consecrated priests, preached the gospel. The statement is very clear: "Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching (evayyeλióμevo) the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them; and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord" (Acts xi. 19-21). Here are preachers preaching the gospel to Jews and Gentiles, with an evident blessing attending their ministry; and yet these preachers were not ordained persons, but simply believers "scattered abroad" by the persecution. Let the record of this fact be compared with the ideas of preaching the gospel prevalent in these days. "To believe and therefore to speak," is no warrant for preaching with some persons in these our melancholy times: faith, imparted by the Holy Spirit, and the heart renewed by grace, and the mouth opened in love for the Lord, are not sufficient titles for delivering the glad tidings of the gospel. A university education, and the touch of the bishop's hands are the requisites for the evangelical mission; and where those have been obtained, faith and grace are by no means indispensable.

But if we seek for "a canon" on the article of preaching the gospel, behold it here! "We, having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed and therefore have I spoken; we also believe and therefore speak" (2 Cor. iv. 13) This certainly was the rule of the church under the apostles, and a rule that was in full force even at Rome, before popery was known there; for it is written by Paul, when he was resident at Rome, "Many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear (Phil. i. 14). They had no fear of the heathen without, or of ecclesiastical canons within, they felt no superstitious dread of preaching the gospel without episcopal ordination, and letters of license; neither did Paul, who records the fact, intimate that they had done any thing irregular: on the contrary, he concludeshis remarks on the subject with these words, "Therein I do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice," for so ought every spiritually-minded Christian to rejoice, that "the brethren in the Lord are bold to speak the word without fear."

And this also was the rule that Paul himself followed; for as soon as he had been baptised at Damascus, and without any episcopal, or apostolical ordination, he straightway preached Christ in the synagogue (Acts x. 20); and on this subject he himself has elsewhere enlarged, for 66 says, when God had revealed to him his Son, that he might preach him among the heathen, immediately he conferred not with flesh and blood, neither went he up to Jerusalem to the apostles "-the spirit of faith was his ordination, as it was to all his brethren in the faith also.

he

Again, it is written Acts xviii. 24, that Apollos preached-" he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord;" because he was "fervent in spirit," and "mighty in the Scriptures:" but assuredly he was not an ordained preacher, for he was not even baptised! at least, he "knew only the baptism of John," and that was not considered sufficient (Acts xix. 5); but in this case nothing is added of the irregularity of his proceedings; no remark is made of his "presuming" to preach without episcopal or presbyterian ordination; on the contrary, his conduct is evidently noted with approbation, and he became a noted labourer in the gospel.

VII. In one more aspect, however, must we contemplate the church of the apostolical day, that we may thoroughly comprehend its perfect unity and equality. In the first Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, it is stated that a hundred and twenty "disciples," appointed two of their number as objects of choice for the apostolical office. If therefore the apostles are the fountain of apostolical succession, we should remember that one of their number was appointed by "the disciples," and that if the disciples could interfere in a work like this, much more may they in all "ordinations," "consecrations," or appointments of less import than the choice of an apostle !

Again, in the election of the first deacons (the first grade of the priesthood according to the gloss of prelacy)," the whole multitude of the disciples" were consulted by the apostles, and the whole multitude elected them, "then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables; wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business: and the saying pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost," &c. (Acts vi). This is very remarkable: the apostles called together the whole multitude of the disciples, made their proposals to them, and instead of saying that it was the exclusive prerogative of the apostolical office to arrange these matters, they requested the disciples to make choice of men of honest report, filled with the Holy Ghost to take the office of deacon. The disciples attentively listened to the proposal, were satisfied of its justness and propriety, and, using their own discernment, made choice of the first deacons of the church!

The apostolical succession is therefore again infected with "popular interference."

Again, when Peter received Cornelius, a heathen centurion, into the faith, he gave an account of it to all the church: "Then they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou wentest in unto men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them: but Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning" (Acts xi. 3). Peter, whom the Roman Catholics represent as their first pope, stood up and exculpated himself before the multitude of believers in Jerusalem: and in his exculpation he never hinted at any superiority of office or station that he held. No word escaped his lips by which it is to be surmised that he thought himself out of the reach of inquiry; but, considering himself a brother in the faith, he meekly and fraternally explained his conduct to his brethren; "and when they heard these things, they held their peace and glorified God."

