Levi. And, advancing onwards to the Christian dispensation, how many clear intimations of a system of gradation, order, and subordination, do we everywhere meet with. God hath set some in the church, first, Apostles-secondly, Prophets -thirdly, Teachers," &c. &c. 1 Cor. xii. 28. "For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office; so we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith, or ministry, let us wait on our ministering; or he that teacheth, on teaching; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation; he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity, he that ruleth, with diligence," &c. Rom. xii. 4-8. In fact, throughout the whole Scripture, the will of God, whenever clearly revealed, whether governing in heaven or on earth, and whether in the former or the present dispensation, appears to be, subordination. The contrary principle, of equality, and the consequent rejection of all superior authority, is, indeed, to be met with here and there, but only as the work of Satan himself,-only as an inspiration coming directly from beneath, and leading as directly thither. The language of Korah, for instance, was of this kind. What was his complaint? Ye take too much upon you, Moses and Aaron, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them; wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?" Num. xvi. 3. Of a like description was the conduct of Jeroboam, who "returned not from his evil way, but made of the lowest of the people, priests of the high places; whosoever would, he consecrated him, and he became one of the priests of the high places: and this thing became sin unto the house of Jeroboam; even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the face of the earth." 1 Kings xiii. 33. And how strong are the denunciations of the apostles themselves against this spirit. St. Peter, in describing the wicked who are reserved unto the day of judgment to be punished, particularizes " chiefly, those that despise government: presumptuous are they; self-willed; they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities." 2 Peter ii. 10. St. Paul, indeed, predicts a coming time, when popular election, and a contempt for authority, shall prevail : but in what terms does he foretell it? The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and be turned unto fables. 2 Tim. iv. 3. : In opposition to this view, we contend that there is another description of officer clearly described in scripture, besides the deacon, and the pastor of a single church;' namely, the overseer, or bishop : (the original Greek word translated bishop,' signifying, strictly, an overseer)—an officer whose duty it was to superintend the churches of a district, to regulate, to set in order, to hear complaints, and to ordain to the other orders in the ministry. And, in fact, were there no direct instructions in Scripture touching this order of the ministry, the office is so obviously desirable, that we might easily defend it upon Mr. James's own principle, as 'designed to carry into effect a law, (or laws) which, as supreme legislator, Christ has enjoined.' There are many plain injunctions in the New Testament, to the carrying of which into full effect, the superintendence of a bishop is obviously needed. We might therefore maintain the propriety and necessity of the office, upon the same ground which Mr. James would use, if called upon to defend the maintenance of a college for the education of missionaries. He will produce no direct authority for such an institution, from the New Testament, but he will plead that it was designed to carry into effect a law which the supreme legislator had enjoined.' Exactly the same argument would apply in the case of our diocesan bishop, or overseer of the churches. But the direct and positive scripture authority is so full and com. plete, that we shall not stop to make use of an argument which is merely inferential, however sufficient it may be, to decide the whole question at issue. We rather turn at once to the general tenor of the apostolic writings, as bearing on their face, and open to the most cursory review, abundantly enough to decide this point. We would leave the question to any unprejudiced man; nay, we would even take one born and bred a dissenter, only premising, however, that he should not have previously fortified his mind against the truth, by the study of the shifts and evasions devised by some dissenting writers, to elude the plain meaning of the language of St. Paul. We would resort, we repeat, not to a churchman, but to one brought up entirely among the opponents of the church, provided only that he were able and willing to judge impartially on this subject, by the rule and guidance of scripture alone. We would take such an one, and we would say to him, "It is asserted by Mr. James, that the office and duty of a bishop, as described in the word of God, is to be not the overseer of many ministers,' but simply the pastor of a single church.' We, on the other hand, think that there is an officer described in the writings of St. Paul and the other apostles, whose duty it is to be not merely the pastor of a single church,' but the overseer of many ministers' and many churches. We ask you, therefore, as a man of some impartiality, to sit down, for an afternoon, to study the New Testament on this point, and to give us your verdict on this simple question,-Is there not such an overseer bishop, as we have just spoken of, distinctly described, and his duties clearly enjoined ?" 