Peter King, in his Inquiry into the Constitution of the Primitive Church, considers bishops and presbyters as exactly of the same order, and invested with the same powers; and defines a presbyter to be "a person in holy orders, having thereby an inherent right to perform the whole office of a bishop, but being possessed of no place or parish, nor actually discharging it, without the permission and consent of the bishop of a place or parish."* This definition differs a little, but not materially, from the view which we have taken of bishops and presbyters; for it makes only this distinction between them, that bishops had a charge, and presbyters had not, and consequently, that presbyters must have leave from the bishop before they could perform any part of their function within the limits of his jurisdiction. Presbyterians make a similar distinction, and considering every minister as bishop in his own parish or congregation, forbid any other minister to preach and baptize in it without permission asked and obtained. Sir Peter proceeds to show, at considerable length, that the distinction, in the primitive church, was little more than nominal, because the powers of bishops and presbyters were the same. He proves, from the writings of the Fathers, that presbyters had a right to preach, that they baptized; that they administered the Eucharist; that they presided in the consistories together with the bishop; that they had power to excommunicate, to restore penitents, and to confirm; and lastly, that they had the power of ordination. He was therefore fully justified in saying, that "they were of the very same specific order with bishops, having the same inherent right to perform all ecclesiastical offices."t Thus far it appears that antiquity gives no countenance to modern Episcopacy, which affirms bishops to be of a different order from presbyters, and appropriates to them the power of ordination, and the whole government of the church.

Episcopalians appeal with much confidence to the epistles of Ignatius, as furnishing clear proof that, in his time, the church was governed by bishops; and they lay the greater stress upon his authority, because he flourished in the first, and ended his course by a glorious martyrdom early in the second century, was contemporary at least with some of the Apostles, and from an expression which he uses, but which is ambiguous, is supposed to have seen Christ in the flesh. There has, however, been much controversy respecting his epis tles, and it is not yet terminated. When they were first published, they were full of gross corruptions, and contained heretical sentiments, which such a man as Ignatius must have held in abhorrence; and as it thus appears that unprinci. pled men had altered them to serve their own purposes, it is impossible to determine to what extent they had carried their wicked design. In the more correct form which they have since assumed, it is impossible to ascertain with precision, what is genuine and what is interpolated, as some of the most learned writers of the Church of England have acknowledged; and this being the case, an appeal to them cannot decide the controversy, because it remains doubtful whether it is Ignatius himself who speaks, or some other person in his name. The style of the epistles concerning the dignity, the authority, and the prerogatives of a bishop, and the demand of little less than implicit submission to him, ill accords with the simplicity of the primitive times, and with the humility which may be conceived to have characterized a man who had lived with the Apostles, and had imbibed their spirit. Would the genuine Ignatius have said without qualification, that what the bishop approves is acceptable to God?

After all, from these epistles as they stand, it is the opinion even of some Episcopalians, that little can be drawn in favour of their scheme. "In all those thirty-five testimonies," says Bishop Stillingfleet, "produced out of Ignatius' epistles for Episcopacy, I can meet but with one which is brought to prove the least semblance of an institution of Christ for Episcopacy; and if I Chap. iv. § 1. † Chap. iv. § 3.

be not deceived, the sense of that place is clearly mistaken too." From the impossibility of determining what is genuine and what is interpolated in those epistles, the utmost which we can safely infer from them is, that there were bishops in the days of Ignatius, but this concession will not at all serve the cause of our antagonists, because there were bishops in the days of the Apostles, who, we have seen, were only presbyters, and because the person to whom this name was afterwards given by way of distinction, was merely the president in an assembly of his equals.

We have already seen, that the bishops of the primitive church were very different from the persons to whom this title is given in modern times; tha they possessed no peculiar powers, and could do nothing which a presbyte: was not competent to perform. They differed from them also in the extent of their dioceses. A modern bishop has the superintendence of many churches or congregations scattered over the face of the country; but an ancient bishop presided over a single congregation only, or at most, over the Christians of a single city. The original meaning of the word has not been less changed ir this respect, than by making it denote a person of a different order from a presbyter. There were bishops not only in large cities, but in small villages, as has been shown in many instances. The diocese of a bishop was exactly the parish of a Presbyterian minister; and many bishoprics were much smaller than the parishes in this country. The number of bishops shows that their jurisdiction was circumscribed within very narrow limits. In that part of Africa which was subject to the Romans, there were in the days of Augustine, about five hundred orthodox bishops, and four hundred of the sect of the Donatists; and in Ireland, which we have no reason to believe to have been nearly as populous as at present, St. Patrick is said to have founded three hundred and sixtyfive churches, each of which was governed by a bishop. It would require a very perspicacious eye to perceive any distinction between such bishops and those whom we call pastors of particular congregations. There is certainly no resemblance between them and the prelates of the English Church; and with whatever respect the latter may speak of them, I suspect that if they were still officiating in their humble charges, the bishops of the present age would not acknowledge them as their equals. It may be thought that, however diminutive the ancient dioceses were, the bishops truly deserved the title, because they had at least some clergy under them. There is no doubt that sometimes this was the case; and we have shown that this supposition is of little use to establish the claims of modern Episcopacy, because the bishop was at first only primus inter pares; but it is probable that many of them laboured alone, without presbyters to assist them and execute their orders. It is not likely, for example, that those Irish bishops had inferior clergy, whose churches were so poor that they could afford them no better endowment than as much ground as would pasture two cows. This, we are informed, was the whole income of some of them.

