that form of church-government, in which diocesan bishops are established as distinct from and superior to priests or presbyters. We have already observed, that it is a long time since the ministers of religion have been distinguished into different orders, and that it has been much controverted whether the distinction be of divine or human right; whether it was settled in the apostolic age or afterwards. (See Bishop.) This controversy commenced soon after the Reformation; and has been agitated with great warmth between the Episcopalians on the one side, and the Presbyterians and Independents on the other. Among the protestant churches abroad, those which were reformed by Luther and his associates are in general episcopal; whilst such as follow the doctrines of Calvin have for the most part thrown off the order of bishops as one of the corruptions of popery. In England, however, the controversy has been considered as of greater importance than on the Continent: for it has there been strenuously maintained by one party, that the episcopal order is essential to the constitution of the church; and by others, that it is a pernicious encroachment on the rights of men, for which there is no authority in scripture. Though the question has for some time lain almost dormant, and though we have no desire to revive it; yet as a work of this kind might perhaps be deemed defective, did it contain no account whatever of a controversy which has employed some of the ablest writers of the past and present centuries, we shall give a fair though short view of the chief arguments, by which the advocates of each contending party have endeavoured to support their own cause, leaving our readers to judge for themselves where the truth lies. See Independents and Presbyterians.

The Independent maintains, that under the gospel dispensation there is nothing which bears the smallest resemblance to an exclusive priesthood; that Christ and his apostles constituted no permanent order of ministers in the church; but that any man who has a firm belief in revelation, a principle of sincere and unaffected piety, a capacity for leading devotion and communicating instruction, and a serious inclination to engage in the important employment of promoting the everlasting salvation of mankind; is to all intents and purposes a regular minister of the New Testament, especially if he have an invitation to the pastoral office from some particular society of Christians.

Against this scheme, which supposes the rights of Christians all equal and common, and acknowledges no authority in the church except what may be derived from the election of her members, the Protestant Episcopalian reasons in the following manner. He admits, Episcopalianism as an undoubted truth, that our blessed Lord gave arguments none of his immediate followers authority or jurisdiction against it. Of such a nature as could interfere with the rights of the civil magistrate, for all such authority was disclaimed by himself: "My kingdom (said he to Pilate) is not of this world:" and to a certain person who asked him to decide a question of property between him and his brother, he replied, "Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?" But when it is considered, that Christ came into this world to turn men from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to the living God; that he gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works;" that of these works many are such as unregenerate humanity has no inclination to perform, and that the doctrines which he revealed are such as human reason could never have discovered; the advocate for episcopacy thinks it was extremely expedient, if not absolutely necessary, that, when he ascended into heaven, he should establish upon earth some authority to illustrate the revelation which he had given, and to enforce obedience to the laws which he had enacted. There is nothing, continues he, more strictly required of Christians, than that they live together in unity, professing the same faith, joining in the same worship, and practicing the same virtues. But as men have very different passions, prejudices, and pursuits, such unity would be impossible, were they not linked together in one society under the Christian government of persons authorized to watch over the purity of the faith, to prescribe the forms of public gathering for worship, and to explain the nature and inculcate the necessity of the several virtues. The society of Christians, in respect of its unity and organization, is compared to the human body: for "as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office; so we being many are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another," (Rom. xii. 4, 5.) It is called the church, the kingdom of heaven, and Episcopacy, and the kingdom of God; and its affairs, like those of every other kingdom, are administered by proper officers in subordination to the one Lord, who, "when he ascended up high, and led captivity captive, gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." (Ephes. iv. 8—13.) That those various orders of ministers were vested with real authority in the church, might be inferred from principles of reason as well as from the dictates of revelation. A society without some sort of government, government without laws, or laws without an executive power, is a direct absurdity. Where there are laws, some must govern, and others be governed; some must command, and others obey; some must direct, and others submit to direction. This is the voice of nature; it is likewise the language of scripture. "Obey them (says the inspired author of the epistle to the Hebrews) who have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls as they that must give account." A text which shows that the authority of the ministers of religion was distinct from that of the civil magistrate, whose duty is to watch, not for the souls, but for the lives and properties, of his subjects.

