rescripts, but, with equal mildness as his colleague Paul, employs exhortation and entreaty. The presbyters amongst you, says he, I their fellow-presbyter exhort, Feed the flock of God among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly. It is added, neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock; and, consequently, engaging their imitation by the attraction of an amiable example, and not enforcing submission by stern authority and command. Had Ignatius been such as the letters ascribed to him represent him, could he have had the assurance to address his Antiochians in the words of Paul above quoted, "We preach not "ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your "servants, for Jesus' sake?" For is it not his predominant scope, in those letters, to preach himself and other ecclesiasticks, inculcating upon the people the most submissive, unlimited, and blind obedience to all of the clerical order? This is an everlasting topick, to which he never slips an opportunity of recurring in season, and out of season. The only consistent declaration which would have suited the author of these epis tles, must have been the reverse of Paul's. We preach not Christ Jesus the Lord, but so far only as may conduce to the increase of our influence, and the exaltation of our power; nay, for an object so important, we are not ashamed to preach up ourselves your masters, with unbounded dominion over your faith, and consequently, over both soul and body. For surely, if, in the application of words, any regard is due to propriety as well as consistency, those only must be called masters who are entitled to command, and those must be ser vants who are obliged to obey. There are besides several things in these letters which, though expressed with simplicity of diction, I find in meaning unintelligible. Such is that in his letter to the Ephesians, chap. vi, " The more silent a man "finds the bishop, he ought to reverence him the more." Consequently if, like the Nazianzene monk, celebrated by Gregory, he should, in praise of God, devote his tongue to an inviolable taciturnity, he would be completely venerable. This, one would be tempted to think, has originated from some opulent ecclesiastick, who was by far too great a man for preaching; at least we may say, it seems an oblique apology for those who have no objection to any thing implied in a bishoprick, except the function. None whose notion of the duties of a bishop corresponded with Isaiah's idea of a watchman, (lvi, 10,) would have thought dumbness a recommendation. Yet Ezekiel did not think his prophetical office disparaged by God's telling him, that he had made him a watchman to the house of Israel, (iii, 17.) I shall only add, that if I be not perfectly unprejudiced on this subject, the prejudice

by which I am biassed is not against Ignatius, but in his favour. It is because I think very highly of the martyr, and have a strong impression of his virtue, and of the service which his sufferings and testimony did to the cause of his master, that I am unwilling rashly to attribute to him what could not fail to lessen him in my estimation. I would save him, if possible, from a second martyrdom in his works, through the attempts not of open enemies, but of deceitful friends.

But should we admit, after all, in opposition to strong presumptive evidence, the entire genuineness of the letters in question, all that could be fairly inferred from the concession is, that the distinction of orders and subordination of the presbyters, obtained about twenty or thirty years earlier than I have supposed, and that it was a received distinction at Antioch, and in Asia Minor, before it was known in Macedonia and other parts of the christian church. That its prevalence has been gradual, and that its introduction has arisen from the example and influence of some of the principal cities, is highly probable.

I shall mention only one other ancient author by whom the three orders seem to be discriminated, and whose testimony is commonly produced in support of their apostolical institution. The author is Pius, bishop of Rome, reckoned by the romanists the ninth in succession from Peter and Paul, and consequently, the sixth or seventh from Clement, for they are not entirely agreed about the order. All that remains of him are two short letters to Justus, bishop of Vienna. He is supposed to have written these a little before the middle of the second century, but after Ignatius and Polycarp. This comes so close to the time, when I admit the distinction to have generally obtained, that even the clearest testimony from him, though there were no doubt as to the authenticity of the letters, could not be said to weaken my hypothesis. There is something in his words which appears even to favour that hypothesis. At the same time that they mark a distinction, they show it to be but in its infancy, and not comparable to what it arose to in a few centuries. Passing the obscure and indefinite expression, colobio episcoporum vestitus, the only passage which is apposite to the question, is in his second letter: "Presbyteri et diaconi “ non ut majorem, sed ut ministrum Christi te observent." "Let the presbyters and deacons reverence thee (the bishop) "not as their superiour, but as Christ's minister." I do not say that these words imply that there was no superiority in the bishop. If there had been none, I do not think it would have been natural to add the clause non ut majorem. But they imply that the writer thought this difference too inconsiderable to be

a ground of esteem from colleagues in the ministry; and that he accounted the true foundation of their respect to be superiour diligence in the service. I believe it will be admitted by the impartial and intelligent, that such an expression from a bishop (not to say the bishop of Rome) in the fourth or fifth century, would have been reckoned rather derogatory from the authority of the office, which would have been thought justly entitled to respect and obedience, independently of the personal merit of the officer.

But that the two functions of bishop and presbyter were, through the whole of that age, occasionally comprehended under the same name, and considered as one office, and not two, I shall show further, by an example from Clement of Alexandria, who wrote at the close of the second century. Having observed, (Strom. L. 1,) that in most things there are two sorts of ministry; the one of a nobler nature than the other, which is subservient; and having illustrated this distinction, as by other examples, so by that of philosophy and physick, the former of which he considers as superiour, because it administers medicine to the soul, the latter as inferiour, because it administers only to the body, he adds, Ομοίως δε και καλα την εκκλη σίαν, την μεν βελλιωτικην οι πρεσβυτεροι σωζεσιν είκονα την υπηρέζικην οι διακονοι, ταύτας άμφωτας διακονίας αγγελοι σε υπηρετείται τω θεώ, κάλα την τῶν περιο γειών οικονομίαν. Just so in the church the presbyters are in"trusted with the dignified ministry, the deacons with the "subordinate. Both kinds of service the angels perform to "God in the administration of this lower world." Here the distinction is strongly marked between presbyter and deacon: but is it not plain from his words, that Clement considered the distinction between bishop and presbyter as, even in his days, comparatively not worthy of his notice?

