these there could be no discrepancy as to the office designated; and it will much assist us in an endeavour to ascertain what is its nature, if we remember that their ideas would be altogether of a Jewish character on the subject. The fact that "salvation is of the Jews," taking its source from "the fountain of Israel," that the apostles preached first in the synagogues, and that the Christians were for a long time considered as a Jewish sect, would naturally direct our minds to the form of synagogue worship, as that quarter from which their preconceived views would be derived. We must, then, take a look into the interior of the synagogue, and observe the mode of government there established. We shall find this of the most simple and patriarchal, yet effective character.

Hilary, about A. D. 350, says, " Old age is honourable amongst all nations, whence the synagogue, and afterwards the church, had elders, without whose counsel nothing was done in the church." The institution of this mode of government amongst the Jews, dates as far back as the visit to Moses of Jethro, his father-in-law, by whose advice seventy elders were appointed to hear civil causes. When the synagogue worship was established, the same form of government which had been continued in the great Sanhedrim from the time of Moses was imitated in their arrangements. Wherever there was a sufficiently large city to afford ten elders to govern the synagogue, such were appointed to read the law, and form a body of governors in the synagogue; but every place, where ten such persons were wanting, was looked upon only as a village. These persons were ordained in the ancient Jewish method, by the imposition of hands. Thus, being invested with their office, they constituted conjointly the rulers of the synagogue, of whom we read Acts xiii. 15.

*

In the Sanhedrim, or civil council of the Jews, there was one of the elders termed the Nasi-the prince, "whose place imported no power peculiar to himself, but only a priority of dignity in himself above his fellow-senators." A somewhat similar pre-eminence appears to have attached to one amongst the elders of the synagogue, (see Luke viii. 41,) who called out the readers, and observed that they did it exactly. Philo thus describes the form of worship :

Coming to their holy places, called synagogues, they sit down in convenient order, according to their several forms, ready to hear the young under the elder; then one taketh the book and readeth; another of those best skilled comes after, and expounds it."

* Stillingfleet on the authority of the Gemara Babylonia and of Maimonides.

"The elders sit with their faces towards the people, and their backs towards the place where the copy of the law lay; and all the people sit rank by rank, the face of every rank towards the back of the rank before it; so their faces are towards the sanctuary, and towards the elders, and towards the ark.”

The elders sat together, on a bench by themselves, with their faces towards the people, in a half circle, which was the form wherein all the courts of judicature amongst them sat. "This was afterwards the form wherein the bishop and presbyters used to sit in the primitive church." When thus assembled, after the public prayers had been offered by the "angel of the congregation," the law and the prophets, (see Acts xiii. 15,) divided into regular sections, were read every Sabbath-day. This service does not appear to have generally devolved on the elders of the synagogue; but, as Buxtorff informs us,

"Seven persons were called out to do that work; first a priest, then a Levite, and afterwards any five of the people; and these had every one their set parts in every section to read, which are still marked by the numbers in some Bibles."

After the reading of the Scripture, one of those best skilled comes forward and expounds it. When Jews from a distance were present, it appears to have been the custom to invite them, "if they had any word of exhortation to the people to say on,"-a circumstance of which the early Christians largely availed themselves in the diffusion of the Gospel, preaching Christ in every synagogue. It is said that the elders sometimes examined the people by way of question and answer. The whole service was concluded with a short prayer or benediction.

Having thus acquainted ourselves with the form of synagogue government and worship, it will be the more easy to understand the views of the early Christian church. We have the authority of some of the best commentators for believing that that mode of government which had been prevalent under the Jewish theocracy was retained by the apostles and the early church, doubtless in accordance with the Divine will; we consequently find power placed in the hands of those who were called at first, indifferently, elders, (Tg=σẞutego,) or bishops, (ETIOXOTOI,) of which words the terms " presbyter " and "oversee" are but varied English renderings. That these terms mean but one and the same office is clearly proved by the twentieth chapter of the Acts, where we see that Paul, having sent to Ephesus, and called the elders (TOUS TREO BUTEROUS, the presbyters) of the church, addresses them as

those whom the Holy Ghost had made overseers (ETTIσXOTOUS, bishops) over the flock.

Another proof is afforded by those passages where the mention of the office of deacon follows immediately after that of bishops; so that a third class of officers could not lie between the two. We discern the same truth amidst the dim light of post-apostolic antiquity. Jerome, for instance, says, "The apostle clearly teaches that elders and bishops are the same office," though in other places he mentions the distinction between bishops and presbyters as established through the whole world in his time. Theodoret says, "The apostle doth by bishops mean nothing else but presbyters, otherwise it were impossible for many bishops to govern one city." Chrysostom, Ecumenius, and Theophylact, all agree that bishops were called elders, for that then the names were common to each office. Now it plainly appears from many passages, and especially from Acts xx. 28, Phil. i. 1, and Titus i. 5, that, generally speaking, several elders concurred in the government of one church, exactly as we must suppose to have been the case if the Jewish order were retained.