Of the society thus constituted, it was not, as of a philosophical sect, left to every man's choice whether or not he would become a member. All who embrace the faith of the Redeemer of the world are required to be baptized, under the pain of forfeiting the benefits of redemption: but one great purpose for which baptism was instituted, is to be the rite of initiation into the church of Christ; "for by one spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free," (1 Cor. xii. 13.) Of baptism, whatever be the importance, it is evident, that to receive it, is not, like the practice of justice, or the veneration of the Supreme Being, a duty resulting from the relations of man to his Creator and fellow-creatures; that its whole efficacy, which in scripture is said to be nothing less than the remission of sins, is derived from positive institution; and therefore, that the external rite can be of no avail, but when it is administered in the manner preferred, and by a person authorized to administer it. That all Christians are not vested with this authority, as one of the common privileges of the faith, appears from the commission which our Saviour after his resurrection gave to his apostles. At that period, we are assured that the number of his followers was not less than five hundred; yet we find, that to the eleven disciples only did "he come and speak, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth; go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Of the 500 disciples there is surely no reason to believe that there were not many well qualified to instruct either a Jew or a Gentile in the doctrines of the gospel; and it is certain, that any one of them could have washed his convert with water in the name of the Holy Trinity as well as St Peter or St John; but such an unauthorized washing would not have been Christian baptism, nor of equal validity with it, any more than the opinion of a lawyer at the bar is the judgment of a court of justice, or of equal obligation. It is the commission of the sovereign which gives force to the judgment of the court; it is the commission of Christ which gives validity to baptism. The same reasoning is applicable to the Lord's supper, which, if it be not administered by those who have authority for such administration, cannot be deemed a sacrament of Christ's institution.

These two rites are the external badges of our profession. By the one, we are incorporated into that society of which our Redeemer is the head and sovereign; in the celebration of the other, we have a right to join, whilst of that society we continue members. But if by an open and scandalous disregard of the precepts of the gospel, we should prove ourselves unworthy of its privileges, the same persons who are authorized to admit us into the church, are likewise vested with authority to call us out of it; for to them were given "the keys of the kingdom of heaven (or the church), with assurance, that whatsoever they should bind on earth, should be bound in heaven; and whatsoever they should loose on earth, should be loosed in heaven," (Mat. xviii. 18.) As baptism is to be administered so long as there shall be persons to be enlisted under the banners of Christ, and the Lord's Supper to be celebrated so long as it shall be the duty of soldiers to adhere to the standard of their leader and their head; and as it is likewise to be feared that there will never come a time when all Christians shall "walk worthy of the vocation wherewith they are called;" it follows, that this power of the keys which was originally given to the apostles, must continue in the church through all ages, cannot even unto the end of the world. But as we have seen, that it was not at first intrusted to all the disciples in common, as one of the privileges inseparable from their profession, and as no body of men can possibly transfer an authority of which they themselves were never possessed; it is certain, that even now it cannot, by the election of one class of Christians, be delegated to another, but must, by some mode of succession, be derived from the apostles, who were sent by Christ as he was sent by his Father. To argue from the origin of civil to that of ecclesiastical government, although not very uncommon, the Episcopalian deems extremely fallacious. Of the various nations of the world, many of the sovereigns may indeed derive their authority from the suffrages of their subjects; because in a state of nature, every man has an inherent right to defend his life, liberty, and property; and what he possesses in his own person, he may for the good of society transfer to another: but no man is by nature, or can make himself, a member of the Christian church; and therefore authority to govern that society can be derived only from the church him by whom it was founded, and who died that he can be derived only from Christ.

Against such reasoning as this it hath been urged, that to make institutions, which like baptism and the Lord's supper are generally necessary to the salvation of all Christians, depend for their efficacy upon the authority or commission of a particular order, appears inconsistent with the wisdom and goodness of God; as by such an economy an intolerable domination would be established over the souls of men, and the purpose for which the Saviour of the world died might be in some degree defeated by the caprice of an ignorant and arbitrary authority. The objection is certainly plausible; but the Episcopalian affirms, that either it has no weight, or militates with equal force against all religion, natural as well as revealed, and even against the wisdom of Providence in the government of this world.

