latter function under the name of bishop; while the others, retaining the name of elders, assisted him in the government of the church. There would then have been as many bishops in a city as there were congregations; and since the primitive bishop was nothing but the overseer or pastor of a particular flock, it was of course designed that there should be as many bishops as flocks.*

This natural process of growth was arrested by the intrusion of the idea, that as there must be one bishop to every church, there could be but one; and of course as there was but one church in a city, so there could be but one bishop in a city. The origin of this idea is sufficiently obvious.

The early Christians in each city would for a long time cling fondly to the sentiment that they constituted together but one society-one family.

As long as possible they would continue with one accord together, in the breaking of bread and in prayers. They would meet in one place until their increasing numbers forbade it. When obliged to meet for ordinary worship in different places, they still recognized their unity in the strongest manner, by admitting of but one communion table; and feeding sacramentally at one board.

They recognized as their common pastor the honored disciple whom some great apostle or evangelist had ordained over them. When they ought to have swarmed boldly out under a guide of their own, and colonized independently, they stuck fast by the original hive.

This tendency was strengthened and perpetuated by a mistaken interpretation of the language in which the Apostle John addressed his admonitions to the churches of Asia. The whole body of believers in each of the cities enumerated, constituting one church-"the church in Smyrna," "the church in Pergamos," the entire body of its elders or bishops was also re

* Some of the Fathers argued the rule of one bishop to each church, from Paul's insisting that a bishop should be "the husband of one wife.” Thus St. Ambrose De dignitate sacerdotali, Lib. iv., “unius uxoris virum. Si ad superficiem tantum literæ respiciamus, prohibet digamum episcopum ordinari. Si vero ad altiorem sensum conscendimus, inhibet episcopum duas usurpare ecclesias."

VOL. III.-3

garded and addressed as a unity, under the Jewish title of office "angel." It was an easy thing to infer from this technical style of address, that the apostle John recognized but one bishop as legitimate in a city; and this is the sum total of the evidence that John established diocesan Episcopacy in Asia.

The understanding thus established was rigidly adhered to by the early Church, except in certain peculiar cases.

An aged or infirm bishop might have a coadjutor appointed. But this hardly amounted to an exception. On the death of the first incumbent in such cases, the coadjutor became sole bishop.

Where a schism had prevailed, and each party had ordained bishops in the same places, it was agreed by way of reconciling the schismatics that their bishops should retain their name and honors, and have a separate church for themselves; and whichever of them, Catholic or Donatist for example, died first, the other should succeed as sole incumbent of the episcopal see.

But apart from such exceptional cases, the rule became absolute, that there could be but one bishop in a city.

This rule created diocesan Episcopacy.

The scriptural idea that all the true believers in a place-no matter into how many congregations divided-constitute ONE CHURCH, and the UNSCRIPTURAL idea that one church could have but one bishop-instead of having as many bishops at least, as congregations-these two ideas taken together, broke up the primitive parity of the clergy, and introduced a hierarchy into the Christian Church.

For, obviously by this understanding, the pastor of the first congregation organized in Rome, becomes bishop of the Church in Rome. When a second congregation is organized, it cannot have a bishop. It is supplied with a presbyter, whose official relations are not to the whole city like the bishop's, but only to that particular charge. Thus the process goes on with the growth of the Christian community, until we find in Rome at the middle of the third century, as already observed, forty-six congregations, each having a presbyter for pastor, but all regarded as making up the one Church of Rome under the govern

ment of one bishop. Besides these, there was a corps of seven deacons to look after the temporalities of the entire Christian community.

The Church in Rome, therefore, having at the time referred to, perhaps fifty thousand communicants, was organized thus: one bishop, forty-six presbyters, and seven deacons. We make no account here of the lesser orders. The Church of Carthage, it is known, resembled this in its organization; and we have every reason to believe the same thing of some other large cities.

We distinctly admit and affirm, therefore, the existence of diocesan Episcopacy in some of the larger cities of the Roman empire by the middle of the third century. That it did not exist at that time universally, even in large cities, and had no existence at all in the rural districts, we now proceed to show.

