ordained in primitive times; it is agreed on all hands, however, that this privilege was soon restricted to the bishops. How shall we account for it? The solution of this problem is important, as it completely overturns all that is said about an exclusive divine right in favour of episcopal ordination. Bishop Stillingfleet has explained the matter; and, as too much cannot be quoted from so excellent a writer, no apology is necessary for introducing the following extract: "When the apostles," says he, 66 were taken out of the way, and the main power left in the hands of the presbyteries, the several presbyters, enjoying an equal power among themselves, especially being many in one city, thereby great occasion was given to many schisms, partly by the bandying of the presbyters one against another; partly by the sidings of the people with some against the rest; partly by the too common use of the power of ordination in presbyters, by which they were more able to increase their own party, by ordaining those who would join with them, and by this means to perpetuate schisms in the church; upon this, when the wiser and graver sort considered the abuses following the promiscuous use of this power of ordination; and, withal, having in their minds the excellent frame of the government of the church under the apostles, and their deputies, and for preventing of future schisms and divisions among themselves, they unanimously agreed to choose one out of their number, who was best qualified for the management of so great a trust, and to devolve the exercise of the power of ordination and jurisdiction to him; yet so as that he act nothing of importance without the consent and concurrence of the presbyters, who were still to be as the common council of the bishop. This I take to be the true and just account of the original of episcopacy in the primitive church according to Jerom."*

Thus it appears, that when the presbyters became proud, factious, and tyrannical, the churches agreed to

*Iren., part ii., chap. vi., p. 281, 282.

throw off the yoke, and to subject their spiritual oppressors to a new order of men. This, however, was only removing a less evil to introduce a greater. These new masters ruled the churches, as well as the presbyters, with a rod of iron. They soon claimed an independent power, by divine right, to play a demon's part, and turn the church of Christ into a synagogue of Satan. Many of these ghostly fathers obtained the mitre by simoniacal practices, by adulterous and incestuous intrigues; and not a few fought their way to the throne of St. Peter, in red apparel, and in garments dyed with blood.

Though the ordination of presbyters be lawful, it is not necessary. The apostle Peter exhorts aged persons to take, or assume the episcopal office. (1 Peter v. 1, 2.) Two reasons may be assigned why the word presbyters, in this passage, signifies merely old men, and not ecclesiastical officers. First. In the fifth verse it is opposed to youth: "Likewise ye younger submit yourselves unto the elder." Secondly. The apostle calls himself a presbyter, and makes this the ground of his exhortation. If we take the word here in an official sense, we must suppose him to urge his station in the church as the reason why his advice should be followed; but the higher the station the greater the authority; it would therefore have been more suitable to have styled himself an apostle. On the other hand, if we take the word presbyter here as relating to age, and not to office, we at once perceive the propriety, and feel the force of the apostle's address, and all difficulties vanish: "The aged I exhort, who myself also am aged; likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves to the aged."

Here is an example of an apostle exhorting old men to assume the episcopal office, and admonishing young men to submit to their authority. This epistle is directed to the christians "throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." From this it appears, that there were multitudes of churches in the apostles' days without any regular governors.

In

such a case, the dictates of nature agree with the apostle's advice, that persons of age and experience should act as bishops or overseers.

What easy work it was in those times to make a bishop! Let only the old people agree to superintend the young, and the young people consent to be guided by the old, and the business was done: a college of apostolic bishops are made at once, without either imposition of hands, or clerical infusion of the Holy Ghost! but these are not lord bishops: "Neither as being lords over God's heritage."

If it still be contended, that the persons exhorted were presbyters by office, it is sufficient to reply, that if the episcopal office belonged to a presbyter, they were exhorted to take what they already held, which is absurd; and if it did not, they were exhorted to assume a superior office, which the objector maintains can only be conferred; and this destroys the whole system of priestcraft; for if the episcopal office may be assumed by a presbyter, by parity of reason, the presbyter office may be assumed by a layman.

