find among them no individual distinguished above the rest who presided as a primus inter pares, though probably, in the age immediately succeeding the apostolic, of which we have unfortunately so few authentic memorials, the practice was introduced of applying to such an one the name of niokomos by way of distinction.' We have no information how the office of president in the deliberations of presbyters was held in the apostolic age. Possibly this office was held in rotation -or the order of seniority might be followed-or, by degrees, one individual by his personal qualifications gain such a distinction; all this, in the absence of information, must be left undetermined; one thing is certain, that the person who acted as president was not yet distinguished by any particular name.

The government of the church was the peculiar office of such overseers; it was their business to watch over the general order,—to maintain the purity of the Christian doctrine and of Christian practice,-to guard against abuses,-to admonish the faulty-and to guide the public deliberations; as appears from the passages in the New Testament where their functions are described. But their government by no means excluded the participation of the whole church in the management of their common concerns, as may be inferred from what we have was appointed, this would be inconsistent with Acts xx. 17, where it is said that Paul sent for the presbyters of the church at Ephesus, which implies that a plurality of presbyters presided over one church; or the word ekkλnola which in the passage first quoted is understood of a single church, must be here arbitrarily taken to signify several churches collectively-certainly quite contrary to the phraseology of the apostolic age, according to which the word èκкλnoía signifies, either the whole Christian church, the total number of believers, forming one body under on head, or a single church or Christian society. In that case, the plural Tv Kλŋσiv must necessarily have been used. Acts xx. 28, also implies, that over each church a plurality of presbyters presided. And thus, we must also explain Titus i. 5, which explanation (of the appointment of several presbyters in each city) is also most favoured by the language there used. I can discover no other difference between the πρεσβύτεροι and επίσκοποι in the apostolic age, than that the first signifies the rank, the second the duties of the office, whether the reference is to one or more.

1 Perhaps an analogy may be found, in the fact (if it were so), that one among the Jewish presbyters was distinguished by the name of Archisynagogos; or the names πρεσβύτεροι and ἀρχισυνάγωγοι may bear the same relation to each other as πρεσβύτεροι and ἐπίσκοποι, the first name denoting the rank, the second the nature of the office, apxoVT ES TÊS συναγωγῆς.

already remarked respecting the nature of Christian communion, and is also evident from many individual examples in the Apostolic church. The whole church at Jerusalem took part in the deliberations respecting the relation of the Jewish and Gentile Christians to each other, and the epistle drawn up after these deliberations was likewise in the name of the whole church. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, which treat of various controverted ecclesiastical matters, are addressed to whole churches, and he assumes that the decision belonged to the whole body. Had it been otherwise, he would have addressed his instructions and advice principally, at least, to the overseers of the church. When a licentious person belonging to the church at Corinth was to be excommunicated, the apostle considered it a measure that ought to proceed from the whole society; and placed himself therefore in spirit among them, to unite with them in passing judgment; 1 Cor. v. 3—5. Also, when discoursing of the settlement of litigations, the apostle does not affirm that it properly belonged to the overseers of the church; for if this had been the prevalent custom, he would no doubt have referred to it; but what he says seems to imply that it was usual in particular instances to select arbitrators from among the members of the church; - 1 Cor. vi. 5.

As to what relates to the edification of the church by the Word, it follows from what we have before remarked, that this was not the exclusive concern of the overseer of the church for each one had a right to express what affected his mind in the assembly of the brethren; hence many did not sufficiently distinguish between what was fit only for their own chamber, where every man might freely pour forth his heart before God, and what was suitable for communicating publicly,―an error censured by Paul, as we noticed in speaking of the gift of tongues.1

1 It has been maintained, indeed, that this licence in the apostolic church was extended only to those who appear as prophets in the Christian assemblies. But from such special cases a general licence is not to be inferred, for these men as teachers, armed with divine authority, and speaking in God's name, might on that account be naturally excepted from common rules. See Mosheim's Institut. Hist. Eccles. major. sec. i. § 10 et 18. But this objection is invalidated by what we have remarked respecting the prophetic charism and its relation to other charisms.

Only the female members of the church were excepted from this general permission. The fellowship of a higher life communicated by Christianity, extended itself to the relation between husband and wife; and the unity to which human nature aspires according to its original destination was realized in this quarter, as in every other respect, by Christianity. But since whatever is founded on the laws of nature is not injured by Christianity, but only animated afresh, sanctified, and refined; so also in this higher fellowship of life, which ought to unite husband and wife, the latter retains her becoming place according to the natural destination of her sex. Mental receptivity and activity in family life were recognised in Christianity as corresponding to the destiny of woman, and hence the female sex are excluded from delivering public addresses on religious subjects in the meetings of the church; 1 Cor. xiv. 34; 1 Tim. ii. 12.

