The Primitive Church in its Episcopacy; with an Essay on Unity, and Counsel for the Present Times, &c. By the Author of "Dr. Hookwell."—(Continued from page 42.)

THE principles advanced in this volume, and the arguments by which they are supported, are in no respect new; they are the same in substance as those which the admirers of Hooker, Taylor, Hickes, and Dodwell, have reiterated over and over; and which are quite familiar to those who have paid any attention to the episcopal controversy.

The Author tells us in his preface that a friend of his "sent the few following questions to Dr. Chalmers,- Dr. Candlish,-Dr. Bunting, and Dr. Coke, of Belfast, but from the former only did he obtain any acknowledgement of his letter." He adds, "They were certainly difficult and unwelcome questions to a Presbyterian, and perhaps discretion counselled silence."

As these few questions contain the gist of the subjects discussed in the volume, and the Author evidently considers them unanswerable by any one but an Episcopalian, we shall take the liberty of transcribing them for the benefit of our readers.

First. "Whether there was not an essential official difference made, before our Lord's departure, between the Twelve' and 'the Seventy; and whether 'the Twelve' did not afterwards act with an authority superior to 'the Seventy ?'"

Secondly. "Whether Timothy and Titus were not sole bishops? And if they were presbyters with equal authority over other presbyters, would not the theory of presbyterian purity be destroyed ?"

Thirdly. "Whether the angels, in Rev. ii., were not individual governors of the several churches mentioned ?"

Fourthly. "Whether the entire testimony of the Primitive Church be not in favour of bishops, as administering the government of the church ?"

Fifthly. "Have you ever met with and perused Pearson's Vindicia Ignatianæ ?"

The Author, it will be observed, slily intimates that these questions were rather difficult to answer, and the silence of the parties to whom they were submitted, was attributable to this fact. We are, however, disposed to put a somewhat different construction upon the matter. We are inclined to think that the learned Doctors named, rather felt themselves insulted by having such questions propounded for their augnst decision, which any intelligent boy or girl from a Sunday School could have answered

with ease. With regard to the first;-any one who reads the New Testament, will at once perceive that such "an essential official difference" was made between the "Twelve" and the "Seventy," that the former stood alone; no one could encroach upon their office, nor perform their work. (Mark iii. 14, Luke vi. 13, and Acts i. 8.) Their character, position, and work, were of that nature that none could succeed them, their office died with them. All, therefore, who assume to be successors to the Apostles, are intruders, impostors, and quacks! The "essential official difference" made by our Lord between the Twelve' and the 'Seventy,' bears no analogy whatever to the alleged distinction between bishops and presbyters, and no argument can be drawn from it.

་

With regard to the second question ;-so far were Timothy and Titus from being "sole bishops,"-they were not bishops at all, but evangelists; one being left at Ephesus, and the other in Crete, not to be bishops, but to appoint a plurality of bishops in every church. (See 1 Tim. i. 3; ch. iii. 1–7; and Tit. i. 5.)

No

On the third question, we must only remark,-that the ayyeλos, angel of the church, seems to denote nothing farther than that the person so designated was the messenger, or delegate of the church, probably to receive the epistle, and read it to the church. This was the business of the angel in the Jewish synagogue; or the term may denote the persons sent with the epistle, by John, to the respective churches. Probably neither a bishop nor a deacon, as there was no necessity for his being either. And Dr. Hammond, a warm Episcopalian, says, that the inscription to each of the epistle may be properly rendered,-"by the angel of the church," &c., instead of "unto." countenance whatever, therefore, is given to Episcopacy by the use of the term angel in these epistles. But as there were in the seven churches persons designated angels, (Rev. i. 20) it will be necessary only to refer to the order of the Jewish synagogue, after which the apostolic churches appear to have been modelled, to ascertain the exact import of the term. In every synagogue there were several rulers, and the one who offered up prayers for the congregation, and who had charge of the sacred books, and who presided at any meeting of the assembly, was called the angel or messenger. And as there were in the apostolic churches a plurality of elders or bishops, (the terms being synonimous) the one who presided for the time being, would be called the angel, but holding no official rank above the rest.

