from among themselves, and we 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 ε10xorоs 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 told, that Paul appointed presbyters for the churches, formed in the different cities, that is, in each church a college of presbyters. If, with Bauer, we understand, that the plurality of presbyters is to be taken collectively, and for each church only one presbyter 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 xxλnoia, 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 ixxanoia signifies, either the whole Christian church, the total number of believers, forming one body, under one head, or a single church or Christian society. In that case, the plural τῶν ἐκκλησιων 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 resoßurigo and six 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. * 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 großurigo and agxovayayo may bear the same relation to each other, as πρεσβύτεροι and επισκοποι, the first name denoting the rank, the second the nature of the office, άρχοντες τῆς συναγωγης. Yet as, by the participation of all in the conduct of church affairs, a regular government by appointed organs was not excluded, but both co-operated 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 χαρισμα of didaσxaria was designed. There were to the first interpretation, it supposes too great a difference between the didar-which must also proceed from an operation of the Holy Spirit and the goons 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 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. 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, evayye Ta; and lastly, the Teachers appointed for separate churches, and taken out of their body, the didarxaño. If sometimes the goτα are named next to the apostles and set before the evangelists and the didaσxaλois, such teachers must be meant in whom that inward condition of life, from which gonтvy 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 *This name in a general sense was applied to others who published divine truth in an extensive sphere of labour. This name does not imply that they occupied themselves with collecting and compiling narratives of the life of Christ; for the name suayyeλ 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 didacxados presupposed faith in the doctrine of salvation, and a church already founded, and employed himself in the farther training in Christian knowledge. The use of the word evayysλorns 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 svayyidov was connected with it. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii. c. 37. - xvus 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 didacna to the πρεσβύτεροι οι επίσκοποι, 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 didarnaλo 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 (xagua), were specially employed in the management of the outward guidance of the church (the xußeginos), and others with the internal guidance of the word (the διδασκαλία), we shall thus have πρεσβύτεροι κυ βερνώντες διδασκαλοι. - ποιμενες and πρεσβυτεροι διδασκοντες The first case certainly cannot be admitted, for the χαρισμα of xußeginois is so decidedly distinct from the διδασκαλία, as in common life the talent for governing and the talent for teaching, are perfectly distinct from one another. And according to the original institution = Кадьтесь of προστηναι οι the peculiar office corresponded to the peculiar charism. But since in the latter part of the Pauline period, those presbyters who were equally capable of the office of teachers as well as governors, were especially commended, it is evident that this was not originally the case with all. But neither have we sufficient reason for considering the second case, as the original relation of these several offices. Since the Хадьтрых of xvßigvay (in the First Epistle to the Corinthians xii. 28, and in the Epistle to the Romans xii. 8), is so accurately distinguished from the talent of teaching,—and since these two characteristics, the προστηναι and the κυβερ vay, evidently exhaust what belonged from the beginning to the office of presbyter or bishop, and for which it was originally instituted, we are not obliged to conclude that the didarxaλo belonged to the class of overseers of the church. In the Epistle written at a late period to the Ephesians (iv. 11), the woμeves and didarnaλa, are so far placed together, that they are both distinguished from those who presided over a general sphere of labour, but yet only in that respect. Now the term Taves, denotes exactly the office of rulers of the church, the presbyters or bishops; it therefore does not appear evident that we should class the didaczano with them. On the other hand, the term ποιμένες might be applied not improperly to διδασκαλοι, since in itself, and from the manner in which the image of a shepherd is used in the Old Testament and by Christ himself, it is fitted to denote the guidance of souls by the office of teaching. Paul also classes didan with those addresses which are not connected with holding a particular office (1 Cor. xiv. 26), but what every one in the church who had an inward call, and an ability for it, was justified in exercising. It might also happen, that in a church after its presbytery had already been established, persons belonging to it might come forward, or new members might be added, who, in consequence of their previous education, distinguished themselves in the office of teaching, even more than the existing presbyters, which would soon be evi |