B I S 



that of Polycarp, who takes not'cf only of two orders of 

 mirifters in the chirch ; for in ch. v. of his epilUc to the 

 Plnhppia'.is, he- tnjoins tlie people to he fubjcft to their pref- 

 Irrte-rs and dcacoiio, as to God and Chrjft ; hence it is in- 

 ferred, that if tills ancient father had known of any hifjher 

 order in the church, fuch as was that of ahi.Tiop 'n lefsthan 

 150 ytars after his time, he would have hetn the principal, 

 it not the only -oerfon, to whom their fnbjcttion wonld have 

 been enjoined hy a Chriftian writer. It is obfcrved further, 

 that' though he fpecilks the duties and q'.ialilications of 

 deacons 111 ch. v., and thofe of prefbytera in ch. vi., and 

 through the whole of the epiftle, thofe of the people, he no 

 where mentions what is proper in the charafter and conduct 

 of a bilhop. Upon the whole, it feenis evident that Poly- 

 carp knew of no Cliriltian miniiler (uperior to the pref- 

 byters. 



It has been allep^ed by the advocates of epifcopacy, that 

 the biftiops are the proper fucccifors of the apoftles, not in 

 the general charaiier of teachers, but in their fpecial func- 

 tion as apolU.s (lee Stillingfiect's Works, vol. i. p. 371.); 

 whiHt the prefbylers and deacons were merely the fneceflors 

 of thofe who were, in the beginning, ordained by the apof- 

 tles. But that the apoftles could not have any proper fuc- 

 ceffors has been evinced by the following conuderations. 

 The indifpenlible rcquilitc in the charafter of an apoftle, 

 which was that of having feen Jcfus Chrllt after his refur- 

 reiSion, dcmonftrates tliat their office could be but tempo- 

 rary. Befides, they were dillinguiftied by prerogatives, 

 which did not defcend to any aft^.r them ; of this kind were 

 their having received their miffion immediately from Chrift, 

 and not by any human ordination or appointment ; the power 

 of conferring miraculous gifts by impofition of hands ; and 

 the knowledge which they had by infpiration of the whole 

 doftrine of Chrift. Moreover, the objeft of their mifiion 

 was altogether of a di.ferent kind from that of any ordinary 

 paftor ; and this was to propagate the gofpel ttiroughout 

 the world both among Jews and Pagans, and not to take 

 charge of any particular flock. Further, as a full proof 

 that the matter was thus univerfally underftood, both in 

 their own age, and in the times immediattly fucceeding, no 

 one, on the death of an apoftle, was ever fnbftituted in his 

 room ; infomuch that when that lacred college was extinft, 

 the title became extinft with it. It is alike true alfo of the 

 evangelills, that their ofRce was temporary, and that their 

 charge extended to the whole chm-ch j and their title, like 

 that of an apoftle, funk with thofe who firll enjoyed it. 

 Such were Phdip, Timothy, TitUo, and probably Mark, 

 and Luke. As to the dates or poftfcripts fubjoined to the 

 epiftles in the common bibles, and dilllnguilhtng Timothy 

 and Titus by the appellation of biftiops, it is now univerfally 

 agreed among the learned, that they are of no authority. 

 They are not found in fome of our beft and moll ancient 

 MSS. ; and they are generally allowed to be the fpuiious 

 additions of fome eaftern biftiop or monk, at Icaft 5C0 years 

 after Chrill. It is certain, however, that in the three lirft 

 centuries, neither Timothy nor Titus is ft.yled I'llhop by any 

 writer. In the ifland of Crele, of which Titus is faid to 

 have been ordained the firft bilhop, there wt-re no fewer, ac- 

 cording to the earlieft accounts and catalogues extant, than 

 II bifliops. Indeed, fo little can the inftrudions given by 

 Paul to Timothy and Titus be made to quadrate with any 

 ordinary miniftry that ever obtained in the church, th't the 

 learned Dr. Whitby (fee his Preface to the tpiHlt to Titus) 

 concludes, that their's was extraordinary as well as tempo- 

 rary, and that they were not fucceedcd in it by a"y that 

 came after them. Hence it is inferred, that all the argu- 

 ments alleged ia favour of the diilindion bctweea bilhops 



E I S 



and prefbyters in the early age of the church, by Epipha- 

 nius and others, from fome pafta^^es in the epiftles to Timo- 

 thy and Titus, proceed upon the miftaken notion, that they 

 were properly biniops in the modern acceptation of the 

 term ; a notion utterly unknown- to that Chriftian ant!q"itv, 

 which def-rves the nan-e of primitive, and alfo incompatible 

 with the authentic accounts we have concerning thefe extra- 

 ordinary minifters, who were not made biftiops till about 

 500 ycai-s after their death. 



