Thirdly, And hence also it appears, that the governing of Churches, or the ordaining of elders in them, was not so limited to the persons of the apostles but that it might be intrusted to others in the Church after their decease. It remains only to inquire whether they did intrust any person in such a manner as is certain Paul did Timothy and Titus.

Fourthly, Such powers were invested in others, as appears from these words: "The things which thou hast heard from me, confirmed by many witnesses, commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also." Titus was to ordain elders in every city. Those then were the successors who were appointed elders or bishops, and of these there were several, as we have seen, in each Church. The body of elders or presbyters were therefore the successors of the apostles, as those who possessed the supreme rule in the Churches. And though the apostles appointed Timothy or Titus to exercise jurisdiction in Crete and Ephesus, yet those who retained the powers originally exercised by the apostles and evangelists as far as these powers were continued, were the body of elders, who chose their pastors in charge, or bishops, in deference to the views and interests of the people, and who also exercised a controlling influence over their superintendents corresponding to those transmissible powers with which the apostles and evangelists were ordained originally.

13. But though presbyters or bishops appear to have been perfectly co-ordinate in ministerial powers during the days of the apostles; yet we have reason to believe that, for the sake of convenience, a certain priority or presidentship was allowed to some one of distinguished gifts and graces in each college of presbyters. Perhaps the following quotations from Dr. George Campbell of Scotland will present this in as unexceptionable a light as can be found elsewhere, especially as he was a Presbyterian, and contended for the entire parity of ministers as it regards their order. In discussing the subject of the apocalyptic angels, after having expressed his opinion that in the consistories and congregations of the primitive Christians, one presided, he proceeds, (Lectures on Ecc. Hist. Lect. v, p. 83): "A regulation of this kind all sorts of societies are led to adopt from necessity, in order to prevent confusion in conducting business, and those Christian societies would also fall into it by example. They had adopted the name pεσßUTEρLOV, presbytery or senate, from the name frequently given to the Jewish sanhedrim. The term рεoßvτepos, elder or senator, they had also borrowed from the title given to the members of that council. Nothing could be more natural, than to derive from that court also the practice of conducting their affairs more decently and expeditiously by the help of a president." Not that they were formed exactly on the same model. Their different uses must have required different modes of procedure. But as in the synagogue, he that presided and conducted the worship and reading of the law was called the angel of the synagogue; so it appears that he who had the chief management in the Church or congregation, was styled the angel of the Church, which accounts for the chief pastor among the seven Asiatic Churches being so denominated.

An example they also had, in the apostolic college itself, in which VOL. VIII.-January, 1836.

3

Peter appears, by the appointment of his Master, to have presided; though in no other particular was he endowed with any power or privilege not conferred on the rest, who were, in respect to apostleship, his colleagues and equals. He is, indeed, made a principal foundation of the Church, (Mat. xvi, 18,) but they also are foundations, (Eph. ii, 20, and Rev. xxi, 14.) The power of binding and loosing, that is, of pronouncing without danger of error, the sentence of God in either retaining or remitting sins, was first conferred on Peter, (Mat. xvi, 19,) but afterward on them all, (Mat. xviii, 18; John xx, 23.) Yet when he professed his faith in Christ as Messiah, and his name was changed from Simon to Cephas, or Peter, there seems to be some degree of pre-eminence bestowed on him. (See Campbell, p. 81.) Peter also first preached the Gospel after the resurrection, to Jews, and to the uncircumcised Gentiles. He thus speaks of it afterward himself: "Brethren, ye know that God made choice among us, that the Gentiles, by my mouth, should hear the word of the Gospel." This is called in another place, "opening the door of faith to the Gentiles," and shows in what sense Peter got the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Yet there is nothing here that is given to him more than that he should be first in this great work, for Paul was afterward more eminent and successful than he.

