(Toμavel, feed, superintend as a shepherd,) my people Israel. The prophet speaks of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the "good shepherd," and the chief shepherd;" and who had, and has, "the government upon his shoulder." Is. ix. 6.

This term, likewise, is applied to Presbyters. Acts xx. 17, 28. From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus, and called the PRESBYTERS of the church and said unto them-Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you BISHOPS to FEED (Toμa, like good shepherds, to provide for, watch over, and govern,) the church of God, &c.

FEED

1 Pet. v. 2, 3. The PRESBYTERS who are among you, I exhort, who am also a PRESBYTER. (Touavare) the flock of God which is among you, taking the OVERSIGHT (ETIXOTOUTES, discharging the duty of BISHOPS) thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind: Neither as being LORDS over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

It is obvious, upon the very face of the texts, that these presbyters of Ephesus, and of the dispersion, are considered as vested with the pastoral care in all its extent; and they are commanded to be faithful to the trust reposed in them, by providing for the protection, nurture, and comfort of the flock of God. This "feeding" the flock, this discharge of the pastoral duty, is directly opposed by Peter, to being "lords over God's heriVol. III.

1.5

tage," i. e. to rigorous and oppressive government; or, as we commonly say, to "lording it" over them. The contrast could have had no place, had not these presbyters been church governours; for it is idle to warn men against abusing a power which they do not possess. By instructing them how they were to govern the church, the Apostle has decided that the power of government was committed to them. No higher authority than he has recognized in them, can belong to the order of prelates. For the very same term by which he marks the power of the presbyters, is employed in scripture, to mark the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ himself.*

The reader cannot for a moment, suppose that we put any power left in the church, on a level with that of her divine master. Far from us be the thought of such blasphemy. But we contend for these two things.

1st. That the term which both Paul and Peter apply to the office of presbyters, undoubtedly expresses the power of government; seeing it is the term which expresses the office of Christ, as the governour of his people Israel.

!

2d. That as this term, applied to the office of Christ, expresses the highest power of government in him as the chief shepherd; so, when applied to the office of the under shepherds, it expresses the highest power of government which he has dele* Math. ii. 6—ἡγουμενος στις ΠΟΙΜΑΝΕΙ τον λαον μου, δε

gated to be exercised in his name for the welfare of his church. But this power is vested, Paul and Peter being judges, in presbyters; therefore, presbyters, by the appointment of Jesus Christ, are invested with the highest power of government known in his church.

We go further: The authority conveyed by the charge to "feed the flock of God," comprehends the ordering of all things necessary to her well being; and, therefore, the power of ordination likewise. An essential part of the Redeemer's pastoral office, was, and is, to provide under-pastors for his sheep. This, at first, he did in person, by immediate vocation. But having "ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things," he performs the same office through the medium of the pastors whom he has left in the church. The question is to what pastors has he committed the trust of ordaining other pastors, and thus preserving the pastoral succession? We answer, to presbyters: for he has affixed to their office, that very term which designates his own right and care to furnish his church with pastors, or lawful ministers. Let our Episcopal brethren show as much for their prelates, if they can.

To sum up what has been said on this article: No expression more clear and decisive than those we have considered, are used in the scripture to denote either the communication, or the possession, or the exercise, of the ordinary powers given

by Christ for the well ordering of his church. And we have shown, that the New Testament has, in the most direct and ample manner, confided them all to presbyters.

Unless, therefore, we adopt the insane paradox of Hammond, viz. that the presbyters of the New Testament were all diocesan bishops, the passages quoted must bear one of two senses. Either they point out, under the denomination of presbyters, those officers who are strictly so called, in con tradistinction from prelates and deacons; or they use the name with sufficient latitude to include the prelates too. If the former, our position is established. If the latter, then prelates and presbyters are joined together in the power of government, which the hierarchy maintains is confined to prelates alone. In either way, the argument is conclusive against her.

3d. At a very early period of the Christian church, presbyters did actually exercise the power of government: exercised it in conjunction with the apostles themselves; and that upon the principle of parity.

The important question concerning the obligation upon Christians to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, in order to salvation, was referred by the church at Antioch, to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. The historian does not mean apostles and elders who had a fixed and permanent charge at Jerusalem, which was essentially

incompatible with their apostolic vocation. But as that city had been the cradle of the Christian church, and was the centre of religious communication from all parts of the world, the apostles returned thither from their excursions in preaching the gospel, accompanied with Elders or Presbyters from the churches which they had planted, and met together in ecclesiastical council to consult about their common interest. Herein they have set us the example, and left us the warrant, of a delegated body, as the ultimate resort in all ccclesiastical affairs: for, such a body, to all intents and purposes, was the assemblage of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. Of this most venerable primitive Synod, we treat no further at present than to ascertain what share the presbyters had in its proceedings. The following things appear indisputable.

1st. The apostles and presbyters met in common; that is, they formed but one assembly. Of a "house of bishops," and a "house of clerical and lay delegates," they had no idea. This improvement in church-government was reserved for discovery by those who have been trained in the school of the "judicious' "* Hooker.

* This appellation was bestowed upon Hooker by James VI. who was delighted, beyond measure, with his famous work on ecclesiastical polity. And delighted with it for the same reason which, no doubt, ravished the heart of Cardinal Allen, and Pope