Episcopacy as a superior order. The ministers of these country congregations, were called Ghorepiscopi, or Country-Bishops. They continued to exercise full Episcopal powers a considerable time after the Presbyters within and near the great cities had become subject to diocesans ; until at length the influence of the Bishop of Rome, and of some other ambitious prelates, procured a decree of the Council of Sardis to suppress the Chorepiscopi entirely*. The churches of the vallies in Savoy and Piedmont, were still more successful in supporting primitive Episcopaey. Although they retained the term Bishop in its original meaning, yet they rejected the government of prelatical Bishops, as well as the authority of the Pope, and continued to set an example of ministerial parity for many centuries. All these circumstances prove that diocesan Episcopacy was an innovation. If it had been the Apostolical model, and especially if it had been deemed so important and fundamental as our opponents represent it to be, then those churches which were most remote from worldly influence, and discovered the greatest love for primitive simplicity, would have been ever found adhering to the system of Prelacy with peculiar zeal. Instead of this, the more we examine the records of antiquity, the more we shall find precisely the reverse to be the fact. A circumstance which plainly evinces that ministerial

* The reason given by the council for this decree is remarkable.- Ne vilescat nomen Episcopi. i. e. lest the title of Bishop should become too cheap,

parity was both the doctrine and practice of the Apostolic age; and that Episcopacy, in the modern sense of the word, is the invention of man, and was introduced long afterwards.

Fourthly; The decrees of some of th@early Coun. cils, concerning Bishops, clearly evince that such a change as we have supposed, really took place. It is impossible to look into the decrees of the numerous councils which were convened within the first five or six centuries, without perceiving constant provision made, on the one hand, for gradually extending the power of the Bishops ; and, on the other, for restraining the encroachments of those whose ambition had become inordinate and offensive. We find one Council decreeing, that Bishops should no longer be ordained for country places or small towns; and that when the then incumbent Bishops of small and obscure places should happen to die, no successors should be appointed. We find another enacting a canon, that Country-Bishops should no longer be allowed to ordain ; and that City-Presbyters should not be thereafter permitted to ordain, out of their own parishes, without having the permission of the City-Bishops. And the reasons given for these and other restrictions, are, not the command of Christ; not Apostolical example ; but that the honor of the church might be preserved, and that the Episcopal dignity might be maintained. The very existence of these decrees, proves that Presbyters had been before allowed to ordain ; and that Bishops were gradually undergoing a change

from the parochial to the diocesan character. In contrast with these and similar canons, it would be easy to produce others, for restraining the indecent attempts of some Bishops to enlarge their dioceses, and to encroach on the limits of their neighbours *. If we had never heard of the fact before, these canons would suggest the suspicion, that Bishops were now, by little and little, extending their pastoral care from single congregations to extensive districts.

Fifthly; The gradual diminution of the number of Bishops, after the first three centuries, serves to confirm the fact for which I am contending. The great number of Bishops found in the early ages of the church, was remarked in a former letter. They appear to have been as numerous within two or three centuries of the Apostolic age, as modern parish ministers. But as we recede from that pe

périod, we find their number gradually diminishing, in exact proportion as their claims and honors became extended. In the island of Crete, where we are informed that in early times there were one hundred Bishops, in a few centuries afterwards we find but twelve. In a small district in Asia, where, in the third century, there were settled one huru dred and five Bishops, in two or three centuries their number was reduced to nine. Numerous in

* For a more full account than it is possible to give in this manual, of these canons, and other proceedings of early Councils, concerning the powers of Bishops, see Baxter's Treatise of Episcopacy, London, 4to. 1681—and the learned Clarkson's Primitive Episcopacy. 8ro. 1688.

stances of the same kind might be produced, were it necessary or proper. And this diminution of the number of Bishops is the more remarkable, because, at the same time, the number of converts to Christianity, the extent of the church, and of course the call for ministerial labours, were daily increasing. What is the obvious inference from these facts? It is that primitive Bishops were a very different class of officers from those which bore that name three or four centuries afterwards; and consequently that, during this period, an important change had taken place in the character and powers of Bishops.

Finally; It is no small argument in favor of the truth of my position, that it is confirmed by the most learned and impartial historians, and other competent judges, of modern times.

The first writer whom I shall quote in proof of the fact which I am endeavouring to establish, is the learned Dr. Mosheim, a Lutheran divine, whose Ecclesiastical History has been for half a century, the theme of praise, for the general impar. tiality as well as erudition manifested by its author. In his account of the first century, he has the following remarks. " The rulers of the “ church at this time, were called either Presbyters

or Bishops, which two titles are, in the New-Tes. tament, undoubtedly applied to the same order of

These were persons of eminent gravity, " and such as had distinguished themselves by their "superior sanctity and merit. Their particular

แ

"functions were not always the same; for while

some of them confined their labours to the in"struction of the people, others contributed in "different ways to the edification of the church"Such was the constitution of the Christian church "in its infancy, when its assemblies were neither

numerous nor splendid. Three or four Presby“ters, men of remarkable piety and wisdom, ruled "these small congregations in perfect harmony, nor "did they stand in need of any president or supe"rior to maintain concord and order, where no "dissensions were known. But the number of the 66 Presbyters and Deacons increasing with that of "the churches, and the sacred work of the ministry "growing more painful and weighty by a number "of additional duties, these new circumstances re66 quired new regulations. It was then judged ne66 cessary that one man of distinguished gravity and "wisdom should preside in the council of Presby"ters, in order to distribute among his colleagues "their several tasks, and to be a centre of union to "the whole society. This person was at first styled "the Angel of the church to which he belonged; "but was afterwards distinguished by the name of "Bishop or Inspector; a name borrowed from the "Greek language, and expressing the principal

66

part of the Episcopal function, which was to inแ spect into, and superintend the affairs of the "church. Let none, however, confound the Bish"ops of this primitive and golden period of the "church with those of whom we read in the fol