pressive of authority; bishop, of duty. The former implies the dignity and power of a ruler, the latter conveys the idea of work, or of executing a precise task. That elders and bishops are of the same order we have the most complete proof from the New Testament; for that the terms εOKOTоs, episcopos, bishop, and прεσßvτepos presbyteras, presbyter, are used promiscuously, no person of any information will pretend to deny. Two or three passages will put this beyond all doubt. Here We will first introduce the twentieth chapter of the Acts. we are informed St. Paul, "from Miletus, sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the Church," (ver. 17.) And when they were convened, he addresses them thus:-"Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you εTIOкооνç, overseers, or bishops," (ver. 28.) Now, there can be no doubt but that the same persons who, in the seventeenth verse, are called elders, in the twenty-eighth verse are named overseers or bishops. Another passage we find in the Epistle to Titus, proving the very same thing. "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee," (ch. i, 5.) And in ver. 7, speaking of the same persons, he says:-" For an εTIσкоTоç, bishop, must be blameless." Here the persons whom he calls elders in the 17th verse, he calls bishops, superintendents, or overseers, in the 28th verse. A third passage, equally pertinent, we find in the First Epistle of Peter, in the fifth chapter. "The elders which are among you, I exhort, who also am an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory which shall be revealed: feed the flock of God which is among you, εLOKOTOVνтes, exercising the office of bishops, or taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind," (verses 1, 2.) Here the apostle exhorts those that were elders, among whom he also ranks himself, to exercise the office of bishops, or to take the oversight of the flock, and feed them: by which we learn that those who were elders were also to act the part of bishops, or rather overseers, inspectors, or superintendents. That these persons who are here called bishops were not an order corresponding to the present diocesan bishops, appears from their number and the work allotted to them. At Ephesus there were several persons called elders or bishops. That the apostle did not convene Asian diocesan bishops, as some are pleased to call them, is clear beyond reasonable doubt. For those overseers, or elders, are said to be those тns EKKλnoias of the Church, certainly the Ephesian Church in that city alone, or therein and its vicinity. Were these elders diocesan bishops, the apostle, we think, would not call them the elders of the Church of Ephesus, but the elders of the Church in general, or the elders of the Church in Asia. Besides, the apostle being in haste to go to Jerusalem, there was not time to collect together the bishops or elders of Asia. These, then, could not have been diocesan bishops; seeing a plurality of them must have been in Ephesus; a circumstance that can never agree with modern prelacy. There was also a plurality of bishops at Philippi; so Paul writes to them, "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints of Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons," (Phil. i, 1.) It is certainly no less than trifling to say, " Philippi was a metropolitan see, and so might have several bishops." For, according to this passage, there is no differ ence between bishops and presbyters; all the presbyters of this Church having the title of bishops, or overseers. St. Peter, also, in the passage just quoted, speaks of a plurality of elders, who were also overseers or superintendents in the Church to which he writes; which goes far to establish the views given respecting the plurality of elders, or bishops, at Ephesus and Philippi. But the point is completely settled from the instructions given by Paul to Titus, who was authorized to appoint elders in every city; and this was the common usage of the apostolic times, as we have already seen. So Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in every Church. (Acts xiv, 23.) Besides, the work of these primitive bishops, or elders, was such as leaves no doubt that they were not diocesans. They were to feed the flock, or Church of God; and hence they were to rule also, for to feed implies both. They preached to and instructed the people over whom they were overseers; a work which a diocesan bishop never does, nor indeed can do. And the people were to know, esteem, and love them as those who laboured among them and admonished them. But diocesan bishops whom, ordinarily, the hundredth part of their diocess never see nor hear, cannot be those bishops by whom the flock is admonished. Moreover, we cannot suppose that the feeding here spoken of was such as a modern bishop exercises throughout his charge; for they were to feed the flock which was among them, and among them as pastors in their special charges. 