chical or prelatical, but dictated throughout by a spirit of mutual love, counsel, and prayer, he goes on to express himself thus: "We may suppose that where any thing could be found in the way of church forms, which was consistent with this spirit, it would be willingly appropriated by the Christian community. Now there happened to be in the Jewish synagogue, a system of government of this nature, not monarchical, but rather aristocratical (or a government of the most venerable and excellent.) A council of elders, gurig, conducted all the affairs of that body. It seemed most natural that Christianity, developing itself from the Jewish religion, should take this form of government. This form must also have appeared natural and appropriate to the Roman citizens, since their nation had, from the earliest times, been, to some extent, under the control of a senate, composed of senators, or elders. When the church was placed under a council of elders, they did not always happen to be the oldest in reference to years; but the term expressive of age here, was, as in the Latin Senatus, and in the Greek ygousia, expressive of worth or merit. Besides the common name of these overseers of the church, to wit, gʊrg, there were many other names given, according to the peculiar situation occupied by the individual, or rather his peculiar field of labour; as ποιμένες, shepherds; ηγουμενοι leaders; προεστωτες των αδελφων, rulers of the brethren; and ETISKO, overseers. ""* Now, if in the ancient Jewish synagogue, the government of the congregation was not vested, either in the people at large, or in any single individual, but in a bench of elders; if this is acknowledged on all hands, as one of the clearest and most indubitable facts in Jewish antiquity; and if, in the judgment of the most learned and pious divines that ever lived, both episcopal and non-episcopal, the New Testament church was formed after the model of the Jewish synagogue, and not * Kirchengeschichte, vol. i. pp. 283, 285. after the pattern of the temple service; we may, of course, expect to find some evidence of this in the history of the apostolic churches. How far this expectation is realized, will be seen in the next chapter. CHAPTER III. EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE OFFICE FROM THE In this chapter it is proposed to show, that the office in question is mentioned in the New Testament, as existing in the apostolic church; that it was adopted from the synagogue, and that it occupied, in substance, the same place in the days of the apostles, that it now occupies in our truly primitive and Scriptural church. The first assertion is, that this class of officers was adopted in the church of Christ, under its New Testament form, after the model of the synagogue. Some have said, indeed, that the apostles adopted the model of the temple, and not of the synagogue service, in the organization of the church. But the slightest impartial attention to facts, will be sufficient, it is believed, to disprove this assertion. If we compare the titles, the powers, the duties, and the ordination of the officers of the Christian church, as well as the nature and order of its public service, as established by the apostles, with the temple and the synagogue systems respectively, we shall find the organization and service of the church to resemble the temple in scarcely any thing, while they resemble the synagogue in almost every thing. There were bishops, elders, and deacons, in the synagogue; but no officers bearing these titles, or performing similar functions in the temple. There was ordination by the imposition of hands in the synagogue; but no such ordination in the temple. There were reading the Scriptures, expounding them, and public prayers, every Sabbath day in the synagogue, while the body of the people went up to the temple only three times a year, and even then to attend on a very different service. In the synagogue, there was a system established, which included a weekly provision, not only for the instruction and devotions of the people, but also for the maintenance of discipline, and the care of the poor; while scarcely any thing of this kind was to be found in the temple. Now, in all these respects, and in many more which might be mentioned, the Christian church followed the synagogue model, and departed from that of the temple. Could we trace a resemblance only in one or a few points, it might be considered as accidental; but the resemblance is so close, so striking, and extends to so many particulars, as to arrest the attention of the most careless inquirer. It was, indeed, notoriously so great in the early ages, that the heathen frequently suspected Christian churches of being Jewish synagogues in disguise, and stigmatized them as such accordingly. And when it is considered that all the first converts to Christianity were Jews; that they had been accustomed to the offices and service of the synagogue during their whole lives; that they came into the church with all the feelings and habits connected with their old institutions strongly prevalent; and that the organization and service of the synagogue were of a moral nature, in all their leading characters, proper to be adopted under any dispensation; while the typical and ceremonial service of the temple was then done away; when these things are considered, will it not appear perfectly natural that the apostles, themselves native Jews, should be disposed to make as little change in converting synagogues into Christian churches, as was consistent with the spirituality of the new dispensation? That the synagogue model, therefore, should be adopted, would seem beforehand, to be the most probable of all events,. Nor is this a new or sectarian notion. Whoever looks into the writings of some of the early fathers, of the reformers, and of a large portion of the most learned men who have adorned the church of Christ, subsequently to the reformation, will find a very remarkable concurrence of opinion that such was the model really adopted in the organization of the apostolic church. Most of the distinguished writers whose names are mentioned in the preceding chapter, are, as we have seen, unanimous and zealous in maintaining this position. Accordingly, as soon as we begin to read of the apostles organizing churches on the New Testament plan, we find them instituting officers of precisely the same nature, and bestowing on them, for the most part, the very same titles to which they had been accustomed in the ordinary sabbatical service under the preceding economy. We find bishops, elders, and deacons, every where appointed. We find a plurality of elders ordained in every church. And we find the elders represented as "overseers," or inspéctors of the church; as "rulers" in the house of God, and the members of the church exhorted to "obey them," and "submit" to them, as to persons charged with their spiritual interests, and entitled to their affectionate and dutiful reverence. The following passages may be considered as a specimen of the New Testament representations on this subject." And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed;" Acts xiv. 23. "And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders. And the apostles and elders came together to consider of this matter;" Acts xv. 4, 6. "And from Miletus, he (Paul) sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church; and when they were come unto him, he said unto them, |