no doubt, referred to the essence of religion, to that worshipping of God in spirit and in truth, which is not necessarily confined to time or place, or to any kind whatever of outward observances; and with which the abolition of the Mosaic ceremonial law, (that wall of separation between the chosen people of God and other nations, Eph. ii. 14,) and the union of all nations in one spiritual worship and one faith, were closely connected. The Apostles had by this time understood, through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the nature of the spiritual worship founded on faith; but the consequences flowing from it to outward Judaism they did not so clearly apprehend." *

Stephen, who appears to have been of Hellenistic descent and education, had naturally less difficulty in attaining a clear and enlarged view of the true position of Christianity, as regarded the ritual observances of the Mosaic law. And being "full of the Holy Ghost and of faith," and burning with zeal, he dared to express himself so strongly, that it was alleged against him that he had spoken "blasphemous words against Moses, and against God," and ceased "not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place" (the temple) "and the law." (Acts vi. 11, 13.) This led to the delivery of his noble and eloquent defence, and to his cruel martyrdom.

This event perhaps, more than any other circumstance connected with the early history of the primitive church, tended to develope and bring into general operation the true character and power of the Gospel. Stephen died a martyr, not only for the truth of the Gospel in general, but in particular for a more free and wider application of it. And these benefits followed to the church: its vital truth was developed. Its connexion with the ritual observances of the temple ceased. A new worship, arising out of the operation of divine truth, and the influences of the Holy Ghost, arose into being; and at the same time this furious persecution scattered the disciples, and with them the elements of the spiritual life, to other and distant cities.

Yet still, as the Jewish Scriptures contained those great truths on which the Christian church was built, and by which the divinity of its Author was attested, the disciples every where made their first proclamation of mercy to their brethren the Jews. For this purpose

they invariably sought out the synagogue in every city; and, availing themselves of the liberty awarded to all the intelligent and learned of the community, they took occasion to preach Christ and him crucified, as the "end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." But having first ministered the Gospel to the seed of Abraham, they afterward turned to the Gentiles, who in great numbers received the word with all readiness of mind, and turned from dumb idols to serve the living and true God.

Thus Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists laboured with zeal and success; and saw, as the fruit of the blessing of God upon their ministry, numerous Christian communities rising up into existence, and gradually acquiring increasing numbers and influence. This success created a necessity for the establishment of a permanent ministry, adapted at the same time to govern and to teach these numerous bodies of converts; the itinerating duties of Apostles and Evangelists preventing them from giving the necessary attention to the several infant churches. For this purpose Pastors and teachers were appointed. This, we are told, formed one important part of apostolic care and duty,-to "set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Elders in every city." (Titus i. 5.)

In carrying out this object, as well as in the arrangement of Christian worship, there can be no doubt that the Apostles followed the model which they found existing in the synagogues. In the absence of any direct proof, this might be expected. It stood entirely disconnected from the sacrificial and ceremonial service of the temple; it provided for the reading of the holy Scriptures, and for delivering addresses, explanatory and practical, based upon their authority and teaching; it was that scheme with which Jews were everywhere familiar, and in which numbers of serious persons among the Gentiles, disgusted with their absurd and wicked idolatries, had begun to participate; and, lastly, it was the means by which the Apostles generally brought the truths of the Gospel to the ears of the Jewish people. All these circumstances tend to render it extremely probable, that the synagogue service and government served, at least to some extent, as a model for many arrangements which were made in the primitive church.

In the Jewish synagogue "in the time of Christ, the person who read the section for the Sabbath, or any other person who was respectable for learning and had fluency of speech, addressed the people. (Matt. iv. 23; Luke iv. 16-21; Acts xiii. 5, 15; xv. 21.)

"The other persons who were employed in the service and government of the synagogue, in addition to the person who read the Scriptures, and the person who rendered them into the vernacular tongue, were as follows:

1. The Ruler of the synagogue, who presided over the assembly, and invited readers and speakers, unless some persons who were acceptable voluntarily offered themselves. (Mark v. 22, 35— 38; Luke viii. 41; xiii. 14, 15; Acts xiii. 15.)

"2. The Elders of the synagogue,Presbuteroi. They appear to have been the counsellors of the head or Ruler of the synagogue; and were chosen from among the more learned and powerful of the people.

