ter, and his agony in the garden, Peter is not only one, but invariably named first. Paul indeed once, in mentioning those three, arranges them otherwise, (Gal. ii. 9,) James, Cephas, and John. It appears, however, from this very passage, that Paul considered him as the head of the twelve. When he says the gospel of the circumcision was committed to Peter, it is evident that he is particularized by way of eminence, for no person can doubt that Peter had this ministry in common with the other eleven. And in taking notice of the success of the gospel among the Jews, Peter alone is again named as the great instrument God had employed for that purpose. And in another place, he mentions his own visit to the mother church at Jerusalem, as made peculiarly to Peter, with whom he abode fifteen days. These, I acknowledge, are but slight circumstances taken severally, but taken in conjunction, they are strong enough for supporting all that I intend to build upon them. For nothing is here ascribed to him as peculiar but the presidentship, or the first place in the discharge of the functions of an apostle common to them all. He was not among the apostles as a father among his children, of a different rank, and of a superiour order, but as an elder brother among his younger brothers, the first of the same rank and order. "Be not you called rabbi," said Jesus to the twelve, some time after the honourable declaration made to Peter," for one is your master, even Christ, and all you are "brethren; and call no man your father upon the earth, for ❝ one is your father who is in heaven." It is perhaps unnecessary to add, that whatever was conferred on Peter was merely personal, and could descend to none after him. This indeed is an unavoidable consequence of another point, that the apostolate itself was personal, and did not admit succession, which I have proved to you in the the preceding part of this discourse. As to Dodwell's notion of the presidency of the apostle James, the son of Alpheus, otherwise James the less, also called the Lord's brother, and supposed to have been the first bishop of Jerusalem, and likewise of the temporary primacy, first of the church of Jerusalem, afterwards of the church of Ephesus, I have taken notice of both in another place.

Some keen controvertists on the protestant side would be apt to censure what has been now advanced in regard to the apostle Peter, as yielding too much to the Romanist. Yet in fact nothing at all is yielded. The bishop of Rome has no more claim to be the successor of Peter, than the bishop of London has, or indeed any pastor in the church. It is but too commonly the effect, though a very bad effect, of religious controversy, that impartiality and even judgment are laid aside by

both parties, and each considers it as his glory to contradict the other as much, and to recede from his sentiments as far, as possible. One is afraid of every thing that looks like concession: it is like losing ground in a battle, For when once unhappily the controversial spirit has gotten possession of a man, his object is no longer truth but victory. Against this evil I would warn you, my young friends, as much as possible. Revere truth above all things wherever you find it. Attend coolly and candidly to the voice of reason, from what quarter soever it comes. Let not the avenues to your understanding be choked up with prejudices and prepossessions, but be always open to conviction.

Now, though what has been advanced in regard to the apos. tolate should not be deemed sufficiently established, yet that one, on account either of seniority, or of superiour merit, habitually presided in the presbytery, will still remain probable, for the other reasons assigned, the obvious conveniency of the thing, the commonness of it in all sorts of councils and conven tions; particularly in the sanhedrim and synagogue, the only rational account that, in a consistency with other parts of sacred writ, or with any christian relicks of equal antiquity, can be gi ven of the address, in the singular number, to the pastors of the seven churches severally in the Apocalypse; and I may add, the most plausible account which it affords of the origin of the more considerable distinction that afterwards obtained between bishop and presbyter. The whole of life shows us, that from the most trivial causes the greatest effects sometimes proceed. History in particular evinces this truth, and no sort of history more remarkably than the ecclesiastical.

It may further be observed, in support of the same doctrine, that some of the most common appellations, whereby the bishop was first distinguished, bear evident traces of this origin. He was not only called poess, but poedpos, president, chairman; and by periphrasis the presbyters were called to devTeps Ipove, they who possessed the second seat or throne, as the bishop was πρωτοκαθεδρος, πрaroxabedpos, he who possessed the first. Thus he was in the presbytery, as the speaker in the house of commons, who is not of a superiour order to the other members of the house, but is a commoner among commoners, and is only, in consequence of that station, accounted the first among those of his own rank. The same thing might be illustrated by the prolocutor of either house of convocation in England, or the moderator of an ecclesiastical judicatory in Scotland. Now as the president is, as it were, the mouth of the council, by which they deliver their judgment, and by which they address themselves to others, it is natural to suppose, that through the same channel, to wit, their

president, they should be addressed by others. A letter therefore to the congregation might very naturally be directed to him who possessed the first place, and presided among them.