In illustration of the former part of this proposition, we refer to the Church of Antioch. It will be remembered that this church which was planted soon after the martyrdom of Stephen, enjoyed for a year the labors of the Apostle Paul; and that it was there the disciples first received the honored name of Christians. Subsequently Antioch became one of the great civil and ecclesiastical capitals of the East. It was distinguished as the pastoral charge of the martyr Ignatius. It held the sacred relics of Simeon of the Pillar. It was the place of the birth, and early labors of that illustrious ornament of the eastern pulpit, John Chrysostom. During the period of Chrysostom's labors as deacon and presbyter, it could boast of two eminent bishops in succession, Meletius and Flavian. But down to as late a period as this, the Christians in Antioch constituted but a single parish. The bishop of Antioch was but the chief pastor of a single congregation. There was even but one church edifice in the city.

"In many of the larger cities," observes Neander, "where the Christians formed the greater part of the population, as in Rome and Alexandria, it had been found necessary to establish small parochial churches, over each of which a presbyter was appointed pastor; and these lesser communities were dependent upon the mother church, which was under the immediate superintendence of the bishop. But at Antioch we find no trace of

such a regulation; nor can we discover in the discourses of Chrysostom any mention of an arrangement similar to that which existed in other cities, where it was the custom for individual presbyters, each belonging to the mother church, to perform divine service successively in the smaller and dependent churches. From the sermons of Chrysostom it appears that at one hour of the day the bishop, at another a presbyter preached; and this was the only provision made for the vast congregation of Christians at Antioch. Chrysostom, therefore, did not preach to any particular flock, nor had he a separate cure of souls. He assisted the bishop throughout his diocese (congregation.) But as the power of teaching, and the gift of eloquence were not conferred upon all presbyters, to those who failed in these respects were entrusted the administration of sacraments, and the care of the poor: while the duty of preaching was assigned to those who possessed in an eminent degree the requisite qualifications."*

It will be seen from this authority, that even down to the middle of the fourth century, the bishop of the Church in Antioch was merely the pastor of a single congregation: with only a single "meeting-house" in his whole diocese. As assistants he had a body of presbyters and deacons.† Of the presbyters some "ruled," or occupied themselves with administrative functions; others, like Chrysostom, labored in word and doctrine. The distinction was founded in their diverse gifts or capabilities. All received the same ordination, to the eldership; and whether one should teach, and another should attend to government and discipline exclusively, depended merely on their personal qualifications.

Excepting, therefore, the single circumstance that such of the presbyters as had a special gift for it, were permitted to preach more formally than consists with our usage, the Church in Antioch was simply a Presbyterian Church. That there may have been certain obscure Episcopal elements within it we are not concerned to deny; for considerably earlier than this, there were signs, to use Bunsen's remark, of "a stirring and

*Life of Chrysostom: Stapleton's translation, i. 108.

See "Unpublished Apostolical Canons of the Church in Antioch." Bunsen's Hippolytus, App. B. v.

organizing Episcopacy in the principal churches." But if, having the oversight as bishop of but a single congregation, which met in a single house of worship, and was governed by pastor and elders conjointly, and administered to in temporalities by a body of elders and deacons, constitutes essentially a Presbyterian relation, then Meletius and Flavian were as good Presbyterian bishops as Bishop Barnes or Bishop Thompson.

The size of the congregation is a matter of no consequence. Neither is it of any consequence, in this relation, that the Bishop of Antioch was also Metropolitan, and exercised an extensive jurisdiction over the churches of Syria. The question is what he was as bishop: and the essential facts are that, quoad hoc, he was the pastor of a single congregation; and that he had associated with him in the work of government and instruction, a body of administrative elders; of whom such as had the requisite gifts were permitted to hold forth in public.

While therefore we admit that by the middle of the third century the Episcopal system was well established in Rome and Carthage, we as distinctly affirm, on the above showing, that then, and long afterwards, substantial Presbyterianism maintained itself in Antioch.

And now if it should be imagined that the church organization in Antioch was peculiar, and has been adduced as a solitary favorable instance, we further affirm that it constituted at the time specified, even in larger cities, the general rule; while such Episcopal organization as that in Rome was rare and exceptional. The evidence of this is, that the existence of the latter was thought worthy of explicit mention by contemporaneous writers, as a noteworthy circumstance. No contemporaneous writer will stultify himself, by informing his readers of a condition of things so notoriously and universally established, that the supposition of the contrary would be absurd.

A citizen of New York writing to a citizen of Philadelphia, will not think it necessary to declare for his information that the chief magistrate of the United States bears the title of President; or that the Romish religion is not by law established in Connecticut. On the other hand, he might very naturally have occasion to inform him of that recent change in the city charter of New York, by which the municipal administration is