minate use of the terms which we translate bishop and elder, that, with the exception of the Apostles, the early Church contained no minister 'superior to mere elders. As well might we contend, (to borrow the illustration of an ingenious writer,) that

z "When we find it given in charge to Timothy, the "first Bishop of Ephesus, how he was to proceed "against his Presbyters when they transgressed, to sit "in judgment upon them, examine witnesses against "them, and pass censures upon them, it is a most im"pertinent logomachy to argue from the etymology of "the words, that notwithstanding all this, a Bishop and "a Presbyter are the same thing. Therefore that one "text (1 Tim. v. 19.) is sufficient to silence this pitiful "clamour of the Presbyterians. Our English reads it, "against an elder, which is the literal translation of the "word presbyter, xarà ageσ BUTépou: against a presbyter re"ceive not an accusation but before two or three witness"es; and them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. Now upon the Presbyterian hypothesis we “must say, that Timothy had no authority or jurisdic❝tion over that Presbyter, against whom he had power "to receive accusations, examine witnesses, and pass "censures upon him; and that such a Presbyter had "the same authority over Timothy; which is so extra66 vagant, and against common sense, that I will not "stay longer to confute it." Leslie on the Qualifications necessary to administer the Sacraments; Works, vol. ii. p.

66

722, 723.

a "Bishop signifies an Overseer, and Presbyter an An"cient Man or Elder Man; whence our term Alderman.

there never was an Emperor of Rome, from the circumstance of his title Imperator having very generally designated the mere

"And this is as good a foundation to prove that the "Apostles were Aldermen, in the city acceptation of "the word, or that our Aldermen are all Bishops and "Apostles, as to prove that Presbyters and Bishops

are all one, from the childish gingle of the words. It "would be the same thing, if one should undertake to "confront all antiquity, and prove against all the his"tories, that the Emperors of Rome were no more than "Generals of Armies, and that every Roman General "was Emperor of Rome, because he could find the word "Imperator sometimes applied to the General of an "Army. Or as if a Commonwealth-man should get up "and say, that our former Kings were no more than 66 our Dukes are now, because the style of Grace, which " is now given to Dukes, was then given to Kings. And 66 suppose that any one were put under the penance of "answering to such ridiculous arguments, what method "would he take but to shew, that the Emperors of "Rome, and former Kings of England, had Generals of "Armies and Dukes under them, and exercised au"thority over them?" Ibid. p. 722.. "The name Bi"shop hath been borrowed from the Grecians, with "whom it signifieth one which hath principal charge to "guide and oversee others. The same word in eccle"siastical writings being applied unto Church govern-.. 66 ors, at the first unto all and not unto the chiefest only,

grew in short time peculiar and proper to signify such "episcopal authority alone, as the chiefest governors "exercised over the rest; for with all names this is

commander of an army. It is the office, not the name, for which we have to contend; and let it be but granted, that Titus and Timothy possessed that authority over elders which has just now been stated, and their titles are not worth the investigation. There are not wanting instances. where our Lord himself, besides many other appellations, is called both Bishop". and Deacon; yet does this lower our ideas of the dignity of his person and office? And when the Apostles occasionally styled themselves elders, and sometimes deacons, did those whom they addressed lose sight of their apostolic supremacy? The fact ap

66

❝usual, that inasmuch as they are not given till the "things whereunto they are given have been some time "first observed, therefore generally, things are ancienter "than the names whereby they are called....... Where"fore a lame and impotent kind of reasoning it is, when men go about to prove that in the Apostles' times "there was no such thing as the restrained name of a "Bishop doth now signify; because in their writings "there is found no restraint of that name, but only a "general use whereby it reacheth unto all spiritual go❝vernors and overseers." Hooker's Eccles. Polity, book vii. 8vo, edit. vol. iii. p. 115, 116.

b 1 Pet. ii. 25. d 1 Pet. v. 1.

c Rom. xv. 8..

e 2 Cor. iii. 6.

f

pears to be, and it is supported by the opinion of Theodoret, that, although some others besides the twelve were originally called Apostles, their successors modestly declined so high a title, and thenceforth universally assumed and appropriated to themselves the appellation of Bishops only.

That the Scriptures supply us with very imperfect information with respect to the regulations adopted by the Apostles in the generality of the Churches which they had planted, will readily be allowed; but this, as we have before seen, was obviously to be expected. "The Apostles," says Epiphanius, "could not establish every thing at once; "nothing was complete at its beginning, "" but in process of time things were brought "to the requisite perfection"." The ques

* Τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἐκάλουν ποτὲ πρεσβυτέρους καὶ ἐπισκόπους· τοὺς δὲ νῦν καλουμένους ἐπισκόπους, ἀποστόλους ὀνόμαζον· τοῦ δὲ χρόνου προϊόντος τὸ μὲν τῆς ἀποστολῆς ὄνομα τοῖς ἀληθῶς ἀποστόλοις κατέλιπον· τὴν δὲ τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς προσηγορίαν τοῖς πάλαι καλουμένοις ἀποστόλοις ἐπέθεσαν. Theodoret. in Epist. i. ad Tim. cap. 3.

8. Οὐ γὰρ πάντα εὐθὺς ἠδυνήθησαν οἱ ἀποστόλοι καταστῆσαι.... καὶ γὰρ ἕκαστον πρᾶγμα οὐκ ἀπαρχῆς τὰ πάντα ἔσχεν, ἀλλὰ προβαίνοντος τοῦ χρόνου τὰ πρὸς τελείωσιν τῶν χρειῶν κατηρ riero. Epiphan. adv. Hæres. lxxv. edit. Colon. tom. i. P. 908.

K

tion therefore to be decided, is, not what the Apostles did at the commencement of their ministry, but how they proceeded when their converts had become numerous, and capable of a regular government. To derive one's ideas of the form of polity to be adopted in the Church of Christ, when permanently established, from the apparent anomalies which may have marked its infant state, must necessarily lead to the most erroneous conclusions.

Besides, if we may conclude that the Apostles in general pursued a course resembling that of St. Paul, who describes himself as retaining "the care of all the "Churches," and appears to have continued for many years the exercise of his apostolical authority, even over the most remote, it is only towards the close of their lives and ministry that we are to look for the appointment of their successors, and their final regulations of government. The reason assigned by St. Paul for delegating his authority to Timothy forcibly illustrates this conclusion. "For I am now," says he,

ready to be offered, and the time of my

i 2 Cor. xi. 28.