In every thing, he observes, relating to their temporal and to their spiritual interests, mankind are all subjected to mutual dependence. The rich depend upon the poor, and the poor upon the rich. An infant neglected from the birth, would barely cry and cease to live; nor is it easily to be conceived, that in the more rigid climates of the earth, a full grown man could provide even the necessaries of mere animal life. Of religion, it is certain that in such a state nothing could be known; for there is not the smallest reason to imagine that any individual of the human race—an Ariolite, a Bacon, or a Newton, had he been left alone from his infancy, without culture and without education—could ever, by the native vigour of his own mind, have discovered the existence of a God, or that such speculations as lead to that discovery would have employed any portion of his time or his thoughts. Even in civilized society it would be impossible, in the present age, for any man, without the assistance of others, to understand the very first principles of our common Christianity; for the scriptures, which alone contain those principles, are written in languages which are now nowhere vernacular. In the fidelity of translators, therefore, every illiterate disciple of Jesus must confide, for the truth of those doctrines which constitute the foundation of all his hopes; and as no man ever pretended that the Christian sacraments are more necessary to salvation than the Christian faith, the Episcopalian sees no impropriety or inconsistency in making those persons receive baptism and the Lord's supper by the ministration of others, who by such ministration must of necessity receive the truths of the gospel.

By such arguments as these does the Episcopalian endeavour to prove that Christ constituted some permanent order of ministers in the church, to whom in the externals of religion the great body of Christians are commanded to pay obedience; and thus far the Presbyterian agrees with him: but here their agreement ends. They hand in hand attack the Independent with the same weapons, and then proceed to attack each other. The one maintains, that originally the officers of the Christian church were all presbyters or elders of one order, and vested with equal powers; whilst the other holds, that Christ and his apostles appointed divers orders of ministers in the church; that of these orders the highest alone was empowered to ordain others; and that therefore obedience, as to those who watch for our souls, can be due only to such as are episcopally ordained.

In behalf of the Presbyterian plea it is urged, that the titles of bishop and presbyter, being in the New Testament indifferently given to the same persons, cannot be the titles of distinct ecclesiastical officers; which appears still more evident from the ordination of Timothy, who, although he was the first bishop of Ephesus, received his episcopal character by the imposition of the hands of the presbytery. That one and the same man is, in the New Testament, styled sometimes a bishop and sometimes a presbyter, cannot be denied; but although every apostolic bishop was therefore undoubtedly a presbyter, it does not of course follow, says the Episcopalian, that every presbyter was likewise a bishop.

In the Old Testament, Aaron and his sons are without any discrimination of order frequently styled priests; and in the New, both St Peter and St John call themselves presbyters, as St Paul, upon one occasion, styles himself a deacon—σικώνες (Eph. iii. 7.): yet no man ever supposed those apostles to have been such ecclesiastical officers as modern presbyters and deacons; and it is universally known that in the Jewish priesthood there were different orders, and that Aaron was of an order superior to his sons. This being the case, the presbyters, by the laying on of whose hands Timothy was made a bishop, may have been of the same order with St Peter and St John; and if so, it follows that his ordination was episcopal. At all events, we are certain, continues the advocate for Episcopacy, that it was not, in the modern sense of the word, Presbyterian; for the gift, which in the first epistle is said to have been "given by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery," is in the second said to have been "in him by the putting on of the hands of St Paul." And here it is worthy of observation, that the preposition used in the former case is ἐπί, which signifies concurrence rather than instrumentality; but that in the latter is συν, which, as every Greek scholar knows, is prefixed to the instrumental cause by which anything is effected: so that whatever may have been the order of the presbyters who concurred, St Paul appears to have been the sole ordainer. But by the confession of all parties, St Paul was a bishop in the highest sense in which that word is ever used; and the powers of the episcopate not being parcelled out among various partners, of whom each possessed only a share, the imposition of his hands was sufficient for every purpose which could have been effected by the hands of the whole college of apostles.

