byters. The term Bishop, thus appropriated, signifies overseer of a congregation or single church.

On the cases of the remaining six Asiatic churches we need not insist. The one now examined, is conclusive of the point which was to be proved, that the Epistles were addressed to the successors of the Apostles-individual officers—the stars (see Rev. i. 20) in the several churches. If this is true of one, it is so of all; for the address is the same to each.

It might now be further shown, that others, such as Silvanus, Andronicus, and Junias, who, in their official capacity, are styled in scripture Apostles, succeeded to the Apostolic office; but there is no need of thus heaping proof upon proof, for a point already clearly demonstrated.

The Apostolic office, in its ordinary and permanent functions, which were alike necessary to the existence of the church in after ages as in the first, was designed to be and was perpetual or transmissory.

For we have seen that it was given to, and exercised by, many beside the original twelve, (add Paul,) or thirteen; that it was, in fact, transmitted or handed down. We have seen, also, that they were vested exclusively with the ordaining and the ruling power of the churchfunctions of the office, which, so long as the church shall last, will be essential.

We shall see in another branch of this enquiry, that neither of these last named powers were exercised by, or belonged to, the office of Presbyters or Deacons ; and, therefore, that their respective commissions did not embrace these superior powers.

"The same persons were anciently called Bishops and Presbyters, and they whom we now call Bishops were then called Apostles: but, in process of time, the name of Apostles was appropriated to them who were Apostles in the strict sense; and the rest, who had formerly the name of Apostles, were styled Bishops. In this sense Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians; Titus was the Apostle of the Cretians; and Timothy of Asia." Theodoretus in 1

Tim. iii.

D2

ON THE OFFICE OF ELDER OR PRESBYTER IN THE

APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

SECTION FIFTH.

I. Nothing certain can be known from the mere term Elder or Presbyter.

The origin of the word, as a title of office, whether in church or state, is found in the practice of most ancient nations, viz: of selecting the aged, on account of their experience, as well as on account of that reverence with which they were regarded in primitive times, for stations of great trust. The Hebrews, at a very early period, had their Elders in the state. They were taken from their respective families or tribes, over which they had (by a sort of natural right) exercised supreme authority, before the founding of the commonwealth, and together formed a body for the government of the nation. When Moses delivered the divine command to the king of Egypt, he was directed by God to take with him the "Elders of Israel," as the representatives of the nation. The Greeks, also, as far back as the age of Lycurgus, had their council of twenty-eight aged men or presbyters. To the distinguished honor of becoming a member of this august assembly, none could attain, who was not of age of sixty years. And in the Illiad* of Homer, the first priest of whom we read is the aged Chryses. The same principle, or rather sentiment, obtained anciently among the Romans. Hence the term applied to the chief council of the republic was Senate or presbytery, i. e., assembly of aged men. There is satisfactory proof, however, that this custom was confined to the very early ages of these nations. For among the Romans, at a subsequent period, one might be admitted to the Senate at the age of thirty. In process of time the terms of Elder, Senator, and Presbyter, came to signify, generally, a Ruler, in church or state. The word Elder, therefore, is of a most generic or vague signification, and nothing * See, also, Il. lib. 3, 1. 146, 152.

the

can be inferred with certainty from it, as to the grade of office to which, in the Apostolic church, it was specifically applied. The generic character of the word will be seen from the following definition: "Presbus, or Presbeus' old; an old man; a minister of state; of the church; a Senator; an ambassador. Thence Presbuteroi, men older or Elders; and hence Presbyters in the christian church. From Lat: Presbyter is the old French Prestre, whence Priest.” * Thus the words Elder and Priest are more nearly allied than many are disposed to allow.

II. Our first inquiry is naturally as to the commission of the Elders. And here we are met, by the advocates for parity, with the assertion, that the one commission, given by Christ to the eleven, was the same that was given to the Elders. Can proof for this assertion be adduced-such as we have advanced in the preceding pages to show that that commission was given to Timoothy and others-1. because the title, Apostle, in its official sense, was attributed to them-2. because the highest functions of the ministerial office were exercised by them. Can this be shown of any Elder? We here remark, that nothing certain can be grounded on the single isolated text, 1 Pct. v. 1, 3, where Peter styles himself an Elder. For, we may reason from the greater to the less, but not from the less to the greater. Now, it is not questioned, that whatever was implied by the term Elder, the term Apostle meant as much, if not more. Therefore, if Peter was an Apostle, a fortiori, he was an Elder. But reverse this argument. Peter, being an Apostle, calls himself an Elder; therefore every Elder was an Apostle. This is a pure sophism: for while every one admits that the premise in the first argument, *See Valply's Greek Deriv.