The church at Jerusalem, in its collective capacity, sent Barnabas to Antioch:"Then the tidings of these things came unto the ears of the Church, which was in Jerusalem, and they sent forth Barnabas that he should go as far as Antioch" (Acts xi. 22). In like manner, the Church at Antioch, directed by the Holy Spirit, sent forth Barnabas and Paul to the Gentiles (Acts xiii); and when this mission had been duly executed, Paul and Barnabas gave an account of their labours to all the believers whose commission they had received-" and when they were come and had gathered the Church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles." Thus, also, in the celebrated council held at Jerusalem, to settle the disputed points of Judaic observances, the matter was argued by the whole

Church collectively, "Then it pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas...and they wrote letters by them after this manner. The Apostles, and Elders, and brethren, send greeting unto the brethren [not the Apostles and Bishops to the Bishops], which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, &c...forasmuch as we have heard......it seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you. Thus then at Jerusalem, under the immediate inspection of the Apostles, the views of Church-government were essentially non-episcopal, it was never supposed either by the Apostles or the Elders, that they alone had the exclusive right to hear, determine, and direct, in matters of high import to their general society: on the contrary, they took it for granted that "the whole multitude" must hear and determine as well as themselves. Thus the last time that Paul went to Jerusalem, after he had explained to James and the elders (bishops) of Jerusalem, the progress of the Gospel amongst the heathen by his ministry; the elders after thanking God for the joyous news, observed to Paul, "the multitude must needs come together, for they will hear that thou art come:" the expression is stronger in the original Távτws det—“ it must by all means be," "it is indispensable," "it is absolutely requisite," "it cannot be avoided;" this was the feeling of the Elders at Jerusalem; but in these our days, "Elders " of many sects would be much more disposed to say, "The people must not be consulted on any account,' ""It is quite out of the question to collect the people together, and to ask their opinion."

It is also deserving of particular attention, that all the Epistles of Scripture are directed to the Saints or the Churches: to a * Bishop, or an Archbishop, no letter is addressed; which is a fact not only incompatible with the episcopal theory, but proves that the spiritual and priestly equality of all the mystical body of Christ was the foundation of all Church-order in that Church, and in those days when "the Spirit of truth" was first made publicly manifest as a guide and director of all the people of God.

VIII. By the spiritual economy of the Church, all Christians were received into the priesthood, all were God's † clergy; for in the new cove

* Paul wrote two epistles to persons, who in modern language would be called Bishops: to Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus, Bishop of Candia, but he does not address them as Bishops. Now Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus, a very great dignitary indeed, according to the opinions of a later age: but he only names him as "his own son in the faith," and omits all the titles which invariably were addressed to Bishops at the end of the third century. He desires the Bishop of Ephesus to bring his cloke, books, and parchments, and that without any apology to one, whom Archbishop Sancroft and others of his school have ridiculously called "the primate of all Asia."

†The word "clergy" is in vain sought for in Scripture, though in the vocabulary of Anti-Christ it takes a prominent place. It is derived from the Greek λŋpos, the first meaning of which is "a lot-any thing used for determining lots—a ball of a ballot box "-next it implies any portion which has come by lot, or otherwise; a heritage. In the first sense it is used in Scripture, where the soldiers cast lots for the garment of Jesus (Mark xv. 24) -as a portion in Acts i. 17, "obtained part or portion-λnpov-of this ministry "-and again, in the first sense in the same chapter, "they gave forth their lots," kλnpovs—as an inheritance (Acts xxvi. 18), "That they may receive an inheritance, or take their lot, or portion, among them which are sanctified by faith in me”—and again, Col. i. 12, “who hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance-λnpov-of the saints in light." Now as the Church of God, or his people, are said to be his portion or inheritance, they are called his clerus: thus in Deut. ix. 29, "Yet they are thy people, and thine inheritance," λaós σov, kai kλñpós σov,—and in Deut. iv. 20. In this sense, Peter uses the word,-"Neither as lording it over God's heritage "-kλnpwv, in the plural number, as the admonition is catholic, to the Elders of many churches. This is the only passage in Scripture where it is

"

nant, all might "enter with boldness" into "the holiest," all might "draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith;" all united to Christ as the members of his mystical body, "had access with confidence by the faith of him:" there was no distinction of clergy and laity; for every individual Christian was, by the spiritual unction, a member of the new Levitical order, and was on a footing of perfect religious equality with every member of the Church (1 Pet. ii. 9). Nevertheless, there were, for the superintendence and government of the Churches, certain Elders appointed, whose office it was to take care of the general interests of society, and under the restraining influence of spiritual love, that principle which gave consistency to all the Churches, to exercise that faculty of government which the Holy Spirit had elicited and sanctified in their character. Paul reckons "governments "Kußeρvnoɛic-as one of the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor. xii. 28); and certainly, in the very difficult circumstances in which the Churches were placed, it was one of Divine mercy and goodness to the congregations of believers. In their multiplied trials of a domestic and social nature, and in the regulation of the affairs of their own congregations; in the afflictions of the world without, and in the care of the Church within, they had need of a directing hand to ward off danger, and establish harmony and order in the development of those principles which had separated them from a polluted and inimical world. But the lordship of one man was not an element of their spiritual polity; elders were appointed in all the Churches, Paul reminds Titus that he left him in Crete, " to ordain elders in every city" (1 Cor. i. 5); for every city in the island of Crete, where there was gathered a Christian society, was supposed to contain "a Church;" and in all these, some of them certainly small towns, Paul had directed Titus to appoint "Elders," that is, more than one. Paul and Barnabas, in going through the various Churches in the neighbourhood of Antioch, "ordained elders in every Church" (Acts xiv. 23). When Paul and Barnabas were sent by the Church at Antioch to Jerusalem, for a settlement of the Jewish questions, the Apostles and Elders "met together to consider this matter" (Acts xv. 6); that is, the Elders of the Church at Jerusalem. At Miletus, Paul sent for the elders of the Church at Ephesus (Acts xx. 17); and James directs that if any man is sick he should "send for the elders of the Church (v. 14); and as we always hear of the plurality of the Elders, so do we never find the superintendance in the hands of one Elder only. But then these elders were, from the nature of their office, called overseers, or superintendants, and in the Greek language—ETLOKOTOL "Episcopi," from whence is derived that word of portentous meaning, Bishop; which, in the Romish and Anglican systems, imports a Prelate with all the attributes of worldly power, and ruling all the Churches in his province with despotic sway.

