is not a sound one, for the ministers of the primitive Apostolic Church were nearly all illiterate men. Widely different is a true and genuine Presbyterianism from the caricature drawn of it by F. J. L.: it is a true and living church; it is at present making gigantic efforts to reach the humblest individuals; it has provided more church accommodation for its people in Scotland than Episcopacy, with all its vaunted wealth and rank, has done in England; everything tends to show that it is by no means effete, nor yet likely soon so to be. Dr. Pusey, in his work on German Neology, gives the following very valuable testimony in favour of Presbyterianism as a system, a testimony all the more valuable seeing that it comes from an opponent. "As far (says he) as past experience or the nature of things could guide me, I could see no reason to think that a different form of church government would have changed the destinies of the German Church." And yet mark the admission he makes. "Episcopal Denmark, as I understood, had suffered equally with Germany; while Scotland, although Presbyterian, had remained nearly free from it" (that is, from infidelity); a most important admission, proving, as it does, that the theory of church government is sufficient to explain the reason why Scotland and Holland were the only two Protestant countries that escaped so fully the withering blight of scepticism and German Neology. In the arguments advanced by "Rolla" we find nothing to reply to. F. J. L. has very judiciously pointed out the weaknesses of Congregationalism as a policy. Moreover, "Rolla" applies his remarks only to Presbyterianism as established; whereas, we have all along been reasoning in consistency with Presbyterianism as exhibited without the pale of the Establishment. As a system, Presbyterianism disowns any connexion with patronage. The yoke was forged by the unhallowed hands of an infidel Bolingbroke and an unprincipled Archbishop of Canterbury, and fastened on the necks of the Scottish Church against its consent. So strong, indeed, was the feeling of the Scottish people against it that it was some time after the act was passed ere any attempt was made to put it in force; but when the cold, dreary blight of Moderatism rested upon the church, the act was allowed to take its full course; but year after year, from the commencement of the nineteenth century, saw the evangelical party within the pale of the Kirk gathering fresh activity, and gradually increasing, until, in 1832, they formed the majority in the General Assembly. No sooner were they in possession of this majority than a determined crusade commenced, on the one hand against the unleavened inasses lying around, on the other hand against the unjust and illegal encroachments of the State in ecclesiastical affairs, and against the odious and galling iron fetters of patronage. The church was enslaved, and the church was determined to be free; and Presbyterianism as a policy was prepared to forego the endowments of the State, rather than forego the appellation of the Church of the People. In its ultimate effects, then, Presbyterianism has produced greater and more beneficial results than either Episcopacy or Congregationalism: neither of these systems have provided so largely for the spiritual welfare of the people within their reach as Presbyterianism has done. In conclusion, it is our heartfelt prayer that the time may soon arrive when members of the various divisions of the One Church may see eye to eye, and be influenced by one common feeling of love to Christ and to each other. WALTER. IT is with no little pleasure we enter upon the present debate. We not only stand forward to advocate our own convictions of what we believe to be the truth, but we find ourwhile on other topics been our antagonists: selves side by side with those who have erstthis, to our practical mind, should induce in us that kindness and forbearance in the expression of our opinion, which, while it convinces the judgment, shall not wound the feelings of our opponents-conduct beautifully expressed in the sacred writings as "Speaking the truth in love." Far be it from us to stigmatize the character of another, or abusively deprecate the power of his intellect or the purity of his heart, because he happens not to see eye to eye with us on the question now before us. If we differ on this point, in how many of the more important points of faith and practice do we agree? In the intercourse of Christians of diverse sects could we only believe that "A little explained, a little endured, a little passed over as a foible, And, lo! the jagged atoms fit like smooth Mo saic. Thou cans't not shape another's mind to suit thine own body: Think not, then, to be furnishing his brain with thy special notions. Charity walketh with a high step, and stumbleth not at a trifle: Charity hath keen eyes, but the lashes half con ceal them: Charity is praised of all,-and fear not thou that praise, God will not love thee less, because men love thee more.' Could we only feel the full influence of these sentiments, the debatable ground of Christianity, if not materially contracted, would at least be more pleasurable; because it would be the experience of all, that truth, not victory, should be the end and object of controversy. It is of paramount importance that we should form correct