Part of tho t ADQISON ALIiXANDEU LIBI^ABY vhich was presented by MeSSKS. R. L. and a. ST0ABT. X^^3 fV<.sv>, Division Sh('f/\ Section..... ^ 3-^ ■t (!) ^-♦e? BV 665 .S49 1852 Shimsall, R. C. End of prelacy n *.=s*--*r-' (J y / v< / / f ^ J' ■k_ EECOMMENDATIONS. .,m the Rev. W. W. Phillips, D.D., Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, Fifth Avenue. The work of Mr. Shimeall on Episcopacy, has been prepared with much labor, and evinces both learning and research. It is designed to counteract in the present day, the strong tendency in the human mind to substitute for Christ — as grounds of hope and confidence towards God — the enjoyment of ecclesiastical relations and church privileges, and the observance of religious forms and ceremonies, and at the same time to give the fundamental doctrine of justification by faith, its appropriate and prominent place in our Christian system. Notwithstanding the prejudice which exists in the minds of some against everything in the form of religious controversy, and against all persons who en- gage in it, we trust that those who feel interested in this important subject, will not ob- iect to a full, fair, and candid discussion of it. The command to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints is still binding. If the statements of Mr. S. are correct and agreeable to truth, they should be received as such; if they are not, let them be refuted and proved to be false. I regard them as worthy of the impartial perusal and prayerful consideration of all who receive the word" of God as the only rule of religious faith and practice. W. W. PHILLIPS. From the Rev. G. Spring, D.D., Pastor of the Brick Presbyterian Church. I HAVE not been able to give that attention to the work of the Rev. Mr. Shimeall, which justifies me in expressing that approbation of the entire argument, which I cheer- fully express in relation to the portions which I have carefully perused. The author ha^ spared no pains to render his volume a standard work on the Episcopal Controvers)'. The whole work is elaborate, and parts of it present the subject in a light somewhat novel, and certainly seasonable. It is well worthy of publication and patronage. GARDINER SPRING. Brick Church Chapel, June 2, 1851. From the Rev. N. I. Marselus, D.I>., Pastor of the Reformed Dutch Church, in Bleecker Street "A Treatise on Episcopacy, &c. By the Rev. R. C. Shimeall." Such is the title of a book, about to be published, the manuscript of which has been put into my hands, by the author. And, after a careful and minute examination of the same, I have no hesitancy in adding my testimony to its value, in connection with the favorable ex- pressions given above. It must be apparent to all, who have, for a few years paat, watched the movements of the Roman hierarchy, and the evident tendency to apostatize in the same direction, by a large ecclesiastical denomination, both in America and England, that a work of this description is loudly called for, at the present day. Mr. Shimeall baa done full justice to the subject he has undertaken to discuss. The analytic form in which the whole work is moulded, the deep research in Church History which charac- terizes it, and the intimate acquaintance with the whole controversy on Prelacy, which appears throughout the entire discussion, cannot fail to interest every reader, and carry conviction to the minds of the doubtful and wavering. The arguments employed are clear and conclusive ; the illustrations, apt and definite ; and the inferences, natural and decisive. And the work itself, in the estimation of the undersigned, might be ver/ usefully and profitably adopted, as a text book, in all our Anti-Prelatical Theological Semi- naries. I hope its circulation may be commensurate with its merits. N. I. MARSELUS. New York, July 9, 1851. From the Rev. Joh;» N. M'Lkod. D.D., Pastor of the First Reformed Pre';';ytenan Church, Now Tork, and Professor of Theology in the Seminary oJT the Reformed Presbyterian Church. I HAVE read such portions of the manuscript of Rev. Mr. Shimeall as the time it remained in my hands has allowed, and trust he will be encouraged to give it to the public. I find several things in his incidental expositions of Scripture, and in his view» of particular points of interest, to which I may not be prepared to subscribe j and yet A 1 RECOMM ENDATIONS. taking the work as a whole, I regard it as a learned, faithful and convincing argument for important truth, and in opposition 1o insidious and dangerous error. As a demonstration of the unscrii)tinal character of Prelacy in all its forms, it is in my opinion, as seasonahie. as it is satisfactory. Should it be given to the world through the press, it may serve, with the hles.^ing of (iod, as a timoous warning to some who are in danger of being attracted Irom the plainer and purer Christianity, to the forms, ceremonies, and mysteries that distinguish one of its main corruptions. He who leaves religious connections where evangelical truth and order, and a spiritual worship prevail, and puts him,=elf under the guidance of prelatical teachers, is on the track to Rome. So the work of Mr. S. assures us, and he hlows the trumpet of warning with an honest boldness, and with no uncertain sound. JOHN N. M'LEOD. New York, June 26, 1851. FVom the Rev. George B. Cueever, D.D., Pastor of tlie Church of the Puritans, Union Square, New York. I HAVE examined the manuscript work of Rev. Mr. Siiimeall concerning the preten- sions of Episcopacy, and have admired the thoroughness and research of the discussion. I wish very muchthatit may be printed. It clearly exposes the arrogant assumptions, and errors long defended, of the prelatical system, as also the bigotry and unrighteousness of spirit involved in them, and manifested in their support ; and at the same time it develops great principles, and sets forth important truth. 1 hope it will be given to the public. GEORGE B. CHEEVER. New York, May 14, 1851. From the Rev. John M. Kkebs, D.D., Pastor of the Rutgers Street Presbyterian Church. I HAVE read the entire manuscript of Mr. Shimeall's work, entitled the "Romanism of Low Churchism." It exhibits great labor and research ; and the Table of Contents and the Indexes of Texts and Subjects, will show with what minuteness the whole question of Prelacy has been examined. The clear method, the fullness of investiga- tion, the array of authorities, the application of facts and the force of the argument, render this work a Thesaurus. To my mind it is a complete exposure of the prelatical doctrine of Apostolical Succession, and of the worthlessness of its claim even on its own principles. But the most important feature of this work, and its value to the anti-pre- latical churches, is found in the exposition of the practical tendencies of the prelatical system, and in the tracing of the whole to the fons et origo malorum, in the more modest and plausible positions of "Evangelical Low-Churchism." The historical rise of Epis- copacy in the expediency of the system, viewed in connection with thedaims of the evangel- ical party, at the present time, present matter for serious reflection to those who are dis- posed to look with favor on Low-Churchism, or what is usually calleil surli. I hope the work will be published. JOHN M. KREBS. January 27, 1851. From the Rev. I. S. Spencer, D.D., Pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church, Brooklyn, L. I. I HAVE examined, with some carefulness, the manuscript copy of the Rev. Mr. Shime- ALu's "Treatise on Episcopacy." The Treatise manifests much research, a respectable scholarship, and an independent mind. Not having leisure to peruse the whole of it, I am unprepared to express an opinion on all the particular points of which it treats; but so far as I have read it, I believe its doctrines and its argumentations to be just. The subject itself is of much moment, and I think the publication timely. ICHABOD S. SPENCER. Brooklyn, May 20, 1851. From the Rev. S. H. Cox, D.D., Pastor of the First Presbyterian Churcli, Brooklyn, L. I. The MSS. of the forthcoming work of the Rev. R. C. Shimeall, I have seen, and read, though without time for a full perusal, several of them, with a view of the scope and intendment of the entire treatise ; and, as such, I think it evinces great research and assiduity, with some experimental means for seventeen years of knowing the system, which few of the unfettered and Protestant Ministers of Christ, could possess. The theme is important in a high degree, since the unchurching and exclusive assumptions of prelacy, are only one of the veritable schisms organic that are also signs of antichrist. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS. Much as I respect, on other accounts alone, some, or, even many of this affinity, on this and the other side of the Atlantic, and much as I regret to differ from them, in appear- ance or reality, as scholars and as gentlemen, as neighbors and cis friends, I intend to go to the judgment-seat of Christ, testifying against the sectarian enormities, too long con- cealed, and too much passively endured, that belong to their sectarian pile, " from turret to foundation-stone ;" since the individual who lovetfi or maketk a lie in the Church of God, is not the one whom I desire to imitate at ail. See Rev. 21 : 27, 22 : 15. SAMUEL H. COX. Brooklyn, N. Y. May 5, 1851. From tlie Rev. Geo. Peck, D.D., Editor oii'he Jldvocate andjounial of the Methodist Episcopal Church. I HAVE examined, with as much care as my regular official duties would allow, a MS. work on '• Ministerial Parity," " Prelacy," and kindred topics, by the Rev. R. C. SuiME.\LL, and am happy to say that I consider it a work of high merit. The author thoroughly understands his theme, and has presented the results of his investigations in a form which, if published, will greatly serve the interests of truth, and consequently do much good. I have not been able to read the whole work consecutively, and conse- quently, cannot say that there are no particular views in it which I should not approve, but of the spirit of the work and the ability with which it is executed, I have sufficient- ly acquainted myself to form an intelligent opinion. I most heartily wish the author success in his enterprise. GEO. PECK. New York, 200 Mulbery Street, August 7, 1851. From the Rev. John Dowlins, D.D., Pastor of the Broadway Baptist Church, and author of the His- tory of Romanism, &.C. I HAVE examined, with as much care as other engagements would permit, the MS. of the forthcoming work of the Rev. R. C. Siiimeall on the " Prelatico-Episcopal Contro- versy." The result of such examination has been, in my own mind, that Mr. Shimeali's work will prove to be a learned, reliable, and complete Treatise upon this subject. The author is a Paedobaptist, and as might be expected, an expression occasionally escapes from his pen, at which a member of my own denomination would demur. This fact, however, does not, in my judgment, invalidate the claims of his work to be regarded, as I doubt not it will be regarded, as a standard work by all who with myself, occupy the ground '" of the Bible in opposition to Tradition as the only rule of Faith," and of " Ministerial Parity, in opposition to the arrogant and exclusive claims of Episcopacy." The author most skillfully dissects the different '" chains" of unbroken apostolical suc- cession, that have been constructed— /orgcrf, I was about to say — by the Rev. A. B. Cha- pin, and other prelatical apostolical successionists, scatters to the winds their baseless as- sumptions, and shows to a demonstration, that their exclusive theories are hampered with difficulties, inconsistencies, and contradictions, absolutely insurmountable, and fatal to their whole system. I shall be most happy to learn that the work of Mr. Shimeall obtains that extensive circulation to which its merits entitle it. JOHN BOWLING. From the Rev. James M. Macdonald, M.A., Pastorofthe Fifteenth Street Presbyterian Church, New Yorlv. New York, May 12, 1851. Rev. and Dear Sir : — I have read considerable portions of your work (in manuscript) on Episcopacy, and have been much impressed with its signal ability. I earnestly hope that it will be given to the public, through the press, with as little delay as possible. That portion of it which relates to the question of apostolical succession, appears to me 1o be unanswerable. At all events, I should like to see some advocate of such a succession attempt an answer. You have met Episcopalians on their own chosen ground, and shown it to be untenable. Yours, respectfully, JAMES M. MACDONALD. The Rev. Mr. Shimeall. 3 ~^' END OF PRELACY: INCLUDING A DEMONSTRATION OF THE ROMANISM OF THE SYSTEM, SO CALLED, OF EVANGELICAL LOW-CHURCHISM. END OF PRELACY: OR, A TREATISE ON MINISTERIAL PARITY AND THE NON-EPPICACY OP SACRAMENTAL GRACE; THE ROMANISM OF THE PRELATICAL DOGMA OF AN UNBROKEN SUCCESSION, AND ITS COGNATE, SACRAMENTARIANISM, 4 PAPAL, TRACTARIAN AND HIGH AND LO¥-CHURCH, IN THREE PAETS: PART I.— ON THE RULE OF FAITH. PART II.— ON MINISTERIAL PARITY, TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. PART III.— ON MINISTERIAL PARITY, versus PRELACY. " Be ye not called Rabbi — call no man your Father — all ye are brethren." — Jesus Cheist. " A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Purge out therefore the old leaven.'' — Paul. "The Battle of the Reformation is again to be fought." — Rev. Wm. Meade, Bishop of Virginia. BY EEV. E. C. SHIMEALL, FOE SEVt!s.—2(l: Exposition of Matt. 16 : 18, 19, "On this rock," etc.— 3d: Do. of the latter clause, " the keys," etc. — 4th : Do. of John 21 : 15-17, " Feed my sheep," etc. — 5th: Review of Peter's official acts. — (1.) The Convocation of Jerusalem. Acts 8 : 14-27. — (2.) His accusation and defense, Acts 12 : 1-18. — (3.) Dispute about Circumcision, Acts 15 : 1-21. — (4.) Do. between Paul and Peter, Gal. 2: 11-14. — (5.) Peter styles himself, not the apostle, but an apostle, etc. SECTION VII. — pp. 124-133. The Number of the Apostles. — Proof that there were "Twelve" only. — Argued, 1st, from the Declared Perpetual Relation of " the Twelve" to Christ. Luke 22 : CONTENTS. 28-30. — 2d. From the Name, AiriaroXoi — examination of the Titles vpcaPvrtpo^; £T(V/c.jT(if, Ji""i^' • — Paul's instructions to Timo- thy.— Tills office in the Church of Christ shown 1o be most reasonable in itself. — XU CONTENTS. Advantages of. — Further proof of the dual orders of Presbyter and Deacons, as drawn, 1st, from the answer to the objection urged against the mixed nature of the func- tions of the eldership, etc. — 2d, from the Pauline address to the Church at Phiiippi. — Scriptural account of the office of Deacon. SECTION VI. — ^pp. 168-170. Recapitulation of the argument, etc. — Conclusion. PART III. MINISTERIAL PARITY, VERSUS PRELACY. CHAPTEE I. THE PREDICTED TRIAL AND APOSTASY OF THE CHURCH, UNDER THE CHRISTIAN DISPENSATION. SECTION I. — pp. 171-178. Introduction. The characteristics of the New Testament Ministry, as exhibited in Part II. of this Treatise, shown to have been eminently simple and fraternal. — This Ministry to be the center-point of a further trial of the Church's integrity to Christ the Head. — Her defection the subject of prophecy. — The basis of that defection, the tendency of all orders of creaturehood, angelic and human, to self-deification. — Its mode of development in the Church, a love of " the pre-eminence." — Its progress, gradual. — Its fruit, the Papacy. CHAPTER 11. EXAMINATION OF THE PKELATICAL DOGMA — EOlsnsn, TEACTAEIAN, AND HIGH AND LOW CHUECH OF AN ALLEGED UNINTEEEUPTED SUCCES- SION FKOM THE APOSTLES, BY SEMINAL DEEIVATION. SECTION I. — pp. 179-183. Preliminary remarks. — Prelacy. — Its diversified forms. — Substantially the same. — Con- sidered as a question of fact.— Four stand- points regarding it, as landmarks in the discussions which follow.— Protean character of the Prelatico-Episcopal theory.— If true, must be shown— 1st: To be derived directly from Christ himself— 2d : Must exercise all the functions Apostolical, especially that of conferring the '• gift of the Holy Ghosl'-- 3d: Must prove that they were appointed to complete what the Apostles left in an unfinished state. SECTION n. — pp. 184-188. The only modes of escape from the above hypotheses— 1st: Positive evidence that Christ delegated to others the authority to propagate said succession— 2d : Also of CONTENTS. XI H the persons by whom and on whom, and the time when and the place where, said apostolic office and functions were conferred. — The system defined. — Exami- nation of the alleged evidence in support of — namely, " holy Scripture and ancient authors." I. "Holy Scripture" — prelatical arguments from — (1.) " Lo, I am with you alway," etc. — ;2.) "As my Father hath sent me," etc. — (3.) "No man taketh this honor," etc. — Bishop McCoskrey on. — Remarks on. — Necessity of exhibiting the system as it is. — Proof that, cardinal to said system is its perpetual priestly and sacerdotal character with vicarial functions. SECTION ni. — pp. 189-195. Examination of the alleged evidence, as derived from the typical character and conse- quent analogy of the Christian ministry to the Aaronic priesthood. — Definition of the theory. — Quotations from its four classes of advocates : — I. The Romish the- ory : — II. The Tractarian theory : — III. The High Church theory ; Bishop McCos- krey : — IV. The Low Church theory ; Bishop Griswold. — The Book of Common Prayer. — Episcopacy as founded in expediency. — Fallacy of. — Proof, that in its most diluted form, it is invested with vicarial powers. — It is Judaism with a Christian name. — Is identical with the High Church, Tractarian, and Romish theories of. — Consequences: contentions, strife, divisions. — Dilemma of the Low Church party. — Must place their system on the platform of expediency alone, or admit its priestly character. — Mode of their attempt to escape from. — The reader admonished. — Trac- tarians, etc. the most consistent. SECTION IV. — pp. 195-202. Arguments demonstrative of the fallacy of the alleged typical analogy of the Christian ministry to the Aaronic priesthood — 1st : The two compared — 2d : Christ himself the only antitype of the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices — 3d : No resemblance between the orders of the two — The test applied — (1.) to the Anglican episcopacy — (2.) to the Romish. — 4th : Further proof, derived from the absolute perfection of the antitypal sacrifice of Christ — 5th : No evidence of the transfer by Christ to others, of His priestly office and functions. — Conclusion. — The Romish and Trac- tarian theories the most consistent. — Unfortunate dilemma of Low Churchmen. CHAPTER III. OF THE j^XLEGED POWERS OF THE PKELATIOAL PRIESTHOOD. SECTION I. — pp. 203-209. The apostolical powers, if continued, must be exercised whole and entire. — Division of their functions by prelatists into e.xtraordinary and ordinary. — Bishops Taylor, Griswold, and Mcllvaine on.— Design of. — Fallacy of — Dr. Barrow and Cardinal XIV CONTENTS. Bdlarmine on. — Prelatical dilemma. — Though they deny the continuance of the ex- traonliuary functions apostolic, yet claim to exercise the highestof their miraculous powers, namely, that of conferring " the gift of the Holy Ghost." — Proofs, quota- tions from — 1st: The Romanists— 2d : Tractarians — ;Jd: High Church; Bishop Jeremy Taylor — 4th : Low Cliurch ; Book of Common Prayer, (Ordinal of Or- dination.)— Discretionary form of. — Remarks on. — Bishop Mcllvaine. — Policy of the above scheme. SECTION n. — pp. 210-213. The same subject continued. — On the extent of the alleged powers apostolical, as claimed in behalf of their successors. — Preliminaries. — Substratum of the prelatico- episcopal theory. — Principle involved, namely, Prelacy, as essential to the being of the Church. — Argument for, not the name, but the ads, etc. — Bishops Griswold and Mcllvaine. — Essential to the support of — Fallacy of. — The name, apostle, retained by Bishop Mcllvaine. — Equivocal and contradictory use of, by prelatists. — Bishops Mcllvaine and H. U. Onderdonk compared. — How used in the time of Ignatius. SECTION ni. — p]3. 214-219. The subject continued. — Extent of the alleged prelatical functions. — Their incongnious and discordant views of. — The subject applied — 1st : To the nature, character, and powers of " the twelve" — Alleged Headship of Christ transferred to them — Bishops Griswold and McCoskrey — Absurdity of — 2d : Its transfer by the Apostles to others — Bishops Griswold and McCoskrey — Whole and entire. — Contradicted by the dis- tinction made by them between the extraordinary and ordinary functions apostolic. — Continuance of miraculous powers in the line of prelatical bishops, positively affirmed by Maurice. — Made to depend, however, on their faithfulness. — By others, denied. — Quotations from " Tracts for the Times," Bishop Mcllvaine. — Rev. Mr. Melville. — Taken together, the system is complete. SECTION ly. — pp. 220-226. Aggregate powers of the prelatico-episcopal priesthood, as advocated b)', 1st, The Ro- manists — (1.) Of the priesthood generally. — (2.) Of the popedom in particular. — (o.) Immaculate. — (6.) Infallible. — (c.) Their spiritual powers. — (^d.) Their tem- poral powers. — (e.) Their supremacy, absolute and universal. — (3 ) The Romish, " the mother and mistress of all churches." — Means employed for her extension and support. — 2d. Protestant prelatists, Anglican and American. — (1.) Of the ministry as a Christian priesthood. — (2.) Of their official powers. — Bishops Gris- wold and McCoskrey. See p. 191. — (a.) Immaculate. — (6.) Infallible.— (c.) Their spiritual powers. — Absolution. — Mediation. — Dr. Dodwell. — Bishops Gris- wold and Mcllvaine. — Inference. CONTENTS. XV SECTION V. — ^pp. 227-231. Episcopo-priestly arrogance, exclusiveness, etc., in regard, 1st. To the ministry. — Re- marks on. — Protestant Prelatists. — Dodvvell. — Bishops Griswold and McCoskrey. — Book of Common Prayer and Rev. S. H. Tyng. D.D.— 2d. The Church, Anglican and American, identical. — Rev. Mr. Palmer, Bishop Hobart, Fowler's Catechism, and Bishops Brownell and Griswold.— :0f the Episcopal theory of the Church. — (1.) Spiritual. — (2.) Ecclesiastico-political. — Anglican. — Herunion with the State. — Henry VIII. declared the supreme head of, in Spirituals and Temporals. — Absolute and unlimited. — Continued under Edward VI. — Restored under Elizabeth. — Re- mains in force to this day. SECTION VI. — pp. 231-240. Hence the surrender, by the Anglican Church, of her independence to the Civil Magis- trate.— Henry VIII. the fountain of the English Apostolical Succession. — See the King's commission to Cranmer. — Renewed under Edward VI. — The American Episcopal Church at the period of the Revolution. — Bishop Seabury, of Connec- ticut.— Derivation of American Episcopacy. — Obstacles. — How removed. — Ap- proximations, in spirit and in form, of the Ecclesiastico-political character of the American to the Anglican Hierarchy. — Her unprotestantizing tendencies. — The British Critic— The New York Diocesan Conventions of 1839 and 1843.— Rev. S. H. Tyng, D.D. — Objections. — These are but individual opinions, etc.— Reply. — Hobartian sentiment of Charity towards Anti-Episcopalians. — Fallacy of. — Six inferences from the above. — Conclusion. CHAPTEE IV. OF THE PEELATICO-EPISCOPAL THEORY OP OEDESTATION, AS THE ONLY ALLEGED DIVINELY- APPOINTED MODE OF PERPETUATING THE APOS- TOLICAL SUCCESSION. SECTION I. — pp. 241-245. Recapitulation of the preceding two additional points of inquiry. — Ordination, or "the laying on of hands" by Christ, his apostles and their successors, alleged to be the only channel of perpetuating a valid ministry and ordinances, through " the gift of the Holy Ghost." — Quotations from Romanists, the Anglican and American Ordinal, Bishop Taylor, Dr. Hook, and Bishops Beveridge, Hobart, Griswold, and Mcllvaine. — Remarks on Ordination in Part II. of this Treatise. — Fallacy of the above theory. — Three inferences. — Prelatical and Anti-Prelatical theories com- pared.— Proof that the Prelatical theory is borrowed from Rome, etc. SECTION II. — pp. 245-250. Direct examination of the alleged fact, regarding an unbroken apostolical succession from "the twelve" down to this day. — 1. The Romish system. — 2. The Tracta- XVI CONTENTS, rian or Puseyite system. — 3. The High Church system. — 4. The so-called Evangelical Low Church system. — 5. The Book of Common Prayer. — Summary . of the above. — Preliminary. — Three consecrators indispensable to impart validity to each consecutive link in the alleged chain. — Canons, on. — (1.) Requires Episco- pal baptism. — (2.) Ordination as deacon and priest. — (3.) Imposition of hands by three bishops. — Apostolical Canons. — Du Pin and Bishop Griswold. — The process of prelatical ordination illustrated. — All who are not so ordained, denounced as "gross impostors." — Bishop McCoskrey. SECTION III. — ^pp. 251-252. Prelacy, as claiming to be the antitype of the Aaronic orders, must hold its analogy to the mode of its transmission and perpetuity. — The two modes compared. — Queiy. Did Christ impose his hands on the twelve? — Proof that he did not. — Import of the term KaOi'-Trr)^!. — Archbishop Potter on. — Ab.surdity of the prelatical hypo- thesis. SECTION IV. — pp. 253-261. The question of genealogy, as involved in the theory of prelacy. — The term defined. — Applied, 1. To Christ. — 2. To the Jewish commonwealth. — 3. To the Levitical priesthood. — Illustrations of the exactness of their tabular views. — High prelatical claims of, in support of the alleged succession. — Preliminaries to a further exami- nation of — The law of analogy requires a correspondence between the Christian ministry and its alleged Aaronic " model" in the articles of, 1st. Their respective vocations. — 2d. Their limits or spheres of operation. — 3d. Prelatical dilemma. — The Christian Church built, not on apostleSj etc., but on priests. — 4th. Another. — Twelve foundation .stones. — Twelve chains. — Proof, that such an analogous genea- logical succession formed no part of the apostles's mission. — Inference. SECTION V. — ^pp. 261-268. Direct examination of the prelatical theory of succession as an alleged fact. — Involves the process of a procreating power. — Absurdity of. — Illustrated in the case of Paul" and Judas Iscariot. — Anti-prelatical theory of the succession. — Archbishop Whately on. — The two theories compared. — The high pretensions of prelacy. — Tremendous consequences pending the issue. — Must be subjected to the severest test. — Requisites for. — I. Authentic documents — None to be found. — II. An au- thentic '• Register" or catalogue — None ever produced. — III. A triple agency in welding each successive link — The pretense preposterous. — IV. Such procreating power has no archetype in nature — Hence designated by Paul, " endless gene- alogies," (1 Tim. 1 : 4.) CONTENTS. Xvii SECTION VI. — pp. 269-274. Scriptural examination of the above theory. — " The Twelve Apostles." — These, if equil, must each have a separate chain. — Denied by Prelatists. — Yet cannot agree as to whom the honor of starting the chain belongs. — Creed of Pius IV. — Dr. Hook. — Rev. A. B. Chapin.— St. Peter.— St. Paul— St. John.— St. James, etc. — Starting of the chain as an alleged fact. — Dr. Stone. — Mode of, by " laying on of hands." — The first links. — Bishops McCoskrey and Mcllvaine. — Positive evidence indispensable. — Tested by its application, ^st, to Matthias. — Fallacy of. — 2d, to Barnabas. — Bishop Mcllvaine versus the Evangelist Luke. SECTION VII. — ^pp. 274-279. Same subject continued. — 3. Timothy. — Dr. Stone. — Bishop Griswold. — Positively af- firms his consecration by "several" apostles, namely, the Ephesian presbytery. — Ar- gument in support of. — Fallacy of. — The apostolicity of the Ephesian presbytery denied by Bishop Hobart. — His interpretation of Met, and Aia. — Fallacy of. — The question fundamental in these premises is, Was Paul personally identified with the Ephesian presbytery in Timothy's ordination ? — Proof that he was not.— Conclu- sion.— A choice between two absurdities. — 4. Titus. — Remarks on. SECTION vni. — 280-283. Of diocesan Episcopacy. — Timothy,. Titus, and the seven apocalyptic " angels" alleged to have been diocesan bishops. — Fallacy of, in regard to Timothy and Titus. — Angels of the seven Churches. — Dr. Henry More, Joseph Mede, Dr. Fulke, and Bishop Stillingfleet on — Additional proof of the fallacy of — Examination and refu- tation of Bishop McCoskrey's use of Christ's commendation of the Ephesian " angel," for having '' tried them which say they are apostles, and are not," etc. — Conclusion. CHAPTER Y. OF THE ROMISH LINE OF THE ALLEGED UNBROKEN SUCCESSION. SECTION I. — pj). 284-288. This theory involves the establishment, by Christ, of a chair of primacy and supre- macy in the Christian Church. — Romanists affirm, Protestants deny. — The points involved stated. — Bellarmine and Boniface VHI. quoted. — Fallacy of their assump- tions proved, first from Scripture. — First, no evidence that Christ founded any such primacy, etc. — Remarks on the name Pope. — Second, dilemma of the Romish hypothesis as shown from three rivals to Peter as the first alleged primate namely, James, Paul and John. XVm CONTENTS. SECTION II. — pp. 288-292. Fallacy of the Romish theory of the Succession, as derived from the nature of traditional evidence. — Proof, that Peter never visited Rome. — Acts 15 quoted. — Examination of traditionary fragaients. — Eusebius, Papias, Dionysias of Corinth, Caius, Irenaeus. — His statements regarding Polycarp invalidated. — The Latin translation of his works not reliable. — He does not affirm that Peter was Bishop of Rome. — Further proof from Paul's Epistle to the Romans. — Romanists not agreed as to Peter's primacy at Rome. — Direct proof from Scripture. SECTION III. — pp. 292-296. The Romish dogma of an unbroken succession subjected to the test of " ancient authors " or Tradition. — Preliminary. — It is a question of genealogy. — One absent link breaks the chain. — The pretense, a grand and stupendous deception. — Arguments continued, demonstrative of its fallacy. — Fifth. The Romish argument for, as based on the alleged preservation of the Scriptures by that Church. — Sixth. Rom- ish schisms. — Seventh. Absence of uniformity in the pontifical elections. SECTION rv. — pp. 297-302. The subject continued — Eighth: Fallacy of the above dogma, as drawn from the moral character of the Popedom. — Barronius, Mich, de Chemaugis, Prideaux, Dr. Whitby, the Emperor Maximilian, etc. — Ninth : Romish concessions of breaks in this alleged chain. — Barronius, Bishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio. — Terrific pre- latical dilemma. — The attempt to escape from, by Protestant prelatists, under the plea that they are not dependent on Rome for their succession. — Subsequent notice of. — Bishop Purcell's mode of escape. — Fallacy of. — Tenth : Evident absurdity of the above dogma — Makes the uninspired Linus the primate over the inspired apos- tle John. — Eleventh: Closing argument. — Palpable defects of the best authenti- cated lists of the alleged succession. — The prelatical hypothesis of, absolutely ex- cludes the idea of an intervening break, as to time, in perpetuating the chain. — The Romish biographer Plautina on. — Bishop Purcell. — The " Register" reliable, only in proportion to the uniformity and agreement of the chroniclers. SECTION V. — pp. 302-306. The records of early antiquity. — Our Canon on. — Eusebius. — His testimony defective. — The reader admonished. — Endless confusion of the chronicles of the first links. — 1st, Peter. — Flaccius Illyricus, Zanchius, Archbishop Cranmer, Dr Cave. — Peter's successor. — Variations in the Roman Pontifical Index. — Plautina, Tertullian, Rufinas, Epiphaneous, contradicted by Iren^us, Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine. — While Bishop Pearson, and Dr. Comber differ from them. — Cabussate, Prideaux, Howell, etc. — Papal authorities, etc. — Eight specimens o! the first five links, ciUled from Eusebius and others.— Challenge to Prelatists to harmonize any two of them. CONTENTS. XIX SECTION VI. — pp. 306-323. Five catalogues of the Popes of Rome. — Eusebius, Chapin, Watson, Anonymous, and Gavin. — The prelatical theory of succession excludes any break in the chain. — Re- view of the above catalogues. — Variations both in names and the number of. — Disa- greement between Chapin and Canon II. — His omission to notice the schisms in. — Omits Pope Joan (a woman) , the 10.5th in Gavin's list.— Failure of the " Re- cord" at the very point where all should be explicit and complete — Illustrated.— First recorded instance of a consecration by three bishops, a.d. 585. CHAPTER VI. THE ANGLICAJT LINE OF THE ALLEGED UNBROKEN SUCCESSION. SECTION I. — ^pp. 324-332. Episcopacy, as founded in expediency alone. — Recognized the perfect equality of Bish- ops and Presbyters. — Was adopted as an ecclesiastical arrangement only. — Jerome on. — An unwarrantable innovation of the New Testament ministry. — Jerome. — Originated the distinction in ecclesiastical titles. — Amalarius, Theodoret, Bingham, etc. — A mere human device. — Formed the germ of Prelacy and the Papacy. — Prelatical denial of primitive parity. — Answer. — Jerome. — Bingham. — Diocesan Episcopacy. — Archbishop Whately on. — Ministerial parity affirmed by Bishop Mcllvaine to be unknown to the Chui'ch till the sixteenth century. — Answer. — Proof of its New Testament origin and primitive prevalence. — Was adopted by the first Anglican Reformers. — Principles on which it may be adopted or re- ^ tained. — Appeal to those who are really Low Church. SECTION II. — 332-335. The alleged Anglican Succession. — Aspect, etc., of England at the time of Henry VIII. Review of Rev. A. B. Chapin's work on " The Organization of the Primitive Church," etc. Proposes to trace the English Succession in several different ways. — Remarks SECTION III. — pp. 335-338. The subject continued. — Mr. Chapin's sources of instruction. — Tradition. — His testimony regarding them. — Benedictine monks, etc. — The " Gallia Christiana." — A mistake of Mr. C. — His singular mode of tracing the apostolical succession. — ^Alleges the English succession to come from Ephesus, etc. — Claims Augustine as the first Saxon Bishop, and the first Archbishop of Canterbury. — Design of this theory, to avoid its derivation from Rome. — Two difficulties for Mr. C. — First: With those prelatists who admit said succession from Rome. — Second: With himself — (l.) His authorities in support of his new line. — (2.) His error regarding Poiycarp's alleged consecra- tion by the apostle John. — Eusebius, Gallia Christiana, Bcde, Barronius. — Their statements irreconcilable with authentic data. — Dr. Cook, Bishop Pearson, Bishop Purcell, etc. — Tabular view, etc. XX CONTENTS. SECTION IV. — pp. 338-343, The subject continued. — ^The English succession from Aijgustine to the present Arch- bishop of Canterbury. — Cardinal Pole. — The English succession from Paul. — Bishop McCoskrey. — His authorities, etc.— Bishop Stillingfleet, Rev. H. Carey, Mr. E. Churton, etc. — A bird's-eye view of the relation of old Britain to Rome, about A.D. 595. — Favorable to the establishment of a universal spiritual empire. — Gregory I. — John, Bishop of Constantinople — Augustine's mission to Kent, En- gland.— Romi.sh. — His authority over the Anglican Bishops. — Proof, that England was not independent of Rome at this time. — Dilemma of Mr. C. — Double dilemma of Bishop McCoskrey and Mr. C. regarding the old British and the Anglo-English bishops. SECTION V. — pj). 344-350. Proof positive, that, in the time of Augustine, and for nearly one hundred years after, no ecclesiastical connection existed between the former and the latter bishops. — Mr. E. Churton, Bede, etc. — This, the most important point of the Historico-Prelatical Controversy. — Involves the necessity to show, I. — How the succession through Canterbury is derived from the '• Old British Church." — ilr. C. here compared with himself — '-The Culdees."' — Mr. E. Churton. — Bede. — Aidan. — His ordination Prcsbylerial. — Inference fatal to Mr. C.'s theory. — II. — Must demonstrate the total exemption of the English Church from all subjection to, or connection with, the See of Rome. — " The Old British Bishops" subdued to the obedience of Rome, a.d. 668. — Persecution of. — Bede charges it on Augustine. — Lauded by Mr. E. Churton. SECTION VI. — pp. 350-355. Distinction between the British Church and the JInglo- English, admitted by Mr. C. His disingenuousness. and glaring sophistry. — Effect of. — Mr. C. further com- pared with himself in regard to Augustine. — Fallacy of the plea of his " very providential" (alias) Protestant (!) ordination, by the Archbishops of Aries and of Lyons. — Gregory's repl;- to Augustine's seventh of the nine questions proposed to him. — Legate of Leo I. at the Council of Chalcedon, a.u. 455. — Decree of the Emperor .Justinian III.— Not annulled between a.d.410 and 590. — Romanism of Augustine. — Mr. Turner and Archdeacon Mason on.— Mr. C.'s admission, that •the Anglo-Saxons were converted by Augustine. — 10,000 baptized in one day.— The present Cathedral of Canterbury identical with that erected for Augustine by his first royal convert, Ethelbert, King of Kent. — Hence the Romish origin and descent of the English line of archbishops.— Proved from Mr. C.'s own book. — Vide his Catalogue of the Succession, divided into four parts ; for which, see next Section. CONTENTS. XXI SECTION VII. — pp. 355-364. THE SUBJECT CONTINUED THE SUCCESSION, From St. John to Augustine. — 2. From Augustine to Cranmer. — Explanation of the nature and use "of " THE PALL." — Coeval with the time of Augustine, and re- tained by the archbishops of Canterbury to this day ! — Fallacy of tlie plea of the independence of the Anglo-English Church. — Loss of the independence of " the Old British Church" after a. d. 731. — Bede. — Evidence of the disingenuousness of Mr. C— Proof that instead of only ONE, there are THIRTY-SIX Archbishops of Canterbury and York between AUGUSTINE and CRANMER, who received their PALLS from POPISH hands !