stood in closest connection, and to which it was most assimilated-the Jewish synagogue. This, however, was so modified as to conform to the nature of the Christian community, and to the new and peculiar spirit with which it was animated. Like the synagogue, the church was governed by an associated body of men appointed for this purpose.

The name of presbyters, which was appropriated to this body, was derived from the Jewish synagogue. But in the Gentile churches, formed by the apostle Paul, they took the name of iníoxono, bishops, a term more significant of their office in the language generally spoken by the members of these churches. The name of presbyters denoted the dignity of their office. That of bishops, on the other hand, was expressive rather of the nature of their office, ἐπισκοπεῖν rǹv ¿xxhηoíav, to take the oversight of the church. Most certainly no other distinction originally existed between them. But, in process of time, some one, in the ordinary course of events, would gradually obtain the pre-eminence over his colleagues, and by reason of that peculiar oversight which he exercised over the whole community, might come to be designated by the name iníozonos, bishop, which was originally applied to them all indiscriminately. The constant tumults, from within and from without, which agitated the church in the times of the apostles, may have given to such a one opportunity to exercise his influence the more efficiently; so that, at such a time, the controlling influence of one in this capacity may have been very salutary to the church. This change in the relation of the presbyters to each other was not the same in all the churches, but varied according

to their different circumstances.

It may have been as early

as the latter part of the life of John, when he was sole survivor of the other apostles, that one, as president of this body of presbyters, was distinguished by the name of ἐπίσκοπος, bishop. There is, however, no evidence that the apostle himself introduced this change; much less, that he authorized it as a perpetual ordinance for the future. Such an ordinance is in direct opposition to the spirit of that apostle.3

This change in the mode of administering the govern. ment of the church, resulting from peculiar circumstances, may have been introduced as a salutary expedient, without implying any departure from the purity of the Christian spirit. When, however, the doctrine is, as it gradually gained currency in the third century,—that the bishops are, by divine right, the head of the church, and invested with the government of the same; that they are the successors of the apostles, and by this succession inherit apostolical au

3 In the angels of the churches in the seven epistles of the Apocalypse, I cannot recognize the of the Jewish synagogue transferred to the Christian church. The application appears to me to be altogether arbitrary. Nor again can I discover in the angel of the church, the bishop, addressed as the representative of this body of believers. How much must we assume as already proved, which yet is entirely without evidence, in assigning to this early period the rise of such a monarchical system of government, that the bishop alone can be put in the place of the whole church? In this phraseology I recognize rather a symbolical application of the idea of guardian angels, similar to that of the Ferver of the Parsees, as a symbolical representation and image of the whole church. Such a figurative representation corresponds well with the poetical and symbolical character of the book throughout. It is also expressly said that the address is to the whole body of the churches.

thority; that they are the medium through which, in consequence of that ordination which they have received, merely in an outward manner, the Holy Ghost, in all time to come, must be transmitted to the church-when this becomes the doctrine of the church, we certainly must perceive, in these assumptions, a strong corruption of the purity of the Christian system. It is a carnal perversion of the true idea of the Christian church. It is falling back into the spirit of the Jewish religion. Instead of the Christian idea of a church, based on inward principles of communion, and extending itself by means of these, it presents us with the image of one, like that under the Old Testament, resting in outward ordinances, and, by external rites, seeking to promote the propagation of the kingdom of God. This entire perversion of the original view of the Christian church was itself the origin of the whole system of the Roman Catholic religion, the germ from which sprung the popery of the dark ages.

We hold, indeed, no controversy with that class of Episcopalians who adhere to the Episcopal system above mentioned as well adapted, in their opinion, to the exigencies of their church. We would live in harmony with them, notwithstanding their mistaken views of the true form of the church, provided they denounce not other systems of church government. But the doctrine of the absolute necessity of the Episcopal as the only valid form of government, and of the Episcopal succession of bishops above mentioned, in order to a participation in the gifts of the Spirit, all this we must regard as something foreign to the true idea of the Christian church. It is in direct conflict, with the spirit of

protestantism; and is the origin, not of the true catholicism of the apostle, but of that of the Romish church. When, therefore, Episcopalians disown, as essentially deficient in their ecclesiastical organization, other protestant churches which evidently have the spirit of Christ, it only remains for us to protest, in the strongest terms, against their setting up such a standard of perfection for the Christian church. Far be it from us, who began with Luther in the spirit, that we should now desire to be made perfect by the flesh. Gal. 3:3. DR. A. NEANder.

Berlin, April 28th, 1843.