6 or We should not have the least fear,--supposing only that the enquirer's mind were not previously fortified against the truth,-of receiving any other than an affirmative answer. In fact, before Mr. James can exclude from the church the epis of a deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith, &c. 1 Tim. iii. 13. St. Paul then immediately adds, I write these things unto you, that if I tarry, or am prevented coming, thou mightest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the church of the living God, &c. 1 Tim. iii. 15. In other words, The rules which I have just laid down, touching the characters of elders and copal order, an order of overseers or superintendents, he must exclude from the Scriptures the epistles addressed to Timothy and Titus. Not, however, that even then his task would be easy; but with those portions of scripture before his view, the boldness of his attempt appears to border upon audacity. For what are these epistles? They are letters of advice and instruction to two bishops, two superintending overseers, two min-deacons,* are for thy guidance, in isters who were clearly employed, not as 'pastors of one church,' but as overseers of many ministers.' And the tenor of these two epistles is such, as to be perfectly decisive of the question. For let us note down a few points. 1. Timothy is instructed by St. Paul to charge certain preachers, that they teach no other (or new) doctrine; nor give heed to fables and genealogies, which could not edify. 1 Tim. i. 3, 4. And the apostle adds, This charge I commit to thee, that thou mightest war a good warfare. 1 Tim. i. 18. Does Mr. James,-who considers himself, as the pastor of one church,' to be to all intents and purposes a bishop,-does Mr. James feel himself thus empowered, and specially charged, to look to the doctrine taught by other pastors, and authoritatively to recal them when going astray? Or, if he should assume this authority, will he not be asked, in what respect he is better than they, that he should assume the right of prescribing to them touching their doctrine or their creed ? Is Mr. J. in short, an overseer of other ministers, as Timothy was thus charged and empowered to be? 2. Timothy is next instructed, touching the deacons of the church. He is to prove them, and if found blameless, was then to let them use the office. He appears also to be directed as to their promotion, probably to the eldership. It is said, They that have used the office executing thy present function. What was that function, then? Obviously it was something involving an examination of, a proving, a power of appointment and promotion, of both elders and deacons. In short, it was that of a superintending overseer of the whole church-containing many elders or presbyters, and many deacons,→→ of the great city and district of Ephesus. He 3. Timothy is further instructed, in the fourth chapter, concerning false teachers that shall arise. is charged to use his authority against such. Being instructed in the truths of the gospel, he is to put the brethren, that is, his brother Presbyters, in remembrance of these things: he is to refuse profane and old wives' fables; and these things he is to command and teach. 1 Tim. iv. 11. Again, do we clearly discern the superintending overseer of the Ephesian churches. 4. In the next chapter, the fifth, clear directions are given to Timo *The word bishop appears, in this epistle, as also in Titus i. 5-7, to be used for an elder, or, at most, the overseer' of a single place, whether containing one church or more. We build no argument on the mere use of the word bishop here and there. We admit without hesitation, that in the unformed state of the church at that time, the various titles of ministers were frequently applied without much strictness of distinction. Our present enquiry does not concern any thing so trifling as the mere title of bishop. We are searching into the much more important question, whether the office of a superintending overseer of the churches was not instituted by the apostles. thy, touching the exercise of his authority in divers matters. He, being a young man, was not to use his functions towards an elder, roughly. Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father. 1 Tim. v. 1. But it appears beyond dispute that his office would render it necessary for him sometimes to sit in judg. ment on an elder; and accordingly he is told, Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. 1 Tim. v. 19. 5. His power of appointment or ordination is also clearly stated, in the words, Lay hands suddenly on no man. 1 Tim. v. 22. It is obvious that if the people had chosen their own elders or teachers, and his office of ordaining them by the imposition of hands had been merely a customary form, this caution would have been without sense or meaning. The exercise of his own judgment in ordaining is a principle clearly involved in it. 6. His authority in divers other matters is also alluded to in the same chapter. Let not a widow be taken into the number, except, &c. The younger widows refuse.-Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour.-Observe these things, without preferring one before another; doing nothing by partiality. 1 Tim. v. 21. If words have any meaning, surely this language can only be applied to one set in authority, to one superintending and governing the whole Ephesian church. 