But it may be said, Is not this at most but a plausible.conjecture, and not a proof? I acknowledge, indeed, that the point does not admit so positive a proof as might be wished. But in a case of this kind, the most plausible conjecture, as it is all that can be had, will be accounted sufficient by a reasonable man for determining the question. This solution appears to me the best, because it puts no undue stretch upon the words, and is perfectly compatible with that equality in power and or der, which the uniform style of the Acts and the Epistles, in the promiscuous application of the same appellatives, and in the use of the plural number on such occasions, proves to have subsisted among the pastors first settled by the apostles and evangelists. This equality is, in my opinion, strongly sup ported. It is only the solution now given of the difficulty, arising from the noted passage in the Apocalypse, that I admit to be conjectural. And all I plead in its favour is, that of all the conjectures I have seen on that article, it is the most likely.

It was doubtless the distinction of one pastor in every church, marked by this apostle, though not made by any who had written before him, which has led Tertullian, whose publications first appeared but about a century after the apostles, to consider him as the institutor of episcopacy. These are his words, (lib. iv. adv, Marcionem) "Ordo tamen episcopo"rum ad originem recensus, in Joannem stabit auctorem:" which Bingham (Christian Antiquities, b. ii. chap. 1, sect. 3,) translates thus: The order of bishops, when it is traced up to its original, will be found to have Saint John for one ❝of its authors." A palpable misinterpretation of our antiquary. Tertullian says expressly, "Our inquiries into the origin of the episcopal order terminate in John the author." Had that father said, "Mundus ad originem recensus, in "Deum stabit creatorem ;" would Bingham have rendered it, "The world, when it is traced up to its original, will be found "to have God for one of its creators?" I cannot allow myself to think it. Yet the interpolation in rendering creatorem one. of its creators, is not more flagrant, than in rendering auctorem one of its authors. By this version he avoids showing what is extremely plain from the words, that Tertullian did not think there was any subordination in the pastors of the churches instituted by the other apostles, Else how should he refer us to John, of whom, though an eminent propagator of the faith, we have not such particular accounts as of some of his col

leagues? If he had discovered any traces of such a disparity in the settling of the churches, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, or mentioned in the Epistles of Paul, it is impossi ble he should have referred us solely to John, of whom we have so little information, as the author. But this opinion he has evidently founded on the Apocalypse, a book mentioned by him in the same sentence. Now if he thought that that apostle gave a model to the churches established by him, which the other apostles had not given to theirs, (though in aftertimes it came to be universally adopted) we must conclude, at least, that he did not consider any particular external form as essential to the christian church, but as a thing entirely discretionary in the several founders. And that this was his opinion, appears at least probable from this, that he had mentioned John's paternal care of certain churches in the preceding sentence, which he therefore considered as peculiarly his. "Ha"bemus et Joannis allumnas ecclesias." To me, however, it is more likely, that John, in the direction of the epistles to the seven churches, availed himself of a distinction, which had subsisted from the beginning, but as it implied no difference in order and power, was too inconsiderable to be noticed in the history. This I think at least more credible, than that either the church was new modelled by this apostle, or that the different apostles adopted different plans.

In my next lecture, I shall make a few more observations on the constitution of the apostolick church, and on the nature and character of episcopacy, which obtained in the second and third centuries; and shall, in that and some subsequent discourses, proceed in tracing the progress of the hierarchy from the latent and inconsiderable seeds or principles whence it sprang, to the amazing height at which it at length arrived.

M

LECTURE VI.

THE purpose of this lecture is to make a few more obser

vations on the constitution of the apostolick church, and on the nature of the episcopacy which obtained in the second

and third centuries.

When the gospel was preached by the apostles throughout the different cities and countries into which they travelled, wherever they made as many converts as would be sufficient to form a congregation, they caused them to unite together for this purpose; and with the first convenient opportunity, settled (as Clemens Romanus expresses it) bishops and deacons among them, for instructing them more fully, both publickly and privately, for guiding them by their counsel in every doubtful or difficult exigence, and for conducting more regularly in their assemblies the publick worship and ordinances. When the disciples in any place were not numerous enough to form a congregation by themselves, they united them to that which was nearest. To the congregation they gave the name EXXAT which is commonly rendered church.

The deacons, who seem at first to have been chosen merely in consequence of a particular exigence, as we learn from Acts vi. 1, &c. to wit, for the inspection of the poor, and the distribution of the charitable collections, were admitted very early, probably in the time of the apostles, to an inferiour part in the sacred ministry, such as attending the pastors in the discharge of the religious offices, and acting under their direction. The deaconship served in fact as a noviciate to the ministry.

The bishops or presbyters (for these terms, as we have seen, were then used synonymously) appear to have been all-perfectly co-ordinate in ministerial powers. That a certain priority or presidentship, for order's sake, and in deference either to seniority, or to distinguishable talents, was allowed to one of their number, is probable for the reasons assigned in my last discourse. That the pastors were from the beginning vested with a superintendency over the congregation purely