fancies. Happily the Scriptures afford satisfactory and abundant evidence to overturn all the wild imaginations of men.

The following passage is from the epistle to Titus: "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city as I had appointed thee: if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; but a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers*." cannot conceive how anything short of a predetermination that bishops and elders were different can prevent any one from seeing that the word bishop in the 7th verse of the passage quoted above means one of the same order to which the term elders was applied in the 5th verse. I can discover nowhere in the New Testament the slightest ground for supposing that bishops were distinguished from elders in the time of the apostles, except in the way above mentioned.

I

I have no further remark to make on the undisputed epistles of St. Paul. From the extracts which have been made, and from their general tenor, it is to my mind perfectly clear that the apostle taught, as his Master had always done, that a religious and virtuous life is the essential condition of our being admitted * Titus, i. 5-9.

P

to a state of happiness in the world to come. On the second point to which I have directed the attention of the reader, there appears no reason whatever to believe that the apostle either established or recognized an order of teachers called bishops of higher authority in the Church than the elders. Bishops and elders appear in his writings, as well as in his speech to the elders of Ephesus*, to have been merely different terms applied to the same individuals.

We are now led, in the course of our investigation, to a very remarkable production, the epistle to the Hebrews. In the version in common use in this country it is called the Epistle of Paul the apostle to the Hebrews. It is, however, well known that great doubts exist as to the apostle being really the author of the epistle; and that there has been much controversy on the subject. Arguments of great weight have been produced on both sides of the question, and those who, on studying the matter in dispute, come to the conclusion that St. Paul was probably the author of the epistle, can hardly attain such an unhesitating conviction as we yield to those epistles which bear the apostle's name, and which have in all ages of the Church without doubt or controversy been ascribed to him. Under this uncertainty I shall treat the epistle as an independent document, with whose author we are unacquainted; and examine its contents in order to discover whether or not it agrees on the points which we have been considering with what we find in the gospels and in the undisputed epistles of St. Paul. The epistle may be divided into two parts: the object of the first *Acts, xx. 18.

appearing to be to assert the superiority of the Christian to the Jewish dispensation; and the second, setting forth the excellence of faith, enforcing with great earnestness and eloquence the duties of life; and holding out encouragement to Christians by examples drawn from the Old Testament history. The earlier part of the epistle ranks among the most obscure of the writings in the New Testament. When we consider that this epistle was written before the destruction of Jerusalem; when the temple service with all the burdensome ceremonies of the Jewish ritual was still in existence, we can scarcely wonder that a work full of references to the forms and ceremonies of the Jewish religion, to which the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem, which took place within a few years of the writing of the epistle*, put an end, and with which our acquaintance is necessarily imperfect, should contain much which, at the present day, we are unable to understand. With these difficulties we have nothing to do here. I shall endeavour to show hereafter that Christians have often been unnecessarily alarmed on finding themselves unable to understand the obscurer parts of Scripture ; and that their ill-founded fears have been encouraged and exaggerated by those who have assumed an authority in the Christian Church to which they have no legitimate title; and who have made religion subservient to their own ambition and interest. At present our business is to examine the epistle to the Hebrews for the purposes stated above. The passages to which I refer are as follows: "For if we wilfully

* Lardner thinks it probable that the epistle was written A.D. 63. The destruction of Jerusalem was A.D. 70.

sin after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking-for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries ;' 'Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord."+ These texts clearly show that the author of the epistle held no other doctrine as to the necessity of a good life than what had been taught by Jesus and his apostles.

I shall mention two other texts which bear relation to the second part of our inquiry: "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation:" " Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." These texts are important as directing respect and obedience to be paid by Christians to their teachers. The situation of the instructors in the infant Christian Church differed in some important particulars from that of those who devote themselves to the duties of the ministry in our own days. The early teachers in general had probably received personal instructions from the apostles; and were appointed by them, in concurrence with the respective congregations, to the ministerial office. A considerable time too must have elapsed before the writings which we call the New Testament became generally accessible. This could have been effected only by the tedious and laborious copying of manuscripts. The Christians therefore of those days must * Heb. x. 26, 27. † Heb. xii. 14. Heb. xiii. 7, 17.

have looked almost exclusively to the oral instructions of their teachers; and, of course, obedience to these instructions would be required of them. To set themselves against their teachers would be throwing off the only legitimate authority to which they were in a condition to refer. Notwithstanding, however, these differences, there is much in the position and circumstances of those who now exercise the Christian ministry to entitle them to the respect, and, to a considerable extent, to the obedience of their hearers. They are in general persons of much superior education to the far greater part of their congregations, and they are by profession devoted to the cause of religion. It is their proper business to lead the devotional services of the church; to give the word of exhortation; to alarm the guilty; to console the afflicted; to encourage the penitent. To them the indigent look for assistance, the sick and the dying for support and consolation. A life spent in these outward acts of religion can hardly fail to improve and elevate the inner man; and to raise his character above that of those who are deeply engaged in the affairs of the world. I cannot doubt that the clergy of all denominations are in general superior in all that pertains to religion and morals to the laity. Nor can we reasonably hesitate to admit that the clergy are commonly far more acquainted with the Scriptures than the laity. Ignorance should in all cases yield to knowledge; and it seems reasonable that on all points which the layman has not examined for himself, he should adopt the sentiments of his clerical instructors. But the authority of the clergy must not be strained too far. The Scriptures are open to all; and every