can refuse to communicate in it, without dividing itself from the communion of the Catholic Church; I say, refuse to communicate in it, because it is possible for a church to be without this government, which yet neither refuses it, nor the communion of any other church for the sake of it. A church may be debarred of it by unavoidable necessities, and against its consent, and, under this circumstance, I can by no means think such a church to be separated from the Catholic Church; it is, indeed, an imperfect and defective part of it. Yet it is a plain case, that if it reject the Episcopacy and separate from the communion of it, it thereby wholly divides itself from the Catholic Church. For whether Episcopacy be of divine institution or not, this is matter of fact granted on all hands, that for 1400 years at least, all those churches into which the Catholic Church has been distributed, have been subject to the episcopal government and discipline; therefore, they who now separate from the episcopal communion as such, must, in so doing, separate themselves from the communion of all churches for 1400 years together: And then either all those churches must be out of the communion of the Catholic Church, and consequently, during all that time there must have been no such thing as a visible Catholic Church upon earth; or else those communities of christians which separate from all those churches, must be schisms and separations from the Catholic Church.

These three marks then, the Essentials of FAITH, WORSHIP, and GOVERNMENT, are the characteristic notes, by which the pure Catholic Church is every where distinguished from the congregations of heretics and schismatics, The primitive christians "con

tinued stedfast in the apostles' Doctrine [i. e. faith,] and Fellowship [i.e. under their government,] and in breaking of Bread, and in Prayers[i.e. worship,] (Acts ii. 42.) And these (says Bishop Beveridge, on this text) are plainly the true marks or notes of a Christian Church, whereby it may be distinguished from all other assemblies or bodies of men, and which, consequently, all persons must be stedfast in, who desire to continue real and sound members of that church, which Christ Jesus hath established in the world.

All parties of professing christians, however, are not inclined to concur in these sentiments, relative to the marks of the Church. The Papists* extend their num

* See Dr Sherlock's Discourse on Bellarmine's Fifteen Notes, and his Defence of do. in the Preservative. Grascome's Answer to Huddleston's short and plain Way, &c. Lond. 1703, p. 64 to 80. Dr De la Hogue and others reduce the number to four, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic; by the first, they mean Unity to the Bishop of Rome, and by the third, Universality, neither of which are essential notes of the church.-Nothing can be a note of a church, but what is essential to it by institution; for whatever institution makes proper and necessary-it makes essential. I confess this is a very improper way of speaking, to call the nature and essence of any thing the note of it,—for a note or sign ought to be different and distinct from the thing shewn or signified by it; and thus we ought to deny that there are any notes of a church, or that the church can be found out by notes. But, in compliance with the Popish way speaking, we call those the notes of the church, which are not properly notes, but the rule and standard of the church, by which all societies, which pretend to be christian churches, are to be tried. And it is certain there can be no other rule or standard of the church, but its Institution, as to Faith, and Worship, and Government. Common sense will tell us, that there is no way to try an instituted society, but by the rules of its institution: That church, which conforms to the original rule and standard of its institution, is a true church; and every church is more or less corrupt, as it varies from it. Sherlock's Disc. p. 54. Bramhall's Works, p. 143.

B

of

ber to fifteen; the generality of Dissenters, on the other hand, limit them to two, and consider Church Government merely as expedient, but not at all neces sary. Even the Presbyterians, who formerly contended so vehemently for the Divinum Jus of Presbyterian government, have now abandoned it, and maintain, that "with respect to a particular form of Church Government, Christ appears to have left this point undetermined, and has only required, by express law, that all things should be done decently and in order*. Some even go so far as to affirm, that a man may be a good catholic christian, without uniting himself to church governors of any denomination. But the danger and absurdity of this notion, and the necessity of "continuing stedfastly in the apostles' fellowship," and of avoiding the sin of schism, I shall fully demonstrate hereafter.

In the mean time, I shall now proceed to prove, that the Episcopal form of Church Government was instituted by our Saviour and his apostles, as a distinguishing mark of the true church,-that it was to correspond with the nature of the faith it was intended to preserve, that of being the "same yesterday, to-day, and for ever,"-and consequently, that all professed christians are bound to receive "that particular form, and cannot adopt any other without incurring the charge of disobedience to Christ as King of Zion, and consequently incurring his wrath.". But before I proceed, I must remind the reader, that the question is not what form of Church Government appears to this or that lover of novelty, the most ex

*The Nature of the Presbyterian Form of Church Government, by B. M'Dowel, D. D. Dub. 1808, p. 54. 11.

pedient, but what was the government established by Christ and his apostles. This is confessed by a late violent opponent of Episcopacy: If it can be proved says Dr Mitchell (Presbyterian Letters, p. 28, 1809,) that Episcopacy is of divine institution, our rejection of it would be absolutely without excuse, although we should never discover that it is good for any thing. Jesus Christ had an unquestionable title to prescribe the form of government, without instructing us in the reasons on which he acted; and we may well believe, that what he prescribed, is the fittest for us and the best. But from whence are we to derive our information with respect to this important point? Undoubtedly from the scriptures; and no man (to use Dr M.'s words) shall ever persuade me to believe, that what is not to be found in scripture as a condition of salvation, is one of the terms of acceptance with God, through Jesus Christ. "Instead then of forming a system agreeable to our views of expediency, and then searching for passages of scripture to support it, let us begin by ascertaining particular facts in regard to the apostolic churches." Haldane's Social Worship, Edin. p. 100.

CHAP II.

THE THREE DISTINCT ORDERS OF BISHOPS, PRESBYTERS

I

OR PRIESTS, AND DEACONS, PROVED FROM THE SCRIPTURES AND PRIMITIVE FATHERS.

CONFESS, indeed, that the orders which we now call Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not distinguished in scripture by these names. The orders themselves are plainly distinguished in scripture, but each name is not particularly and constantly applied to a distinct order. For those whom we now call Bishops, were then distinguished by the name of apostles; and the names of Bishop and Presbyter are there promiscuously used for that order, which we now call Presbyter or Priest. It is not to be wondered (says King Charles I. in his Second Answer to the Presbyterian Ministers,) if it should happen, that, in the New Testament, the word Episcopus or Bishop is usually applied to Presbyters, who were indeed overseers of the flock, rather than unto church governors, who had then a title of greater eminency, viz. Apostles. But when the government of churches came into the hands of their successors, the names were, by common usage, very soon appropriated,-that of Bishop to the governor of a diocese,—that of Presbyter to the ordinary minister or priest.-This is a distinction I would desire the reader carefully to observe, because, upon the community of the names Bishop and Presbyter in scripture, depend most of the arguments