by the apostles. It is very true that, in the apostolical epistles, the names of bishop and elder are often used indifferently, but the apostles were then living, and the highest functions in the church belonged exclusively to the Apostolate, an order which was increased by themselves, and consisted of a considerable number at the time St. Paul wrote his Epistles to the Corinthians; for when enumerating the several appearances of our Lord, he says, “after that, he was seen of James, then of all the apostles." 1 Cor. xv. 7. Not that all these were apostles when Christ appeared to them, but that they, at the time St. Paul wrote, had been selected from among the brethren, and admitted to the high and sacred order. The functions which these men discharged in the church, were discharged in like manner by their successors, only that the name of apostle was discontinued, and the name of bishop was substituted for it. When the term bishop was thus applied, it ceased to be used indiscriminately with the term elder, and the names ever afterwards were as distinct in their application as were the offices which they denoted. We should have thought that the following extract which Mr. Powell gives from Bingham, and which we reprint exactly as in Mr. Powell's book, would have satisfied any reasonable man that he was labouring in vain to prove the equality of the different ministers in the church.

For farther confirmation (says Bingham) of what has been asserted, it will not be amiss here to subjoin next a short account of the titles of honour which were given to bishops in the primitive church. The most ancient of these is the title of apostles; which, in a large and secondary sense, is thought by many to have been the original name for bishops, before the name bishop was appropriated to their order. For at first they suppose the names bishop and presbyter to have been common names for all of the first and second order; during which time the appropriate name for bishops, to distinguish them from mere presbyters, was that of apostles. Thus Theodoret says expressly, "The same persons were anciently called promiscuously both bishops and presbyters, whilst those who are now called bishops were (then) called apostles. But shortly after, the name of apostles was appropriated to such only as were apostles indeed, and then the name bishop was given to those who before were called apostles." Thus, he says, Epaphroditus was the apostle of the Philippians, and Titus the apostle of the Cretans, and Timothy the apostle of the Asiatics. And this he repeats in several other places of his writings.-P. 14.

But what is the conclusion which Mr. Powell draws from this statement? Why, that the bishops and presbyters were not only NOMINALLY, but REALLY, the same in the time of the apostles; and that such being the case, there must always be an IDENTITY of Office. Most logical

conclusion!

Theodoret, who lived in the fifth century, and was a disciple of John Chrysostom, says expressly, that when the name of apostle was reverently discontinued to be applied to the successors of the apostles, the name of bishop was used exclusively to denote their office. This is the mare's-nest which Mr. Powell has found; in the days of the apostles

certain names were applied to certain offices, and afterwards the same names were somewhat differently used. But, says Mr. Powell, bishop and elder were once synonymous, and they must therefore always remain so: consequently, whatever a bishop is appointed to do, an elder may do likewise. This is the string upon which he harps, and, unlike his singlestringed prototype Paganini, he produces a most discordant sound. We again let Mr. Powell speak for himself, for we venture to affirm that our readers never met with a writer more expert in proving the contrary to what he intended, than the one before us.

The argument from 2 Cor. viii. 23, "Whether any do inquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellow-helper concerning you; or our brethren be inquired of, they are the messengers of the churches and the glory of Christ:" will not help them. They wish to prove that these persons were a second race of apostles, identical with our present bishops. So Bishop Taylor, sect. 4. Now let the reader consult 1 Cor. xvi. 3, " And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem ;" and men" chosen of the churches to travel with this grace," (19th verse of this chapter); and he will see that our translators have rightly rendered the word in 2 Cor. viii. 23, messengers. Our advocates often wish to have hold of Titus as a prototype of modern bishops. Bishop Taylor draws him in here. "Thus Titus and some other with him, who came to Jerusalem with the Corinthian benevolence, are called 'Anóσrodoi ékkλnσiŵv, the apostles of the churches. Apostles, I say, in the episcopal sense. They were none of the twelve, they were not of immediate mission, but of apostolic ordination; they were actually bishops, as I shall show hereafter." Dashing logic! "I say." Now it is unfortunate for these advocates, that St. Paul does not number Titus with these apostles, or, more properly, messengers; and for this plain reason — - these messengers were persons chosen by the churches, Titus was not, but only sent in company with them by the apostle. THEY, therefore, were the MESSENGERS of the CHURCHES, and they ONLY. If this unbishops Titus, these writers are to blame for it; I cannot help it. It shows the weakness of the cause when great men are pushed to such straits and mistakes to defend it.-P. 17.