1 1 Cor. xi. 5 appears to contradict this injunction, and in ancient times the Montanists thought-with whom several modern writers have agreed that here an exception is to be found; as if the apostles intended to bind by no rule those cases in which the immediate operation of the Divine Spirit raised up prophets from the female sex; or as if he wished to debar females only from addresses that were peculiarly didactic, but not from the public expression of their feelings. But as to the first interpretation, it supposes too great a difference between the didάoke-which must also proceed from an operation of the Holy Spirit-and the gooηreve in reference to the divine in both. It must be certainly erroneous to suppose that any operation whatever of the Holy Spirit in the Christian church could be lawless. When the apostle Paul points out to the female that place in the church which is assigned her by the spirit of the gospel, which sanctifies nature-the Holy Spirit which is the Spirit of Christianity, follows everywhere this law in his operations, and we cannot suppose that by an exception he would remove woman from her natural position. Every deviation of this kind would appear as something morbid, and contrary to the spirit of the gospel.

Besides, when Paul gave that prohibition in reference to females, he was treating of addresses that were not didactic. This could therefore make no exception, which would apply to both interpretations. We must account for this apparent contradiction, by supposing that Paul, in the second passage, merely cited an instance of what occurred in the Corinthian church, and reserved his censures for another place. One of the reasons which Paul adduces in the passage quoted from the first Epistle to Timothy against the public speaking of females, is the greater danger of self-deception in the weaker sex, and the spread of errors arising from it-a reason which would apply with the greatest force to a class of addresses, in which sober reflectiveness was least of all in exercise. But this kind of religious utterance would be most

Yet as, by the participation of all in the conduct of church affairs, a regular government by appointed organs was not excluded, but both cooperated for the general good; so also together with that which the members of the church, by virtue of the common Christian inspiration, could contribute to their mutual edification, there existed a regular administration of instruction in the church, and an oversight of the transmission and development of doctrine, which in this time of restlessness and ferment was exposed to so many adulterations, and for this purpose the χάρισμα of διδασκαλία was designed. There were three orders of teachers in the apostolic age. The first place is occupied by those who were personally chosen and set apart by Christ, and formed by intercourse with him to be instruments for publishing the gospel among all mankind-the witnesses of his discourses, his works, his sufferings, and his resurrection—the Apostles,' among whom Paul was justly included, on account of Christ's personal appearance to him and the illumination of his mind independently of the instructions of the other apostles; next to these, were the Missionaries or Evangelists, εvayyeλɩoraí ;2 and lastly, the Teachers appointed for separate churches, and

suited to the female sex, where no danger of the sort alluded to, arising from publicity, would be connected with it-only it must be confined to the domestic circle. Hence the daughters of Philip, Acts xxi. 9, notwithstanding that rule, could act as prophetesses, unless we assume that this was an instance which Paul would have censured.

1 This name in a general sense was applied to others who published divine truth in an extensive sphere of labour.

2 This name does not imply that they occupied themselves with collecting and compiling narratives of the life of Christ; for the name Evayyéλov originally denoted nothing else than the whole announcement of the salvation granted through Christ to men, and this announcement embraced the whole of Christianity. As this announcement rests on a historical basis, Christ as the Redeemer is the object of it; and thus the later-derived meaning is formed in which this word is specially applied to the histories of the Life of Christ. According to the original Christian phraseology, the term could only denote one whose calling it was to publish the doctrine of salvation to men, and thereby to lay a foundation for the Christian church; on the contrary, the didάokaλos presupposed faith in the doctrine of salvation, and a church already founded, and employed himself in the further training in Christian knowledge. The use of the word evayyedɩtǹs in 2 Tim. iv. 5, favours this interpretation, and this original Christian phraseology was continued in later ages, although a more modern meaning of the word evayyéλiov was connected with it.-Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii. c. 37.

taken out of their body, the didάokadoɩ. If sometimes the πройται are named next to the apostles and set before the evangelists and the didaσkáλoiç, such teachers must be meant in whom that inward condition of life, from which рoηTεvεV proceeded, was more constant, who were distinguished from other teachers by the extraordinary liveliness and steadiness of the Christian inspiration, and a peculiar originality of their Christian conceptions which were imparted to them by special άокalues of the Holy Spirit; and indeed these prophets, as is evident from their position between the apostles and evangelists, belonged to the class of teachers who held no office in any one church, but travelled about, to publish the gospel in a wider circle.

As it regards the relation of the διδάσκαλοι to the πρεσβύτεροι οι ἐπίσκοποι, we dare not proceed on the supposition, that they always remained the same from the first establishment of Christian churches among the Gentiles, and therefore during the whole of Paul's ministry, a period so important for the development of the church; and hence we are not justified to conclude, from the characteristics we find in the later Pauline Epistles, that the relation of these orders was the same as existed from the beginning in the Gentile churches. If we find several things in earlier documents which are at variance with these characteristics, the supposition must at least appear possible, that changes in the condition of the churches, and the experiences of the first period, had occasioned an alteration in this respect; and it is an utterly unfounded conclusion, if, because traces of such an altered relation are found in an epistle ascribed to Paul, any one should infer that such an epistle could not have been written in the Pauline period. The first question then is, What was the original relation? If we proceed on the supposition, which is founded on the Pastoral Letters, that the didάokado belonged to the overseers of the churches, two cases may be imagined; either that all the presbyters or bishops held also the office of teachers; or, that some among them, according to their peculiar talent (xápioμa), were specially employed in the management of the outward guidance of the church (the vẞépvnois), and others with the internal guidance of the word (the dicaoralia), we shall thus have πρεσβύτεροι κυβερνῶντες==ποιμένες and πρεσβύτεροι διδάσ