regarded and observed, in their proper sphere, as much as the officers of any other republic. But the manner of their ruling Iwas not to be as "Lords over God's heritage" "Whosoever will be chief among you," said the Saviour, "let him be your

servant."

The Apostles themselves gave several striking illustrations of their regard for popular rights. The first public act of the Church, after our Lord's ascension, was the choice of an Apostle in the place of Judas. Peter stands up in the midst of the disciplesthe number of names together was about one hundred and twenty -and proposes the matter. The election is made by the body of the Church.

Here is the strongest possible case. If the people are ever to be passed by, in the appointment of their ministers, surely it should be so here. Yet this is done by a popular election, and that, in the very presence, and at the instance of the Apostles themselves and the Holy Ghost records it for our instruction in such matters, if any instruction is given on the subject. How much more is this rule to be regarded in the appointment of an ordinary minister?

Attempts have been made to set aside the plain record of facts in the first chapter of the Acts. Slater, among others, deems it necessary for the cause of Prelacy (as indeed it is) to overturn the commonly received and natural interpretation of this simple narrative. He contends that Peter is addressing the Apostles, and not the brethren; and that the Apostles-not the brethrenmade the choice. I am willing to refer the reader to the record for himself without one word of comment. For the satisfaction of those who believe in the Fathers, it is sufficient to adduce authority which good prelatists may not gainsay: Chrysostom says, "Peter did everything here with the common consent. He left the judgment to the multitude."*

**

Cyprian confirms the exposition of Chrysostom.f

The appointment of Deacons was suggested by the Apostles, as it was fit that inspiration should direct what officers were to

"The judicious HOOKER," vol ii., p. 122, sneers at "the pretended right of the people to elect their ministers before the Bishop may lawfully ordain ;" and declares that by his arguments against a popular election "is drowned whatsoever the people, under any pretence or color, may seem to challenge, about admission and choice of the pastors that shall feed their souls."

Slater (p 111) thinks that "reason, common sense, and experience, go against popular elections;" and that "the will of a few select ones [prelates] is safer than the votes of a mixed multitude;" declares that there are no footsteps of it [popu lar elections] in the Holy code of Christ's laws;" and that "not this man but Barabbas is a tremendous instance of a popular election in the most eminent con gregation of the only church of God then amongst men." He forgets to tell us what hand the " Chief Priests" had in exciting this tumult, and in rejecting Christ Would it have been any better had it been left to the Chief Priest alone?

† Coleman.

be established in the Church; but the election was by the people. The record is in Acts vi.

χεις,

The same appears to have been the mode of electing Elders, or Pastors. Paul and Barnabas (Acts xiv), passing through an extensive district of country, "ordained them Elders in every church." Immediately upon this word ordained, there arises before the mind of Prelacy a vision of some sacred rite, the communication of some ghostly virtue or power. But in the original, the word is the one in common use to denote an election by the suffrages of the people. The Greeks gave a popular vote by raising the hand: and hence their word vote, or elect, is a compound one of yog, the hand, and Tevw, to lift. Thus Demosthenes says, "The people exegorovε, voted in my proposals;" i. e. gave their vote by lifting the hand. Every tyro in classic Greek will remember the fable of the birds assembling to elect a king; where the same word is used in the case of one who thought himself worthy TO BE ELECTED. Birds have no hands to lift, but the word was so common that it came to signify an election in any mode. So Thucydides says, "They were at an election," Cicero refers to this manner of voting among the Greeks: "Their manner of voting is known, they lift up the hand." The same word is used (eigorovnoεVTES) in 2 Cor. viii. 19, where Paul speaks of one who was "chosen of the Church" to travel with "this grace" (another instance of popular management of Church concerns). Here the same word is used as that where it is said that Paul and Barnabas ordained: but surely in the present instance Prelatists will not contend that the Churches conveyed a mystical grace, or performed a ghostly ceremony of ordination; they simply chose these men. How then can the same word mean any more when it is said that Paul and Barnabas ordained?

χειροτονία.

The same word Zeugotovεw is used in the same sense by the Fathers. Ignatius says to the Philadelphians, "It will become you, as the Church of God, zegoτornoai to choose some deacon to go there;" again, "That your Church appoint, zagotovσsome worthy delegates."*

This throws light upon the nature of the ordination performed by Paul and Barnabas. They caused elders to be appointed, or, as in the margin of the English translators, "When with lifting up of hands they had chosen them." Tyndal's translation reads, "And when they had ordained them seniors by election in every congregation." The ancient French version reads, "And after having by common suffrages ordained elders." Beza reads, "And when they had by suffrages created elders."

Nothing in the record refers to any ceremony of consecration; * Coleman, p. 58

nothing refers to the modern sense of ministerial ordination; though Prelacy is compelled to hang a mountain weight upon the notion that the word ordained here, can mean nothing but a mystical ceremony of ordination.

The same remark applies with equal force to the passage in Titus i. 5, "Thou shouldest ordain elders in every city." The word translated ordain has no imaginable reference to any ceremony or act of consecration; in the original it is xataorons-the most general word possible for establish (that thou shouldest establish elders in every city), without any possible reference to any particular mode of doing it; least of all any ceremonial consecration. Doubtless there was a mode, or perhaps several modes; but the Holy Ghost has not seen fit to allude to any in this connection. The presumption is, that whatever else was done, the chief thing consisted, as in the case of Paul and Barnabas, in calling the people to a popular vote.

