years, afterwards was ordained deacon, then presbyter. His eloquence, upon the death of Nectarius, promoted him to the see of Constantinople, in 398. He was austere, choleric, distant, arbitrary, and sometimes imprudent, yet pious.* He died, in unjust banishment, in 407, at the age of 60. The name Chrysostom was conferred at a later period.f

In his homily on Ephes. iv. he places apostles first, prophets second, evangelists third; then follow pastors and teachers. These last he supposed to have been intrusted, some with a whole nation, and others to have been inferior. This archbishop of Constantinople appears to have made no claim to apostolical succession. Yet by virtue of canons of councils, he exercised the ecclesiastical power proportioned to the grade of his metropolis.

Having recited 1 Tim. iii. 310, he observes: "Having spoken of bishops and characterized them, saying both what they should possess, and from what they should abstain, and omitting the order of presbyters, Paul has passed over to the deacons. But why is this? Because there is not much difference. For these also in like manner have been set over the teaching and government of the church, and what things he has said concerning bishops, the same also he intended for presbyters; for they have gained the ascendancy over them only in respect of ordaining, and of this thing also they appear to have robbed the presbyters." The condition

* Vide Socrat. Scholast. lib. vi.c.2-19.

of the church could have then been better known to no one than to this primate; yet, when discoursing on the scriptures, he expressly allows government and doctrine to have been given equally and by the same means to presbyters and to bishops; that the latter had gained the ascendancy only in ordination, which they had injuriously taken from the presbyters; for such is the force of πλεονεκτειν, followed by an accusative.

He appears to have rightly conceived of the identity of the episcopal and presbyterial commission in their origin. Yet because by the canons of councils, which were the supreme law of the empire, an ecclesiastical authority had been erected in every city proportional in dignity and influence to the magnitude of the city, and the degree of civil power conferred upon it, this writer discerned that the cautious exercise of the power of ordination was a matter of the highest importance. For having spoken of a solemn charge given to Timothy, he observes, "After saying this, (Paul) introduced that which is above all things vital, and conduces to the preservation of the church, I mean ordination, and says, 'Lay hands suddenly on no man.' "

It is obvious that bishops differed only in the power of ordination from presbyters, and had gained this after the first times, yet he has expressed a sentiment on Phil. i. 1. somewhat different. If presbyters were in the days of Chrysostom equally as the bishops commissioned to preach and govern, they were not lay presbyters.

Upon 1 Tim. v. 17. Chrysostom

who ruled well were the same species of officers with those who laboured in word and doctrine, and ob

ὁ είτα τουτο ειπων ο πανίων μαλιστα καιρι αλαζον ην επήγαγε και ο μαλίσια συνέχει την εκκλησίαν το των χειροτονιών. Hom. xvi. p. 1611.

serves, "That it conduces greatly to the edification of the church, that the προεστωτες, ruling presbyters, should be apt to teach."* The "double honour" he understood to mean not merely respect, but the

they had hitherto held those names in common; the bishop was also called a deacon," or minister.|| He afterwards justifies such commutation of names of office in ancient times, by the custom in his own

sides. He also thought the portion was to be double, either to enable him to supply widows and deacons, or because he presided well. He understood the grace of God which was in Timothy by the imposition of his hands, (2 Tim. i. 6.) not to be his office to rule and preach, but the influence of the Holy Spirit. The imposition of the hands of the presbyters, he deems the giving of the commission, but strangely and gratuitously affirms that Paul "there speaks not of presbyters, but of bishops. That there were no diocesan bishops, and that the same officers were indifferently called presbyters and bishops at that period, are certain. Yet this evasion was not worse than making πρεσβυτέριον presbytery an office, which Calvin favoured, with some of the Latin fathers. The same arbitrary interpretation of elders, πρεσβυτέρους, he adopted on Titus i. 5., "he here means bishops." Jerom's views were contrary, and they are established by

evidence.

Referring to the passages in the letters to Timothy and Titus, he assigns his reason for such interpretation in his first homily on the epistle to the Philippians. "To the co-bishops and deacons, What is this? Were there many bishops in one city? By no means; but he thus denominates the presbyters, for

* προς εκκλησίας οικοδομην και πολυ συνθέλει το διδακτικους είναι τους πριιστωτας. p. 1605.

* τιμην ενταυθα την θεραπειαν λέγει την των αναγκαίων χερηγιαν Ibid. This comparison of the πριστως to him that leads in he choir, fitly intimates the parity of office.

† ου περί πρεσβύτερων φησι ενταύθα αλλα περι

επισκόπων, [Tim. IV. 14.

• τους επισκοπους ενταυθα φησι. In loc.

presbyters" and "deacons," and supposes that in former times each was, notwithstanding, distinguished by his proper official title. But how destitute of proof this assumption was, we have already abundantly seen. Also he acknowledges there had not been either deacons or presbyters prior to the appointment of Stephen and the other six, and has given it as his opinion on Acts vi. that the commission was of a special nature, and though their duties were in the first instance ministerial, yet they were designed to be preachers and did go forth as such.