The epistle of Clemens, "whose name," says Paul, "is in the book of life," is supposed to have been written between the years sixty-four and seventy of the first century, and consequently before the destruction of Jerusalem. It was addressed to the Church of Corinth, and had the same object with the epistles of Paul, to compose the contentions and divisions which existed in it. He says that "the Apostles, preaching through the countries and cities, appointed such of the first-fruits of their ministry as they had proved by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons;" plainly referring to two orders only, whereas Episcopalians affirm that there are three in the church. He goes on to say that "the Apostles, having known by our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be great ife about the name of Episcopacy, appointed the foresaid persons, namely Works, vol. ii. p. 349. Divine Right of Forms of Church Government, Part ii. c. vi,

bishops and deacons, and ordained that there should be a succession of them." Then, referring to the insubordination which prevailed at Corinth, he adds, "It will be no small sin if we expel from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily offered the gifts. Blessed are the presbyters who have gone before, and who have had a fruitful and perfect dissolution, for they do not fear lest any person should remove them from their settled place." It is manifest that he here speaks of bishops and presbyters, as the same persons; and he does so in other parts of the Epistle, where, omitting the mention of bishops, he speaks only of presbyters. "It is base, very base, and unworthy of the conduct of Christians, that the ancient church of the Corinthians should, by means of one or two persons, make an insurrection against the presbyters."* And he tenders this exhortation: "Be ye who have made this insurrection subject to the presbyters." It is obvious that Clement knew of no bishops in the Corinthian Church, but presbyters; and it is remarkable that he never speaks of any persons in that church under the name of bishops, and still less of one to whom the title exclusively belonged.

Episcopalians appeal also to Irenæus, who presided over the Church of Lyons in the second century, and imagine that he bears testimony to their cause, when he says, "We can reckon those who were appointed bishops by the Apostles in the churches, and their successors, to our days, whom they left as their successors, delivering to them the same dignity of power," as his words have been rendered, but literally "delivering to them their own place of mastership;" evidently meaning nothing more than that they constituted them the supreme office-bearers in the church, as we acknowledge a preaching presbyter to be. Irenæus shows that these were the bishops to whom he referred, by saying farther: "It behoves us to hear the presbyters who are in the church, those who have their succession from the Apostles, and with the succession of the episcopate, have received the gift of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father."

Jerome, who in learning and judgment was equal to any of the Fathers, is decidedly against the divine origin of Episcopacy. A deacon in the Church of Rome had broached the opinion that deacons were superior to presbyters; Jerome confutes it in one of his epistles by this argument, that presbyters and bishops were the same in the days of the Apostles, and that no man could be so foolish as to maintain that deacons are superior to bishops. The proposition which is the foundation of his argument, he proves from those passages of Scripture which are usually produced by us to show the identity of apostolical bishops and presbyters. According to this Father, bishops and presbyters were not originally different, either in order or in degree; but the titles were given to the same individuals, and the distinction between them which subsisted in his time, was merely an arrangement of human prudence for the preservation of peace. This is not a deduction from his argument, but it is explicitly stated by himself. "A presbyter is the same with a bishop. Before, by the instigation of the devil, there were parties in religion, and it was said I am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the churches were governed by the common consent of presbyters. But afterwards it was decreed throughout the whole world, that one chosen from the presbyters should be set over the rest, to whom the whole care of the church should pertain, that the seeds of schism might be plucked up." If Jerome is right, the plea of apostolical authority in favour of Episcopacy is unfounded; its jus divinum is a dream; and its authors, more modest than their seccessors, rested it solely upon the principle of expedience.

It appears, then, that in the controversy with the advocates of Episcopacy, we have to encounter strong assertions, but feeble proofs; lofty claims, but a very

Vid. Epist. 1. ad Corinth.

questionable title; and in short, that their cause has nothing to support it, but the sound of words in opposition to the sense.

You may think it unnecessary to have dwelt so long upon this subject, as with a few exceptions, we in this country are all agreed in rejecting the Episcopalian government as unscriptural. But in the other part of the island it is established by law, and with the arrogance which has so remarkably characterised it, pronounces those who have adopted a different form to be schismatics, and hardly entitled to the appellation of Christians. Dissenters, we have been told, have "a religion without a church," because what they call their church is not governed by bishops.

