of the church has given us his word to be a light to our feet and a lamp to our path; that he has denounced the most awful threatenings against those who add to, or take from the words of this book; and yet that an article which lies at the foundation of all the interests and hopes of the christian church cannot be directly proved out of that book? what is this but saying, that the Bible is, not a rule either perfect, or sufficient for the church? what is this but embracing a principle which makes human testimony co-ordinate with that of God; and which must involve us in all the mazes and uncertainty of tradition? but the admission of the principle in question, is not merely taking uncertain and dangerous ground; it is liable to a more serious objection. To say that an article of faith or practice is essential to the well being of the church, which is the body of Christ, and, at the same time, that it cannot be distinctly and satisfactorily proved from Scripture; is, in effect, bringing a charge against the great Head of the church, which 1 know the advocates of this position would abhor equally with ourselves; and which is too shocking to be expressed in language.

But the advocates of episcopacy tell us, that our demand of express warrant from Scripture, in this case, will carry us too far. They contend that several articles of christian belief and practice, generally deemed of great importance, cannot be distinctly proved from Revelation alone. And, particularly, they insist, that if we discard episcopacy for want of direct scriptural testimony in its