In Scripture we find these Elders, or Overseers, or Bishops in every church, "in all the cities of the island of Crete ;" and Paul very distinctly

applied figuratively to persons, and those persons are not the clergy, but rather the laity, if

the distinction is to be made!

It is instructive to compare the authentic use of this word with its papal signification. In the canon law of Rome and England, the word "clergy" is a hundredfold more in use than any other noun substantive in the whole digest. In Scripture, it is never once applied to the clergy. When the clergy seized the whole spiritual inheritance of the body of Christ, they then called themselves the clerus, or the portion of God; and hence the origin

of the word.

VOL. II.

X

informs us, that in the one city of Philippi there were many Bishops; "Paul and Timotheus to all the saints in Christ Jesus with the Bishops and Deacons" (Phil. i. 1), first the saints, then the bishops, of which there were many in one church; and indeed the term "Overseer or Bishop," and "Elder," are convertible, and stand one for the other, indifferently.

When Paul sent for "the Elders" of Ephesus" (Acts xx. 17), he said to them, "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops (ETLOKOTоvs) to feed the Church of God" (Acts xx. 28); though in this passage, our translators, for obvious reasons, have rendered the original by another word.

In his epistle to Titus, Paul reminds him to ordain Elders in every city in Crete, "If any be blameless, the husband of one wife-for a Bishop must be blameless" (Titus i. 5-7). Paul supposed that all these Elders in every city, would be Bishops or Overseers, and all these Bishops, Elders. He had no idea of converting the Elder or Presbyter, into a "Priest," and then dividing the priesthood into those degrees, "Bishop, Priest, and Deacon;" this was an invention of a later age, when darkness had obscured the light of the church.

Peter concludes his first general epistle, by addressing "the Elders,” and tells them "to feed the flock, exercising the episcopal office (ETLOKOTOUVTES) not by constraint, but willingly" (1 Pet. v. 1-2). He, therefore, did not differ with Paul in views of church-government; and as Paul and Peter are said to have been the founders of the church at Rome, we may be quite sure that, in the apostolical age, Rome knew nothing of prelacy and the three orders.

It is worthy of remark, that there is no particular mention of any individual as a bishop, in the whole of the Acts of the Apostles; and so little were they troubled with episcopal notions in those days, that though James, one of the Elders of the Church at Jerusalem is named (Acts xxi. 18), yet his "episcopal office " is not alluded to; and yet he was an overseer of the Church, and, in another age, was uniformly mentioned as "The Bishop of Jerusalem." Neither did the apostles teach or desire that the Bishops should be men of opulence and ease, and sustain high dignities in the church, far above the saints and faithful in Christ Jesus; but, on the contrary, the Apostle Paul, in parting with the Bishops of Ephesus, reminded them, that, whilst he was with them, "His own hands had ministered to his necessities," he had worked for his daily bread, he had supported himself by the sweat of his brow; and he concluded by these ever memorable words, "I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring, ye ought to support the weak and to remember the words of the

Had the word been translated Bishops, in this passage, it would have been apparent that there were many Bishops at Ephesus; and this would have destroyed the whole effect produced, by calling Timothy "The Bishop of Ephesus," as is done in the apocryphal note, at the end of the 2nd epistle to Timothy.

In the prayer-book of Edward VI, in the form of "The ordering of Priests," directions are given to read, after the exhortation, Acts xx. 17—35, including of course this passage before us. Afterwards, when higher notions of the prelacy prevailed, and when they had rejected Archbishop Cranmer's low views of the episcopal office, they struck out this portion of Scripture, and substituted in its place, Ephesians iv. 7—13, vainly imagining that they had thereby selected a safer passage.

Those who composed the Prayer Book in the reign of Edward VI, evidently supposed, that Presbyter and Bishop were the same order, differing only in precedency and grade of power; and they selected the passages of Scripture in question, to shew that Presbyters were Elders, and that those Elders were Bishops.