to constitute a church.

The authorities we cite are from standard works only, used in all theological schools, and most generally approved.

Says Coleman, in his work on the "Apostolical and Primitive Church," p. 255, "In the beginning, there was but one church in a city, to which all the Christian converts belonged. But the care of the church was intrusted, not to one man, but to several, who constituted a college of presbyters, and divided the duties of their office among themselves. This arrangement was analogous to that of the Jewish synagogue, after which the church was organized. A plurality of persons every where appear in the Acts as the representatives of the church at Jerusalem. They represent, also, the church at Ephesus, (Acts xx. 17-28,) and at Philippi, (Phil. i. 1.) Titus was also instructed to ordain elders in all the cities in Crete. In such a college of elders, sharing a joint responsibility in the care of the churches, it would obviously be convenient, if not indispensable, for one of their number to act as the moderator or president of their assemblies. Such a designation, however, would confer on the presiding elder no official superiority over his fellow-presbyters; but, coupled with age, and talents, and spiritual gifts, it might give him a control in their councils and in the government of the church. This control, and this official rank as the л008στós, the presiding elder, which was first conceded to him by his fellow-presbyters only as to a fellow-presbyter, a primus inter pares, he began, in time, to claim as his official prerogative. He first began, by moral means and the influence of accidental circumstances, to be the bishop of the church, and afterwards claimed the office as his right. This assumption of authority gave rise to the gradual distinction between bishop and presbyter. It began early to disturb the relations of equality which at first subsisted between the ministers of the churches, and, in the course of the second and third centuries, resulted in the division of the clergy into two distinct orders, bishops and presbyters."

This comprehensive exposition of the origin of domineering

Episcopacy has the sanction of all the leading writers of ecclesiastical history.

The "King's Book," published in 1543, asserted that there is "no real distinction between bishops and priests," and taught essentially the same doctrine respecting the deacon of the primitive church as is now held by Congregationalists. It further declared, that the Scripture made no mention of any other church officers but these two-priests, or elders, and deacons. ·Hist. Cong. ut sup. Dwight's Theology, serm. 151. Neander's account of the officers and government of the Gentile churches during the apostolic age is as follows: "It is, therefore, certain that every church was governed by a union of the elders or overseers chosen from among themselves; and we find no individual distinguished above the rest, who presided as a primus inter pares, [a chief among equals,] though probably, in the age immediately succeeding the apostolic, of which we have, unfortunately, so few authentic memorials, the practice was introduced of applying to such a one the name of Ènlo zonos, [bishop, overseer,] by way of distinction.”. Hist. Apost. Chh. vol. i. pp. 168, 169.

The correctness of Mosheim's account of the humble character and limited authority of the primitive bishop is admitted by Waddington, who says, "The government of a single person protected each society from internal dissension; the electiveness of that governor rendered probable his merit.” — Hist. Chh. P: 44.

Lord King's representation is, "There was but one bishop, strictly so called, in a church at a time, who was related to his flock as a pastor to his sheep, and a parent to his children." Inquiry, ch. 1, § 5. And again, "There was but one church to a bishop." And this church, he tells us, was 66 a single congregation."-Ib. 2, § 1. "The bishop's diocese exceeded not the bounds of a modern parish, and was the same, as in name so also in thing."—Ib. § 2.

Dr. Campbell gives the following account of the bishop's relation to his church in the third century:

"The bishop, who was properly the pastor, had the charge of no more than one parish, one church, or congregation, the parishioners all assembling in the same place with him for the purposes of public worship, religious instruction, and the solemn commemoration of the death of Christ." — Lec. 8, p. 128.

Gieseler's account of the apostolic churches is this: "The new churches every where formed themselves on the model of the mother church at Jerusalem. At the head of each were the elders, no̟ɛoßúreçoi, ènloxonoι, [elders, bishops,] all officially of equal rank, though, in several instances, a peculiar authority seems to have been conceded to some one individual from personal considerations. After the death of the apostles, and the pupils of the apostles, to whom the general direction of the churches had always been conceded, some one amongst the presbyters of each church was suffered gradually to take the lead in its affairs. In the same irregular way the title of èлlσxoños, bishop, was appropriated to the first presbyter.". Coleman's Antiq. pp. 101-103.

