local constitution of the early Christian churches. Now at an early period, when a communication was made to the church at Jerusalem from one abroad, it was made to THE ELDERS (Acts 11:30), and on a subsequent occasion to "the Apostles and Elders" (Acts 15: 2, 4, 6, 22), who united in passing a decree on an important question of faith and practice (Acts 16:4). It seems, then, that even while the Apostles were in intimate connection with the church at Jerusalem, that church was governed by its Elders; and, what is particularly worthy of attention, we nowhere read of the original creation of this office in that church. We can trace the offices of Deacon and Apostle to their very origin, whereas that of Elder runs back far beyond the organization of the Christian church, and appears in the history as an arrangement, not springing out of a new state of things, but transferred from an old

one.

Nor was this adoption of the eldership a mere fortuitous occurrence, much less a local peculiarity of the church in Jerusalem. It was extended, as a thing of course, to all affiliated churches. When Paul and Barnabas planted churches in Asia Minor, they ordained them Elders (Acts 14:23). Paul sent from Miletus for "the Elders of the Church" at Ephesus (Acts 20:17). He directs Timothy how to treat Elders (1 Tim. 5: 1, 17, 19). He commands Titus to ordain Elders in every city of Crete (Titus 1:5). James speaks of "the Elders of the Church" as of a body of men, which was not only well known to his readers, but which would exist of course in every Christian congregation (James 5:14). Peter enjoins submission to the Elders, and classes himself among them (1 Peter

5: 1, 5). John calls himself an Elder in the title of his second and third epistle.

All this seems to show that the office of Elder was regarded as essential to the organization of a local or particular church. As to the mode of introducing it, we have no explicit information. The most probable hypothesis is one which I shall here state in the words of an eminent living dignitary of the Anglican Church. "It appears highly probable--I might say morally certain--that wherever a Jewish Synagogue existed that was brought, the whole or the chief part of it, to embrace the gospel, the Apostles did not there so much form a Christian church (or congregation, ecclesia), as make an existing congregation Christian, by introducing the Christian Sacraments and Worship, and establishing whatever regulations were necessary for the newly-adopted Faith; leaving the machinery (if I may so speak) of government unchanged; the rulers of synagogues, elders, and other officers (whether spiritual or ecclesiastical, or both) being already provided in the existing institutions. And it is likely that several of the earliest Christian churches did originate in this way, that is, that they were converted synagogues, which became Christian churches, as soon as the members, or the main part of the members, acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah. The attempt to effect this conversion of a Jewish synagogue into a Christian church, seems always to have been made, in the first instance, in every place where there was an opening for it. Even after the call of the idolatrous Gentiles, it appears plainly to have been the practice of the Apostles Paul and Barnabas, when they came to any city in which there was a synagogue, to go

thither first and deliver their sacred message to the Jews and 'devout (or proselyte) Gentiles;' according to their own expression (Acts 13: 16), to the 'men of Is rael and those that feared God,' adding that it was necessary that the word of God should be 'first preached to them.' And when they found a church in any of those cities in which (and such was probably a very large majority) there was no Jewish synagogue that received the gospel, it is likely they would still conform, in a great measure, to the same model.”*

In so doing, they would of course fix upon the natural elders, i. e. heads of families, as answering most nearly to the hereditary elders of the Jews. That the genealogical or patriarchal constitution was at once or by degrees disused, is not at all at variance with the supposition, that the Jewish eldership was transferred to the Christian Church, because one of the advantages of this organization is the ease with which it can adapt itself to any state of manners or condition of society, all that is really essential to it being the official preference of those who have a natural priority derived from age and family relations. Under the present constitution of society, as under that which was predominant in apostolic times throughout the Roman empire, the same ends, which were answered in the old theocracy by granting power to the chiefs of tribes and houses, are accomplished by intrusting it to those who sustain an analogous relation to society, that is, to men of mature age, and especially to actual heads of families. In either case the great end is accomplished of bringing the church under the same influence that

* The Kingdom of Christ Delineated. By Richard Whately, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin. pp. 84-86 (American edition).

rules the families of which it is composed. Whether all the heads of families were clothed with this authority, or only some selected for the purpose, is a question of detail, not at all affecting principle, and one which might perhaps admit of a solution varying with local and other unessential circumstances. One thing, however, appears certain, as an inference from all the facts which we have been considering, viz., that while some features of the Jewish polity were laid aside as temporary, the government by Elders was retained as a permanent principle of organization in the Christian Church. And here we meet with the only explanation of the fact already mentioned, that the creation of the office of Elder is nowhere recorded in the New Testament, as in the case of Deacons and Apostles, because the latter were created to meet new and special exigencies, while the former was transmitted from the earliest times. In other words, THE OFFICE OF ELDER WAS THE ONLY PERMANENT ESSENTIAL OFFICE OF THE CHURCH UNDER EITHER DISPENSATION.

ESSAY II.

ON THE POWERS OF THE PRIMITIVE PRESBYTERS.

THE conclusion reached in the preceding essay may be rendered still more certain by exhibiting direct proof of the fact, that presbyters, as presbyters, possessed and exercised the highest powers now belonging to the ministry, even in apostolic times, from which we may infer a fortiori, that the same authority is vested in them now.

It will be recollected, that the presbyterial office is coeval with the church, and that Paul and Barnabas, during their missionary tour in Asia Minor, not only planted churches, but "ordained them elders in every city." If then we can discover with what powers these early presbyters were clothed, we shall establish a sure basis for our subsequent inquiries. And in this investigation we are greatly aided by the preservation, in the Acts of the Apostles, of a valedictory address by Paul to certain persons of this class, when he was leaving Greece and Asia Minor for Jerusalem; in which address, we find not only strong expressions of his pri