"That Peter, however, was considered as the president of that college, appears from several particulars. One is, he is not only always named first in the Gospels, and in the Acts, but by Matthew, who was also an apostle, he is called poros, the first, which I imagine is equivalent to president or chief. HowTos Zuv the first Simon. It is not the adverb рrоv that is here used, which would have barely implied that the historian began with his name, but the adjective or epithet πρωτος. This is the more remarkable, in that he was not first called to the apostleship, for his brother Andrew was called before him. Sometimes when the apostles are spoken of, Peter alone is named; thus, 'Peter stood up with the eleven,' 'they said to Peter and the rest of the apostles.' These, I acknowledge, are but slight circumstances taken severally, but taken in conjunction, they are strong enough for supporting all that I intend to build upon them. For nothing is here ascribed to him as peculiar but the presidentship, or the first place in the discharge of the functions of an apostle common to them all. He was not among the apostles as a father among his children, of a different rank, and of a superior order, but as an elder among his younger brethren, the first of the same rank and order. 'Be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your master, even Christ, and all you are brethren; and call no man father upon the earth, for one is your Father, who is in heaven.' is perhaps unnecessary to add, that whatever was conferred on Peter was merely personal, and did not admit succession. Some keen controvertists on the Protestant side would be apt to censure what has been now advanced in regard to the apostle Peter, as yielding too much to the Romanist. Yet, in fact, nothing at all is yielded. The bishop of Rome has no more claim to be the successor of Peter, than the bishop of London has, or indeed any pastor in the Church. It is but too commonly the effect, though a very bad effect, of religious controversy, that impartiality and even judgment are laid aside by both parties, and each considers it as his glory to

It

contradict the other as much, and to recede from his sentiments as far, as possible.

Now, though what has been advanced in regard to the apostles should not be deemed sufficiently established; yet that one, either on account of seniority, or of superior merit, habitually presided in the presbytery, will still remain probable, for the other reasons assigned, the obvious conveniency of the thing, the commonness of it in all sorts of councils and conventions, particularly in the sanhedrim and synagogue; the only rational account that, in consistency with other parts of Sacred Writ, or with any Christian relics of equal antiquity, can be given of the address, in the singular number, to the pastors of the seven Churches severally, in the apocalypse ; and I may add, the most plausible account which it affords of the origin of the more considerable distinction that afterward obtained, between bishop and presbyter."

"It may farther be observed, in support of the same doctrine, that some of the most common appellations, whereby the bishop was first distinguished, bear evident traces of this origin. He was not only called πроɛστws, but проɛdpos, president, chairman; and by periphrasis the presbyters were called δι εκ του δευτέρου θρονου, they who possessed the second seat or throne, as the bishop was πрwтокalεdрos, he who possessed the first. Thus he was in the presbytery as the speaker in the house of commons, who is not of a superior order to the other members of the house, but is a commoner among commoners, and is only in consequence of that station accounted the first among those of his own rank. The same thing might be illustrated by the prolocutor of either house of convocation in England, or the moderator of an ecclesiastical judicatory in Scotland. Now as the president is, as it were, the mouth of the council, by which they deliver their judgment, and by which they address themselves to others, it is natural to suppose, that through the same channel, to wit, their president, they should be addressed by others." (Camp. Ecc. Hist. pp. 85-87.)

In regard to the government of the Church in the age immediately preceding the apostles, and as it is exhibited in the writings of the apostolical fathers, the brevity necessary to be observed in communications for this Magazine, as well as the numerous quotations necessary to present this part of the discussion in a clear light, prevents us from introducing it at length or in form. The evidence from this source may be given at a future time if necessary. It is proper now, however, to remark, that the modern doctrines of the successionists receive no countenance from the epistles of Clemens of Rome, Polycarp, and Ignatius; but on the other hand, complete proofs can be collected from them, to show that the additions and changes which high Churchmen have introduced into the government of the Church of God, are solemnly condemned by the government which obtained immediately after the death of the apostles, and as it is described or referred to in the writings of the apostolical fathers.

In regard to the nature of the episcopacy which obtained in the second and third centuries, and as far as the time of Constantine, we will only make a few remarks, though a long article for this alone would be needed.