We think Mr. Powell exposes the weakness of his cause, when he has recourse to such contemptible quibbling in order to make out his case. Two things are perfectly clear from this statement; first, that the messengers, or rather apostles, for such they are called in the original, were not chosen by the church at Corinth, but by St. Paul himself; for in 2 Cor. viii. 24, he tells the Corinthians who they are, and in the following verse exhorts them to show towards the apostles a proof of their love, which would have been needless information, and a superfluous request, if they had been simply messengers chosen by themselves. And, secondly, it is evident that Titus was an apostle, notwithstanding Mr. Powell's sneer. The mere circumstance of St. Paul calling him his PARTNER and FELLOW-HELPER, shows that he had the same power as that possessed by the Apostle of the Gentiles, and this is fully corroborated by the charge given by St. Paul when he appointed him to preside over the church in Crete. Therefore, with regard to the conclusion at which Mr. Powell arrives by a hop-step-and-jump, we may borrow his own expression, and justly say, "Dashing logic!"-Epaphroditus

was clearly the Apostle of the Philippians, and we never find that he was put on a level with the elders of the church at Philippi.

There never was any general council (says Mr. Powell)-never any number of accredited fathers-never any modern church, since the time of our Lord and Saviour-who maintained that bishops were, by divine right, an order superior to, distinct from, and possessing powers and authority incompatible with presbyters, as presbyters. Of this sufficient proof will be given hereafter.-P. 37.

If by this Mr. Powell means to say, for his meaning is not very clear, that a bishop could discharge all the offices appertaining to the presbytery, we agree with him; but if he means to affirm that a presbyter could discharge all the functions appertaining to episcopacy, as it was established in the persons of the successors of the apostles, we totally deny it. As in the days of the apostles their authority was superior to that of bishops and elders, so when the names were altered, the power of the bishop was equally superior to that of the presbyter. If the bishop were not superior in power to the presbytery, i. e. if there were not one, whether he be called apostle or bishop, who possessed an indivisible authority, how is it that St. Paul addressed an epistle to the president of the presbytery of Ephesus without any reference to his colleagues? and also to Titus, without once alluding to his associates ?—When St. Paul addressed an epistle to whole churches, he addressed all the ministers in it; but he addressed Timothy and Titus on the subject of ecclesiastical government, and therefore addressed them as sole heads, by divine appointment, of the churches at Ephesus and Crete. We say, by divine appointment, for " no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." Heb. v. 4.

In Mr. Powell's crusade against episcopacy, he has the temerity to assert that presbyters ONLY are said to ordain, which he proves by the following candid quotation: "Neglect not the gift which is in thee, which was given thee by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." Thus Mr. Powell would make the presbytery confer the appointment; how fairly, we shall see by comparing the true statement of the apostle with Mr. Powell's garbled quotation: "Neglect not the gift which is in thee," says St. Paul," which was given thee by PROPHECY, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." 1 Tim. iv. 14. Now the spiritual gift here alluded to was, in 2 Tim. i. 6, said to be expressly given by St. Paul himself: "Wherefore I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God that is in thee, by the putting on of MY hands." The laying on of the hands of the presbytery was, as it is now in the Church of England, a mere adjunct, as the expression μerà ἐπιθέσεως shows.

Surely Mr. Powell allows his wish to urge him too far when he asserts, that in the days of the apostles presbyters were superior in order