— What then becomes of the English succes- sion, if these share the same fate with Cardinal POLE ? — Extraordinary evolution of Mr. C. — Failing in his attempts to dodge old Rome by way of Ephesus, Old Britain, Scotland, Ireland, etc., in order to place the validity of the English suc- cession beyond the reach of controversy, he assures the reader that that succession can be traced back to the Apostles St. John and St. Paul, not only, but also to St. PETER, the first bishop of the ROMISH SEE. SECTION vni. — pp. 365-370. THE ENGLISH SUCCESSIOK, FROM THE PERIOD OF THB REFORMATION UNDER THE REIGN OF HENRY VIII. The subject continued. — 3. The English succession from Cranmer to John Moore. — Tabular view. — Another attempt of Mr. Chapin to dodge the Romish line. — Jeru- salem, through James. — Proof that James was not the bishop of. — Patriarchate of St. Davids from. — Do., of Llandaff from Gall. — Fallacy of. — Mr. C. in error in regard to his alleged union of the old British bishops with Augustine in preaching to the English. — Three inferences. — Fallacy of the alleged independence of the English Church proved by Mr. C.'s own statements. — Her claim thereto a bor- rowed glory. CHAPTER VII. THE TRUE CHARACTER OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH VIEWED IN THE ASPECT OF HER ORIGIN, AND OF HER ACTS AS " THE PROTESTANT CHURCH OF ENGLAND AS BY LAW ESTABLISHED." HER PROSPECTS, ETC. SECTION I. — ^pp. 371-375. Proof, that the Anglo-English Church, between Augustine and Henry VIII., was not' independent of Rome. — The old British bishops, the only protesters against the usurpations of Augustine. — Loegria. — The Cymri. — Conversion of the former by Augustine. — Formed the basis of the Anglo-English Hierarchy. — A solemn pro- test against Mr. C.'s alleged independence of the Anglican Church and Succession, of that of the Romish See. C xxii CONTENTS. SECTION II. — ^pp. 3 7 5-3 79. Proof of the schismatical character of the English Reformation under Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Elizabeth. — Difference between the cardinal principles of the English and of the Continental Reformations, as to their practical results, etc. — The Continent the seat of the Protestant Reformation — Ciande, Bishop of Turin, A. D. 831-840. — The Waldenses. — (See also Appendix.) — Persecution of. — Popes. — Alexander III., Lucius II., Clement III., Celestine III., Innocent 111., Honorius III., Gregory IX., Innocent IV., Alexander IV., a. d. 1159-1199. — Count Raymond of Toulouse, A. D. 1208. — About 70,000 massacred. — Reformation still spreads. — Present Waldenses in the valleys of Piedmont — John Milicz, a. d. 1360-13C7. — Huss, A. D. 1400. — Waldenses in England. — Jerome of Prague, do., a. d. 1402. — Wickliffe, the English Reformer. — Romanism again dominant till a. d. 1521. — Heruy VIII. assumes the supremacy. SECTION III. — pp. 379-381. THE LUTHERAN REFORMATION, A.D. 1517. Founded on the two great Protestant principles named above. — Spreads with great ra- pidity.— Results. — His coadjutors, Melancthon, Zwingle, Bullinger, Carlstadt, QEcolampadius, Erasmus, Bucer, P. Martyr, and the renowned Calvin. SECTION IV. — pp. 382-392. THE ANGLO-ENGLISH REFORMATION. Proof that it was commenced and conducted on principles cardinally different from that on the Continent. — Essentially Romish and Antichristian. — Never repudiated by that Church. — HENRY VIII. a Laic, yet constituted Supreme Head, Spiritual and Temporal, of that Church, by Convocation and by Parliament. — Result. — Two Supreme Heads and two Catholic Churches. — Both claiming to be founded in "the Right OF Prescription." — Romanists have the vantage ground. — English Church guilty of Rapacity and Schism. — Examination of this claim, " the Right of Prescription," by the English Church, as involving the doctrine of " The Divine Right of Kings." — 1st, By the Scriptures of the Old Testament ; 2d, do. New Testament.— The Laico-Royal Head of the Anglican Church, the FOUN- TAIN of the ENGLISH and AMERICAN SUCCESSIONS.— Proof that the assumption of the SUPREMACY by Henry VIII., and the reconstruction of the English Church under him and his successors, are in their character antichristian. — Proof of the rapacity of Henry in seizing upon, and his successors in retaining, the Monastic Possessions. — Use of, to bribe the aristocracy to support the " Church and State" alliance. — This irreconcilable with the Church's declared " prescrip- tive rights."— Two alternatives.— Proof that the ANGLICAN CHURCH is AN ENTIRELY NEW CHURCH.— Created by acts of Parliament— Its title.— " The Protestant Church of England, as by LAW established," not by Christ and his Apostles. — King's coronation oath. — Preface to Ordination, etc., in the Anglican and American Liturgies. — Conclusion. CONTENTS. XXUl CHAPTEE VIII. THE ANGLO-ENGLISH REFORMATION, AFTER THE DEATH OF HENRY VIII., A.D. 1547, UNDER EDWARD VI., MARY, AND ELIZABETH. SECTION I. — pp. 393-400. Under Henry VIII. nothing Protestant worthy the name. — I., Edward VI. — Ruling motive of the Guardians of, (the king being now but ten years of age) in promot- ing the Reformation, the security of the monastic estates now in their possession. — A reformation achieved, not, as is alleged, " by the common consent of the people ;" not by the conversion of Romanists to the Protestant faith, but by the compulsory Acts of Parliament. — Protestant principles subordinate. — " The Book of Common Prayer" under Henry and Edward. — Its near identity with the Romish Mass Book. — Judgment of the Papists on. — Statements of the " Commissioners" under Edward and Elizabeth. — Also, the Romish author of Horae Bibliae. — LordChatham, etc. — Proof of the above. — Parliamentary Acts, — 1 : a.d. 1531, which abrogated the papal supremacy, etc. ; 2 : 27ih year of Henry, a.d. 1535, and 31st ditto, a.d. 1539, confis- cating the monastic estates ; 3: 27th Henry VIII., chap. 20, and 2d and 3d Ed- ward VI., chap. 13, compelling the payment of lay tithes; 4: 1st Edward VI., chap. 1, A.D. 1547, coercing the people, Romish and Dissenters, into the sheep-fold ; 5 : 1st Edward VI. chap. 1, a.d. 1547, and 2d Edward VI., coercing the adoption and use of the Prayer-Book, etc. — High pretensions of '• the Protestant Church of England," etc. — The only true Church, etc. — The Prayer-Book composed by aid of the Holy Ghost, and for " the honor of God" ! Surely, then, Parliament could never turn its back upon such a Church and Prayer-Book ! SECTION II. — pp. 400-403. II. — Mary, a Romanist. — Conduct of Parliament on her accession. — Renounce the Protestant Church and Prayer-Book, acknowledge themselves schismatics, and pledge their return to the bosom of Holy Mother, on condition of their being permitted to retain the monastic estates. (See their petition to the queen. Appen- dix — .) — The pope grants absolution. — Popery again restored. — But Arch- bishop Cranmer, the most distinguished of the English reformers. — Held in high repute as such. — Our duty. — His true character. — His end. SECTION III. — pp. 403-406. III. Elizabeth. — She also a Romanist. — Surely, then, Parliament continues to adhere to the Romish Faith ? — Not so. — The Monastic Estates are jeoparded by the illegiti- macy of the Queen ! — And, all again, by Acts of Parliament, become Protes- tant !! ! — Act 1st of Elizabeth, chap. 1, restored to her the same title held by Henry and Edward (and which is retained to this day), and secured to the Aris- tocracy the Monastic Estates, clauses 17, 18, 19, enacting the severest penalties against all malcontents. — The '■Commission." — Second Act, 1st Elizabeth, chap. XXIV CONTENTS. 2, restored the Prayer-Book, designed more especially for the benefit of Ronnanists enforced by the severest penalties. — Another Act, 35th Elizabeth, chap. 1, en- titled, " An Act to retain the Queen's subjects in their due obedience," etc., de- signed for the benefit of Dissenters. — Enforced by the gentle penalties of banish- ment for life, and death ! — These horrid enactments refmained in full force until the time of James II., and for attempting to mitigate which, he lost to himself and his posterity for ever, the British throne ! — Partially modified under William and Mary. — Less rigidly enforced now. — Conclusion. — Present aspect of " the Protestant Church of England as by Law Established." CHAPTER IX. THE ALLEGED SUCCESSION OF THE AMERICAN EPISCOPAL CHUECII. SECTION I. — pp. 407, 408. Reference to the proofs of its derivation from the Ecclesiastico-political lay supremacy, spiritual and temporal, of the Anglo-English crown. — Four conditions, as the only methods of escape therefrom, and of the refutation of the charge of its Romish origin, etc. CHAPTER X. OF THE FRATERNAL CHARACTER OR PERFECT EQUALITY OF THE OFFICE AND FUNCTIONS OF ELDERS OR PRESBYTERS, AND BISHOPS. SECTION I. — ^i^p. 409-412. Importance of a further exhibit of the subject of this Chapter, in contrast with the pre- latical theory. — Proofs of the parity or perfect equality of the ordinary ministry of divine appointment, as derived, 1st : From the- interchangeable use of the titles. Elder and Bishop. — 2d : From the declarations of prelatists themselves. — Also from the writings of the purest ages of antiquity. — The terms Ordo, Gradus, Offici- um, defined. — Circumstances which originated a diversity in ecclesiastical func- tions,— Elfric, Ambrose, etc. SECTION II. — pp. 412-418. Extracts from the Fathers. — Clem. Romanus, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertul lian, Origen, Cyprian, Firmilian, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome. SECTION III. — pp. 418-420. Subiect continued. IV. The same corroborated by the testimony of all the Christian Churches in the world. — The African, Greek, Western or Roman, Lutheran, Ger- man Reformed, French, Waldensian, Scotch, and Dissenting. CONTENTS. •aacv SECTION IV. — pp. 420-422. Subject continued. — ^V. Additional testimony from the greatest divines of modern times, since the period of the Continental and Anglican Reformations. — Wickiiffe, Erasmus, Cranmer, Calvin, Beza, Melancthon, Blondell, M. Flaccius lUyricus, Claude, Bochart, Grotius, Vitringei, Mosheim, Suicer, Schleusner, Archbishop Usher, etc. SECTION V. — pp. 423-430. Subject continued. — VI. Testimony of the greatest divines of modern times, since the Continental and Anglican Reformations. — Do. of the Anglican Reformers them- selves.— Sanctioned by royal authority. — Bishop Burnet. — Rev. A. B. Chapin's attempt to escape therefrom. — Failure of. — Conclusion. CHAPTER XI. ON THE CATHOLIC CHUKCH OF CHRIST. SECTION I. — pp. 431-440. Introductory. — The prelatical theory, " nulla ecclcsia sine episcopo^ — ^Marks or notes by which the Church Catholic is to be known : namely, Apostolicity, Catholicitj'', Unity, Sanctity, Discipline. — Prelatists not agreed eis to what constitutes these notes, ' their differences varying from four to four hundred. — Valentia, Druido, Sanders, Pisteria, Bellarmine, Bossius, etc. — So also in regard to authorities. — Canus, Bannes, Suares, Duvall, Conink, Arriaga, Usamburtius, Gillius, Amicus, Rhodius, etc., of the Romanists. — Palmer, Field, Bishop Jeremy Taylor, Dr. Sherlock, Dr. Freeman, Dr. Payne, the Homilies, etc., of the Protestants. — The two notes, Apostolicity and Catholicity, applied to the Roman, and the Anglican and American Episcopal Churches. SECTION II. — ^pp. 440-454. Subject continued. — The three " notes," namely. Unity, Sanctity, and Discipline, ap- plied to the Roman, the Anglican, and the American Episcopal Churches. — Fal- lacy of. — On the last note, Ellesby's caution, Bingham's Origines Ecclesiastica and Bishop Burgess, of Maine, compared with Dr. Aydelott and Dr. F. L. Hawks, etc. SECTION in. — pp. 454-468. Conclusion. — "The Holy Catholic Church" — How known? Where found? Scrip- turally defined. — Line of designation between the True and the False Church.^ Adopted by Luther.— The Continental Reformers.— The XlXth of the XXXIX XXVI CONTENTS. Articles of the Church of England. — Cranmer, Hooker, Bishops Sanderson and Cosin, " Statement of the Distinctive Principles of the Protestant Episcopal Society for the Promotion of Evangelical Knowledge," Bishops Meade, Mcllvaine, Lee, Bur- gess, etc.. Dr. Stone, etc., etc. — Incongruity of their statements with the admitted theory of Prelacy, etc. — Application of the above marks or notes of "' the Holy Catholic Church," to the Anti-Prelatical theory of — I. Aposlolicity — In the sense of an Unbroken Succession — Not, however, in a Genealogical line of Persons, but of the perpetuity of the Apostolic Doctrine^ etc. — Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Gre- gory Nazian., Ambrose, etc., on. — II. Catholicity. — Preliminaries. — Novatians — Waddington on. — Donatists — Waddington on. — Pauliceans — Gibbon on. — Waldenses. — Reinerius Sacchoon. — Inference. — III. Unity. — The Harmony in Doctrine, Polity etc., of Anti-Peelatists, contrasted with the discordant systems of Prelacy. — IV. Sanctity. — See Standards of all Evangelical Churches. — V. Discipline. — See Standards of all Evangelical Churches. APPENDICES. APPENDIX A. — ^pp. 469-477. Antichristianism, as scripturally viewed in the aspect of its rise, forms of development character and results. APPENDIX B. — ^pp. 478-483. On the charge brought by Prelatists against Calvin, that he preferred Episcopal Ordiria ■ tion, and sought after it, but could not obtain it, etc. APPENDIX .c. — ^pp. 483-487. On the title " Elders" — a distinction in their respective functions. APPENDIX D. — ^pp. 487-488. Waldenses. APPENDIX E. — pp. 488-492. Pope Joan. APPENDIX F. — pp. 492-496. The Petition of the Protestant Parliament of England on the death of Edward VI. to Queen Mary, for the reconciliation of the Kingdom to the See of Rome ; and the counter petition of the same Parliament to Elizabeth, on the death of Mary, for the restoration of Protestantism. TO THE READER/- Another controversial treatise on the long-litigated question of Ministe- rial Parity and Prelacy ! Even so. But, paradoxical as it may seem, my only design in preparing and offering this work to the Christian pubhc is, the contribution of a humble endeavor, in reliance upon the blessing of God, to restore the Church of Christ, so long torn piece-meal by religious faction, to that " UNITY OF THE FAITH AND THE BOND OF PEACE," for whicli Christ prayed and the apostles labored.* The entire frame-work of the treatise, however roughl}'^ hewn the materials, claims to be erected on the hypothesis of the utter futility of all attempts to wipe out the deep stain of schism — so long the sin and the reproach of the Church — till Protestant controvertists, through the influence of " the Spirit of truth'" " working in them mighti- ly,"^ are made " willing"* to exchange mere sectarian predilections for a re- turn to a scriptural and primitive catholicity. Nor can the Church of Christ, if she would, evade participation in the questions involved in these discussions. Surely, nothing but that spirit of time-serving expediency which results from false notions of Christian chari- ty, can betray any who " hold the Head"* in the articles of the " one Lord, one faith, and one baptism"^ of the New Testament, whether of the clergy or laity, into indifference and opposition to, a candid and faithful exhibit of the claims to our belief and adoption, of one of the above named systems, in preference to the other. In this connection the writer, in the words of one " whose praise is in all the churches" — Rev. Dr. Dickinson — would express it as his conviction that, " if there be any ground for surprise, it is because Presbyterians so seldom obtrude the claims of their church on (1) Compare Eph. 4 : 4, 13, with John, chap. 17, and 1 Cor. 3 and 12. (2) 1 John 4 : 6. (3) Col. 1 : 29. (4) Psalm 110 : 3. (5) Col. 2 : 19. (6) Eph. 4 : 6. ♦ The following address is designed to sustain a relation to the Treatise, analogous to that of a vestibule to an edifice. The reader will find it to his advantage, as it will be but an act of justice to the writer, to pass through it, on his way to that. XXVlll TO THE READER. public attention."* This has been to me, a " ground of surprise." As that writer sa3's, from " their accustomed silence" — in the advocacy of their claims against the advocates of prelacy — " it has been supposed that they themselves regard their ecclesiastical polity as not scripturally defensible."! 1 know this to be so. And, that Episcopalians, " the validity of whose ordinances she admits,"J taking advantage of this her silence and truly Catholic concession, as he says, " have endeavored to drain her ministry, and draw from hor communion. "§ I am not therefore surprised that, with these facts before him, this reverend gentleman should have arrived at the conclusion that " perhaps she" — the Presbyterian Church — " has erred on the score of liberality."! I think so. And as he also says, " The Church of Christ is necessarily antagonistic (these italics are ours) to all the errors and vices of the world ;" " and also to intimate distinctly that whenever it is necessary, we may enter the list of controversy, and rebuke the arrogance of those worshipers of Sect who sometimes overween, and in their moments of hallucination, exclaim, The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, are WE,^''^ etc : I think, that that necessity now exists. The time, in my view, has long since gone by, when it is sufficient to commit fundamental truth to the guardianship of mere conservatism. How, I ask, can this be a " contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints," against the insidious blandishments and the vigilant, unremitting, and hostile attacks of insidious " error, heresy, and schism" ? No. If the Christian Church is " necessarily antagonistic," Christianity, in the true Protestant evangelical sense, is necessarily aygrossive. And, Christian charity cannot fail to de- generate into a criminal supineness to essential truth, when, from a fear of giving offense, it is seen bowing obsequiously at the shrine of popular error. Such forget that, " if Satan," the rebel leader of antichristianism, " is trans- formed into an angel of light, therefore it is no great thing if his ministers (transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ,) also be trans- formed as the ministers of righteousness."' I speak then as unto wise men when I express it as my opinion that, in this day — if at any period included in the Pauline prediction regarding the " perilous times"" of the Church — in this day it is true, " that men will not «:'ndure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap to them- selves teacheis, having itching ears."' In proof of this, I have but to ad- vert to the fact, that nothing is more perilous to one's reputation or hopes, (1) 2 Cor. 11 : 13-15. ('3) 2 Tim. 3 i 1. (3) 2 Tim. 4 : 3. * " The Church of Christ. A Discourse by Rev. Richard W. Dickinson, D.D., New York : Charles Scribner. 18.51." p. 21. A copy of this very able and well-timed Dis- course should be in the hands of every Presbyterian family in the Church. t lb., p. 21. t lb., p. 3.3. § lb., p. 33. || lb., p. 33. 1[ lb., p. 30. TO THE READfiB. XXIX than to insinuate that, in order to " deceive, if it be possible, the very- elect,"' error, heresy, and schism may, not only, but must, so nearly resem- ble truthy as scarcely to be discernible from it. I think it may in truth be said that we have already reached the point where error, how soul-ruin- ous soever in its tendency, if it be but deeply imbedded beneath a fair show outwardly of great zeal for Protestant evangelic truth, it is denounced as worse than sacrilegious, and as an outrage against all the laws of Chris- tian charity, to assail it. ' Why not let other denominations alone ? This controversy tends but to separate very friends,' etc. Tliese and the like sentiments are the weapons with which an artful ^se2(c?o-Pr6testant evangel- ism seeks to cajole the " watchmen" on the ramparts of Zion into a timid and inglorious silence. Its language is, ' only keep still — continue your wisely begun poUcy not to "obtrude the claims of the Church," Presbyte- rian, " on public attention," and, in a few years, if we fail to bring your fathers into the pale of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, we shall have their children. Yes. Our Protestant name, coupled with our evangelical preaching, writing, etc., and our imposing architectural and liturgical appliances, together with the connections, social, matrimonial, and commercial, already formed and continually forming between us and them, furnish the everyday evidence that they are rapidly approximating nearer and nearer towards us.' Whether this representation will meet with less of sympathy than of incredulity, I know not. The picture I have here drawn, in its aspect towards Presbyterianism, may be deemed overwrought. All I ask is, let not a consciousness of present denominational strength in the department of letters, numbers, and resources, when compared Avith others, spurn it as visionary. While I rejoice to believe that Presbyterianism throughout Christendom, blessed with the presence of " the Lord God and his Spirit," and actuated by a holy zeal for the truth and the salvation of souls, has nothing to fear, but every thing to hope ; I would not forget that the name of her antagonistic agents is " Legion," and that, together, they comprehend at least eleven-twelfths of all who bear the Christian name. Nor would I above all forget, that while she has been, and is now, to some extent at least, engaged in a warfare against the strongholds of Romanism proper, as also some of the higher forms of development of Prelacy bear- ing the Protestant name, yet that she has, so to speak, entirely overlooked another, and that the very form in which, in ray view, she has the most to fear — I mean, Prelacy as put forth under its so-called Loio Church Evan- gelical guise. In this form it is, I contend, so far stripped of its repulsive features, as admii^ably to adapt it to all the purposes of successful proselyt- (1) Matt. 24 : U. XXX TO THE READER. ism — in other words, " to drain tlie ministry, and draw from the commu- nion" of " other denominations," May I not then hope for the indulgence of all concerned, if I employ my pen — as I claim in the providence of God to have been appointed — in giving at least the well-meant admonition, " he that thinketh he standeth, let him take heed lest he fall ?"' " Let not bim that putteth on his armor, boast as he that putteth it off."* " The race is not to tlie swift, nor the battle to the strong."' " When we shall say, peace, peace, lo, sudden destruction cometh."* In conclusion on this subject I have only further to add, that during the last two years, having bad more ample opportunity to witness the influence of prelacy in its above-named diluted form on the minds of those " outside" the pale of " the Church," I have looked with the deepest concern on its tendency to neutralize the attachments of many to the faith of the Church of their fore- fathers. To all such, then, I say, " Am I become your enemy, because I tell you the truth ?" While, then, it will be well for the self-confident among Presbyterians to compare Geneva as she is with Geneva as she was ; as a check to the ar- rogant triumphs of Protestant prelatists, Tractarian, Hobartian, and the so-called Low Church, over her downfall, I Avould remind them of their de- parture, since the time of Archbishop Laud — a period of near two hundred years — -from the only true platform, Episcopal, of " The Church of En- gland as by Law Established" under the auspices of the first Anglican Reformers. The reader, doubtless, will be not a little startled at this announcement. The time, however, has arrived when some one must speak out on this sub- ject. The facts here alluded to are matters of historic record. I have spoken of tlie deep stain of schism, so long the sin and reproach of the Church of Christ. On this subject I need not say that the history of schism and heresy is coeval with the history of the Christian Church, and, as of the period from the apostles's time down to the Reformation, so, from that time to the present. And the measure of responsibility of those who, in every period and in whatever w^ay, have originated them, is the magni- tude of the sin involved — that of dividing and rending the Church of Christ, which is " His body,"' and by which " the name of God and his doctrine are blasphemed."* Nor let any who is implicated in these pre- mises lay " the flattering unction to his soul," as though the fact of the divine purpose that " there must he heresies among you," nullified the re- sponsibility of which I here speak. The existence of schisms and heresies in the Church, are the divinely-ordained tests of the integrity of " the faithful in Christ Jesus" all of whom are called, not to war, but " to (1) 1 Cor. 10 : 12. (2) 1 Kings 20 : 11. (3) Eccl. 9 : 11. (4) 1 ThosR. 5 : 3. (o) Eph. 1 : C3. (0) 1 Tim. 6:1. TO THE READER. XXXI peace.'" It is " that they which are approved may be made inanifest among you."' And who are these ? A point this, in comparison with which every other sinks into absolute insignificance. In the contest for truth which now presses upon the Church, every other must finally merge into this. What Christian mind, I ask, does not revolt at the thought of being chargeable, at the Great Day, with .the sins of schism and heresy ? And yet — in ad- dition to what I have already said on this subject — taking into the ac- count those various branches bearing the Christian name and claiming to constitute the Catholic Church of Christ on the one hand ; and the always commendable disposition to yield obedience to the law of Christian charity toward all on the other ; the danger is, that even such minds, from their eagerness to escape implication in these premises in regard to themselves and also as a shield to others, may be seduced into that spirit of indiffer- ence to the subject, as a whole, as to involve them in the meshes of some fatal error. Our design in the following pages is to show, that, involved in the questions at issue between the advocates of Parity and Prelacy, are prin- ciples which are fundamental to truth, and that the one system or the other must be "false." Let me explain. Scripturally, the import of the terra schism (from the Gr. axiofxa) signifies rvpture, or division. Heresy (from the Gr. a'igeaig), a choice, in the sense of " an arbitrary adoption, in matters of faith, of opi- nions at variance with the doctrines delivered by Christ and his apostles."* And, though not an invariable result, yet, generally, the former, Schism, is the parent of the latter. Heresy. Hence, says St. Jerome, " There is no schism which does not tend to generate some heresy. "I Twin foes to the truth and the peace of the Church, they together constitute the evil genii whence have sprung all those " wars and fightings"* which, from the period of the Corinthian schisms in apostolic times to the present day, have disturbed the peace of the Church, secured to heresy a predominancy over truth, and drenched the earth with Christian blood ! And all this, despite the Pauline disquisition concerning spiritual gifts and their harmonious exercise as illustrated by the diversified yet united action of the *' many members of the one body" human, furnished bj'^ the Holy Spirit to the Church expressly to teach that, " whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free," as " bj/ one Spirit we are all baptized into one body," so, — in accordance with the lesson taught in the (1) 1 Cor. 7 : 15. (2) 1st Cor. 12 : 19. (3) James 3 : 1. * Thecphilus Anglicana, etc., by Christopher Wordsworth, D.D., London, 1843, p. 29. t S. Hieron. in Tit. c. 3. XXXU TO THE HEADER. beautifully appropriate figure, as above, — " there should be no schism ia the body.'" To return then to our previous statement, that heresy, though not in- variably, yet is generally, the legitimate offspring of schism ; it follows, in logical sequence, that there is a correspondence between the heresy, doc- tiinally, and the nature of the schism whence it springs. Now, both the schisms in the Corinthian Church (Isl Cor., chapters 3 and 12) regarded external things — the fellowship or communion, and the ministry of the Church, and especially in regard to the latter — the minis- try— it consisted in the " having men's persons in admiration. "° " One said, I am of Paul ; and another, I am of Apollos,'" etc. The prompti- tude and earnestness of the apostle in his attempt to arrest the progress of this schism, is an evidence of his prophetic foresight of the heresy which he knew, from its very nature, it was calculated to engender, to wit : that of setting up claims of superiority, in functions and dignity, in behalf of one over the other. To strike, therefore, at the root of this incipient evil — a love of " the pre-eminence" — the apostle says of them, " Who then is Paul, and who is ApoUos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man ? I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase ;" to which he adds, " he that planteth and he that watereth, are one." Sufficient this, one would suppose, to have forever arrested the threatening evil. But, as already remarked, the ecclesiastical records of the past, dating even from apostolic times, evidence a reckless disregard on the part of by fer the larger portion of nominal Christendom, to take heed to the lessons of instruction, admonition, and solemn warning on this subject, with which the New Testament abounds. In addition to the above, and long before the death of the last apostle, John, both the schism and its offspring, heresy, appeared in the Church, in the person of Diotrephes. Of him, says that apostle, first, " he loveth to have the 'pre-eminence."*^ Now, wlierefore this ? For, even admitting (which we do not) that the apostles were to have successors, and that Diotrephes was one of them, Christ, in his address to " the twelve," had said, " all ye are brethren," a declaration sufficiently adverse to the idea of any " pre-eminence" or piimacy of one 'among them over the other. But that he was a presbyter only of the church to which the apostle John directed this epistle, may be gathered from the contrast between them as contained in the words, " Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth,"^ etc., words clearly implying the superior authority of John as an apostle, over this dis- ci) 1 Cor. 12 : 25. (2) Jude, v. 16. (3) I Cor. 3 : 4. (4) 3 John, v. 9. (5) 3 John, v. 10. TO THE HEADER. XXXlll turber of the Church's peace. Not that this admitted superiority of Jolin over him conflicts with the principle of parity for which we contend. That can only be made to appear by showing that both the apostolate and pres- byterate were to be continued in the Church as the ordinary and perma- nent ministry thereof, a work which, it is the design of these pages to demonstrate, never has been and never can be done. None deny that, at least during the New Testament age, the elders, 7rp£(7/3f repoi, of the Church, of which this Diotrephes was one, whatever were their functions, stood on the platform of equality. Clearly, then, Diotrephes's assumption of " the pre-einineiKe" was schismatical, a sin, as we have said, against the externals of the Church. But, second. The apostle adds, " he receiveth us not.'" The Apostle John, etc., cast out of the Church by Diotrephes! On what grounds ? None other can be assigned than the assumption of powers or functions ministerial, transcending those of the excommunicated ! Hence the heresy of Diotrephes, doctrinally. It follows that, in w^hatever ecclesiastical systems* this principle is found, it is germain to the arrogant, exclusive, denunciatory, unchurching, or in other words, schismatical and heretical system of which that of Diotrephes is the New Testament type. Yes. Like him, actuated by a love of " the pre-eminence," it not only " casts out of the Church" those who refuse unconditional submission to its dogmas, but " with malicious words prates" against those who claim, at least, credentials equally valid as the called and sent of the Lord. In a word, it is an assumed Chris- tianized priesthood of " divers orders" with alleged sacerdotal powers by divine right, as the only valid dispensers of grace through the sacraments, " shutting up the kingdom of heaven" against those who, disclaiming such vicarial powers, are content to stand upon what they claim to constitute the scriptural and piimitive platform of equality or parity, in the fraternal relation of " brethren," " earthly vessels," " ministers," by whom sinners " believe," and saints are " edified," " that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of them."* Now the former of these systems is what we call Prelacy. The latter, Parity. The difference, in a doctrinal aspect, is that of the ministration of the law, and that of the Spirit.^ The one is the religion of sense or of (1) 2 Cor. 4 : 7. (2) 2 Cor. 3. * I say, systems. For while, under certain circumstances, schism, as I have remarked, may exist separate from heresy (as in the instance recorded 1 Cor. chap. 3), yet, when it partakes of the character of that narrated in 1 Cor. chap. 12, resulting, as did that, in the exclusion of others, clerics and laics, from the kingdom of Christ, it inevitably in- volves heresy, if that he heresy, which consists in arrogating powers or functions by divine right, which do not belong to it. This double sin, I repeat, under such circum- stances, cannot be separated. XXxiv TO THE HEADER. nuture, because it is adapted to the requirements of the natural man, and leads to the observance of and to trust in, the efficacy of mere ceremonial observances.' The other is the religion of faith.* The one gendereth to bondat/e.* The other proffers and secures to the believer that " liberty wherewith Christ makes him free.* In the light then of the instructions aflforded by the conduct of the schismatical and heretical Diotrephes, we must beg to differ from, at least, the prelatical interpretation of the following passage from Jerome, if not, indeed, from that eminent Father himself. "Schism," says he, "is a se- paration [axt^ei; scindit) from the Church in the nature of an Episcopalis dissensio ;* from which prelatists argue that, " there being in that age" (namely, the IVth and Vth centuries) "no Christian congregation apart from, cr independent of, a bishop,"f that is, in the sense of " Nulla ecclesia sine Ujjiscopo"^" without a bisliop there is no church" — therefore, schism consists in a denial of the authority of, and a refusal of submission to, such a bishop or episcopate. By such an act of separation from the bishop, the ministry and sacraments of such become invalid, and, lemain- ing in that state of schism, they are not a church. But, that the above passage from Jerome will not warrant this prelatical interpretation of it, I submit, is evident from the fact that that Father de- clares, in the most explicit terras, that " the apostle speaks of bishops in- differently as being the same as presbyters." That, " with the ancients," (that is, from the lid to the IVth centuries) " presbyters were tlic same as bishops." That " before the devil incited men to make divisions in re- ligion, and one was led to say, ' lam of Paul, and I of Apollos,' churches were governed by the common council of presbyters." But, that " after- wards— a usage gradually took place that the chief care should devolve upon one. Therefore," says he, " as the presbyters know that it is by the custom of the Church (Ecclesiee. Consuetudine) that they are to be subject to him who is placed over them ; so let the bishops know that they are above presbyters rather by custom than by divine appointment, and that the Church ought to be ruled in common, "f etc. Jerome, then, and the early fathers before him, make the Episcopal regimen to have sprung up in the Church after the apostolic age, (and it matters not whether the interval of the change from the New Testament (1) Rom. 2 : 25-29. (2) Rom. 5 : 1. (3) Gal, 4 : 24. (4) Gal. 5 : 1. * S. Hieron. in Tit. c. 3. t Theoph. Anglicanus, etc., p. 29. For quotations more at large from Jerome, and also those fathers who preceded hinn, see chap. X., sec. 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this Treatise. . THE REAju^-.. platform was sixty or even forty years*) and place it on the ground, not of divine right, but of custom only, while they recognize in the broadest sense not only, but advocate the Preshyterial platform of the perfect equality of bishops and presbyters by divine right. Hence, the diflference between prelatists and Jerome regarding " the nature" of schism. They make it point against prelacy as though founded in divine right. He, as erected on the platform of " the custom of the Church," or expediency only. The writer, in opposition to both the above theories, is compelled to throw himself back upon the New Testament and early post -?i\)Oiio\\c ground of simple parity, and contends that schism consists in contra societas^ contra disciplinam, and contra caritatem, or opposition to the divinely con- stituted order, discipline, and communion of the Church. While the line of separation from the Church thus constituted, is contra dogmata, contra fidem, and contra veritatem,\ or opposition to the teaching, faith, and truth of the Gospel, as set forth by Christ and his apostles. Having, in the sequel of this Treatise, furnished the reader with what I deem a sufficiently extensive view of the different phases of the prelatical the- ory, Romish, Tractarian and Hobartian or High Church, it is unnecessary in this place to discuss the alleged distinction between Episcopacy as essential to the "being" and Episcopacy as essential to the " perfection," of "the Church," as advocated by the so-called Low Church party. I deem it as worse than a waste of time and words to preach, and write, and talk about the alleged Christian priesthood of " divers orders," as to whether it is of the "essence" or of the "order" of the Church, so long as the advocates of both theories claim to place them equally on the ground of a prescrip- tive or divine right. That both theories cannot occupy that ground, is un- deniable. As, in the course of human progress, the past history and pre- sent commotions which are " shaking the nations" of " the earth," demon- strate the folly of " mixed governments ;" in other words, " that there are no governments on God's earth possible but democracies or absolute gov- ernments ;"J so, on the other hand, of the strangely simultaneous shakings of " the heavens" ecclesiastical. These demonstrate, that as there is no " via media" between the prelatical theory as advocated by the Low Church party, and that of the Romanist, Tractarian, etc., except in the more modified * See our reply to Bishop Mcllvaine on this subject, Chap. VI., .330-333. Blondell and Dalleus affirm that it transpired in the third century. See Chap. X., sec. 4, of this Treatise. t Theophilus Anglicana, etc., by Christopher Wordsworth, D.D., London, 1842, p. 29. \ Speech of Gen. Shields, of Illinois, on the Kossuth resolution in the Senate of the United States, as reported in the N. Y. Sun of December 16, 18-51. XXXVl TO THE READER. form of its development ; so, there is no " via media" between it and that of Parity. And yet, judging from the constantly reiterated concessions of a7ipring, so he will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowl- edge of the truth : that Christ died for all ; that he has redeemed his people Dut of every kindred and tongue and people and nation ; that they are one in him, many members in one body, by one Spirit, and having one Lord, one faith, * " Old Truths and New Errors,"' by the Rev. Dr. Butler. (Prot. Churchman, Aug 3,1850. ' ^ 24 one baptism, one God and Father. All Christians believe that all Christians have such fellowship ; but it may be erroneously beheld, on one side as a mat- ter of mere organic connection, or on the other as a matter of mere individual feeling. These must be combined : a catholic feeling embraces all who love the Lord Jesus Christy and the catholic organism embraces all who have been bap- tized into Christ; and both are hostile to a narrow, miserable spirit of sectarian contentiony 2. — Strong language this. Not more so, however, than that employed by the same class of -writers in their exhibit of the theological and ecclesiastical differences, which exist between themselves and their awfi-prelaticai neighbors. The impression thence arising is, that it is but ' a paper wall ' — the mere ' shadow of a shade,^ of difference, that separates them. Thus Bishop Smith of Kentuck}^, in a recent publication on the " Position of Epis- copahans in relation to Christians of other names," says : — " Partially separated as we are, if we really fully understood one another, how delightful our intercourse might be. Almost perfectly agreed in the great doc- trines essential to the glory of God and the salvation of men ; still more nearly agreed as to all the exercises, struggles, and conflicts which signalize the true life, the inner life of the really converted child of God, and which ought to form the main staple of our personal intercourse ; and more perfectly agreed still in the word of God to be read, the sacred hymns to be sung, and the sub- stance of the prayers to be offered together to our common Redeemer and Lord ; how profitable, how delightful might be the interviews of the clergy with each other in their stxidies, and of truly Christian people with their fellow- Christians of other names, in their families, and by their f resides ; if all would agree to dismiss, at such times, from their thoughts the points upon which they differ, and to allow none to be introduced but those in wnich they agree, or can differ in love. A slight diversity imparts a certain spice to such intercourse. Who has not felt his soul refreshed by a conversation based, or a supplication breathed, upon idea-s and in forms of expression a little different from those long stereotyped and in familiar use 1 Who has not felt, whilst giving hospitality to a truly pious clergyman of a denomination different from his own, that he has been '■entertaining an angel unawares''? Oh! when will the day come when cases of this kind will be as general, as the exceptions are now rare ^"* 3. — The same holds true of their denial, as a sequence of their alleged theory, of what is technically termed " the unchurching dogma " of the other schools. Thus, Dr. Stone, in his exposition of the Preface to the Ordinal, namely : " It is evident unto all men," etc.,f remarks on the words " this," " the," " Christ's," etc., as follows : * Prot. Churchman, Sept. 14, 18-50. ■f " It is evident unto all men, diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church, — Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Which offices were evermore had in such reverend estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are requisite for the same ; and also by public prayer with imposition of hands, were approved and admitted 25 " Had the word been ' the,' instead of ' this,' or ' Christ^s^ in- stead of ' this,' it would have made a vast diJfference of meaning. It would have made our Ordinal declare what our Church herself has never declared, and what, I repeat, till she loses her Protest- antism, she cannot be made, by her high authority, to declare, that, without an episcopacy^ there can be no such thing as a min- istry in the Church of Christ."