Some have deduced an argument in faifour of the apofto- 

 lical antiquity of epifcopacy, from tlie epiitks to the feven 

 churches of Afia mentioned in the Apocalypft, which are 

 addreffed to the angtls of thefe fepaiaucly in the Angular 

 number. From the tirft; chapter of that book it appears, 

 that each epiftle is intended for the whole church or congre- 

 gation mentioned in the direflion or fuperfcription ; and yet 

 one perion, called the angel of that church, is addrcfted in 

 the name of the whole. Htnce fome have inferred, that the 

 perfon denominated angel, was an order diff'ering from that 

 of other hiinifters, and fuperior to it ; whilft othe'rs have 

 confidered the appellation as defcriptive of the whole col- 

 lective body. An intermediate opinion, advanced by fome 

 critics, is more probable. This fuppofes the necrlTity, for 

 the fake of order, that in their confiftoriesor congregations 

 one ftiould prefide, both in the offices of religion, and in 

 their confultations for the common good ; and that this pre- 

 fidtnt, or chairman, it here addreffed under the name of 

 angel. This interpretation affords us alfo the moft plaufible 

 account of the origin of the more confiderable diftinCtion, 

 which afterwards obtained between biftiop and prefbyter. 

 It was the diftinflion of one paftor in every church, marked 

 by the apoftle John, though not made by any who had 

 written before him, which led Tertullian, wliofe publication 

 firft appeared about a century after the apoftles, to confider 

 him as the inftitutor of epifcopacy. By thofe who deny the 

 fuperiority- of biftiops to prefbyters in the firft age of the 

 church, it is alkgtd, that the firft reformers and founders of 

 the church of England, as well as many of its moft learned 

 and eminent doctors, have not pretended this dift:in£tion to 

 be of divine, but merely of human inftitution ; not grounded 

 upon fcripture, but only upon the cuftom or ordinances of 

 this re-ahn. To this purpofe, the declaration made of the 

 fundions. Sec. of bilhops and priefts, and figned by more 

 than 37 civilians and divines, among whom were 13 biftiops, 

 Cranmerand others, affirms, that in the New Teftament there 

 is no menti.in made of any degrees or diftinftions in orders, 

 but only of deacons or minifters, and of priefts or biftiops. 

 (See Cp. Burnet's Hift. Rcf. vol. i. Append, p. 321.) Be- 

 fides, the book, entitled " The Inftitution of a Chriftian 

 Man," fubfcribed by the clergy in convocation, and con. 

 fi-med bv parliament, owns biftiops and preftjyters to be the 

 fame. Moreover, tliat the main ground of fettling epifcopal 

 government in this nation, was not any pretence of divine 

 right, but the convenience of that form of church govern- 

 ment to the ftate and condition of the church at the time of 

 the reformation, the Karned Stillingflect affirms (Irenic. c. 8. 

 Works, vol. ii.:j. 3^5, &c.), and proves it to be the fentimcnt 

 of arciibili p Craiuiier and of other reformers, in the reigns 

 ot Ed.vard VI. and of queen Elizabeth, fuch as archbiftiop 

 W-iti^ift, billi p Bridges, Loe, Hooker, Sutcliffe, Hales, 

 Chilliiigworth, &c. It was alfo the opinion of archbiftiop 

 U her, that biftiop and prtft)yter diftered only in degree and 

 not in order ; and that in places where biftiops could not be 

 P'v cured, the ordination of preft)yters was valid. See Or- 

 DiN.'Tii'N. " As for the notion of diftintl offices of biftiop 

 and preft)yter," lays biftiop Burnet, in his " Vindication of 

 the Church of Scotland," p. 33(4, " I confcfs it is not fo 



cleac 



