EPISCOPACY, 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 from a very early period 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 only adopted 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. Amongst the Protestant churches abroad, those which were reformed by Luther and his associates were in general episcopal; whilst such as follow the doctrines of Calvin have for the most part dispensed with the order of bishops, as being either unnecessary or unattainable. 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 the others, that it is a pernicious encroachment on the rights of Christians, for which there is no warrant or 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 times, 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 it to our readers to judge 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 in all respects a regular minister of the New Testament, especially if he have an invitation to the pastoral office from some particular society of professing Christians.

Against this scheme, which supposes the rights and privileges of all Christian men to be equal, and which acknowledges no authority in the church excepting that which is derived from election by its members, the Protestant Episcopalian argues in the following manner: He admits, as an undoubted truth, that Christ gave to none of his followers authority or jurisdiction of such a nature as could interfere with the rights and duties of the civil magistrate; that he never conferred upon them what he disclaimed for himself, when, before Pilate, he declared that his kingdom was not of this world. He maintains, however, that Christ did confer upon his immediate followers, and does still confer upon their successors in the ministry, authority and jurisdiction of a specific nature over other Christians; and that neither during our Savior’s abode upon earth, nor during the period of the government of the church by apostles, nor in the age immediately succeeding these, did there exist an absolute equality among believers.

During our Saviour’s ministry, it will be allowed that all power resided in him; and it is important to observe, that even then, before believers were constituted a church, parity was abolished by the ordinance of Jesus himself, in the appointment of the twelve apostles and the seventy disciples. And when the divine Founder of Christianity was making preparations for the maintenance of his religion after his departure hence, he did not abolish the distinction which he had previously instituted, but granted to the twelve apostles a still wider commission, a still more decided supremacy over the ordinary members of the church. “As my Father hath sent me,” said he, “even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said unto them, receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” (John, XX. 21, 22, 23.) “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, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I command you; and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” (Matt, xxviii. 18, 19, 20.) Now the Episcopalian maintains that men who had received this commission could not be on a footing of equality as to ecclesiastical privileges with the great body of believers, who had no commission whatsoever.

If, however, all this be granted, and still the permanence of the commission be denied, the Episcopalian refers to our Lord’s concluding words, “I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world and asks how Christ could be with the commission to the end of the world, if the commission itself was to last only for one generation. But, further than this, he refers to the acts of the apostles, as furnishing abundant evidence that they understood it to be the will of Christ that there should be a perpetual succession of privileged officers in the church. For, in the first place, the vacancy occasioned by the death of Judas was immediately filled by the appointment of Matthias; then a new order of Christian ministers was introduced under the name of deacons; afterwards Barnabas and Saul were ordained to be apostles; and finally, as the number of Christian congregations increased, a race of ministers superior to the deacons was instituted, to administer the sacraments, and to preside in the religious assemblies. To imagine that these were elected by the laity, and derived their authority from that election, could scarcely be credited, even if we possessed no evidence to the contrary. But St Paul (Eph. iv. 11) asserts, that when Christ ascended up fc on high, “He gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers ;” that is to say, he commissioned the apostles, and empowered them to commission the inferior officers.

With respect to the age immediately succeeding the apostolic, we cannot of course refer to Scripture, but must have recourse to the records of primitive antiquity. And in referring to the Eathers for the historical fact, the Episcopalian claims for them nothing more than sufficient honesty to tell the truth when there existed no temptation to commit falsehood, or sufficient sense to abstain from a falsehood which it was impossible should be credited by any of their contemporaries. Now, of the earliest Christian writers, of those called apostolic fathers, because they are believed, on good grounds, to have been contemporaries and companions of the apostles, three, namely, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Hermas, explicitly state the existence of different orders of officers in the church, to whom great honour and obedience was due from the laity; whilst the remaining two, Polycarp and Barnabas, do not [7:9:314] touch upon ecclesiastical polity. Further than this it is unnecessary to descend, as every one now admits that in the age succeeding this, diocesan episcopacy prevailed over the Christian world, and continued undisputed till the Reformation.

Against this historical argument it may be urged, that the commission to the apostles was “to go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost and that consequently a system which confines the right of preaching and baptizing to their successors in a particular order appears inconsistent with the wisdom and the goodness of God; as by such an economy an intolerable dominion would be established over the souls of men, and the very purpose for which the Saviour died might be defeated by the caprice of an ignorant or designing priesthood. To this objection the Episcopalian replies, that under the Mosaic law sacrifice was necessary for the expiation of sin, but that in many most important cases this expiation could be effected only by the instrumentality of a priest; that, in short, the objection, if it have any weight, weighs with equal force against the wisdom and justice of Providence in the ordinary government of the world. In every thing, he observes, that is valuable, whether of a temporal or a spiritual nature, mankind are subjected to mutual dependence; baptism must be conferred, and knowledge must be communicated, by some human being; and it is just as easy to imagine the whole human race, as the whole clerical order, unfaithful to their obligations.

