thirtieth, or a fortieth part of every city where they preached, had converted all the inhabitants, is it not manifest that the same principle of combining as many converts as would constitute a congregation, which made them include the whole city in the parish, when the whole could furnish no more than one congregation, would have led them to erect as many parishes as there were streets or lanes, when each street or lane could afford the same number which, as things happened, were afforded by the whole city? Had this been the case from the beginning, such a revolution in the circumstances of the church as I have endeavoured to explain to you, could never have happened. But I promised to advert briefly to some other causes, which concurred in producing the same effect. The more effectually to accomplish this promise, it will be necessary to turn back a little, that we may trace the origin and progress of ecclesiastick courts. I have had frequent occasion to mention the presbytery. It was the radical court, and subsisted from the beginning. Mention is made of it in Scripture. And as a plurality of pastors was settled in most christian congregations, planted by the apostles, and as those pastors were required to conduct their matters with harmony and prudence, there was a necessity that, for this purpose, they should often meet and consult together. This was properly the council of the congregation. And the different congregations, with their ministers, seemed, in a great measure, independent of one another. Every thing regarding their own procedure in worship, as well as discipline, was settled among themselves. But it is extremely plain, that a total independency was not adapted to the more general character that belonged to all as members of the commonwealth of Christ. It was not the being members of the same congregation that constituted their christian brotherhood and unity, but the being all, through one Mediator, adopted as children into the family of God, or, as it is otherwise expressed, the being members of the same. body whereof Christ is the head, and, consequently, all members one of another. As Christ is not divided, as his cause and interests will ever be the same, it was not less expedient for maintaining union, and consequently charity, through the whole christian fraternity, that the churches should preserve a proper correspondence and intercourse with one another,. than it was necessary for preserving the peace and harmony of a congregation, that there should be a settled order among them for conducting the religious ordinances, and for consulting, deliberating, and determining, in all matters of common concern. That such an union in every thing essential to the cause, was what the apostles had much at heart, is very plain not only from the strain of their writings, but from the measures they took to get the same rule universally to prevail in relation to the great dispute that, in their time, was so hotly agitated about circumcision, and the other ceremonies of the law. The rule which, in consequence of the consultation holden at Jerusalem, was unanimously established by the apostles, elders, and brethren there assembled, at the same time that it tended to unite the disciples in love, and in the observance of every thing essential, breathed a spirit of forbearance and toleration in matters merely circumstantial, that bears but little resemblance to the greater part of the ecclesiastical canons of later date. This example, doubtless, suggested to the churches founded by the apostles, prophets, and evangelists, to devise some regular plan of intercourse with one another, in order the more effectually to promote unity and brotherly affection in the church universal. For this purpose the congregations, in the same canton or province, agreed to have stated conjunct meetings, wherein they might discuss those matters which were of general concern, concert the measures that would be necessary both for the propagation of the faith amongst idolaters, and for the defence of its purity from internal scandals and perni cious errours. Since it was impossible for the whole people of many churches to assemble thus for consultation, it would naturally occur, as being of practicable methods the most expedient, that the pastors and deacons, who in respect of office were most nearly concerned in the cause, should, together with a delegation from the people of the different congrega tions, convene in the most commodious place, and treat together of those matters that concerned the common salvation. That in these, at first, the people had a share as well as the pastors, we have sufficient ground from primitive writers to believe. I shall mention but a few of the many authorities which, in support of this matter, might be produced. Eusebius, in the synodical epistle he has preserved in his history, b. vii, I. 30, from the assembly or synod at Antioch, which condemned Paulus Samosatenus, thus titles the persons (or rather represents them as titling themselves) who had concur red in that measure, επισκοποι και πρεσβύτεροι, και διακονοι, και αι εκκλη Gia T8 8; the bishops, and presbyters, and deacons, and the churches of God. When the term churches is thus contradistinguished from the pastors, it always denotes the people. Nor are some of these classes represented here as actors, and others only as spectators, or passive consenters. What was acted on this occasion, is exhibited as alike the action of all. Hvdyndjuv. x. T. λ. "We were therefore under a necessi"ty of expelling this adversary of God, and settling another "bishop in his stead*." I shall produce but one other authority, which is a letter to Cyprian, the 31st in his epistles, from the presbyters and deacons of Rome, in relation to the lapsed, wherein we find these words: "Quanquam nobis in tam ingenti negotio placeat, "quod et tu ipse tractasti prius; ecclesiae pacem sustinendam, deinde, sic collatione consiliorum cum episcopis, presbyte"ris, diaconis, confessoribus, pariter ac stantibus laicis facta, "lapsorum tractarė rationem." Here laymen, who had continued firm in times of persecution, are judged proper to be joined in council on this most important subject, with bishops, presbyters, deacons, and confessors, or those, whether laymen or clergymen, who had suffered for the testimony of Jesus. The same thing may also be evinced from the 14th and the 26th of his epistles, and from the account he gives of the African synod, holden at Carthage, for determining the question that had been raised about the rebaptization of hereticks. To what purpose insist that those courts were often styled synods of bishops, and that the decisions are sometimes ascribed to the bishops, and no mention made of any other order. It is admitted, that this was the principal order, and at that