The question to be investigated in these observations is this, -What instructions have the Apostles given, either by example or precept, respecting the different orders of Ministers, in a settled state of the Church, after their departure? I say, in a settled state of the Church, after the departure of the Apostles: because its first state was so extraordinary, and so fraught with miraculous powers, that a perfect imitation of it cannot be adopted. This original state of the Church is thus described by the Apostle Paul. "God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers; after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues'.' Apostles and prophets are gone gifts of healing, and diversities of tongues have ceased. We must be content with teachers and governors. Let us inquire what the Scripture has said concerning these.

This list is a little varied in the Epistle to the Ephesians, where it is said, "He gave, some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers 2." What the word evangelist means, if it implied a distinct order, cannot be collected from Scripture. It is but mentioned in two other places, viz. Acts xxi. 28. "We entered into the house of Philip the evangelist." And 2 Timothy iv. 5. "Watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry." The word literally means a preacher of the gospel. The use of it in any other sense must be conjectural.

'The titles appropriated to ordinary teachers in the Church of Christ, are bishops, presbyters or elders, and deacons. Perhaps

1 Corinthians xii. 28.

2 Ephesians iv. 11.

Prophets are so clearly distinguished in both these passages, from pastors and teachers, that we cannot, by any just reasoning, consider the conduct of the former as conveying a direction for that of the latter.

we shall discover another order to which the Scriptures have given no title, except in the Book of the Revelations. It may be proper to remark, for the sake of those readers who are not acquainted with the original language of the New Testament, that the terms of presbyter and elder are strictly synonymous; the former being only a Greek word with an English termination, and the latter, a translation of that Greek word into pure English. To avoid confusion, I shall only use the word presbyter, as having less ambiguity.

2

'It seems that presbyters were the ordinary Ministers of the Church. Paul and Barnabas, in their first tour from Antioch, ordained them presbyters in every Church'. Paul being in haste to be at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, determined to sail by Ephesus, and called the "presbyters of the Church "," giving them his parting advice, as to ordinary Ministers of the Church. Paul left Titus in Crete, to "ordain presbyters in every city." The business of ruling and teaching the flock belongs to them. "Let the presbyters that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine *."

The terms, bishop and presbyter, are used in the New Testament for the same kind of Minister. There are five passages from which this appears to be the case. When St. Paul sent from Miletus for the presbyters of Ephesus, he commanded them "to take heed to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers, (it is the same word in the original, which is elsewhere translated bishops,) to feed the Church of God, which He hath purchased with his own blood 5." St. Paul says to Titus, " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest ordain presbyters in every city, as I had appointed

thee. If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot or unruly; for a bishop must be blameless'," &c. In these two passages, the terms are clearly synonymous.

The same Apostle addresses his Epistle to the Philippians, "To all the saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons. Can we suppose, that there were many bishops, and no Presbyters at Philippi; or that St. Paul would omit mentioning these, while he addresses the deacons ? These suppositions are so improbable, that I can entertain no doubt of the term bishop being here used for presbyter.

Again: the Apostle, in his first Epistle to Timothy, chap. iii., gives particular directions respecting the character of those who were to be admitted to the offices of bishop and deacon, but does not, in that chapter, make mention of presbyters. The passage is natural and void of difficulty, if, by the term bishop, we understand presbyter; in any other sense, the omission of the term presbyter is unaccountable; since Timothy was left at Ephesus, as Titus was in Crete, for this purpose (among others) of ordaining presbyters.

Lastly; St. Peter, in his first Epistle, chapter v., says, "The presbyters who are among you I exhort, who am also a presbyter," (for though the Apostles were superintendents of other ministers, they still fulfilled the office of ordinary preachers of the Gospel,)" feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof," (or, as it might be rendered, “executing the office of a bishop,") "not by constraint, but willingly "," &c. From these passages it is plain, that the terms bishop and presbyter were used as synonymous by the writers of the New Testament 3.

1 Titus i. 5-7.

21 Pet. v. 1, 2.

2

3 No difficulty can arise from the application of the term bishop, to ordinary presbyters, if we take into consideration the original meaning of

Before I proceed to inquire whether the Scriptures have given us any intimation of a church officer, superior in rank to that of a presbyter, let us hear what is said respecting deacons. No instructions are given to Titus respecting this office; but in the first Epistle to Timothy, the same character for piety and good conduct is required in deacons as in presbyters. Nay, it is added, "Let these also first be proved, then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless;" chapter iii. 10. Yet this office seems to have been probationary with respect to a higher office, for it is said, "They that use the office of a deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree," ib. 13. But wherein did the office of a deacon consist? The Scriptures have not informed us. Some readers may be surprised at this assertion, and ask, Were not seven deacons appointed to take care of the public stock in the Church1? It is true, that “ seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom," were chosen by the people, and appointed by the Apostles to take care that no partiality be shown in favour of the Hebrew women, in distributing the daily portion of food provided by the Church; but these men are not called deacons, except in the running title of our Bibles. The text does not give them that name. Indeed, if it did, we should gain but little information as to the perpetual

the word, and the manner in which it is applied in the Scriptures. The word in the original signifies an overlooker or overseer, and is thus properly translated in the English Testament, Acts xx. 28. For the presbyters were the overseers of the flock of Christ; and it is with relation to the flock, and not to other ministers, that the presbyters are called bishops: as in the passage last quoted; "Take heed to the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers" or bishops. So also in 1 Peter, chapter v., "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof," &c. Whereas, superintendents, as the Apostles, and by delegation from them, Timothy and Titus, were overseers or bishops of other pastors, as the Epistles to Timothy and Titus abundantly prove.'

1 Acts vi.

office of a deacon; for the employment imposed upon them was local and temporary, and has long since ceased to exist. In no part of the New Testament, that I recollect, is the office of a deacon described.

Though the office of a deacon is not described in the New Testament, it must have been perfectly understood, not only by Timothy, to whom minute directions were given for the choice of proper persons to fill that office; but also by the Christians of that period, among whom the duties of the office were daily exercised. The Christian Church of modern times ought, therefore, to search out the nature of the office in those ecclesiastical writings which approach the nearest to the times of the Apostles.

'Two properties of the office may be collected from the Scriptures. First, that it was an office, which, in point of importance, was similar to that of presbyter; for the same marks are laid down for the guidance of Timothy in the choice of deacons, as in the choice of presbyters. They were to be men of similar piety and good conduct in every relation of life. And, secondly, the office is described as probationary. It was designed to be a step to something higher. The rest must be supplied from the stores of ecclesiastical history.

'We proceed then to inquire, whether the Apostles did appoint any officer in the Church, of a degree superior to that of presbyter; such an officer as would now be called a bishop'. That we may, with greater certainty, discover the truth in this investigation, let us first state what is the peculiar office of a bishop,

1The reader must not understand me as hinting, that this appropriate use of the word bishop is of modern date. By consulting ecclesiastical history he will find, that it was used in this appropriate sense by those who had been contemporary with the Apostle John, and that the Christian Church continued to use it in this sense after the death of the Apostles. But my observations are confined to the account which is given of the Christian Church in the New Testament,'