The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-10-05
The Early Christian Churches

The frequency with which leading
Episcopal divines within the past few
months have reverted to the formation
of the Christian Church is somewhat re-
markable and encouraging. 1t is not
very long since the distinguished Bishop
OF Durham, following up the positions he
had laid down in his Commentary on the
Philippians, showed that the polity of
the Primitive Church was Presbyterian
that from it diocesan Episcopacy de-
veloped itself; and it is only few weeks
since Archdeacon Reichel informed the
congregation to which he was preaching,
In the church of one of the adjacent
parishes, that Episcopacy had no higher
authority than the common sense of
the churches throughout the world''-a
sentiment this which has given mortal
offence to the Ecclesiastical Gazette,
which is really surprised at the persis-
tent attacks which Archdeacon Reichel
has of late been making on Scriptural
Episcopacy. He seems to have fallen
under the spell of some statements once
made by the present Bishop of Durham"
And as if all this was not enough to con-
vince Episcopalians that their peculiar
system of Church Government was an
innovation, we now have the hampton
Lecturer of last year-the Rev. E.
Hatch, Vice Principal of st. Marys
Hall, Oxford, and Grinfeld Lecturer to
the Universlty-coming out with course
OF lectures on "The Organization of the
Early Christian Churches" in which he
smites the sacerdotal theory hip and
thigh. He sets out with the assumption
that the facts of ecclesiastical history do
not differ in kind from the facts of secu-
lar history. Then in his second lecture,
In dealing with the subject of bishops
and deacons, he proceeds to show that
societies like the Christian societies, in
which alms-glvlng was primary duty,
necessarily required some administrative
officers by whom funds were received
and aims dispensed He shows that it
was natural that the names used in other
associations should be adopted by the Of
fcers of Christian societies; that as such
officers were called epi8kopoi, it was quite
natural that they should be 80 called in
the Christian congregation; and in con-
hrmatlon Of the view that the one pre-
siding church officer was an overseer or
bishop, assisted by deacons, Mr.. Hatch
adduces the testimony of Justin MARTYR.
Polycarp, and the Clements.
Mr.. Hatch finds, he thinks, a differ
ence between the bishop and presbyter
from the very first. In point Of fact, he
finds the distinction, which most Presby-
terians to this hour accept, between the
teaching elder and the ruling elder. He
regards the primitive elder, as he is re-
garded in most Presbyterian churches to
this day, as one of ruling Sanhedrim.
They were laymen, he contends, of age
and standing, called in as kind of
Senate, to be a set off to the monarchial
element, as represented by the Episco-
pus, and to the democratic spirit of
which the deacon might be called the
representative. Thus in his examination
Of the history of the primitive Church.
the presbyter or ruling elder, so far from
representing the priestly quality or ele-
ment, represented entirely the lay ele-
ment in the Church.