therefore unchangeable, and intended to remain the same, yesterday, to-day, and for ever.*

* The Apostles, we are told, did not enter upon the discharge of their commission, till they had received the promise of the Father, in the gift of the Holy Ghost. They were commanded to tarry, in Jerusalem, till they were endued with power from on high. Luke xxiv. 49. What form of government, therefore, the apostles agreed to establish in the church, if not expressly communicated to them, by Christ in person, must be considered as established under the direction of the Holy Ghost.

Thus apostolical practice, with respect to the government of the church well ascertained, must in this instance, be equivalent to apostolical precept with respect to the doctrine of it, because the Holy Spirit, by whom the apostles were directed, and whose office it was to teach them all things necessary to the welfare of the Christian church, would not lead them into error, in one case, more than in the other.

What that form of government was, we shall be at no loss to determine, if we enquire fairly into the subject. Indeed, the practice of the primitive church (was the language of scripture, on this subject, less clear than it is) throws such light upon it, as must determine the judgment of every unprejudiced man.

"What need we," said a judicious writer, who had paid particular attention to this subject, and whose writings have been frequently referred to, as a standard of

That episcopal government was received universally in the church, in the time of the apostles, is so evident, and unquestion

judgment in church matters, "what need we," said he, "to seek for proofs that the apostles who began their order of regiment, by bishops, did it not, but by divine instinct; when without such direction, things of far less weight and moment, they attempted not? Paul and Barnabas did not open their mouths unto the Gentiles, till the spirit had said, 'separate me Paul and Barnabas for the work whereunto I have sent them.' The eunuch, by Philip, was neither baptized nor instructed, before the angel of God was sent, to give him notice, that so it pleased the Most High. In Asia, Paul and the rest, were silent, because the spirit forbad them to speak. When they intended to have seen Bythinia, they stayed their journey, the spirit not giving them leave to go. Before Timothy was employed in those episcopal affairs of the church, about which the apostle Paul used him, the Holy Ghost gave special charge for his ordination, and prophetic intelligence, more than once, what success the same would have. And shall we think that Evodius was made bishop of the church of Antioch-the angels in the churches of Asia bishops--that bishops every where were appointed to take away factious contentions, and schisms, without some like divine instigation, and direction of the Holy Ghost? Wherefore let us not fear to be herein bold, and peremptory, that if any thing in the church's regiment, surely the first institution of bishops was from heaven; was even of God, the Holy Ghost was the author of it." Hooker's Ecc. Pol. Book 7.

able, that the most learned adversaries of this government, are themselves obliged to confess it.

Petrus Molinæus, in his book, De Munere Pastorali, purposely written in defence of the Presbyterian government, acknowledges,-that presently after the days of the apostles, or even in their time, it was ordained, that in every city, one of the presbytery should be called a bishop, who should have pre-eminence over his colleagues, to avoid confusion, which often arises out of equality. And he adds, truly this form of government, churches every where received.*

* Calvin himself cannot forbear owning that the apostles were bishops, and that Archippus, to whom St. Paul wrote, was bishop of Colosse. And he states in his Institutes, Lib. iv. cap. 4. that out of the number of deacons, they chose priests, and out of priests, bishops, and this to prevent those disputes which equality, naturally produces. The same author recommends episcopacy to the king of Poland, and in an epistle to Cardinal Sadolet, he says "if any refuse to pay respect, with reverence and absolute obedience, to such an hierarchy, I think no anathema too much for them.

Ever since religion had a being, there was always a distinction of order in the church of God. Before the

To demonstrate that this polity was of no mere human appointment, I require

law, the Patriarchs had apparently the power over their families and children, in divine matters. Selden owns this. The case of Abraham and Melchisedec is very remarkable. The first was the father of the Levitical Priesthood, and had himself the ecclesiastical power in his own family, and yet he paid tithes to Melchisedec and took his blessing. Under the Mosaic œconomy, the high Priest was distinguished from all others, as prince of the princes of Levi, and chief in all matters of the Lord. His succession was confined to the line of Eleazor and Phinees. He had the oversight of them that kept the charge of the sanctuary, none but he could go into the holy of holies, and he only had the judgment of urim. Upon these principles St. Paul grounds his argument for a distinction of offices in the Christian priesthood, and to all those who hold church. parity in general, he puts this pointed question, "are all apostles are all prophets?" 1 Cor. xii. 29.

Christianity, in its greatest simplicity, was never an enemy of order. We may say of the church, even as it was then, "that her doctrine was clear as the sun, her ceremonies fair as the moon, and her discipline as terrible as an army with banners," Cant. vi. 10. Not that she supported herself with material arms, but she made her spiritual conquests, with the consecrated sword of the word of God,-faith, constancy, charity, and zeal, till principalities and powers were subdued, and the most hardened sinners induced to submit to the easy yoke of a crucified Redeemer.

nothing more than the Bible, illustrated by the attestation of two of the oldest fathers, to a plain matter of fact.

Dr. Buchannan, in his interesting conversation with the bishop of the Syrian churches, (which have continued uninterruptedly orthodox from the first ages to the present day) says, I mentioned that there was a Presbyter church (viz. the Presbyterian) in our kingdom, in which every Presbyter was equal to another. The bishop asked, are there no deacons in holy orders? None! what is there nobody to overlook the presbyters? not one! and who is the angel of the church? they have none! there must be something imperfect there, said he.

St. James (the brother of our Saviour) was the first bishop of Jerusalem, and remained in that see 30 years, and his successor 38. Titus was ordained bishop of Crete, by St. Peter, and Ananius of Alexandria, by St. Mark. I mention these instances because it is positively said of each of them, not only that they were bishops of such churches, but that they were ordained to them, by the apostles.

The manner of conveying this authority was, from the beginning, by a solemn imposition of hands-thus were the first deacons ordained, and Timothy, bishop of Ephesus, is particularly directed to lay hands suddenly on no man. This ceremony was used for three different purposes--first, in the cure of diseases, "they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover;" secondly, in blessing infants, and confirming those of