ORIGIN OF CHURCH POWER AND AUTHORITY.

265

dissent, and return to first principles-the original constitution of the churches of Christ.*

It is always a difficult thing to trace error to its real source, to ascertain its first risings, and mark its gradual developments. The apostles inform us that the mystery of iniquity began to work even in their day-no doubt insidiously, and scarcely perceptible to such as had not the supernatural gift of discerning spirits. But we all now know to what an awful height it advanced in the course of a few centuries when "the man of sin, the son of perdition, opposing himself to the King of Zion, and exalting himself above all that is called God or is worshipped, came to sit in the church or temple of God, impiously arrogating divine honours," 2 Thess. ii. A consideration of this subject naturally leads us to look back to what the New Testament teaches respecting the pastoral office-the ends for which it was instituted—the spirit that is essential to the right discharge of its functions-the duties which pertain to it-and the perfect equality which at first reigned among those who were invested with it. A due attention to these things will assist us materially in tracing the rise and reign of Antichrist--and the present appears to be the proper place for taking up the subject.

The appointment of office-bearers in the Christian church is traced by the apostle Paul to the highest possible authority, the good pleasure of our risen and ascended Lord. For, treating of his ascension into heaven, and of his exaltation as head of his body, the church, he connects with it his giving gifts unto men, which gifts he explains to be apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, the work of

"The history of the first or purest ages of Christianity furnishes accounts of churches which were not only constituted according to the plain and simple rules of the Gospel, but were governed by the laws of Christ alone. The authority of even the most venerable persons found no place in them. The apostles themselves were not LORDS over the faith of their members; they were only HELPERS of their joy. Strict regard to the laws of Christ was then equally the characteristic of the minister and the Christian of every rank. There were indeed rulers and ruled. But the first were no less governed by the authority of their common Master in all their administrations, than the last were in all their ordinary acts of religion. It was then accounted necessary that the divine character of every office and of every institution should be ascertained and acknowledged. Without this, ministers could not conscientiously be invested with the first, nor Christians regulate their worship by the last."-Review of Ecclesiastical Establishments, &c., by W. Graham, 1792.

the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, Eph. iv. 8— 12. Of the gifts here enumerated, we know from other parts of Scripture, that the former three were extraordinary and ceased with the apostolic age; for the apostles had no successors in their office-prophecies were to cease when the canon of revelation was completed-and the evangelists, who were assistants to the apostles in establishing the kingdom of Christ at the beginning, ceased to be necessary when the apostles were no more. The only stated office-bearers in all the primitive churches were elders and deacons. The work assigned to the elder is clearly and acurately defined in the New Testament, namely, to oversee and to rule the church of God-to labour in the word and doctrine, and thus to feed the flock of God.* Sometimes their office and duties are expressed by other terms than the word elder, such as bishops, pastors, teachers; but these different terms denote one and the same office. There was no difference between them in the apostolic age; for an elder was a bishop, and the bishop was an elder. The following passages clearly prove this fact. Paul sent for the elders of the church of Ephesus, and exhorted them to take heed unto themselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit had made them bishops, εTIOKOTOVÇ, Acts xx. 17, 28. Titus was left in Crete, to ordain elders in every city; and when the apostle proceeds to describe their qualifications for the office, he does it in this way," a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;" Titus i. 5, 7. Peter exhorts the elders to feed the flock of God, discharging the office of a bishop, εtɩoкotsvτes, not by constraint, 1 Pet. v. 2. The identity of the office of bishop and elder will be obvious to every one who duly compares these texts of Scripture, and properly considers them.

I mentioned in a former Lecture that there appear to have been a plurality of elders, bishops, or pastors, in all the primitive churches. The church at Jerusalem had its elders, Acts xv. 2, 4. Paul, when at Miletus, sent for the elders of the church at Ephesus, Acts xx. 17. In ch. xiv. 23, we read that Paul and Barnanabas ordained elders in every church. Titus was left in Crete

* 1 Tim. v. 17; Acts xx. 28; 1 Pet. v. 1-5.

AUTHORITY OF THE PASTORAL OFFICE.

267

that he might ordain elders in every city, Tit. i. 5. Paul addresses his epistle to the church at Philippi, "with the bishops and deacons," ch. i. 1; yet that church was a single congregation as indeed were all the first churches, Rome, Corinth, Thessalonica, Ephesus, Colosse, &c. &c. We certainly read of the churches of Galatia; but then Galatia was a province, not a city or town. In short, whenever they are spoken of in the apostolic writings, it is in the plural number.* In this, indeed, the divine. wisdom is apparent; for, as the duties of the pastoral office are various, such as teaching, ruling, guiding, feeding, &c., and it being a rare thing to find the same individual excelling in each of these, provision is made by the appointment of a plurality of elders or bishops for the supply of all the church's necessities. It is manifest from what the apostle says, 1 Tim. v. 17, that an elder may excel in teaching who is deficient in his qualifications for ruling, and vice versâ; for, his direction, or doctrine-to "let the elder who rules well be accounted worthy of double honour or support, especially those who labour in the word and doctrine" -while it implies that both ruling and teaching are different branches of the same office, nevertheless supposes that the capacity for discharging them is not possessed by all, at least, is not possessed in an equal proportion: and this fact is too fully demonstrated, by daily observation and experience in the churches of Christ, to require any formal proof.