* So Dr. Butler, in his " Old Truths and New Errors," etc.—" We have shown that while our Church has stated, in general terms, what conditions are necessary to constitute Christian societies true churches, she has not so defined what shall be considered a fulfill- ment of these conditions for other churches^ as to enable us to go through Christendom and dogmatically determine which so-called churches are triLe, and which are/a?se."f And so, finally, " The Protestant Episcopal Society for the Pro- motion of Evangelical Knowledge," in a recent "Statement of ^ir digtinotive principles :" " That Episcopacy is essential to the being of a Church, so that under no circumstances of exigency, can a Church exist without it ; and that, therefore, all societies not in connection with a Bishop episcopally consecrated, are no part of the Catholic Church ; their ordinances being invalid, and their members with no hope of salvation, save in what are called ' the uncovenanted mercies of God ;' we do not hold and shall not teach. Where the fundamental truths of Christianity are held, Christ Jesus loved in sincerity, and the fruits of the Spirit plainly manifested ; though we may lament a want of completeness in the min- istry, and pray and labor that the defect may be supplied, yet, we neither dare nor desire to say of such, that they are not of ' the blessed company of all faithful people ;' ' members of the mystical body of Christ,' which is His Church," &c4 Similar extracts to those here given might be furnished to any extent. It is, however, unnecessary to multiply them. The prac- tical tendency and actual results of this exhibit of the Constitution of the Church Episcopal, is what now concerns us. We remark, then — how natural, how reasonable, to infer, in the light of such statements, that there is a radical difference between their thereunto by lavd"ul authority. And therefore, to the intent that these Orders may be continued, and reverently used and esteemed in this Church, no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in this Church, or suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto according to the form hereafter following, or hath had Episcopal Consecration or Ordi- nation.'' * The Church Universal, p. 132. t The Prot. Churchman^ Aug. 3, 1850. J The Frot. Churchman, Sept. 21, 1850. 26 theory of Prelacy and those of the Uohartian and Tractarian schools. Uence it is, that both the clergy and laity of " other de- nominations" habitually sympathize with them as purely Protest- ant and evangelical ; and I know of no anti-prelatical contro- vcrtist who has not conceded to them these points. The view current among them is, that this large and respectable portion of the Church Episcoj)al, at least for the most part, is in doctrine Calvinistic, and that their views of the ministry are so nearly Presbyterian^ that there is but the shade of a shadow of dif- ference between them. But the question is, are these things so f An answer involves the necessity of a reference — for which we must claim the indulgence of the reader for a short space— - to the history of the nse, etc., of English Episcopacy. Speaking of the High and Low Church parties, Hallam says — " About the end of William's reign [William III.], grew up the distinction of High and Low Churchmen, — the first distinguished by great pretensions to sacerdotal powers, both spiritual and tem- poral, by a repugnance to toleration, and by a firm adherence to Tory principles ; the latter by the ojy-posite characteristics."* But, which was the^rs^, in the order of time? To this we an- swer, the Low Church party. And what were their views of the orders, powers, etc. of the ministry ? We answer, that, Henry VIII. having thrown off the Papal yoke, and set up a Church of his own (and of which he and his successors became the supreme head, both in temporals and spirituals), the first English Reform- ers under his reign and that of Edward VI., namel}^, Cranmer and his coadjutors, though they adopted the Episcopal form of the ministry in the three orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, as best adapted to the exigencies of the " Reformed Church of Eng- land as by law established," yet placed it, not on tlie ground of prescriptive or divine right, but of expediency f alone; a theory * See Hallam, p. 623. •| The most porfect form in which this system of Episcopacy, on the ground of expe- diency, now extant, is that adopted by that targe and respectable body — "TiiR Metho- dist Episcopal CinrRCH." Take in illustration the following extract from the '' Meth. Quarterly Review'- for Jan. 184.'), from an article by the Rev. Geo. Peck, D.D., on the recent controversy between the Rev. Drs. Potts and Wainwright. Dr. Peck says : — " It is remarkable that the note-writer, who takes frequent notice of the Methodists, though he sometimes classes them with ' Mormons,' and all sorts of fanatics, still arrays them against the Presbyterians, on the side o^ Episcopalians. Now we protest against this classification. The Methodists, in this coinitry, have adopted an Episcopal form of government, as, according to Archbishop Whateley, they had a perfect right to do. But Methodist episcopacy is based upon, and grows out of, the presbytery. It is an 27 which, whenever and wherever it has obtained, has always recog- nized and advocated the absolute eqitality of Presbyters and Bi- shops, hy divine right, as constituting one and the same office.* And in doing this, they but threw themselves on the old platform, on which, toward, the close of the second century, this theory of episcopal government on the ground of expediency, was first adopted. And, I would here remark by the way, that their action in this particular furnishes an interpretation of the testimony of the early Fathers on this subject, which has tne highest claims to the respect of every Anglican and Anglo-American Churchman. These authorities, embracing the earliest and purest writers of an- tiquity, are given at large in the following Treatise : — Clem. Eomanus, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenseus, TertuUian, Origen, Cyprian, Firmilian, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Jerome. These testify that the above-named regimen prevailed in the Church (though not exclusively) from the close of the second and onward for several succeeding centuries. And, to their testimony may be added, to the same effect, that of all the Christian churches in the world, down to the time of the Reformation — the African, Greek, Western or Roman, Lutheran, German Reformed, French, Wal- densian, Scotch, etc.f And, Anally, as to the adoption by the first English reformers, of this theory of the parity of Bishops and official relation concerted for the harmonious action of the great itinerant scheme, and the better government of the Church. But it claims no divine right or apostolical succes- sion, as these things are understood by High Churchmen, for its basis. In the great con- troversy between Presbyterians and Episcopalians, upon apostolical succession, we sym- bolize with the former and not with the latter. Our episcopacy is not antagonistic to Presbyterianism as we understand it, but is the very modification of it which Baxter, Gillespie, and many of the reformers seemed to have in their conceptions, but did not realize in history. An exception to this remark, perhaps, should be made of the German Lutherans, who have a superintendency, or an episcopacy, somewhat similar to ours. We are not, then, to be ranked among Episco^mlians, when the great essential elements of their creed, episcopacy yitre divino. and s. personal succession of Bishops from the Apos- tles only having the right of ordination, are taken into account. We are at war with these principles, not because we ivould have, but cannot obtain, what our secessionists call ' a legitimate episcopacy;' but because we believe this episcopacy to be contrary to Scripture, and destructive of true Christian unity. No, gentlemen ; we do not want your ' succession.' We would not thank you for it. We reject it as a usurpation, and would in no case descend to accept it at your hands. We understand what our note- writer means by ' the wishes of the Methodists, who would have it if they could, and might if they would.' — P. 12. Now, dear Mr. ' Anti-sectarian.' we wish you to under- stand, if indeed you are capable of learning anything, that ' the Methodists' have no ' wishes' for your 'episcopacy,' even ' if they could' have it without price ; and though they knew very well, before they were told by you, that they 'might if they would' join your church, and come under the jurisdiction of your episcopacy, they will not be very likely to avail themselves of that gracious proffer. They have a legitimate, scrip- tural, primitive episcopacy, and they have no itching to exchange it for one whose high- est boast is that it is in the line oi Roman popes. '" * See Part If. of this Treatise on this subject. t See Part III. of this Treatise. Chap. X., Sec. II., III., IV., V. 28 Presbyters^ jure divino, we refer tlie reader in proof to two acts, both published by royal authority, — ^the first, " a declaration made of the functions and Divine institution of Bishops and Priests," etc. ; and the second, " A declaration of the Christian doctrine for ithe necessary erudition of a Christian man," etc., both of which will be found in this Treatise,''^ But, the doctrine of the perfect identity of Bishops and Priests :as a " Divine institution," forms the corner-stone in the founda- tion— the key-stone in the arch, of Preshyterianism. Ergo, — The ministry of " the Reformed Church of England as by law established," was Pkesbyteriajst ! We now remark that, the Rev. Mr. Chapin's ipse dixit to the con- trary notwithstanding, this Presbyterial form of ministry in the English Church remained unaltered from the year 1545 to 1662 — a period of more than one hundred years — at which time was passed " the act of uniformity ^''^ so called, by which, no person, unless Episcopally ordained, was allowed to hold a living in the English Church.f This brings the history of this affair down to .the time of Laud. True, Bancroft, Archbishop Whitgift's chap- lain, A.D. 1594, and Saravia and Sutcliflfe before him, had written against Beza, the successor of Calvin, who, in a.d. 1566, had written a defense of ministerial parity, etc. True also, that Whit- gift himself joined with the others against Beza. But, to Arch- bishop Laud belongs the honor (a.d. 1604) of having first intro- duced the doctrine of Episcopacy by divine right into the English Church. Two other facts are worthy of special notice in this connection. The first is, that during the above interval, that is, from the time of Cranmer down to " the act of uniformity," a large number of ministers with no other than Presbyterial ordination were admitted to livings in the English Church. The second, that, during the same interval, the Archbishops^ Bishoj^s^ and Clergy of the English Church were^ in doctrine, thoroughly Calvinistic. In the light then of these facts, what follows ? Why, that the original principles of the English reformed Church consisted, 1. Of the adoption of Episcopacy on the ground of expediency, as a mere ecclesiastical arrangement, thereby restoring to that * See Part ITI, of this Treatise, Chap. X. Sec. IV. t Burnet's History of his own Times, Vol. I. p. 332. 29 cliurch the scriptural and primitive parity of the ministry — " that priests and bishops, by God's law, ake one and the same ; and that the power of ordination, etc. belongs equally to both."* And hence, 2. Of the admission of the /aZZ and absolute yahdity of the MINISTRY of the foreign Presbyterian and other churches. And, 3. Of preaching and advocating those doctrines of grace com- monly called Calvinistic. It is scarcely necessary to add, that the original compilers of the standards of that church — the liturgy and articles — fully recog- nized " the church character" of " other denominations." Thus much then of the Low Churchism of the Anglican Epis- copal Church, during the first century of her existence. That there are now, in the Anglican and Anglo- American branches of that church, both among her clergy and laity, those who still adhere to these original principles, we admit. But, that that large body which, under the cognomen of Evangelico-Pro- testant Low Churchmen, claim to be the representatives of those principles, actually repudiate them, we shall now, regardless of consequences to ourself, proceed to show. First. In regard to the article of their alleged Evangelicism. Now, the great body denominated non-episcopal of all names, taking the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England in their natural or grammatical sense, understand the Vlth., which treats ^^ of the Sufficiency of Holy Scripture for Salvation f^ the IXth., which treats " of Original or Birth-Sin ;" the Xth., " of Free- Willf^ the Xlth,, " of tlie Justification of Man ;" the Xllth., " of Good WwksT the Xlllth., "o/ Worhs before Justification f' the XVIth., "o/" Sin after Baptism f and the XVIIth., " of Predestination and Election ;" the XXVIIth., " of Baptism ;" and the XXYIIIth., '■'■ of the Lord^s Supper f as inculcating those doctrines of grace denominated Calvinism. But, is this the sense in which the party claiming that appellation in the Protestant Episcopal Church, understand and use it ? We submit the following in reply : The Protestant Churchman^ of May 17, 1851, in an article headed the "Pseudo-Evangelical Party," quotes with approbation the "remarks" of the editor of the Western Episcopalian — the * Buniet's History of the Reformation, Vol. I , p. 372. t The organ, as is known, of the Low-Church paity. 30 accredited organ of the Diocese of Ohio, under the episcopal supervision of the Right Rev. C. P. Mcllvaine, D.D., — on an arti- cle in Tlie Churcliman of the 26th ult., under thd head " Lim- ited Atonement," the following. The editor of Tlie CTiurch- inan having said, "This dogma" (namely, "Limited Atonement") " is one of those which distinguishes the Pseudo-Evangelical party," etc. — meaning the Low Church party, the editor of the Western Ejpiscopalian remarks as follows : " Here, then, we are furnished with a criterion by which we can ascertain who are members, and determine the extent of that party which he calls Pseudo- Evangelical. It does not exist in Ohio. We have heard many Evan- gelical clergymen preach, have heard some who were called Calvinists, and some who called themselves Calvinists, though the number is small, and never yet heard from an Episcopal pulpit the doctrine of a ' limited atonement.' We therefore think the 'Pseudo-Evangelical Party,' at which The Churchman often sneers, inust be a very small one, and not worth his notice. As a candid and ho- norable man, he would not of course attempt to confound, in the minds of his readers, the ' Pseudo-Evangelical Party.' Avith the evangelical portion of the Church, many of whose prominent men are noted Arminians, and all of whom claim no higher title than that of being good Bible and Prayer-Book Church- men." Again. In the Protestant Churchman of July 12, 1851, in a communication headed the " Evangelical Knowledge Society," the correspondent is defending said society against an attack from the editor of The Chitrchman, who represents it on a certain occasion as " coming near to explode." The occasion alluded to is thus explained. The " E. K. S." had published a book under the title of " The Key to the Prayer-Book," in which it was after- wards found that " there were a few sentences which showed the author to be a doctrinal Calvinist, as it is now known and admitted that the Reformers were TO A MAN." Well, what was done with the book on this account ? Why, this writer informs us that, " at the next annual meeting of the Board of Directors, the book being objected to by some, it was promptly withdrawn ,/" and that too, though in other respects the writer declares it to have been " a most excellent book, well worthy the purchase and study of* every Churchman," etc. Here then is a " Society," instituted within the pale of the Prot- estant Episcopal Church, for the avowed purpose of promoting "Evangelical Knowxedge" within its bounds, "PROMPTLY" throwing aside "a most excellent book" — "A Key to the Prayee-Book" — for the simple reason that it contained " a few 81 sentences whicli showed tlie author to be a doctrinal Calvinist," aje, and that too, though " it is now known and admitted that the reformers were Galviuists, even TO A Mx\N !" Similar extracts might be addaced from the same source, to almost any extent. But, " a word to the wise is sufficient." Not that we mean to affirm, that none are to be found within the pale of the Protestant Episcopal Church who are truly evangelical and Protestant. Such, doubtless, there are, as we have said, both among the clergy and laity of that church. But we do affirm, that that " number is small" — " very small." We also affirm — • and that on the authority of the Protestant GJiurcliinan — ■ Second. That between the pkelatigal theoey of that " very small number," and that of those claiming the appellation of " Evangelical Low Churchmen," there is a difference, wide as the nether i^oles. Take the following in illustration : A correspondent of that journal, in an article bearing date May 81, 1851, under the head of "Diversity of Opinion and Liberty of Action," in treating of the divisions prevalent in "the Church," says — " It is not to be denied that there is among the members of the Episcopal Church a very great diversity of opinion." In classi- fying these, he divides them into — 1. Those who " profess to hold Episcopacy on the ground of its expediency''' only ; and 2. Those " who hold a sacramental system^ These, he says, are the two " extremes" into which " the Church" is divided. But between these, he places "several other classes," as — 3. Those who maintain that " Episcopacy is essential to the per- fection of a church ;" and 4. Those who take the ground that Episcopacy is essential " to the existence of a church." Now, of the two sects or parties forming the " extremes" into which " the Church" is divided, this writer says of the first^ that, " to hear them talk, one would judge that it was any thing hut expedient to be ruled by bishops," and that " their sympathies are q}1 outside of the body to which they are nominally attached," etc. "While of the second^ he says, that "their sacramental system is difficult to be distinguished from that of Kome, the sacraments being made by it the sources of grace^ the new-birth universally talcing 32 place in Baptism, and the new-creature being nourished in the Lord's /Supper." They also, lie adds, " substitute the visible Church in the. place of its Invisible Head,'' etc. ; a distinction this, we remark, which, if taken in connection with what we have said of the origi- nal principles of the Anglican Church, is precisely analogous to that given of the High and Low Church parties by Hallam. Again : Our Correspondent, in speaking of the other two classes — Nos. 3 and 4, represents them as being " within the extremes." He certainly, however, cannot mean that they are both independent of this last named " extreme." At least, this cannot be true of No. 4, or those who take the ground — ^^ Nulla ecclesia sine episcopo" — that "Episcopacy is essential to the exktence of a church." For, in speaking of them, he tells us that they " believe in the especial efficacy of the sacraments" etc. And, as it regards sect No. 3, he tells us that they affirm of " Episcopacy," that it " is essential to the perfection of a church," etc. But, we ask, What is the difference between this theory, and that which makes Episcopacy ^^ essential to the existence of a church?" In other words, of what value is an existing imperfect church, in carrying out the designs of its divine Founder ? of a church loanting in those very essentials, without which its ministry and ordinances are declared to be invalid, and of no effect ? "It is evident unto all men," therefore, that both theories, de facto, are founded on the same hypothesis— "iVwZ?a ecclesia sine episcopo" — " No Chtibch WITHOUT A Bishop." Episcopal bishops, "essential to the perfection of a church." This, then, is the admitted theory of the so-called Low Church advocates of prelacy. Hence, as we find, nothing is more common in their writings, when speaking of the constitution of "other denominations," than to represent them as " irregularly formed," and that they still continue "to be in an imperfect state;" that " when the despotism and corruption of Rome rendered a reforma- tion necessary, and the awful abuses of priestly power created a natural prejudice against the whole hierarchy," it "made it easy for the conscientious judgment" of such of the continental reform- ers as Luther, Calvin, Beza, Zwingle, Melancthon," and a host of others, " to be led astray," and hence, as a gracious act of their Christian clemency, under the pretext that the ministry is "not ot 83 the essence, but only of the order of the church," they are pleased to consider that, " under the circumstances" named above, " the unnecessary abandonment of the apostolic ministry, although still a sin," is "greatly mitigated in the judgment of reason, as well as charity ; and the indulgent allowance of our merciful Eedeemer" may " well be supposed to pardon the deviation, and still bestow his blessing," etc.;* and especially in consideration of the fact, that the great Genevan Reformer, John Calvin, made the laudable though unsuccessful attempt to obtain the episcopacy from the English bishops !f in view of which, and in the hope that those of the present day who sympathize, with the Presbyterianism of that involuntary schismatic, are not entirely beyond the reach of recov- ery, the members of " The Protestant Episcopal Society for the promotion of Evangelical Knowledge," inasmuch as they deeply "lament a want of completeness in the ministry" among them, we have the very encouraging assurance that they will not cease to " labor and pray that the defect may be supplied !" And yet, " the Protestant Episcopal Church is not exclusive I" How then comes it to • pass, that our correspondent of the Protestant Churchman, already introduced to the reader's notice as a repre- sentative of the so-called Low Church theory, thus summarily dis- poses of class No. 1. out of the four classes into which he has divided the aggregate body ? — those, I mean, who, placing them- selves on the original platform of the English Church, " hold epis- copacy on the ground of expediency''^ only. Having informed us that these constitute " a small number," he adds, " and we wish it were smaller." " Their sympathies" being " all outside of the body to which they are nominally attached, we often wonder they do not go at once to some quarter" [among the illegitimate brood of dissent] " better suited to their temperament." For, besides their aversion "to be ruled by Bishops, they can discover in both the doctrines and organization of the Church serious errors, and these are their topics. While they consider rubrics and canons of little account, they are fond of new measures for doing good, and engage more readily in them than in those prescribed by authority and of immemorial observances^ And, we here observe, that this * See Bishop Hopkins's second leUer on " The Novelties which Disturb our Peace," &c. 1844. t For a full vindication of that renowned reformer from the imputation of this state- ment, see Appendix. B. 3 34 correspondent, without doubt, is right. Consistency requires that they should do so. On the other hand, as this writer has the candor to admit, that " ALL" the other " classes," namely, Nos. 2, 3 and 4, '* are sincerely attached to the Church ; that they love the Liturgy^ Episcopacy^ and the cardinal doctrines of the Church ;" and having repudiated the Low Church principles established by Cranmer and his coadjutors in the English Church, we respectfully advise, on the same score of consistency^ that the editors, proprietors and patrons of the "Protestant Ciiuechman" cease all further "agitation" concern- ing questions about things which do not differ, and unite henceforth in co-operating with their more consistent compeers of the Tractarian school in the Support and extension of true Catholicity. The propriety of such a course, I submit, is apparent from the follow- ing considerations : First, Inasmuch as, on the one hand, there is not the least affinity between the systems of ministerial parity and modern prelacy, and hence that there can be no via media in regard to them, the former, if the trv£ scriptural regimen, proving the latter to be false, and so vice versa. So, on the other hand, Second : If the theory of Prelacy has claims which are founded in prescriptive or divine right, those claims being dependent, in the first place, on the fact of its antitypal relation to the orders in the Levitical Priesthood ; and second, in the fact of its- appointment by Christ and his Apostles to the exclusion of all others, it follows, — that any attempt to escape the consequences of its adoption, such, for example, as the denunciatory, exclusive and unchurching dogma of the Tractarians, through a via media by-way, is as "a house divided against itself" That the doctrinal and practical workings of the theory of Prelacy, as advocated by the so-called Evangelical Low Church sect, furnishes ample proof of this, we need go no further for evidence than that given in the extracts from their writings on pages 23-25. Take, for example. First: That from the "Church Universal," by the Rev. Dr. Stone. Now, that learned divine, it is presumed, would be slow to allow that the church of which he is a minister is not Christ's Church. But, then, if we understand him, it is indispensable that the phrase " Christ's Church" be inserted in the Preface to the Ordinal, in order to make good the allegation, that it unchurches others, etc. " The word ' Christ's,' instead of ' this,' " says he, 35 " would have made a vast difference of meaning," that is, it would have been equivalent to saying that his church was, par excellence^ " the" Church ; which, he adds, '* would not only make her, in theory^ unchukch a considerable portion of Christendom, but also pledge her to carry the unchukciiing edict into practice." But this, he adds, " I repeat, till she loses her Protestantism, she cannot be made, by her high authorities, to declare," etc.* What then must be the astonishment of the reader when informed that this very phrase, viz., " Christ's Church," stands out in bold stereo- typed relief in that very " Preface," and that it precedes the word " this" ? " It is evident," says this document, " unto all men dili- gently reading holy Scripture and ancient authors, that, from the Apostle's times, there have been these orders of ministers in CHRIST'S CHURCH : Bishops, Priests and Deacons," etc. ; *' and, therefore, to the intent that these orders may be continued and reverently used and esteemed in ^A?^," that is, " in Christ's Church," etc. Here, evidently, the word " this," being a " dis- tinctive adj€ctive,^^-f is the " substitute'^ of the word " Christ's." Ergo, Dr. Stone's Church, in the Preface to the Ordinal, is alleged to be " the" Church of Christ, to the exclusion of all others I But Dr. Stone says that his Church cannot unchurch others, " till «^ loses her Protestantism."" But, if our criticism as above be cor- rect, what, I ask, according to Dr. Stone's hypothesis of the *' Preface," becomes of her " Protestantism" ? Pass we now, Second: To the quotation from Bishop Burgess's Episcopal Charge on page 23 : "A Catholic feeling," says he, " embraces all who love the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Catholic organism embraces all who have been baptized into Christ ; and both are hostile to a narrow, miserable spirit of sectarian contention." " Never has it," that is, " the name Catholicity," " been more per- verted than when it has been made to designate exclitsiveness,^^ etc. But does the Bishop here mean to admit that those who have been baptized by a?i^i-prelatical hands, have been so "baptized into Christ," as that they belong to the " Catholic organism" of which he here speaks? Such, clearly, is the inference into which the reader is betrayed. ^^All Christians," says he, "believe that all Christians have such fellowship," that is, the " Catholic feeling" and * The Church Universal, p. 132, and note, t See Webster's large Dictionary on the word. 36 the " Catholic organism" are commensi'rate. Any other view of " Catholicity" is " made to designate eocclusiveness" But let the reader go on a little further and he will find in the same '* Charge" the following : " The excellency of our Church," says that pre- late, /'is, not that it stands apart as a sect claiming to he purer than all others." Oh, no; "but that it is, in fact, the kepkesen- TATivE of that Church which once included all Christians of our language and lineage. " Ilaving," he adds, " never abandoned that position, IT, that is, " Our Church," " is still the parent, the basis, THE BULWARK OF ALL THEIR RELIGION, AND UNITES THEM, THROUGH A FAITH TRANSMITTED FROM THE BEGINNING, AND THROUGH SaCRA- MENTS, IN AN EQUALLY LONG SUCCESSION, TO THE ORIGINAL FELLOW- SHIP OF THE Apostles," etc, "Mirabile dictu !" It turns out, then, after all, that those baptized by anz^i-prelatisls, belong to the true " Catholical organism" in no other sense than that of their de- riving, " through the /fecramente* o/" the Church Eiiiscopal KLiL THEIE EELIGION!" Yes, "IT"— the Church Episcopal— is " the parent, the basis, the bulwark" of ALL ! ! And that, through a " long succession,^'' traced back " to the original fellowship of the Apostles" ! ! ! How liberal ! how magnanimous ! how Catholic ! Such a theory of Prelacy justly chargeable with '■'■ exclusiveness^^ ! The thought, surely, could never enter the heads of any but such as are dupes to the blindness and bigotry of Presbyterianism, who ought rather to thank God that their salvation is rendered at least possible, if not certain, by being thus charitably encircled within the ea-pansive embrace of their Episcopal "Parent !" Nor is the Low Church Bishop Burgess alone in thus disposing of "other denominations." In a recent work in answer to the question, " What is the Church of Christ V and which comes to us under the imprimatur of the Tractarian Bishop of Maryland (Whittingham), the writer, having argued that the Church is not * Hence, the ground of the assumption, by a large body of prelatists — and which, in the earlier part of my connection with that church, I myself adopted— of the total in- validity of Presbyterian, which they esteem no other than lay baptism. This theory, however, is supposed to be confined entirely to the Tractarian and Hobartian sects. Not so. Of this class is the Rev. S. H. Tyng, D.D., the rector of St. George's Church, Stuyvesant square. Whether that reverend gentleman carries out his theory practically to ALL the proselytes from Presbyt'-rianism admitted to his church, — why, he may, or he may not. Those who are sufficiently interested in the matter can ask him. My pre- sumption is, that as — if I am rightly informed — he occasionally dispenses with the requisition, from such, of even the rite of confirmation, when it would prove a bar to their uniting themselves with his church, he may possibly observe the same rule with regard to baptism. 37 a "class," but a " society,"* assumes the hypotliesis that " the Church Catholic" is " not distinct from particular churches," all of which "must be associated into- one." He then proceeds to the inquiry", " in what consists that unity which brings us all together and makes us all oneT^ To which he answers, "It consists not in meeting together ; not in similarity of forms and rites ; not in similarity of faith ; not in unanimity ; not in supremacy of one head bishop," etc.f But " this principle of oneness con- sists in their origin" — " it is the having one beginning, the descent from one origin. ":j; And this " union must he based on transmission or descent — one of siiGcessionyi And thus, says he, " they are all derived from the parent clubj^% He then proceeds to state that " an overt act, whereby the Church is re- nounced^ is plainly the setting up or the joining a sOciet}'- which, not being one with the Church by lawful succession from the founder, Christ, yet claims to be regarded as if it were a portion of the Church of Christ." For, says he, "we cannot profess two faiths^''"' though he had a. little before said that the principle of the Church's unity " consisted not in similarity of faithj'' etc. ; " or belong, as it were, to two churches^ What then ? Oh, says he, " we must still account them within the pale of the Churchy if they have been validly received into it by the sacrament of baptism.'''''^ Otherwise, he argues, that " Baptism," being " initiator}^," it would be wholly at variance with the apostolic declaration, that there is one Baptism ; for it would increase the number of baptisms to the number of the particular churches into which the holy rite ad- mitted new members.** The above " overt act," therefore, of separation from the Church to the contrary notwithstanding, these dissenting schismatics all having received the " one baptism" at the hand of one " who lav fully''' (or validly) " administers bap- tism, "ff prior to said separation, whj^, they are all safe. We "account them" ALL "within the pale of the Church." And, this being " a c^wrc/i-member, and at the same time member of a society which is not a church," this immaculate prelatieal logician, Mr. Hill, would have all to know, "is nothing inconsistent or con- tradictory":}::]: ! I remark, in conclusion, that, from the striking * "What is the Church of Christ?" By George Hill, Shrivenham, Eng. Pub. by Brunner, Bait., Maryland. 1844. pp. 11-18. t lb. pp. 34-48. \ lb. pp. 48, &c. || lb. p. .