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. A letter therefore to the congregation, might very naturally be directed to him who possessed the first place, and presided among them.

But it may be said, Is not this at most but a plausible conjecture, and not a proof? I acknowledge, indeed, that the point does not admit so positive a proof as might be wished. But in a case of this kind, the most plausible conjecture, as it is all that can be had, will be accounted sufficient by a reasonable man for determining the question. This solution appears to me the best, because it puts no undue stretch upon the words, and is perfectly compatible with that equality in power and order, which the uniform style of the Acts and the Epistles, in the promiscuous application of the same appellatives, and in the use of the plural number on such occasions, proves to have subsisted among the pastors first settled by the apostles and evangelists. This equality is, in my opinion, strongly supported. It is only the solution now given of the difficulty, arising from the noted passage in the Apocalypse, that I admit to be conjectural. And all I plead in its favour is, that of all the conjectures I have seen on that article, it is the most likely.

It was doubtless the distinction of one pastor in every church, marked by this apostle, though not made by any who had written before him, which has led Tertullian, whose publications first appeared but about a century after the apostles, to consider him as the institutor of episcopacy. These are his words, (lib. iv. adv. Marcionem), " Ordo tamen episcoporum ad originem recensus, in Joannem stabit auctorem;" which Bingham (Christian Antiquities, b. ii. chap. 1. sect. 3.) translates thus:-"The order of bishops, when it is traced up to its original, will be found to have St John for one of its authors.” A palpable misinterpretation of our antiquary. Tertullian says expressly, "Our inquiries into the origin of the episcopal order terminate in John the author." Had that father said, "Mundus ad originem recensus, in Deum stabit creatorem," would Bingham have rendered it, "The world, when it is traced up to its original, will be found to have God for one

G

of its creators?" I cannot allow myself to think it. Yet the interpolation in rendering creatorem one of its creators, is not more flagrant than in rendering auctorem one of its authors. By this version he avoids showing what is extremely plain from the words, that Tertullian did not think there was any subordination in the pastors of the churches instituted by the other apostles; else how should he refer us to John, of whom, though an eminent propagator of the faith, we have not such particular accounts as of some of his colleagues? If he had discovered any traces of such a disparity in the settling of the churches recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, or mentioned in the Epistles of Paul, it is impossible he should have referred us solely to John, of whom we have so little information, as the author. But this opinion he has evidently founded on the Apocalypse, a book mentioned by him in the same sentence. Now, if he thought that that apostle gave a model to the churches established by him, which the other apostles had not given to theirs, (though in after-times it came to be universally adopted), we must conclude, at least, that he did not consider any particular external form as essential to the Christian church, but as a thing entirely discretionary in the several founders. And that this was his opinion, appears at least probable from this, that he had mentioned John's paternal care of certain churches in the preceding sentence, which he therefore considered as peculiarly his: "Habemus et Joannis alumnas ecclesias." To me, however, it is more likely, that John, in the direction of the epistles to the seven churches, availed himself of a distinction which had subsisted from the beginning, but, as it implied no difference in order and power, was too inconsiderable to be noticed in the history. This I think at least more credible, than that either the church was new-modelled by this apostle, or that the different apostles adopted different plans.

In my next lecture I shall make a few more observations on the constitution of the apostolic church, and on the nature and character of episcopacy, which obtained in the second and third centuries; and shall, in that and some subsequent discourses, proceed in tracing the progress of the hierarchy from the latent and inconsiderable seeds or principles whence it sprang, to the amazing height it at length arrived at.

LECTURE VI.

THE purpose of this lecture is to make a few more observations on the constitution of the apostolic chnrch, and on the nature of the episcopacy which obtained in the second and third centuries.

When the gospel was preached by the apostles throughout the different cities and countries into which they travelled, wherever they made as many converts as would be sufficient to form a congregation, they caused them to unite together for this purpose; and, with the first convenient opportunity, settled (as Clemens Romanus expresses it) bishops and deacons among them, for instructing them more fully, both publicly and privately, for guiding them by their counsel in every doubtful or difficult exigence, and for conducting more regularly in their assemblies the public worship and ordinances. When the disciples in any place were not numerous enough to form a congregation by themselves, they united them to that which was nearest. To the congregation they gave the name xxλŋ, which is commonly rendered church.

