1. That presbyters had, in apostolic times, as they now have, authority to preach the word, and administer sacraments, is universally allowed. Now, if we consult either the original commission, or subsequent instructions given to ministers, in various parts of the New Testament, we shall find these constantly represented as the highest acts of ministerial authority; as the grand powers in which all others are included. Instead of finding in the sacred volume the smallest hint, that ordaining ministers, and governing the church, were functions of an higher order than dispensing the word of eternal life, and the seals of the everlasting covenant; the reverse is plainly and repeatedly taught. The latter, we have already seen, are the most prominent objects in the original commission; they formed the principal business of the apostles wherever they went; and all the authority with which they were vested is represented as being subservient to the promulgation of that gospel which is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. Preaching and administering sacraments, therefore, are the highest acts of ministerial authority; they are above ordination and government, as the end is more excellent than the means; as the substance is more important than the form.

If, then, presbyters be authorized, as all acknowledge, to perform these functions, we infer that they are the highest order of gospel ministers. Those who are empowered to execute the most dignified and the most useful duties pertaining to the ministerial office, can have no superiors in that office. The Episcopal system, then, by depressing the teacher, for the sake of elevating the ruler, inverts the sacred order, and departs both from the letter and the spirit of Scrip

.ture. The language of Scripture is, "Let the presbyters who rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." But the language of modern Episcopacy is, that labouring in the word and doctrine is a lower service in the church, and government a more exalted: that bearing rule is more honourable and more important than to edify-a language which to be refuted needs only to be stated.

2. The power of government, or of ruling the church, is also committed to presbyters. This is denied by some Episcopalians; but the Scriptures expressly affirm it. The true meaning of the word presbyter, in its official application, is a church ruler, or governor. Hence the "oversight" or government of the church is in Scripture expressly assigned to presbyters as their proper duty. The elders to whom the apostle Peter directed his first epistle, certainly had this power. To them it is said, "The elders which are among you I exhort. Feed (roμavare) the flock of God, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but as ensamples to the flock." Scarcely any words could express more distinctly than these the power of ruling in the church. It is acknowledged on all hands that the word ouave signifies to rule, as well as to feed. See Rev. ii. 27; xii. 5; xix. 15. It is to act the part of a shepherd. But, as if to place the matter beyond all doubt, these elders are exhorted to use this power with moderation, and not to tyran nize, or "lord it over God's heritage." Why subjoir this caution, if they were not invested with a govern ing authority at all?

The case of the elders of Ephesus is still more deci

sive. When the apostle Paul was about to take his final leave of them, he addressed them thus- -"Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed (μaire) the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood," &c. Here the government of this church, as well as ministering in the word, is evidently vested in the elders. No mention is made of any individual, who had the whole ruling power vested in him, or even a larger share of it than others. Had there been a bishop in this church, in the Episcopal sense of the word, that is, a single person of superior order to these elders, and to whom, of course, they were in subjection, it is strange that, in this whole account, we do not once find the most distant allusion to him. When the apostle was telling the elders that they should never see his face more, and that dissensions and difficulties were about to arise in their church, could there have been a more fit occasion to address their superior, had there been such a man present? To whom could instruction have been so properly directed, in this crisis, as to the chief shepherd? On the other hand, supposing such a superior to have existed, and to have been prevented by sickness, or any other means, from attending at this conference, why did not the apostle remind the elders of their duty to him? Why did he not exhort them, in the strife and divisions which he foretold as approaching, to cleave to their bishop, and submit to him, as the best means of unity and peace? And finally, supposing their bishop to have been dead, and the office vacant, why did not the apostle, when about to take leave of a flock so much endeared to him, select a bishop for them, ordain

him with his own hands, and commit the church to his care? But not a word of all this appears. No hint is given of the existence of such a superior. On the contrary, the apostle declares to these elders, that the Holy Ghost had made them bishops over the church at Ephesus; he exhorts them to rule that church; and when about to depart, never to see them more, he leaves them in possession of this high trust. On Episcopal principles, I should be absolutely at a loss to account for this. It is, in itself, perfectly conclusive against their claim.

But the passage just quoted from 1 Tim. v. 17, is still stronger on this point. "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." Here the power of government in the church is ascribed to presbyters in terms which cannot be rendered more plain and decisive. Here, also, we find officers of the church who are not recognized in the Episcopal system, but who are always found in the Presbyterian church, viz. ruling elders, or those who are appointed to assist in governing the church, but who do not preach or administer sacraments. But this is not all: bearing rule in the church is unequivocally represented in this passage as a less honourable employment than preaching, or labouring in the word and doctrine. The mere ruling elder, who performs his duty well, is declared to be worthy of "double honour;" but the elder who, to this function, adds the more dignified and important one of preaching the gospel of salvation, is declared to be entitled to honour of a still higher kind.

It is possible that an objection may here be made, founded on our doctrine of the ruling elder. It may

be asked, is not the ruling elder an officer of inferior grade to the teaching elder? If so, can we consider the title of bishop, as employed in Scripture, as a title convertible with that of elder in regard to this inferior class of elders? To this I reply, the title of bishop seems evidently to be used in Scripture as a generic term, as well as that of elder. All the elders of Ephesus, whom Paul met at Miletus, are called bishops. All the elders at Philippi are styled bishops: and the same title is applied to all the elders whom Titus was directed to ordain in Crete. They were all "overseers," or inspectors of the "flocks" which the Holy Ghost had given them in charge. When one of these elders had the pastoral charge of a congregation peculiarly committed to him, he seems to have been called, by way of eminence, the bishop of that congregation. Precisely so was it in the synagogue. There was a plurality of rulers in each synagogue. These were often, perhaps generally, spoken of in the aggregate as "the rulers of the synagogue;" (Acts xiii. 15;) but sometimes one of their number was, by way of emphasis, called "the ruler of the synagogue," and sometimes "the chief ruler," (Luke xiii. 14; Acts xviii. 17.) Just as some denominations distinguish between their common elders, and their "presiding elders." The truth is, in the apostolic age, there was so little disposition to stickle about rank or titles, that the names of office were used without scrupulosity, and with much license. Heuce the terms "minister," "servant," "steward," "shepherd," &c. seem to be applied to all classes of church officers, and to be used alternately with other titles, with a promiscuous freedom which evinces that modern claims and punctilios were then little thought of.