We shall find this resemblance to the synagogue greatly strengthened, when we notice the messages in the Book of Revelation, addressed to the “angels" of the churches,—an appellation derived from the term "angel of the congregation," given to one of the elders of the Jewish synagogue. Of this office we have before noticed, that it implied no power over the other elders of the synagogue, but simply a precedence, like that of the chairman of a committee, given for the sake of order and convenience. This observation equally applies to the " angel of the church" in primitive times. At first, one elder among the council of elders, having no superiority in power over the rest; yet, from this almost imperceptible germ, originated at first the restriction of the term bishop to the angel of the church, and subsequently the rise of episcopacy. In the earliest descriptions we possess of the mode of Christian worship, after the apostolic times, we may still observe that which Grotius states; "the whole government of the church of Christ was conformed to the pattern of the synagogue." Thus, Justin Martyr says,—

"Upon the day called Sunday, all the Christians, whether in town or country, assemble in the same place, wherein the memoirs or commentaries of the apostles, and the writings of the prophets, are read as long as the time will permit : then the reader sitting down, the president of the assembly stands up, and makes a sermon of instruction, and exhortation to the following so good examples. After this is ended, we all stand up to prayers; prayers ended, the bread, wine, and water

are all brought forth; then the president aga¡n praying and praising to his utmost ability, the people testify their consent by saying Amen.'"

Tertullian, again, in giving a similar description, concludes with expressions which might apply entirely to the synagogue: "The approved elders preside-such as have obtained this honour-not by purchase, but by a favourable testimony.'

Simple and patriarchal in its character, and closely approximating to the arrangements of the family circle, we apprehend the rule exercised in the primitive church, by those whom God "gave" as elders, must have been a blessing of no ordinary magnitude; but it is obvious that such a government could last only so long as the sentiments of willing deference to those who were "over them in the Lord" pervaded the body of believers; that it would require practical obedience to those precepts which teach us deference to age, to wisdom, to exalted piety, and constant exercise of watchful care, lest any root of bitterness springing up, should by any means disturb their peace; and a careful exclusion, also, from the fold, of those who "walked disorderly, and not after the tradition received" of the apostles.

It is provided, in the qualifications for the office of a bishop, that he should be one "who ruleth well his own house; for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" Natural and spiritual qualifications were essential to the fulfilment of this office; and the claim to it rested, primarily, upon the possession of these gifts; and all such claims were to be tried by the rules laid down as to the qualifications for the office. In accordance with this view of the subject, we find the elders of Ephesus spoken of as those whom the Holy Ghost had constituted bishops. Without these qualifications, the appointment to office, even by an apostle, would have been a curse rather than a blessing.

Whilst it is clear from Scripture, that in many places the officers of the church were selected by the apostles, or those whom they sent as deputies; in others, the churches themselves, most probably, recognised their most pious and honoured members in this capacity; but, however designated, the concurrence of the church appears to have been

* Præsident probati quique seniores, honorem istum non pretio sed testimonio adepti. † Clement of Rome says, that "the apostles, preaching in villages and towns, appointed the first fruits of their ministry, judging by the Spirit, to the office of bishops and deacons ;" and Clemens Alexandrinus says of the apostle John, that "he went abroad, upon invitation, into the neighbouring provinces, in some places constituting bishops, in others setting in order whole churches, in others choosing out one from among those who were designated by the Spirit of God."

66

given, as Clement of Rome brings forward the rule, as if laid down by the apostle, for the appointment to church offices, that they should be possessed after the judgment of approved men, with the consent of the whole church." Even Cyprian, as Neander informs us,

"ascribed to the church the right of choosing worthy bishops, or rejecting unworthy ones. This right of approval or rejection, which belonged to the church, was not an empty formality: it sometimes happened, that before the usual arrangements for an election could take place, a bishop would be called upon by the voice of the church, and the influence caused by this upon the elections was the cause of many divisions."

The gifts necessary to preaching the Gospel (evangelizing) and prophecy were evidently not always coincident with the qualifications and the appointment to the office of elder. Thus the apostle Paul exhorts believers to honour all the elders, but especially those who laboured in the word and doctrine. In the Society of Friends, by a singular anomaly, the scriptural rule is so completely inverted, that an "elder," who should "labour in the word and doctrine," instead of being counted worthy of double honour, would no longer be considered an "elder." We have seen an elder rise at the conclusion of a meeting, to offer some exhortation to the flock, but retain or put on his hat, to indicate that what he had to say was not " in the line of the ministry."

These other gifts were as freely exercised in the community of the early Christians as was the privilege of exhortation in the Jewish synagogue: thus, we read that on the persecution which arose after the death of Stephen, the disciples were all scattered abroad, except the apostles; and this scattered flock, whose earthly shepherds were at Jerusalem, “went every where, preaching the word." The same is very evident from the epistles to the Corinthian church; in setting which in order, the apostle, far from restricting the power to evangelise and to teach to the ordained elders, simply gives directions how the gifts should be exercised by those who had them.

Ordination is, then, entirely disconnected from the privilege of preaching the Gospel, and belongs solely to the question of the continuance of power in the church. Here again we may notice a coincidence with the synagogue; for, amongst the Jews, the priests and the Levites, who were the teachers of the people, were never ordained to their office; whilst the elders were always thus invested with their dignity, in a mode which appears to have been strictly followed in the Christian church.

If this be admitted, and if it be allowed that those who are called thereto by the Holy Spirit" men authorised by God alone," as Charles

I