-53. (j lb. .'53. T lb. pp. 102-104. ** lb. p. 20. tt lb. p. 24. \\ lb. p. 105. similarity both of thought and language which mark the extracts from these two writers, there is strong ground for suspicion that Bishop Burgess's tlieory of Chureh-Catholicitj was borrowed from the Tractarian, Mr. Ilill. But, by advancing a step further, it will be found that the lioinish Churchy in the plenitude of her charity^ claims to embrace, within her capacious pale, the schismatical subjects of the so-called " Protestant Church of England as by law established," and with them all those of the so-called dissenting sects. Thus, the Roman Catholic Bishop Purcell : " The Roman Catholic Church admits all sinners to repentance. She counts as belonging to her commu- nion all the children hajitized in Protestant communions, who die before they are capable of committing mortal sin, or who, liv- ing in invincible ignorance that they have been bred up in error, keep the commandments of God, and love him, as far as their knowledge of the divine nature will permit. All these belong to the soul of the Churchy and a/i^e consequently among the most PEECIOUS OF HER FOLD,"* &C. It is quite unnecessary to pursue this subject further. Enough has been said to disclose the real purpose and end of the so- called Evangelical or Low Church advocates of prelacy in the adop- tion of that mode which characterizes the advocacy of their theory. Stripped of its sophistical guise, it is found to be precisely identical with the Hobartian, Tractarian and Romish schemes of the same systeni. To pretend that the theory of ministerial parity, and that of modern prelacy, as advocated by Low Churchmen, are but '''•partially separated" by " a slight diversity ;" that the " Preface" to the Ordinal, on the hypothesis of Dr. Stone, does not " unchurch a considerable portion of Christendom ;" and that it is free from the charge of an " arrogant assumption of spiritual and priestly power, — those " extravagant claims of exclusive government and priestly power and grace" which they allege holds true against the Hobartian, Tractarian and Romish theories, and that therefore they cannot " go through Christendom and dogmatically deter- mine which so-called churches are true and which are flilse;" nor affirm that "all societies not in connection with a bishoj:) episco- pally consecrated, are no part of the Catholic Church, their ordi- nances being invalid^ etc. : while at the same time they affirm * See Debate with Campbell on the Roman Catholic Religion. Cincinnati, 1837. p. 72. of their churcli that, upon the combined authority of "holy- Scripture and ancient authors," she teaches that " it is evident unto all men^^ " what conditions are necessary to constitute Chris- tian societies trvs churches f and that their Church is "the PARENT, the BASIS, the BULWARK of ALL THE EELIGION" pos- sessed by their a^i^t'-episcopal neighbors, and claim that they are all " united to thcjn through a faith transmitted from the begin- ning through sacraments in an equally long succession," back " to the original fellowship of the Apostles," etc. ; such a system, I AFFIRM, CAN ONLY BE DESIGNED FOE PURPOSES OF DECEPTION AND FRAUD ! And, of all the extant theories of human device, calcu- lated, as I have said, " by good words and fair speeches to deceive the hearts of the simple," this theory of prelacy, thus disguised under a Protestant Evangelical garb, holds the foremost rank. IT IS THE MOST POWERFUL CONFEDERATE OF THE RO- MISH DELUSION! Pius the IXth well understands. the good service which it renders to his cause, in undermining the hulwarks of " REAL Protestantism," both in England and in our own coun- try. To it alone, I affirm,, is he indebted for his recent success in planting, in the very center of the so-called " Protestant Church of England as by law established," an Archiepiscopal See, with its twelve Bishoprics ! And, from the present aspect of things, his holiness, doubtless, entertains good hope of witnessing similar results from the same influences now so rife in our midst ! Presbyterians, do you demur to this statement of what I affirm as the real cause of the past and present progress of Romanism in the midst of us ? I appeal then to facU^ and ask : How do you account for the vast accessions from your " ranks " to those of the Episcopal Church ? Episcopalians, in advocating their system, triumphantly point to " the testimony of rio?z-Episcopalians " in its favor, as derived from " ilie number of the strongest and best men^ out of the Episcopal Churchy who are entering her foldj'^ On this subject, a recent writer says : — " The leaven is silently but powerfully at work. Truth is pervading the great mass of society. Prejudice is becoming disarmed, and here and there one, contimMxlly, are silently, and sometimes at great sacrifices, giving in their strongest testimony in favor of the Episcopal Church, even the testimony of their life. The following facts," he adds, " will speak for them- selves : — Of the American Bishops who have joined the Church 40 from other denominations, arc the following — Jarvis, Provoost, Bass, Chase, Brownell, Kavenscroft, Smith, Otey, [and to these he might have added Griswold, McHvaine, and McCroskey.] Of two hundred and eighty-five persons, ordained by Bishop Griswold be- fore 1841, two hundred and seven came into the ministry of the Episcopal Church, from other denominations. At least two-thirds of the clergy of the Church, in this country, are not educated Epis- copalians. And within the last thirty years, about three hundred ministers of other denominations have entered the ministry of the Episcopal Church." (Bishop De Lancey's sermon at the consecration of Bishop Eastburn, p. 34.) " The rapid advances of church prin- ciples among the Laity," continues this writer, " is another strong argument of the same character." — (Extracted from Reasons Why I am a Churchman, p. 21, 1844.) In illustration of this fact, it is only necessary to state, that, if rightly informed, of one single church — and that the largest in this city, St. George's, Stuyvesant square — out of about six hundred communicants, by far the greater portion is made up of proselytes from Presbyterian, Reformed Dutch, and Methodist and Baptist churches. Then again. I affirm that, so far as the article of Intant- Church-Membekship by Baptism is concerned, it is to be traced to a radical difference^ doctbinally, between "the Church" and their so-called " w?i!ra-Protestant " neighbors, regarding the nature, design, and end of Baptism. Of this I propose to furnish the proof as drawn exclusively from the practical use of that ordinance, by both bodies. The circumstances under which it is practically and habitually applied to the infant recipient, is the key to its doc- trinal interpretation, as held by the respective administrators. Of the difference then of which I here speak, as characteristic of "the doctrine of baptism," episcopal and anti-episcopal, the Low Church evangelical Bishop Burgess, in his recent charge on " Great Prin- ciples," etc., alluding to its administration by the latter, says, that it is founded on the principle of " LiMrrATioN." This is true. In chap, xxviii. of " the Confession of Faith," on the Article of " bap- tism," the IVth section reada thus : " Not only those that do ac- tually profess faith in, and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized." The article clearly limits the right of baptism to the " infants " of *' believing parents" — that is, " one or both of the parents,"by a cred- 41 ible profession of their faith, miist be communicants of the Church, to entitle their infants to baptism. But this principle of " limitation," the Church Episcopal con- demns. " Wide is the gate, and broad is the way" which she opens to her baptismal font. The children of Jews, Turks and Infidels, together with those who are nominally Christian (and such the " other denominations" hold to be all the non-communing baptized members of their respective churches), are alike admitted to its benefits. On what ground? " Oh," says the evangelical Bishop Burgess, " inasmuch as, by a numerous portion of surrounding society" — namely, Presbyterian pedobaptists — "these holy institu- tions"— namely, the sacraments — "are viewed as merely' a kind of profession of higher holiness ; a profession acceptable, if faithful ; needless, if not absolutely compelled by the strongest feeling;" — that is, as arising from a sense of religious obligation, etc., I, the apostohcal bishop of Maine, would have all to know, that we Epis- copalians " hold it wiser to jperfornii what we never promised^ than to promise what we may fail to jperformP Profound theology this ! and so consistent withal ! As though a " promise," or " vow," on the part of an adult, or by him in be- half of the infant or child, were not a component pakt of bap- tism! Not to speak of "other denominations," look at the pro- fessions and vows required and entered into, as set forth in the three haptismal offices of the American liturgy. Or, have the Bishop of Maine and his clergy commenced the work of reformation, by expungirig from their baptismal offices all professions and vows whatsoever ? The above language of his right reverence certaiply implies that he,. with his presbyters and deacons, regards the above professions and vows at most as a dead letter. Well then, we have at length arrived at this point. The absence of a "promise" or vow by a " parent," etc., is no bar to the bap- tism (in the Ejiiscopal Church) of an " infant." Indeed, so far from it, the chances are rather in favor of the more effectual reli- gious training of the child! The zeal of the "parent" in this work is increoysed, just in proportion as he finds himself relieved from the trammels of a religious vow, such as that imposed by the " limitation" principle of Presbyterians, which, the bishop tells us, leads "at length" to " 2i practical indifference to all things in reli- gion which are outward and visible, an indifference not seldom 42 disguised under the appearance of an excessive exaltation of tteir sanctity, by an " attempt to vindicate" for their " communions a character of unmixed purity," etc. Is it then, I ask, any marvel that, with such seductive blandish- ments to entice them, the Church Episcopal should secure to her- self such vast accessions from among the nori'Com'muning baptized members of anti-prelsitical churches, who, with the path thus smoothed down before them, can secure that for their children within h^r pale, which the scriptural requisitions of their own Church withhold? It is, however, the nature, design, and end of baptism, — in other words, its efficacy in a doctrinal point of view, as educed from its practical application as above, which most concerns us. As administered anti-prelatically on the principle of " limitations^'' it proceeds on the hypothesis of a denial of the opus operatum of that ordinance. In other words, it repudiates the Romish dogma of BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. Vicwiug baptism as a means to an end^ it proceeds throughout on the ground, that spiritual qualifica- tions on the part of the " parent" are indispensable, under God, to secure those gracious benefits to the "infant," of which its baptism is a sign and sealP* It teaches that, although " by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the coun- sel of God''s own will^'' yet that its conferment is reserved to " his appointed time^'' and affirms, expressly, that " the efficacy of bap- tism IS NOT TIED TO THAT MOMENT OF TIME W^HEREIN IT IS ADMIN- ISTERED."! Hence its uniform language to those who, though baptized, yet give no credible evidence of spiritual regeneration. " But unto the wicked God saith, What hast tliou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth ? seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words be- hind thee." • Now, that \}ci& opposite to this "doctrine of baptism," or the opv^ opcratum theory of baptismal regeneration, results from its un- limited application by the Episcopal Church, is evident from the fact of its dispensing with the spiritual qualifications of the pa- (1) Ps. 50 : 16, 17. ♦ Conf. of Faith, Chap. XXVIII., Sec. I. t lb., Sec. VI. rent as required in the former case. This very circumstance, of itself I contend, imbues the mind of the " parent" with a sort of ideal efficacy of that rite. And, happy in finding himself relieved of responsibilities which he feels it would be profane for him to assume, or if assumed, that they are only in conformity with ritual usage ; and proud of the privilege of placing his child on a com- mon footing with the covenant " seed" of the Church ; under this persuasion he presents them to their baptismal font. But it is denied by the so-called Low Church or evangelical ad- vocates of prelacy, that they administer baptism in that sense. Do they then, I ask, administer the ordinance on a moj'e limited scale than that of the High Churchman, the Tractarian, or the Komanist ? So far from it, all proceed on the principle that, to do so, would involve the grossest act of schism agkinst the standard doctrine of their baptismal office. The measure of their failure to reconcile their denial of the ojous operatum of the rite with their unlimited extension of it to all, is the general prevalence of the opus operatum dogma within their pale. On this subject Dr. Aydelott, already quoted, speaking of the different theories which have obtained in the Episcopal Church regarding it, says that there are applied to it the " three constructions" following, viz. : the first " is the doctrine of the opus operatum applied to baptism," which " explains it as teaching that every subject of baptism is thereby spiritvxilly regeneratedP The second holds it " as teaching only an ecclesiastical regeneration ; that is, a change of circumstances, a transfer by this solemn rite from the world to the Church, etc. The " third class maintain, that neither a spiritual nor an ecclesi- astical regeneration is taught in the baptismal office, as taking place at the administration of the rite," but that it ''is clearly hypotheti- cal^ etc. ; which last is that adopted by our Low Church author,* who tells us that " this view of the baptismal office has a large number of supporters," etc.f And yet this very learned divine speaks thus of this identical ^^ baptismal office'^ : — " There is certainly," says he, " no part of the prayer-book so open to objection as this ; none that has so grieved * I would here remark, for the information of the reader, that the above and all that follows, in connection with the name of Dr. Aydelott, was penned before his secession fronri the Episcopal Church. As the use I make of the quotations from his book but speak the sentiments of those represented by him therein, they are retained unaltered. t Condition and Prospects of the Protestant Episcopal Church, pp. 112-115. 44 the hearts of good men from the very first. In a ministry, little short of thirty years," lie adds, " the writer has never conversed upon the service with an intelligent, pious lay member of our Church, whether male or female, who did not express regret at some of the exjjressions employed in it ; neither has he met with a clergyman, at all evangelical in character, who did not profess a desire to see some change in it, etc.* Nor is this all. Speaking of the character and tendency of his own theory of that " baptismal office," and which he declares to be " so clearly liypotlietical^'' he says : — ** "We cannot but confess, that we regard a form of baptism in- volving SUCH AN HYPOTHESIS, as, to say the least, VERY PERIL- OUS. Carefully thinking, pious men may not be placed in much hazard by the use of it ; but the great mass of the people will, we fear, be continually liable to put a positive construction upon the service, and thus be in danger of either running into the Popish doctrine of baptismal regeneration^ or of rejecting the service as Popish, and ultimately quitting the Church altogether ;f or, after struggling for light on the subject a while in vain, of settling down contented with no clear, definite views whatever." And he adds : " In this last state we have reason to apprehend that the great mass OF OUR PEOPLE, and NOT A FEW OF OUR MINISTERS, really are at this moment.'''''}^ Thus much then in reference to the Low Church theory of their " baptismal office." In view of it and of the other two theories, how obviously " vain" the struggle, amid the interminable jargon of conflicting statements respecting it, to escape the consequences here pointed out ! The lamentable ignorance of " not a few" of the Episcopal clergy, thence arising, taken in connection with their unlimited application of the rite, and the either positive or implied release of the "parents" from a sense of religious responsibility to the baptized ; and what wonder that " tlte great mass of the people!'' should imbibe, as a consequence, " tlie popish doctrine of hap)tismal regeneration^^ ? Br. Aydelott can find, within the pale of the Church, " a large number of supporters" to the " clearly hypothe- tical" theory of the "baptismal office," while " the great mass of ♦lb., pp. 111-112. t As, since writing his book, he has himself done. X Cond. & Prosp., etc., pp. 115, 116. 45 the people" aud " not a few" of its " ministers," he affirms, have " no clear, definite views whatever" of what that " baptismal office" teaches. But, be that number large or small (and I not only admit but contend that it is " not a few"), where, I deferen- tially ask, is there room for a choice between their own alleged " clearly hypothetical" theory of the " baptismal office," which the learned Doctor declares to be of a " very perilous" tendency, and the " Popish doctrine of baptismal regeneration" into which "the great mass of the people" by it, are "continually liable" to be be- trayed ? How, in view of this admission, can we escape the in- ference that this " clearly hypothetical" theory " is, in fact, but a step or two, and those very short ones," from that of Rome? Clearly, " no one who stands at tlie first point," — viz. : this " very perilous" " hypothetical" theory, "has a right to find fault with those who have gone onward to the second." But, the " carefully thinking, pious" portion of the laity of the Church, and those of the clergy who. are " at all evangelical in character," the Doctor tells us, "desire to see some change" in their " baptismal office." First, then, what, according to his ac- count, is "the number" of such? And, First, of the clergy. The reader will here bear in mind, that the statements made by Dr. Aydelott regarding the matters in hand, are the results of " thirty years " close observation, as a minister of the Episcopal Church. In the second chapter of his book, having insisted on a " spiritual character and call " as a ne- cessary qualification for the ministry, in answer to the question, — " Have we been sufficiently careful to ascertain, so far as man in the light of God's word can judge, whether those who apply to be admitted to the ministry are really themselves regenerated men, and called by the Holy Ghost to preach the gospel," etc., he says : — • " He had been somewhat conversant with examinations for the ministry in various parts of the Church ; and never, except on a single occasion, has he known a question put to a candidate, the object of which was to ascertain whether he had proper views of the sacred office and a call to it, or had been himself the subject of that spiritual, holy change which is essential to Christian cha- racter." To this he adds, that " He cannot but fear that many un- converted men — men who know nothing spiritually of the truth 46 and grace of the Lord Jesus, Lave been admitted to the ministry of the Church."* Next, of the laity. "It is a divine maxim," says the Doctor, " Like priest like people." " Can we be surprised then," he adds, " at the rapid spread of Puscyism and other Popish developments throughout our borders ? Why Romanism in all its forms is just the religion of the natural man.,^^ etc.f And again, — "Popish er- rors, both doctrinal and practical, supposed to be long since dead, never to be revived again, have become rampant, while truth languishes in our midst, and the Spirit of God withholds his refreshing influences. All complain of the little fruits of their preaching ; a deadness seems to have come over iJie whole Chwch ; while here and there a voice is heard to protest against the fatal errors," etc.:}: The Doctor also speaks of the general ad- mission of persons to Confirmation and the Lord's Supper, with- out any regard to their spiritual qualifications ; by which, saj^s he, "the thoughtless, the worldly, and the self-deceived have been pressed forward in throngs to the altar!" And again: " Yery many unconverted men have found their way into our churches — some thoughtless, some self-deceived, and others still worse, but ALL worldly, worldly !"|1 And, speaking of the " evils" thence resulting, he says that they exist " not merely in one or two parts," but they are" found running through nearly the whole of our ecclesiastical fabric, from the vestry upward to the general con- vention f so that not only may their "vestries," "diocesan con- ventions," and " standing committees," — to all of which bodies are committed as well the spiritual as the secular affairs of the Church, — be composed of irreligious men ; but " a layman, without even the form of godliness, a perfectly worldly man, even an infi- del^ may take his seat in this our grand ecclesiastical council," — the general convention — " and thus exercise a controlling influ- ence in the most vital matters affecting our whole Church T^ The fair inference from the above statements we think is, that the clergy "evangelical," and the " carefully thinking, pious" por- tion of the Church Episcopal, who desire to see some change in the *Cond. & Prosp., &c. pp. 18, 20. t lb., p. 20. Jib., p. 13. y lb. pp. 48, 49. i lb., Chap. IV., pp. 30-39. 47 " baptismal office," compared with " the great mass of the people" who are popishly inclined, must be very small. But, second. — On what ground can this "desire" be predicated? Of course, of none other than such a change in the " baptismal office," as will totally and for ever exclude from it the opiis opera- turn dogma — and that for the reasons following, namely : that dogma involves the theory of sacramental grace : and that again, the theory of the " exclusive government and priestly power" of episcopacy by divine right : and that again, the theory of an unbroken apos- tolical succession, without which there can be no church, no minis- try, no sacraments, no salvation : and that again, the theory of auricular confession and absolution, without which adjuncts the sacramental dogma is wholly incomplete and valueless : and that j^gain, — * * * * But we might as well stop here, and return- ing back to the so-called Evangelical or Low Church " clearly hy- pothetical" theory of the " baptismal office," and on the authority of one of its most distinguished advocates, say, briefly, it is be- cause, that, from its " very perilous" nature and tendency in ren- dering " the great mass of the people!'^ of that communion " conti- nually liable''' to run " into the Popish doctrine of haptism^al re- generation^^''Xh^rQioTQ, SQidi "change" is indispensable. In other words, it is because that, in the Low Church theory of that " office," are contained all the elements of that theory of sacra- mental grace, the efficacy of which is made to depend on their 'oalid administration " by the hands" of a mystic prelatico-episcopal priesthood, in uninterrupted succession from Christ and his Apos- tles, jure divino ; and of which the Hobartian, Tractarian, and Romish theories are but the more complete developments. As such, by the admission of those of the Episcopal clergy and laity " at all evangelical," (and the number of such, as I have said, is very, very small, compared with " the great mass" both of the clergy and the people,) this " clearly hypothetical" theory, this " very perilous" theory, equally with the others, stands diametri- cally opposed, doctrinally and practically, to that theory which harmonizes with the great cardinal Protestant principle of Justi- fication BY Faith alone. The former theory erects the " bap- tismal office" into an end, by making the spiritual renewal of the heart to depend on grace received in and AT the instant of baptism. Thus, both in the Anglican and American liturgies, tlie child being •«r 48 baptized, we read: "seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, thsA this child is REGENERATE," ctc, and again — " "We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regene- rate this infant with thy holy Spirit,^'' etc.* Now this, if we un- derstand that gentleman, is what the Eev. Dr. Butler in his book on " Old Truths and New Errors," pronounces " absolutely blas- phemous !" Of course it can be such on no other ground than that of its antagonism to the latter theory, which affirms that baptism is a means to an end : that " neither circumcision avail- eth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature!" But, on this dogma of " baptismal regeneration," of which the Low Church " clearly hypothetical" theory is one of three inter- pretations, RESTS THE ENTIRE FABRIC OF ProTESTANT EpISCOPACY ! Were this the time and place to do so, I could prove, from the earliest Christian antiquity, that the ideal of infant baptismal re- generation preceded, in the order of time, the introduction of a Christian sacerdotal ministry of three orders. The former was one of the stepping-stones, among others, to the creation of the latter. Suppose, then, that those of the Episcopal clergy, etc., who are " at all evangelical in character," should succeed in jRro- testaoitizing their present Romish " baptismal office." The entire fabric of Protestant prelacy would at once crumble into ruins. Its only safety consists in retaining the " baptismal office," AS IT IS ! This, amid the bewilderments of mind occasioned by the three dif- ferent interpretations given of it, will induce " the great mass of the people" " to settle down contented, with no clear, definite views whatever" of it ; and, happy in the reflection that " ignorance is bliss," and promotes " devotion ;" their triple united teachers will cast toward those of their brethren " at all evangelical in charac- ter," and who " profess a desire to see some change in it," a smile of complaisant defiance. What then? Why, I would say to my " dearly beloved breth- ren" of the really "evangelical" part of the Episcopal communion, seeing it is evident that the " clearly hypothetical" theory of the " baptismal office," is so " very perilous" as that it renders " the great mass of the people" " continually liable" to run into " the Popish doctrine of baptismal regeneration," I see not how you can do otherwise than " abandon this error altogether, and embrace a * See Amer. Prayer Book, Office for the " Public Baptism of Infants." • 49 scriptural Cliristianitj, and thus become -rkal Protestants." Such " real Protestants," the inference from Dr. Stone's argument as drawn from the language in the "Preface" to the Ordinal, clearly shows you are not now : In his great zeal to prove his Church truly " Catholic" in her relation toward her anfi-prelatical neighbors, the learned Doctor has completely rr^PROTESTANTizED her! and all that now remains to that learned divine, so far as I can see, is one of two alternatives ; either, first, to prove our reasoning regarding his hj^pothesis fallacious ; or second, to yield to the interpretation of the' "Preface" by the High Church party, and unite with them in denying that the appellation of " Pro- testant," forms a legitimate part of the title of " the Church." In illustration, witness, on this subject, the acts of- the Diocesan Con- ventions of New York, in 1839 and 1843, in corroboration of the efforts made by more than one Episcopal chair, to erase from their ecclesiastical escutcheon — the title-page of " the Book of Common Prayer" — ^and from all their authorized standards, the very name of " Protestant ;" and that, upon the ground, — as set forth in a communication on this subject, in the columns of The ChurcJi- Tnan of 1843,- — that " the title-page of the Book of Common Prayer contained prirna facie evidence of schism, and boldly re- commending a RE-uNioN wrrn Rome, on the common basis of the authorized decrees of Trent" ! This done, and — as we have said— the name of " Protestant Episcopacy" would soon be numbered among the things that were ! And, in regard to the " baptismal office," we must insist that, taken as it is, it leaves to every honest Churchman but one of two alternatives — Rome or Geneva — " CHURCHISM, by a perfectly natural process" — to use the lan- guage of Dr. Aydelott, — draws the mind and heart Romeward. Yes, " Churchism," in its most diluted and modified forms. To account for this, there is no assignable reason other than that found in the ever-to-be lamented fact, that, incorporated in the very " for- mularies of the Protestant Episcopal Church," as constructed by the reformers themselves, is the utterly incongruous leaven of the old Romish superstitions, with the 7ic>;^-jure-divino episcopacy and Calvinistico-evangelical doctrines, as originally set forth by them in those same standards. Thus, the Book of Common Prayer of Edward VI. is declared by the commissioners appointed to con- struct it (and of whom Cranraer was the head) to contain " every 50 thing sound and valuable in the Eomish missal and breviary," such parte having been " transferred by them, without scruple, to the English Communion Service, and to the Common Prayer." The same of the commissioners appointed by Charles II., a.d., 1661, to revise the liturgy. They say, " we humbly desire that it may be considered that our first reformers^ out of their great wisdom, did at that time compose the liturgy so as to win the Papists^ and to draw them into their church coinniunion^ by VARYING AS LIITLE AS THEY OOULD FROM THE E.OMISH FOEMS BEFORE m USE." With these facts, then, before us,, the protest of the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England against Popish errors, and her engraftment therein of the doctrines of the continental reformers, to the contrary notwithstanding, — and which, so far as they go, we concede to be both Protestant and evangelical, — it is clear, that, constituted as she now is, the Protestant Episcopal Church never can be reformed. The effects of incorporating into her reformed "formularies," the life-Uood^ so to speak, of the old "Eomish forms before in use," are first discoverable in exchan- ging the regimen of episcopacy as founded in expediency alone, for that of an episcopacy by divine right, and that for the simple reason, that the theory of. sacramental grace., as derived from "the Eomish forms before in use," demands for its basis, a ministry, — a priesthood— founded in ^'^ jprescriptive rightP To the same cause may be traced all those earthquake commotions which, since a.d. 1662, under Laud, during the time of Elizabeth, and for the fif- teen years last past, have shaken that Church to its center, and, from the present aspect of things in that body, as we have shown, the same Romanizing tendencies^ with but one exception, signalize all the various forms of development — the Tractarian, the Ho- bartian, and the so-called Evangelical Low Church forms — of the prelatical scheme. Otherwise, how is it, we deferentially ask, that, of the only portion (and that a " very small" portion) of those within that pale who adhere to the original platform of the first Enghsh reformers regarding Episcopacy and. the evangelical doc- trines of the Church, it is said that they are " outside of the body to which they are nominally attached?" Again, we ask, by what party is this "very small number" thus virtually excommunicated? The reply is, chiefly by the so-called Evangelical Low Church sect. 61 What follows ? We answer, The uprooting of the heart, the core, of all that is worth the name of Evangelical Protestantism within that body. Yielding, then, to the influence of your "evangelical" promptings, do as I and others have done, and are continually doing: — -"reject the (baptismal) service as Popish, and quit the Church altogether."* " Come out of Jier^ my jpeojple^ that ye he not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues /" ' And so, Presbyterians, and all others concerned, I would ear- nestly caution you, on the other hand, to " beware" of the insidi- ous blandishments of those so-called Evangelical or Low Church advocates of prelacy, who, assuming the Protestant name, conr ceal the proscriptive, exclusive, unchurching, Romish attributes of the prelatical theory, beneath the pretexts of great liberality, Catholicity, and Christian fellowship towards those of "other denominations," until, having seduced you within the inclosure of the Episcopal pale, as the curtain of disguise is gradually drawn aside, you find yourself inducted by piece-meal into all the mys- teries of the mystic faith, as really believed and taught therein. In the above pretexts, I forewarn you, lie the secret of the power of that proselyting lever so successfully plied by Low Churchmen in upholding and promoting the cause of prelacy. Then, " be- ware" of them. Ask these prelatists — if your " baptismal office" does not inculcate the Romish dogma of " baptismal regeneration," how comes it to pass that,^ by your own acknowledgment, even your own "clearly hypothetical" theory of that "office" is so "very perilous," as that " the great mass" of those brought under its influence are " continually liable" to be betrayed into that heretical, anti-Christian, soul-destroying heresy? Ask them, if, as you say, you are but " partially separated" by "a slight diversit}^," doctrinally and practically, from those of "other de- nominations," and that you "do not hold, and shall not teach," that those not " episcopal ly consecrated are no part of the Catho- lic Church, their ordinances being invalid," etc., and that, " whilst giving hospitality to a truly pious clergyman of a denomination different from your own," you have " been entertaining an angel unawares ;" how is it that, in view of such statements as these, you are not as ready to extend clerical civilities to them by an oo- (I) Rnv. IS : 4. * Dr. Aydelolt's Condition and Prospects, etc.. p. 116. '\S 52 casional exchange oi pulpits not only, but, as in the case of the English Church from which you sprang, allow them to settle in your churches, as to meet them " in their studies ?" Aye, further, why is it, when one such "angel" seeks to minister at your altars — one whose office you declare you " do not hold, and shall not teach" is invalid — that, before admitting him thereto, you insist on his re-okdination ? Ask them, liow do you harmonize the declaration, that " the name ' Catholicity' is never more per- verted than when it is made to designate exdusive7iess,^^ with the affirmation that " the Church" Episcopal " is the parent, the basis, the bulwark of all the religion" without, as well as within, her pale ? And, Christian brethren, when they can answer these and the like interrogatories in strict accordance with scriptural consist- ency and truth, and with historical fact, then, and not till then, can they honestly adopt the language of Paul following : — " For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in sim- plicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly toward you." ' Yea, then, and not till then, can they honestly say, — " For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God, but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God, speak we in Christ." ' In conclusion on this subject, I have only to add, that the pre- tenses of the so-called Evangelical or Low Church advocates of prelacy to the contrary notwithstanding, their theory of " Church- ism" is iivi^^j proscriptive and exclusive — equally founded on the basis of DIVINE bight, with those of the Hobartian, Tractarian, and Romish schemes. To the above, we now add, that all classes of prelatists equally maintain that their system, in its complete and distinct form, can- not be found positively set forth in, or that it is even strictly deducible from, the New Testament scriptures alone, and there- fore, that it depends for its support upon testimony superadded to Scripture. Hence, the traditionary scheme, Part I. of this treatise, is designed to demonstrate that this traditionarj^ scheme, being em- ployed to uphold the system of prelacy on the ground of divine right, must necessarily be co-ordinate, or of equal authority, with (1)9 Cor. I :13. (2) 2 Cor. 2 : 17. 53 ■*" Scripture, and hence, that tills Is as true of the Low Church, as of the Tractarlan and Romish theories of tradition. In opposition to this hypothesis, Part 11. claims to furnish the evidence, that the scriptures of the New Testament clearly reveal a complete scheme of that Church order, etc., which the Holy Ghost designed' for the ordinary and permanent upbuilding and edification of the Church, to the close of the present dispensation, and that the primitive ecclesiastical regimen of the Church con- sisted of the Dual Orders of Presbyter Bishops — in whom were merged the double functions of teaching and Tilling elders, and of Deacons. Part III. is devoted to an exhibit of the system of prelacy as al- leged to be founded in divine right: — that is, that it was instituted by Christ and his apostles, and by them was designed to be con- tinued in an unbroken succession of bishops, who were to be in- vested with the prerogatives of "exclusive government" in the Church, and of "priestly power" in dispensing "sacramental grace," to the end of time. I claim to have entered into a thorough examination of every position assumed, and of every fact and argument employed .in their defense, whether drawn from " holy Scripture," or " ancient authors," or whether advanced by the Romanist, the Tractarian, the Hobartian, or the Low Churchman. It is scarcely necessary again to repeat, that the main design of my treatise is to furnish the evidence, from their' own acknowl- edged standards and writers^ that the theory of prelacy as advo- cated by the so-called Evangelical or Low Church sect, contains all ih.Q elements^ and hence all the tendencies^ Homeward, as those of the Hobartian and Tractarian schemes, and that, with the single view of guarding the " unlearned" and unwary from the power of its more seductive blandishments. The work is committed to the blessing of Him who alone '■'■is able to heep tcs from falling, and to present us faultless lefore the throne of his glory with exceeding joy. '''' * Amen. R. C. SHIMEALL. 0) Judo, V. 24. PART I. PRELIMINARY ESSAY ON THE RULE OF FAITH.* THE SCEIPTURES ALOISTE, versus THE SCEIPTURES AISTD TEADITIOI^^. "To the Law and to the Testimony." (Isa. 7 : 20.) '* The Church hath power to decree rites and cerernonies, and authority in controversies of Faith." (.Boole of Common Prayer. Articles of Religion. See XX.) " Holy Scripture and Ancient Authors."' (Preface to Ordinal.) In the following Treatise we " speak concerning Christ and the Church.'" Christ, whom the Father " gave to be the Head over all things to the Church, which is His body."^ The Church, its Constitution and Ministry : the latter in the aspect of its Origin, Nature, Orders and Powers ; or, the " Gifts" conferred upon her (" when He ascended up on high")' as " holding the Head."* Now, that the Church, in her constitution, etc., from an early period subsequent to the New Testament age, differs essentially from the Church Apostolical and Primitive, the various claimants to an exclusive inheritance of the o?-iginal 7nodeI, abundantly It matters not now, in what these differences consist. What at present concerns us is, to fix upon an authoritative standard OF APPEAL, regarding the points at issue. Is it " the Bible, and the Bible alone "? or, is it " Scripture and Tradition" ? One or the other it must be. Both, it cannot be. The fact, however, that the latter theory stands identified, controversially, with all our in- quiries after truth, a decision of the question in favor of the one (1) Eph. 5 : 32. (2) Ih. 1 : 22, S3. (3) lb. 4 : 8, 11. (4) Col. 2 : !C. * Of the more elaborate helps in this important department, designed for popular use — as what I here offer is intended simply as an outline of the argument in defense of the Scriptures as the supreme and only authoritative Rule of Faith against the claims of Tradition as co-ordinate therewith — I know of no work extant so admirably adapted to the wants of the inquirer as that of the Rev. Georre Peck, D.D., entitled, "Appeal from Tradition to Scripture and Common Sense; or, an Answer to the Ques- tion. What constitutes the Divine Rule of Faith and Practice ? New York : Published by G. Lane and P. P. Sandford, for the Methodist Episcopal Church, at the Conference Office, 200 Mulberry street 1844." 56 or tlie other, is indispensable to a determination of tlie merits of the claims to our belief and trust of the systems respectively whieh they are designed to uphold. There is, we affirm, no other mode of escaj)e from the bewildering " labyrinth of opinions" now so rife in the nominally Christian Church. Either " the Bible, and the Bible alone," as the bulwark of Protestantism, is of itself suf- ficient and supreme, or it is not. If it is, then, undeniably, the sufficiency and supremacy of Scripture, as " the Rule of Faith," being predicated of its infallibility as attested by miracle, neces- sarily nullifies^ as authoritative, all other teachings, — tradition, oral, or written ; creeds, confessions,, the decisions of Popes or councils, or the " voice of 'the Church.'" As the only authori- tative standard of appeal, all alike are referable to, and must de- pendon, ^'fe decisions. Even the injunction, "Hear the Church,"' inasmuch as the Scripture shows us whicJt is the true Church by Christ speaking to us therein ;^ can impose no other obligation than that of a respectfid deference to her teachings as the inter- preter of Scripture through her ministry ; and that, not legis- latively or judicially, not making laws, &c., but simply in the sense of explaiiung those which God has already promulgated. Hence, while the Church speaks to us ministerially^ the Bible does so authoritatively. The Church does not " exercise dominion over our faith, but is a helper of our joy."