do? Two things are enjoined him, to ordain ministers and to correct disorders. The business of Titus was (as of a good bishop) both to rectify and reform those things which were offensive, and by new orders made to supply those matters which were yet defective. As for the ordination, it was not of some one presbyter that wanted to make up the number, but it was universal throughout that whole island, in every city, even throughout the whole hundred; and not one presbyter in each, but as the occasion might be, many in every one. The diocese was large, the clergy numerous. The elusion of some have devised, that these acts were enjoined to Titus as by way of society and partnership with the presbytery, so as that he join with them in these duties of correction and ordination. Had the apostle so meant, he could as easily have expressed, and have directed his charge to more: Titus alone is singled out; now, if it were in the power of every presbyter to do those things without him, what needed this weight to have been laid on his shoulders alone? And if the charge were that he must urge and procure it to be done; by what authority? And if he had authority, either without or above them, it is that we contend for. And now, I beseech you, what doth any bishop now challenge more as essential to his place, than the power of ordination, and power of correction of disorders?" So high authority as the "judicious Hooker" must not be passed by, and we therefore add his equally clear and conclusive comment. "To Timothy it is scripture which saith, Against a presbyter receive thou no accusation, saving under two or three witnesses.' Scrip

ture likewise hath said to Titus,For this very cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest redress the things that remain, and shouldest ordain presbyters in every city, as I appointed thee.' In the former place the power of censure is spoken of, and the power of ordination in the latter. Will they say that every pastor there was equal to Timothy and Titus in these things? If they do, the apostle himself is against it, who saith, that of their two very persons he had made choice, and appointed them in those places for the performance of those duties; whereas, if the same had belonged unto others no less than to them above others, it had been fit for the apostle accordingly to have directed his letters concerning these things in general, unto them all which had equal interest in them; even as it had been likewise fit to have written those epistles in St. John's Revelation, unto whole ecclesiastical senates, rather than only unto the angels, (or bishops,) of each church, had not some one been above the rest in authority, to order the affairs of the church."*

From all the preceding examples, we think it must fully appear to every impartial mind, that in the days of the apostles there were three distinct orders of ministers in the christian church; apostles, bishops or presbyters, and deacons.

Eccles. Pol. iii. 135.

CHAPTER III.

THE NAMES OF CHRISTIAN MINISTERS.

Some confusion is apt to arise in the minds of those who do not carefully distinguish between the names of christian ministers, and their power and authority. Now it is admitted that the words "presbyter" and "bishop" are sometimes in the New Testament used promiscuously, to denote the same church officer. But "then it does not follow, that all presbyters were of the same order with bishops, because bishops are sometimes included in the name of presbyters. The apostles themselves were undoubtedly presbyters, and are sometimes so called; St. John calls himself a presbyter, both in his second and third epistle; and St. Peter styles himself a fellow-presbyter of the presbyters, to whom his first epistle was directed; but we must not conclude from hence, that all presbyters were apostles. For although all the power of presbyters belonged to the apostles, and therefore they may well be called presbyters; there were several powers exercised by the apostles, which never belonged to any mere presbyter." There is not a single instance in the apostolic age of mere presbyters alone ordaining; for although it be said in one place that Timothy received the gift that was in him "with the laying on of the hands

* 1 Pet. v. 1.

Potter on Ch. Gov't. 107.

of the presbytery,"* yet this only proves that some of the presbyters joined with St. Paul in laying their hands. upon him, in testimony of their approbation of the apostle's act; for St. Paul tells him in another place,† that it was by the laying on of his own hands that Timothy received his authority; "and saith the gift was given him by that, and only with the other, because he being the only apostle that laid on his hands, and so the only person that had power by that means to confer the Holy Spirit, although it was given to him, together with the laying on the others' hands upon him, yet it was not given him by that, but by the laying on of St. Paul's hands, as he himself saith. As it is in our church at this time, and so hath been in the Latin for many ages, in the ordination of a priest, the priests there present join with the bishop in their laying their hands upon him; and yet he is ordained only by the bishop's laying on his hands. For how many priests soever lay their hands upon another's head, they can never make him a real priest, unless there be a bishop with them; but a bishop, by the imposition of his hands, can make a priest, although there be never another priest with him; the whole power of ordination being in the bishop alone." The "judicious Hooker," always high authority in matters of ecclesiastical polity, says, "the power of ordaining both deacons and presbyters, the power to give the power of order unto others, hath been always peculiar unto bishops. It hath not been heard of, that inferior presbyters were ever authorized to ordain."§

* 1 Tim. iv. 14. †2 Tim. i, 6. ‡ Bp. Beveridge. § Ec. Pol. iii. 105.

At first, when the names of presbyter and bishop were indifferently used, which was only during the apostolic age, there could be no danger of misunderstanding their powers and duties, because the apostles retained the authority of ruling the church in their own hands. Then, the highest officers in the church were called apostles, and other names applied promiscuously to the inferior orders; but in subsequent times the venerable title of apostles was left to those inspired men, who are so named in the New Testament, and that of bishops has ever since been appropriated to the first order of the ministry. All that we contend for is, that bishops are the successors of the apostles in the government of the church, and consequently superior in authority to priests, or presbyters, and deacons. "Besides the eleven," says Bishop Beveridge, "we find Matthias, Paul, and Barnabas admitted into the same office, and expressly called apostles as well as they. So is Epaphroditus, bishop of Philippi, called by St. Paul himself. And if we consult the ancient records of the church, we shall there find that James, bishop of Jerusalem, Mark of Alexandria, Timothy of Ephesus, Titus of Crete, and Clemens of Rome, were all called apostles. And as Theodoret observes, those which we now call bishops, the primitive christians called apostles. And so indeed may all bishops, rightly ordained, be called, as having the same office in the church which the apostles had." The powers of the respective orders were then clearly defined as they are now; and although

*

*Phil. ii. 25.