66

But passing all critical disquisitions in regard to the precise time and manner of the introduction, as necessarily involved in darkness and uncertainty, and admitting that the distinction obtained generally before the middle of the second century, let us now inquire into the nature of that episcopacy which then came to be established. It has once and again been observed passingly, that every church had its own pastors, and its own presbytery, independently of every other church. And when one of the presbyters came to be considered as the pastor by way of eminence, while the rest were regarded only as his assistants, vicars, or curates, who acted under his direction; as then every church or congregation had but one who was called bishop, so every bishop had but one congregation or church. This is a remark which deserves your particular notice, as it regards an essential point in the constitution of the primitive

church, a point which is generally admitted by those who can make any pretensions to the knowledge of christian antiquities. In the epistles written to particular congregations, or churches, during the third century, and in some before, notice is almost always taken of their own bishop and presbytery, as belonging specially to themselves. The great patrons of the hierarchy, who found so much on the testimony of Ignatius, will not deny, that on this article he is quite explicit. The bishop's charge is, in the primitive writers, invariably denominated sxana, a church, or congregation, in the singular number, never exxantias, churches, or congregations, in the plural.

But as this argument may not appear so strong to those, who are accustomed to form their opinion of things from the import of their names in modern dialects, it will not be amiss to inquire particularly into the ancient applications of the word. Properly there are, in the New Testament, but two original senses of the word exxλncia, which can be called different, though related. One is, when it denotes a number of people actually assembled, or accustomed to assemble toge-. ther, and is then properly rendered by the English terms, congregation, convention, assembly, and even sometimes crowd, as in Acts xix. 32, 40. The other sense is to denote a society united together by some common tie, though not convened, perhaps not convenable in one place. And in this acceptation, as well as in the former, it sometimes occurs in classical writers, as signifying a state, or commonwealth, and nearly cor. responding to the Latin civitas. When the word is limited, or appropriated, as it generally is in the New Testament, by its regimen, as TY DAY. TO REPLY. TY Xpile, or by the scope of the place, it is always to be explained in one or other of the two senses following, corresponding to the two general senses abovementioned. It denotes either a single congregation of christians, in correspondence to the first, or the whole christian community, in correspondence to the second. We can hardly ever be at a loss to know from the context which of the two is implied. That it is in the former acceptation, is sometimes evident from the words in construction, as της εκκλησίας τη εν Κεγχρεαις, and în sxxλndid by dey in ev Kopiva, and the like. In the latter sense it ought always to be understood when we find nothing in the expression, or in the scope of the passage, to determine us to limit it; for instance in the following, Bri lav]n in welpa οικοδομήσω με την εκκλησίαν. Ο κύριος προσετίθει τις σωζόμενες καθ' ἡμέραν τη εκκλησία. In this last acceptation of the word, for the whole body of Christ's disciples, wheresoever dispersed, it came afterwards to be distinguished by the epithet down. They said xxxx, the catholick or universal church.

But in any intermediate sense, between a single congregation and the whole community of christians, not one instance can be brought of the application of the word in sacred writ. We speak now, indeed, (and this has been the manner for ages) of the Gallican church, the Greek church, the church of Eng land, the church of Scotland, as of societies independent and complete in themselves. Such a phraseology was never adopted in the days of the apostles. They did not say the church of Asia, or the church of Macedonia, or the church of Achaia, but the churches of God in Asia, the churches in Macedonia, the churches in Achaia. The plural number is invariably used when more congregations than one are spoken of, unless the subject be of the whole commonwealth of Christ. Nor is this the manner of the penmen of sacred writ only. It is the constant usage of the term in the writings of Ecclesiastick authors for the two first centuries. The only instance to the contrary that I remember to have observed is in the epistles of Ignatius, on which I have already remarked. It adds considerable strength to our argument, that this is exactly conformable to the usage, in regard to this term, which had always obtained among the Jews. The whole nation, or commonwealth of Israel, was often denominated waσa i exxanoice Iorgan. And after the revolt of the ten tribes, when they ceased Ισραήλ. to make one people or state with the other two, we hear of waoa • exxdyota Isd. This is the large or comprehensive use of the word as above observed. In regard to the more confined application, the same term xxλŋa was also employed to denote a number of people, either actually assembled, or wont to assemble, in the same place. Thus all belonging to the same synagogue were called indifferently εκκλησια, oι συναγωγή, as these words in the Jewish use were nearly synonymous. But never did they call the people belonging to several neighbouring synagogues εκκλησία, οι συναγωγη, in the singular number, but εκκλησίαι, and συναγωγαι, in the plural. Any other use in the apostles, therefore, must have been as unprecedented and unnatural as it would have been improper, and what could not fail to lead their hearers or readers into mistakes. There are

some other differences between the modern and the ancient applications of this word, which I shall take another opportunity of observing.

Now as one bishop is invariably considered, in the most ancient usage, as having only one xxλia, it is manifest that his inspection at first was only over one parish. Indeed, the words congregation and parish are, if not synonymous, predicable of each other. The former term relates more properly to the people as actually congregated, the other relates to the extent