It appears, therefore, that from the promiscuous use of the titles bishop and presbyter, and from the ordination of Timothy, nothing can with certainty be concluded on either side of this celebrated question. But if, instead of resting in mere words, which, when taken alone and without regard to the context, are almost all of ambiguous signification, we attend to some important facts recorded in the New Testament, the Episcopalian thinks we shall in them discover sufficient evidence that the government of the primitive church was prelatical.

During our Saviour's stay upon earth, it is undeniable that he had under him two distinct orders of ministers—the twelve, and the seventy; and after his ascension, immediately before which he had enlarged the powers of the eleven, we read of apostles, presbyters, and deacons, in the church. That the presbyters were superior to the deacons, and the apostles superior to three orders of both, is universally acknowledged; but it has been said that in scripture we find no intimation that the ministerial order was designed for continuance. A during our Quaker says the same thing of water-baptism; and Saviour's the Episcopalian observes, that it would be difficult to point out by what passage of scripture, or what likewise mode of reasoning, those who, upon this plea, reject the apostolic order of Christian ministers, could overthrow the principles upon which the disciples of George Fox reject the use of that rite which our Saviour inflicted. Episcopacy. tuted for the initiation of mankind into his church.

They were the eleven alone to whom Christ said, "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" and therefore, although we frequently find presbyters and deacons administering the sacrament of baptism, we must conclude, that as a judge administers justice by authority derived from his sovereign, so those inferior officers of the church administered baptism by authority derived from the apostles. Indeed, had they pretended to act by any other authority, it is not easily to be conceived how their baptism could have been the baptism instituted by Christ; for it was not with the external anything by whomsoever performed, but with the eleven and their successors, that he promised to be "always, even unto the end of the world."

That the eleven did not consider this promise, or the commission with which it was given, as terminating with their lives, is evident from their admitting others into their own order; for which they had competent authority, as having been sent by Christ as he was sent by his Father. When St Paul, to magnify his office and procure to it from the Galatians due reverence, styles himself, "an apostle not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father," he must have known some who derived their apostolic mission by man; otherwise he could with no propriety have claimed particular respect, as he evidently does, from what was in his own apostleship no particular distinction. At that very early period, therefore, there must have been in the church secondary apostles, if they may be so called, upon whom, by imposition of hands, or by some other significant ceremony, the eleven had conferred that authority which was given to them by their Divine Master. Such were Matthias and Barnabas; such likewise were Timothy, Titus, and the angels of the seven churches in Asia, with many others whose names and offices are mentioned in the New Testament.

That Matthias and Barnabas were of the apostolic order, has never been controverted; and that Timothy and Titus were superior to modern presbyters, is evident from the offices assigned them. Timothy was, by St Paul, empowered to preside over the presbyters of Ephesus, to receive accusations against them, to exhort, to charge, and even to rebuke them; and Titus was, by the same apostle, left in Crete for the express purpose of setting things in order, and ordaining bishops in every city. To exhort, to charge, and with authority to rebuke one's equal, is certainly incongruous; and therefore the Episcopalian thinks the powers conferred on Timothy altogether inconsistent with that parity of order and of office for which his antagonists so strenuously plead. Even the commission given to Titus appears in his eyes by much too extensive for a Presbyterian minister, who, after having ordained in the city, could not have proceeded to ordain in another without the consent and assistance of his brother and fellow-labourer. With respect to the angels of the Asiatic churches, he observes, that in the Old Testament the title of angel is sometimes given to the Jewish high-priest, and particularly by the prophet Malachi, who calls him "the messenger (angelos) of the Lord of Hosts;" and that the angels of the churches mentioned by St John, were Christian high-presidents, or bishops, presiding over more than one congregation, as it is affirmed by all the ancient writers, cannot, he thinks, be denied by any man who will take the trouble to compare scripture with scripture. We read (Acts xix. 10, and 20.), that "in the space of two years all they who dwelt in Asia heard from St Paul the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks; and that there the word of God grew mightily and prevailed:" but with what truth or propriety could this have been said, if at the time of St John's writing the Apocalypse, which was 30 years after St Paul's death, all the Christians of Proconsular Asia were comprised in seven congregations, which assembled, each with its proper pastor, to perform, in one place, the duties of public worship? In a word, the advocate for episcopacy infers, that no man, who reads without prejudice the acts of the apostles, the epistles of St Paul, and the Apocalypse of St John, can seriously believe that Timothy, Titus, Epaphroditus, Silas, and Silvanus, with the angels of the seven churches in Asia, were mere presbyters, or that the government of the church was, in those days, by a college of elders.