5. An argument in favour of modern diocesan episcopacy is founded on the addresses in Rev. ii, and iii, to the angels of the seven Asiatic Churches. That these angels were not bishops such as high churchmen maintain, we have sufficient proof. Many have shown, from ancient Jewish writings, that there was an officer of the synagogue who had the name of angel, whose business it was to read, pray, and teach, in the synagogue. And from hence the term angel came to be applied to the principal pastors in these Churches. "In each Church there was one pastor, or ruling minister, to whom all the rest were subordinate. This pastor, bish op, or overseer, had the peculiar care over that flock." (Wesley on Rev. i, 20.) By the angel of each Church we are to mean no more than the presiding officer or pastor, in charge, who was the angel or messenger of God to them, to instruct and govern them. To him, as moderator or president, the epistle is directed, not as pointing out his state, but the state of the Church under his care. That he was a diocesan bishop there is no proof; but the contrary. The style or manner of expression, however, is manifestly different from that of the Acts of the Apostles, and the epistles. In them, the pastors in every Church are always spoken of in the plural number. Here the singular number is used, and a name given which is not commonly applied to those in the ministry, ordinary or extraordinary. The Apocalypse was written about the year 96. The Acts and the epistles of Paul and Peter were written between 33 and 66. In the time then of the writing of the Apocalypse, it appears, the president, bishop, or angel, of the Church, was addressed as an individual; but the representative of the other elders and the whole Church over which he presided. For in their meetings of elders, or of official members, as well as in congregational meetings, it would be necessary, for the sake of order, that one should preside, both in the offices of religion, and in their consultations; so this president, chairman, or minister, who had the pastoral charge, is here addressed under the name of angel. It will be difficult here, as elsewhere, to find an exact example on the one hand for exact parity, or on the other hand of a distinct order of clergy superior to elders. Nevertheless, the advocates of high episcopacy find here the exact models for their metropolitan and diocesan bishops. That the seven angels were seven bishops, pastors, or elders, in charge of these seven Churches respectively, having a greater or less number of deacons and elders, and probably several congregations, or domiciliary Churches, connected with each pastor's charge, is much nearer the truth than any other scheme. This presbytery, or body of elders, composed of the deacons, presbyters, and president, or angel, forming a college of official members, transacted their business in regular form and order. This view is clearly supported by the account given of the apostolical Churches, in the Acts and epistles; and is confirmed by the writings of the apostolic fathers, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, and Hermas. 6. To what has been said in the foregoing remarks, it is usually objected, "That most of the names of offices, in Scripture language, are not so uniformly applied to the particular offices as not to be occasionally applied to others. Thus the term deacon is applied to the apostles themselves; John and Peter call themselves elders; and Christ is called apostle and elder," &c. To this it may be replied, That in Acts 20th chapter, it is manifest, the ordinary pastors of Ephesus were styled bishops; for in no period of episcopacy, according to the present acceptation of the word, was there a plurality of bishops in one city and Church. It is true the term apostle is applied in one place (2 Cor. viii, 23) to a lower order than the apostles properly so called. But the expression there used is AяOOTOROL EKKANOL apostles, or messengers, of the Churches, not apostles of Jesus Christ, or apostles simply, without any addition, which are the common expressions used to designate the apostles properly so called. It cannot be denied but that these terms are used with greater latitude of meaning than in the ordinary application. Nevertheless the ordinary and peculiar application is supported by so many clear passages as to be quite indubitable. On the contrary, one single passage from the apostolic writings has not yet been produced, in which it appears from the context that the two terms, presbyters and bishops, mean different orders. Nay, the words uniformly mean the same order. The Apostle Paul, in the directions he gave to Timothy, about the supply of Churches with proper ministers, takes particular notice of two orders, and no more. One of them he calls bishops, or overseers; and the other deacons, ministers, or servants of the Church, who took care of the poor, some of whom preached occasionally, and which office was also, in many cases, the first step toward the exercise of the full ministry. Now, if by bishops St. Paul means such as the modern ones are, it is strange he should give no directions about the qualifications of presbyters, who had the inspection of the flock; at the same time that he is very particular about the qualifications of deacons, although they are an order much inferior to the other. And if he here means by bishops only presbyters, it is equally strange that he would overlook the office of bishops, provided it were invested with the prerogatives of modern prelacy. Besides, St. Paul, in addressing the Philippians, says, "To all the saints at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." And these bishops were the ordinary pastors of the Church; for most Churches had, in primitive times, many elders, bishops, or pastors. Now if there was a bishop, in the modern sense, at Philippi, it is strange that the apostle should neglect so notable a person as the diocesan. And indeed Polycarp, in writing about 60 years after to the same people, mentions only two orders, presbyters and deacons. Now whether