Isidore of Pelusium flourished in the first part of the fifth century, and having adopted the monastic life, he directed letters to men of various characters and in different stations, even to the emperor himself. Some officiously reprove in pungent language; others temperately answer the bishops, presbyters, and deacons, who sought his counsel. Being in no instance entire, they appear as extracts, or abridgments laconically written. He avows the deliberate purpose of speaking freely, and causing men of no sensibility to blush for sin; and if he should thereby suffer, it would be with the prophets, apostles, and saints, an event desirable for him who was one of the multitude, ενι των πολλων οντι. *

His numerous letters against simony show it to have been then a common vice. He charges it on Eusebius, the bishop of Pelusium, whom he admits to be προεστως, but dentes that he, ιερασθαι, renders the spiritual service of priest. The early corruptions of the hierarchy are sufficiently evinced in his letters, which accord with the state of the church after the erection of diocesan episcopacy, and the general adoption of the canons of the council of Nice into practice. He uses the words επισκοπος, προεστως, and ιερεύς, promiscuously for the same office; but the last of these words most frequently both for bishop and presbyter. Nor has a presbyter been found in the volume, who was not a priest. Deacons and readers are often mentioned, but neither archbishop nor patriarch has been observed. Yet he repeatedly assigns a pre-eminence to Peter above the other apostles. This work, though of small importance in the history of the church, is nevertheless, by its numerous, brief, and often singular expositions of difficult passages in the scriptures, rendered highly interesting.

A SERMON.

J. P. W.

[By the late Rev. Chester Isham.]

HEB. xii. 25.

See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven.

In this epistle the apostle enters fully into a comparison between the Jewish and Christian dispensations, and while in this compari

His

son, he is continually bringing to view the superior excellence of the latter, he now and then expatiates on the aggravated guilt of those who rejected its heavenly offers, and the impossibility of their escaping punishment if they persevered in this rejection. reasoning in relation to this subject, runs thus "It is a fact that disobedience, even under the old dispensation, was frowned upon by GodNow if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth much more shall not we escape if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven. In other words, if men, in those days of comparative ignorance, when God spake on earth by Moses-when he revealed himself but partially and obscurely to the world-if men were thus punished for disobedience, how awful a doom must we receive if we remain impenitent and unholy; we who behold his brighter manifestations; we who hear his voice speaking to us from heaven in the person of his Son!"

In this reasoning, you will observe the apostle takes this principle for granted; namely, the guilt of men is in proportion to the degree of light which is resisted; a principle which recommends itself at once to the conscience, which is every where recognised in the Bible; a principle which runs through the divine administrations, and which will be acted upon in the day of final reckoning. In that day, to whom much has been given, of him much will be required. The pagan will be judged according to that knowledge of his duty which he enjoyed, or rather might have enjoyed, in a land of paganism. The Jew will be judged according to those special revelations which were made to him by Moses and the prophets, in addi

tion to the information which was afforded by his unaided reason. The Christian, besides the knowledge which he has in common

with the pagan and the Jew, will be judged according to those higher and more glorious disclosures which have been developed by the gospel. In short, every one will then be judged according to the degree of light which here shone on the path of his duty. Taking this principle for granted, the ar gument of the apostle carries with it all the conclusiveness and force of a demonstration. He looked back on the comparatively dark economy of the Jews, and beholding the disobedient and rebellious under that economy, swept away by the indignation of heaven, how could he doubt respecting the fate of disobedience and rebellion under the gospel? There was no room for doubt. He knew that since the Saviour had appeared and brought life and immortality to light, and warned men every where to repent and prepare to meet their God, they could not any longer mistake their duty, and must be alarmingly guilty if they did not do it.

I say they could not any longer mistake their duty. By this I would not imply that the apostle supposed that the Jews were necessarily exposed to any mistake on this subject. By no means. While holding up the superiority of the new dispensation, he never speaks to the disparagement of the old. That was established by the wisdom of God, and was sufficiently clear to lead all honest inquirers to a knowledge of the truth. It was the same, in its nature and design, as the new dispensation.

It

taught, though less clearly, the same great truths; revealed the same eternal, unchangeable law, and the same scheme of redemption for ruined man. The same Saviour which is now made known to us was made known to Adam in the garden, to the patriarchs, to Moses, to the prophets. The same Sun of Righteousness which now enlightens us, enlightened them: 1826.-No. 4.

23

the only difference is, they saw its twilight, we behold its full glory. The way of salvation has been always the same. Christ has been the hope and the rejoicing of the saints in every age. Those who lived before his incarnation, looked forward; we in these latter days, look back; we all meet in Christ; the hopes of the church all cluster around his cross. There the patriarch Abraham fixed his hope as well as the apostle Paul. Though they lived under different dispensations, and hundreds of years distant from each other, they were both saved in the same way, and they are now singing the same anthem in the heavens. In short, what I mean to say is, that the revelations of God to man have been the same as to their nature and design in every age; but as to their clearness and their fulness, they have been different. From the beginning they have continued to be more and more clear, and more and more full. Those which were granted to the Jews, though sufficiently clear, and sufficiently full, to leave them altogether without excuse for their sins, were however very obscure and very partial, compared with those of the gospel. They were the shadow of good things to come, rather than those good things themselves. But when Christ, the desire of all nations, came down, then the shadow vanished and the substance appeared; the stars retired, and the sun arose ; and now of course the guilt of disobedience which was before great, was increased a hundredfold.

Having now guarded against misapprehension as to the nature or value of the old dispensation, we are prepared to consider more particularly that increase of light which attended the introduction of the new. And let us first go back in our thoughts to that day, and for a few moments contemplate this subject as it then stood. When our text was written, the gospel had