H

Now, then, we may rest from this laborious but necesary part of our undertaking. Farther evidence no unprejudiced mind can require. We saw in the last lecture, the analogy of the Mosaic system, the three-fold order of the high priest, the priests and the Levites-the same arrangement continued under the personal ministry of our Lord, by himself, the Apostles and the seventy-the same again after his ascension, by the Apostles, the presbyters and the deacons and as soon as the state of the Gentile Churches allowed of such an arrangement, we saw the Apostle Paul transferring his government and power of ordination, to Timothy, over the Churches in Ephesus, and to Titus over the Island of Crete. We have next seen, in the present lecture, the evidence of Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, only seventy years later than the Apostle John, who set before us the Episcopal succession of twelve bishops in the Church of Rome, the first three of whom were ordained by the Apostles: then we heard Tertullian in the year A. D. 200, stating the whole question of Church government in the plainest language, according to the Episcopal doctrine: then we examined the famous Cyprian, only fifty years later, who confirmed it in the strongest manner: and we closed our list of primitive witnesses by Eusebius, the bishop of Cesarea, who flourished both before and after the tion (p. 365) which gives us an annotation of Grotius on the fourteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, full and precise on the point in question. Episcopi sunt Presbyterorum Principes, et illa лооотασia a Chris. to praemonstrata est in Petro; ab Apostolis vero ubicumque fieri poterat constituta, et a Spiritu Sancto comprobata in Apocalypsi. Quare sicut est optandum ut illa oooraoia constituatur ubique.' i. e. • The bishops,' says Grotius, are the princes of the presbyters, and prætorial dignity was conferred before hand on Peter by Christ himself, it was es tablished by the Apostles, wherever it could be, and was approved by the Holy Spirit in the Apocalypse. Wherefore it is to be wished that the same dignity was still everywhere established.'

conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine; so that the latest witness we have heard, gave an account of this matter as it stood before the Church of Christ was freed from heathen persecution; that is, before two hundred years had elapsed from the death of the Apostle John. This was the period of pure and primitive Christianity— the Golden Age of the Church.

From that period, we have passed at once to the era of the reformation; after twelve centuries of gradually increasing darkness and corruption had changed and almost defaced every feature of the primitive and Apostolic system, and those who held the place of bishops had become petty tyrants, in subjection, themselves, to the paramount tyranny of the Pope of Rome. Then we heard the opinion hof Calvin, who honestly praised the system of the primitive C Church, which is our model; and granted nearly all the truth which we ourselves could desire. Next we heard the Lutheran branch of the reformation, through their great i organ Melancthon, plainly acknowledging their solicitude to preserve the Episcopal government, if the tyranny of the Roman bishops would suffer them; and, lastly, we heard Le Clerc and Grotius, in the following century, after the Church of England had restored all things to the ancient plan, frankly and fully avow their admiration and preference for the Episcopal form, and truly attribute the Presbyterian scheme to necessity. These two last witnesses were the most learned men of their age, they were both educated in the tenets of the Presbyterian Church of Holland, they had no connexion with the Church of England, and no motive to lead them from the truth, for Grotius was a layman, and Le Clerc gave his chief attention to his duties as Professor of philosophy and literature. But the labors of both were mainly devoted to religion, and with

every qualification for a thorough, learned, and candid judgment, we have seen the opinion, which they openly declared and published to the world.

Our next lecture will close the examination of this subject, so as to shew the reasonableness of the Episcopal system, and its perfect accordance with republican principles. Meanwhile, my beloved brethren, let us always remember, that as it is one thing to belong to a good government, and a very different thing to be a good citizen, even so it is possible for us to possess the Apostolic form of Church Polity, and yet be faithless to Christ. May the Spirit of the Most High preserve us from this awful inconsistency, and enable us to devote ourselves in such wise to his service, that the principles of our Church may be recommended to all men by the purity of our example.

LECTURE X.

HEB. XIII. 17.

OBEY THEM THAT HAVE THE RULE OVER YOU, AND SUBMIT YOURSELVES: FOR THEY WATCH FOR YOUR SOULS, AS THEY THAT MUST GIVE ACCOUNT.

OUR last lecture, brethren, closed with the promise, that the reasonableness of the Episcopal system, and its accordance with the principles of republican government, should be demonstrated; so as to shew to every unprejudiced mind how perfectly unfounded and absurd are the charges adduced against it, of being opposed to rational liberty, and allied to the spiritual tyranny of the Church of Rome.

In order that we may have a just idea of the whole subject, we shall inquire first, what are the proper characteristics of our bishops; secondly, in what manner our ecclesiastical laws are framed; and thirdly, how our Church officers are held responsible for abuses: in each of which topics, if I do not greatly deceive myself, you will find a far more accurate analogy with the civil government of these United States, than any other body of Christians can display.

1. The Church, from Maine to Florida, is one body, connected by the most perfect rules of unity, in doctrine, worship and discipline; in none of which can any change be made, without the regular action of the whole, meeting together in General Convention every third year, or oftener, if necessary, and voting by their representatives in a

manner altogether republican, as I shall prove more particularly, by and by, under its appropriate division.

But this entire body is divided into districts, which division, for convenience' sake, and also for the sake of bearing as close an analogy as possible with our civil government, comprehends one single State within the diocese or district of each single bishop, who presides over the Church, just as the Governor presides over the commonwealth; the particular charge of this portion being committed to his hands, and his jurisdiction being confined to its limits. From this statement are to be excepted those cases, where a diocese, having no bishop of its own, invites a neighboring bishop to discharge some temporary duty; or where, from the paucity of clergy to form a diocese in a single state, several neighboring states have been, from necessity, united together. As a general rule, however, a single state forms the district of each bishop.

In this particular, we have not pursued the exact mode of the primitive Church, in which a single city, with a portion of the surrounding country, was the diocese of every bishop, who took his name from that city alone. Thus we read of the bishop of Rome, the bishop of Carthage, the bishop of Jerusalem, the bishop of Hippo; and these titles, and such as these, meet our eye continually, in the records of antiquity. In like manner, the bishops of England take their name from a city, almost invariably. Nay, in the recent case, when a bishop was sent to oversee the immense territory of Great Britain, in the East Indies, although the sphere of his duties was of such vast extent, yet his ti tle was only the bishop of Calcutta ; just as in our neighborhood of Canada the bishop, whose jurisdiction covers both the provinces, is named the bishop of Quebec.

But this variation from the general style of antiquity, and