K

On the fourth question we may observe,that the answer must depend entirely on the sense which the Author wishes to attach to the phrase "Primitive church." If he means the churches in the apostolic age, we emphatically answer No! The whole of the New Testament is flatly opposed to Episcopacy. But if he means the church in the third century, we say YES. But the church then was not Apostolic, but APOSTATE.

The last question being entirely personal, we need not notice it further than to say,that notwithstanding all that has been said by Pearson and Wake, large portions of the Ignatian Epistles are manifest forgeries. Nor would those writers ever have defended their genuineness, were it not for the apparent support they give to Episcopacy. Either these Epistles have been interpolated, or Ignatius was no disciple of the apostles.

The sentiments taught in this Work may be comprised under the following leading particulars. That the Holy Ghost is the author of Episcopacy. That modern Bishops are successors to the Apostles.-That there is an essential difference between the office of Bishop and Presbyter.--That the Church of England is the only true church.-The necessity of church authority to settle the true sense of Scripture. These are the leading ideas, but those which are subordinate and illustrative of these are numerous; and a variety of topics are introduced in order to establish the leading point.

To write a reply, and to expose the fallacy of the arguments advanced in this volume, would be a very easy matter in a volume of corresponding size; but to do anything like justice to the subject in the compass of a Review, in a comparatively small Monthly periodical, is impossible; all we can do, therefore, is to glance at some of the leading points. And if we should extend our remarks beyond the limits usually appropriated to Reviews, the importance of the subject, and the hold which it appears to have upon the public mind at the present time, must be our apology. We do not wish to make our Review department a mere channel of advertisement, but the medium of imparting instruction. It has long been our opinion, that mere voluntaryism, and the separation of Church and State-the hobby of modern political dissenters- must ultimately give

place to the question, What is a Christian Church, and what is its divinely-appointed order and government? (To be continued.)

An Assistance to Christian Parents in the Religious instruction of their Children: containing two Catechisms, the one Historical, and the other Doctrinal. Fourth Edition. Edinburgh: W. Oliphant and Sons. 1844. pp. 43.

WE were not aware, until a few days since, that this excellent little work had been reprinted, and that it had reached a fourth edition. We remember reading it with great pleasure many years ago; and it was our impression then, and is still, that it is the very best compendium for the purpose for which it was intended, of any we had ever seen.

Many objections have been urged against the use of catechisms, as a medium of communicating instruction to the young. It has been said,-that the tendency of using catechism is to make our children content to receive their religion at second-hand; and to substitute the word of man for the word of God. But, for our own part, we see no force whatever in these objections but what would apply equally as well to every possible mode of instruction in divine things, except the bare reading of the Scriptures. But we have always observed, that the loudest declaimers against creeds, catechisms, &c., are as fond of speechifying upon the doctrines and precepts of Christianity as any class of men whatever. What is a conversation upon religious subjects, between two individuals, but a catechism in words. If the conversation or dialogue is sufficiently lengthy, and committed to writing, it is a catechism; if this is afterwards printed, it is a book. In our opinion the danger lies-not in the mere use of catechisms, but in using those that teach false doctrine; and also in neglecting to compare every statement with "the law and the testimony."

We believe the things taught in the little Work before us, are in perfect harmony with the "oracles of God;" and perhaps it will not lessen its value in the estimation of some of our readers, when we tell them that it was drawn up by the late Mr. William Peddie, who was for some years the colleague of Mr. Arch. M'Lean.

THE APPOINTMENT OF ELDERS.

QUERY-PAGE 248.-VOL. 1.

"It would greatly oblige me, if you or some of your correspondents world inform me-How Elders were appointed in the apostolic churches; whether they were appointed by the apostles, or by the

churches, or by both conjointly? And if they were appointed by the apostles exclusively, what effect should this have upon the proceedings of churches in the present day ?-Yours, &c." ADELPHOS."

THE historian Luke informs us that Paul and Barnabas, on their missionary tour

through Asia Minor, ordained elders in every church. Paul says that he left Titus in Crete, that he should set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city. The same apostle, in his parting address to the church at Ephesus, reminds them that the Holy Spirit had made them overseers over the flock.