^ And, if founded in truth, this theory involves the right, not only, but the iiecessity of _^^/'^'yai!6 interpretation. It contemplates revelation in the aggregate as addressed to the understanding of men ; and hence, that its truths are to be reached by that convic- tion which results from a proper use of the means ordained of God to that end, — a prayerful* searching' of holy Scripture, in dependence upon the guidance of that wisdom from on high," which is founded in the declared inadequacy of mere abstract reason.'' While, therefore, speaking of ' the Church' collectively, a self- sufficient, self-willed, litigious spirit is at war with that respect which is due to her decisions in matters both of doctrine and of discipline," and is to be condemned;' yet, arguing a p7'iori, that as ' the Church has erred, so she may err again ;* such a spirit is not to be confounded with the right of her individual members in the exercise of an enlightened judgment and con- science, to " be fully persuaded in their own minds"'" regarding all things pertaining to "the faith once delivered to the saints."" (1) A'fitt. IS : 17. (2) Fph 2 : 19-21. (3) 0 Cor 1 : 24. (4) Jamea 1 : 5. (5) John 5 : 39 ; Acts 17 : 11 ; i Pet. 1 : 10. (6) .James 1 : 6. (7) 1 Cor. 2 : 14. (8) Matt. 28 : 17 ; 1 Cor. 6 : 1. (9) Matt. 18 : 17 ; Titus 3 : 10. (10) Horn. 14 : .'J. (Il).)ijile3. * " General Councils may err.'" (XXXIX Articles. Art. XXI.) "As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Ronne has erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith." (lb. Art. XIX ) 67 Yea, more : There is a needs be that each one for himself " try the spirits" of his religious teachers, "whether they be of God- '* TRY theTTh which say they are apostles and are not^ hut are, found lia7's" This theory — the palladium of Protestantism — thus defined, traditionists impugn ; not, however, on the same ground or to the same extent ; nor do they professedly apply their conflicting schemes to the same uses, some holding the dogmas of tradition as subordiyiate to Scripture, while others maintain its absolute equality with Scripture. If, however, it should be made to appear — as we shall presently show — that, from the very nature and character of tradition as an alleged standard of appeal in matters of religious controversy, it leaves us no other alternative but to receive and apply it as co- ordinate with Scripture, the inconsistency and futility of the scheme which alleges it to be subordinate to Scripture, is at once apparent. We argue, then, as follows : Tradition, as a test of orthodoxy, unless co-ordinate with Scripture, involves the theory of a divided authority. In other words, it is to appeal to a standard partly infallible, partly fallible. But this is the charge preferred by traditionists en masse against their so-called ultra-Protestant oppo- nents, and upon the evident inconsistency of which standard is built up the theory of an infallible tradition, alias the voice of a divinely -insjoired^ VOST-apostolic Church. The above charge, however, is unfounded. Ultra-Protestants, so-called, make no appeal to a double-tongued standard. With them the question at issue is purely one of authority. And, however they may defer to the opinions of others, ancient or modern ; or to the historico-eccltsiastical records of j906^apos- tolic times ; or to the rudimental instructions of the novitiate catechetically or otherwise "&?/ the Church,^' agreeably to the admitted maxim, " oportet discentem credere ;" yet the question with them regards, not the utility or even the necessity of such teaching, but on what grounds and to what extent it is to be carried. And they deny the co-ordinate authority of one or all of these sources of instruction, with that of holy Scripture. Yea, more : These sources of instruction being ^05^apostolic, as the idea of authority on the part of the teacher necessarily involves that of implicit faith in, and unconditional obedience to, the things taught ; they deny the appointment, either by Christ or his Apostles, of any such authority. In a word, they deny the legitimacy of the inference that, because the /Scriptures are infallible, therefore the Interpreter of Scripture must be infallible also. But this is the theory essential to the supiport of the ecclesiastical sys- tem maintained by traditionists. Anti-prelatists admit and con- tend that the scriptures of the New Testament (as we shall show in the sequel) clearly reveal a complete scheme of church order, 58 etc. Prelatists, however, are engaged in the maintenance of a system which, in its coinplete and distinct form, they themselves admit cannot be found positively set forth in, or that is even strictly deduciblc from, the New Testament Scriptures afone, and hence, that it depends for its support upon testimony superadded to, Scripture. One of two alternatives follows. Either, first, the system of Church order, etc., which they advocate, is a mere human device, and rests for its support on mere human testimony ; or, second, if, as they allege, it is founded jure divino — by Divine appoint- ment— and hence, that it constitutes an integral and essential part of Christianity, securing to them the exclusive right of a divine commission to perpetuate the succession, administer sacraments, condemn heretics, etc. ; then, the superadded testimony called in to its support, must stand on a footing of equal authority with Scrip- ture itself But, as we have said, it is upon the evident inconsistency of an . appeal to a divided authority, partly infallible, partly fallible, in determining any controverted point, that traditionists set up the plea of necessity for an infallihle traditionary standard. In no other way can they ward off a turning of the tables against them by their so-called ultra-Protestant opponents. Hence, differ as they may in other respects, they all concur in a declaration of the insufioienGy of an appeal to written evidence alone, in support of their system. That written evidence, they affirm, must be clothed with authority^ or it is nugatory. Hence, the main point in this discussion. What is the origin, nature, and extent of that authority ? We reply, the only view consistent with the alleged traditionary hypothesis, is that which makes it co-ordinate, or of equal authority with, and, conse- quently, independent of^ holy Scripture. To maintain the au- thority of tradition simply upon the ground that its claims are supported by Scripture, and therefore, that it is subordinate to Scripture, involves the alternative of a " vicious circle," such as none but a true Romanist can employ. For example, a denial that the above claims are supported by Scripture drives its advo- cates to an appeal to the orthodox interpretation, as " established by the authority of tradition^ and the sentence of the Church.''^ Thus, the perpetual circle — the claims of traditional authority supported by Scripture, the sense of which can only be deter- mined by the alleged authoritaiive interpretations of tradition! This, however, is to make tradition its own witness. Christ has declared, " If a man bear witness of himself his witness is not true." ' It follows, therefore, that on any other hypothesis than that of the absolute independence of tradition, " the Bible, and the Bible alone," holds the supremacj^ as the standard of appeal. At least, (1) John 5 : 31. 59 the only escape from this alternative, is the supposition that the New Testament Scriptures, though they may have been the pro- ductions of wise and good men, were, nevertheless, not given by inspiration,* and hence, are not infallible. Traditionists, however, are strenuous in their advocacy of both the inspiration and infalli- bility of Scripture. Tradition, therefore, if possessed of an au- thority independent of Scripture, the authority of both must be equally divine. What, then, is the hasis of this traditionary scheme ? Its advo- cates, having assumed that the Scriptures, and especially the New Testament writings, cannot be primarily understood by the mere perusal of them alo7ie^ argue hence the necessity of an interpret- er— " THE Chuech" — whose teaching, to prove effectual^ must be authoritative. In other words, tradition, oral and written^ alias "the voice of the Church," is the authoritative interpreter of the inspired records. Hence, the rule of faith to the traditionists— " hol}^ Scripture and ancient authors." Let us now test this assumption, and the inference deduced from it, by the principles of sound reason. Inasmuch as the revelation of those truths which hegan by inspiration, can only be completed by inspiration, so "no power can decide with authority in anj case, what is the sense of revelation, but the same which origi- nally disclosed it." But, "mere human authoritj^, however good, is obviously insufficient for this purpose. Unauthoritative tradi- tion (however applicable in other ways) can never create points of faith, or lay down the terms of salvation: to do so, it must be- come authoritative." Therefore, " if the New Testament be admit- ted to contain the divine revelation of Christianity, and if the additional interpretation of tradition and judgment of the Church be equcdly necessary to the full exjyosition and maintenance of the Gospel^ THEK these traditional and authoritative additions must also be regarded as conveying portions of divine revelation as well as the written record : they must., in fact., he a part of the Gospel : they must he as much the word of God as the New Testa- ment is?'' Again : along with Scripture, on the above hypothesis, the tra- ditionary theory involves the question of evidence. All agree that the evidence on which rests the divine authority of holy Scripture is that of miracles. But tradition, as an alleged independent sys- tem, implies the addition of an authorized comment thereto. We thence argue, if revealed truth require miraculous evidence in its support, then similar evidence must attest every veliicle of revela- tion. On the ground, then, that the authority of Scripture and tradition are alike divine, it follows that miraculous evidence is equally indispensable in regard to hotli., and the claims of tradition, sustained by such evidence — and, the writings of Ignatius, Poly- carp, Clement, Hermes, etc., are as inspired, infallible, and authori- tative, as those of Peter and Paul 1 4 60 We ask, then : Is it so ? The claim, be it observed, if pre- ferred, at once identifies the preseiit with those past ar/es, which were acknowledgedly miraculous. At least, this alternative follows, unless the limit be definitely determined, where and when authori- ■ tative tradition ceased. This, however, cannot be done. The only choice left us is to treat it agrecabl}'' to the current view, which assigns to it three epochs, — primitive, mediaeval, and modern. Then, also, as a condition, indispensable to the maintenance of the rjenuineness of the above evidence in behalf of tradition as a whole, if preferred, so far from diminishing, the proof of miracu- lous agency in the Church must rather increase, just in proportion to its remoteness, in point of time, to the apostolic age. This con- dition is founded in the very nature of miraculous evidence, the design of which is to supply a tangible and therefore definite test of that which is divine revelation, and that which is not ; to dis- tinguish absolutely between what is Christian truth, and what is heresy. And, surely, this is as essential to one period of the Church as to another ; to the Church at the present day, as to the Church eighteen hundred years ago. Now, that the theory of tradition necessarily involves the unin- terrupted perpetuity of miracles in the Cliurch, is evident from the principles on which it is built. It contemplates the Church as one and indivisible ; having a ministry, jure divino, to whom Christ has delegated His of&cial functions, with power to transmit the same in unbroken continuity to their successors to the end of time, and hence, as the divinely authorized interpreters of the Scriptures, to originate a traditional commentary or synopsis of Christian doc- trine, discipline, ceremonial observances, sacerdotal authority, etc., as parts of the revelation of Christianity, and as essential to the right recognition of the real spirit and genius of the apostolic institution, as the text of the New Testament itself As, then, according to this view, ' the Church and the Fathers' were simply as much the depositories of one portion of Christian doctrine as Apostles and Evangelists were of another ; it is a necessary con- sequence that the evidence demonstrative of the genuineness of both must be precisely the same for each. And this brings us to a question o^ fact. Tradition, its advo- cates inform us, has never been interrupted. They profess to trace it upward, from the present time, through the Oxford school ; the divines of the last century ; the nonjuring party ; Laud and his coadjutors; some of the reformers; and so on through the purer(?) channel of the schoolmen of the mediaeval ages, up to the Apos- tolical Fathers, by whose writings the whole system of traditional teaching is alleged to be directly connected with the Apostles themselves, who, they affirm, left in writing but a small portion of the instructions orally delivered to their converts and successors. The question then presents itself: Is it a fact that these miracu- lous powers, as evidence of the divine authority of tradition, have 61 heen continued and are now present in tlie Cliurcli ? Has the " gene- ral consent" of the Church, to which traditionists refer ns as the sole and sufficient test of true doctrine, — most comprehensively expressed in the famous maxim of Vincentius Lirinensis, " Quod uhique, quod semper, qiood ah omnibus creditum est,'''' been confirmed all along since the tmies of the Apostles by this evidence ? On the above hypothesis of an authoritative and independent tradi- tion, consistency, we insist, requires the admisssion, and the unin- terrupted continuance of, such evidence. On any other supposi- tion, the whole theory falls to the ground. Now, it is conceded that the tradition conveyed in the writings of the early fathers bears distinct, and unequivocal testimony to the prevalence of miraculous powers in the Church, not only in the earliest age, but even to a much later period. There are ample grounds, however, for a mooting of the question, how far said testimony is not surreptitious, — the work of those who, to erect tradition into an authoritative standard of appeal, have not scrupled to corrupt, mutilate and interpolate these early ecclesiastical records. On this subject we shall only trouble the reader with one out of many similar proofs which might be added, confirma- tory of this fact. We quote, in evidence, from the learned Du Pin, of standard Romish authoritj^. Speaking of the indiscreet piety of some persons w^ho thought they did the Church consider- able service in forging ecclesiastical and profane monuments in favor of religion and the truth, he says : "This reason prevailed with some ancient Catholics to compose some books, that they might refute the heretics of their own times with the greater ease." And he adds, "the same motives carried the Catholics so far as to invent false histories, FALSE- miracles, and false lives of the saints, to nourish and keep up the piety of the faithful" !* But, admitting the genuineness of these early records of miracu- lous powers in the Church, as evidence that the writings of the j0o.9^apostolic fathers are to be received by us as authoritative and independent of holy Scripture, then, on the supposition of a con- tinued authoritative and independent tradition, that of the media?- val and modern eras, stands on the same footing with the other. " In this respect, then, the latest and darkest ages of superstition and corruption are inseparably united in one chain of evidence with the earliest and purest times, and these again are necessarily connected with the present." In conclusion, therefore, we ask : How comes it to pass " that there are now no miracles to authenticate the alleged divine decrees of the Church ?" Till then, the advocates of the traditionary scheme, first, recon- cile this last named fact with their high and arrogant claims in its behalf; second, exonerate themselves from the imputation cast * Du Pin's Ecclesiastical History, etc. Preface, p. 8. London. 1693. 62 upon them as above by Du Pin ; and third, prove that the spurious miraculous impositions of the superstitious monkery of the media3- val age are entitled to stand side by side with the miracles of the inspired apostles, we shall think ourselves justified — the tradition- ary anathemas to the contrary notwithstanding — to adhere to the pure Protestant standard, "the Bible, and the Bible alone!" At least, we shall escape the dilemma inevitably attendant on the above traditionary hypothesis — that, we mean, of obliterating the boundary line of distinctive evidence between what is, and what is not, truly inspired, miraculous and divine. At this point, with some, Xhe fallacy of the traditionary scheme is sufficiently apparent. Writing, however, as we do, for the spe- cial benefit of those who are either not at all, or but partially ac- quainted Avith the sophistry employed to defend it on the one hand, and the abundant proofs at command in support of the oppo- site theory on the other, the preceding is to be viewed simply as in- troductory to the main subject — Tradition. To proceed. Of tradition, we are told, there are two kinds; apostolical, and ecclesiastical or Catholic. We will examine them seriatirrh. I. — Apostolical Tradition. By this we are to understand, that the apostles, delivered to the bishops of their times, an oral creed^ supjyleinentary to the New Testament writings, to be used " as a test of all doctrines claim- ing to be Christian," which oral creed, it is alleged, was finally committed to writing by the early fathers, "comprising matter independent of, and distinct from, the truths which are directly scriptural," and hence, that this oral creed " ought to be religiously guarded by us, even for the same reason that we reverence and re- tain that which is properly scriptural, both being portions of the same divine treasure" — "a treasure of doctrine which we know to have been embodied in the confession or creed" — " the treasure of apostolical doctrines and Church rules — the rules and doctrines which made up the charter of Christ's kingdom."* In the support of this alleged apostolico-oral tradition, the fol- lowing passages are adduced and held as the comnnon property of the several classes of the advocates of prelacy. " Keep the ordinances (or traditions f), as I delivered them to you." ' "There- fore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle."" "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings," etc.' " Hold fast the form of sound loords which thou hast heard of me :" — " That good thing which was committed (1) 1 Cor. 11 :2. (2) 2 Thess. 2 : 15. (3) 1 Tim. 6 : 20. * Keble's Sermon on Primitive Tradition. Fourth edition, pp. 16, 20, 21. f Yiiipai6aeis. 68 unto thee, keep bj the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us."' Of these passages, the first point to be determined is, whether the word TRADITION is to be understood of Paul's individual teachings and injunctions as an inspired apostle, designed to be received in connection with, and as a part. of, the sacred canon: or whether, in the more modern sense of that term, we are to understand by it, " oral comnninication, eventually deposited in writings, and handed down through successive ages," as " independent of" and distinct from, the written word," and hence, to be taken as an apostolic creed, " divinely appointed in the Church as the touchstone of canonical Scripture itself"* Now, in opposition to this latter sense, we remark, 1. There is no evidence in Scrijyture of the existence of any such apostolic creed. So far from it, while it is admitted that, from the truths, precepts, ordinances and usages of Christ and his apostles, taken ,as a whole, may be gathered a symmetrical and harmonious system, analogous to that of the diversified machinery of the physical universe, yet Christianity is presented to our view in holy Scripture rather as a tissue oi facts ^ than a system of doc- trioies j the doctrines are merged in, and are to be deduced from the facts ; divorce them, and both are robbed of their attractive and life-giving power. Evidence of this may be furnished by a recurrence to the life and actions, and to the parables, conversa- tions, discourses, etc., of our Lord ; and to Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost ;' to his discourse in the house of Cornelius,' and to Paul's account of his own preaching to the Corinthians, in his first Epistle to that Church." By what argument, then, we ask, can we assign to the oral teachings apostolic, the form of a creed, over those of their written communications ? To argue, a priori^ from the admitted value and importance of the doctrines of Chris- tianity, that they must have been so j^i'oniulged, is assuming what must be proved ; nor will a fair construction of the passages relied upon to this end,f warrant the use to which , they are applied. The most plausible argument adduced by the tradition- ists from the above passages is by insisting that the words, "avoid- ing profane and vain babblings," etc./ involves, necessarily, thei existence of an oral formulary or creed. That the context, however, warrants no such inference, we think is evident from the 17th verse of 1 Tim. 6 : " Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches," etc. ; in which, as Paul is speaking, not of doctrines, not of creeds, but of persons; so it is fair to conclude, that the "trust" committed to Timothy, mentioned in verse 20, was not an oral creed, but the Church of God at Ephesus, of whom Timothy had been left in charge by that apostle, and whom he was to labor to protect against the " vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so- 0) 1 Tim. 1 :13, H. (2) Acts 2 : 14-36. (3) Acta 10 : 34^3. (4) 1 Tor 1.5 : I-H. (5) 1 Tim. 6 : 20. * Keble's Sermon, page 27. t See quotations above. 64 called," to wliich its members were exposed. The same, doubtless, holds true of "the good thing" spoken of as committed to him : 2 Tim. 1 : 14, — the Jtock of Qod, of which, at that time, he had the oversight, and for whose benetit he was to "hold fast the form (or pattern, ' v-noTvnuioiv ^^) of sound words" — the pure doctrine — " the model or conception of that sound teaching which the apostle had instilled into him."* Indeed, both these cases are precisely analo- gous to tlic charge subsequently given by the same apostle to the Ephesian " elders" at " Miletus."' But, what we deem decisive of this point is, that even assuming that the above charges, as given by Paul to Timothy, did contain doctrines, the ground on which traditionists "build their hypothesis is the very thing which would lead us to reject it." If the " deposit" had been committed to Timothy after the canon of Scripture had been completed, then there might have been some evidence of its being something " in- dependent of" the written word ; but, as at the time " the truths and rules were almost or wholly unwritten," it is much more than probable, that these inspired teachers embraced every thing of im- portance in their letters to individuals and the churches."f We remark, 2. That in the writings of the earliest fathers^ there is no recognition of the existence of any such apostolico-traditionary creed as is here claimed. On all points of doctrine, their standard of appeal was " Holy Scripture ;" else, wherefore the niimerous formularies pre- pared by their own hands ? "In the second and third ages of the Church," it is affirmed, "there were as many creeds as authors; and the same author sets down the creed after a different manner, in several places of his works.":}: This, certainh^, on the hjqjothe- sis of the existence of a traditionary creed apostolic, was plainly a work of "idle supererogation" — "of self-sufficient presumption."^ Nor should we overlook the fact in regard to the so-called "iipos- tles' Creed," that, when urged upon the Council of Florence, com- posed of 141 Greek bishops, they indignantly exclaimed, "We neither have, nor do we know any creed of the apostles."! "Many of the ancient fathers, namely, Justin Martyr, Irenseus, Clem. Alexandrinus, Origen,. Tertulliau, and Eusebius, are silent "as to the existence of any such a creed." Other creeds were early used in the oriental churches, and others again made at the CEcumenical Councils of Nice and Constantinople, without any mention of the apostles' creed. Many other arguments are found in Usher, Vos- sius, etc., which weaken the hypothesis by which the apostolical origin of this creed is supported."^ Oar next topic of remark relates to, (1) Acts 20 1 17-'28. ♦ Alexander's Anglo-Cathollcisni, &c., p. 54. t Rev. J. Spence, M.A., on the Tractarian Heresy. London : 1847, p. 10. X Buck's Theological Dictioiuiry, Art. Creed. § Alexander's Ans;. Cath., p. 65. || Sponce, p. 14. 1[ Spanheim"s Ecclesiastical History, p. 147. •^5 II. — Catholic or Ecclesiastical Tradition. By Catholic trrvdition, we arc to understand the writmgs of the earlier Fathers, alias the voice of the ancient Church. These, to- gether with all the extant legends of the Church of Eome, both written and unwritten, — the former of which, though consisting, besides the apocr3'phal writings, of not less than one hundred and thirty-five large folio i;oZ;mes,* and which bear a very small pro- portion to those of the latter — it is alleged, cons'itute the only au- thoritative interpreter of revealed truth, whether ol doctrine, or of discipline, from whose decision there is no appeal. True, the sui-papal traditionists distinguish between Catholic or ecclesiastical tradition, which they limit to the patristic lore of the first three or four centuries, and the written and unwritten legend- ary appendages thereto of the Church of liome : not, however, on the ground of " an a priori question on the value of tradition in itself, or at an earlier period of the Church ; or of such traditions, as, though not contained in Scripture, are primitive, universal, and apostolical;" but as a question " purely historical." The Romish traditions, it is alleged, "are not such, but, on the contrary, are re- pugnant to Scripture," and hence are not to be received,"f The Church of Rome, however, claims that all her 2^^'esent tra- ditions are to be received as of equal validity with the written word, because she holds them. But the st.. PAKT II. MINISTERIAL PAEITY, TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. CHAPTEE I. SCEIPTURAL VIEW OF THE ORIGIN", NATURE, ORDERS, AJSTD POWERS OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. SECTION I. Introductory Remarks — Plan of the Argument inductive — A visible Ministry a con- comitant of the visible Church state, Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian — Opening History of the New Testament exhibits its last transition state — Its distinguishing characteristic, Justification by Faith, through grace, in opposition to the law of Works — Process of ingathering — The Church invisible and visible — The latter, the basis of its external unity — A baptized body — Subjects, infants and adults — The Lord's Supper the bond of visible union and communion. In discussing the subjects connected with Part II. of the follow- ing treatise, our inquiries will be conducted exclusively upon the ground of what saith " Holy Scripture." To this end, that we may abstract our mind — no easy task, in- deed— from the influence of long-standing associations with, and powerful predilections for, an ecclesiastical constitution which we have been led, on mature reflection, to believe to be " repugnant" to " Holy Scripture," the plan of our argument will be, induc- tive. We premise, then, — what none will dispute, — that a visible ministry is a concomitant of the militant Church state j three forms of xohich have obtained under the three disjpensations^ Patriarchal^ Jewish^ and Christian. On opening the pages of the New Testament, the subject of pro- minent attraction and most absorbing interest, is, that of a con- catenation of events, indicating that the Church is in a transition STATE. " The fullness of the time"' of " which God had spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets"" had at length arrived, when those better things"^ so long adumbrated by the types and shadows (1) Gal. 4 : 4. (2) Acts 3 : 21. (3) Heb 12 : 24. 90 of the old or Levitical economy, should be dispensed. Paul's em- blematic olive-tree of the Xlth of Eomans, illustrates the nature, fullness, and extent of God's covenant with Abraham, not only ; but also the mode — mysterious indeed — by which the Divine faith- fulness in regard to all its stipulations, should be verified to " all the seed,'" Gentile as well as Jewish. The national rejection of Christ bv the commonwealth of Israel, results in their excision, for the most part, from the good-olive-tree as its natural branches ;* while, ^^•ith the believing remnant, " according to the election of grace, "3 new scions from the believing Gentiles, though " wild by nature,"* are engrafted thereon.^ It is also to be particularly observed, that in virtue of the same perpetual tenure of the covenant Abrahamic, the church is now transferred from under the Judaic or Sinaitic covenant or law of works, and placed under the covenant of grace. That dis})ensa- tion, though, as " the letter," it dealt out nothing but condemna- tion and death, was nevertheless " glorious.'" From the first mo- ment of the first transgression, God had ordained that no law could be given yielding a righteousness which could give life.'' But, man's sin could not annul God's law. As a subject of moral obligation, he was still responsible. Hence the divine enactment, " cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them."* In this, then, consisted the glory of that economy. The law stood forth as the stern and un- compromising vindicator of the honor, truth, holiness and justice of God, against the unreasonableness of man's infraction of it. But just as after the promise to Abraham of a son, human device is allowed to exert itself for the fulfillment, and Hagar with her unhappy offspring — the occasion of domestic discord — -is the issue : so at Sinai. JSTo sooner does God proceed to accomplish his uncon- ditional covenant with Abraham, than Israel embraces the testing proposition of a conditional covenant. "7/^ ye will obey nny voice indeed,^ and heej? my covenant^ then ye shall he a peculiar treasure unto me above all people^''''* is the language of God to them' : just parallel to our Lord's intimation to the self-righteous ruler, " Thou knowest the commandments :'"" and it is followed by their self-complacent replv, " all that the Lord hath spoken^ we win dor Creaturehood, however, under every preceding dispensation, had totally failed to render obedience" to God's law, and hence lay under his just Avrath and curse. And, for the simple reason, that " the law is not of FArrn :"'^ for, " whatsoever is not of faith, is sin."" Wherefore? It is because of its Cainite infidel rejec- tion of all belief in and reliance upon, that piacular or expiatory sacrifice and atonement for sin, predicted to be made in the divine (1> Kom. 4 : 16. (-2) Rom. 11 : 11, 21. (3) lb , 5. (4) lb., 24. (5) lb. (6) 2 Cor. 3 : 7-9 (7) Rom. 5:17. (9)Gal. 3:10. (9) Exod. 19 : 5. (10) Luke 18 : 20. (11) Rom. 5 : 19. (12) Gal. 3 : 12 (13) Rom 14:28. ^*#; 91 person incarnate of the pre-ordained Son of God, as the Slain Lamb,' " set up from everlasting or even the earth was,"^ to that end. In opposition, therefore, to the theory of creaturehood jus- tification by the law of works, is the New Testament doctrine of JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH, through the alone merits and righteousness of our blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It reveals that, having assumed our nature in mysterious union with the divine. He (Christ) was "made sin for "Qs who knew no sin ; that we might be made the righteousness of God in hira."^ That He " was made a curse for us:"^ and that, in order to render complete our salvation in, through, and by Plim, having fulfilled the law' in all its parts, moral, ceremonial, and mediatorial. He is "the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."* "As by the deeds of the law no flesh living can be justified in God's sight,'" " the law" fulfills the ofiice of a " schoolmaster to bring us to Christ."* It points us to Christ as our Substitute, by whom, " all that helieve are justified from all tilings from which Ave could not be justified by the law of Moses.'" " There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are " thus" in Christ Jesus, Avho walk not after the flesh but after the spirit." '" And, in this consisteth " the glory that excelleth," of the economy under which we live, compared with that which, at the opening of tliis dispensation, was " done away."'^ The process for the ingathering, from among all nations, both of Jews and Gentiles within the encircling arms of the Church under this new aspect of her development, was gradual. These, as " the first fruits unto God"" hj faitJi in Christ,''' constituted that mystical body, the Church,'^ of which he is the divinely constituted Head;" We repeat, " the Church — universal or Catholic, as being gath- ered out of all nations : mystical or invisible, (whether in heaven or on earth,)* as known only to God. (1) Rev. 5 : 6. Ci) Proy. 8 : 23. (^) 2 Cor. 5 : 21. (4) Gol 3:13. (5) Gal. 3 : 13. (6) Rom. 10 : 4. (7) lb. 3:20. (9) Gal. 3: 24. (9) Acts 13 : 39. (10) Rom 8:1. (11) 2 Cor. 3 : 10. (12) lb. 5: 7. (13) Rev. 14 : 4. (14) Rom. 13 : 22. (1-5) Col. 1 : 24. (16) F.ph. 1 : 22 ; lb. 4:15; Col. 1 : 18. * That these last named attributes are as applicable to the true Church militant, as to those of her members who, havinsj "fallen asleep in Christ'" are joined to the Church triumphant, is evident, first, from those words of our Lord, " they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." — " The glory which thou gavest me I have given them."'- These words had direct reference to Christ's true Church and people on earth. But such surely can only be said to be known to him. Their "life is hid with Christ in God."* They have " a name which no man knowcth^ save they to whom it is given.'" " The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him, and he will show them his covenant,"-^ through "the Spirit." which is given to them to "bear witness with theirs, that they are the children of God " ' On the other hand, wherever the Church or kingdom of God is spoken of as a visible body ayncmg; men, it is always associated with the presence therein of the false and the self-deceived. Within her pale is found the intermingling of individuals of opposite character, the prevalence of error, and the admixture of ignorance, imperfection and sin, with better and holier elements. "All are not Israel who are of Israel."' For an illustration of the nature and character of the church visible^ we refer the reader to the parables of the wheat and tares, of the drag-net, and of the ten virgins.* (1) 1 Cor. 1.5 : 20, 23. (2) John 17. (3) Col. 3 : 3. (4) Rev. 2 : 17. (5) Ps. 25 : 14. (6) Rom. 8 : 16. (7) Rom. 9 : 6. (8) Matt. 13 : 24-30 ; ib. 47-50 ; ib. 2-3 : 1-13. 92 It follows, that the first condition of clmrcli unity is, fellowship with God, through Christ, hy faith. But, where this great princi- ple exists, cementing, as it does, the affections of each toward those of all ; it results, from the very nature of our Catholic Chris- tianity as a social system, that it be provided with an external bond of concord of man with man, not onlj^, but of unity of action in the dissemination of its blessings to others. Hence, the origin of the external unity of the Church. It has for its fpundation, the co-membership of each of the mystical members of the church with Christ himself, as " members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones."' It has for its marks of visi- bility, visible ordinances, and a visible ministry. The visible church is a hajytized hody. From the first, her adult members were the subjects of a double baptism — first, by the Soly Ghost / and second, by water : this latter baptism being a " figure" or symbol of the former, as representing their spiritual regeneration through faith." Not to enter into a lengthened argu- ment on this point, it will suffice to refer to a single instance in illustration. We allude to Peter's recognition of the distinction between the baptism of the Holy Sjnrit and that of water haj^tism^ as set forth in the command given by him for the baptism by water, of those on whom the Holy Ghost had been previously poured out. " Can any man forbid ?^afer, that these should not be baptized which HAVE RECEIVED thc Holy Ghost as well as we ?"^ As to the right of the infant children of helievers to church mem- bership hy hajytism^ it is necessary in this place to remark, that the commission of Jesus to his apostles is no less hroad in its scope, nor less 2>ositive^ express^ or definite in its directions regarding those for whose everlasting salvation it was designed, than those embraced within the purview of the covenant Abrahamic. This commission runs thus : "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, haptizing them^'' etc., "teaching them to observe all things," etc.* Now, of this commission we remark, that it undeniably contains two parts, namely : I. The commission itself. MaBr]Tevoare -navra ra eOvq : Disci- ple all nations ; make them disciples or Christians. II. The onode of its execution. BaTrriCovref , kol ^idaoKovrec : which literally translated is, baptizing-teaching. But the first, — the command to disciple all nations, is in the im- perative mood : and hence, the whole commission is included in DisoiPLiNG ; while the second, the command to baptize and teach, both words being participles, indicates the mode or order of fulfill- ing the commission. But, baptizing is put before teaching, show- ing thereby that a person may be haptized before he be taught. (!) Eph. 5 : 30. (2) Acta 10 : 47. (3) Matt. 28 : 19, 20. 98 This, however, was not true of adults, the apostles first having taught ancWA(?;i baptized them, Ergo^ to carry out . the order of the commission according to the EXPKESS COMMAND of Christ, it could only have been done by fi'i^st baptizing and then teaching, which can only be true of infants and cliilclren. Evidently, then, though, in discii^ling adults by preaching, and admitting them into the church by baptism, the apostles fully acted up to the spirit of their commission — that order being indis- pensable in regard both to Jews and Gentiles in the first planting of Christianity ; yet it is clear that, from the order of the commis- sion, ^i6aoKovrz^, teaching^ being put after Ba-nrii^ovreq, hajptizing^ the duty especially enjoined was that of teaching children already brought into the church by baptism. Any further positive injunc- tion regarding them had been superfluous. It was perfectly analo- gous to the long standing membership with the Jewish Church of infants by circimicision. To prove the above exposition fallacious, e\ddence the most positive must be adduced to show that, in the instances of the household baptisms of Cornelius, of the Jailer, of Lydia, of Stephanus, of Crispus and Gaius, of Onesiphorus, of Aristobulus and Narcissus, and of the many believers who formed the Church of Corinth, together with the families of the bishop, the deacon, and the young women in the Epistle of Timothy, there neitlier loere nor could he yoking children in any one of them ! Baptism, therefore, though in the case of adults, it is followed by a declaration of faith or "the answer of a good conscience towards God ;" ' 3-et in its relation to children as " the seed" of the Church, was, in its office, 'prosi:)ective. It pointed the eye of faith (of those who, thus baptized, were, /?