least that they had very extraordinary gifts to furnish them for their superior offices. 1 Tim. iv. 14. Eph. iv. 11. 2 Tim. iv. 5. And though Timothy was with Paul when he took his leave of the elders of Ephesus (Acts xx.), the apostle gives not the least hint of any extraordinary power with which he was invested, nor says one word to engage their obedience to him; which is a very strong presumption that no such relation did subsist, or was to take place.

3. As to the angels of the seven churches in Asia, it is certain that, for any thing which appears in our Lord's epistles to them (Rev. ii. and iii.), they might be no more than the pastors of single congregations with their proper assistants.

4. To the fourth argument it is answered, 1. That the word pvpiades may only signify great numbers, and may not be intended to express that there were several times ten thousand, in an exact and literal sense: compare Luke, ch. xii. ver. 1. (Greek.)-2. That no sufficient proof is brought from Scripture of there being such numbers of people in any particular place as this supposes; for the myriads of believing Jews spoken of in the preceding text, as well as the numbers mentioned, Acts ii. 41. Acts iv. 4, might very probably be those who were gathered together at those great feasts from distant places, of which few might have their stated residence in that city. See Acts, ch. viii. ver. 1.-3. If the number were so great as the objection supposes, there might be, for any thing which appears in Scripture, several bishops in the same city, as there are, among those who do not allow of diocesan episcopacy, several co-ordinate pas tors, overseers, or bishops: and though Eusebius does indeed pretend to give us a catalogue of the bishops of Jerusalem, it is to be remembered how the Christians had been dispersed from thence for a considerable time, at and after the Roman war, and removed into other parts, which must necessarily very much increase the uncertainty which Eusebius himself owns there was, as to the succes sion of bishops in most of the ancient sees. 5. As to the ancient writers, it is observed, that though Clemens Romanus recommends to the Corinthians the example of the Jewish church, where the high priest, ordinary priest, and Levites, knew and observed their respective of

fices, yet he never mentions presbyters and bishops as distinct, nor refers the contending Corinthians to any one ecclesiastical head as the centre of unity, which he would probably have done if there had been any diocesan bishops among them; nay, he seems evidently to speak of presbyters as exercising the episcopal office. See sec. xxxix. of his epistle.-2. As for Irenæus, it does not appear that he made any distinction between bishops and presbyters. He does indeed mention the succession of bishops from the apostles, which is reconcileable with the supposition of their being parochial, nor altogether irreconcileable with the supposition of joint pastors in those churches.-3. It is allowed that Ignatius in many places distinguishes between bishops and presbyters, and requires obedience to bishops from the whole church; but as he often supposes each of the churches to which he wrote to meet in one place, and represents them as breaking one loaf, and surrounding one altar, and charges the bishop to know all his flock by name, it is most evident that he must speak of a parochial and not a diocesan bishop.-4. Polycarp exhorts the Christians at Philippi to be subject to the presbyters and deacons, but says not one word about any bishop.-5. Justin Martyr speaks of the president, but then he represents him as being present at every administration of the eucharist, which he also mentions as always making a part of their public worship; so that the bishop here must have only been the pastor of one congregation.6. Tertullian speaks of approved elders; but there is nothing said of them that proves a diocesan, since all he says might be applied to a parochial bishop.-7. Though Clemens Alexandrinus speaks of bishops, priests, and deacons, yet it cannot be inferred from hence that the bishops of whom he speaks were any thing more than parochial.-8. Origen speaks distinctly of bishops and presbyters, but unites them both, as it seems, under the common name of priests, saying nothing of the power of bishops as extending beyond one congregation, and rather insinuates the contrary, when he speaks of offenders as brought before the whole church to be judged by it.-9. The apostolic constitutions frequently distinguish between bishops and presbyters; but these constitutions cannot be depended on, as they are supposed to be a

forgery of the fourth century.-10. It is allowed that in succeeding ages, the difference between bishops and presbyters came to be more and more magnified, and various churches came under the care of the same bishop: nevertheless, Jerom does expressly speak of bishops and presbyters as of the same order; and Gregory Nazianzen speaks of the great and affecting distinction made between ministers in prerogative of place, and other tyrannical privileges (as he calls them), as a lamentable and destructive thing.