When from the inspired penmen of the New Testament he proceeds to examine the succeeding writers of the Christian church, the Episcopalian finds such multiplied and concurring evidence of the apostolic institution of episcopacy, as he thinks it impossible to resist without denying the truth of all ancient history, and even shaking the pillars of revelation itself; for "in the noble army of martyrs," the witnesses of the episcopal government of the church are earlier, and by far more numerous, than those who testify that the gospel of St Matthew was written by that apostle, or that the book of the Apocalypse is canonical scripture. The authority of the fathers indeed is at present very low; but should they be allowed to be as fanciful divines and as bad critics as their worst enemies are pleased to represent them, this would detract nothing from their evidence when they bear witness to the constitution of the church in their own times; for of their integrity there can be no doubt: and what the Episcopalian wants of them is only their testimony to matters of fact which fell under the cognizance of their own senses, and about which therefore they could not be deceived. It is here indeed chiefly that he triumphs over his antagonists. In the second and third centuries there was no general council, nor any Christian sovereign. A prelacy therefore, he urges, the divine could not have been universally introduced, during that period, either by a concert among the clergy, or by the authority of the civil magistrate. Yet that even then there was no church under heaven, of which the government was not episcopal, has been confessed by some of the most learned writers among the Presbyterians themselves; whence he concludes that episcopacy is of divine institution.

The candid Episcopalian, however, allows, that in the apostolic age there may have been some churches which at first had only bishops and deacons to perform the offices of religion; for when the number of disciples in any place was so small that they could all meet in one assembly, there was no necessity for any other order of ministers; but it appears that, from the very beginning, bishops, presbyters, and deacons, were settled in all all the larger cities of the Roman empire; and it was in those days an allowed maxim, that without a bishop there could be no church. The better to understand the original state and institutions of episcopacy, it is necessary to observe, that the empire, which contained almost all the known part of the Christian world, was by Augustus Caesar divided into provinces, subjected each to the authority of one chief magistrate, who was commonly a praetor or proconsul, and who resided in the metropolis or chief city of the province. A province comprehended the cities of a whole region; and in the age of the apostles, each city was under the immediate government of certain magistrates within its own body, known by the name of bouleum, or senatus, ordo et curia, "the states and court of the city." Those magistrates were subordinate to the praetor or proconsul: but among them there was one superior to the rest, called sometimes dictator, and sometimes defensor civitatis, whose jurisdiction extended not only over the city itself, but likewise over all the adjacent territory. That territory was denominated παράστασις, or the suburbs, and often reached to the distance of 10 or 12 miles round the city, and sometimes much farther, containing within it many villages and small towns under the government of the city magistrates. From some passages in the New Testament, and from the concerning evidence of the earliest writers of the church, it appears to have been the purpose of the apostles to settle a bishop in every city where there was a civil magistracy: but as they could not be personally present in all places at once, it was natural for them to enter upon the great work of converting the nations, by first preaching the gospel in that city of each province which was the ordinary residence of the governor; because to it there must have been the greatest resort of people, who would carry the glad tidings with them into the country when they returned. Accordingly, having dispersed themselves over the empire, and made numbers of proselytes in the principal cities, they fixed in each, where they saw it necessary, a bishop, with a college of presbyters and deacons; and gave to those bishops, who were at first called apostles, a commission, as the other cities of the province should be converted, to fix in them bishops also.