You are aware of the violent struggle between Episcopacy and Presbytery in the days of our fathers, in the course of which they displayed exemplary zeal, and were subjected to severe sufferings, resisting even to blood. The reign of Episcopacy in Scotland was marked by cruelty and murder. It was publicly and solemnly renounced at the renewal of the National Covenant, and afterwards in the Solemn League and Covenant of the three kingdoms, and was finally abolished at the Revolution. There is a fact relative to this business which is not generally known, and deserves to be mentioned; and I shall give it in the words of Mr. Baxter: "The covenant was proposed by the Parlia ment to the consideration of the Synod at Westminster. The synod stumbled at some things in it, and especially at the word Prelacy. Mr. Burges, the Prolocutor, Mr. Gataker, and abundance more, declared their judgments to be for Episcopacy, even for the ancient moderate Episcopacy, in which one stated president with his Presbytery governed every church; though not for the English diocesan frame, in which one bishop without his presbytery did, by a lay chancellor's court, govern all the presbyters and churches of a diocese being many hundreds; and that in a secular manner, by abundance of upstart secular officers, unknown to the primitive church. Hereupon grew some debate in the assembly, some being against every degree of bishops, (especially the Scottish divines,) and others being for a moderate Episcopacy. But these English divines would not subscribe the covenant, till there were an alteration suited to their judgments, and so a parenthesis was yielded to, as describing that sort of prelacy which they opposed,"-which follows the words, We shall endeavour the extirpation of prelacy,'-"[that is, church government by archbishops, bishops, deans, and chapters, archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers, depending on that hierarchy.] All which conjoined are mentioned as the description of church government which they meant by prelacy, as not extending to the ancient Episcopacy. When the covenant was agreed on, the Lords and Commons first took it themselves; and Mr. Thomas Coleman preached in the House of Lords, and gave it them with this public explication, that by prelacy, we mean not all Episcopacy, but only the form which is here described."* Hence you learn that the Solemn League was not such a security of presbytery as is commonly supposed, having been so framed that the friends of moderate Episcopacy could enter into it; but this is a matter of little moment, since we renounce Episcopacy, not because our fathers renounced it, but because we deem it to be contrary to Scripture.

I proceed to speak of Independency; but it is impossible to examine its claims, without at the same time attending to those of Presbytery. These are the only forms of government which appear to receive any countenance from Scripture, so that, if we overthrow the one, we virtually establish the other; and hence, it is necessary to view them in connexion. I begin with stating the principles of Independency, which are the following that every particular society of visible professors, agreeing to walk together in the faith * Baxter's Narrative of his own Life and Times, Part i. p. 48.

and order of the gospel, is a complete church; that the whole power of government is vested in the cœtus fidelium, the assembly of the faithful; and that all censures and acts of government are administered in single congregations. The principles of Presbytery are, that particular congregations are only a part of the church, which is composed of many congregations; that the power of government is lodged in certain office-bearers, appointed by Jesus Christ; and that there is a subordination of courts, in which the sentences of inferior courts may be reviewed, and either affirmed or reversed. Hence you perceive the reason of the names by which these two forms of government are distinguished. The former is called Independency, because each congregation is a church distinct from and independent upon all other churches in the world, possessing all power in itself, and accountable only to Jesus Christ for its proceedings. The latter is called Presbytery, because it is governed by presbyters, or teaching and ruling elders, who, although chosen by the people, do not derive their power from them, but from Christ, and meet in presbyteries,-for this is truly the name of all our ecclesiastical courts, although, for the sake of distinction, they are denominated sessions, presbyteries, and synods,-meet in presbyteries, I say, to regulate the affairs of particular congregations, of several congregations connected by vicinity, or of all the congregations in a province or a nation. You will observe, however, that these names do not mark, with perfect accuracy, the difference between the two forms of government; for it is not only possible, but it has actually happened, that a church has been independent of all other churches, and yet has been governed by presbyters, to the exclusion of the people; but use has affixed a definite sense to the words, and they immediately suggest the particular constitution of the churches to which they are respectively applied.

With a view to establish the principle upon which their system rests as its foundation, Independents labour to prove, that the churches mentioned in the New Testament were all single congregations. It is granted that this is some times the meaning of the word, as when the church in the house of a certain individual is spoken of; but I had occasion, in a former lecture, to remark, that there are cases in which it will not admit of so limited a signification. This is a point of great importance in the present controversy; and if it can be proved that the word church is used, when it must be understood to comprehend several congregations, we shall be authorized to conclude that the plan of independency is unscriptural. It will be necessary to enter into some detail, and I shall seJect as an example, the church of Jerusalem.

Let it be observed that, although we read of the "churches of Judea," we never read of the "churches of Jerusalem;" but the "church" of that city is always mentioned in the singular number. It is impossible to account for this fact upon the principles of Independents, except by supposing, that there were no more believers in Jerusalem than might be collected in one assembly; and accordingly, they affirm that such was the case, and endeavour to explain the passages of Scripture, from which their antagonists draw a contrary conclusion, so as to favour this hypothesis. to favour this hypothesis. I think, however, that, to an impartial judge, it will appear that the laws of just criticism require a different interpretation, and that their comments do violence to the sacred text.

Let us attend to the narrative of the success of the Gospel in Jerusalem. On the day of Pentecost, when Peter preached to the Jews, "they that gladly received his word were baptized; and the same day, there were added unto them about three thousand souls." The chapter closes with this remark," And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved;"* which is, indeed, very general, but conveys to us this information, that the society was constantly receiving an accession of new converts. Not long after, Peter again addressed * Acts ii. 41, 47,