III. Episcopacy, how introduced.It is easy to apprehend how episcopacy, as it was in the primitive church, with those alterations which it afterwards received, might be gradually introduced. The apostles seem to have taught chiefly in large cities; they settled ministers there, who, preaching in country villages, or smaller towns, increased the number of converts: it would have been most reasonable that those new converts, which lay at a considerable distance from the large towns, should, when they grew numerous, have formed themselves into distinct churches, under the care of their proper pastors or bishops, independently of any of their neighbours; but the reverence which would naturally be paid to men who had conversed with the apostles, and perhaps some desire of influence and dominion, from which the hearts of very good men might not be entirely free, and which early began to work (John iii. 9. 2 Thess. ii. 7), might easily lay a foundation for such a subordination in the ministers of new erected churches to those which were more ancient; and much more easily might the superiority of a pastor to his assistant presbyters increase, till it at length came to that great difference which we own was early made, and probably soon carried to an excess. And if there were that degree of degeneracy in the church, and defection from the purity and vigour of religion, which the learned Vitringa supposes to have happened between the time of Nero and Trajan, it would be less surprising that those evil principles, which occasioned episcopal, and at length the papal usurpation, should before that time exert some considerable influence.

IV. Episcopacy, reduced, plan of Archbishop Usher projected a plan for the reduction of episcopacy, by which he would have moderated it in such a manner as to have brought it very near the

Presbyterian government of the Scotch church, the weekly parochial vestry answering to their church session; the monthly synod to be held by the Chorepiscopi, answering to their presbyteries; the diocesan synod to their provincial, and the national to their general assembly. The meeting of the dean and chapter, practised in the Church of England, is but a faint shadow of the second, the ecclesiastical court of the third, and the convocation of the fourth. Bingham's Origines Ecclesiastica; Stilling fleet's Origines Sacræ; Boyse and Howe on Epis.; Benson's Dissertation concerning the first Set. of the Christ. Church; King's Const. of the Church; Doddridge's Lectures, lec. 196; Clarkson and Dr. Maurice on Episcopacy; Enc. Brit.; Dr. Campbell on Church Hist. ; and see the article BISHOP.

EPISCOPALIAN, one who prefers the episcopal government and discipline to all others. See last article.

EPISTLES OF BARNABAS. See BARNABAS.

EQUANIMITY is an even, uniform state of mind, amidst all the vicissitudes of time and changes of circumstances to which we are subject in the present state. One of this disposition is not dejected when under adversity, nor elated when in the height of prosperity: he is equally affable to others, and contented in himself. The excellency of this disposition is beyond all praise. It may be considered as the grand remedy for all the diseases and miseries of life, and the only way by which we can preserve the dignity of our characters as men and as Christians.

EQUITY is that exact rule of righteousness or justice which is to be observed between man and man. Our Lord beautifully and comprehensively expresses it in these words: "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets." Matt. vii. 12. This golden rule, says Dr. Watts, has many excellent properties in it. 1. It is a rule that is easy to be understood, and easy to be applied by the meanest and weakest understanding, Isa. xxxv. 8.-2. It is a very short rule, and easy to be remembered: the weakest memory can retain it; and the meanest of mankind may carry this about with them, and have it ready upon all occasions.-3. This excellent precept carries greater evidence to the conscience, and