"3. The Collectors of alms,-Deacons. There can be no doubt that there were officers of this nature in the synagogues at the time of the Apostles." *

From the obvious analogy which exists between the names and offices above mentioned, and those which obtained in the primitive church, it has been disputed whether the Apostles, to whom Christ committed the chief direction of affairs, designed from the first that believers should form a society exactly on the model of the synagogue, and, in pursuance of this plan, instituted particular offices for the government of the church corresponding to that model; or whether, without such a pre-conceived plan, distinct offices were appointed, as circumstances required, in doing which they would avail themselves of the model of the synagogue with which they were familiar. We have not the slightest doubt that the latter opinion is correct. The gradual manner in which the Christian scheme was evidently developed in the minds of the Apostles, is alone sufficient to attest it.

The first occasion of the Apostles taking any decided step of this kind is recorded in Acts vi. It appears that, from the day of Pentecost, wealthy Christians had been in the practice of contributing to the relief of the poor brethren. When the church had been

considerably extended, and many Hellenistic converts had been added to it, there arose a murmuring among them, that their widows were neglected in the ministration of the daily relief which the church afforded, while those of the Hebrew members were better provided for. To remedy this, the Apostles recommended the appointment of seven brethren, whose special duty it should be to attend to this business. The manner of proceeding in this appointment is worthy of observation. The Apostles pointed out the qualifications which the office required, and requested the brethren to select from among them seven such men. This was done, and the persons were presented to the Apostles; "who, when they had prayed, laid their hands on them," and appointed them to that particular duty. Thus was the first office, which was instituted for the regular administration of the concerns of the church, provided for. The Apostles refused to entangle themselves in the financial affairs of the church, and those persons were regularly appointed to take charge of this department. It cannot, of course, be supposed that this office was precisely the same as that of a similar name in the Jewish synagogue; yet still it is sufficiently evident, that the Apostles had reference to the one when they appointed the other, and therefore gave it the same appellation.

The institution of the office of Presbyters is more obscure. We have no precise information respecting its origin; although there is reason for believing that it was introduced under circumstances similar to that of Deacons. "As the church was constantly increasing in size, the details of its management also multiplied; the guidance of all its affairs could no longer be conveniently combined with the exercise of their peculiar apostolic functions; they also wished, in accordance with the spirit of Christianity, not to rule alone, but preferred that the body of believers should govern themselves under their guidance: thus they divided the government of the church, which hitherto they had exercised alone, with tried men, who formed a presiding Council of Elders, similar to that which was known in the Jewish synagogues under the title of Presbuteroi." Thus the church was provided with Pastors. It has been supposed that this appointment was originally

made with direct reference to the government, direction, and management of the church; and this is rendered more probable from the fact, that, in the primitive Christian assemblies, teaching was not confined to certain authorized persons. It is, however, evident, that the ministration of pure doctrine was one important branch of the Presbyters' duty; for St. Paul, in his memorable address to the Elders of the Ephesian church, says: "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." (Acts xx. 28.) Here the great subject of care is exhibited as the "feeding of the church;" which sufficiently proves that the providing of a spiritual and instructive ministry was one great element in the duty of their office.

Here it will be necessary to notice the application of another term used by the inspired writers in relation to the Christian ministry; although it will bring us into connexion with one of the most violent controversies which have agitated the church of Christ. We allude to the use and meaning of the term Ἐπίσκοπος, which our English translators have rendered "Bishop."

With regard to this particular, we wish to speak briefly, but explicitly. It is agreed on all hands, that the terms "Presbyter" and Episcopus were used indiscriminately by the writers of holy Scripture.* This might be shown at length; but the following texts will be decisive:"Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you (Episcopous) "Bishops or "overseers." (Acts xx. 28.) This language was addressed by St. Paul to the Presbyters of Ephesus; and here he evidently says, that the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops. Again the Apostle Peter says, "The Presbyters which are among you I exhort, who am also a Presbyter; Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof;" that is, discharging the office of Bishops. (1 Peter v. 1, 2.) Passages of Scripture might be multiplied to the same effect, but it is not necessary; the plain teaching of the New Testament on this subject shows, that the Pastors of the church in apostolic times were occasion