+ See Drs. Dwight, Miller, and others.

"The simple and plain truth of the case is this: The Apostles were all Presbyters or Elders. This, and this only, was their proper ecclesiastical office. Accordingly the Apostle Peter speaks thus"The Elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an Elder, and a witness of the sufferings of CHRIST, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed." Such was Peter, if he himself understood his office-an Elder." See review of Episcopacy tested, &c., by Bishop H. U. Onderdonk, in the Biblical Repertory.

viz: Apostle, is equal to the highest rank in the ministry, this is disputed in reference to the premise of the second argument, viz: Elder. This is the very thing to be proved, and consequently the premise in the second proposition assumes the point in dispute. While this text, therefore, may be considered proof that Peter was an Elder, it is no evidence that Elders were Apostles, or held the commission of the Apostles, or exercised a ministerial power equal to others. On this side of the question it can prove nothing.*

If it cannot be shown that Elders held the office, or bore the title, of Apostles, it will follow that the commission of Christ to the eleven was not applicable to them. As to the commission from Christ to the seventy disciples, we have before demonstrated that to have expired by its own limitations. It was never renewed by Christ, after his resurrection, as was that which he gave first to his twelve Apostles. Hence we are compelled to look elsewhere for the origin of the office of Elder in the Apostolic church.

The facts appear to be these. The twelve were either resident at Jerusalem, (from that city must they begin to preach the gospel,) or travelling through the countries of Asia Minor, Syria, and Italy, establishing churches.Every thing was as yet, of course, in an incipient and half-formed state. All power, and the sole unaided ministry, were in the hands into which the Lord had solemnly and formally placed them. But the Apostles were not, and could not be, at that stage of affairs, settled Pastors. Such Pastors, however, were absolutely essential to the preservation of the church. Accordingly "they ordain them (for themselves) Elders in every church." Before this act of ordination, Elders are once mentioned as connected with the church at Jerusalem. Acts xi. 30. A difference of opinion exists, as to whether the word is there used in the same sense in which it was afterwards established, viz. to mean a settled order of ministers in the christian church. But, however that point may be determined, it affects not our general statement; that as

*As to names, the Apostle Paul calls himself a Deacon, (Col. i. 23, 25,) would you therefore say that every Deacon was an Apostle ?

occasion arose, the Apostles ordained Elders as their aids. Of their origin this is the brief and only account that the scriptures afford us.

III. At the ordination above referred to, we are not told that any formal commission or charge was delivered by the Ordainers. But notwithstanding this fact, all will agree, that the nature and powers of their office must, at the time, have been distinctly understood. We, however, are left to gather this information from other and ample sources; that is to say, from the full descriptions of their office given in other parts of the New Testament, as well as the accounts of the manner in which they exercised that office—the ministerial functions which they performed. That they preached, "labored in word and. doctrine"-is explicitly asserted in several places. That they "ruled" and "took the oversight" of the particular flock or congregation where their Apostles had placed them, is with equal clearness asserted. And as to administering the ordinances of baptism, and the Lord's supper, that must have arisen from the very necessity of the case. For, from many of the churches the Apostles were absent during considerable periods.

On these points there is a general agreement. Much has been written to prove that Elders had the rule and oversight of the churches; long and labored arguments (see Dwight's theology, vol. IV. p. 228,) have been brought to fortify and sustain this position. But with us this is needless. It is granted already in the sense of ruling a particular congregation or "flock." But this power was not absolute. It was held subject to the control and final decision of the Apostles, in every case where it was exercised. As in the church at the present time, so then the Presbyter could not excommunicate a member without the sanction of the Apostle, to - whom he was himself subject. Witness the case of excommunication of the incestuous person from the Corinthian church by St. Paul. "For I verily, as absent in the body, but present in spirit, have judged already as though I were present, concerning him that hath done this deed." 1 Cor. v. 3.

Thus, then, while it is admitted that Elders possessed the power of ruling a congregation, it is not admitted