We are particularly informed, that this was the practice pursued by Paul and Barnabas, in their "And great missionary tour among the Gentiles. when they had ordained them elders" or presbyters in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the LORD, on whom they be. lieved."* In conformity with this account, St. Paul addressed and charged the elders or presbyters of Ephesus as ministers of the same order, without any distinction of powers or duties, and committed to them the church in that city with equal authority.f

The same fact is evident from the salutation in the epistle to the Philippians. "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of JESUS CHRIST, to all the saints in CHRIST JESUS which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." As deacons are no order of the gospel ministry, the only part of that ministry in this city were the bishops. And these could not have been diocesan bishops, because there was a plurality of them in the church in one city.

In conformity with this fact, the Apostle, in his epistle to Timothy, describes the qualifications of a bishop, and then passes directly to the qualifications of a deacon. No intermediate or superior order is mentioned. But of this it is impossible to conceive, if an intermediate or superior order were a constituent part of the gospel ministry. For the distinction of powers and duties, with the qualifications of that order, would have been indispensable. But in pre

*Acts xiv. 23. txx.

eise correspondence with our proposition, the Apor tle notices but one order.

And it is immaterial to our purpose, whether an Episcopal advocate would choose to say, that this was the superior or inferior order. For a bishop,

without any presbyter under him, is surely no higher than a presbyter, without any bishop over him.

There is the same silence in the epistle to Titus with relation to any distinction of orders. Titus was left in Crete to "set in order the things that were wanting, and ordain elders in every city." And the qualifications of this one order only are des cribed. From this it is evident, that no more than one order was necessary for the organization of the churches.

Neither does the Apostle Peter recognize more than one order in the permanent ministry. In his first general epistle, addressed "to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," he mentions but one order of the ministry. "The elders" or presbyters "which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder" or presbyter.* If there had been a superior and more important order in those extensive countries, it is impossible to conceive that the Apostle should have taken no notice of it. It is likewise observable that he places himself in the same order; I am also a presbyter. Nor was this a matter of mere cordescension; for he naturally reminded them by it that

*1 Pet. v. 1.

he, though an Apostle, was equally a member of the same indivisible order of the permanent ministry.

Now, it is truly admirable, if a superior order in the ministry was indispensable to the regular organization and government of the churches, and consequently, was in fact established by the Apostles in all the extensive countries mentioned in the Acts and Epistles, that no notice should have been taken of more than one order. And it is inconceivable, that notice should have been taken, so far as appears, of that inferior order only, who have, by the Episcopal system, no right to administer the affairs of the churches, except by the authority and direction of their spiritual superiors.*

We proceed to observe,

2. That the term bishop is used to designate an officer who was a presbyter.+

*It is perhaps unnecessary to remark, that no exception can be taken to this reasoning from any proofs, that the Apostles or other extraordinary ministers of the age were superior to these officers. As we have shown, Serm. 3, Prelim. 2 & 3, their superiority had no relation to the permanent ministry. But Episcopalians must prove that they were superior as members of the permanent ministry, or the fact is nothing to their purpose.

We do not undertake to say that bishop and presbyter are, in all respects, convertible terms. They

G

An elder or presbyter is literally an aged man, It is naturally a term of respect, and is used to ex press dignity and authority. A bishop is literally an overseer, and very properly expresses official service. The former is more particularly a title of honor; the latter of duty. In the appropriate meaning of the terms, presbyter is a higher title than bishop. It is, therefore, by a perversion of language, that the title bishop has been appropriated to a superior order, and that of presbyter to an inferior one. It was not so in the days of the Apostles. Without any violation of their peculiar signification, they were applied to the same officer. A bishop then was no higher than a presbyter.

Of this application of the terms there can be no question. "From Miletus," we are informed that the Apostle Paul "sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. And when they were come to him he said unto them,...Take heed unto your. selves, and to all the flock over the which the HOLY GHOST hath made you overseers." The original word, here rendered overseers, signifies bishops; and

were unquestionably of the same order; their official powers were equal. But there was this difference. The title presbyter might be properly applied to a minister who had no local charge; it does not appear that the title bishop was ever applied to one who had not a local charge. Every bishop was a presbyter; but every presbyter was not a bishop, because he might not be settled in a particular church.

*Acts xx. 17, 18, 28.

is so translated commonly in the New Testament. It is, therefore, undeniable that the same officers, who are first called "elders" or presbyters, are here called bishops. Nor was this by any misapplication of the terms, for the elders of Ephesus were made bishops by the HOLY GHOST.

St. Paul, in his epistle to Titus, observes to him, "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city,...if any be blameless,...for a bishop must be blameless."* Here it is

equally clear that the Apostle applies these forms to the same officer. If this is not his application of them, the consistency of his language is destroyed. He changes his subject, whilst he impresses upon the reader that he has changed no more than the term. But let us suppose for a moment, that the Apostle uses the terms in the sense, in which they are applied in the Episcopal system. What will he be made to say? "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest... ordain" parish priests "in every city,...if any be blameless, .for a" diocesan bishop "must be blameless." Nothing more can be necessary to show the gross solecism, in which this supposition must involve the Apostle.

The same application of the terms is made by the Apostle Peter. Nothing can be more obvious than this from the passage, to which I have had occasion to refer, and which you will permit me more particularly to recite. "The elders which are among you