time essential to the existence of a synod, which, probably, the other orders were not. Hence a synod might naturally be denominated a convention of bishops. It is admitted further, that there have been synods in which no other members were present. From neither of these concessions can we infer, in contradiction to direct testimony, that this was the case with all synods, and that none of any inferiour order had a voice among them, either legislative or judicial. In our church judicatories in Scotland, presbyteries, synods, and assemblies, (for church-sessions consist mostly of the laity) the numbers of ministers and of laymen, who are constituent members, are nearly equal. Yet they are familiarly termed meetings of the clergy, and it sometimes happens, both in presbyteries and in synods, that none are present but minis * How trifling is the attempt to elude the force of this argument, by saying that as to the inferiour orders and the people, this address ought to be considered as conveying only their salutations. The only place in a letter for complimental salutations, is the end. The title bears always (and to this use it is appropriated) the designation of those by whom, and of those to whom the letter is sent. Here we perceive, as plainly as we can perceive any thing by the help of language, the different classes of persons above-mentioned giving an account of their joint proceedings. ters. They make a regular court notwithstanding; whereas lay-elders without ministers would not make an ecclesiastical judicatory. But to return. In the manner above explained, the churches maintained a mutual correspondence, consulting with one another in all mat. ters of very great and general concernment, insomuch that there arose a sort of republick from the association of the churches in a particular province, which was, in a manner, governed by its council or synod. Some of these synods met annually, others twice a year, or even oftener, if occasion required. The divisions of the country made by the civil government were commonly adopted here, not as necessary, but as commodious, and affording opportunities on other accounts. of assembling more frequently. The metropolis of the province, as being the most centrick, or at least the most convenient, was the usual place of meeting; and the bishop of that place, from a sort of natural title to preside in the convention, came by the gradual, but sure operation of custom, to be regarded as the head of the body. Hence the bishop of the metropolis came very naturally to be denominated the metropolitan; and this term was, by consequence, understood to denote his presidency over the bishops of the province. This custom, however, did not obtain every where from the beginning. At first, the office of president seems generally to have been elective, and to have continued no longer than the session of the synod. Nor did it ever obtain in the provinces of Africa, (except Africa propria, of which the bishop of Carthage was always metropolitan) nor of Numidia and Mauritania, for in these the honour of presidency was determined by seniority. The senior bishop was president of the synod, and head of the province. Accordingly with them he was denominated primus, primate, and not metropolitan. In this, however, the African churches remained singular. But even this singularity sufficiently confutes those vain patronisers of the hierarchy, who are absurd enough to derive the metropolitical primacy, as well as the patriarchal sovereignty from apostolical institution. Thus the presidency of this new dignitary over the bishops evidently sprang from the identical causes, which first raised the bishop above the presbyters, and not long after, as we shall see, subjected the metropolitans themselves. For this fraternal intercourse was, in process of time, still further extended. As all the provinces within the same prefecture had a closer connexion with one another, than those which happened to have different civil governours, and to be more disjoined, this communion, in respect of ecclesiastick T polity, was enlarged, and councils were sometimes convened from all the churches within the prefecture, or at least the civil diocess, which gradually gave the bishop of the capital, where the prefect had his residence, and kept his court, the like ascendant over the metropolitans, within the bounds of that jurisdiction, which the latter had obtained, from similar causes, over the bishops within their respective provinces. These prefectures were the imperial city of Rome, which presided over all the suburbiary provinces, as they Were called; the city of Alexandria, which governed Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis; the city of Antioch, comprehending under it Syria, and other oriental provinces; the city of Jerusalem, comprehending Palestine and Arabia Petræa, originally and properly a part of the civil diocess of Antioch; and lastly, Constantinople, which being the seat of empire, came by degrees, through the favour of the emperours, to attain such extensive dominion, and high prerogatives, as to appear, for a while, a formidable rival, if not an overmatch for Rome herself. In the western diocesses of Gaul, Spain, and Britain, there seem to have been no patriarchs, though there were as many metropolitans as provinces, which were pretty numerous. Indeed, this want appears to have given the bishop of Rome, in afterages, a great ascendant over them, the metropolitans being too inconsiderable to cope with him. The patriarchs were likewise called archbishops, though this denomination was also given to the primates, and even sometimes as an honorary title to those who were but bishops. There were some other bishops of less note than the patriarchs, but superiour to the metropolitans, in those governments by the Greeks called eparchicks, on whom the intermediate title and dignity of exarch were conferred. Thus the bishop of Ephesus was styled exarch of the Asiatic diocess, and the bishop of Cesarea, in Cappadocia, exarch of the Pontick. Now each of these comprehended ten or eleven provinces under their respective metropolitans, and each province a considerable number of bishopricks. But I do not intend to enter into minute particulars. Those I have named were the chief. This polity having been gradually introduced, and established partly by custom, partly by imperial authority, received, according to some, the sanction of the first ecumenical council assembled at Nice, under Constantine, the first christian emperour, in which a canon (so the laws of the church are denominated) was enacted, making the subordination which then obtained perpetual. But there are who think, that that canon extended only to the power of metropolitans; for that the patriarchal, not having yet got firm footing, did not receive the |