-o?n childhood^ to be taught to know the holy Scriptures) to Christ, in all the pardoning and sanctifying efficacy of his atoning blood.* But — The visible Church is also a united body. For this Christ pray- ed. " Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are." — "Neither pray I for these alone (that is, Jewish believers), but for those (Gen- tiles) also that shall believe on me through their word : that they all ma}' be one, as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee : that they also may be one in us. — I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect nsr one." * For this the apostles labored. Whether they preached, baptized, or wrought miracles, their work concen- trated in a " perfecting of the saints in the unity of the faith," ^ and of union with each other, by preserving " the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,"* through communion with Christ the Head, of which, (1)1 Peter 3 : 21. (2) John 17 : 23. (3) Eph. 4 : 12, 13. (4) F.ph. 4 : 3. ♦The writer had intended to pass over any alhision to the suhject of these remarks. Upon reflection, however, he considered them as necessary to an exhihit of what, in ac- cordance with his views, constituted one of the elements in the re-constniction of the Church under Christ and his apostles. He c!aim.«, therefore, the charitable indulgence of those who conscientiously differ with him in this particular. 94 Tlic LonVs Supper is, pre-emiucntlj, if not exclusively, the sign, seal, badge, or bond. We object to that view of water baptism which would make the Lord's Supper subsidiary thereto, as though baptism constituted the hoiul of union to the Church : than which, no principle can do greater violence to the declared design of the institution of this latter ordinance, or tend more seriously to mar the " communion of saints" with Christ the Head. Take, in evi- dence, the words of institution, — " The Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread" — and also " the cujd" — saying, " this do, as oft as ye eat and drink, in remembrance of me ; For as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till become," as a commemorative act: which, with Paul, constituted the basis of the communion of the members of the mystical body of the redeemed witli Christ the Head, and of visible fellowship with each other. " The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ? For we being many, are one bread and one body ; for we are all partakers of that one bread." ' Yea, and that not after a natural or corporeal, but after an ineffably spiritual manner: the material elements directing the eye of faith to Him who is " the true Bread," who alone can give " life to the world ;" ^ even as the typico-symbolic " rock in Horeb" pointed to the " Kock," Christ, of which the Israelites spiritually drank. ^ Hence, our Lord's de- claration at the last Supper with his apostles, — " I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom :" * words, be it observed, pointing directly to his approaching personal withdrawal from the Church. " It follows, that Christ's promised perpetual presence with the Church, could be realized to her in no other way than by his spiritually abiding with her through the agency of the Divine Paraclete — the Holy Ghost, — who, he declared, should " take of the things that are His, and reveal them unto her" ° by His ineffably perjDetual presence forever.' And it is, we observe in this connection, particularly worthy of note, that the Holy Ghost in His office-Avork of Sanctifier of the faithful, sustains to them the two-fold relation of a seal, and the Sealer. Paul, having spoken of our adoption of God as his predestinated children by Jesus Christ, adds, "after that ye believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit" : and he ad- monishes us — " Grieve not the Holy Spirit, lohereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." * The Lord's Supper, therefore, as it is the medium of the commu- nion of believers with each other and with Christ the Head, through the Spirit ; so it is the sealing or cementing of the differ- ent parts with the Head in an union spiritual, ineffable, divine : and, we add, not the less real, because not corporeal. Christ is (1) 1 Cor. 10 : 16, 17. (2) John 6 : 32, 33. (8) 1 Cor. 10 : 4. (4) Matt. 26 : 29. (6) John 14 : 1-4 : 16 : 1-7. (6) John 16 : 14. (7) John 14 : 16. (8) Eph. 1 : 5, 13 ; 4 : 30. 95 present therein : present, as when the apostle says, " what, know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you ?" ' Present, as when Jesus said, " where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." ^ We have thus presented, in brief, the migin of the exter- nal unity of the Church. It has for its foundation, as we have said, the co-membership of each of her mystical members with Christ himself, by faith. It is only those, therefore, who, in commemoration of his passion through the visible symbols ordain- ed to that end, rightly " discern the Lord's body," ' that are truly united to him as members "of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones."* Nor can the pious mind be too deeply impressed with the conviction, that the essence of that " unity of the Spirit" which binds together in holy concord "the household of faith," lies not so much in external membership with this church or that, as in union with God himself through Christ. " Circumcision availeth nothing, nor uncircumcision : but a new creature.^'' ^ Indeed, we know of no Scripture which makes external conformity a condi- tion of spiritual unity. That unity may exist under great external dissimilarity ; it may fail under the most perfect show of outward agreement. It has been well said, therefore, that it is amongst the worst corruptions of Christianity, to confound our individual union mth Christ and the perfect symmetry of the Church in him, with our external union with the Churchy its sacraments, etc. To this circumstance — involving, as it does, the subordinating of the reli- gion of faith to that of sense* — may be traced the rise, " hy little and little,^^ and the progress and final consummation, of that most fearfully stupendous system of spiritual despotism, the Papal Su- PEKSTiriON ! SECTIOI^ n. The Christian Ministry — Differs from the Jewish in its form, its spirit, and its end — Diverted froai its original divinely-appointed intent — Paul's description of — Scrip- tural account of the Origin, Nature, Orders, and Powers or Functions of, as in- stituted by Christ and his Apostles — Chillingworth, the Homilies, and Bishop Taylor quoted. We proceed now to add to these details of the reconstruction of the Church under this dispensation, yet another : that relating to THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY. The original simplicity of the priestly attributes of the patri- (1) 1 Cor. 3 : IG. (2) Matt. 18 : 20. (3) 1 Cor. 11 : 29. (4) Eph. 5 : 30. (a) Gul. 6 : 16. * It is the exclusive design of Parts II. and III. of this Treatise, to exhibit in detail the points of diflererice of these respective systems, with illustrations of their practical development. 96 archal functions, post-diluvian and ante-diluvian, being finally merged into that of the more imposing triple priesthood of Aaron ; and [)oth, having fulfilled the purposes of their appointment, van- ishing away : ' they were succeeded by a ministry totally diverse therefrom in its foryn, in its spirit, and in its end. Vie allude to THE Christian Ministry. Its Origin, Nature, Orders, and Pow- ers, will constitute the basis of our inquiries ; a subject, it is scarcely necessary to add, fraught with the deepest interest to the Church and people of God, of this day. Indeed, since the age almost im- mediately succeeding that of Christ and his apostles, no subject has been more widely discussed ; certainly none which has more frequently engaged Christendom in fiercer conflict. Diverted from its original and divinely-appointed intent of conveying to man, by the word'' and spirit of God,^ the blessings of " the Great Salva- tion ;" the arm of a purely evangelical resistance has proved pow- erless before those terrific engines — proscription, confiscation, im- prisonments, martyrdoms, etc. employed by the hordes of ecclesi- astical aspirants after " the jye-eminence,^^ in the Church, of early and mediaeval times, and continued — though, thank Heaven, as yet, imder more modified forms — by those of the present day. To understand the merits of this conflict, and the responsibility respectively of its agents, it must be traced back to its source. This is indispensable to a determination as to whether, in the primitive constitution of the ministry, it was of so equivocal a character as to engender that spirit of unholy rivalship which, though at first "like a grain of mustard-seed cast into the earth," yet, having sprung up, has long since attained and still retains, a giant growth. Upon its outstretched branches repose, at this day, the Eomish "birds of the air" of every size and tinge ! Of this ministry, synoptically, Paul furnishes us with the follow- ing account. Christ, " when he ascended up on high," having " led captivity captive, gave gifts unto men."- — " And he gave some, apostles ; and some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and some, pastors and teachers;" — after that, miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversity of tongues :" which gifts "God set in the Church" "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ ; till" the newly-organized Church should have " all come to the unity of tlie faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.''^* Hence we see that, as^^in the heavenly, so in' the militant, king- dom of Christ. There are diversities of operations and of admin- istrations (b}^ the appointment and under the guidance of the same God, the same Lord, the same Spirit) in the visible, as there are differences of orders and of rank in the invisible. Church ; * with this difference, however, that, in regard to the heavenly hierarchy, (1) Heb. 8 : 13. (2) James \ : 21. (3) John 6 : 63 ; 2 Cor. 3 : 6. (4) Epli. 4 : 8-11 ; 1 Cor. 12 : 28, Eph. 4 : 12, 13. (5) Compare 1 Cor. 15 : 41, etc., with 2 Cor. 12 : 4-11. 97 the Orders are fixed and permanent : whereas in tlie militant church state, to the intent that " no flesh should glory in His presence," ' God has ordained that " the ministry of reconcilia- tion"" should be committed to "earthen vessels," plainly inti- mating thereb}'-, that they were, in themselves, comparatively valueless not only, but that, as such, in order " that the excellency of the power" displayed in man's salvation miglit be clearly seen to "be of God, and not of them,''^^ that they might either be broken, or removed, or changed, as He might tliink lit. With these preliminaries, proceed we now without further de- lay, to an examination, inductively, and in the liglit of Scripture alone, OF THE ORIGIN, NATUBE, ORDERS AND POWERS OR FUNCTIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY, AS INSTITUTED BY CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. In the light of Scripture alone. We are happy to record the unqualified concurrence, in tlie adoption of " the Bible and the Bible alone" as our standard of appeal in those inquiries, first, of the great Chillingworth. " The religion of Protestants," says he^ " is the Bible. The Bible, I say, the Bible onhj, is the religion of Protestants ! Whatsoever else they may believe besides it, and the plain, indubitable consequences of it, well may they hold it as a matter of opinion ; but, as a matter of faith and religion, neither can they with coherence to their OAvn grounds believe it them- selves, nor require the belief of it of others, without most high and most schismatical presumption."* To the same effect speaks the Book of Homilies of the Church of England. " Our Savior Christ teacheth not, or needeth not any testimony of men ; and that which is once confirmed by the certainty of his eternal truth, hath no more need of the confirmation of marLS doctrine and writings, than the bright sun at noon-tide hath need of the light of a little candle, to put away darkness and to increase the light."f And, finally, says that great champion of Episcopacy, Bishop Jeremy Taylor, "What- soever was the regiment of the Church in the apostle's times, that must be perpetuall, (not so as to have all that was personall, and temporary, etc.), for that and that only is of Divine Institution which Christ committed to the apostles ; and if the Church be not now governed as then^ we can show no divine authority for our government, which we must contend to doe, and doe it too, or be called USURPERS." (1) 1 Cor. 1 : 29. (2) 2 Cor. 6 : 19. (3) 2 Cor. 4 : 7. * Chillingworth's Works, Chap. VII, sec. 56. t Homily against Perils of Idolatry. i?-.^.'' 98 SECTION in. ^ The Origin of the New Testament ministry — Instances of ministerial appointments — f, 1st: By Christ personally — 2d: By the Holy Ghost — 3d: By the Apostles — 4th: By the Apostles with others — 5th : By others than the Apostles — 6th : Of those respecting whose appointments no allusion is made, either as to the source or mode of — 7th : Those appointed by special Providence — Total number, sixty. First, then, of the Origin of the New Testament ministry. The plan of our inquiries will involve the necessity of present- ing before the reader, seriatim^ all the instances of ministerial ap- pointments therein recorded. Tlicse, on inspection, will bo found to have originated either from Christ personally, or from the Holy Ghost, or from the Apostles united with others, or from others besides the Apostles, or by special Providence. Besides these, others are mentioned as holding office in the Church, without any allusion either to the source of their appointment, or the mode of their designation thereto. I. Of those appointed by Christ personally. These were, 1. The twelve Apostles. " And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, and to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils," viz. : (1.) Simon Peter ; (2.) James and (3.) John^i sons of Zehedee / (4.) Andrew ; (5.) Philip ; (6.^ Bartholoraew ; (7.) Matthew ; (8.) Thomas ; (9.) James, son of Alpheus ; (10.) Thaddeus ; (11.) Simoyi., the Canaanite / (12.) Judas Iscariot.^ The object of their vocation was, that, as eye-witnesses of Christ's resurrection,' etc, they might receive those qualifications^ requisite for muster huilders,'^ in laying the foundation and erecting thereon the edifice of Primitive Christianity.' 2. The Seventy Disciples. " After these things the Lord ap- pointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face," etc." 3. The man who cast out devils in Christ's name.' 4. The man who was sent to preach the kingdom of God.* 5. Pauli the great Apostle of the Gentiles.^ Though, com- pared with the other vVpostles, he was " born out of due time," yet he was called, " not of men, neither by man^ but by Jesus "Christ {whom he had seen), and God the Father," asr- a chosen vessel unto Christ, to bear his name among the Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel."'" (1) Mark 3 : 14-16 ; Matt. 10 : 1. (2) Acts 1 : 3, 8 ; 21, 22. (3) Mark 3 : 14, 15 ; Matt. 10:1; Mark 6 : 7-13 ; Luke 9:1-6; John 4:1,2; Maik 16 : 12 ; 17. 18 ; .John 16 : 12 ; 21 : 15-17 ; Matt. 16 : 15-19 ; John 21 : 23. (4) 1 Cor. 3 : 10. (r,) Kph. 2 : 20 ; 4 : 11-13. (6) Luke 10 : 1, 2. (7) Mark 9 : 38, 40 ; l.uke 9 : 49, 50. (8) Luke 9 : 59, 60. (9) Gal. 1 : 1, 12 ; 1 Cor. 15 : 8. (10) Acts 9 : 18 ; Gal. I : 1, 12; Horn. U : 13. n. Of those appointed directly by the Holy Ghost. These were 6. Barnabas and Savl. " And as they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." Called, airoaToXoi, Apostles.' III. Of those appointed by the Apostles. These were, 7. The Seven Deacons. Being chosen by the multitude of the disciples, " they set them before the Apostles. And when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.'" 8. Those also denominated " The Elders^'' npeafivTegoi, whom Paul and Barnabas " ordained in every church throughout Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch," etc. And, 9. The hoelve prophetic disciples at Ephesus, by Paul.' 10. Timothy, selected by Paul as his companion, under the title of EvayyeXiOTov, Thangehsty* 11. Philip, the Deacon, so-called.' IV. The appointment by the Apostles, with others, 12. Of Matthias, to fill the vacancy occasioned by the apostasy of Judas.* V. Of those appointed by others, without the Apostles. These were, 13. Barnabas, sent forth by the Church in Jerusalem to Antioch.' 14. Saul and Barnabas, by the prophets and teachers in the Church at Antioch." 15. Timothy., by the Presbytery of Ephesus.' It will aid us hereafter by preserving, in this place, a distinction in things which differ, as connected with the origin and design of the ministry of the Church as recorded in the New Testament. We shall therefore reverse the order of the last two articles now under consideration, by presenting a summary VI. Of those mentioned as holding office in the New Testament Church, without any allusion either to the source of their appoint- ments, or of the mode of their designation thereto. These were, 16. Those certain prophets and teachers in the Church at (1) Acts 13 : 1, 3 ; 14 : J4: (2) Acts 1 : l-«. (3) Acts 14 : 23 ; v. 21 ; 19 : 1-6 ; vv. 5, 7. (4) Acts 16 : 1. 3 ; 2 Tim. 4 : 5. (5) Acts 21 : 8. (6) Acts 1 : ld-i6. (7) Acts 11 : 22. (8) AcU 13 : 1-3 f9) 1 Tim. 4 : 14. 100 Antiocli. (1.) Barnabas^ or Joses ; (2.) Simeon^ called Niger ; (3.) Zucius of Gyrene; (4.) Manaen ; (5) Judas ; (6) Silas; (7.) Jo7m Mark.' 17. Titus, whom Paul calls his partner and fellow-helper,' also his companion. 18. Epapltjroditus. Paul's companion and fellow-soldier. Called also the oTroCTTo/lof, apostle, or messenger of the Church.' 19. "A certain Jew, named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures." This man, though instructed in the way of the Lord, and fervent in the spirit, and teaching diligently the things of the Lord," nevertheless, " knew only of the baptism of John." " Aquilla and his wife Priscilla," however, having heard him "speak boldly in the synagogue, took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly ;" after which, bearing a letter from " the brethren" to " the disciples at Achaia, he helped them much which had be- lieved through grace ; for he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ."* 20. PJiehe, who is called by Paul ^^ AiaKovov^^^ a servant, or dea- coness of the Church in Cenchrea.s 21. Priscilla and Aquila, styled by the apostle Paul his "help- ers in Christ Jesus."* 22. Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas — first, the companion of Barnabas and Saul, then of Barnabas alone, to Cyprus, and sub- sequently again of Paul.' 23. Aristarchus of Macedonia, Paul's companion in travel, and fellow-laborer." (Col. 4 : 10.) 24. Sojmter or Sosipater (Rom. 16 : 21), of Berea. lie accompa- nied Paul into Asia.' 25. Aristarchus of Thessalonica. He accompanied Paul into Asia.'" 26. /Secwwi^w^ of Thessalonica. He accompanied Paul into Asia." 27. Gaius of Derbe. He accompanied Paul into Asia.'' 28. Tychicus of Asia. (Col. 4 : 7.) He accompanied Paul into Asia."' 29. Tropliimus of Asia. He accompanied Paul into Asia.** 30. Artemas. Either he or Tychicus was sent to Crete by Paul to relieve Titus, whom he wanted to join him at Nicopolis." 31. Epenctus, Paul's well-beloved.'" 32. Andronicus and Junia. Paul's " fellow-prisoners," and " of note among the apostles."" 33. Urhane. Paul's " helper in Christ."" 34. Apelles. " Approved in Christ,"" (1) Acts 4 : 36 ; 13 : 1 ; and V. 5 ; 12 : 25 ; 15 : 30-32. (2) 2 Cor. 8 : 23. (3) Phjlipp. 2 : 25. (4) Act* 18 : 24-28 ; Titus 3 : 13. (5) Rom. 16 : 1. (6) Rom. 16 : 3 ; 2 Tim. 4 : 19. (7) Col. 4 : 10 ; Acts 12 : 12-25 ; 13 : 13 ; 15 : 37-39 ; 2 Tim. 4 :11. Philem. v. 24. (8) Acts 19 : 29 ; 27 : 2. Philem. v. 24. (9) Acts 20 : 4. (10) lb. (11) lb. (12) lb. (13) lb. See also 2 Tim. 4:12; and Titus 3 : 12. (14) Acts 20 : 4 ; 2 Tim. 4 ; 20. (15) Titus 3 : 18. (16) Rom. 16 : 5. (17) lb., v. 7. (18) lb., ▼. 9. (19) Rom. 16 : 10. 101 35, Aristobulus, 36, Herodian, and 37, Narcissus. " Wliich are in the Lord.'" 38, AmpUas, and 39, Stachys. " Beloved in the Lord.'" 40, Tryphena^ 41, Tryphosa^ and 42, Per sis. ^'■Yfholdbcyred in the Lord.'" 43. Rufus. " Chosen in the Lord."* 44. Onesiphorus. 45. Erastus. 46. Eubidus. 47. Pudens. 48. Linus. 49. Claudia." 50. Epaphras. "A faithful minister of Christ," and Paul's "fel- low-prisoner."' 51. Onesimus. He accompanied Tychicus to Colosse.'' (For Tjchicus, see 28.) 52. Jesus., called Justus, Paul's " fellow-worker unto the king- dom of God."" 53. Lucas. Paul's " fellow-laborer.'" 54. Demas. Paul's "fellow-laborer."'" The unfaithful. Paul writes of him, " Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this pre- sent world."" 55. Crescens}^ 56. ArcMppus. A charge was given him to " take heed to the ministry which he had received of th^Lord, to fulfill it."'3 57. The angels or stars of the seven Asiatic Churches.'* 58. Diotrephes.^" He "loved to have the pre-eminence." The following names : — Asyncritus^ PJdegon, Hermas, Patro- has^ Hermes^ Philologus^ Nereus., Olympas and Dem£trius^^ with those of J/ar?/, Julia^ the sister of Nereus^'' etc., may have been — the former Deacons, and the latter the Dorcases or Deaconesses of the churches. But, no mark of official designation being attached to their names, we classify them with such as the " well-beloved" Gaius, " the elect lady," etc., mentioned by John," as having occu- pied in the churches the position of general " fellow-helpers to the truth,"" in the extension of their charity, hospitality, and timely assistance rendered to their suffering ministerial " brethren and strangers."" And, of this class also, may have been several whose names appear in the preceding catalogue as officers in the Church. For example, 31, Epenetus ; 34, Apelles ; 35, Aristobulus ; 36, Herodion ; 37, Narcissus; 38, Amylias ; 39, Stachys^ eic A few doubtful cases, however, in regard either to the one or the other of the above-named classes, can in no way affect our general argument in the premises. We add to the above, (1) lb., V. 10. 11. (2) lb., V. 8, 9. (3) lb., v. 12. (4) lb., v. 13. (5) 2 Tim. 4 : 19-21. (6) Colos. 1:7;4:12. Philem v. 23. (7) Col. 4 : 7-9. (8) Col. 4 : 11. (9; lb., v. 14. (10) lb., v. 14. Philem. T. 24. (11) •.? Tim. 4 : 10. (12) lb., v. 10. (13) Colos. 4 : 17. (14) Rev 2 : 3. (15) 3 John, vv. 9, 10. (16) Rom. 16 : 14, 15 ; 3 John, 12. (17) Rom. 16 : 6, 15. (18) 2 John, v. 1 ; 3 John, v. 1. (19) lb., v. 8. (20) See 3 John, 1 : 8. 102 Vll. — Those appointments in the Church made by sI'ecial Providence. These were, 59. The '■^ elders'^ or " hisTiaps'^ — -rrpealSvreQol vel emoKonoi ;' and, 60. The " deacons^^ — ^Iukovoi, in the churches of Ephesus and Crete." Such, then, were the ministerial " gifts" appointed under the direction and control of "the Lord God and his Spirit," in the primitive or New Testament Church. SECTION rv. The nature of their powers or "gifts." — This inferred, 1st: From their moral qualities of heart and of life — 2d : Must have a Divine call — 3d : Intellectual qualifications — 4th: Must be of sound doctrine — 5th : Excluded self-adulation, jealousy, and a love of " the pre-eminence" — 6th : The duty enjoined, to forsake such as are unholy in life, or who " handle the word of God deceitfully." Pass we now, therefore, from this account of their origin, to our next step of induction in these inquiries. This relates to, 11. — The NATUEE of these "gifts." This may be gathered from the following particulars. The first regards, — 1. The moral qualities of heart and of life of those who pos- sessed them. To the apostles, Christ said, " Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit'" — " the fruit of the Spirit"^ — and that, first, personally — "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, meekness, gentle- ness," etc' Second, ministerially — by turning sinners " from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God,"" and by the building up of the believer in the most holy faith ;' and, for this work, they were eminently qualified, by imparting to them the .Divine affiatus from Christ personally, both at the time of, and subsequently to, their first call ;' and also, and especiallj'-, by the descent upon them of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost.' So of the elders or hishops. It was required that they be " blame- less, as the steward of God" — "sober, just, holy, temperate," etc., that they might be able both to exhort and convince the gainsay- ers."'° The same of deacons^ of whom it was required " that they be men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom."" (1) 1 Tim. 3 : 1, 2. 3, 7 ; Titus 1 : 4-9. (i) 1 Tim. 3 : 8-13. (3) John 15 : 16. (1) GjI. 5 : 22. (5) lb., 92, 23. (6) Acts 26 : 18. (7) .Jude 20. (8) John 3 : 34, 35 j 20 : 22. (9) Acts 2. (10) Titus 1:6-9; 1 Tim. 3:1-7. (11) Acts 6 : 3. 103 2. To these spiritual qTialilications, we add the necessity of a divine call ; and that, either direct, as in the case of tlie twelve apostles, the scvent}^, Paul, etc. : or, by the authority of the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as in the case of Saul and Barna- bas, the seven deacons, etc. " He that entereth in by the door, is the shepherd of the sheep." All who " climb up some other way, are thieves and robbers.'" Of such God says, " I sent them not^ neither have I commanded them, neither s2Kdce unto them." '' Hence the direction — applicable alike to every age of the Church — "Pray ye the Lord of the harvest, that He would send laborers into his harvest." ^ We add, 3. Intellectual qualifications. " A hishop must be apt to teach" — " a scribe well instructed" — " a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth:" " not a novice, lest, being lifted up with pride, he fall into the condemnation of the devil."* 4. Sound doctnne, is another pre-requisite of this ministry. Christ warned his apostles to " beware of the leaven, or doctrine, of the Pharisees and Sadducees."' Paul charged Timothy thus: *' Take heed to thyself and to the doctnne, and continue in them,"' " that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed."' " But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine," " that ye be not carried away by every wind of doctrine, and cunning craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." * 5. This ministry of reconciliation," though constituted, as above, of " diversities of gifts ;" " that there should be no schism in the body,"' the Great Head of the Church early warned those included therein against indulgence in a spirit of self-adulation, of jealousy, or of a love of the pke-emin^nce. Says he to them, " seek not the honor which cometh from men, but the honor which cometh from God."'" And, to quell that spirit of unholy, schismatical, church- disorganizing rivalry so deeply inwoven in the very nature of sin- ful humanity, — yea, and from which even the regenerate are not wholly exempt— as may be seen in the conduct of the two sons of ^ebedee, James and John" — and to allay the rising jealousy of "the ten" to\yard their erring brethren, Jesus said : — "Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lord- ship over them ; and their great ones exercise authorit}^ over them. But so it shall not he among you : but whosoever will be great among }' on shall be your minister : and whosoever will be the chiefest, shall be the servant of all : for even tlie Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."" And so again on another occasion. In oppo- sition to that overweening love of titles and distinctions prevalent among the Pharisees, our Lord enjoins iipon them, " But be not (1) John 10 : 1, 2. (-2) Jer. U : 14 ; 23 : 21, 32 ; 27 : 15. (3) Matt. 9 : 38. (4) 1 Tim. 3:2; Matt. 13 : 52 ; 2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Tim. 3 : 6. (5) Matt. 16 : 5-12. (6) 1 Tim. 4 : 16. (7) 1 Tim. 6:1. (8) Titni 2:1; Eph. 4 : 14. (9) 1 Cor. 12 : 4, 25. (10) Jolia 5 : 41-44. (11) Matt. 20 : 20-23. (12) Mark 10 : 42-^5. 104 ye called Rubbi : for one is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon earth : for one is your Father, which is in heaven. — But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt him- self SHALL BE ABASED ; AND HE THAT HUMBLETU HIMSELF SHALL BE exalted;'" admonitions, one would think, sufficiently emphatic to deter Christ's ministers from the assumption of titles of distinc- tion^ be they what they may, which would in the least reflect in- vidiously on any among the " ALL," who are alike denominated " brethken." Such, then, namely : a changed heart, and a holy life — a Divine call — suitable intellectual qualifications — soundness in doctrine — freedom from indulgence in a spirit of self-adulation, of jealousy, and of a love of the pre-eminence, etc., being essential characteristics of the Christian ministry, the inference is, that that ministry must be, in its nature, eminently spiritual and holy. We would, however, be- fore dismissing this subject, and in the hope of adding greater force and impressiveness thereto, remark, that it is made an imperative duty upon all, to withdraiv themselves from those who, claiming to he ministers of Christ, are nevertheless not only unholy in life, hut who " HANDLE THE WORD OF GoD DECErrFDLLY." " Bcwarc," says our Lord, " Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits," etc." Such are styled " blind leaders of the blind:" 3 "false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming them- selves into the apostles of Christ."'' Such, primitively, were "Jannes and Jambres," " Hymeneus and Philetus," and " Dio- trephes, who loved to have the pre-eminence."' They were "men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith;"" "hav- ing a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:" some of them "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men;"^ and *' changing times and laws," etc. :' while others, "by good words and fair speeches deceived the hearts of the simple"' in regard to all the fandamental truths of Christianity, " turning the truths of God into a lie," and bringing in "damnable heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them." " Now, with these and the like " deceivers," the Church of Christ has been more or less infected, from the New Testament times to this day. It Avas predicted that thus it should be, of which the following by Paul is a specimen. " For I know this, that after my departing, shall grievous wolves enter in amortg you, not spar- ing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them."" "They shall deceive, if it be possible, the very elect." " Therefore, " beware." The declaration of our Lord concerning the conduct of his " sheep" in regard to such — " a stranger will (1) Matt. 23 : 12. (2) Matt. 7 : 15-20. (3) lb. 15 : 14. (4) 2 Cor. 11 : 23, and v. 13. Cj) 3 John V. 9. (6) 2 Tim. 3 : 1-13. (7) Matt. 13 : 9. (9) Dan. 7 : 25. (9) Rom. 16 : 18. (10) 2 Pet. 2 : 1. (11) Acts '20 : 29, 30. (12) Matt. 24 : 24. 105 tliej not follow, but will flee from him ;" ' by implication not only asserts the right but imposes the duty, to forsake all unholy and heretical ministers, who " consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness." * And especially from those of them who, in addition to their departure from the truth as it is in Christ, " LOKD IT OVER God's HEKFTAGe" ' BY SUBJECTING HER TO A SYSTEM OF Judaico-Christianized ceremonials and will-worship, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear ; ^ and that for the reason, that they are proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and words of strife, Avhereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness." ^ * Now, " from such," says the ajoo'stle, '•'■withdraw thyself" And, as though this were insufficient, he adds in another place, " Now we command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourself from every brother that walketh disor- derly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." •* SECTION V. Ministerial Orders. How many were there ? — Process of reduction and classification — 1st, By their titles — Of the above sixty, forty bore no titles ecclesiastical — those with titles (twenty in all) , the number reduced to eight — These compared with Eph. 4 : 11. — The present divinely-appointed ministry must correspond with those of the above who were designed to constitute the ordinary and permanent orders of said ministry for all time — Further reduction of the remaining New Testament appointments to this standard — Process — Classification according to their powers or functions, in connection with their titles — Eph. 4:11, harmonized with 1 Cor. 12 : 28 — Their powers — Varied, both in degree and duration — The first, apostles, superior — Seven marks of, etc. From the nature of the New Testament ministry, pass we now to consider, III. — Their Orders. The question here is, how many orders are there ? One, three, thirteen, or thirty ? * 1. To determine this point, we shall limit the test to those of the appointments (given on pages 98-102) which can be traced too. de- finite source^ or which bear a definite ecclesiastical title. The whole number of appointments is sixty : of which those of whose ap- pointments no account is given, and who bear no ecclesiastical (1) John 10 : 5. (-2) 1 Tim. 6 : 3. (3) 1 Peter 5 : 3. (4) Acts 15 : 10. (5) 2 Tim. 5 : 3-5. (6) 2 ThcS3. 3 ; 6. * It is our deep, deliberate, and solemn conviction and belief, that to no other portion of nominal Christendom will these words apply, in the same sense and to the same extent, as to the present divided and distracted condition of things in the Anglican and American Protestant Episcopal Church. " May God help her, and that right early /" 106 title, amount in all io forty. Those, deducted from tlie aggregate number, leave twenty. But, of this latter number it is clear that the above question cannot be determined alone by the names or titles borne by them respectively. For, besides that several who performed mmisterial acts have no titles assigned to them ; — viz. : No. 3, the man who cast out devils ; No. 4, the man sent to preach ; and No. 12, Barnabas, as sent forth by the Church at Je- rusalem ; — of those who have, if taken as they stand, it would con- siderably swell the amount beyond any admitted number of orders extant. They may be classified thus : Nos. 1, 5, 6, 11, 13, and 17, speak of apostles : No. 2, of the seventy disciples : Nos. 7 and 58, of deacons : Nos. 10 and 11, of evangelists : Nos. 8 and 57, of elders or bishops : Nos. 9 and 15, of prophets and teachers : No. 18, of deaconesses : No. 57, of the apocalyptic angels or stars. These titles give us, 1st, apostles ; 2d, disciples; 3d, deacons ; 4th, deaconesses ; 5th, jprophets ; 6th, teachers ; 7th, elders ; 8th, evangelists ; 9th, angels ; a larger number, this, of Orders, than those enumerated by Paul, Eph. 4 : 11, where he names apostles, prophets^ evangelists^ pastors or* teachers : in all, four. Of course, it will not be pretended that there are any orders now extant, which, taken as a whole, will bear the least resemblance to the above, either in number or in titles. This premised, we shall now assume as incontrovertible, that any extant ministry of the Church of Christ, claiming to be of Di- vine appointment, must bear evident marks of identity with what was designed to be the permanent orders in that Church for all time, of those which constituted the aggregate body during the apostolic age. Our first business, therefore, is, to reduce the above number of the New Testament ministerial appointments to this standard. This done, and we shall be prepared to search out those portions of the Church of Christ where this ministry is to be found. The question, then, presents itself ^ — Out of the above-named ap- pointments, how is the number to be reduced to the divinely-ap- pointed standard orders ? There is no other way than — 1. By a deduction therefrom, of all those who, from the circum- stances of their origin, and the nature and design of their appoint- ments, had no titles assigned to them. These were, first. No. 3, the man who was sent to preach ; second. No. 4, the man who cast out devils ; and third. No. 12, Barnabas, as sent forth by the Church at Jerusalem. The same will apply, fourth, to No. 2, the seventy disciples whose ministry ended before the crucifixion ; fifth, to No. 18, the deaconesses, whose office at an early period was lost to the Church. The next process is, — 2. By a grouping together of all bearing the same title. These * " Teachers" — a word added, to explain the figurative " pastors," and so without the article, and epexigetical. (The Rev. S. H. Cox, D.D.) 107 were, sixth, No. 1, " the twelve," called dnooToXoi ; seventh, No. 5, Paul, dTToaroAof ; eighth and ninth, Nos. 6 and 13, Saul and Barnabas, diroaroXoL -^ tenth, No. 17, Epaphroditus, dnoaroXog -^ and eleventh, No. 11, Matthias, diroaToXog. 8. The next is, a classification of those whose titles were used interchangeably ; for example, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth,- Nos. 10, 16, and 17, Paul calls Timothy, Titus, and Epaphroditus his companions in labor, etc. ; while in No. 10 he charges Timothy to do the work of an evangelist. Therefore, they were all three evangehsts. So also, fifteenth and sixteenth, Nos. 8 and 57, "elders," TrpeofSyrepoi^ and "bishops," emoKonoi^ denote the same oflfice. The remainder are, 4. Seventeen and eighteen, Nos. 7 and 58, deacons ; nineteen, Nos. 9 and 15, prophets and teachers ; and twenty. No. 57, angels. The next step of our advance, is, by deducting the five appoint- ments referred to in the first of the above scales, to determine which of the remainder, as viewed in the double aspect of ministerial powers or functions AND titles^ were intended to be temporary only, as contradistinguished from those which were designed for the per- manent upbuilding and edification of the Church, to the end of the present dispensation. At this point, then, the question of ministerial orders, necessa- rily merges into that regarding, rV. — Their Poweks ok Functions. By this we mean, simply, that the rank or order of each, is to be inferred from the work assigned to each. Not, however, exclusively. For, their names or titles^ surely, are not mere empty sounds, without sense or meaning. Nor does it alter the case, that, in some instances, the same name or title is em- ployed to denote entirely separate and distinct functions of dif- ferent orders. For, in addition to the fact, as will appear in the sequel, that a name, commonly appropriated to denote, by way of eminence, a particular order, is sometimes applied to those exercising different functions under another title ; and again, that two different names or titles are sometimes employed to designate the same order ; so, on the other hand, the same name is sometimes employed to denote the various functions or species of one genus or order. With these preliminaries in view, we remark, that the powers or functions and titles now to be examined, regard tlie following, as what remain in the preceding summary of ministerial appointments by Christ and his apostles, viz. : apostles, prophets, evangelists, TEACHERS, ELDERS, Or augcls (which Order, as will be seen hereafter, embraces two classes — those of teaching or preaching, and ruling elders — ). deacons, in all, six in number. 