a stronger degree of conviction in it, than any other rule of moral virtue.4. It is particularly fitted for practice, because it includes in it a powerful motive to stir us up to do what it enjoins. 5. It is such a rule as, if well applied, will almost always secure our neighbour from injury, and secure us from guilt if we should chance to hurt him.-6. It is a rule as much fitted to awaken us to sincere repentance, upon the transgression of it, as it is to direct us to our present duty.-7. It is a most extensive rule, with regard to all the stations, ranks, and characters of mankind, for it is perfectly suited to them all.-8. It is a most comprehensive rule with regard to all the actions and duties that concern our neighbours. It teaches us to regulate our temper and behaviour, and promote tenderness, benevolence, gentleness, &c.-9. It is also a rule of the highest prudence with regard to ourselves, and promotes our own interest in the best manner.-10. This rule is fitted to make the whole world as happy as the present state of things will admit. See Watts's Sermons, ser. 33. vol. i.; Evans's Ser., ser. 28; Morning Exercises at Cripplegate,

ser. 10.

EQUIVOCATION, the using a term or expression that has a double meaning. Equivocations are said to be expedients to save telling the truth, and yet without telling a falsity; but if an intention to deceive constitute the essence of a lie, which in general it does, I cannot conceive how it can be done without incurring guilt, as it is certainly an intention to deceive.

ERASMUS, (DESIDERIUS,) was born at Rotterdam, October 28th, 1467. His father's name was Gerard. At the age of four he was sent to school; and as he excelled in singing, he was chosen chorister of Utrecht cathedral. At the age of nine he was placed under the tuition of Alexander Hegius of Deven

ter.

Erasmus developed in his youth great capacities, and excited the notice of men of eminence. In 1480 he was deprived, by death, of both his father and mother; the former placing him, together with his brother, under the care of three guardians. Those guardians were all of them, however, unworthy men; and, determining to spoliate the property of these children, they agreed to devote them to a religious life. Erasmus they sent to a convent of friars at Bolduc, where he wasted three years of his life;

66

and he was next sent to that of Sion, near Delft; and in 1486, when wearied with that seclusion, they sent him to a third, Stein, near Tergou. From the last of those houses he however got discharged; and discarding the name of Gerard, went by that of Erasmus. In 1490 he lived with Henry a Bergis, archbishop of Cambray. His knowledge was at this time very considerable. He was a scholar and a divine, and determined on rendering himself useful in his day and generation. In 1492 he was ordained priest by the bishop of Utrecht, and continued to cultivate his mind, and to collect stores of useful knowledge. In 1493 he wrote his celebrated tract “De Scribendis Epistolis," In 1495 he removed to Paris, and kept a seminary for the education of young noblemen of England and France. Lord William Mountjoy was among their number. He now wrote his book De Ratione conscribendi Epistolas, de Copia Verborum," &c.; and in the year 1497 he left Paris, and resided in the Low Countries, in the castle of Tornenheus; visited London and Oxford, and became acquainted with many English prelates of distinguished piety and learning. At Oxford he continued to reside; studied in St. Mary's College; and formed many connexions and acquaintanceships, which were afterwards of great use to him. From England Erasmus returned to Paris, where he again supported himself by pupils. In 1498 he prepared his "Adages," and applied himself very sedulously to the study of Greek; and he again visited England, but soon returned to Paris, where he reprinted his De Ratione, &c." Erasmus wrote a jesting letter, this year, to the poet Laureat of France, which did not, however, tend to raise his reputation. Towards the end of the year Erasmus visited Orleans, and was in great danger, during that journey, of robbery and murder. In 1500 he studied the works of St. Jerome; of most of the fathers; and printed his

