Now turn to the Acts, and you will find everywher recognized the three orders, Apostles, Elders, and Deacons. The first chapter contains an account of the election of Matthias, as Apostle, that he might "take the bishopric" of Judas. In the fourteenth chapter, we are told the Apostles "ordained them Elders in every church;" and in the sixth chapter, is the record of the selection of seven men full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom," on whom "the Apostles laid their hands," and thus appointed them Deacons. In several places "Apostles and Elders are mentioned as distinct classes of ministers.* Nor can it be said, that the Elders here referred to were laymen, for these also are carefully distinguished in some passages, as being again a class distinct from the other two. The statement made is, tles, Elders, and brethren."+

66

Apos

And so it is in the Epistles. Take a single instance in which all the orders of the ministry are mentioned together. We refer to that salutation with which the Epistle to the Philippians opens-" Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons." Here are certainly three orders of ministers-the two Apostles, Paul and Timothy, sending their salutations to the Bishops and Deacons. Now, change the titles to those which we have shown you the same orders bore in the next age, and it will read thus-"Paul and Timotheus, Bishops, to all the saints (Laity) at Philippi, with the Elders or Presbyters, and Deacons.

But let us proceed to the main point-the authority exercised by Bishops in that day-and see how entirely different it was from that entrusted to the second rank in the ministry. For instance, when an Apostle gives a charge to a Bishop, we perceive at once that he is addressing onu having authority," and set to rule in the Church of God. He instructs him as to the manner in which he should con

แ

asked for inspired authority for 'Bishops,' we do the very same; we give a different application to the passages which contain that word, and build on other passages, which teach the fact of the existence of Episcopacy, without that appellation." Episcopacy Examined, p. 13. Acts xi. 1, and xv. 23.

* Acts xv. 2, 4, 6, 92. and xvi. 4.

duct himself towards the presbyters or elders over whom he had been placed. We shall find, on the contrary, that with these elders he dwells upon a totally different class of duties. They are always addressed, and cautioned, and advised, as those who are merely pastors over congregations. There is no allusion made to their exercising ecclesiastical discipline, or admitting others to the ministry.

Let me give you a striking example of his. We are told that when St. Paul was on his way to Jerusalem, having stopped at Miletus, he sent from thence to the neighboring Church, at Ephesus, that its elders might come to him, and receive his final charge, since "they should see his face no more." And what does he tell them? why, he addresses them as those whose functions are entirely pastoral, whose business it is to rule, and feed, and instruct the flock committed to them. He directs them "to remember his warnings for the space of three years"—"to take heed unto themselves"-"to take heed unto the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers"-" to feed the Church of God"-" to watch against the grievous wolves that would enter in among them, not sparing the flock"-and also to guard against men who should arise among themselves, speaking perverse things."* This is the amount of his address-that they should be vigilant in guarding themselves from error, and also in preserving their people from those who would inculcate strange doctrines. There is nothing said about discipline to be exercised among the ministry—not a syllable about one having authority over another to depose him— not an intimation that any one among them had power to ordain. It is, in fat, precisely the kind of charge which any B shop in this day might deliver to his clergy, to warn them to be faithful in the discharge of their pastoral duties.

፡፡

Now mark the contrast in the Apostle's language, when he writes to Timothy, at this same church in Ephesus. Timothy was a young man, probably younger than most of the elders at Ephesus, for St. Pa il charges him" let no man despise thy youth,"—and yet every line of the Apostle's letter proves, that Timothy was invested with Episcopal authority over these same presbyters. The Epistle is not

* Acts xx. 17–35.

intended to guide him in any pastoral connection with his flock, but rather to instruct him as to the manner in which he should rule over the elders. Everything, for example, is addressed to him personally, and in the singular number, as being something in which the others couid not share : "This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy”—“ these things write I unto thee, that thou mightest know how to behave thyself in the house of God"—" if thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things.”*

Look at the directions with regard to his exercising ecclesiastical discipline. 66 That thou mightest charge some that they teach no other [that is, no false], doctrine”— "against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses"-" them [that is, the elders thus accused] that sin, rebuke before all, that others also may fear”—“I charge thee, that thou observe these things [these rules for the regulation and discipline of the clergy,] without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.”†