4 . 108 Now, by deducting from these, those bearing the titles of elders, as embracing both classes of teaching and ruling elders, and dea- cons ; the remaining four will be found precisely to correspond with those given by Paul, Eph. 4 : 11. " And he" (Christ, " when he ascended up on high,") " gave some, apostles ; and some, pro- phets ; and some, evangelists, and some, pastors {alias angels) or teachers. But it will be asked. How is this to be reconciled with the statement in 1 Cor. 12 : 28 ? " God hath set some in the Church, first, apostles ; secondarily, prophets ; thirdly, teachers ; after that, miracles ; then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues ;" in all, eight in number. We submit the following, as furnishing what we conceive to be a sa- tisfactory reply. In the latter passage, we understand the apostle to speak of ministerial orders by their powers or functions and titles ; •while in the former, he presents them to view under the aspect of their titles only. It follows, that they can be made to harmonize on no other principle than that, talcen together^ they set forth their respective endowments. The question, therefore, to be determined is this : Were all those who were engaged in preaching, baptizing, teaching, etc., and in governing the Church during the New Testament age, pos- sessed of the same endowments — that is, the same in degree, and in duration, and to the same end ? So far from it, they were cha- racterized by the greatest possihle diversities of " gifts," " opera- tions," and "administrations." "Wisdom," "knowledge," "faith," "the working of miracles," "prophecy," "discerning of spirits," "divers kinds of tongues," and "the interpretation of tongues,"* were all severally distributed for specifically different ends., in accordance with the sovereign will of the same Lord God and his Spirit." As " the body is not one member, but many"^ — the eye, the ear, the hand, the foot — each performs its functions, whether superior or subordinate, in harmony with their respective relations to tliat body, as a whole. Which one, then, of the above orders now under consideration, constituted, in the highest sense, the sitperior ministry.^ of the New Testament Church ? In the Pauline catalogues, as given in 1 Cor. 12 : 28, and Eph. 4 : 11, both open with, I.— "First. Apostles:^ Let us then, in the first place, attend to the marhs or signs., essential to this office. First. An apostle must have been called and chosen by Christ himself Second. He must have been able, as an eye-witness, to attest the fact of Christ's resurrection and ascension, either immediately, as the twelve, or by evident conse- quence, as Paul. Third. He must have been an inspired perison, (J) 1 Cor. 12. (2) John 3 : 34. (3) 1 Cor. 12 : 12-27. 109 and an infallible guide to the Cliurcli, as tlie canon of Scripture was not then complete. Fourth. He must have been endowed with miraculous powers. Fifth. He must have been able to im- part the extraordinary gift of the Holy Ghost to others. Sixth. He must have possessed the right and warrant to instruct all nations, and exercise his functions every where. And, seventh. He must have possessed the power to govern absolutely, according to dis- cretion, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.* Now, do the New Testament Scriptures bear out these marks or signs, in their application to " the twelve ?" Let us try the First, by that standard. In our list of ministerial appointments, No. I. assigns that of " the twelve" to Christ, jpersonally. Mark says, " and he (Christ) ordained twelve, that they should be with him," etc' Their names were, Peter, Andrew, James the son of Zebedee, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James the son of Alpheus, Lebbeus, Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot.^ To these " twelve," Jesus gave the name of "Apos- tles."^ The second. As it respects " the twelve," Christ, having called them as his personal companions during his ministry, and having " showed himself alive to them after his passion," he said, " ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you : and ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in all Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."' So, in regard to Paul, whose mission, having " seen^^ Christ — though "as of one born out of due time"'^ — was no less cir- cumscribed. As " an Apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but hy Jesus ChHst^ and God the Father^ who raised him from the dead,)^ he labored more abundantly than they all."' The third. In reference to the matter of inspiration peculiar to New Testament times, the fact, we observe, of Paul's detail, with so much minuteness, of the " diversities of gifts" conferred " by the Spirit," and actually possessed and exercised by the Co- rinthian believers,' renders it certain that the divine affiatus was not exclusively confined to themselves. Nor is it less certain that they (the apostles) possessed it in a super-eminent degree. What- ever difiiculties may attend our determination of the difference of import of the /loyof oofpiag, " the word of toisdom,^^^ as distin- guished from the Xoyog yvo)oeo)g, " the word of knowledge,''' as to the order of their distribution ; and also those other gifts, namely, "faith," "the gifts of heahng," "the working of miracles," "pro- phecy," "discerning of spirits," speaking with " tongues," and "the interpretation of tongues ;" yet, that these endowments, so far as bestowed upon and exercised by the " prophets and teachers" of the Church, were inferivX all — "and prophets," and of which "Jesus Christ himself was the chief coenek stone."' 2d. '•'•And I say also unto thee^ that thou art Peter ; and upon this ROCK I will huild my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee THE KEYS of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt hind on earth, shall le hound in heaven ^ and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall he loosed in heaveny^ As preliminary to an exposition of this remarkable passage, it will be necessary to refer to the term " rock," as a symbolical representation of Deity. As a shelter and refuge from the assault of enemies, it is employed to denote the strength and power of God as an asylum and defense to his people. Thus, David. "The Lord is my rocTc and my fortress." " Who is a roch save our God ?"^ But, God is known to his people only as he is mani- fested through Christ. " God hi Christ." Hence the application of this symbol — " the flinty rock" in Horeb, from which the Is- raelites were supplied with water — to Christ, iDy Paul. " They all drank of that sinritual eock that followed them : and that rook "WAS Christ." As such, he is, pre-eminently, the foundation upon which is erected that spiritual edifice which is the home, the shel- ter, of the redeemed of all nations.- In this aspect, " other founda- tion can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." To him as such, the Divine attestation was given, when, havino- honored his Father at his baptism, he was honored by him by that voice from heaven which proclaimed, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." A pagan poet has said, " Never introduce a God unless upon an occasion worthy of him."* The descent of the Holy Ghost upon Christ in the form of a dove, ratified that attestation from the heavens / while, on the other hand, Peter's reply to our Lord's question, " Whom say ye that I am?" namely: "thou art the Christ, the Son of the LIVING God," was a response thereto on earth. And, together, they proclaimed Jesus as the Savior of the world, and as the divinely (1) Eph. 2 : 30. (2) Matt. 16 : 18, 19. (3) Psalms 18 : 2, 31. ♦ " Non deus intersit nisi dignus vindice modus — inciderit."— //or. 118 coNSTrruTED Head over all things, to his mystical body, the Church 1 It is here also to be observed, that the above reply of Peter was the first distinct and intelligible confession of Christ, as here rep- resented, since his baptism. It set forth Christ as " the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world," and of his faith in him as such. Noble declaration ! Glorious confession ! The stu- pendous fabric of Christianity was to be reared upon it through- out all time! No marvel, then, that his Divine Master should pronounce him " blessed ;". nor that he should have annexed thereto the declaration, " Thou art Peter ; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." " Upon this eock." "We ask, then. Was Peter " this rock'''' f 2i) el Iltrpof, Kal em ravr-r] rrj Trerpa. " You are Peter ^ and upon this Pctra^'' strikes the ear of a Grecian, as, " Thou art stone^ and upon this rock^'' strikes the ear of an Englishman. And, this mode of speech well comported with a usage common with the Savior — that of consecrating every scene, and circumstance, and topic of conversation, to religion and morality. For example. When call- ing the Galilean fishermen from their ordinary occupations, his language is, "follow me, and I will make you fi.shers of m cts 14 : 14. (-2) .\cts 13 : 1-3 P) Acts 9 : 1-18. See al^o vv. 20, ii, 27. 29. 132 which Barnabas and Saul were specially set apart, was " fulfilled" or terminated at Antioch about three years after^ It follows, that the title dixdaroXoi, as applied to Barnabas with Saul, is to be understood simply in the sense of messenger^ or the setting apart of persons already ordained, to a sjpecial missionary woi'k. The title is never subsequently applied to Barnabas. Try it in its ap- plication, [2.] To Epaphroditus. Paul speaks of him thus : ** Yet I sup- posed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labor, and fellow-soldier, but vjuwv 61 aTxoaroXov, your messenger,'" or apostle. On this passage we remark, that the phrase crvvepyov juov, is rightly rendered in our version, not, my compeer, but " my companion ;" in a sense similar to its applica- tion to Aquila and Priscilla, Rom. 15 : 3, rovg ovvepyovg fiov, " my helpers," etc. ; and to the apostles : — Qeov yap eoiiev awepyoi^ " We are laborers together with God." (1 Cor. 3 : 9.) Otherwise Aquila and Priscilla (!) are apostolic compeers ; and, the apostles are com- peers with God ! The apostle explains the nature of the apostolicity of Epaphro- ditus, chap. 4 : 18. "I have all," says he, "and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odor of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well- pleasing to God." The Philippian Church, by an act of well-timed liberality, had " communicated with Paul in his afflictions," (chap. 4 : 11-14,) through Epaphroditus, whom he therefore styles their anoaroXov, messenger, and he that iiiinistered to his wants." (ch. 2 : 62.) Further remark would be supei-fluous. Consider this title, [3.] In reference to the tioo hrethren that accompanied Titus to Corinth. Of these two brethren the apostle speaks in terms of the highest commendation. (2 Cor. 8 : 18, 22.) Titus, in compliance with Paul's request,' being about to visit Corinth, is accompanied by these brethren, one of whom at least " was chosen of the churches to travel with us [i.e. Paul] with this grace," etc. (v. 19.) He was therefore a messenger of the churches, and both he and the other companion of Titus were messengers of Paul to the Church at Corinth. These facts afford sufficient data for the de- cision of the question as to the sense of the word dnoaroXoL in the following sentence : " Whether do any inquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellow-helper concerning you ; or otir brethren be in- quired of, they are the messengers, dnooToXoi, of the churches, and the glory of Christ." We only remark in conclusion in regard to these cases, that, whatever were their functions as denoted by the application to them of the title d-noaToXog, they were evidently of an order not only totally distinct from, but inferior to, those of " the eleven." (1) Compare Acts 13 : 4-52, with chap. 14 : 1-36. (2) Philip. 2 : 25. (3) 2 Cor. 3 : 6, 16, 17. 133 [4.] If now, it can be made to appear, that, of the remaining two cases, — those of Matthias and Paul, — though the name cTrofTro- Aof, in the sense of its comprehending all the marTcs which be- longed to the apostohcity of " the eleven," is applied to them ; yet that but ONE of them is entitled to that honor, jure divino, the New Testament Scriptures will be relieved of the incongruity of making scores, not only, but even " THIETEEN," instead of " TWELVE, apostles of the Lamb," on earth and in heaven. SECTION vni. Proof, that Paul filled the vacancy created hy the fall and death of Judas — Acts 1 : 26, reconciled with the above — Objections answered — 1st : That it impugns the inspi- ration of the Sacred Narrative as furnished by Luke — 2d : That Peter being in- spired, could not err — 3d : That Peter must have received explicit directions frour: Christ — 4th : The Election of Matthias was decided by lot — 5th : That the num- ber " twelve" is applied to the Apostles both before and after the Vocation of Paul. — Direct proofs of Paul's claims over those of Matthias. — 1st : Peter's agency in the above transaction was premature — And hence, 2d : Unauthorized — 3d : Psalm 109 : 8, inapplicable to this case — 4th : No evidence that it was dictated by the Holy Ghost. — No direct evidence that the Apostles themselves claimed the right to fill said vacancy. — Conclusion. In conclusion, therefore, of this somewhat protracted inquiry into the number of the New Testament apostles, we shall claim this honor — though we trust, with becoming deference — in behalf. Of Paul, over that of Matthias. Yes : and that too, with our eye now resting on the statement as recorded in the Acts (than which, nothing can be more explicit), in reference to Matthias's election to fill the place of Judas. " And they gave forth their lots ; and the lot fell upon Matthias ; aiid he was numbered with the eleven apostles.''''^ "We trust that our candor in making this concession, will evi- dence that, to our mind, at least, this statement of the inspired narrator 7nay be reconciled with the proposition above asssumed, in reference to Matthias and Paul. First, then. To the objection, that the historian " could not have written under the inspiration of the Spirit, or he never would have recorded an unwarrantable act, and palmed it off on the Christian world as authorized ;"* we reply : It by no means fol- lows that, because an act is recorded by an inspired amanuensis, the act itself must of necessity have been dictated by the Holy Ghost. The business of the historian is, simply to record facts. Indeed, the entire structure of sacred history is founded on a sim- (n Acts 1 : 26. • Bp. McCoskrey's Sermon : Episcopal Bishops the Succes.sors of the Apostles, p. 15. 134 pie record of facts. And, when connected with " the acts" of indi- viduals, be they apostles or others, these acts are left " to speak for themselves, without censuring the agents." So, in the above in- stance of the recorded election, etc. of Matthias. The apostle Peter had predicated the action in regard to the appointment of Mat- thias, on the prediction concerning Judas, as contained in the 109th Psalm. "Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein : and his bishopric let another take^ It formed no part of the business of the historian, however, to scan the reason- ing of Peter regarding it, or to decide upon the merits of the infer- ence which formed the basis of his conduct, or of those who acted with him. That is the exclusive province of those for whose " in- struction in righteousness"' the Bible was written. That the spirit of inspiration should have permitted the record of this appointment of Matthias to appear on the sacred page unreproved and uncon- demned, is no more evidence that it had the Divine sanction, than that the conduct of Peter in returning himself, and in instigating his apostolic companions to join him in returning, to his and their former occupation of fishing, during the interval of Christ's en- tombment and resurrection, because not condemned by their risen Lord, was divinely authorized." But it is further objected, that Peter and those who acted with him, being divinely inspired, could not have erred in this matter. To this we answer, that nothing is more evident than the fact, that such a belief in apostolic infallihility as predicated of their inspira- tion^ formed no pait of the creed either of "the eleven" or of the brethren. Peter had erred before this transaction.^ And, his act in having " gone in to men uncircumcised and eating with them," though a divinely official act on his part, yet until it was fully ex- plained to those of the circumcision, was considered and treated as wholly unauthorized.'* Paul's rebuke of Peter for another of his official acts,' the nature and tendency of which seriously threatened the best interests of the infant Church, illustrates this same fact. If, then, Peter thus erred both before and after his endowment in its fullest measure, of the Pentecostal gift of the Holy Ghost, might not he, and with him his compeers and others, have erred before that event ? Once more. It is urged, that as Christ " must have spoken of the treachery of Judas, and also of the position which he occu- pied," etc., " it is reasonable to suppose that he gave his apostles instructions to supply his place."* But, why left to "infer" the giving instructions in a matter involving consequences so stupen- dous ? If Christ " must have spoken of the apostas)^ of Judas," upon the hypothesis that his apostles were to supply his place, is it not "reasonable to infer" that he would have given them in- (1) 2 Tim. 3 : 16. (Q) John 21 : 3. (3) John 21 : 3 ; comp. with Matt. 26 : 31-35 ; 69-76. (4) Acts 11 : 1-18. (.5) Gal. 2 : Il-la. * Bp. McCoskrey's Sermon, p. 16. 135 • structions in regard to it at once direct and positive ? And, espe- cially, when the effect would have been to have precluded the possibility of, or at least to have silenced at once and forever, all cavils on, the question of apostolic prerogatives ? But, allowing, for the sake of argument, the alleged appointment of Matthias by Peter ; so far from his referring to any such instructions from his Divine jNIaster, he predicates the whole procedure on the prophecy already referred to respecting the filling of the vacancy of the apostate Judas, in the 109th Psalm. Again, it is urged, that the appointment of Matthias was decided by " lot^''' and, therefore, that it must have been valid. Not, Ave reply, without the evidence of direct Divine authority for the substi- tution of that method in the place of an appointment by Christ per- sonally. True, those concerned in this transaction, could plead in justification of its adoption a variety of precedents for deciding the election in that form. But these precedents, employed, as they were, on such diversified occasions, are resorted to as well hy Pa- gan ' as by Hebrew ; and the design of which is, to illustrate that superintending Providence of God which extends to the minutest and every-day affairs of men : — for " the lot is cast into the lap^ hut the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord :''^^ — certainly show the ab- sence of that force and authority which the nature of the appoint- ment, and the pending consequences to the Church of God, in- volve. Finally, it is objected, that the number " tiuelve''' is applied to the apostles, between the above aj)pointment of Matthias, and the vocation of Paul ; and also by that apostle himself at a subsequent period.^' But, that nothing definitive can be derived from these references in favor of Matthias as one of " the twelve," may, we think, be inferred from the fact, that the same number " twelve" is applied to them by John after the death of Judas and before the election of MattMas, when, of course, there were only "eleven" in all not only, but when there were only TEN of them present ; and that too, on the very solemn occasion when Jesus said to them, "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you"! The passage referred to is the following : " But Thomas, one of the twelve^ called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came." * It only remains now that we ask, whether there be not reason- able ground for the conclusion, that the entire proceeding as nar- rated of this transaction in the first chapter of the Acts, had its origin in that indomitable ardor and impetuosity, so characteristic of the apostle Peter ? We shall call to our aid in suj^port of it the following : — 1. This act of Peter, even if officially valid, was premature. The election etc. of Matthias transpired prior to the Pentecost; which circumstance, to our mind, cannot be reconciled with (1) Jonah 1 : 7. (2) See Acts 13 : 19 ; Lev. 16 : 8 ; Josh. 18 : 10 ; 1 Sam. 14 : 41, 42 ; 1 Chron 24 : 5 I Prov. 16 : 33. (3) Acts 2 : 14 ; 6 : 2 ; and 1 Cor. 15 : 5. (4) Compare Johu 20 : vv. 21 and 24 136 Christ's positive command to tliem, "that they should not depart from Jerusalem, httt ^Y ait for the ^promise of the Father ;^ which promise had reference to their baptism by the Holy Ghost on that day, as an absolutely indispensable qualification for the exercise of their apostolic functions," Hence, 2. This act was unautTwrized. True, with the facts present to his mind of the vacancy inr the apostolic college, occasioned by the apostasy of Judas on the one hand, and of the declaration of Christ, made prior to the creation of said vacancy,' that "the twelve apostles" in the militant, should "sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" in the heavenly, hierarchy, on the other : we are not surprised that Peter should have concluded that there " m^lst one he ordained to he a witness with them (the eleven) of Chrisfs vesurreGtionP*^ But, that he erred in regard to the person destined to fill that vacancy, to the agency to be em- ployed therein, and to the inode of its accomplishment, we think may be gathered, (rt.) From the ahsence of any specific allusion to either^ in the prophecy of David, in the 109th Psalm, v. 8. The passage in the original reads thus : ^iHh w^^^ ^fi^p^ another shall take his office. The verb n;?-; yikkach, is in the future tense ; and the prophecy, consequently, simply announces that another should take that ofiice or charge, no allusion whatever being made to the agency of the apostles therein, or the mode of the appointment thereto. To this we add, (h.) There is no evidence that this transaction was dictated by the Holy Ghost. So far from it, the record declares that the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glori- fiedr" Admitting, then, that Peter and his compeers in ofiice, in virtue of their functions previously conferred, had the right to fill said vacancy ; yet, those functions being at the time incomplete — (for the breathing of the Holy Ghost upon them by Christ, as re- corded John 20 : 22, was dilTerent in degree, and for a different end, from the " power" with which they were to be clothed by the descent of the Iloly Ghost upon them at Pentecost),* it follows, that the office, as conferred on Matthias, was imjyerfect. They could not have conferred functions on another, which themselves did not possess. But, (c.) We have the most decisive evidence, that tlie apostles them- selves claimed no right to fill said vacancy. Else why, we ask, the proposition by Peter, not to his ten apostolic compeers, but to '"''the disciples,'''' that is, to the "men and brethren," ("the number of the names together" being "about an hundred and twenty")?'' True, all the apostles might have been present. We admit that they we/'e present. But nothing can be more explicitly stated, (1) Acts 1 : 4, 5 ; comp. 2 : 33. (2) Acts 1 : 8. (3) Matt. 19 : 28 ; Luke 22 : 30 (4) Acts 1 : 22. (5) John 8 : 39 ; Acts 1 : 7-11 ; 2 : 1-4. (6) Compare John 20 : 23, with Acts 1 : 8, and 2 : 1-lL (7) Acts 1 : 15, 16. 137 than that " ^/^'y," that is, "the disciples," " appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said," etc. "And theij gave fortli their lots," etc.' Add to this, finally, the fact, that the result of the election was referred by the whole body of the disciples, together with Peter and his ten associates in office, to the Lord I and we submit, whether evidence can be more com- plete. "And they prayed, and said, Thou^ Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen," etc.* In conclusion, then, on this subject, we remark, that, after a most careful review of the narrative of this transaction, to our mind there are grounds for much more than a doubt, whether Matthias was the divinely a2)2)ointed successor of Judas. Indeed, we are fully persuaded that nothing more can be claimed to sus- tain it, but an honest but mistaken inference of Peter on the one hand, and an exceedingly equivocal rule of conduct by the hun- dred and twenty disciples, on the other. And these considera- tions, taken in connection with the fact, that no conviction could have been more deeply seated in the minds of the apostles them- selves, than that they, as such, had no power to fill that vacancy, not only, but also that, unless the successor of Iscariot should receive his commission directly from the Lord Jestjs himself, it was, to all intents and purposes, null and void j we are, we think, compelled to look elsewhere for the one possessed of a clearer title to compeership with " the twelve apostles of the Lamb." That title, we shall now claim, adheres in The APOSTOLiciTT OF Paxil. As shown above, the vacancy in the apostolic college could be filled by none other than by one who had seen the Lord, and who should derive his appoint- ment directly from Christ hhnself both of which conditions meet in the vocation of that "chosen vessel" of the Lord — Paul. For, though "born out of due time," yet, saj^s he, ''''last of all^ he (Christ) ivas SEEN of me also.''^^ And, that he did not receive his appointment from the apostles, but from Christ himself, is manifest from the following. He tells us, that he " did not go up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before him," but that he was " an apostle, {not of men^ neither hy man^ hut hy Jesus Cheist, and God the Father, who raised him from the deadr'Y (1) Acts 1 : 23, 24, 26. (2) Acts 1 : 24. (3) 1 Cor. 15 : 8. (4) Gal. 1 : 1, 11, 12, and v. 17. ♦ It is here to be particularly noted, in defense of the claim here urged in behalf of Paul as one of " the twelve,'" that, as of " the eleven,''^ so of him ; his designation to the apostleship teas not by imposition of hands. The laying on of hands upon him by Ana- nias, Was not an act of consecration to the apostleship. To such a pretense, it is sufficient that we reply, that the qualifications of Ananias fell far below those required by prela- tists for the performance of that act. In the vision of Paul, Ananias appeared simply as "a ware," not as an apostle, (Acts 9 : 12.) His highest appellation is that of" a dis- ciple^^ (ib., V. 10.) And the object of his mission to Paul was, not to make him an apos- tle, but by laying hands on him, to restore him to sight, (ib., vv. 12, 17, 18.) and by bap- tism, to introduce him into the Christian Church, (ib., v. 18.) Nor this only. But, as 138 SECTION IX. Recapitulation of the reduced ministerial N. T. appointments, according to, first, their titles ; and second, their functions and titles. — Result : The whole number reduced to four orders — namely. Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, and Pastors or Teachers. — Proof, that neither of these orders, in respect to their original primitive endow- ments, was designed to be perpetuated in the Church. — The argument applied, 1st, to " the twelve apostles of the Lamb ;" 2d, to the other thr6e orders. — Their (that is, the apostles's) primitive functions not transmissible, though their names, in part, are retained. We come now to remark, that, of the ministerial appointments recorded in the New Testament — 1st, by Christ personally; 2d, by the Holy Ghost; 3d, by the apostles; 4th, by the apostles with others ; 5th, by others independently of the apostles ; and 6th, hj special Providence, the following is the result : — I. That the aggregate numbers amount in all to twenty, and II. That, on the reduced scale, the orders consisted of Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, Teachers, Elders (as inclusive of pastoral and ruling elders). Deacons, and Angels ; in all, eight in number ; which, leaving out the three bearing the titles of elders, ruling el ders, and deacons, (for which, the reasons will be assigned in the proper place,) precisely corresponds with Paul's enumeration of them as given in 1 Corinthians 12 : 28, and Ephesians 4 : 2. For, the apostle, having spoken in the former passage, of ministerial appointments by their powers or fLinctions and titles ; and in the latter of their titles only as inclusive of their powers or functions ; it follows, that, of the number of Orders which remained to be con- sidered, there were apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors or teachers : in all, four. Of these four orders, it was assumed as fundamental to a deter mination of what was to constitute the standing ministry of the Church of Clirist in all time, to settle the question as to whether they were designed to form the permanent ministry of the Church. On this subject, the Scriptures, we believe, will be found most though it were designed as a standing reproof in all future time to those who, in virtue of their alleged official prerogatives as the successors of the apostles, should arrogate the right to dispense the Holy Ghost, " the man^' Ananias, imparts to him this gift also .' (ib., v. 17.) Again. The same act of manual imposition, as recorded. Acts 13 : 3. was the mere setting Saul apart, with Barnabas, to a special and t>>mporary mission (compare Acts 13 : 1. with 14 : 26) : a work, though compatible with, 3'et certainly, not exclusively a part of, the apostolic office. Nor were the apostles the agents employed by the Holy Ghost in that act. It was performed by " the prophets and teachers^' in the Church at Antioch. (Acts 13 : 1-3.) Paul's appointment to the apostleship, though " the signs" of it (2 Cor. 12 : 12) might have been reserved to an after period, was of a date anterior to that event, (Acts 9:1-9; 15, 16.) 139 unequivocally to sustain the hypothesis, that they were, one and all, of temporary duration. Let us test it in its application, I. To " THE TWELVE APOSTLES OF THE LaMB." On this subject we remark in the first place, what, we think, can- not fail to strike the mind as peculiarly significant, that, with the account given above of the origin, nature, and functions of " the twelve," harmonizes the declaration of Christ regarding the ulti- mate end to be accomplished by their appointment. Having " showed himself alive to them after his passion," etc., he said : " Ye shall receive poiver^ after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you : AND YE SHALL BE WITNESSES UNTO ME, BOTH IN JUDEA, AND IN JeKUSALEM, and in all SaMAEIA, AN'D UNTO THE UTTERMOST PARTS OF THE EARTH." * Now, this declared design of their mission, viewed in connection with the marks or signs of their apostolicity : namely, 1st, that they were chosen by Christ himself; 2d, that they had seen Christ per- sonally, etc. ; 3d, that they were inspired and infallible ; 4th, that they were endowed with miraculous powers ; 5th, that they alone could impart the gift of the Holy Ghost ; 6th, that their mission was universal ; and 7th, that they alone possessed the right to govern absolutely : and what, we ask, can be more evident than that, as an Order, their ministry in the Church militant, — whether it related to preaching, baptizing, teaching, the working of mira- cles, speaking with tongues, appointing ofiicers in the Church, and laying down rules (whether by usage or by express injunction) for the government of the Church, — was of a special and extraordinary character ? Nor this only. For having fulfilled the purposes of its appoint- ment, the Scriptures, as we shall show, are equally clear in furnish- ing the evidence, that it expired with the necessity that created it. In other words, that the office, apostoliccd, of " the twelve,'''' was in no sense designed to he transmissible to others. No, not even the najyie d-nooroXog, was so transmissible. That name, like "the keys" of Peter, passed with them into the heavens, where they " sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." And, even admitting, — which, by the way we do not, except in a secondary or subordinate sense — that the names, either in whole or in part, of the remaining three orders, — prophets, evangelists, and p)astors or teach- ers, are now used to designate the ordinary ministry of the Church, even their primitive functions were not transmissible. In proof, take the following comparison of the commission as originally given by Christ to "the twelve," with Paul's account of the design of tneir ministry in conjunction with the others, equally derived from Christ, as recorded Eph. 4 : 11, 12. "We will place the two pas- sages side by side. (I) Acts 1 : 3-8. 140 Matt. 28 : 19, 20. Eph. 4 : 11, 12. " Go ye, therefore, and teach all na- " And he gave some apostles ; and tions, baptizing them in the name of some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ; the Father, and of the Son, and of the and some, pastors and teachers ; For Holy Ghost : teaching them to observe the perfectmg of the saints, for the all things whatsoever I have command- work of the ministry, for the edifying ed you : And lo, I am with you cUway, of the body of Christ : Till we all even unto tlie end of the world," come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto A PERFECT MAN, unto the meosure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." The facts here affirmed, are, that Christ, " when he ascended up on high," " gave," in the order of his " gifts unto men," " first, apostks.''^ Following these, as the necessities of the Church re- quired, now that she was being reconstructed under the new econ- omy, were others under the apostles, requisite to the consumma- tion of the great work of which he speaks — namely, " the perfect- ing of the saints" in the faith of Christ doctrinally, and for their edification, government, etc. : — propliets., evangelists^ and pastors or teox^hers. The question now is, How long was this their work as " apos- tles, ^Drophets," etc., to continue? The apostle answers. " Until they all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man ; (mark — not men) — elg dvdpa reXeiov ; that is, to a perfect body — " the Church of Christ, which is his body^^ : " unto the measure of the stature, ^XiKiag (age), of the full- ness of Christ." The meaning therefore evidently is, that from the apostolic com- mission as recorded in the 28th of -Matthew to the penning of Eph. 4 : 11-13 ; such a ministry as, in addition to their endow- ments of the gifts of inspiration to preach, dispense ordinances, teach, work miracles, govern, etc. ; others also were endowed with miraculous gifts through them, for the edifying of the body of Christ, " UNTIL," out of Jews and Gentiles, they {i.e. the apostles) had made one perfect man, the Church. Hence the harmony of this view with the original promise of Christ to " THE TWELVE :" " Zo, I am with you ahvay, et^g rr^g avvreXeidg rev ali^vog, — that is, TILL the conclusion of THIS STATE OR PERIOD to be appropriated to THE PERFECTING OF THE MODEL KINGDOM, SPIRITUAL. And so, the word "until," as employed by the apostle. It is /^s;tP* in Greek, donee in Latin, adverbs expressive of the time, how long. Both passages, as to time, refer, not to the offices as filled by either, but to \\\% personal ministry of each. But, " the twelve," and those who, under them constituted the miraculous ministry of the New Testament Church, having " fallen asleep in Christ,"' are no Xowg^x personally with the Church. Therefore, their office and functions, being ex- traordinary, were untransferable, and hence, temporary. To (1) 1 Cor. \i : IS. 141 place this matter beyond tlie reacli of reasonable controversy, we nave but to compare tlie above promise of Christ, " I am with YOU continually^'' etc., with the following testimony of Paul : " Verily^ their sound^'' — that is, the preaching, etc., of the apos- tles, ^^loent into all the earth, and their words nnto the ends OF THE woKLD."* This douc, and the tenure of their commission " for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifj'ing of the body of Christ," had accomplished its widest range. The Church, through its divinely appointed instrumentality, had attained to " the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man^ Hence, their work, thus finished, joined with that of the "prophets," etc., COMPLETED that " foundation" which rests upon " Christ as the chief corner stone," and upon which was to be reared the superstructure of that Church against which " the gates of hell never can prevail."'' For, though dead, they yet speak. " In their essential functions of in- struction and government, they are stilly and ever will Je, with the Church as the foundation on which the whole structure must rest, as the enthroned authority to which the mind of every minister, and of every member, must yield implicit subjection." On the subject of the remaining orders, — "Prophets, Evange- lists, and Pastors or Teachers," — the evidences demonstrative of the inferiority of their functions to those of " the twelve" ; of their respective characteristic differences each from the other ; and of the line of demarkation dra^vn between the extraordinary or tem- porary and the ordinary or permanent, ministry, of the Church ; being so intimately connected with the New Testament " doctrine of laying on of hands^'' an exhibit of a scriptural view of the one, will furnish a key to the opening up of the other. Hence our passport to another, and a most important and interesting topic of inquir3^ (1) Rom. 10 : 18. (2) Matt. 16 : 18 142 CHAPTER II. ORDINATION. SECTION I. Two extremes respecting it. — As a ceremonial action, it involves " the laying on of hands." — Was applied to various uses. — This Ceremonial Action defined. — Is com- mon to every Dispensation — 1st : The Patriarchal Age — Instances of its use — 2d : The Jewish Dispensation — Do. — 3d : The Christian Dispensation — Do. as em- ployed, (1) by Christ. Proof, that the action, as employed by Him, involved no inherent virtue of His human hand. — (2.) By the ^^osf/cs. They disclaimed a// inherent virtue in the act itself. — Instances of its use by them. First, in healing the sick ; Second, in the bestowment of Spiritual Gifts ; Third, in the setting apart of a person to any work or office, special or ordinary. — These two, entirely separate and distinct acts, and regarded entirely different ends. — Proof, that the bestowment of spiritual gifts was exclusively the work of the Apostles, and constituted, pre-em- inently, the " seaV of their Apostleship. Two EXTREMES mark the current views respecting this rite. The one sinks it helow^ the other raises it above, the scriptural stand- ard. Our endeavor will be to show, that it is not an empty, idle, and unmeaning ceremony, on the one hand ; nor a sacramental channel for the communication of grace, on the other. Our first remark is, that ordination, as a ceremonial action, in- volves '■^ the laying on of hanrJsy But this action was appropri- ated to other purposes, than that of setting apart a person to some ministerial office. To understand it, therefore, we must take a view of it as a whole. Paul makes it one of the rudiments of the Christian economy — "the doctrine o^ laymg on of hands,'" thus erecting it into the position of a religiotis rite. As such, its action, of course, is symholic. The import of this symbolic action, then, is the point to be de- termined. We offer the following, as, in our view, the only defi- nition of it warranted in Scripture. Ordination is employed to denote, that the instrument, man, IS " ONE with God in declaring his purposes towards others, ON whom some special blessing is to descend, or by whom SOME sacred work IS TO BE PERFORMED. In this aspect, be it observed, unlike any other rite, it stands alone as being common to every dispensation, Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian, (1) Heb. 6 : 1, 2. 