а

op, are represented as belonging to the same congre. gation with him, and sitting with him when the con. gregation was convened for public worship. Indeed, some of the early writers go so far as to 'inform us in what manner they were seated, viz. that the Bishop set in the middle of a semi-circular bench; that the Elders took their places on the same bench, on each side of their President or Moderator; and that the Deacons remained in a standing posture in the front of this seat, and in a lower place, ready to perform the services required of them. This representation perfectly accords with our doctrine of primitive Episcopacy, in which every congregation was furnished with a Bishop, Elders, and Deacons; but cannot possibly be reconciled with the diocesan form.

A fourth fact, which shows that the primitive Bishop was only the pastor of a single congregar tion, is, that the early writers represent the Bishop as living in the same house with his Presbyters or Elders; a house near the place of worship to which they resorted, and capable of accommodating them all. They tell us, also, that the Bishop, together with his Elders, were supported by the same obla. tions; that these oblations were offered on one al tar, or communion table ; and that they were constantly divided, agreeably to certain established rules between the Bishop and Elders. It must be obvious to every impartial reader, that this account agrees only with the system of parochial Episcor: pacy, and that on any other principle such a plan

of procedure would be at once impracticable and absurd.

The last circumstance relating to the primitive Bishop, which serves to fix his character, as the pastor of a single congregation, is the nature of that service which he was accustomed to perform. We have seen something of this in the foregoing quotations; but it will be proper to bring together into one view the duties incumbent on the Bishop, in the apostolic and immediately succeeding ages. The early writers, then, speak of the primitive Bishop as performing, in general, all the Baptisms in his flock; as the only person who, in ordinary cases, administered the Lord's Supper, as constantly present with his people when convened; as the leader of their worship; as their stated public instructor ; as visiting all the sick under his care; as catechising the young people several times in each week; as having the superintendency of the poor, none of whom were to be relieved by the Deacons without, in each particular case, consulting the Bishop; as celebrating all marriages; as attending all funerals ; as under obligations to be personally acquainted with every individual of his flock, not overlooking even the servant-men and maids ; as employed in healing differences among neighbors; and besides all these, attending to the discipline of his society, receiving and excluding members, &c. &c. Now is it not evident that no man could perform these duties for more than a single congregation? Can any impartial reader be

2.

lieve that the officers to whom all these details of parochial labors were allotted, were any other than the pastors of particular churches? To suppose that they were diocesan Bishops, having a number of congregations, with subordinate pastors, under their control, is a supposition too absurd to be for a mo ment admitted.

I have repeatedly had occasion, in the preceding sheets, to observe, that when some of the Fathers speak of Elders or Presbyters as distinguished from Bishops, it proves nothing in favor of the Episco. pal cause, because we know there were Ruling El ders in the primitive church; and it is, to say the least, highly probable that when this distinction is made, the writers generally mean to include in the Presbytery those who ruled only, as well as those who both ruled and taught. That there were such officers in the apostolic age, we have before adduced proof which is pronounced satisfactory by some of the ablest Episcopal writers. But we have further evidence that this class of church officers was not discontinued in the church till after the third century. In the year 103, in the Gesta Purgationis Cæciliani et Felicis, we meet with the following enumeration of church officers, Presbyteri, Diacones et Seniores, i. e. "The Presbyters, the Deacons and Elders." And a little after, it is added-" Adhibite conclericos et seniores plebis, ecclesiasticos viros, et inquirant diligenter qua sint ista dissensiones, i. e. "add the fellow-clergymen, and

"Elders of the people, ecclesiastical men, and let "them inquire diligently what are these dissen"tions." In that assembly, likewise, several letters were produced and read; one addressed Clero et Senioribus. i. e. "to the Clergyman and the Elders;" and another, Clericis et Senioribus. i. e. "to the Clergymen and the Elders." In confirmation of this fact, we may likewise cite Origen, who, in the third book of his "Treatise against Celsus,” has these expressions: "There are some rulers appointed, who may inquire concerning the conversation and manners of those that are admitted, that they may debar from the congregation such as commit filthiness." Cyprian also, a great authority with Episcopalians, lib. iv. epist. 39, writing to his Presbyters and Elders, and people*, respecting a certain person, called Numidicus, enjoins that he should be reckoned with the Presbyters of that church, and should sit with the clergy, to make up their Presbytery; and yet it appears that it was only as a ruling and not as a teaching Presbyter, that he was to be received by them; for Cyprian subjoins, Et promovebitur quidem, cum Deus permiserit, ad ampliorem locum religionis sue, quando in præsentiam protegente Domino venerimus. i. e. "He "shall be promoted, if it be the will of God, to a "more distinguished place of his religion (or of his "religious function) when, through the divine pro

* Cyprian was, at this time, in a state of exile from his congregation.

R

г

a

tection, we shall return.” If this Numidicus were already a teaching Presbyter, how could he be promoted ? Cyprian could not have meant to promise that he should be made a diocesan Bishop; for that, on the principles of Episcopalians themselves, was an honor which he had no right to dispose of. He could not mean that this man should be the Pastor or Bishop of the single congregation of which he himself had the pastoral charge; for this promotion was to take place when he returned to his people, and of course, when they would not stand in need of another Pastor. The only proba-, ble inference, then, is, that Numidicus was authorized to take a place in the Presbytery of that church, as a ruling Elder, with the promise, that on the return of the Pastor, he should be promoted to the office of teaching Elder, and empowered to administer the word and ordinances.

Hilary clearly describes the office of ruling Elder in the church. In his explication of 1 Tim. v. 1. he has the following passage.

4 Where“ fore both the Synagogue, and afterwards the

Church, had Elders, without whose counsel no

thing was done in the church; which order, by “ what negligence it grew into disuse, I know not, “ unless, perhaps, by the sloth, or rather by the “ pride of the Teachers, wbile they alone wished

to appear something." Here is an express reference to the idea stated in a former letter, that the Christian church was modelled after the Synagogue. Here is also an explicit declaration, that