Much confusion has been introduced into this controversy, by not distinguishing when the word presbyter denotes a church officer, and when it signifies merely an old man. It is generally supposed that, when applied to the apostles, it is to be taken in the former sense; hence it is inferred that the twelve, as apostles, were extraordinary officers and had no successors, but as presbyter-bishops they were ordinary officers, and are succeeded by us, say the episcopalians,by us, say the presbyterians; but both are mistaken. An apostle could not be a governor of a particular church, consistent with his extraordinary commission, to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. His business was not, when he had founded a church, to sit down and govern it; he either appointed officers, or left the brethren to manage their ecclesiastical concerns themselves, and went on, pursuant to the commission he had received, to preach the gospel in other places. The case of

Peter's styling himself a presbyter, has been considered. The apostle John twice styles himself a presbyter; (2 John i.; 3 John i.;) but in both places the word imports no more than " the aged." Dr. Macknight, in his paraphrase on the first of these texts, says, "The aged apostle;" in his note on the latter, he remarks, "This appellation signifies, the aged apostle;" and, in his preface to the second epistle, he observes, "Heuman gives it as his opinion, that in the title elder, there is a reference to John's great age when he wrote these epistles, and that he was as well known by the title of elder, as by his proper name; so that elder was the same as if he had said, the aged apostle." The apostle Paul styles himself, Paulos presbutes, which is properly rendered, "Paul the aged." (Phil. ix.)

It is generally believed, that public preaching is a necessary part of the presbyter office, but this is another mistake. If our bishops and priests† did not pretend to be the successors of the apostles, and did not interfere with the preaching of others, but only attended to the duties proper to their office, they ought not to be objected to for not preaching themselves; as it will be proved presently, that the office of the ministry belongs no more to them than to christians in general. The office of a presbyter is to bishop or oversee the church, which certainly does not require the person who fills it to go into the world, and preach publicly for the conversion of infidels. The apostle Paul prescribed only two duties to the presbyters of Ephesus,

to feed and oversee the church. The duty of a bishop, he informs us, is to "take care of the church

*Preface to the Second Epistle of John, Sect. 1.

The English word priest, as applied to our clergy, is derived from the Greek word presbyter. "Who," asks the learned Joseph Mede, "can deny that our word priest is corrupted of presbyter? Our ancestors, the Saxons, first used preoster, whence, by a further contraction, came preste and priest. The high and low Dutch have priester; the French, prestre; the Italian, prete; but the Spaniard only speaks full, presbytero." See Parkhurst's Greek Lexicon, under the word presbuterion.

of God;" and the qualifications for this office are, First. Ability to teach the church the laws of Christ, by which it is to be governed. Apt, or fit to teach. Secondly. A good example, which is self-government. An overseer must be "blameless," etc. Thirdly. Good family government. "One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; for, if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God." (1 Tim. iii. 5.) The qualifications required of a presbyter are the same. (Titus i. 5-9; 1 Peter v. 1, 2.)

The question is, Do teaching and feeding, in the above texts, imply public preaching? Two reasons may be given to show they do not. First. The term feed, used in two of the passages, signifies to nourish with wholesome doctrine; and this teaching is limited to the flock or church. Titus's bishop is required to hold fast the faithful word, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, to exhort and convince the unruly Jewish members of the church, who were for imposing circumcision, and the ceremonies of the law, upon the Gentile believers. Here, again, the teaching is limited to the church. 1 Timothy iii. 2, is in general terms, "apt to teach," without specifying in particular who are to be instructed; but since the above passages have restricted the exercise of the bishop's prophetic office to the church, there is no reason why this indefinite text should extend it further. Besides, this point is settled by the nature of the office, which consists in the government of the church; for the instruction which it is the duty of a governor to give, must be limited to his subjects. If he undertake to teach others, it must be under another character, which any one has an equal right with himself to assume.

Secondly. Women held the presbyter office in the church as well as men; and a necessary qualification of these lady-presbyters, or lady-bishops, (whichever you please to call them,) was to be "teachers of good things." (Titus ii. 3.) But no one can suppose these women teachers to have been public preachers, when