It must be obvious to every one who reads the apostolic writings with attention, that the pastoral office in a church involves in it a degree of rule and authority over those who enjoy the benefit of the office. If that were not the case, there could be no meaning in such texts as the following:-" Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls as they that must give account," &c., Heb. xiii. 17. But then it is not the authority of a despot over his slaves; it is that of a mild and considerate parent over his children. Neither is it the authority of a magistrate who can avail himself of the power of the sword to punish the refractory. "The great engine of the magistrate," as one well observes, "is terror-that of the pastor is love. The advancement of one is the destruction of the

* See 1 Pet. v. 1; James v. 14; 1 Thess. v. 12; Heb. xiii. 17.

other. To attempt to combine them in the same character is to attempt to form a hideous monster at the best. 'The servant of the Lord must not strive but be gentle unto all men-in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves.' The weapons of. his warfare are not carnal-he forbears threatening, and does not employ the arm of flesh; his weapons are the soft powers of persuasion, animated by tenderness and love." Accordingly the apostle illustrates the nature of the pastoral rule and authority, when, laying down the qualifications of an elder, he says, "If a man know not how to rule his own house, so that his children are in subjection with all gravity, how shall he take care of the church of God?" 1 Tim. iii. 4, 5. Elders are forbidden to lord it over God's heritage, 1 Pet. v. 3; but what wise and pru dent parent would ever play the tyrant over his children; neither will the Christian pastor who has just views of his office, and who is actuated by the true spirit of it, usurp dominion over the consciences of his brethren. Yet a prudent parent, knowing by observation and experience the natural frowardness, obstinacy, and foolishness, which are bound up in the heart of a child, and aware that he has to contend with a variety of tempers and untoward dispositions, will admire the wisdom of God in investing the paternal character with authority to control the refractory and rebellious--to punish the disobedient, and thus preserve that order which is essential to the peace and happiness of the family: So it is in the church of God.

Now what I have in view, in tendering these remarks, is, to apprise you of a very important change which took place in reference to this matter about the middle of the second century— a change which contributed not a little to the advancement of the antichristian cause. It is most manifest, as I have already shown, that in the apostolic writings, bishop and elder (or presbyter) are synonymous terms; and, until this period, the Christian church recognized no distinction between them. There were only two offices of apostolic institution in the church; namely, those of elder, or bishop, and deacon. But the innovation referred to, as now taking place, was a marked distinction between the bishop and the elder; in consequence of which a third kind of office, unknown to the New Testament, was created,

ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN BISHOP AND ELDER.

269

whence we come to read of bishops, presbyters, and deacons.* The first ecclesiastical father in whose writings we find this distinction is Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, whose martyrdom I lately mentioned. In a Collection of Letters attributed to him this novel distinction obtrudes itself upon the reader, both frequently and officiously; sometimes not in the most modest and becoming terms, as was the manner of the apostles; but in such an arrogant and magisterial style as to induce a suspicion that his epistles have been interpolated. Dr. Campbell, speaking of them, says, "I do not say that the epistles in question ought to be rejected in the lump, but that undue freedoms have been used, even with the purest of them, by some over-zealous partisans of the priesthood." But, whatever be in this, one thing is manifest, that it is in the writings of Ignatius that we meet with the first intimation of a distinction which soon came to be generally admitted, and which paved the way for most pernicious results. It has been remarked that in the writings of Irenæus, which appeared about the middle of the second century, consequently posterior to those of Ignatius, the names of bishop and presbyter, with others of similar import, are used indiscriminately; from which it is inferred that, though the distinction began to prevail pretty generally about this time, it was not universal. What at one time Irenæus ascribes to the bishop, he, at another, ascribes to presbyters, or elders. He speaks of each in the same terms, as entitled to obedience from the people—as succeeding the apostles in the ministry of the

* "In the second century, it is very plain that a settled distinction, in several respects, obtained between the bishop and his colleagues in the presbytery-for as yet they may still be called colleagues. Many titles which had before been common to them all came at length to be appropriated to him who was considered as their head, such as επίσκοπος, ηγωμενος, προεςος, πρωτοκαθεδρος, προισαμενος, ποιμην, and some others. Though names are but sounds, those who are conversant in the history of mankind will readily allow that they have a greater influence on the opinions of the generality of men than most people are aware of. Besides, it is of the nature of power, unless it be guarded by a watchful jealousy, such as is rarely to be found in unexperienced and undesigning people, to accumulate and gather strength. Distinguish one at first but by a small degree of superiority, and the distinction you have made will very soon, and, as it were, naturally, carry other distinctions along with it. There is something here that resembles gravitation in material things :as the quantity of matter increases, its attractive force increases, and it more easily draws other matter to itself." Dr. Campbell's Lectures, Lect. vi.