rized to engage in this part of the public service, without a special permission; and who stood, not exactly, indeed, but very much on the same ground, as to this matter, with the Elders of our denomination.

The truth is, some of the very same writers who inform us that Elders and Deacons were not ordinarily allowed to preach, during the first three or four centuries;-also inform us, that laymen, in cases of necessity, might preach by the Bishops permission. This at once illustrates and strengthens the Presbyterian argument. For the same authority which might give a special permission in each case, or a general permission, for a time, to an Elder or Deacon to preach; which permission, it seems, might be revoked at pleasure, without touching the official standing of the individual, much less deposing him from office;-might also authorize the merest layman in the whole parish to perform the same service, whenever it was judged expedient to give the license.

The truth of the matter seems to have been this. A large majority of the officers called Elders, in the three first centuries, were, no doubt, Ruling Elders-ordained, it is probable, in the same manner with the Teaching Elders, i. e., with “the laying on of hands," and the same external solemnity in every respect. They were not qualified, and were not expected, when ordained, to be preachers; but were selected, on account of their piety, gravity, prudence, and experience, to assist in inspection and government. When, however, the Bishop or Pastor, who was the stated preacher, was sick or absent, he might direct a Ruling Elder to take his place, on a single occasion, or for a few sabbaths. But this function made no part of their stated work; and they seldom engaged in it. After a

while, however, these Elders, like the Bishops on the one hand, and the Deacons on the other, began to aspire; were more and more frequently permitted to preach; until, at length, non-preaching Elders were chiefly banished from the Church. As this was a gradual thing, they were, of course, retained in some Churches longer than others. They were, probably, first laid aside in large cities, where ambition was most prevalent, laxity of morals most indulged, and strict. discipline most unpopular. In this way things proceeded, until this class of officers was almost wholly lost sight of in the Christian community.

One more testimony, by no means unimportant, of the existence of this office in the primitive Church, is to be found in the Rev. Dr. Buchanan's account of the Syrian Christians, contained in his Asiatic Researches. It will be borne in mind that the learned and pious author considers those Christians as having settled in the East, within the first three centuries after Christ, before the corruptions of the Church of Rome had been introduced, and when the original simplicity of Gospel order had been but in a small degree invaded. Separating from the Western Church at that early period, and remaining, for many centuries, almost wholly secluded from the rest of the world, they were found in a great measure free from the innovations and superstitions of the Papacy. Now, if Ruling Elders had any existence in the Christian Church within the first three hundred years, as Ambrose expressly declares they had, we might expect to find the Syrian Christians, in their seclusion, retaining some traces at least of this office in their Churches. Accordingly, Dr. Buchanan, in describing the circumstances of a visit which he paid one of the Churches of this simple and highly interest

ing people, speaks as follows:-"When we arrived, I was received at the door of the Church by three Kasheeshas, that is Presbyters, or Priests, who were habited in like manner, in white vestments. Their names were Jesu, Zecharias, and Urias, which they wrote down in my journal, each of them adding to his name the title of Kasheesha. There were also present two Shumshanas, or Deacons. The Elder Priest was a very intelligent man, of reverend appearance, having a long white beard, and of an affable and engaging deportment. The three principal Christians, or LayElders, belonging to the Church, were named Abraham, Thomas and Alexandros."*

This remarkable fact, it is believed, belongs most properly to the present chapter. For if these simple Syrian Christians were really settled in the East, as early as Dr. Buchanan seems, with good reason, to suppose, and were, for many centuries entirely secluded from all foreign influence; we may consider them as having in operation among them, substantially, that ecclesiastical system which existed through the greater part of the Christian Church at the close of the third; and the beginning of the fourth century. A kind of testimony which, of course, falls in with our purpose in examining the testimony of the early ages of the Church.

Such then, is the amount of the testimony from the Christian Fathers. They tell us, with a unanimity and frequency truly remarkable, that, in every Church, there was a bench or college of Elders:-That they sat, with the Bishop or Pastor, as an ecclesiastical judicatory, and with him ruled the Church:-That this bench or

* Christian Researches in Asia, p. 75. N.York Edit. 12mo. 1812.

body of rulers was called by various names in different parts of the world;-such as, Ecclesiæ Consessusthe Session or Consistory of the Church; των πρεσβυτερων dousdgiov, the court or Sanhedrim of the Elders;-Ecclesiæ Senatus, the Senate of the Church;-Bovλn sxxλndias, the Council of the Church, &c. &c.:-That they were always present with the Bishop or pastor when he presided in public worship:-That he did nothing of importance without consulting them :That they seldom or never preached, unless in cases of necessity, or when specially requested to do so by the pastor:-That they were more frequently than otherwise called clergymen, like the Elders who "labored in the word and doctrine," but sometimes distinguished from the clergy:-That, however, whether called clergymen or not, they were "ecclesiastical men," that is, set apart for ecclesiastical purposes, devoted to the spiritual rule and edification of the Church:-That all questions of discipline, such as admitting members into the Church, inspecting their Christian deportment, and censuring, suspending and excommunicating, were decided by these Elders; and, finally, from all it is apparent, that as discipline became unpopular, and ecclesiastics more aspiring, the ruling part of the Elder's office was gradually laid aside, and the teaching part alone retained.

CHAPTER V.

TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES FOR THE TRUTH,

DURING THE DARK AGES.

IT has been the habit of zealous and high-toned Prelatists, for more than two centuries past, as well as of some Independents, to assert, that Ruling Elders were unknown in the Christian Church until about the year 1541; that then Calvin invented the order, and introduced it into the Church of Geneva. And some worthy men, of other denominations, have allowed themselves, with more haste than good advisement, to adopt and repeat the assertion. It is an assertion which, undoubtedly, cannot be made good; as the following testimonies will probably satisfy every impartial reader.

At how early a period the Old Waldenses took their Fise is uncertain. In some of their Confessions of Faith, and other ecclesiastical documents, dated at the commencement, or soon after the commencement, of the Reformation by Luther, they speak of their Doctrine and Order as having been handed down from father to son for more than five hundred years. But Reinerius, who himself lived about two hundred and fifty years before Luther, who had once resided among the Waldenses, but afterwards became one of their bitterest persecutors, seems to ascribe to that people a much earlier origin. "They are more pernicious," says he, "to the Church of Rome than any other set of here