him without recourse to the very men, whose testimony they renounce upon the subject of episcopacy, and whom the infidel may argue are undeserving of the slightest credit upon any

therefore

other?

See you not, Brethren, the dilemma in which they place themselves? Know ye not, that all the external evidence, in favour of the integrity of the present copies of the bible, rests upon the veracity of the fathers alone? Leave them entirely out of view, and there is no longer any certainty about it. The several parts of which it is composed were collected together, not by the Apostles, but by them. In the general councils convened by the primitive bishops, it was determined, what books purporting to be written by inspired men were authentick, what were spurious; and by that determination has the Christian world found itself compelled to abide. For once admit that their judgment was wrong in relation to one book, and it would cast a shade of suspicion over the residue. Once admit, that their peculiar situation gave them no greater advantage, than we have, to judge correctly, and the infidel may laugh in your face, when you tell him, that this gospel was written by Matthew, and that by John, this epistle by Peter, and that by Paul. We are consequently obliged to rely upon them, when we maintain the genuineness of all; upon their proximity to the Apos tolick age, and the superiour degree of knowledge, which they derived from that single circumstance. And I ask no more, when I appeal to them and their writings in behalf of the Church founded by Christ and his Apostles. If they are good witnesses in the one case, they are good in the other; while the reverse is equally true, if they are to be disbelieved concerning episcopacy, they are to be disbelieved concerning the canon of scripture. I have no right to tell you, that one single leaf of the new testament is a genuine transcript of the original manuscript of its professed author.

You discover therefore, Brethren, the importance and the propriety of reposing implicit confidence in the testimony, which I have collected from the fathers; and may Almighty God in his wisdom enable you to bring the same to good effect; may it cause you to become more and more attached to the Church, which with his own right hand he hath planted in the vineyard of the world; may it preserve you effectually from being seduced from that communion with it, whose obligation is to be traced to its divine origin and authority;

may

it induce you to adhere to it, to its Apostolick ministry, its pure and spiritual worship, its truly catholick and evangelical doctrines, upon the same principles of love and affection, which upon an occasion somewhat similar animated the righteous soul of Peter. "From that time," says the evangelist speaking of our Lord, "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life." Yes, Brethren, the Church in her ministry, her liturgy, her articles, her bible, and her great Head; the Church has the words of eternal life, and if ye desert her, where will ye find a better? For my own part, I could almost as soon be tempted to desert my Saviour and my God; and therefore, "For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth." AMEN.

SERMON VI.

ISAIAH lxii. 1.

For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth.

I CANNOT but flatter myself, that the last discourse delivered upon these words, presented the most clear and invincible testimony from the primitive fathers, of the divine origin of our epis copal ministry; a ministry comprehending the three distinct orders of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, Had it been necessary, I could have extracted volumes of evidence of a precisely similar purport. There is no credible author of that early age whose writings can be brought to bear against me. All speak the same language. All advert to the same organization of the Church of Christ, and seem

to be utterly unconscious of any seriously opposing pretensions. They feared indeed that they might arise. They knew that the feeling of insubordination was natural to the heart of man, and hence their repeated exhortations to unity, their hostility to schism, their commendation of inferiour ministers and laymen, for continuing in subjection to the chief ecclesiastick appointed and ordained of God to rule over their spiritual concerns. And yet our modern separatists would fain persuade us to a contrary belief; fain persuade us, that the Apostles committed the ministry of the Church to the one single order of presbyters, and that these alone possess a legitimate claim to the execution of its functions. But on the supposition that they are right, what might we not reasonably expect to find in those remnants of antiquity, to which I have referred you, as having survived the corroding lapse of time? A single dissenting presbyter of the present age, or a synod of presbyters, in addressing a kindred Church, would apply the like title to its ministers, and if there were associate Churches, all their pastors would be placed upon a par, and no one would be distinguished from the rest by an appellation, implying pre-eminence in ecclesiastical rank and station.

