their name. See 1 Tim. v. 17, &c. Now, since the name elder when applied to the judges of ancient Israel, and since the corresponding terms, senators and aldermen in modern times, uniformly denote authoritative officers, must not the very same name when given to the rulers of the Christian church, import in them too, a title to authority * ?

In short, not only are they distinguished by these names, but they are characterized by others, if possible, still more expressive of this authority. Thrice are they described in the very same chapter (Heb. xiii. 7. 17. 24), by the title of rulers, yeμoves, which, though the weakest of the appellations bestowed upon them, and though it originally denotes merely guides or conductors, signifies very frequently in the Septuagint, and the best classic authors, civil rulers, and almost uniformly in the New Testament. authoritative governors. It is applied by Peter (1 Epistle ii. 14), to subordinate governors, to whom Christians are to submit, as well as to the king, who is supreme; by Matthew (chap. x. 18), to denote those governors and kings before whom they were to be brought for their adherence to the truth; by the celebrated Greek translators, in their version of Micah. iii. 9, to the political heads of the house of Jacob; in their version of Deut. i. 13, to the civil rulers, whom Moses appointed over the hundreds and thousands of the children of Israel; and in their version of Dan. iii. 2, to the governors of the various provinces of Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar; by Xenophon, in his Anabasis, to the general or commander of the Grecian army; by Lucian, in his Pseudomantis, tom. i. p. 904, to the governor of Bithynia (ō TOTE YOUμEVOS Biluvias); by Josephus, in his Antiquities, book xviii. chap. iv. to Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea; by Matthew, in his Gospel, chap. xxvii. no less than thrice, and by Luke, in his Gospel, chap. xx. once, to the same person; by the latter Evangelist (Acts vii. 10), to Joseph, when made governor by Pharaoh over Egypt, and all his house; and twice again, by the same historian (Acts

* We know also, that the rulers of the Jewish synagogue were commonly distinguished by the name of elders. Hence, in Acts xiii. 15, and Mark v. 22, what is rendered in our version" the ru"lers of the synagogue," the old Syriac version translates by a word signifying elders or seniores. And hence most probably, from a similarity of power between them and the rulers of the Christian church, the scripture has transferred to the latter their name,

xxiii. 24. 26), to Felix the governor. With the utmost propriety therefore does Beza, in his note upon the thirteenth chapter of the Hebrews, remark, that the application of this term to the governors of the church, not only imports that they are vested with authority, but "with very great authority," for, "it is," adds he, " verbum auctoritatis maximæ," a word expressive of very great authority. And, as if even this did not suffice, they are described by another title still stronger and more energetic, gorauxa; which is rendered in our Bibles (Rom. xii. 8, and 1 Tim. v. 17), "rulers," and in i Thess. v. 12, "those who are over Chris"tians in the Lord." This term, we are assured by Stephens, in his Thesaurus, is very frequently given to political governors; and is the very word employed in 1 Tim. iii. 4, 5, already quoted, to signify the authority of a parent over his family, or of a master over his house; and in Titus iii. 8. 14, (compare Constantinus's and Parkhurst's Lexicons), to express the command which a Christian should endeavour to attain over himself, so as to excel in good works*. And this very term, as will afterwards be proved, is very often used by Plato, and Xenophon, and Thucydides, and Herodotus, and Demosthenes, and Aristotle, for the magistrates of cities, and governors of countries. Since therefore these terms, which are so frequently employed in the best classic authors, and ancient versions and sacred oracles, to signify subordinate rulers and governors, are applied to the elders: of the Christian church, and since obedience is required from the people to their elders at the very time when they are distinguished by these names, is it not plain that they must be possessed of a power not merely to advise and direct, but authoritatively to govern the church of Christ, whatever may be the degree and extent of that authority? And if it be affirmed, that notwithstanding the application of these names to them, they are still to be viewed only as guides and advisers, upon the same principle may it not be asserted, that though they are given also to Joseph, Felix, and Pilate, and the different rulers of the provinces of Babylon, they ought to be considered as no more than advisers of the people? and that when Pilate said concerning our Lord, "Take him and crucify him," he did no more than give an advice? But if

*These are all the places, so far as is recollected, where it oc curs in the New Testament,

such an inference, when applied to subordinate political go vernors, would most certainly be considered as completely ridiculous, must it not be equally ridiculous, when applied to subordinate ecclesiastical rulers, who are undeniably distinguished by the very same appellations?