The deacons, who seem at first to have been chosen merely in consequence of a particular exigence, as we learn from Acts vi. 1. &c. to wit, for the inspection of the poor, and the distribution of the charitable collections, were admitted very early, probably in the time of the apostles, to an inferior part in the sacred ministry, such as attending the pastors in the discharge of the religious offices, and acting under their direction. The deaconship served in fact as a noviciate to the ministry.

The bishops or presbyters (for these terms, as we have seen, were then used synonymously) appear to have been all perfectly co-ordinate in ministerial powers. That a certain priority or presidentship, for order's sake, and in deference either to seniority or to distinguishable talents, was allowed to one of their number, is probable, for the reasons assigned in my last discourse. That the pastors were from the beginning vested with a superintendency over the congregation purely

in what concerned spiritual matters, cannot be questioned. Some of the titles that are given them in scripture, sv, @gosaur, guides, governors, undoubtedly imply thus much; as do also the terms in which the duty of the people to their pastors is recommended-re, Tuxere, obey, submit, which manifestly require a respectful observance on their part. For this reason I imagine, that the generality of those modern sects which have adopted the congregational or independent plan, as it is called, have gone to an extreme, though not the most common extreme, in bringing the pastoral authority too low.

It is however certain, that when authority of any kind is unattended with what are commonly called coercive measures, or the power of the sword, and unsupported by temporal splendour or worldly sanctions, it is impossible to preserve it otherwise amongst an enlightened people, than by purity of character in those vested with it, and by diligence in the discharge of the duties of their station. In such cases, this is the only foundation on which the respect, obedience, and submission of others can be raised. It was therefore a pertinent advice that Paul gave to Timothy, however oddly it may appear at first, "Let no man despise thee." For we may justly say, that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, if a pastor is despised, he has himself to blame. All however that I purpose, by quoting the aforesaid titles and commands, is to show, that, in what related to the peculiar duties of their office, a reverential attention was acknowledged to be due to them as the guides and guardians of the flock.

There were some things, however, which, from the beginning, were conducted in common, by the pastors, the deacons, and the whole congregation. This appears particularly and most properly to have been the case in all matters of scandal and offence. In regard to these, it is the community that, in strictness of speech, is offended. The very word scandal or stumbling-block implies this. It is the community, therefore, that ought to be satisfied. It is to them our Lord appears (Matt. xviii. 15. &c.) to have committed the charge of admonishing delinquents, and even of excommunicating obstinate offenders. But I shall have occasion to examine

it

the import of that passage in the Gospel afterwards. Only may be further observed, in confirmation of what has been now advanced, that the earliest practice of the church was conformable to the interpretation now given. Clement, in the epistle above quoted, (chap. liv.), calls church censures rα προστασσομενα ὑπο το πλήθους, the things commanded by the multitude, that is, the congregation.

That the

Another point, in which they had doubtless all a share, was the election of their pastors and deacons. deacons were at first chosen by the people, is manifest from the account we have of their institution above referred to. Yet this point, however clear in its origin, seems very clearly to have undergone a change. In regard to the choice of pastors, the matter is not so plain. Some expressions in ancient authors seem to favour the opinion, that these also were constituted in consequence of the election of the people. Other expressions favour more the notion, that the choice was in the presbytery, who proposed the candidate they had elected to the people; and that the people had the power of rejecting, without assigning a reason, when they did not approve the choice. It is not improbable, that different methods, in this respect, obtained in different congregations. From scripture we have not sufficient ground for concluding positively on either side. Clement, in the fore-cited epistle, seems to favour the second opinion. The passage I allude to is in chap. xliv. where, speaking of the pastors, he uses this expression: "Those who were constituted by the apostles, and afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole congregation.”Συνευδοκήσασης της εκκλησίας πάσης.

It is not to be imagined, that among people so artless, and at the same time so charitable, as we have reason to think the first Christian societies actually were, the bounding lines of the powers and privileges of the different orders would be accurately chalked out. It is more than probable, that the people, in a perfect reliance on the knowledge, zeal, and experience of their pastors, would desire, before every thing, to know whom they, who were the fittest judges, and had the same object in view, would think proper to recommend; and that, on the other hand, the pastors, having nothing so much