The Episcopalian having by arguments of this nature attempted to prove that Christ did institute a permanent order of ministers in his church, proceeds, in the next place, by an inquiry of the same nature, to prove that this order was not single, but threefold. In the former inquiry he was united with the Presbyterian against the Independent', he has now to answer the arguments of the Presbyterian, who maintains that originally the Christian church contained no office higher than that of presbyter or elder ; and, in opposition to him, the Episcopalian maintains that Christ and his apostles instituted divers orders in the church, of which that of bishops with authority over presbyters, and with the exclusive right of ordination, was the highest.

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, ð/axovo¢ (Eph. iii. 7): yet no man ever su∣ιposed 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 ⅛ e 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 μιτa,, which signifies concurrence rather than instrumentality; but rλα⅛ the latter is δ∕α, which, as every Greek scholar knows is prefixed to the instrumental cause by which any thing 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 any certainty be concluded on either side of this celebrated question. But if, instead of resting on 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 discover in these sufficient evidence that the government of the primitive church was Episcopal.

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 both, is acknowledged by the supporters of presbyterian parity; but it has been said, that in Scripture we find no intimation that the apostolic order was designed for continuance. A Quaker says the same thing of water-baptism; and the Episcopalian observes, that it would be difficult to point out by what passage of Scripture, or what 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 instituted 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 hence, although we frequently find presbyters and deacons administering the sacrament of baptism, we must conclude, that as ŭgudcpfù·’ ministers justice by authority derived from his soverdph 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 n0t easily to be conceived how their baptism could have been the baptism instituted by Christ; for it was not with the external washing, by whomsoever performed, but with the eleven and their successors, that he promised to be “a· ways, even unto the end of the world.” . .

We have already noticed that the eleven, acting, as a orthodox Christians allow, by the extraordinary direction of the Spirit, never appear to have supposed that the commission with which they were invested was to terminate with them. On the contrary, they admitted Matthias Barnabas, and Paul, to the name and authority of apost es, and Timothy and Titus to some office which, it isevide∏ > was superior to that of either ancient or modern p res J ters. Supposing it then granted that Timothy was co∏^ missioned by the apostle Paul not to found a churc where the gospel had been hitherto unpreached, bu [7:9:315]execute some office in one previously founded, the Episcopalian maintains that the directions given by the apostle could be addressed to none but a bishop, that is, to one possessing an ecclesiastical authority superior to that of presbyters. For in Timothy (iv. 2-6) we read, “I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies. Let the presbyters that rule well be counted worthy of double honour; especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. Against a presbyter receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins.” Now, an individual right to direct presbyters as to the doctrine they preached, to receive accusations against them, to rebuke the offending, to confer authoritative approbation upon the deserving, and finally, to ordain, are exactly the offices which belong to a bishop. The right to perform these, if derived from an appointment by presbyters, would have constituted a superintending presbyter ; but the right being conferred by apostolic authority, raised their professor to higher order, and this higher order is the Episcopal.

It is unnecessary to pursue the argument in the case of Titus, bishop of Crete, whose episcopacy is equally clear with that of Timothy; and if no other diocesan bishops are mentioned in the Acts or Epistles, we need not wonder when we reflect how little is said of the greater part of the apostolic body.

We perceive, then, that as far down as the history of the church is warranted in Scripture, there always existed imparity among the ministers of religion, and that the apostles ordained certain officers to superintend or be bishops over the presbyters. And 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 honesty 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, could not have been universally introduced, during that period, either by a concert among the clergy, or by the authority of the civil magistrate.

That at the close of the first or apostolic century the w ole Christian world was Presbyterian, and that, as we now to have been the case, at the close of the second it ¶as entirely Episcopal ; that of the cause or progress of e change not a word should be mentioned by the contemporary writers; that whilst Episcopacy was a foul usurpation of the rights of Christ’s flock, every Christian w ∏ter from Clement downwards should speak of it as a most excellent and even divine institution; that no single presbyter throughout the world should, as far as we know, have said a single word in defence of his insulted order; all this, the Episcopalian maintains, is so utterly· improbable as to justify his regarding it as a fable, and one not very cunningly devised.

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 the langer 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 institution of episcopacy, it is necessary to observe, that the empire, which contained almost all the known part of the Christian world, was divided originally into provinces of two kinds, the one called consular, the other praelorian, of which the former were either larger, or of more political importance. In the reign of Augustus the consular provinces were placed under the direct control of the emperor, and were administered by legates generally of consular rank; whilst the praetorian were left under the control of the senate and people, and were governed by a proconsul, as Asia was. (See Acts, xix. 38.) There was still a third class of smaller provinces retained by the emperor, and governed in general by men of equestrian or even inferior rank, under the title of procurators ; of these Judaea was one. 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 βooarj, or senatus, ordo, and 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 ¶¢oa¢rtia, or the suburbs, and often reached to the distance of ten or twelve 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 concurring 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 bishops in them 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 [7:9:316]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. As 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 a 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 these churches had a fixed pastor similar to a parish-priest amongst 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 precedency to the bishop of the metropolis, who called them together, and who sat as president or moderator of the synod. Hence the origin of metropolitans 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 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 very 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 Chris· tian, 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 to the arbitration of the bishop, whose award, which in former times could be enforced only by the terror of church censures, was then enforced by the secular magis∙ trate. 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, excepting when it was necessary that the person accused, if found guilty, should be excluded the communion of the faithful.