We believe these are the only places where the appointment of elders is spoken of.

Another circumstance may also be noticed, that the apostles in their letters to the churches do not speak of the appointment of elders, or of their qualifications, but in the letters to the apostolic helpers-Timothy and Titus-the qualifications are given in full. When deacons are to be chosen, the disciples are to choose them from among themselves, but nothing of the kind is stated concerning elders.

The direct information we have may be given in its simplest form, thus:

1. The Apostles ordained elders. Acts,

• "The apostles in their letters to the churches do not speak to the appointment of elders, &c. Although the Epistles to Timothy and Titus were addressed to them as "helps," or evangelists, yet they were evidently intended for the benefit of the churches, and also to form a part of the New Testament revelation, which was to be the guide of the churches of Christ through all succeeding ages. (see 2 Pet. i. 15.-iii. 1-2- and 1 John iv. 6.) It follows therefore as a matter of course, that the minute description of character and qualifications given by the apostle to Timothy and Titus, was intended for the guidance of the churches in future times, after the departure of the apostles and their helps, in the choice of elders. And in such cases, who can be judges but the churches themselves. This appears to us so self-evident that we cannot help ascribing a denial of it to a disaffection to the apostolic church order, and a denial of the anthority of the apostolic writings; or in other words, refusing to hear the apostles, 1. John iv. 6. If the course pursued by the apostolic churches, in this matter as well as in every other, be not admitted as examples for the guidance of christian churches in after ages, we are at once compelled to have recourse to Rome for direction, or submit to any self-confident demagogue who may pretend to be called by the Holy Ghost to be an overseer of the flock.

The distinction between a church formed, and one which has existed for some time, which our correspondent notices farther on, will fully account for the apostle giving his directions to Timothy and Titus, and not to the churches, because the churches referred to where infant societies, and not yet "having their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

Moreover, if God has not given instruction upon this point," it is, as our correspondent justly observes, "because it is unnecessary." That is, the right of churches to elect their elders, by the directions given in the apostolic writings, and their bounden duty to be guided by those instructions, were so self-evident, that a specific law upon the subject was unnecessary to the disciples of Christ, who willingly hear his voice in his word.--ED.

Holy Ghost hath made you overseers," yet it may not be out of place to make a remark At the beginning of the nineteenth chapter of the Acts, we read that Paul met with twelve disciples of John the Baptist at Ephesus-when he laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied, verse 6. Afterwards he separated the disciples, verse 9, and on that occasion it is not improbable that those who possessed the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, would nominate the elders of the church, thus they would be made overseers by the Holy Spirit. In illustration of this, observe Acts, xiii. 2. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said. separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." In the church of Antioch there were certain prophets, verse 1. The prophets of the primitive churches seem to have made special revelations from God, as Agapus, xi. 27-28. By these it would appear Paul and Barnabas were named; and in the same way would the elders be called. Compare the two passages, xiii. 2, and xx. 28, the language is very much alike.

Upon the whole we are inclined to think that the prophets would point out the elders, and the Apostles ordain them.

The Apostles have departed and left no successors; the helps, or deputy apostles, have departed and left no successors, and there are no prophets remaining in the churches. How, then, are elders to be appointed now? To say that we have the writings of the Apostles instead of themselves, is not a direct answer to the question. Their writings do indeed state the qualifications, but does not name or set apart the individuals. Some party must judge who are qualified. The New Testament states what the qualifications are. Living men must decide who possess those qualifications.

There is one distinction which requires to be made, namely, between a church being formed, and one which has existed some time. The first can only see the surface of things, the other bas.its senses exercised to distinguish between good and evil. The appointment of elders mentioned in the Scripture were at the formation of churches; bow they were appointed afterwards we are not informed.

Passing from the days of the Apostles to future ages, we find various views prevailing among professing Christians. Many have been the disputes which have taken place agreed upon it yet as ever. To enumerate upon the subject, and men are as little their conflicting opinions would be impossible, but they may be all reduced to the following classes:

1. The Plymouth Brethren, who say that