8 elders or bishops, for St. Paul here uses the word as synonymous. Every congregation would require its own pastor or pastors, and these were sometimes called elders," probably as being chosen from among the senior brethren, and sometimes bishops," as being "overseers of the flock." But it is perfectly plain that the superintending oversight of the whole was committed unto Titus: and the Apostle warns him against vain talkers, whose mouths he is to stop, rebuking them sharply. Titus i. 13. He is further desired to exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee. Titus ii. 15. And, lastly, he is armed with the power of excommunication, as far as concerns the holders of false doctrine. A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject. Titus iii. 10. Such are the epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus; epistles, the whole drift and tenor of which concerns their instruction in the right discharge of the episcopal office. So indisputable is this, that, as we have before said, we would leave it even to any Dissenter,-only provided he had not used himself to the practice of evading and eluding the plain meaning of scripture,—we would leave it even to any honest Dissenter to say, after reading over these epistles, whether he does not plainly discern in them, the establishment, by the apostle, of a superintending overseership of the churches. The answer cannot be otherwise than in the affirmative. But what is the plea, then, by which dissenting writers, such as Mr. James, escape from this inevitable conclusion. It is this. 'The mission of Timothy and Titus was clearly of an extraordinary nature, and had little in common with the pastoral and episcopal office.'* But this kind of evasion we must beg leave to say, is no answer to the case. * James, p. 49. Mr. James, it will be seen, chooses to speak of the pastoral and episcopal office,' thus assuming the whole point at issue, and palpably begging the question, while he professes to be stating an argument. Taking for granted the very thing in dispute, namely, that the pastoral and episcopal office are in all cases the same, and that all scriptural bishops are pastors of a single church; he then says of the mission of Timothy and Titus, that it was extraordinary, or out of the ordinary course of things. are But really assumptions of this kind cannot be allowed to pass for arguments. The very question at issue is, what was the ordinary course of things, or the customary practice of the apostles? The point in dispute is, were the episcopal and the pastoral offices the same? And when we produce the best possible evidence of the establishment of diocesan or district overseers, by the apostles themselves, our proofs are not to be put aside in this flippant way, by the mere assertion that the cases cited clearly of an extraordinary nature!' What one circumstance has Mr. James adduced, to shew their mission to have been extraordinary,' or out of the usual course of things. None whatever. On the contrary, two clear and distinct instances being presented to us in the apostolic writings, and nothing being advanced to shew them to be special cases, we have a right to assume them to be examples of the usual practice of the apostles. Every new church planted by the apostles would have much to "set in order," as well as Crete. Every new district evangelized would need to have "elders ordained in every city;" and when things were thus arranged, they would still need, as much as Ephesus, the superintendence of an overseer or bishop, who should maintain a correct standard of doctrine among them, "put them in continual remembrance" of the things which they had heard; properly fill up vacancies among their officers; and judge between elder and elder, and between the officers and any aggrieved by them among the people. Such were the duties prescribed to Timothy and Titus. It is easy to say that these were extraordinary duties; but it will be by no means easy to shew that there was any thing so far extraordinary either in the circumstances of Ephesus or Crete, or in the qualifications of these their bishops as to release us from all regard to their example. We shall not, indeed, question, that the circumstances of Crete were in many points different from those of York or London in the present day. Nor shall we deny that both Timothy and Titus possessed gifts and powers to which no one in the present day can lay claim. So far their case might differ from ours; but if that be a reason why we should refuse to profit by their example, or by the precepts addressed to them, then we may close up at once the greater part of the apostolic writings. It is true, indeed, that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists as well as Bishops. Still, however, the general character of the duties prescribed to them, were duties of a common and ordinary nature; duties incumbent in every country and in every age. "Whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written for our learning," but if we refuse to receive instruction from scripture, under such pleas as these, an extraordinary case,' 'not applicable to our times,' 'different circumstances,' and so on, we do, in effect, claim a better judgment than the Holy Spirit, and assert, that there are parts of scripture not calculated to instruct, but rather to mislead, and respecting which it is our wisdom to pass them over in silent disregard. But this is not the spirit in which the Scriptures of truth ought to be |