believe as firmly as does Bishop White, or any other diocesan bishop, that the gospel ministry is of divine institution. So, likewise, do we believe that, in every local church, it is, of right, independent of all foreign authority and jurisdiction. In regard to the third proposition, we would say that we never denied but that Bishop White believed the three orders of the ministry to be of Apostolic institution. But he makes a distinction between 'Apostolic institution' and an 'Apostolic appointment,' in such a sense as to make these separate orders binding upon the church in all times and under all circumstances, so that without them all it becomes no church. In the pamphlet above referred to, after unfolding what he considered the true doctrine of Apostolic succession, he asks, as stated above, "Can any reasonable rule of construction make this amount to more than ancient and Apostolic practice? That the Apostles. employed any particular form, affords a presumption of its being the best, all circumstances at that time considered: but, to make it unalterably binding, it must be shown to be enjoined in positive precept." So that our author, if he would prove that Bishop White held that the three orders of the ministry were jure divino, in such a sense as to be unalterably binding, must show, not only, that he held them to have been "instituted by Christ and his Apostles," but also to have been ENJOINED, in "positive precept," upon the church. This we believe he cannot do. And these remarks entirely do away the force of his second quotation, which consists of a part of a sentence, as follows: "While we contend for this order, on the ground of divine institution," &c. Bishop White did contend for the order of bishops on the ground of divine institution, but he never pretended that this order was "enjoined" in positive precept, and therefore "unalterably binding." Concerning deacons, we know Bishop White held that they were not appointed by the Apostles to preach: for, in a letter to Bishop Hobart,

to which reference has already been made, he thus expresses himself: "But can it be imagined that an order instituted for the purpose of serving tables should, in the very infancy of its existence, have the office of the higher order of the ministry committed to them? I do not deny, either the right or the prudence of allowing, what has been subsequently allowed, to this lowest order of the clergy. All I contend for is, that, at the first institution of the order, there could have been no difference between them and laymen in regard to the preaching of the word and the administering of the sacraments." Here we find Bishop White, in a letter to Bishop Hobart, giving it as his opinion that deacons, under the Apostolic appointment, had no more power to preach and baptize than laymen. After this full expose of Bishop White's opinions upon the subject under discussion, as drawn from his published writings, if any individual is still of the belief that he was a jure divino exclusive Episcopalian, he is welcome to all the consolation he can derive from such an opinion.

In conclusion, we remark that, whether we appeal to the fathers, or to bishops, and doctors, and divinity professors in the Episcopal church, we find an overwhelming amount of testimony in our favor. We are entirely willing to form our opinion of Episcopacy from the concessions of eminent Episcopalians. We will judge them out of their own mouths, and are sure that the judgment will be in favor of clerical parity.

LECTURE VIII.

THE RISE OF PRELACY.

2 THESS. ii. 7, 8.-" For the mystery of iniquity doth already work only, he who now letteth, will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming."

Ir would seem, from this passage and the preceding context, that some of the members of the Thessalonian church were in danger of imbibing the false and injurious sentiment that the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ was at hand. Against such an opinion the Apostle warns them, and foretells that, before Christ should come, there would be a general defection in the church, and that man of sin and son of perdition would be revealed. He declares that, even at that early period, he perceived a spirit at work in the church which he terms, "the mystery of iniquity;" and which would immediately result in the introduction of "that wicked one," were it not for a certain great and prominent obstacle which prevented; but that, when that obstacle should be removed, he should be revealed. It is agreed by our best commentators that the man of sin here spoken of is the Papal power; that the mystery of iniquity, spoken of by the Apostle as tending to a priestly domination which would finally result in the unlimited power of the universal bishop, was that lofty ambition and thirst for power which had already made its appearance among the members of the infant New Testament church.

This was

the very spirit which led the Apostles to contend among themselves which should be the greatest, and it was this spirit which divided the churches into different parties, claiming adherence to differen teminent Christian teachers. Some said, I am of Paul; others, I am of Apollos; others still, I am of Christ. This spirit the Apostle had occasion to rebuke most severely; but, with all his efforts, he found it impossible to eradicate it from the churches, and he had sufficient foresight to perceive, that, whenever the impediment interposed by the Roman empire was removed; whenever the church should cease to be persecuted and downtrodden by a pagan secular despotism, this ambitious, grasping spirit would unfold itself to such an extent that the clergy would become spiritual and temporal princes; and finally, that there would be established a universal and absolute church and state despotism, which should lodge all power with one individual. The correctness of this prediction was most fully sustained by the after history of the Church.

The early churches, as they were instituted by the Apostles, were exceedingly simple and unostentatious in their form of government. There were ordained in every church bishops and deacons. These primitive bishops were simple elders or presbyters, who had the instruction and government of the church committed to them. The deacons were mere servants of tables; they were appointed for no other purpose than to care for the poor and attend to the temporals of the church. The bench of elders was divided into two classes; those who preached as well as ruled, and those who gave themselves entirely to ruling. These elders were of the same order, vested with the same authority, and acted as co-presbyters or bishops in the same church. They were sometimes called elders or presbyters, and sometimes bishops. Those terms were, at that early period, applied to the same persons, and used to designate the same office.

66

The one referring to their age or influence, and the other to their duties as overseers in the church. The church at this period, as Jerome and other fathers declare, was governed by the common council of presbyters." When these presbyters came together for the transaction of business, it became necessary that they should have a moderator or president; and they probably appointed one of the oldest and most influential of their number to act in that capacity. This appointment was undoubtedly first made as often as they convened, the presbytery selecting different persons at different times to act as their president. But it was soon found more convenient to elect their presiding officer for a longer period; and they finally concluded to make their most venerated presbyter moderator for life. But this priority or presidentship only existed during the continuance of the meeting. When they adjourned or dissolved the president was, in no sense, above his co-presbyters. Thus the churches were governed for many years; but, in process of time, emulation and strife arose among the presbyters—each one endeavoring to gain an ascendency over the rest, and attempting to draw off those members of the church who, owing to circumstances, were particularly attached to them, into separate parties. To allay this difficulty and heal these divisions, it was concluded to take the most influential and tried presbyter, and make him the sole pastor of the church, with the title of bishop or overseer, who was to administer the ordinances, and, in connection with his presbytery, the government of the church. This is exactly the history, as given by Jerome, of the origin of parochial bishops; and these are the only bishops known in the church for the first 250 or 300 years. Jerome says: "Before there were, by the devil's instinct, parties in religion, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the churches were governed by the common council of presbyters. But afterwards, when