It is evident, from these witnesses, and the still clearer testimony of the New Testament itself, that in the primitive church there were but two kinds of officers, and two classes of duties corresponding to these. The first was a pastor, or bishop, who was to take heed to all the flock," "to feed the church of God," and to "give himself continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word." For this reason, "a bishop must be apt to teach," "able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." Says Crowell, "The duties of this office are therefore to teach religion, and to look after the spiritual welfare of the church. The other class of duties is of a temporal nature, requiring not aptness to teach, but eminent piety, honesty, sobriety, good sense, and business habits. These are provided for in the office of deacon, whose duties may be inferred from the word diaconus, waiting servant, from the circumstances in which the office originated, and from the requisite qualifications. 1 Tim. iii. 8-13. The wants of churches

are all provided for in these two offices. They have no more occasion for the services of prelates, or diocesan bishops, to govern churches, ordain ministers, and administer discipline, than a civil state has for those of an autocrat, or a dictator."

The church of Christ, as originally constituted, is purely republican. Christ commissioned all his disciples to go forth and proclaim the truth, giving them no authority over others, no preeminence among themselves. Of all kinds of instruction, religious exercises were to be the most free. Every apostle received wisdom from the original source, and acted on his own responsibility in its distribution. Paul, the last accession to the apostolic band, was the most independent and powerful. He boasts that he received his doctrine straightway from God, and not from those "who were apostles before him." He would not allow the council at Jerusalem to cripple his spirit by their decision, but expanded his views beyond Jewish bigotry and local prejudice, under the legitimate influence of that ennobling Christianity which he loved and heroically toiled to spread abroad. In those days, Christians were "a royal priesthood;" all of them being "kings and priests" appointed to offer "a spiritual sacrifice." When, for practical purposes, a church organization was required, the synagogue was adopted as their model, which claimed no power to domineer; and not the temple, whose officers assumed the exercise of high governmental powers. Their elders and deacons were chosen by popular suffrage, and were as much of the people after their election as before. The distinction between clergy and laity was unknown; all were sons of God, upon whom the Holy Ghost in equal measures fell. They were "anointed of God," and "knew all things;" they "needed not that any man should teach them." Christ broke every priestly yoke, and bade men pray as he did, with no intermediate official, nothing between them and the Father of lights; making the whole earth a temple, and each true breathing of the heart acceptable adoration. More than two centuries passed before masters of doctrine arose, who claimed to bind and loose on earth and in

heaven. These were the favored ones, who knew expressly all about "the mind of the Lord," the "successors of the apostles," who, as "the clergy," first made themselves "the church," and ended by setting themselves above the reason and conscience of every individual soul.

Christianity, by its very nature, is independent of every thing terrestrial and human. It has no sacred localities, no stationary shrines. Should Sinai and Calvary, Jerusalem and Rome, Wittemberg and Geneva, disappear from the earth, Christianity would remain unaffected. Least of all should we infer from the Scriptures that such an anomaly could exist as a national church, wherein all the religious organizations sink their independencies into uniform subserviency to a single worldly sovereign and a few semi-political prelates. Christ is the only Master in Christianity, and the entire framework of his administration is spiritual. Attempt to combine with it state patronage or coercion, and you utterly destroy its power. The prime command of divine religion is, “Choose; " that of a state church is, "Who are you, sir, that you should presume to choose?" When God approaches a man, he recognizes his individuality, his independency, and freedom of action. But when man presumes to legislate for his fellow-man in religious things, he arrogates authority which belongs only to God, and degrades the passive victim of his tyrannical control. The instant civil government is employed as a means in Christianity, all its primitive beauty and force are destroyed. For a little while longer, perhaps, it may continue "the be-all and endall" of Episcopal religion to exalt "the church" above Christianity, the hierarchy above God, ordination above edification; but surrounding multitudes are waking up to juster and more scriptural views, not having yet forgotten the cry of the Waldenses "All Christians are priests."

John Huss was burned at the stake for asserting, "If he who calls himself the vicar of Jesus Christ imitates the life of Jesus Christ, he is his vicar; but, if he follows an opposite course, he is the messenger of Antichrist." This truth we hold.