Jerusalem, and according to your plan, because he was the proper Pastor of these numerous congregations and numerous Presbyters. Is this presbyterian government, or any thing like it? Or was St. James with a multiplicity of congregations and Presbyters, like a Rector of the Church of England with his Curate?

Let us next consider the Church of Ephesus, where St. Paul laboured for the space of three years, and where he tells us "a great door and effectual was opened" to him. No one can doubt that there were several congregations, both of converted Jews and Gentiles, in that city; and we read of a plurality of Elders, who are also called Bishops. By this application of the title you are effectually precluded from mixing any Ruling Elders among them, for all that are called Bishops most certainly preached and administered the sacraments, and you must necessarily admit it upon your own principles. Now, Sir, if the plan of Church government which you laid down in the above quotation for the purest and best ages, places a flock consisting of a plurality of congregations under a Bishop or Rector, with his assistants or curates, who, I ask, was the Bishop of Ephesus? For all the Presbyters are called Bishops. How then was the Pastor or Rector distinguished from his assistants or Curates? The word Bishop would not answer the purpose, for the title belonged to all. You must then either admit that there was no Pastor over that numerous flock, when at the same time there were several Presbyters or Bishops, which would be a strange thing indeed, and if not strange, inconsistent with your plan, which requires a Bishop or Rector to preside over several assistants or Curates; or else you must admit the independent system, which would both contravene your purpose and historical fact; it being universally admitted, that there were at that time no tituli, or appropriations of a particular Presbyter to a particular congregation. I really do not see how you can extricate yourself; for I take it for granted that you will not call in Timothy to help you, although he would settle the matter with the utmost facility..

It being then evident, that your scheme of Church government does not accord with the three great instances of the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Ephesus, we had better let Ignatius speak for himself.

REV. SIR:

LETTER IV.

WE are now to let Ignatius speak for himself.

1st. To show that he thought himself possessed of the apostolic pre-eminence, he salutes the Church of the Trallians in the fulness of the Apostolical character, and then says, "Be subject to your Bishop as to the LORD, and to the Presbyters as to the Apostles of CHRIST; likewise the Deacons also, being ministers of the mysteries of CHRIST, ought to please in all things. Without these there can be no Church of the elect," or of Christians. Here is a great and manifest difference between the Bishop and his Presbyters. Ignatius supposed the Bishop to be the proper representative of CHRIST, while the Presbyters who did not represent him were in an inferior degree, and therefore to be reverenced only as the Apostles. And this surely proves a great inferiority of the one to the other. It is observable, that when Ignatius speaks of the Bishop's being the vicegerent of GOD, or of CHRIST, in order to preserve some kind of analogy and proportion, he speaks of the Presbyters holding the second grade, as the Apostles did under CHRIST; but not with any design to intimate that Presbyters succeeded to the plenitude of the Apostolical character; for that he always attributes to the Bishop, when he does not mean to illustrate analogically the different degrees or orders of the Christian ministry.

2d. In his epistle to the Magnesians, he says, "You ought not to despise your Bishop for his youth, but to pay him all manner of reverence, according to the commandment of GOD THE FATHER, as I know your holy Presbyters do. Therefore as CHRIST did nothing without the FATHER, so neither do ye (whether Presbyter, Deacon, or Layman,) without the Bishop," in the spiritual concerns of the Church, no doubt. obedience to the Bishop is enjoined upon all orders in the Church; he must therefore be the chief, the head, the ruler, the prelate.

Here

3. “I exhort you to do all things in the same mind of GOD; the Bishop presiding in the place of GOD” (analogical language again,) "and the Presbyters in the room of the college of the Apostles, and the Deacons, most dear to me, who are intrusted with the ministry of JESUS CHRIST." Here is a most striking disproportion between the Presbyter and Bishop, and consequently they must be officers of very different degrees or orders. 4th. In his epistle to the Trallians, he asks, " For what is the Bishop but the person who possesses the chief authority and power beyond all others? But what is the Presbytery but a sacred company who are counsellors and assessors to the Bishop?" A man must have an admirable knack at extracting what he pleases from authors, who can make this quadrate with presbyterian parity. Blondel, Salmasius, and Daille were too wise to attempt it.

5th. Ignatius in his epistle to the Smyrneans, says, "It is not lawful without the Bishop, neither to baptize, nor to celebrate the holy cominunion." And again, “Let that Eucharist be held good and valid which is offered by the Bishop, or by him to whom the Bishop has given his consent." Here we have the Presbyters in all their ministrations completely under the jurisdiction of the Bishop. Must he not then be in a higher grade than the Presbyters?

I have promised to show that the Presbyters of whom Ignatius speaks, were the ministers of the word and sacraments, not ruling Elders. This is necessary, because I find you asserting in the most positive manner, that, 'There is not a single instance in which the pious father represents his Presbyters as, in fact, preaching or administering sacraments.' Let us examine this point.

1. Ignatius, as often as he mentions Presbyters, never once gives us a hint about ruling Elders. It is really incredible, that when he so repeatedly enumerates the different officers of the Church, he should not, in a single instance, put into his list that order of men. For you therefore to suppose that he meant to include them, is altogether assumption, which can never be admitted in fair reasoning. I have a right therefore to say, that all his Presbyters were ministers of the word and sacraments. But I do not rest the matter here, clear as it is.