See, again, the rules given him with respect to ordinations. The third chapter of the first epistle is taken up with describing qualifications, for which he should look in those who are to be admitted to the ministry. Thus, he says, that the deacons 66 must first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless"—"the deacons must be grave, not doubled-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre, holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience"-" they that have used the office of a deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree”— "literally," says Dr. Bloomfield, "obtain an honorable post, or step, that is, a higher degree, viz., of Presbyter or Bishop."+

In the same way, the proper qualifications of a presbyter are given-"A Bishop [elder or presbyter] must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality," &c. These descriptions are to guide him in observing the directions afterwards given— lay hands suddenly on no man'§-and again—" the things

* 1 Tim. i. 18; ii. 14, 15; iv. 6. † 1 Tim. i. 3; v. 19, 20, 21. Bloomfield's Greek Test. in loco.

§ 1 Tim. v. 22.

which thou hast heard of me, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."*

Now, I would ask, if, as we are told, Timothy was not a successor of the Apostles, but only a Presbyter, and a young Presbyter too, what right had he to be "receiving accusations" against his brother presbyters, and "rebuking them before all ?" How could these things be, if all ministers were equal in the early Church? or, is it in accordance with human nature, that the elders of the Church at Ephesus should thus have submitted to the rule of one of their own number, evidently, too, their junior in years? On the Presbyterian scheme of Church government, I cannot understand what was the position of Timothy in the Church, or his lative situation with regard to those who were in the ministry with him. These Epistles are to me, in this case, a sealed book. But look at the page of Ecclesiastical History, where we are told that Timothy was the first Apostle or Bishop of Ephesus,† and all is plain. Then, I see the meaning of every direction given by St. Paul. Totally out of place as they would be, if written to a mere presbyter, they at the same time compose exactly the kind of charge which, in this day, an aged Bishop of the Church might write to one who was younger in the Episcopate, that he might know how to act towards the clergy of his diocese.

66

Look at another example, equally striking-that of Titus. He, says Eusebius, was appointed over the Churches in Crete ;" and all ancient writers unite in making the same assertion. It is certainly confirmed most fully by the Epistle, in which St. Paul addresses him as one invested with Episcopal authority. He writes to him-"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and [that thou shouldest] ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." He then goes on to describe, as we have already seen him doing to Timothy,

* 2 Tim. ii. 2.

+ Eusebius, lib. iii. c. 4. "Timothy is recorded as having first received the Episcopate at Ephesus." Also Chrysostom, Hom. 1, in Philip. Jerome, Catal. Scrip. in Tira. Theodoret Com. in 1 Tim. iii..]

Eusebius, Chrysostom, and Theodoret, as cited above. Jerome

Catal. Scrip. in Tit.

what qualities Titus should require in one who was to be ordained—“ for a Bishop [elder or presbyter] must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not soon angry, &c.* And he afterwarwards directs—“" a man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition [do thou] reject."† Here is certainly full Episcopal anthority-ordination-admonition-rejection or degradation-all committed to Titus personally. We know, from history, that there were many Churches in Crete. Why, then, when the field was the world, and men were so much wanted to publish the Gospel elsewere amid the darkness of heathenism, was Titus withlrawn, and sent to spend his life in this island,‡ if any of the elders there could ordain as well as he? or allowing that at first there were not enough there for that purpose, why must he ordain elders in every city? After doing so in one or two cities, could not they be left to keep up the succession? It would be difficult, indeed, to find an answer to these questions on the Presbyterian scheme. The only solution is, that Titus could ordain by right of his authority as Bishop, and the others could not. Yet this is Episcopacy.

Let us now turn to the address made to "the angels" of the Seven Churches of Asia. In each of these Churchesas, for example, Ephesus and Smyrna-history tells us there were many congregations and Elders. Yet the warnings and admonitions are not written to these Elders, nor to the Church collectively, but to the "angel or chief-officer. There was evidently some one presiding over the spiritual welfare of each of those Churches, who was held personally answerable for it. Look, for example, at that written to the angel of the Church at Ephesus. Here we find that, in the year 96,§ its chief officer is evidently exercising the same discipline over the clergy, in investigating and reject

* Titus i. 5.

+ Cave's Lives of the Fathers, i. 128.

† iii. 10.

St. John was banished to Patmos in the latter part of Domitian's reign, and returned to Ephesus upon Nerva's succeeding to the empire, which was in 96. This book was written while still in the island. Irenæus, speaking of the vision, says "It was not very long ago that it was seen, being but a little before our time, at the latter end of Domitian's reign."