It appears from the most ancient records, as well from the New Testament as the earliest Christian fathers, that there was a number of co-ordinate pastors appointed by the apostles to each Church or congregation, called indifferently, bishops or elders. And with these were associated the deacons, whose first charge was to serve tables; but who also preached or exhorted occasionally, and whose office seems to have been, in some respect, a kind of gradation toward the full ministry. When a suitable number of believers were collected, they were associated together and called εkkλŋoia, a Church. The episcopacy which existed in the second and third centuries seems to have been this. Every Church had a plurality of presbyters, who, together with the deacons, were all under the superintendency, oversight, or inspection of one pastor or rather bishop. All antiquity agree in assigning to one bishop no more than one ɛккhŋσia or Church, and one Taроikia parish, or rather, as the word may be rendered, vicinage or neighborhood. The superintendency which they exercised over the people was purely spiritual. They were authorized to rule the Church, not as lords, but that their authority itself should be exercised as an example to the flock. The titles given to them in Scripture, hyovμevo guides, πpoloτaμεvol, governors, &c., imply this. And the people, on their part, were bound to obey them, as appears from the use of the terms by which the duty of people to their pastors is expressed, πείθεσθε, obey, υπείκετε, submit, &c.

But in consequence of degeneracy in the Church during the third and fourth centuries, the state of things prepared the way for the changes which were effected by Constantine the Great. The result of this was the elevation of the episcopal order above the Scripture level. Hence, in a subsequent age, Popery was established. We know it is stated in opposition to this view of the subject, that "the first successors of the apostles were wise and good men, and therefore would not innovate upon an apostolic institution; and if they would, they could not, being watched by their associates in the ministry, and by the people." To this only a brief reply can now be given. We therefore remark: 1. We have all along admitted an original distinction, which, though very different from that which afterward obtained, served for its foundation. 2. The vices and ambition of the first ministers were so far from giving rise to this authority, that it is rather to be ascribed to their virtues. 3. It were easy, on the same ground with the objectors, to evince, a priori, that monarchy, or the dominion of one over the many, in the nature of things, is impossible. 4. Forming the Church according to the government of the state alone accounts for the change from better

to worse.

Stackhouse, who rigidly maintains that diocesan episcopacy is of apostolical authority, after employing this argument a priori, and answering Jerome's opinion, that presbyters and bishops were not two distinct orders, gives a view of the station which bishops filled in the primitive Church, by no means agreeing with the character of those who claim to be their successors. "This difference," says he, "however, we owe to the authority of St. Jerome, among many other fathers, as to suppose the distinction between bishop and presbyter, not only as to the honors and emoluments,

whereunto the bounty of princes has enriched the former, but even to the exercise of their office and spiritual jurisdiction, was not near so conspicuous in former ages as it is now. A bishop then thought it no disparagement to be joined with the lowest priest in the sacerdotal honor. The common appellation wherewith they addressed each other was brother, or fellow-presbyter; nor was it any disparagement to his wisdom and knowledge, in every matter of importance, to advise with the assembly of presbyters, which was held to be the senate of the Church. Nay, several things there were in a manner peculiar to the bishop's office and function, which yet he could not do without the consent and approbation of his presbyters. He could not ordain any clerks unless the presbyters were consenting to it; for they were the persons who were to offer and propose such as they judged fit to enter into holy orders: he could not hear any cause of consequence without their presence, nor determine it without their approbation, and in case he did, the sentence he gave was to be null; nor could he degrade any presbyter without the consent of a synod, wherein a majority of presbyters were usually present; or suspend him without the approbation of his chapter." (See Stackhouse's Body of Divinity on this subject, and the authorities quoted there.)

How absurd then it is for Romanists, and the members of the English Church, to contend that they are the legitimate and exclusive successors of the apostles and the humble bishops or pastors of the primitive Church. These modern LORDS have very little in common with apostles and apostolic men. And the boast of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in these high claims, is very slender; when in the place of having her genealogy up through lines of humble and scriptural bishops, she is compelled to acknowledge that her succession is through the excommunicated sect of the Scotch non-jurors, and the British parliament and king, in whose hands the ordainers of American bishops were the mere tools. Had we no better through Mr. Wesley, than the defective and null ordination of the Protestant Episcopal Church, by which our ministry would become null when exercised in any portion of Britain's dominions, we would renounce for ever the anti-scriptural authority.

For the Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review.

ART. II.-VERBAL CRITICISM.

THAT a knowledge of words is essential to a right understanding of an author, will not, we presume, be disputed by any one competent to decide correctly on this subject. And it is equally certain that in order to analyze any proposition, the terms in which that proposition is expressed must be accurately understood. But how can this be done without a thorough and critical knowledge of the words themselves? Hence the great importance of acquiring a critical knowledge of words, so as to understand their ideal or radical import, in order to qualify ourselves to become safe in