It is amusing to see the immense weight that Episcopacy tries to hang upon such a peg as the word ordain, in our version of the Scriptures. It has not there the modern technical sense, but is the common rendering of several different words, none of them referring to an act of consecration like a modern ordination. No sooner does Prelacy fix its eyes upon that word, than images of ghostly virtue, ghostly power, consecration, awful mysteries, conveyed by an awful succession, rise to her view. But on examining the word in Titus i. 5, we find the same as that used (Luke xii. 14) where the Saviour says, "Who made me a judge or a divider over you?" Surely here is no reference to a mystical consecration. The same is used Rom. v. 19, "By one man's disobedience many were made sinners." Surely it was no Apostolic consecration, no mystic ceremony of ordination, to make men sinners! Yet Episcopacy must hold so, or she must drop from this peg on which she has hung so long, and with such a feeling of security.

It is admitted that the power of electing their own officers was gradually, and at length entirely stolen away from the people by a grasping hierarchy, till the last semblance of the popular rights was lost. Yet it was a long time ere they were wholly lost. Clement of Rome, A. D. 96, speaks of the appointment of ministers with the approbation of the whole Church, as among the regulations of the Apostles.* Cyprian, A. D. 258, says, "The people ought to separate themselves from a wicked bishop, nor mix themselves with the worship of a sacrilegious priest. For they principally have the power of electing worthy ministers and of rejecting the unworthy; which thing itself we see descends from divine authority." As late as A. D. 437, Ambrose of Milan

* Coleman.

was elected by the people, of their own accord, by acclamation: Martin of Tours, A. D. 375: Chrysostom at Constantinople, A. D. 398. But there is no need to multiply proofs. Even Slater admits (p. 77) and uses the fact in argument, that "all the brethren met together in the Church to choose a Bishop, in the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries."

The accurate historian Mosheim thus states the conclusion to which his own mind came after a most thorough investigation. "In these primitive times, *** the highest authority was in the people, or the whole body of Christians; for even the Apostles themselves inculcated by their example, that nothing of moment was to be done or determined but with the knowledge and consent of the brotherhood." * * * *« The people did everything that is proper for those in whom the supreme power of the community is vested."*

Neander, the most distinguished ecclesiastical historian of the present day, says, " Each individual Church which had a Bishop or Presbyter of its own, assumed to itself the form and rights of a little distinct republic or commonwealth; and with regard to its internal concerns, was wholly regulated by a code of laws, that, if they did not originate with, had at least received the sanction of the people constituting such Church.t"

I need not pursue this part of the subject further. "Power is always stealing from the many to the few." Favors granted to the ministers of metropolitan and other important towns, were soon demanded as inherent prerogatives. Step by step, corruption and despotism crept stealthily on. Moderators and ministers of large towns grew into Prelates-into archbishops, patriarchs; till the apex was at length crowned by a Pope.

We see what principles are worth. The lessons drawn from the history of our fathers are corroborated by the history of more ancient times: both show the importance of the principles for which our fathers stood.

Once more we are invited to enter the path of Prelacy, and of the incipient corruptions of the Man of Sin. The beggarly elements of ancient despotism and superstition are again stalking forth, and striving, with "high swelling words," with lordly claims, and contemptuous abuse of all who refuse to receive their yoke, to make their way once more to the empire of the world. It is not to be disguised that the battle of the Reformation is once more to be fought with those who once gloried in the style of Protestant, but who are now beginning to be weary of the

name.

*In Punchard.

† In Coleman.

XXIV.

OFFICERS OF THE CHURCH.

Extraordinary functions. Men called to a special work. Evangelists. Deacons. Bishops. Presbyters, or Pastors. Singular error of the Prayer-Book. Apostles; their office; requisite endowments.

WE read, Eph. iv. 11, that "Christ gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ."

In 1 Cor. xii. 28, that "God hath set some in the Church; first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly teachers; after that miracles; then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."

Here are men discharging some eight sorts of functions; none pretend these are eight orders of permanent officers in the Church. Some of these powers were adapted to the special and miraculous establishment of the Gospel. "Diversities of tongues," "gifts of healings," "miracles;" there were none to discharge these functions after the Apostolic age. These may therefore be dismissed from our present inquiry.

Evangelists, as such, are men specially called to a special work; but nowhere recognized as officers attached to any church. They were men sent to preach where Churches were not formed; or sent to complete the organization and arrangement of Churches where anything was wanting. Thus Philip, originally a deacon, afterwards styled Philip the Evangelist, is found in the capacity of Evangelist attached to no Church, but preaching and baptizing in unevangelized places (Acts xxi. 8). Thus Timothy, 2 Tim. iv. 5, is exhorted to "do the work of an evangelist." His work is on all hands agreed to be the same with that of Titus, who was left in Crete, that he might "set in order the things that were wanting, and ordain elders in every city" the churches being not as yet fully organized.

As Timothy was called to do the work of an Evangelist, it is plain that he was not regarded as an Apostle; since Paul makes the two offices distinct: "some Apostles, some prophets, some