the perverted truth, and the absurd ordinances, of our master in Heaven; so, having begun, we shall not desist until we shall have exposed those arrogant pretensions, and fallacious reasonings, which are calculated to distress and deceive the hearts of the simple.

Mr. H. in his preface to this collection, assures the reader that,

"The author of Miscellanies has, with great industry, collected together all the arguments against Episcopacy." p. iv.

We apprehend that Mr. H's zeal, in this paragraph, has outstripped his caution. A man professes to have a very extensive and accurate acquaintance with a subject, when he pledges himself to the public, that "all the arguments" on either side of a question relating to it, are contained in a work which he has written or edited. And if the work be defective, especially in material points, he subjects himself to comments most mortifying to his own feelings, most painful to his friends, and not desirable even to his opponents. We, therefore, think, and others may think with us before we shall have done, that Mr. H. ought not to have committed his reputation to the consequences of such an assertion. His reserve ought to have been the greater, as he has taken some pains to invite an examination of his scholarship. This en passant. To the book itself.

"The question of Episcopacy," says the Layman in his 9th number," is a question of fact, to

be determined by a sound interpretation of the sacred volume." We join issue with him; and not only consent, but insist, that the question shall be decided by the scripture alone. We detract not from the respect due to the primitive fathers, nor decline to meet their testimony, as we shall show in proper season. But in fixing the sense of the scripture, their authority is of no more weight with us than the authority of other uninspired men; that is, we regard not their opinion any further than as it is supported by the strength of their reasonings. The written word is the perfect and exclusive rule of our faith. It would be so, had not a shred of Christian antiquity survived the ravages of time. And if all the fathers from Barnabas to Bernard, had agreed in reckoning among the institutions of Christ, any thing which is not to be found in the statute book of his own kingdom, it should be no article of our creed; and should have no more sway in our conscience than an assertion of the Layman himself, or of his clerical friends. This being understood, let us see how the lines of evidence run.

The author of "miscellanies" had, in No. X. argued the identity of presbyters and bishops from the indiscriminate use which the scripture makes of these official terms. His antagonists flout at this argument, with all imaginable contempt, through every part of the discussion. It is "literally," say they, "good for nothing:"" too

feeble to merit a serious reply." It is "wretched sophistry"—"the old and miserable sophistry of names.' But wherein does the sophistry consist? Why Paul is called an" elder ;" therefore the Presbyterian argument would prove that Paul was no more than a presbyter. Christ himself is called (Saxovos) diaconos, which is translated a “minister," a "deacon;" therefore the Presbyterian argument would prove, that Christ was no higher than a deacon.

"Presbuteros" (geoCuregos) “signifies an elder man ; whence comes the term Alderman. By this new species of logic," (which, by the way, is at least more than 1400 years old,) “it might be proved,” saith the Layman, "that the apostles were, to all intents and purposes, Aldermen, in the civil acceptation of the term; and that every Alderman is really and truly an Apostle." p. 52, 53.

If this argument is correct, the Presbyterians show very small, no doubt. And the Layman is not to blame for stigmatizing it as "wretched sophistry." "The miserable sophistry of names." Yet the reader may be induced to pause, when he is told that men of singular acuteness, learning, candour, penetration, and force of mind, have considered this self-same argument, when fairly stated, as altogether unanswerable. There may

perhaps, be some policy in trying to run it down with hard words; for the Layman acknowledges, that the "Episcopalians would give up their cause at once, if reduced to the necessity of placing it on such a basis." p. 56. Here the secret is dis

closed; if the argument from the scriptural use of official titles is valid, down goes the Hierarchy! Hinc illa lacryma! No wonder that the attempts are so incessant to scowl, and scoff, and laugh it out of countenance. It will not, however, be parted with so easily; and in listening to a good word for it, the reader may begin to think it possible for a little sophistry to trill from other than Presbyterian pens.

In examining the records of the New Testament, we find that the conversion of a number of individuals to the Christian faith, was followed by their organization into a public society under their proper officers. These officers, without a single exception, are distributed into the two general classes of presbyters or bishops, and deacons : the former presiding over the spiritual, and the latter over the temporal, interests of their respective charges. This distinction is marked in the strongest manner, and is never confounded. Thus to the saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi with the BISHOPS and DEACONS-a BISHOP must be blameless— likewise must the DEACONS be grave, &c.

And that the terms bishop and presbyter in their application to the first class of officers are per-. fectly convertible, the one pointing out the very same class of rulers with the other, is as evident as the sun shining in his strength." Timothy was instructed by the apostle Paul in the qualities which were to be required in those who desired the

Vol. III.

66

6

*

office of a BISHOP.* Paul and Barnabas ordained PRESBYTERS in every church† which they had founded. Titus is directed to ordain in every city PRESBYTERS who are to be blameless, the husband of one wife. And the reason of so strict a scrutiny into character is thus rendered, for a BISHOP must be blameless. If this does not identify the bishop with the presbyter, in the name of common sense, what can do it? Suppose a law, pointing out the qualifications of a sheriff were to say, a sheriff must be a man of pure character, of great activity, and resolute spirit; for it is highly necessary that a governour be of unspotted reputation, &c. the bench and bar would be rather puzzled for a construction, and would be compelled to conclude, either that something had been left out in transcribing the law; or that governour and sheriff meant the same sort of officer; or that their honours of the legislature had taken leave of their wits. The case is not a whit stronger than the case of presbyter and bishop in the Epistle to Titus. Again: Paul, when on his last journey to Jerusalem, sends for the PRESBYTERS of Ephesus to meet him at Miletum; and there enjoins these PRESBYTERs to feed the church of God over which the Holy Ghost had made them BISHOPS.|| It appears, then, that the bishops to whom Paul refers in his instructions to Timothy, were neither more nor less than plain

* 1 Tim. iii. 1. † Acts. xiv. 23. Tit. i. 5. || Act. xx. 17. 28.