The question is not confined, in its relations and its consequences, to those who govern in ecclesiastical concerns; whether in virtue of their ministerial calling, or as civil rulers, who have incorporated the concerns of religion with those of the state. It must be a duty incumbent on both these descriptions of people, where they perceive the interference of apostolick appointment, to adhere to it as closely as possible: at least, with no other exception, than cases of imperious necessity; the effects of this to continue no longer, than the crisis which gave occasion to them. But the religious influence of the question is of wider range; and affects the consciences of all those individuals, whom the providence of God has placed in such circumstances, as that without communicating with a Church not episcopal, they must, with their families, either abandon Church communion; or join in a worship loaded with doctrines and with observances, which they believe to be great corruptions of Christianity.

It is not designed to consider the subject, in its bearings on the concerns of the great variety of communions which have not the Episcopacy. The above difficulty has been stated, merely as what is here supposed to be in part the cause of the very moderate ground taken at the time of the reformation, by the Church of England, in the present matter. Certain it is, that she did not, in any of her institutions, say any thing decisive, on the question now contemplated. Not only so, many of her publick proceedings show her care to avoid it: of which, only the following instance shall be given. When the Episcopacy was conveyed by that Church to the Church of Scotland, in the reign of James the first; it was pressed by some, that the ministers sent for consecration, should previously be ordained deacons and priests: their ministerial character being in virtue of ordination not episcopal. But Archbishop Bancroft-the very prelate accused by the

Puritans of that day of carrying the Episcopal claims higher than had been done by his predecessors-over-ruled the objection-"lest the calling and character of the ministry, in most of the reformed Churches, might be questioned." The historian Collier, recording this, notices after Heylin another principle, on which the course taken might be defended. The principle is, that a layman may be ordained a bishop, without passing through the inferiour grades: and of this, as he adds, there are two well known instances in the fourth century, in the persons of St. Ambrose of Milan, and Nectarius of Constantinople. Still, the opinion of the archbishop and the publick proceeding founded on it, are to the point.*

Not long before this, Mr. Hooker published the first five books of his immortal work on Ecclesiastical Polity. Perhaps there is no work which, from the circumstances connected with it, has so good pretensions to be considered as evidence of the opinions of the leading churchmen of the period. The third of the books, is devoted to the proof of what includes the negative of the present question. The same sentiment seems to have prevailed universally, from the reformation until after the time of Hooker. At least, if there be opposing authorities, they have not come to the knowledge of the present writer.

To some it may seem inconsistent with the moderation here affirmed, that in the Church of England and in this Church, no minister ordained in another communion not episcopal, and conforming to the institutions of either of the said Churches,

The proposal in regard to the Scottish Church, must have been attended by all the weight belonging the high character from which it came--the learned and pious bishop Andrews. It is reported of the late excellent bishop of Norwich (Dr. George Horne,) that the highest station which he coveted among saints in heaven, was the sitting at the feet of the abovementioned venerable prelate:

can be admitted to its ministry without Episcopal ordination. But there is no inconsistency in the maxims. These Churches do not judge of the sufficiency of peculiar circumstances, in regard to others. But they perceive no such circumstances, in the relations in which they stand. Therefore, for them to dispense, within their respective bounds, with the difference of grade in the ministerial character, when they think that they discover clear evidence of it in the appointments of the apostles; would be conduct which they could not defend, on any principle of consistency.

To return to the question of fact: This is to inquire, whether the higher grade of the ministry be of apostolick institution. It is proposed to prove as follows.

First: That besides there having belonged to the apostolick character, certain properties peculiar to the first apostles, and not communicable by them to any others; there was a ministry, to be handed down by them in succession, through all ages.

Secondly: That in the exercise of this ministry, they associated with themselves others, coordi nately; and to be of a higher grade than those commonly called presbyters and elders.

Thirdly: That the higher grade of the ministry, thus established, has been transmitted in succession; along the line of those usually called bishops. And fourthly: That the Episcopacy thus instituted, was not congregational, but diocesan.

As the question will be considered to be altoge ther dependent on the Scriptures; their sense to be ascertained by the usual maxims of interpretation, and with the aid of legitimate criticism; and as, under the warrant of the latter circumstance, there will be quoted some early writers, on the different points arising; the degree of importance to be attached to their testimonies should be understood. They are here considered as entitled to the same

respect, as when they are called in to testify to the reception of any books of scripture, in their respective days. It is not unknown, that some found the certainty of the authenticity of the Scriptures, on a testimony in the mind. But to admit, that to prove the authenticity of each book, recourse must be had to the successive testimony of the Church; while yet, the other test is relied on for the truth of all the books collectively; is an inconsistency, which can hardly deserve the labour of refutation. There is, indeed, another ground of authority set up: that of the determination of a general council, in virtue of an authority inherent to them. But this is a resource to which there will not be recurrence, by the dissentients from the present argument.

First proposition: Besides there having belonged to the apostolick character, certain properties peculiar to the first apostles, and incommunicable by them to any others; there was a ministry, to be handed down by them in succession, through all ages.

In ascertaining what was exclusively attached to the appointment of the original apostles, it may be proper to turn to the narrative of their earliest proceeding after the ascension; recorded in the first chapter of the Acts. There we read of the divine designation of Matthias, to supply the place of the traitor Judas. And the object of the designation is thus stated by St. Peter-" To be a witness with us of his" (Christ's) "resurrection." Hereby, the number of the twelve became again complete: and although there were other witnesses to the same fact; yet the testimony of the apostles was to be born under certain credentials, which were not common with them to any other.

For, in order to take in the full force of the contemplated transaction, it is necessary to turn to preceding promises made especially to the twelve.

Verse 22.

So far as is pertinent to the present design, it will be sufficient to take in the promise-" The comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things; and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."* The bringing of all things to their remembrance, was evidently appropriate to those, who had been the constant attendants on the person of Christ. And then, the leading of them into all truth, must be perceived to have an especial reference to the infallibility of their doctrine; which they were not only to deliver verbally, but to leave on record in the holy Scriptures.

It occurs here to consider, what relation the present part of the subject bears to the ministry of St. Paul. This is rendered the more necessary, because of the opinion entertained by some, that he was ordained to it, under divine designation indeed, but through the instrumentality of the imposition of hands, as related in the beginning of the thirteenth chapter of the Acts. But the whole history of the conversion of St. Paul, shows him to have been miraculously called; under as strong evidence of the fact, as even that of the miraculous appoinment of the twelve. Not only so, he says expressly "I neither received it" [the gospel]" from man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ:"+ and again, in regard to his entrance on the ministry-"I conferred not with flesh and blood." And again, in two places in the second epistle to the Corinthians, he places himself on a level with the chief of the apostles. As for the transaction recorded in the thirteenth chapter of the Acts, of the laying of hands on him and on Barnabas; it was for a mission of a local nature. And accordingly, it is declared in the next chapter but one, that the work appointed to them had been fulfilled. It is an unfounded hypothesis, that this occasion was adopted by divine wisdom, for the introVerse 16.

John xiv. 26. § xi. 5, and xii. 11.

A Gal. i. 12.