In some of the smaller cities, it is extremely probable that a bishop and a deacon were for a short time the only ecclesiastical officers, till the number of Christians increased so much as to make it impossible for them all to assemble in one house for the purposes of public worship. The bishop then ordained presbyters to officiate in those congregations where he himself could not be present, and to assist him in other parts of his pastoral office; but in all their ministrations the presbyters were subordinate to him, who was the chief pastor within the city, who composed the prayers which were offered up in public, and to whom all the other ministers of religion were accountable for their conduct. So long as the number of the faithful was confined within the walls of the city, it appears that the bishop with his presbyters and deacons lived together as in a college; that divine service was every Lord's day, or oftener, performed in what was afterwards called the cathedral or mother-church, by the bishop himself, assisted by some of his clergy; and that the congregations which met in other churches, having no fixed pastors, were supplied by such presbyters as the bishop chose to send to them from his own church. Whilst matters continued in this state, the clergy had no other revenues than what arose from the voluntary oblations of the people; which were indeed so large as not only to support them with decency, but likewise to answer other ends of charity and munificence. They were commonly divided into four equal parts; of which one was allotted to the bishop, a second to the inferior clergy, a third to the poor, and a fourth to keep the churches in repair; and it was considered as part of the bishop's duty to take care that the offerings should be faithfully applied to these purposes.

When converts increased in number, and churches were built in the suburbs, each of those churches had parishes, a fixed pastor similar to a parish-priest among us; but still those pastors, as well as the city-clergy, ministered in subordination to the bishop, whose authority extended as far as the civil authority of the Roman magistrate, within which district or diocese it was supreme over all orders of Christians. This every man knows who is acquainted with ecclesiastical history; for the bishop alone could ordain priests and deacons, administer the rite of confirmation, absolve penitents who were under church-censure, and exclude from communion heretics and notorious offenders; and from his sentence there lay no appeal but to a synod of comprovincial bishops.

Such synods were in each province convened by the bishop of the chief city; for the apostles having been careful to place in those cities men of the most eminent gifts and abilities, the other bishops of the provinces applied to them for advice upon every emergency, and paid a particular deference to them upon every occasion. So that though all bishops were of equal authority as bishops, yet when they met to consecrate a new bishop, or to deliberate upon the affairs of the church, they yielded a precedence to the bishop of the metropolis, who called them together, and who sat as president or moderator of the synod. Hence the origin of metropolitan or archbishops; whose authority was so considerable, that though there is not a doubt but the election of bishops was anciently placed in the clergy archbishops, and people of the vacant diocese, yet the bishop elect could not be consecrated without the consent of the archbishop of the province.

In consequence of the extensive powers with which the primitive bishops were vested, they are commonly styled in the writings of those times presidents, provosts, or inspectors of the church, chief priests, princes of the clergy, and even princes of the people; but their authority was wholly spiritual. Those prelates, imitating the example of their Divine Master when on earth, neither possessed nor assumed to themselves any jurisdiction over the properties or civil rights of men. In consequence of St Paul's having reprimanded the Corinthians for going to law before the unbelievers, they were indeed often chosen as arbiters of such civil disputes as arose between individuals under their episcopal government; but on these occasions they could not act unless the submission was voluntarily made by both the contending parties, and then their decision was final. When the empire became Christian, this privilege was confirmed to them by law; for any civil cause depending before a court of justice could be withdrawn, and by the mutual consent of parties be submitted. Episcopacy submitted to the arbitration of the bishop, whose award, which in former times could be enforced only by the terror of church-confines, was then enforced by the secular magistrate. In criminal causes, where the trial might be for life or death, they were prohibited both by the canons of the church and by the laws of the state from acting as judges; and therefore they never suffered such causes to come before them, except when it was necessary that the person accused, if found guilty, should be excluded from the communion of the faithful. But they had so many civil causes flowing in upon them, that they were soon obliged to devolve part of that care upon other persons in whose knowledge, prudence, and integrity, they could fully confide; and as the persons employed to act in the bishop's stead were often laymen, it has been conjectured that they gave rise to the office of lay-chancellor in the church, and to all that train of spiritual judges and spiritual courts against which such numbers are disposed to clamour.

