66 ture precept.

" Gospel, to manage the worship, and dispense the

sacraments; and this is all that is of divine right " in the ministry, in which Bishops and Presbyters “ are equal sharers. But besides this, the church “ claimeth a power of jurisdiction, of making rules “ for discipline, and applying and executing the

same; all which is, indeed, suitable to the com“ mon laws of society, and the general rules of scripture, but hath no positive warrant from any scrip

And all these constitutions of “ churches into Synods, and the Canons of discipline “ taking their rise from the divisions of the world “ into several provinces, and beginning in the se"cond, and beginning of the third century, do “ clearly show, that they can be derived from no di“ vine original, and so were, as to their particular “ form, but of human institution.”

The opinions held hy Archbishop Tillotson, on this subject, substantially agree with those of Bishop Burnet; or, if they differ from them, are even more favorable to Presbyterian church government. He was decidedly in favour of admitting the dissenting clergy into the church of England, without re-ordaining them; and did not scruple to avow that he considered their ordination as equally valid with that which was received from Episcopal Bishops. And, in conformity with this opinion, he advised the Episcopal clergy of Scotland to unite with the

* Vindication of the Church and State of Scotland, p. 331.

Presbyterian church in that country, and submit to its government*.

Archbishop Wake, who was a warm friend to Prelacy, and whose character stands high with its advocates, it is well known kept up a constant friendly correspondence with the most eminent Pastors and Professors in Geneva and Holland ; manifested a fraternal regard to them ; declared their churches, notwithstanding their difference in discipline and government from his own, to be true churches of Christ ; and expressed a warm desire for their union with the church of England, at the head of which he was then placed. In a letter which he wrote to the celebrated Le Clerc, of the Genevan school, then residing in Holland, in the year 1719, there is the following passage. “I freely embrace “ the Reformed churches, notwithstanding they “ differ in some respects from that of England. I “ could wish, indeed, they had retained that mode“ rate Episcopacy, freed from all unjust domination, " which obtains among us, and which, if I have any “ skill in judging on this subject, was received in “ the church, from the Apostolic age. Nor do I a despair of its being restored. If I should not “ see it myself, posterity will. In the mean time, I

am so far from being so uncharitable as to believe that

any of those churches, on account of this de

* See Remarks upon the Life of the Most Reverend Dr. John Tillotson, 8vo. 1754 ; in which the author, a most violent Episcopalian, acknowledges these facts, and loads him with much abuse on account of them,

“ fect, (for so I must be allowed, without invidious

ness, to call it) ought to be cut off from our com“ munion ; nor can I, by any means, join with cer“tain Mad writers among us, in denying the validity " of their sacraments, and in calling in question their

right to the name of Christian churches*.. I could “ wish to bring about, at any price, a more close “union between all the Reformed churches.” The same Prelate, in a letter to Professor Turretin of Geneva, in 1718, speaking of Bishop Davenant's conciliatory opinions, declares that they perfectly coincide with his own, and that he could earnestly wish that all Christians were of the same mind. Another letter, of a more public nature, which he af. terwards addressed to the Pastors and Professors of Geneva, abounds with similar sentiments, and expresses the most fraternal affection for those Presbyterian worthiest. Nor were these letters written by him merely as a private man, or in the spirit of temporizing politeness ; but manifestly with all the deliberation and solemnity of a man who felt his official responsibility.

The language employed by the good Archbishop to express his disapprobation of this doctrine is remarkably strong and pointed. He calls those writers who attempt to maintain it, furiosi, i. e. madmen. If he spoke in this style of such wri. ters in England, where diocesan Episcopacy was established by law, and when he was himself at the head of that establishment; what would he have said concerning writers of a similar stamp, at the present day in America, where all de. ominations, with respect to the state, stand on a level ?

† See Appendix III. to Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History.

a

The learned Joseph Bingham, who has written largely and ably in defence of the Episcopacy of the church of England, frankly acknowledges, that " that church does by no means damn or cut off “ from her communion, those who believe Bishops “and Presbyters to be the same order. Some of

our best Episcopal divines, and true sons of the “ church of England, have said the same, distin

guishing between order and jurisdiction, and made

use of this doctrine and distinction to justify the “ ordinations of the Reformed churches, against 66 u the Romanists*.” French Church's Apol. p. 262.

Dr. John Edwards, a learned and respectable divine of the church of England, in a treatise on this subject, after having considered the testimonies of Clement, Ignatius, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, and others, makes the following declaration. “From all these we may gather that the “ Scripture Bishop was the chief of the Presbyters; “ but he was not of a distinct order from them. “ And as for the times after the apostles, none of " these writers, nor any ecclesiastical historian, tells us, that a person of an order superior to Presby

, “ ters was set over the Presbyters.

It is true one single person is recorded to have presided over “the College of Presbyters, but this College had " the same power with the single person, though “not the particular dignity of Presidentship. The “ short is, the Bishops in these times were Presby“ ters; only he that presided over the body of Pres

byters was called Bishop, while the rest were ge“ nerally known by the title of Presbyters; and the

Bishop was still but a Presbyter, as to order and “ function, though, for distinction sake, he was “ known by the name of Bisho. He was superior “ to the other Presbyters as long as he executed « his office, as a chairman in a committee is above " the rest of the justices whilst he holds that place. “ It was generally the most ancient Presbyter that

was chosen to preside over the College of Presbyters, but he had no superiority of power. All the

, priority or primacy he had was that of order. " Here is the ancient pattern. Why is it not follow6.ed*?

To single Fathers, we may add Councils, 66 who deliver the same sense. This, then, is the

true account of the matter. Bishops were Elders

or Presbyters, and therefore of the same order “ but the Bishops differed from the Presbyters in " this only, that they were chosen by the Elders to

preside over them at their ecclesiastical meetings or assembliest. But in after ages, the Presby

;

* Here is an explicit acknowledgment, that the Episcopacy of the church of England, and primitive Episcopacy, are very different things.

+ The primitive Bishop, in Dr. Edwards's judgment, therefore, corresponds exactly with the Moderator or President, of our Presbyteries, who is a standing officer, elected at stated periods, who always presides at the meetings of the body to which he belongs, and until a successor is chosen.