66

Adages," for the first time. In 1503, the last year of the pope Alexander, Erasmus published several of his works, and afterwards went to Paris. In 1504 his mind was deeply fixed on religious studies, to which he intended to devote the remainder of his days. In the same year he published his " Enchiridion," which is a book of devotion, and designed to expose the follies of the church of Rome. In 1506 he was in England;

hath taken!" In this year Latomus attacked the sentiments of Erasmus, and stated, "that a great part of true theology consists in a pious disposition of heart;" but Erasmus soon vanquished his opponent. He also at this time received a letter from Luther, and replied to it, thanking him for his services, exhorting him to moderation, and wishing him success. The religious tenets of Erasmus were, in 1529, again attacked, but with no success; and his piety, faith in Christ, and holiness of life, best proved to the candid and considerate, that his religion could not but be right. With the celebrated Budæus and Vives he was at this time intimately acquainted. In the same year he dedicated to Cardinal Pucci an edition of "Cyprian ;" and to Jacobus Tutor, "Cicero's Offices," "Old Age," "Friendship," and "Paradoxes." He also published "The Life of Jerome." In 1520, he published his " Paraphrase of the Epistle to the Ephesians," which is held by the learned and critical in high estimation. He was also engaged in endeavouring to promote the peace of Christendom; and for this purpose wrote to Campegius, Wolsey, and Henry VIII. For Luther he felt a greater regard in proportion as his persecution increased; but he ever advised moderation, which Luther well knew would be unsuccessful; but Erasmus was afraid that Luther's attempted reformation would have ill success, and therefore, for himself, thought it improper to engage in it. It must, indeed, be admitted that Erasmus was not sufficiently decided; and therefore it was that the Reformed could not rely on him, and the Romanists hated him.

In 1521 the celebrated Diet of Worms was held, and Luther confined in prison. Erasmus sympathised with him, and for such conduct he incurred the anger of the monks, who hated him as sincerely as they did Luther. In 1521 he published the works of St. Hilary, and also his celebrated Colloquies in Latin, which he wrote partly that young persons might have a book to teach them the Latin tongue, and religion and morals at the same time; and partly to cure the bigoted world, if he could, of that superstitious devotion, which the monks inculcated more sedulously than true Christian piety. On them the Faculty of Theology, at Paris, passed a general censure; and a provincial council at Cologne, in 1549, also condemned them, In this year Adrian VI. invited Eras

mus to Rome, but he declined to attend, though, at his request, he suggested the best means of suppressing Lutheranism. It appears to be generally admitted, as well by Erasmus as his friends, and by all historians, that he differed with Luther in his opinions as to free will, and at the same time perceived the errors of the Catholic Church. Conciliating, and even timid, he desired that such errors should be only attacked by argument, and did not therefore encourage Luther, and yet he wished him success so far as his sentiments were independent of his notions on free will. Thus hampered and perplexed, his conduct in this matter was not consistent; for whilst at one time he was in theory a Lutheran, he at other times took great pains to undeceive the public, and satisfy his friends that he was not. Erasmus had stated the necessity of reformation, and had proposed it; but he hesitated whether it was not better to suffer such reformation to be retarded than to disturb Christendom by such a zeal and spirit as were manifested by Luther. In 1523, Adrian dying, was succeeded by Clement II. who invited Erasmus to Rome; but the invitation he declined, since the object intended was evidently to detain him at Rome, because he had taken too decided a part in favour of the Reformation. In 1524 Luther wrote to Erasmus on the subject of an opposition, which he expected him to make in the cause of the Reformation, which was spirited and nervous; to it Erasmus replied, but the letter is not extant. In 1525 he published his "Diatribe de libero Arbitrio," against Luther, and to which the latter wrote a spirited reply. Erasmus also wrote a letter to Ecolampadius. He received in this year from Beda, some notes on his Paraphrase on St. Luke, for which he thanked him, and requested the same on the other paraphrases; but Beda having attacked him with too much acrimony, these compliments were afterwards exchanged into warm reproaches, and Beda represented as a cobbler who went beyond his last. At this time he published his "Lingua," on the good and bad uses of the tongue, and dedicated it to the Chancellor of Poland. Ecolampadius replied to his attack on him, but Erasmus never undertook to confute him. In 1526 his attention, however, was greatly occupied by that controversy, in which Vives and other celebrated men interfered. In this year