And, upon the whole, the terms likewise, as we have already remarked, which are employed in scripture to denote the obedience of the people to their rulers, seem to intimate, that the latter are invested with a power not only of advice but authority. Not only is one word (a) used to express their obedience, (Heb. xiii. 17.) which signifies sometimes to yield to persuasion, and at other times to obey or submit to power and authority*; but another word (izuna), which is not only rendered by Leigh, and Hedericus, and Parkhurst, and Beza, and the Vulgate, together with our translators, "submit," but is frequently taken by the Greek writers, according to the testimony of one of our most learned lexicographers," to signify obedience with sub«missive respect." A third word is used (THTOWE See 1 Cor. xvi. 16), to express their obedience, if possible, still stronger, and which is very often employed to denote even the most entire and complete subjection which is men

*Thus, James iii. 3, (and this is the least energetic of all the terms descriptive of their obedience), " We put bits in the horses "mouths that they may obey us," Teos To Tubeolas autous hμv: thus, too, Titus iii. 1, Put them in mind to obey magistrates,” dagX, . Thus, also, Homer in his Iliad, book i, line 79th, speaking of Agammemnon, the captain-general of the Greeks, says, 'Os μέγα πάντων Αργείων κρατέει, και οι πείθονται Αχαιο; “ Who rules supreme over all the Greeks, and whom the Greeks obey,"- -not comply with in his advice. And in line 33d, mentioning the obedience of Chryses to the command of this prince, accompanied with the most terrible denunciations of punishment, he says, 'ns εφατ' εδδεισεν δ' ὁ γέρων, και επείθετο μύθω; "He spoke, and the old man trembled, and obeyed his word,"- -not certainly acquiesced in his advice from persuasion, for every feeling of his soul revolted against his obedience. In the sense, moreover, of obedience it appears evidently to be taken in this passage in the Hebrews, if we attend to its connection with the verb uxa, and its being used to denote the duty of Christians to their yμoves, which is rendered by our translators rulers, and which, as we have already shewn, most frequently signifies governors. Mere compliance with advice, however, is not so much the duty of inferiors to rulers, as such, as obedience is; and consequently our translators, in the passage be fore us, have very judiciously rendered as “ obey.”

tioned in scripture*. It is a metaphorical expression, derived originally from the subjection and obedience of soldiers. to their commanders, than which usually nothing is more submissive. It is employed to express the obedience of children to their parents, who unquestionably are possessed of authority over them; for it is the very word which denotes the subjection of the blessed Jesus to his parents, Luke ii. 51; and is the same word which is used, 1 Tim. iii. 4, when it is said, " Having his children in subjection with all "gravity." It signifies the subjection of servants to their masters, who undoubtedly are invested with authority over them, and can prescribe to them whatever services they choose, without soliciting their consent and approbation. Thus, Tit. ii. 9, "Exhort servants to be obedient (TACTICOα) "unto their own masters, and to please them well in all "things; not answering them again :" and 1 Pet. ii. 18, "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear," ὑποτασσομένοι εν παντι φοβω. Besides, it is the most common expression for denoting the obedience of subjects to their civil rulers, who are entitled not merely to advise, but to govern them by the exercise of authority. Thus, Rom. xiii. 1, "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers," TOTUCCO; and again, ver. 5, "Wherefore ye must needs "be subject (xorarσerda), not only for wrath, but for "conscience sake." Thus, too, in Titus iii. 1, Put them " in mind to be subject to principalities and powers," orασola; and thus, likewise, in 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14, "Submit "yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake," ὑποταγητε. And, in short, although this word in a single instance be used metaphorically, to denote submission where no authority is possessed, (1 Peter v. 5), in every other instance it signifies submission from inferiors to superiors, where, however diversified, from the variety of the relation, that subjection may be, it always implies submission to authority. But if the most entire submission, not merely to advice but to authority, which the nature of the relation can possibly admit, be almost invariably denoted by this word, and if this very term be employed to express the submission

And yet this very word denotes even the obedience, in the passage referred to, which was to be given to deacons in the execution of their office, as well as the obedience which was to be yielded also to every higher office-bearer in his function," who helped "with Paul, and laboured."

which is due from the members of the church to those who are their rulers, is it not obvious that the latter are entitled, not merely to advise, but authoritatively to govern the church of Christ? And if it be alleged, that, though this term is employed in scripture to express the obedience of Christians to their rulers, it cannot be proved from it that they are to be subject to them, considered as invested with authority, any farther than they are disposed to adopt their advice; upon the same principle it ought to be evinced, that as the same term is used to denote the submission of children to their parents, and servants to their masters, and subjects to their civil governors, the latter are not entitled to claim from the former in any instance, subjection to their authority, but simply acquiescence in their counsels. But if such a meaning would be considered as inadmissible, because totally subversive of the duties which are due in civil life to parents, and masters, and magistrates, must it not be equally inadmissible in the present instance, because no less subversive, not merely of that acquiescence in their advice, but of that subjection to their authority, which seems naturally to be suggested from it, as due from the people to their ecclesiastical rulers?

If the rulers of the church, then, are not entitled to authority, it would appear that the language of the sacred oracles, though dictated by inspiration, in this particular at least, must be considered as incorrect. It has employed not merely one term, but a number of terms, which, in their natural, and unforced, and most frequent acceptation, plainly assign to ecclesiastical rulers an authoritative power, while at the same time it is certain that such a power was never intended to be intrusted with them. Instead therefore of being fitted to make Christians perfect, and furnishing them thoroughly for every good work, has it not tended rather to bewilder and mislead the church, and led it to flatter that desire of authority which is so natural to man, by granting to her rulers, in every age, a degree of power which they ought never to have enjoyed? From this charge, moreover, it seems totally impossible to vindicate the scripture, unless it be supposed that the terms which it uses upon this interesting subject are just and accurate, are to be understood in their obvious and common signification, and are intended to suggest that ecclesiastical rulers are to govern the church