we call their pastors bishops, with the apostle, or presbyters, with Polycarp, is a matter of no consequence, as it is evident that both spake of two orders among them, and not of three; and whenever one of these names is employed, the other is dropped. (See Campbell on Eccl. History, pp. 67, 68.) Farther, the sacred writers, when addressing single Churches, address their ministers in the plural number; which, though it be compatible with some difference of rank, precedency, or official preeminence, can scarcely be thought consistent with so material a difference as a distinct order of clergy. Thus the apostle to the Thessalonians:-" We beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you," (1 Thess. v, 12.) In the Acts also, all the stated pastors are considered as coming under one denomination. Thus Paul and Barnabas "ordained elders in every city," (Acts xiv, 2, 3.) When a collection is made for the saints at Jerusalem, it is sent to the elders. And if the pastors of any Church are sent for, that they may receive proper directions, they are called elders. In the account we have of the council of Jerusalem, (Acts xv,) the pastors are five times distinguished by this appellation from either the apostles or private Christians, or both. Nor do we find a single hint, in the whole book, like any thing of different classes of presbyters. The name εяiσкояоl, bishops, or overseers, occurs there but once, where it is applied to the same individuals, who, in the same chapter, (Acts xx,) are termed πрεσßνтεроi, elders. The word peoßvτεpov, presbytery, though it occurs sometimes in the New Testament, as applied to the Jewish sanhedrim, or counc l of elders, is found only in one passage (1 Tim. iv, 14) applied to a Christian council. The sense of the word presbyter, as well as the application of the word presbytery, or council, determines its sense in this place, viz., the college of presbyters or elders. 7. The identity of character, duties, and powers ascribed, in Scripture, to presbyters as well as bishops, proves the identity of their order, as well as their name. The inspired writers, when speaking of ministers of the Gospel, VOL. VIII.-January, 1837. 2 by whatever names they are distinguished, give the same description of their character; represent the same gifts and graces as necessary for them; enjoin upon them the same duties; and exhibit them as called to the same work, and as bearing the same office. To prove this, let us attend to some of the principal powers vested in Christian ministers, and see whether the Scriptures do not ascribe them equally to presbyters and bishops. (1.) That presbyters had in apostolic times, as they now have, authority to preach the word, and administer the sacraments, is undeniable. Now these are constantly represented in the New Testament, as the highest acts of ministerial authority. The powers of ordaining ministers, and governing the Church, are not represented as functions of a higher order than these: the reverse, indeed, is plainly and repeatedly taught. Preaching, and administering sacraments are, therefore, the highest acts of ministerial authority; they are far above ordination and government, as the end is more excellent than the means, as the substance is more important than the form. The presbyters, then, as they are empowered to execute the most dignified and useful duties of the ministerial office, can have no proper superiors in that office. The high church system, then, by depressing the teacher for the sake of elevating the ruler, inverts the order, and departs from the letter and spirit of Scripture. The language of Scripture is, "Let the presbyters who rule well, be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine." From these premises, we may conclude that the officer who is authorized to preach and administer the sacrament cannot be of an inferior order with the scriptural bishops. (2) The power of government, or of ruling the Church, is also committed to presbyters. Indeed, the true meaning of the word presbyter, in its official application, is a church ruler or governor. Hence the oversight or government of the Church is expressly assigned to presbyters as their proper duty. The elders to whom St. Peter directs his first epistle, had this power. To them it is said, Feed the flock of God, taking the oversight thereof-neither as being lords over God's heritage. These declarations clearly point out the power of ruling in the Church. The caution not to tyrannize, or lord it over God's heritage," proves that the power of governing was vested in the elders. They The case of the elders of Ephesus is still more decisive. were overseers or bishops over the flock; they were also to feed the Church of God. The word ouaiveiv, to feed, as a shepherd his flock, implies watching over, guiding, and ruling, as well as feeding. Here the government, as well as ministering in the word, is vested in the elders. No mention is made of any person who had the right of jurisdiction, or the whole ruling power, vested in him, or over a larger share of it than others. On the contrary, the apostle declares to these elders, that the Holy Ghost had made them bishops even of the Church of Ephesus; he exhorts them to rule that Church; and leaves them in possession of the high sacred trust. But the passage just quoted from 1 Tim. v, is conclusive on this point. "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in word and doctrine." Here the power of government is ascribed to elders; in direct opposition to |