Be this as it may, it is certain that, through the liberality 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, enabled them to join with much effect in the deliberations which ensued; and their superior knowledge, their sacred character, and their influence with the people, soon acquired them power equal to their rank. They must therefore have been thought entitled to obtain admission into that council which was formed by the king and the lay-chiefs at the national assemblies; and as they balanced the authority of those chiefs, we cannot doubt of the king’s disposition 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 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, as far as episcopacy is of apostolical institution, those peers and pι⅛qes possess not theonÿiW character in any higher deg⅛≡e than the bishops in America, who are merely on a fiŵtiing of equality with other citizens, or those of Scotland, who are little more than the ministers of a small body of dissenters from an established church.

Having thus traced what we may call the progress of episcopacy from the simple purity of apostolic times up to the gorgeous prelacy of the middle ages, it seems proper, before concluding, that we should briefly allude to the history and present state of episcopacy in Scotland.

About the time of the Reformation, the want of order and decency in the worship of the reformed church was abolished in the reign of James VI. by the establishment of episcopacy on very liberal principles. This mode o worship obtained the sanction of the most respectable part of the nation, and continued to flourish under the auspices of government, till it was overthrown by the adherents to the national covenant.

Its restoration was, however, er[7:9:317]fected in the year 1662, and twenty-seven years subsequently it was again abolished by the supporters of the Prince of Orange, afterwards William HI.

It may be proper to observe, that the Scotch Episcopal Church had no public liturgy during her legal establishment. It is indeed true that the English book of common prayer was used by the first reformers, and there is reason to believe that John Knox himself was by no means inimical to fixed forms of prayer, nor to clerical subordination; but his successor, Andrew Melvil, introduced an equality among the clergy, and excited the minds of the people against the liturgy to such a degree, that an attempt to modify the prayer-book for the use of the Church of Scotland was productive of the solemn league and covenant, and the subsequent ruin of Charles I.

During the reign of William III. the episcopalians were treated with some degree of severity, because they could not transfer to him that allegiance which they had sworn to King James. It is said that they were prohibited from officiating on the Sabbath-day, except “in their own hired houses, where they received such friends as chose to come in unto them.” In this manner was their worship conducted, praying either extempore, or from premeditation, till the accession of Queen Anne, when the English liturgy was introduced by degrees into Scotland, under the sanction of an act of parliament, passed on the third of March 1712, “to prevent the disturbing of those of the episcopal communion in that part of Great Britain called Scotland, in the exercise of their religious worship, and in the use of the liturgy of the Church of England.” But as their attachment to the house of Stuart was well known, they were, at the rebellion in 1715, laid under some restraints, yet neither severe in their nature, nor of any long continuance, since in 1720 their places of worship were as numerous as before, and frequented by numbers both of rank and respectability, many of whom held places under government.

In England Dr Sancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, with five other bishops, were deprived of their sees for refusing their allegiance to King William; a circumstance which occasioned a schism in the church, as they were extremely popular. Different opinions were entertained respecting the nature and design of the Lord’s Supper, and the controversy infected the Episcopalians of Scotland. On the death of Dr Rose, the proscribed bishop of Edinburgh, the diocesan form of church government was opposed by such of the presbyters as had been raised to the episcopal dignity, and it was proposed to govern the whole church by a college of bishops. This plan, for the adoption of which no precedent could be found in the annals of history, was successfully opposed by many of the most enlightened bishops, and it was of consequence abandoned.

After the rebellion of 1745 additional acts of considerable severity were passed against the Scottish episcopalians, the worst effect of which was the formation of many congregations using the English liturgy, and imagining themselves episcopalians, whilst they and their ministers were living in separation from the bishops of the country· All restraints upon Scottish episcopalians were, owever, removed by the act of 1792; since which period they have enjoyed full liberty of conscience, in common with other dissenters from the established church.

1he repeal of the penal acts of course tended to unite e independent chapels above mentioned to the episco-pa church; but an impediment still existed, which delay-t ’ k r P ro ≡ ress °f t his un iθ n for several years. The Scot’s Episcopal Church had never yet adopted the English ontession of Faith; and though the act of 1792 requir-th t 77 t . ever X t°^ erat θd episcopalian minister should sign e *' lir ly-nine Articles, still, as might have been expected, those ministers were not prepared immediately to sign a declaration of faith at a secular mandate. There consequently remained an ostensible reason for separation till , the year 1804, when a convocation of the episcopal church declared their readiness to sign the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, in the manner enacted by the act of 1792.

The cause of separation being thus removed, the English chapels began immediately to unite themselves to the Scottish Episcopal Church, and to submit to the authority of the bishop within whose jurisdiction they lay; and at the present moment (1834) there are but three congregations in Scotland using the English liturgy, who refuse obedience to the Scottish bishops. The episcopal church in Scotland is now governed by six bishops, having under them about seventy presbyters entrusted with the cure of souls.