Be this as it may, it is certain that, through the piety and munificence of the Christian emperors, the bishops enjoyed large revenues and many valuable privileges; but it does not appear that they had any rank or authority, as barons or temporal princes, till the Gothic nations, which subverted the Roman empire, had embraced the Christian faith. As Christianity incapacitated the leaders of those tribes from officiating as chief priests at the religious rites which were usually celebrated at the opening of their public assemblies, the bishops came naturally to discharge that duty on such occasions, when they must have shared in the rank by sharing in the functions of the chief. The situation in which they thus appeared at the opening of all political conventions, would enable them to join with much effect in the deliberations which ensued; and their superior knowledge, their sacred character, and their influence with the people, would soon acquire them power equal to their rank. They must therefore have been well intitled to demand admission into that council which was formed by the king and the laychiefs at the national assemblies: and as they balanced the authority of those chiefs, we cannot doubt that the king would be disposed to give the utmost effect to their claim. Accordingly, we find the dignified clergy, who received large grants of land to be held on the same tenures with the lands of the lay magistrates, presiding along with those magistrates in the provincial assemblies of every degree in all the Gothic nations, and enjoying every advantage in point of rank and authority in their national diets. Hence the bishop of Rome, and several bishops in Germany, have, like the dukes and marquises of that empire, been for a long time sovereign princes; and hence too the bishops of England and Ireland have always sat, and have an equal right with the lay-peers to sit, in the upper house of parliament. It is however obvious, that, so far as episcopacy is of apostolical institution, those peers and princes possess not the original character in any higher degree than the bishops in America, who are barely tolerated, or than those in Scotland who do not enjoy that privilege; and that confirmation administered, or holy orders conferred, by a persecuted prelate, must be as effectual to the purposes of religion, as if given by a German prince or an English peer.

In this short view of episcopacy, it has been our endeavour to do justice to the subject, without suffering ourselves to be influenced by partiality or prejudice. As we are not ourselves episcopalians, we have advanced nothing of our own; but have selected from English writers, who have at different times undertaken to defend the divine right of episcopacy, such facts and arguments as to us appear to be of the most importance, or to have the greatest weight, without remarking upon them, or offering any answer. The reasoning employed to prove that the order of bishops was instituted by the apostles, is taken from a work prepared for the press by Dr Berkeley prebendary of Canterbury, and son of the celebrated bishop of Cloyne. For the rest of the detail, we are indebted chiefly to Bingham's Origines Ecclesiasticae; a performance in great estimation with those English divines who are commonly known by the appellation of high churchmen. As editors of a work of this kind, it is not our business to be of any party, or to support, in opposition to all others, a particular church, though that church should be our own: We shall therefore treat independency and presbytery as we have treated episcopacy, by employing some able writer of each society to plead his own cause. Meanwhile, we shall conclude this article with a few reflections, which, though they come from the pen of an obscure author, deserve to be engraved deep in the memory of every controvertist of every communion.

"On complicated questions (says a late apologist for the episcopal church in Scotland), men will always in controversy differ in opinion; but conscious each of the weakness of his own understanding, and sensible of the bias which the strongest minds are apt to receive from thinking long in the same track, they ought to differ with charity and meekness. Since unhappily there are still so many subjects of debate among those who name the name of Christ; it is doubtless every man's duty, after divesting himself as much as possible of prejudice, to investigate those subjects with accuracy, and to adhere to that side of each disputed question which, after such investigation, appears to him to be the truth; but he transgresses the favourite precept of his divine Master, when he casts injurious reflections, or denounces anathemas, upon those who, with equal sincerity, may view the matter in a different light; and by his want of charity does more harm to the religion of the Prince of Peace, than he could possibly do good, were he able to convert all mankind to his own orthodox opinions."