ally called "Presbyters," in reference to the office distinguished by that name in the synagogue, and at other times called "Bishops or overseers," with reference to the nature of their office as superintendents of the church. The scriptural Bishop is therefore an overseer of the church, (Episcopus gregis,) and not an overseer of Pastors and people (Episcopus gregis et Pastorum). This is the point of the whole controversy. It has been, on the contrary, strenuously maintained, that the Apostles did, during their life-time, ordain in each church a Bishop, who was invested with powers above the Presbyters, and who was intended to succeed the Apostles in the government of the church, both Clergy and people. The first is distinctly taught in holy Scripture; and it is obvious that the second is not so taught: although it is contended, that the usages which obtained in the second and third centuries warrant the inference, that the Apostles ordained Bishops, and invested them with authority over Presbyters. To these usages, and to the inferences deducible from them, we alike object. We admit, and are prepared to contend, that, long before the end of the third century, unscriptural opinions and prac tices had obtained a serious amount of influence in the church; and therefore, if those practices and opinions are to be taken as a commentary upon the teaching of Scripture, it is sure to be warped from its original meaning, and made to afford a very uncertain rule. The only just solution of the difficulty appears to be this that when the different churches had increased into large bodies of people, it was found necessary to appoint one of the Presbyters as President or Superintendent over the others, for the sake of promoting order and peace; and that this person was at length called, by way of eminence, the "Bishop or overseer." We do not contravene the principles we have advanced, by quoting the Fathers; we do not cite them as instances of a pure faith and practice, but as historical authority.

In corroboration of the opinion which has been advanced, we refer to Jerome, who was one of the most eminent of the Latin Fathers, and who had access to all the testimonies and arguments of earlier writers on the subject. He speaks with great force and peculiar distinctness. "A Presbyter," he says, "is the same

Should

as a Bishop. And until, by the instigation of the devil, there arose divisions in religion, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas,' churches were governed by a common Council of the Presbyters. But afterward, when every one regarded those whom he baptized as belonging to himself, rather than to Christ, it was every where decreed that one person, elected from the Presbyters, should be placed over the others; to whom the care of the whole church might belong, and thus the seeds of division might be taken away. any one suppose that this opinion that a Bishop and Presbyter is the same, and that one is the denomination of age and the other of office-is not sanctioned by the Scriptures, but is only a private fancy of my own, let him read again the Apostle's words to the Philippians, Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints which are in Jesus Christ which are in Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons: grace be unto you,' &c. Philippi is a single city of Macedonia; and certainly of those who are now styled Bishops there could not have been seve ral at one time in the same city. But because at that time they called the same persons Bishops, whom they styled also Presbyters, therefore the Apostle spoke indifferently of Bishops as of Presbyters.

.. These things we have brought forward to show that, with the ancients, Presbyters were the same as Bishops. But in order that the roots of dissension might be plucked up, a usage gradually took place, that the whole should devolve upon one.

Therefore as the Presbyters know that it is by the custom of the church that they are subject to him who is placed over them, so let the Bishops

As

know that they are above Presbyters, rather by custom than by the truth of our Lord's appointment, and that they ought to rule the church in common." the opinions of Jerome on this point have been cavilled at, as if they were mere lapsus linguæ, we adduce another passage of his on the same subject. Having referred to several texts in the Acts and Epistles, in proof of the assertion, that a Presbyter and Bishop were at first the same, he proceeds to say, that "afterwards, when one was elected, and set over the others, this was designed as a remedy against schism......... For at Alexandria, from the Evangelist Mark down to the Bishops Heracles and Dionysius, the Presbyters always gave the name of Bishop to one whom they elected from themselves, and placed in a higher degree; in the same way that an army may create its General." + This fact of the appointment and ordination of Bishops in the church of Alexandria by Presbyters alone, for the space of more than two centuries, is attested also by Eutychius, Patriarch of Alexandria. We only add to this evidence the testimony of Tertullian, an earlier Father; who says, "The highest Priest, who is the Bishop, has the right of administering baptism. Then the Presbyters and Deacons, yet not without the authority of the Bishop, because of the honour of the church; which being preserved, peace is preserved. Otherwise, the right belongs even to laymen." §

It does not at all militate against the views here advanced that, at the same time, or even earlier, many writers had urged obedience to Bishops as a Christian duty: Jerome, with his opinions as above expressed, might very consistently have done so. Submission to existing usages, which have been introduced into

3 c