notions of the sources of authority, and the character of the testimony, adduced on the present question. The sacred scriptures we receive as the only authority upon questions of Christian faith and practice: all merely human history we receive as valuable, if it coincides with the scripture history and precept; and we consider everything worthless which does in any way weaken, nullify, contradict, or exhibit inconsistency with the Divine records. Thus we limit and guard the sources of authority. The testimony as to the practical value of any system of church polity must be sought in the history of those systems, well authenticated, or in contemporary events, indubitable facts, well known and freely admitted. The present debate has hitherto taken its colouring too much from the imperfect views each writer has entertained of his opponents' system, forgetting that each, whether Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or Congregationalist, will freely acknowledge that the practical exhibition of his own system to be found in the world, is not the pure ideal system existing in his own mind. Charity, then, which is mutual love, should put the best possible construction upon the principles advocated by antagonists, and not impute to a system the abuses which wicked men have added to it. It is our care, therefore, to distinguish between abuses added and evils inherent in the system. The principles, then, of ecclesiastical polity, independent of any particular locum tenens, The phrase, ecclesiengage our attention. astical polity, is intended to designate the general question of church government:-to form correct ideas of the character of a system of government, it is prudent that we should ascertain the elements of which the body governed consists. This raises the question, What is a Christian? The scriptures alone can authoritatively answer this question. The derivation of the term Christian is so apparent that we proceed at once to the early history of the term. Luke informs us in his history of the apostolic churches, "the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch," Acts xi. 26. And the same class of persons are indiscriminately called disciples, Acts xxi. 16; believers, Acts v. 14; brethren, Acts xxviii. 14, 15; 1 Cor. v. 11. Although these terms are used as synonymous in their application to person and character in the sacred pages, the term Christian became at an early period the distinguishing appellation adopted by the disciples themselves, and used by their friends, while the terms Galileans, Nazarenes, Acts xxiv. 5, airesis or sect, Acts xxviii. 22, were frequently applied to them scornfully by their enemies. From the foregoing passages we learn that persons believing in Jesus, receiving as disciples his teachings as the authoritative rule of life, feeling as brethren the perfect equality of their religious position, the equal obligation of religious duties, and the sameness of their relation to Christ, were in the scriptures called Christians, Matt. xxiii. 8-10; 1 Pet. ii. 5; Rev. i. 5, 6. He who has believed in his heart, and confessed with his mouth, that Jesus is the Christ, Rom. x. 9, 10, and given evidence of loving obedience to Him, is a Christian. Hence, Christianity is a living principle in the heart of the Christian. A personal service, a voluntary obedience, rendered to Christ, is a subjective motive developed in the life, personal and voluntary by essential necessity. The constituent elements of a Christian church are peculiar, and marked with great precision in the New Testament. The Church is, in fact, an aggregation of Christians, and, consequently, partakes of the nature of the Christian, in its most important particulars. It affords facility for the social development of the living principle of Christianity existing in the heart of the Christian. The Greek word ecclesia signifies either the whole body of Christians, past, present, and future, or a particular congregation or society of Christians, voluntarily associated together under the influence of Divine truth, for the purposes of mutual edification in the observance of all Divine institutions." It is in the latter sense that it has relation to the present question. "In any intermediate sense between a single congregation, and the whole community of Christians, not one instance can be brought of the application in sacred writ. We speak now, indeed, and this has been the manner for ages of the Gallican Church, the Greek Church, the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, as of societies independent and complete in themselves. Such a phraseology was never adopted in the days of the apostles. They did not say the Church of Asia, or the Church of Macedonia, or the Church of Achaia; but the Churches of God in Asia, the Churches in Macedonia, the Churches in Achaia. The plural number is invariably used, when more congregations than one are spoken of, unless the subject be of the whole commonwealth of Christ. Nor is this the manner of the penmen of sacred writ only. It is the constant usage of the term, in the writings of ecclesiastical authors for the two first centuries."