no definite rules for government were given. To promulgate the Gospel, certain machinery was needful, and this machinery was developed in the proceedings of the Apostles and first Christians, and upon this machinery was ultimately built, by erring hands, an ecclesiastical edifice. This machinery was most simple. The Apostles and others went into cities and preached the good tidings, and having collected some believers, out of their number one as an elder was ordained, whose office was to regulate the general affairs. The office did not impose the necessity of preaching. Some elders did preach, some did not (1 Tim v. 17). With the elder were deacons, whose office was more especially to attend to the distributions when Christians had all things common (Acts vi. 1-6). In each small community, or Church, was an elder, or bishop, or overseer (these terms being synonymous) and deacons, (Phil. i. 1; Titus i. 5; Acts xx. 28). Elders and deacons preached or not as they were moved, or any one of the brethren prayed and preached (1 Cor. xiv.). Such was primitive Christianity. How unlike that defined order of things which the Hebrew polity presents. And how unlike that which the ecclesiastical Church presents. This absence of defined order in early Christianity is the great difficulty with divines, and an apparent authority for ecclesiastical rule so feeble, indeed, there being no authority, that they are compelled to look for it in an age after the Apostolic. In the primitive age the distinction between clergy and laity did not exist. Divines look, therefore, to the Fathers, and as Christianity soon had foisted upon it old notions of priestcraft, so among these they find authority for metropolitans, bishops, presbyters, and deacons, successive grades of ecclesiastical orders. But even among the Fathers are met adverse opinions to a clergy rule, but they are passed by as unimportant, or treated as the wild opinions of misguided men

*

* (A.D. 423.) "Not long after flourished Theodoret, in the beginning of the fifth century, who makes the name of bishop and presbyter to have been synonymous terms in the Apostolic age; but then he will

We are not now going to argue against this or that form of church government. The principal end in view, at present, is to

66

But, in

have those of the chief order to have been called Apostles. The same persons," says he, were anciently called bishops and presbyters; and they whom we now call bishops were then called Apostles. process of time, the name of Apostles was appropriated to them who were Apostles in the strict sense; and the rest, who had formerly the name of Apostles, were styled bishops. In this sense Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians; Titus was the Apostle of the Cretians, and Timothy of Asia."

"From these testimonies, with many others easy to be produced, it appears that in the next ages after the Roman Emperors professed the Christian religion, the distinction of the clergy and the laity, and of bishops from the lower orders of clergymen, were constantly reckoned to be of Divine institution, and derived from the Apostles down to that time." (This is tantamount to a confession that previously to the profession of Christianity by the Roman Emperors much dispute arose upon the subject of priesthood. Tertullian advocated the existence of a church though they were all layman.) "Indeed, in Tertullian's time there were some who allowed layman to execute all the functions of the sacerdotal office. 'Their ordinations,' says he, 'are without distinc tion, mutable, and unfixed. One is a bishop to-day, another tomorrow; to-day he is a deacon, who to-morrow is a reader; to-day is a presbyter, who to morrow is a layman. For they commit the sacerdotal functions to laymen.""

But, then, what sort of principles were these men of? If we may take the same author's account of them, they were such as allowed, not laymen only, but even women, contrary to St. Paul's express command, to teach in their public assemblies, and (as he supposes) to baptise (p. 127—129).

Potter charges these early Christians, who thus disregarded an ecclesiastical order, as heretics, and he thinks "it is strange that St. Jerome's conjecture about the original of episcopacy should prejudice any considering man against the divine institution of it." And, again, at p. 175, upon the subject of baptism, he recurs to Tertullian. He writes, " And if Tertullian may be credited, 'laymen have power to baptise, which yet for the sake of order, they ought only to use in cases of necessity.'' Indeed, his judgment ought less to be regarded, because he seems to give layman an inherent power of baptism, which naturally follows from that absurd notion of his which was examined in the last chapter, "that all Christians were originally priests, and are only prohibited from exercising the sacerdotal office for the sake of order."-Potter's Church Government.

show that government does not rest with an ecclesiastical body, and that an order of men is intended to be employed to propagate the Gospel, properly termed teachers. Hereafter, in a future number, will be given what is conceived to be the Gospel scheme for government. Not that an inflexible rule is to be observed. Christianity as a polity has no precise and definite form given to it. Some latitude in this respect it would seem is permitted, that the form of church government may adapt itself to the prevailing genius or institutions of a people. Mosheim thus writes upon this subject: "Neither Christ himself, nor his holy Apostles, have commanded anything clearly, or expressly, concerning the external form of the Church, and the precise method according to which it should be governed. From this we may infer, that the regulation of this was, in some measure, to be accommodated to the time, and left to the wisdom and prudence of the chief rulers, both of the state and of the Church. If, however, it is true, that the Apostles acted by divine inspiration, and in conformity with the commands of their blessed Master (and this no Christian can call in question), then it follows, that that form of government which the primitive churches borrowed