Under such circumstances and from such a source, an epistle to the presbyters of New-York, of Philadelphia, or Baltimore would be strictly correct; it would correspond with the acknowledged principles of the sect. But if an episcopalian should write, he would either address the bishop alone, or in conjunction with his presbyters and deacons. And how was it in primitive times? Do we in such cases hear of presbyters only? Is no higher office adverted to; no office vested in the person of one individual, and to whom they are supposed to yield obedience, as their superiour in dignity and power? Let Ignatius answer, Ignatius, the disciple of John; and Onesimus will be found to have been bishop of Ephesus, Damas of Magnesia, Polybius of Tralles, and Polycarp of Smyrna. Deacons were in each of those cities, they are named in his epistles, and the inferiority of their station is recognised. Presbyters also were there. Even the scriptures themselves speak of the elders of Ephesus. Whence then, if we are wrong, and our adversaries are right, whence this unaccountable language? Why is one individual singled out from all others, and dignified with the title of bishop? Why, if we peruse all early antiquity, do we hear of him only, and

not of two, three, four, or five bishops, residing at the same time int a city comprising multitudes of Christians, and adorned with numerous temples consecrated to the publick worship of God?

Certainly Brethren, if the doctrine of sacerdotal equality be genuine, here is an enigma, that never was, and that never can be solved. But admit the Apostolick origin of episcopacy, and the clouds disperse, every difficulty vanishes, the fathers speak intelligibly, and are freed from the imputation of using the grossest misnomers. And let me tell you a better argument in our favour can scarcely be imagined. Many bishops in a single place at the same moment would have given no slight colour to the idea of their being of the like order with presbyters; but the undeviating evidence of there being no more than one establishes the permanency of the Apostolick office in that one, beyond all reasonable contradiction. Ignatius upon this subject is very definite, "Be not deceived, Brethren: if any one follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks after any other opinion, he agrees not with the passion of Christ. Wherefore let it be your endeavour to partake all of the same holy eucharist. For there is but one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ; and one cup, in the unity of his blood; one altar; as also there is ONE bishop, together with his presbytery, and the deacons my fellow servants: that so whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to the will of God."

Strong language this, and not the less worthy of remembrance because Ignatius here insists, that the elevation of a single individual to be the bishop of a city, having many presbyters and Churches is according to the will of God. And where was his authority for the assertion? He knew the scriptures, few persons have known them better, and from thence ascertained the location of Timothy at Ephesus, and Titus at Crete. He possessed the book of the Revelations of St. John, his preceptor, and there perceived this aged Apostle, under the direction of Christ, writing to the Angel of each of the seven Churches of Asia. And who was the Angel? You have only to read those short epistles, in order to be convinced, that it was the name applied to the ecclesiastick possessing supreme power and authority in the Church where he resided. Such is the testimony of all the fathers. Not a doubt existed in their minds of the identity of the two words, angel and bishop. Hilary among others

affirms it, “Angelos episcopos dicit, sicut docetur in Apocalypsi Johannis," and even the names of the individuals are given, who at that time held the bishopricks of Ephesus and Smyrna. It is indeed a remarkable fact, that the Angel of the former place is commended in the scriptures, for having exerted his authority in this manner, “Thou hast tried them which say they are Apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars." But how could he do this, if he did not fill the Apostolick office himself? If the presbyters of Ephesus, mentioned in the Acts, were associated with him in the same ministerial order? Or why should he proceed to try and ́examine the pretensions of those impostors, if already persuaded, that the Apostolick office was limited to those originally appointed? Surely Brethren, these are circumstances utterly at war with the imaginary blending of the three primitive orders into one. On such a principle, I can never reconcile the direction of the epistles to a single person, nor can I account for the sole jurisdiction he appears to have enjoyed, notwithstanding the presence of a numerous body of presbyters, holding as it is said the same rank and entitled to claim the same power. But upon our episcopal theory, there is no difficulty, no usurpation of undelegated authority. The two words translated Apostle and Angel are of the same signification. They respectively import, "one that is sent," "a messenger," and hence the propriety of Theodoret's expression, in accounting for the change of title, to which I directed your attention in my last discourse. "Those now called bishops, were anciently called Apostles; but in process of time, the name of Apostle was left to those who were TRULY Apostles, and the name of bishop was restrained to those who were anciently called Apostles." For when he speaks of their being truly Apostles, you are to consider, that the first of that order were literally "messengers," commissioned to "teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." But their successors in office, being at length permanently settled in separate diocesses, in different towns and cities, the title "episcopos," from which bishop is derived, became more appropriate, inasmuch as it is a compound, answering exactly to our English word "overscer." And that this explanation is entitled to full belief, evidently appears from the fact, that even James, one of the twelve, was permanently stationed at Jerusalem, and is therefore perpetually called by the fathers, the