-Dr. Campbell's "Lectures on Ecclesiastical History," vol. i., pp. 204, 205; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; xvi. 1; 2 Cor. viii. 1, &c. On the other hand, numberless instances are recorded in which the singular number is applied in its true application to the single congregation assembling in one place, e. g., Acts xiv. 23; Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. iv. 17; xiv. 23; xvi. 19; Phil. iv. 15: Col. iv. 15; Philem. 2; Acts xiii. 1; Col. iv. 16; Acts xx. 17; 1 Cor. i. 2; Rev. ii. 1, 8, 12, 18; iii. 1, 7, 14. Mark xvi. 16. the conditions of church fellowship are with "The "Thus the first churches were constituted The truth of the in the apostolic age. glorious gospel, attested by 'infallible proofs,' was proclaimed to men 'for the obedience of faith.' Wherever it was cordially received, it became, through the power of the Holy Spirit, the principle of obedience; it constrained those who had 'given themselves to the Lord, to give themselves to one another, according to the will of God.' It led those whom the providence of God had stationed near each other, to meet in one place,' and to submit to all the laws and ordinances which Christ had enjoined, either by his own authority, or the delegated authority of his apostles. Here we witness the result of personal conviction, the effect of enlightened principle; and in all succeeding ages, those have most nearly resembled the primitive churches, who have formed their union on the basis of evangelical truth, and have regarded that truth as the ground of their hope, the support of their holiness, and the firm bond of their mutual attachment, and zealous co-operation. In the constitution of a Christian church, we recognise the authority of Christ as its warrant, the truth of Christ as its foundation and agreement respecting that truth as the principle of fellowship."-Fletcher's "Lectures, p. 28." "The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments are duly administered, according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same."-Article XIX. of the Church of Eng The character of church members, and land. primitive churches as gifted brethren rather than as office-bearers-being peculiarly inspired for the purposes of teaching and revealing the will of God. They probably Ghost," when and where they were directed by the act of inspiration, hence, they cannot be said to have sustained or filled any office, but were brethren gifted with or by the Holy Spirit according as Divine wisdom saw fitting in the circumstances of the primitive church. Hence, we say, the Christian Church is a voluntary association of believers in the Lord Jesus, as the Saviour of sinners; as brethren, equal in the possession of rights, privileges, and liberties; owning no sovereign" spake as they were moved by the Holy or authoritative ruler but Jesus-" Call no man your Father upon earth; neither be ye called Masters, for one is your Master, even Christ," Matt. xxiii. 9, 10. "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," Matt. xv. 9. "Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free," Gal. v. 1. Having ascertained some particulars relating to the character of the individual Christian, and the nature of a Christian church, we now proceed to notice the officers of a Christian church, What are they? their number, their position, and their duties? The extraordinary officebearers of the Christian Church in primitive times were apostles, evangelists, prophets, and teachers. The apostles were those who, having personally seen Christ, and received their commission from him to preach the gospel and organize churches throughout the world, were gifted with special powers and graces, by which to commend their message in a miraculous manner to the hearts and consciences of their hearers, and to confer miraculous gifts upon others; these qualifications never having been possessed by any other Christians, and no record existing of the appointment of any persons to fill up vacancies in the apostolic office caused by death, we are led to the obvious conclusion that their office was peculiar to themselves, and was necessary only to the church at the time they were living. Evangelists were associated with the apostles in the work of preaching the gospel and gathering Christians together into societies-forming, in fact, new churches under the direction of the apostles. They had the gift of tongues and were empowered to work miracles. Timothy and Titus were evangelists, as was also Philip the deacon. Although evangelists discharged duties very similar to our modern missionaries, being gifted with superior powers, yet, there being no apostles to send forth evangelists upon their special missions and to communicate extraordinary gifts, we presume their office ceased with that of the apostles. It would perhaps be more correct to describe "the prophets and teachers" of the Of the ordinary officers of the Christian Church, and which are of necessity permanent, we mention elders, presbyters or bishops, and deacons; beyond these we are assured there are none mentioned in the New Testament, and there is no passage from which by inference any other office can be forcibly obtruded upon the Church of Christ in any age. Presbyters, elders, and bishops are evidently the same officers, employed by the church in the performance of the same duties, as by similar authority and circumstances they were first called into existence. A few passages will abundantly prove this: "Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers (episcopous), to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood," Acts xx. 28. The persons here addressed were the elders (presbuterous) of the Church at Ephesus, Acts xx. 17. We also read in the Epistle to Titus, "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders (presbuterous) in every city, as I had appointed thee; for a bishop (episcopos) must be blameless," Titus i. 5-7. In like manner, Peter also writes: "The elders (presbuterous) which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof' (episcopountes), 1 Pet. v. 1, 2, i. e., act as bishops-feed the church after the manner of bishops. The directions given by Paul, in 1 Tim. iii., with respect to the character and qualifications of a bishop, and his mentioning elders in the succeeding chapters, as though they were identical with bishops, 1 Tim. v. 1, 17, 18, 19; and particularizing only deacons as distinct officers from elders or bishops, evidently lead us to the same conclusions, viz., that the elderspresbyters-and bishops of the New Testa ment, are the same officers under different names, designating the peculiar phase of duty to which attention is desired by the sacred writer at the time he mentions either of them. We see in all the performance of the same duties-feeding the flock, overseeing, taking heed to the flock, caring for them. They are ordained by Titus as elders; they-the elders-are qualified as bishops blameless in everything: in character, in qualification, and in duty they are minutely identical. The probability is that the term elder or presbuteros was most used among the Jewish converts to Christianity, as designating, in their estimation most suitably, the new office by an old name, familiar as an "household word" in the historic associations of their former faith. From like feelings the Hellenistic and Gentile converts would adopt from their technicalities a word to denote the character and duties of the office, from their former political and religious historic associations; the same generic idea being expressed from the different stand-point of each convert, whether Gentile or Jew. We find no authority of an imperative or lordly character applied to or claimed by elders, bishops, or presbyters, in the scriptures, but much to the contrary. In addition to passages already quoted, we add the following: Paul says-and he was an apostle, and as such, had he claimed the power, none could have disputed or doubted his right to authority-yet he says: "Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy,” 2 Cor. i. 24. Peter also accords with Paul on this point: "Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock," 1 Pet. v. 3. The right and duty of individual Christians to think and act for themselves, goes very far to prove the absence of authority from the official duties and character of elders and bishops. 66 Why, even of yourselves, judge ye not what is right?" Luke xii. 57. "I speak as unto wise men; judge ye what I say," 1 Cor. x. 15. "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind," Rom. xiv. the Christian Church. How they were first appointed is described Acts vi. 1-7. Their origin appears to be a necessity of the circumstances of the church at that time; their duties are distinctly defined in their origin, and the circumstances rendering their appointment necessary; their office relieved the apostles, elders, and bishops of all anxieties about the temporalities of the church, and although as members or evangelists, they were frequently employed as teachers, preachers, and messengers, this does not necessarily imply that teaching, preaching, or legation was any part of the duty of the office;-their duty as deacons was to attend to all the pecuniary matters of the church; and if, in addition to their ability in this respect, they were endowed with gifts, they employed those gifts, not in their right as deacons, but as members, pastors, teachers, &c. One word respecting the election and ordination of bishops and deacons: this seems to have frequently devolved upon the apostles; but as frequently has the choice of the apostles been sanctioned by the churches. In the appointment of deacons the church is directed to look out seven men, whom the apostles might appoint, Acts vi. 3, &c. Thus it is apparent that the church elected, that the apostles did ordain, and it is equally apparent that the evangelists and elders did also ordain, from 1 Tim. v. 22, and Tit. i. 5. It is in accordance with the New Testament to affirm that ordination belongs to the presbytery of a church; when elders are already in a church, it is appropriate for them to ordain office bearers, who may be elected by the same church: this opinion is sanctioned by 1 Tim. iv. 14, "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery."* In this passage it is shown that even Timothy the evangelist, and possibly also a bishop or elder, was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, i. e., by the elders, presbyters, or bishops of a church or single congregation of Christians. We would, at this point, remind our friends that there are no successors to the apostles;-this we would impress upon their minds particularly, because it is so loudly talked of by the advocates of opposing systems of church polity. It is a pure fiction, without the least found Davidson's "Ecclesiastical Polity," p. 232. |