Potter thinks Tertullian's "absurd notion!" that all Christians are priests, as derived from the passages of Scripture, "where Christ is said to have made us kings and priests, is a manifest allusion to a passage in the Old Testament, where God promised the Jews, that if they would obey His voice, and keep His covenant, they should be to Him 'a kingdom of priests and an holy nation.' So that the Jews were all priests, that is, set apart and dedicated to the service of God, or whatever else the name of priests implies in this place, as well as Christians; and it can no more be hence inferred, that all Christians are priests in the strict sense of this name, and authorised to administer the sacraments, than that all the Jews were invested with the sacerdotal office, and allowed to offer sacrifices; which none of them, except the family of Aaron, not even their kings, ever presumed to do without incurring most heavy and exemplary punishments" (p. 114).

I make this last extract from Potter that the basis of his reasoning may be fairly before my readers.

from that of Jerusalem, the first Christian assembly established by the Apostles themselves, must be esteemed as of divine institution. But from this it would be wrong to conclude that such a form is immutable, and ought to be invariably observed; for this a great variety of events may render impossible. In those early times, every Christian Church consisted of the people, their leaders, and the ministers or deacons; and these, indeed, belong essentially to every religious society. The people were, undoubtedly, the first in authority; for the Apostles shewed, by their own example, that nothing of moment was to be carried on or determined without the consent of the assembly, and such a method of proceeding was both prudent and necessary in those critical times."-Mosheim, Cent. 1, chap. 11.

The early type, or Apostolical rule, of government, was very simple as adapted to the infant state of Christianity. The distinction of the clergy and the laity did not then obtain. It gradually changed and progressed to the ancient sacerdotal rule, until a perfect hierarchy was maintained. The Scriptures attest its first simple form; and it is only to take up Milner, or Mosheim, or Hooker, and even Potter, and its progress to sacerdotalism comes out. The early type having been formed, not by, but under, inspiration, that is, the Church being under inspiration, it is the proper form for church rule, and a future state of society will arise when most probably it will be returned to. The relation which we have in the New Testament of Apostolic Christianity shows that equality was the rule-government the exception. The first act done by the Apostles was not by command of God, as we find all acts were under the Hebrew polity, but arose out of an emergency. In this emergency the whole body of disciples are appealed to; "the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them," among them "men of honest report." whole body of the people (Acts vi. 2). we find observed when the question

and were told to look out The choice was with the The principle of equality arose about circumcision.

The brethren, with the Apostles and elders, "send greeting unto the brethren" (Acts xv. 23). This is the rule. The exceptions are in the early formation and general guidance of the several churches by the Apostles and their immediate deputies. These inspired men directed, exhorted, rebuked, and taught. In the first formation of churches, the natural order of things required that he who formed a church should watch over it. But none of them so employed evinced a disposition "to lord it over God's heritage." Far from it; the very opposite is shown as exhibited in the conduct and abstinence of Paul (Acts xx. 33, 34). Mosheim, writing of the first century, says, "There reigned among the members of the Christian Church, however distinguished they were by worldly rank and titles, not only an amiable harmony, but also a perfect equality." And in reference to the authority being exercised by, and residing in, the general body, he writes, "6 It was, therefore, the assembly of the people which chose their own rulers and teachers, or received them by a free and authoritative consent when recommended by others." The fact of having all things common is proof of the principle of equality.

The principle of government resides with the people. Government may be modified by circumstances. It is essentially needful that there should be a body of instructors. The great end and object is to teach. A machinery is needful for this purpose. The old adage, that "what is everybody's business is nobody's," applies here. A work to be properly done must have appointed persons to do it. The management and order of this appointment is left to circumstances. The principle of equality among Christians, as a basis for government, is not left to circumstances. This is fundamental. It is taught by our Lord (Luke xxii. 24— 26), and was observed in Apostolic practice.

With regard to priesthood, it will be well to define what is meant to be conveyed by the term. In the Hebrew dispensation, the priests only were permitted to approach unto God. The people were to present their offerings through the priests. By