to bishops: "Sic volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas." Mr. Powell is so eager to prove his point, that he even presses the judicious Hooker himself into his service, by giving a partial extract from sec. 78. b. v. Had Mr. Powell been desirous of giving Hooker's real opinion on this subject, he would have selected a very different sentence. The following is the extract as it stands in Mr. Powell's book: " Touching the ministry of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the whole body of the church being divided into laity and clergy, the clergy are either presbyters or deacons." Here Hooker was speaking of the ministration in the church, not of its government; for in the same section he adds, " it clearly appeareth that churches apostolic did know but three degrees in the power of ecclesiastical order; at the first apostles, presbyters, and deacons; afterwards, instead of apostles, bishops, concerning whose order we are to speak in the seventh book." In that book Hooker clearly proves, that in every church planted by the apostles and their successors, a bishop presided, who was superior in authority to the presbyters, and in whom ALONE the power of ordination was vested. If we are to believe Mr. Powell, Hooker maintains the equality of the presbyters and bishops, but we defy him to the proof. We charge Mr. Powell with wilfully misstating his opinions, and we grieve to say, that this line of conduct pervades Mr. Powell's treatise. Mr. Powell is culpably backward in giving references; when he does condescend to give them, it is in such general terms as to render it no small task to find out the passage referred to.

When speaking of the Waldenses, and endeavouring to prove that they repudiated episcopacy, his authorities are " MSS. several hundred years before Luther and Calvin." Was ever such a reference to ancient MSS. heard of? Where are these MSS.? for Mr. Powell does not deign to tell us. We venture to assert that no such MSS. are in existence. For at the period when these MSS. are pretended to have been written, there was no form of church government but episcopal; and, indeed, this form was never discovered to be unscriptural until the Reformation, when the licentious abuse of private judgment produced a swarm of new opinions, which compelled the holders of them to rack their imaginations for justifying arguments.

We give another extract from Mr. Powell's veracious work.

In Burnet's account of the drawing up of a declaration of the christian doctrine for the necessary erudition of a christian man, he remarks that the convocation books are lost; but that Fuller, his only guide, assures the world that he copies out of the records with his own hand what he published. Now Fuller calls the assembly of bishops, &c. that drew up this declaration, a Convocation. Burnet has a little doubt of the correctness of this statement. all he says is easily reconcileable with it. It would be out of all rule to allow trifles to set aside the statement made by a grave divine, declaring to the world that he copies out of the records with his own hand. The assembly, then, was

But

a convocation. The work they drew up, " The necessary Erudition of a Christian Man," was published by royal authority, and hence also usually called the King's Book. No determinations in the Church of England can have higher authority. In the chapter of Orders they expressly declare, "That priests and bishops by God's law are one and the same; and that the power of ordination and excommunication belongs equally to both."-P. 74.

Now this is utterly false; the tract entitled "The Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man," contains no statement of the sort! It contains nothing which can by any possibility be so warped as to imply that bishops alone have not the full and sole power of conferring orders. The extracts from the works of the different divines who drew up the above-named formulary are grossly garbled, and appear to convey sentiments totally different from those held by the celebrated men whom he has named.-Enough has been stated to show the want of fairness and veracity in Mr. Powell's book; we will therefore proceed to give a specimen of his charitable feelings.

The authors of the Oxford Tracts for the Times are English Jesuits; and aim to accomplish for Anglican popery, what the Romish Jesuits do for Romish popery! May Heaven scatter their counsel, and cause the gospel to run and be glorified!-Pp. 86, 87.

This charge, while it is perfectly harmless with regard to the excellent men whom it would traduce, falls heavily back upon its author. If the writer did not profess to have read the Oxford Tracts, we should have hoped that he had made the charge unwittingly, having obtained his knowledge of the works in question second-hand. Whatever his intention may be, the charge of popery which he brings against the authors of the Oxford Tracts is most ridiculous, and only exposes the disgraceful ignorance of the writer. Because many divines of the present day are desirous of walking in the paths of the primitive church, because, while they are most hostile to the fatal innovations of the Church of Rome, they are anxious to restore those usages in the church now in some degree obsolete, which the reformers were willing to retain, they are, forsooth, to be stigmatized as papists, and branded with infidelity to that holy religion, of which they are, for the most part, distinguished ministers! The more the points at issue between the maintainers of the apostolical succession of ministers in the Church and their presbyterian opponents, whether in the communion or out of it, are known and understood, the more triumphant will be the victory to those who have asked for the old paths, and are desirous of walking therein. It is idle to say that apostolical succession consists only of a succession of doctrine. It does no such thing; unless there had been a succession of ministers, the title to be esteemed ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God would have been lost, and it would have required a special commission from Heaven for its restoration.

1 As Mr. Powell cannot affirm that bishops have never presided in the