commission being afterwards divided between different orders:-That the words bishop and presbyter are uniformly used in the New Testament as convertible titles for the same office:-That the same character and powers are, also, in the sacred writings, ascribed interchangeably to bishops and presbyters, thus plainly establishing their identity of order as well as of name:-And that the Christian church was organized by the apostles, after the model of the Jewish synagogue, which was undeniably Presbyterian in its form.

These positions thus established, decide the controversy. Such a concurrence of language and of facts in support of the doctrine of ministerial parity, is at once remakable and conclusive. I mean conclusive as to the fact, that this was the system adopted in the apostles' days. This, undoubtedly, was the "truly primitive and apostolic form." And the more closely we adhere to this form, the more we testify our respect for that system which was framed by inspired inen; sanctioned by miraculous powers; and made pre-eminently instrumental in the midst of a frowning and hostile world in building up the church in holiness, through faith unto salvation.

CHAPTER III.

TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE CONTINUED.

We have seen what the Scriptures declare in support of our doctrine concerning the Christian ministry. On this testimony the cause might safely be rested. But as it is my wish to do ample justice to every part of the argument, I would not overlook or suppress a single plea urged by the friends of Episcopacy. I shall, therefore, now proceed to examine the principal arguments in favour of their system, which they suppose and allege are to be found in the word of God.

In examining these arguments, I must again request the reader to keep steadily in view the doctrine for which our Episcopal brethren contend, and the nature of that proof which it is incumbent on them to produce. They appeal to Scripture to prove that bishops are an order of clergy superior to presbyters, that is, superior to those who are authorized to preach and administer the sacraments of the church, that their superiority rests on the appointment of Christ; that with this superior order alone are deposited all the power to ordain, to confirm, and to consecrate churches and chapels, and, in short, all the treasures of authority and succession; and that no ministry is regular or valid excepting that which is constituted by this order. Now, to support such a claim, we are surely warranted in demanding scriptural testimony of a very direct and explicit kind. We require those who make the claim

to produce passages of Scripture which contain direct precept, or plain undoubted example, or at least some established principle, from which their conclusion necessarily flows. On a subject so fundamental as they represent this to be, we cannot be content with gratuitous assumptions, or ingenious analogies, which have nothing to support them but a fertile imagination or human authority. We must have no remote hint; no circuitous inference; but express warrant; a warrant decisive and clear; a warrant which would be indubitable and satisfactory, if all books excepting the Bible were banished from the church. Let us see whether our claimants are prepared with testimony of this kind.

I. The first argument urged by the friends of prelacy is, "That, as the Mosaic economy was intended to prefigure the gospel dispensation, we may reasonably suppose the Christian ministry to be modeled after the Jewish priesthood; and that, as there were in the temple service, an high priest, priests, and Levites, so we may consider it as agreeable to the will of Christ, that there should be the corresponding threefold orders of bishops, priests, and deacons, in the New Testament church."

After the ample proof adduced in the foregoing chapter, that the Christian church was organized by the apostles, not after the model of the temple, but of the synagogue service, I might with propriety dismiss this argument, as sufficiently refuted by the establishment of that fact. But as much stress has been laid upon the argument in question, and as some cautious inquirers may wish to see it further discussed, let us proceed to a more particular examination of its merits.

66

You will observe the form of this argument. It may reasonably be supposed" that such a correspondence of orders should exist. But why "suppose" it? Does the word of God, the great charter of the Christian church, say that this is the case?

Is there

a single passage to be found in the sacred volume, which asserts, or gives the least hint, that such a likeness or analogy either does, or ought to exist? I will venture to say, there is not. I have met, indeed, with much animated declamation in favour of this analogy, urging it as a "supposable" thing-as a "reasonable" thing, &c. &c. but I have never yet heard of a single passage of Scripture, which is even pretended to teach the doctrine in question. For the general position, that many of the Old Testament institutions had a reference to, and were intended to prefigure New Testament blessings, it will be instantly seen by every discerning reader, is nothing to the purpose.

But this is not all. There is not only nothing to be found in Scripture which bears the least appearance of support to this argument; but there is much to be found which contradicts and destroys it. It is impossible to read the New Testament without perceiving, that the Jewish priesthood was a typical and temporary institution, which had both its accomplishment and its termination in Christ. This is taught in passages too numerous to be quoted; but, more particularly, at great length, and with irresistible force of argument, in the Epistle to the Hebrews,* in which the sacred writer declares, that since Christ the substance is come, the types which prefigured him are done. away; that the Levitical priesthood was chiefly employed in offering sacrifices, and attending on other

* See especially the vii..viii. ix. and x. chapters.

ceremonial observances of the typical economy, for which there is no place, since the great Sacrifice was offered up once for all; and that Christ Jesus himself is now the great high priest of our profession. Is it not above measure wonderful, that any who have the Bible in their hands, and profess to make it the rule of their faith, should, in the face of language so explicit and decisive, represent any human officer in the Christian church as standing in the place of the high priest under the ceremonial dispensation?

But it will be asked, Do we deny all connection between the Old and the New Testament dispensations? Do we deny that the types and ceremonies of the Mosaic economy, were a shadow of good things to come? By no means. We warmly contend for this connection. We maintain, with no less zeal than our opponents, that the whole system of typical and figurative observances enjoined upon the Jews, was full of important meaning, and had a pointed reference to gospel blessings. We agree, also, that the Jewish priesthood was typical; but of what?—of a mere human priesthood, to be established under the New Testament dispensation? So far from this, that the apostle in writing to the Hebrews, says directly the contrary. He tells us, that, as the sacrifices offered by the priests under the law, prefigured the death of Christ, and could not with. propriety be continued after that event had taken place; so the Levitical priesthood was a type of that Divine High Priest, who once offered himself a sacrifice to satisfy offended justice, and entered, by his own blood, into the holiest of all, even into heaven. If any insist that, because the ministrations under the law were a shadow of heavenly things, we must have a priesthood under the gospel of similar grades and