2. As Ignatius, in order to show the great difference between the Bishop and his presbyters, considers the former as representing the LORD CHRIST, and the latter as representing the Apostles, who acted in an under grade to CHRIST, then the Presbyters he speaks of must necessarily be ministers of the word and sacraments, otherwise they could not possibly represent the Apostles. Besides, he says, that the Deacons are the ministers of the mysteries of CHRIST. But certainly there is no mystery in receiving the alms of the congregation, and distributing them among the poor. They must therefore be ministers of the word. And so he tells us in plain terms, "They are not the ministers of meat and drink, but of the Church of GOD." And he says again, that they "are intrusted with the ministry of JESUS CHRIST." This would be strange language, if they were confined to "the serving of tables." But he positively says, that they were not. It is therefore evident that they preached, and consequently a fortiori, that Ignatius' Presbyters were ministers of the word and sacraments.

So

3. In the epistle to the Philadelphians, Ignatius says, "The priests are good, but the chief Priest (CHRIST) is better." But Christian Priests always administered the sacraments. evident it is that Ignatius' Presbyters were ministers of the word and of the mysteries of CHRIST.

4. Ignatius says,

"Let that Eucharist be held good and valid

m Contiuuation, p. 133, [p. 301, 2d ed.]

1

which is done by the Bishop, or by such as he permits." The great object of the pious martyr in all his epistles is to prevent schism, to which he knew men are strongly inclined. To secure this point, he repeatedly inculcates on all orders to be subject in spiritual matters to the Bishop, and to consider nothing as legally done in the Church in opposition to the just exercise of his authority; not even to consider the sacraments as legally administered in opposition to him. Then consequently the Presbyters under him were the ministers of those sacraments.

All I find that you say to the last quotation is, that Ignatius 'might mean the Bishop of some neighbouring congregation.' And were I to say he might not mean so, it would be a sufficient answer. One might' is as good as the other. But, Sir, he could not have meant so. The martyr's epistles were written to particular Churches. What he said was intended for the Church to which he addressed himself, and not for other Churches, which he was not sure would ever see his epistles. When, therefore, he enjoins submission to the Bishop upon all orders in any particular Church, it is a complete absurdity to suppose that one of those orders, the Presbyters, was not the object of one of his most important injunctions. "Let the Eucharist be held good and valid, which is done by the Bishop, or such as he permits;" that is, according to you, which is done, not by his own Presbyters, but by the Presbyters of some other Bishop, about whom he was not saying a single syllable, and whom the epistle never once contemplates. Besides, was there any necessity for telling the Bishop of the Smyrneans, that if any other Bishop came into his diocese to administer the sacraments without his consent, it would be irregular? What a childish observation would that be! No, Sir, he was endeavouring, by his admonitions to the Smyrneans, to preserve the unity of their Church, and for that purpose advises them to adhere to the Bishop, and not to consider any ministrations valid when done even by their own Presbyters, in opposition to him. And by strictly adhering to this advice, the unity of their Church would be effectually secured. It follows then that the Presbyters of that diocese were ministers of the word and sacraments.

5. From the very state of the Church of Antioch, and the other great Churches, which have been fully proved to contain numerous congregations, and numerous Presbyters, those Presbyters must have been ministers of the word, otherwise all the congregations but one must have been destitute of a preaching ministry. This would have been a very serious defect, which the Bishop, by his personal ministrations, could not possibly have supplied. This single consideration fully proves that those great Churches must have been supplied with preaching Presbyters.

Let us now take another view of this point, and suppose that all the Presbyters of those Churches were ruling Elders. Then I say, that the Epistles of Ignatius are totally inconsistent with such a notion. Let us examine three or four passages,

Speaking to the Ephesians, he says, "that being subject to their Bishop and his presbytery, they be wholly and thoroughly sanctified." Was the presbytery composed entirely of ruling Elders? You will not venture to say so. There are several passages of this kind in which the pious martyr speaks of the presbytery, and enjoins obedience to them. But upon your ground, none of the Churches to which he writes had a presbytery, unless a number of ruling Elders could form one.

Again: "The Priests," says Ignatius, "are good:" "and so are the ministers of the word," (the Deacons.) "The Priests are good," that is, the ruling Elders are good. Were ruling Elders ever called Priests?

Once more: "It is not lawful, without the Bishop, (for the ruling Elders) either to baptize or to celebrate the holy communion" or, according to your ingenious gloss, for a neighbouring Bishop or Presbyter to intrude himself into another's Church, and there administer the sacrament. This is a wonderful discovery!

I have one more observation to make; it is, that the presbyteries of your Church, and the presbyteries of the primitive Church, are totally different things. From every one of the Epistles of Ignatius, it is beyond all contradiction, that the respective presbyteries of the Churches to which he wrote, were formed of the Bishop's own clergy, over whom he presided. A primitive presbytery then consisted of a number of clergymen with a Bishop at their head. But this is not the form of your presbyteries. They are composed of a plurality of congregational Bishops, situated within a convenient distance, and of a plurality of lay Elders. Thus speaks your Form of Church Government, chap. ix. sec. 2. "A presbytery consists of all the ministers, and one ruling Elder from each congregation within a certain district." Now, it seems, in order to form a presbytery, the Bishops of several independent congregations, with lay Elders, must convene; but in the time of Ignatius, which was close to the times of the Apostles, a Bishop had not to go out of his own Church or diocese to form a presbytery. He, at the head of his Presbyters, formed the presbytery of the diocese; by necessary consequence, episcopacy was diocesan; and again, by necessary consequence, your presbytery resolves itself into congregational episcopacy. In this diocese, Bishop Moore forms a presbytery within his own Church; for if he had a thousand churches under him, they would make but one aggregate Church, he being the principle of unity to every individual congregation. But Bishop Miller cannot form a presbytery within his own church. He may indeed form a Church Session, consisting of himself and his lay Elders; just as the Rector of a church can form a Vestry, by calling together the wardens and vestrymen of his church. But all this is totally different from an apostolical presbytery. That was always formed by a number of Presbyters united under their head, the Bishop. Igna