143 I. — The Patriarchal Age. — Under it, tlie head of each family was invested with a threefold dignity — the regal^ sacerdotal^ and prophetic. In this last named capacity, we have a most delightful illustration of one of the modes of administering this rite, in Joseph, who sought, at the hands of the venerable and dying Jacob, his last prophetic benediction upon his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. Nor can we overlook the circumstance of his re- fusal to accede to the request of Joseph to change his right hand in favor of Manasseh as his eldest son, as evidence that he under- stood the ceremonial action as denoting the harmony of his will with the will of God respecting " the lads." " He guided his hands wittingly.'" The previous instances of the use of this rite by Mel- chizedek in blessing Abraham,^ and by Isaac in blessing Jacob when he sent him to Padan-Aram,' furnish proof that " the lay- ing on of hands" had been a custom long established and was well understood. And, its continuance, II. — Under the Jewish Dispensation, shows its equal applicabil- ity to that age. Indeed, this economy, so far from abolishing, ex- panded pre-existing religious rites ; and, the very ministry ordained to dispense them, furnished the^r^^ recorded instance of ordina- tion to any office by " the laying on of hands." And in it, as in the other cases, its symbolic action is equally conspicuous. We have, 1st. God's will, appointing the Levites to their enjoined ser- vice. 2d. The Levites's will, in purifying themselves for said ser- vice. 3d. The people's will, who, by the impositions of their hands, signify their concurrence with the will of God. The next instance to which we shall refer, is that of Moses in the setting apart Joshua by the same rite, to the work assigned him of the Lord.'* The significancy of the act in this instance in the sense above attached to it, is greatly heightened by the pecul- iar circumstances under which it transpired. The nation of Israel, now brought to the very confines of the promised land, is to be led over to its possession by Joshua ; while Moses, their former leader and lawgiver, is called upon to set him apart to his great work hy his own hands^ not only, but, having been permitted merely to view that " glory of all lands" from Pisgah's top, is there gathered to his fathers.^ " It requires great submission from Moses that he is to have no share in reaping the harvest of his previous toil." Still, he does submit. It is seen in visible form, in the imposition of his hands on the head of Joshua. This rite was also of frequent occurrence, as connected with the sacrificial services of the Levitical priesthood ; of which, the prin- cipal instances were, when, on the day of annual atonement, " Aaron laid his hands on the head of the" atoning " scape-goat," followed by the " lifting up of his hands toward the peopjl^'' in scjlomn (1) Gen 48 : 13-20. (2) Gen. 14 : 18. (3) Gen. 28 : 6. (4) Numb. 27 : 18 J3. (u) Compare Numb. 27 : 12-23, with 33 : 47 ; Deut. 3 : 27 j 32 : 49 j 34 : 1. I**- 144 benediction:' and which, together, typified the atoning sacrifice of Him upon whom " the Lord had laid the iniquity of us all," and of the blessings which were to accrue through it to the penitent believer. We now remark, that this rite, thus familiarized to the Jewish nation by long continued usage under the two preceding dispensa- tions, and endeared to their hearts by its connection with acts which they held to be of priceless value ; it is, to say the least, very natural to suppose, would find a place in the ecclesiastical ar- rangements of the Church as reconstructed under Christ and his * apostles. And thus we find it in various modes, adapted to, III. — The Christian Dispensation, under which, its perpetuity, we observe, was ratified, 1st. by ihQeai'Uest official acts of Christ him- self . Nor should we overlook the circumstances of its administra- tion, marked, as they were, with the deepest solemnity and interest. Under the promptings, as we have said, of long established usage, Jewish parents " brought their little children unto Christ, that he should j'yw^ his hands on them^ and pray.'" And, so far from re- fusing compliance therewith, having rebuked the pride and folly of human device in those who "forbid them," we read, that "He took them w^ in his arms, put his hands upon them^ and hlessed them.'" Nor them only. At Capernaum, " when the sun was set- ting, all they that had any sick with divers diseases, brought them unto him ; and he laid Ms hands on every one of them, and healed them."^ And, besides other numerous instances of this act, as it was among the first, so, we now remark, it constituted the last official act of the Redeemer on earth ! " And he led them" (his apostles) ** as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and candied into heaven.^'"' Yet more. This rite, so oft observed by Christ on earth, is perpetuated in heaven ! St. John, overpowered by the bright visions of his glorified Eedeemer before the throne, received divine succor from him by the ^^ laying on of his hands upon him., and saying, Fear not."" Christ, therefore, b}^ his own examjile, has placed this rite among the fundamentals of his own spiritual and heavenly religion. And, we remark, with the same design with that which marked its previous administration. It is no dereliction from the dignit}^ of Christ in his human nature, to affirm, that his purpose in these acts was, to illustrate the perfect concurrence of Ilis will in that state, with that of his heavenly Father's will, whose work he came to perform. Ilence his own declaration. " I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.'" And, we remark, in conclusion, what is of vital consequence in (1) Lev. 16 : 20. (2) Matt. 19 : 13. (3) Mark 10 : 16. (4) Luke 4 : 40. (5) Luke 24 : 50. (6) Rev 1 : 17. (7) John 6 : 30. .145 these premises, that the wonders performed by Christ under this act, PROCEEDED FKOM NO INHERENT VIRTUE OF HIS HUMAN HAND. " The words that I speak unto you," says he, "I speak not of my- self, hut of the Father that dwelletli in 7ne : lie doeth the worhsJ^ No. It was the indweUing power of the Deity in mj^sterious union with Christ's humanity which wrought tliese wonders ; and which at times were wrought without the movement of the hand, or even the utterance to the sufferer, of the voice. Pass we now, therefore, to consider this " doctrine of laying on of hands," as connected with 2d Apostolic Usage. With them, this rite was administered in healing the sick, in the bestowment of spiritual gifts, and in set- ting apart to any special of&ce or work. AVe must here however premise, — what, by the way, it is almost superfluous to add, — that, if there were no inherent virtue in the manual impositions performed by Christ himself; such a virtue cannot be presumed to have presided in similar acts as performed by the apostles. We are not surprised therefore in finding them, and that on an occasion when ihej had just wrought a most signal miracle, — that of curing the cripple — disclairning in the most em- jpihatic terras^ all siich pretensions. To the men of Israel who marveled at that miracle, they thus spake : " Why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness wb had made this man to walk ? The God of our fathers hath glorified his son Jesus, whom ye delivered up," etc. ; " and his name, through FAITH in his name^ hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know."' So too, miracles wrought by them also, were sometimes unaccompanied b}^ the usual visible rite. Nor were they confined to this particular action. " Signs and wonders were wrought in the name of the holy child Jesus," by the " stretching forth of his unseen handj"* in answer to their prayer.^ And, "Peter's shadow falling on the sick,'" and "handkerchiefs and aprons taken from the body of Paul,"* might each, on a special occasion, prove the miraculous presence of the Holv Ghost in them. Still, (1.) In healing the side, it will be seen that " the laying on of hands" formed the general rule. " They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." ^ Hence we read that, by the hands of the apostles, many signs and wonders were done among the people." ' The same rite was employed, (2.) In the bestowment of spiritual gifts. See this, as illustrated in the case of the Samaritan converts, by Peter and John ; ' and in that of the disciples at Ephesus, by Paul : * and we add, in that of Timothy, by the same apostle. This latter case requires a passing remark. True, " the time and place at which it was done, is no where recorded ; but, in the (1) Acts 3:1-11 . 12-16. (2) Acts 4 : 30. (3) Acts 6 : 15. (4) Acta 19 : 13. (6) Mark 16 : Ift (6) Acts 5 : 12. (7) Acts 8 : 14-17. (8) Acta 19 : C, 7. 10 U9 second epistle written to him, Paul indulges for himself, and ret quires from Timothy, a complacent remembrance of the occasion, when that grace was conferred. " Wherefore I put thee in re- membrance that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee b^y ihe putting on of my handsj'' ' What this " gift" was, is obvioug from the words which follow. " For God hath not given us the spirit of fear ; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." * Now, that this Avas a " gift," not of office, but some special endow- ment which might qualify Timothy — as the apostle himself had been qualified — for the discharge of office, will appear from a view of this act when taken in connection, (3.) With the setting apart of a person to any work or ojftce, special or ordinary. We affirm, then, that these two acts, — that of conferring spiritual gifts, and that employed in the creation of office, or work, special or ordinary, were two entirely separate and distinct acts, having in view entirely separate and distinct ends. The confounding of these, — as will appear in the sequel, has ori- ginated in the Church from an early period following the apostolic age, the gradual departure from the ministry etc. of apostolic in- stitution, to which may be traced that most stupendous system of " spiritual despotism," the PAPACY ! In proof of the above proposition, we olfer the facts and arguments following : — 1. " The laying on of hands" in the bestowment of spiritual gifts^ WAS EXCLUSIVELY THE WORK OF THE APOSTLES. Others bcsidcS them possessed these gifts, — for example, the " hundred and twenty disciples" on the day of Pentecost, among whom doubtless were the seven deacons mentioned in Acts 6, and of whom it is said that they were " men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom." Now, of these, Philip, whose preaching in Sa- maria had resulted in the conversion of many of " the people," though he had been baptized by the Holy Ghost, and ordained by apostolic hands, and could perform all the ordinary and somxe of the extraordinary functions of the ministry ; yet there was one thing Avhich he could not do : which none hut an apostls could do. He was not empowered to impart spiritual gifts. An apostolic deputation must be sent from Jerusalem for that pur- pose. " Then laid they (the apostles Peter and John) their hand^ on them, and they received the Holy Ghost." The same is true of this gift as imparted to the disciples of Ephesus by Paul. Then also, what was true of " Philip the deacon," is equally true of Timothy and Titus, though endowed with ministerial functions superior to his. For, in the official duties as prescrib- ed and enjoined on them by Paul, there is not the least intima- tion given that they were required to bestow, or that they ever did bestow, those gifts on others. It will also be seen from the above, that these gifts were bestow- ed by the apostles indiscriminately on all believers — private Chris- CD 2 Tim. 1 : 6. (2) lb. v. 7. U7 tians as well as ''the ministers of the word." Hence those "di- versities of gifts," *' differences of administrations," and " diversi- ties of operations" mentioned in the 12th of 1st Corinthians, and of which the apostle treats as appertaining to the Church as a hody^ and not of those who sustained the ditferent offices which are connected with its permanent organization. Two inferences follow. First. That the power to impart spiritual gifts, as they were bestowed exclusively by, so they constituted, pre-eminently, the seal of^ the functions apostolical. Of this, Paul's appeal to the Corinthians is decisive. " Are not ye my work in the Lord ? If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you : for the SEAL of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord." ' Second. That the design of these endowments being " to pro- vide for the rapid diffusion of Christianity by extraordinary means and instruments," in an age which rendered them indispensable to that end, no arrangements of which we have any account being made for their continuance beyond the lifetime of the apostles, they necessarily expired with them. But it was otherwise with "the laying on of hands" in setting apart an individual to any work or office, special or ordinary, as will be shown in SEcnoN n. Proof, that, in setting apart to office, others beside the Apostles laid on hands. — Instances of the recorded ordinations by both — First-, by the Apostles ; The seven deacons, Acts 6 : 1-8 — Second, by the prophets and teachers of Antioch ; Saul and Barnabas, Acts 13 : 1-3 — Third, Timothy circumcised by Paul, Acts 16 : 1-3 — also, the con- ferment on him by Paul, of " the gift of God," 2 Tim. 1 : 6, 1— Fourth, Timothy's ordination by " the presbytery" of Ephesus, 1 Tim. 4 : 14. — Proof that, as these acts occurred at different times, places, and occasions, they could not have been identical. — Inference, Paul not connected with his ordination by " the presbytery." 2. Others besides the apostles were identified with these acts. Take, as evidence, the conduct of Simon the sorcerer, on the occasion of the bestowment of spiritual gifts by Peter and John on the Sama- ritan converts. What are the facts in this case? They were simply as follows. The truth and power of the miracles wrought by Philip among the Samaritans, had foiled all the arts of Simon's sorcery and had mortified his pride. Could he therefore but "obtain that power" which Philip did riot possess, of enabling others to work miracles in connection with himself, he might organize a body in dependence on himself, emerge from the eclipse he had suffered, and be again the " great one of the city." Having therefore wit- nessed t£e bestowment on the Samaritan converts of the power (I) 1 Gor. f> : 2. '»f* 148 he so mucli coveted, " that through laying on of the apostles's hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, Give ME also THIS POWER, that on whomsoever / lay hands, he may re- ceive THE IIoLY Ghost." It is clear, therefore, that Simon coveted, not office, but a power which lay heyond it. So, of the instance of the conferment of this gift by Paul on the disciples of Ephcsus. There being no field assigned them for the exercise of ministerial functions, it could not have been office to which they were appointed by that act. Having thus cleared the way before us, we now proceed to an examination of the several instances recorded in the New Testa- ment, of " the laying on of hands" in connection with the appoint- ment of individuals either to some special work or ordinary office. Here again, we must observe, an obvious necessity exists for a careful discrimination between appointments to a special work, and designation to an ordinary office. It will be found indispensable to a scriptural view of what was designed to constitute the extraordi- nary and temporary, and what the ordinary and permanent^ ministry of Christ's Church. The instances, then, of " the laying on of hands" above alluded to, are the four following, viz, : — I. The ordination of the Seven Deacons by the twelve Apostles. (Acts 6 : 1-6.) II. The setting apart of " Barnabas and Saul for the work where- unto the Holy Ghost had called them." (Acts 13 : 1-3.) III. The manual impositions employed in the case of Timothy by Paul and the Presbytery. (See 2 Tim. 1:6; and 1 Tim. 4 -14. ly. Paul's directions to Timothy and Titus, regarding the cases of ordination about which they were to employ their minds and hands. (1 Tim. 1 : 1-2 ; 8, etc. ; 5 : 22 ; Titus 1 : 5, etc.) I, The Seven Deacons. The first six verses of the 6th chapter of the Acts give an account of the circumstances which occasioned the instituting this office, and the process by which it was effected. The proposition of the Apostles to " the multitude of the disci- ples," to relieve them from all worldly and secular concerns, that they might " give themselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word," meeting with their cordial assent, they pro- ceeded at once to elect the above number of deacons, "whom they set before the Apostles ; and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.''^ As they had previously received the gift of the Holy Ghost," this act was a designation to office. Of their precise functions, we shall have occasion to speak in another place. . 149 II. The appointment of Saul and Barnabas to their work. In addition to what we have already offered on the subject of this appointment,* we now remark, that Saul and Barnabas, at the time of their separation to the work assigned them, are classified with, and are spoken of as performing certain official acts common to, " the prophets and teachers''' in the Church at Antioch, who ar*- now commanded by the Holy Ghost to set them apart by the la- on of their hands. Yet it is certain that Saul had been calle'^ apostle several years before this,' and hence was posse^. functions superior to theirs. It follows, that no apostolic hanuo having been concerned in this transaction, and their mission having been accomplished in the space of about three years,* is evidence decisive that the work assigned them was of a special and extra- ordinary character, III. The manual impositions employed in the case of Timothy. There are three passages relating to this individual, which, in this connection, claim our special regard. The first relates to his cir- cumcision by Paul.' The second, to the gift of God conferred on him by the laying on of Paul's hands.* The third, to another gift, which he received by the imposition of the hands of the Pres- bytery,* Of "the occasion, nature, and design, of Timothy's circumcision by Paul, we shall speak presently. An important question, how- ever in regard to the other two acts, now presents itself We ask, then : Were they identical 1 If so, then was Paul, as an Apostle, UNITED WITH the Presbytery in conferring office on Timothy ? If not, it follows that the imposition of hands by Paul (2 Tim. 4 : 14) was conferred on Timothy on another occasion, and at a different time and place, and also for a different purpose, from those con- nected with the act of the'Presbytery. In support, then, of this latter conclusion, we remark, 1. That Paul, having chosen Timothy as a co-worker with him, it is natural to suppose, that proof being furnished of his meetness for his work, the Apostle would be desirous of completing, in every way, his qualifications. " It might be anticipated that he would make him a living epistle of himself to those to whom he would have to send him. How could this be done but by laying his own hands upon him at some fitting and solemn season, to con- fer that power of miracles," which lay beyond the reach of the official functions of the Presbytery, and which was indispensable to " authenticate him as an associate and messenger of the Apos- tle, wherever he might be sent, and on whatever mission he might be employed." Such a qualification, in all other cases, had in- variably preceded ordination to office. In no case had it been con- (1) Acts 9 : 1-14 ; 15, 16. (2) Compare Acts 13 : 1-3, with 14 : 36. (3) Acts 16 : 1-3. (4) 2 Tim. 1 : 6, 7. (5) 1 Tim. 4 : 14. ♦ See p. 131. 150 ferred simultaneously witli that act On what ground, then, could the order of its conferment on Timothy be made an exception to the general rule ? But, 2. Though the time and place of this transaction should he no where recorded^ it furnishes no ground for the inference that the gifts here spoken of are identical. Taking the fact as it stands recorded in 1 Tim. 4 : 14 ; on our hypothesis, what occasion, we ask, so opportune for the conferment of this " gift of God" on Timothy, as when commended to that apostle on his visit to Derbe and Lystra by the brethren there, as a suitable person to aid him in his arduous work ?' The Apostle doubtless was aware of the fact that the office which Timothy was destined to fill in the Church had been designated by " prophecy."* But Timothy was a youth. And if Paul found it necessary to enjoin upon the Church the dut}^ of not despising him on that account' after he had been in- ducted into office, how much more necessary, that the conferment of the above " gift" should precede his induction into said office, by way of enabling him to furnish the evidence of the fullness of his qualifications for his work, and of the consequent applicability of the " prophecy" as above to him. With such credentials, the Presbytery could furnish no pretext for refusing to admit the youthful candidate to the office thus assigned him by the Holy Ghost. What would seem decisive, however, of the point here contended for, is the fact, that from all the circumstances of the case, we are fully warranted in the conclusion, that Timothy re- ceived the imposition of the Apostle's hands at least as early as a. d. 53, when Paul " would have him go forth with him" as mentioned Acts 16 : 3 ; whereas his appointment to office by the Presbytery of Ephesus, 1 Tim. 4 : 14, did not take place until A. d. Qb ; which circumstance accounts for the Apostle's omission to allude to his absence from the Presbytery on the occasion of his ordination at their hands; and is, therefore, to our minds, decisive of the point that " the gift of God," in the sense of qualifying him for the dis- charge of liis office, and which the Apostle only could impart, had preceded theirs ; and that, consequently, his presence with them in the conferment of office, was unnecessary. Again : 3. If a necessity existed for the presence of the Apostle on the above occasion, in order to invest Timoth}^ with official functions which " the Presbytery" had not the power to convc}', and with- out which his ordination had been invalid ; how are we to account for the fact, that the writer of " the Acts" has omitted to refer to a circumstance of such vital importance to the guidance of the Church in all future time; while he is most careful to record another fact, that of his circumcision by Paul, which was, unde- niably, " a mere subordinate and prudential operation." In view, then, of what is here offijred in reference to the three (1) AcU 16 : 1-3. (S) 1 Tim. 4 : 14. (3) 1 Tim. 4 : 12. 151 passages whicli relate to Timothy, as above, three inferences follow : First, that, as a matter of expediency, Paul circumcised him. His mother was a Jewess ; his father was a Greek, It was, there- fore, to render him, as his co-worker, equally accessible to Jew and Greek. Second. As the office which Timoth}'- was to fill had been de- signated by ^^ prophecy,^'' Paul, by lajdng on his hands, had com- pleted those qualifications essential to the full exercise of hie functions, and to enable him through them to overpower any objections which might have arisen in the minds of the Presbytery on account of his youth, showing them the hand of God already upon him to form him for his work, which hand theirs were, with- out hesitation, to follow. And hence, Third. That there is an evident distinction in the gifts here spoken of: the former consisting of his endowment of miraculous powers by Paul as an indispensable qualification for the discharge of his offtcial functions ; the latter of his induction into said ofiice by " the laying on hands by the Presbytery." SECTION in. Proof that the official functions of Timothy, and of " the Presbytery," were not iden- tical.— Timothy and Titus, itinerating Evangelists, and, as such, their functions were special and extraordinary, and therefore temporary. — Remarks respecting the last two orders : Prophets, and Pastors or Teachers, enumerated in Eph. 4:11. But were the official functions of Timothy and of the Pres- bytery identical? That they were not, will appear from the fol- lowing : " The Preshytery'''' was composed of those so often designated in the New Testament, "Me elders, TrpeajSyrepot, of the Church,"' such, for example, as those ordained by Paul and Barnabas in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch;^ and those whom Paul called to him from Ephesus to Miletus.^ In one passage, that of 1 Tim. 4 : 14, in our version the Greek word for elders, TrpeGjSvTepoi, ib simply Anglicized, and they are called " the Presbytery." They are also known by the name of Bishop, enioKOTrog, overseer.* The one name, " Elder,'''' indicated one of the qualifications desirable for the individual who was to discharge the functions denoted by the other, " Bishop,'''' or an " overseer." Their functions consisted in their having "the oversight"^ of " the flock," to rule or govern, to " feed the flock of God,"" to "labor in word and doctrine,"' etc., as the stated pastors thereof They may therefore be properly designated Presbyter-Bishops. (1) A cts 20 : 17. (2) Acts 14 : 21-23. (3) Acta 20 : 17. (4) Acts 20 : 28 ; Philip. 1 : I j 1 Tim. 8 : « ; Titus 1 : 7 ; 1 Pet. 2 : 25. (5) 1 Pet. 6 : 2. (6) lb. (7) I Tim. 6 : 17. 152 Now, that the functions of Timothy (and with which we may connect those of Titus, his compeer in office,) transcended those of the Presbyter-bishops, will appear from the duties enjoined on them by the Apostle. They were directed to "preach the word,'" not only, but to " charge some" who had departed from the truth that they "teach no other doctrine'"' than that which they had received from the Apostles. Also, to " exhort and re- buke with all authority;'" to "command and teach;"* to try delin- quent elders ;' to rebuke sinners before all f to commit to faithful men the things they had heard from Paul, that they might be able to teach others also ;' to " ordain elders in every city," and to " set in ord^r the things that are wanting''''^ to the " perfecting of the saints^ the WOHK of the ministry^ and the edifying of the body of Christy TILL they all come in the unity of the faith to A PERFECT MAN,"' efc., as the Apostle had " appointed" them. Additional light on this subject, however, may be derived from a view of the nature and design of the worh assigned to Timothy and Titus, as indicated by the title applied to them. As \ve proved on a previous occasion,* the name apostle is no where given to them in the New Testament ; so, we affirm, they are no where called bishops, in those writings. The postscripts, at the close of the Second Epistle to Timothy, and that appended to the Epistle to Titus, and which speak of the former as the first bishop of the Church of Ephesus, and of the latter as the first ordained bishop of Crete, are confessedly legendary and spurious. Hence, unauthori- tative. The title, then, by which Timothy (and his work being the same, of Titus, also) is known, is that of Evangelist ; a title, it should be particularly noted, which Paul affixed to his office, AFTER his ordination by "the Presbytery." " Do the worlc of an EVANGELIST." " 'E.vayyeXiOTOv. The office of an evangelist — -we remark by the way — originated in diffisrent ways. It was sometimes appointed by the Holy Ohost^ as in the instance of Barnabas and Saul. Sometimes by that of the Church, as Epaphroditus by the Church at Philippi. Some- times by prophecy, as in the case of Timothy. Then too, its functions varied : that is, they corresponded with the circumstances which originated them : for example, Mark and Luke compiled for the Church at large the history of our Savior as they received it from the lips of the apostles, while each of the others were employed in other ways. The fact however of its ap- plication to different functionaries, no more invalidates its use as denoting a special office, than that of the double signification of the name, apostle. Generally, then, the office which it denoted was that of an itineracy, in which respect, it partook, in part, of the character of the great apostolic work itself, and was evidently (4) 2 Tim. 4 : 2. (2) 1 Tim. 1 : 3. (3) Tit. 2 : 15 ; 2 Tim. 4 : 2. (4) 1 Tim. 4 : 11. (5) lb., T. 19. (6) lb., V. 20. (7) 2 Tim. 2 : 2. (8) Tit. 1 : 5. (0) Kph. 4 : 12, 13. (10) Compare 1 Tim. 4 : 14, with 2 Tim. 4 : 6. * See pp. 129, 130. 153 designed to sustain to the apostles, a relation corresponding to that of theirs to the Great Bishop over all, during his public min- istry. They were either the apostles's personal companions in their travels, or were deputies, " whom the apostles employed in their communications to the churches at times when they could not conveniently visit them," and "on whom they devolved the work of completing the organization of infant churches when they could not tarry to finish that which they had themselves begun." Hence the Pauline directions as follows, to Timothy and Titus. Writing to Timothy, he says — " As I besought thee to abide still at Ephe- sus, when'l went into Macedonia," ' etc. Now, on the supposition that Timothy's official functions as an evangelist invdved his per- manent location at Ephesus, the language, " I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus," etc. seems irrelevant and superfluous not only, but invidious. " To beseech Timothy to stay in a place where he is fixed in his charge, and which he could not quit without of- fending God and failing in his duty : to speak the truth, that is a request that is not very obliging; for it evidently presupposes, that a man does not lay his duty much to heart, when he must needs be entreated to do it." In addition to this it is to be borne in mind, that the above passage is the only one which connects the name of Timothy with Ephesus. To Titus, the apostle writes thus — "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." ' A case, entirely analogous to the preceding. Titus is " /e/?" in Crete, which implies a temporary separation between himself and the apos- tle. And, chap. 3, v. 10, shows that Paul was anxious that that separation should terminate as soon as possible. " When I shall send Artemas unto thee, or Tychicus, be diligent to come unto me to Nicopolis : for I have determined there to winter." Titus was .wanted elsewhere than Crete, and for other purposes. As soon therefore as the apostle could fix upon a suitable person to fill his place in Crete, he desired him to hasten to join him at Nicopolis, to receive his further instructions to labor in another field. Finally, what is decisive of the point here contended for is, that both Timothy and Titus, throughout the epistles addressed to them, continued to receive and obey directions from the apostle to perform those labors peculiar to their functions respectively as itinerating evangelists, at periods subsequent to the fulfillment of the mission of the one at Ephesus, and of the other at Crete ; — and, their functions, as shown above, having been created as an appen- dage to the office apostolic, it follows, that those functions, as such, having found their beginning, so they found their end, in their relation to it. Clearly, then, the official functions of Timothy and Titus as (1) 1 Tim. 1 : 3. (2) Titus 1 : 5. 154 itinerating evangelists, were entirely distinct from those of Presby- ter-bishops, which were local. So also of the superiority of the former over those of the latter. If to this it be objected, that it involves the designation of one to office of a grade superior to those of his ordainers ; we reply : that Paul, though an apostle, having been himself set apart to a special work by the " laying on of hands" of Simeon, and Lucius, and Manaen, and others of " the prophets and teachers in the Church at Antioch ;" ' which special work, independently of his apostoli- cal character, was superior to theirs : he saw no difficulty in the way of such designation to office as in the case of Timothy by "the presbytery." We add, in conclusion on this subject, that there is a total absence of any intimation in the New Testament^ that the official functions of Timothy and Titus were intended to he perpetual. In Paul's vale- dictory address to the elders of the Church at Ephesus ; (and which was doubtless cotemporary, or nearly so, with his informing his son Timothy of his approaching martyrdom),* where we might reasonably expect the most explicit and ample directions respecting so grave and important a matter, not a word is said on the sub- ject. So far from it, the apostle, " as an appropriate designation of their office and character," calls them " bishops^^ — he speaks of "the flock" over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers — he charges them to " take heed to themselves and to all the flock," and to " feed the Church of God,"' etc. : but he utters not a word from which it can be inferred that they either were, or ex- pected to be, under the permanent direction and control of an ecclesiastical superiorT^ Of the last of the orders enumerated Eph. 4 : 11, namely, ^'- pro- phets,''^ and ^'■pastors'''' or " teachers,^'' we remark, that their titles, viewed in connection with what is denoted in the terms " helps,^^ governments,^^ etc. in 1 Cor. 12 : 28, as constituting their respective functions, do not enable us to assign to each the precise posi- tion held by them respectively in the New Testament Church. That those to whom the apostle wrote, however, were well ac- quainted with the character of these gifts, and required no expla- nation of terms which to us have become obscure and of uncertain import, is evident from the very brevity with which he incident- ally alludes to them. And this circumstance too, we add, furnishes to our mind convincing proof that they were designed not to ex- tend beyond the limits of the apostolic age. Otherwise each one for himself had been made to stand out in bold relief, as a guide to the Church in all future time. Still, it may be observed in regard to the functions of the "p-o- phets,^^ TTpo(j)f]Ta^, that to them appertained the province of preach- ing, exhortation, etc., for purposes of edification and comfort,^ not (I) Acts 13 : 1-3. (-2) 2 Tim. 4 : 6, 7, 8. (3) Acts 20 : 17-28. (4) 1 Cor. 14 : 3. * Dr. Snodgrass, on Apost. Succ, pp. 157, 158. 155 only ; but also to predict future events ; as of the prophetic impulse under which Agabus, after the manner of the ancient prophets, is seen accompanying with a symbolic action the prediction that the owner of Paul's girdle would be bound by the Jews at Jerusalem : * a species of inspiration which we must unquestionably ascribe to the agency of the Holy Ghost,* Under the article of *' Ae/jjs," doubtless may be ranked, for one, those endowed with the " gift" of " discerning of spirits ;" an en- dowment indispensable to the safety of that miraculous age against imposture. For example — The " spirit of divination" in the Py- thoness " which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying," « very nearly simulated with the prophetic gift of Agabus. Hence the danger to the Church of being imposed upon by false prophets, and the special provision against it by the above gift. The office of " teachers^'' AiddoKaXoi, probably embraced, in ad- dition to their teaching generally in the Christian Church, the function of " interpreters" ^ to those who " spake with tongues." And, inasmuch as " the spirits of the prophets were subject to the prophets," ^ Paul, in view of the scene of confusion and tumult which he describes as having taken place in their assemblies, when " every one had a psalm, had a doctrine, had a tongue, had an in- terpretation ;" ^ pointed to The "joa5tors,"f TToi[ievag (who, as having the oversight of the flock, and in whom might have centered most, if not all, the other gifts), when he commanded, " Let all things be done decently and in order;"' which command implies the existence in the Church of government and discipline, and, of course, of some office-bearers to exercise it. (1) Acts QO : 23. (2) Acts 16 : 16. (3) 1 Cor. 14:27,28. (4) 1 Cor. 14:32. (6) lb, v. 26 (8) lb., V. 40. * See pp. 109, 110. T See page 138. 156 SECTION IV. Of Elders, Ruling Elders, and Deacons. — Proof, from Paul's directions to Timothy and Ti- tus respecting them, that they were to constitute the boundary- line which divides the extraordinary and temporary ministry of the Church, from that which was in- tended for its ordinary and permanent use, to the end of time, as drawn, First, from the directions given them — Second, from the personal qualifications specified. — To be inducted into office by the laying on of hands. — The standard model ministry of the Church, two orders only. It only remains that we now speak of those styled Elders^ Ruling Elders^ and Deacons. It will be found that they, as those about whom Timothy and Titus were directed by Paul to employ their minds and hands as connected with the ministry of Christ's Church, were designed to constitute THE BOUNDAEY-LINE which divides the special, extraordinary^ and temporary ministry of that Church, from that which was intended for its ordinary and permanent use, to the close of time. Our first business here is, to collect together the various items of instruction given by Paul to Timoth}^ and Titus, in which it is admitted that the work of ordination was assigned to them by the laying on of hands. They are the following : — To Timothy. " The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." (2 Tim. 2 : 2.) To Titus. " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou ghouldest ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." — (Tit. 1:5.) To Timothy. " This is a true saying. If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work," etc. (1 Tim. 3 : 1.) Again : " Let the elders that rule well, bo counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in word and doctrine." — (1 Tim. 5 : 17.) Again : " Likewise must the deacons first be proved" ; then let them use the ojice of a deacon, etc. (1 Tim. 3 : 8-10.) And, finally says the apostle to him, " Lay hands suddenly on no man^ Now, in reference to these Pauline directions to Timothy and Titus we remark in the first place, that they indicate a most mark- ed and emphatic difference in the MODE OF ministerial designa- tion by tvhich they were to be guided, compared with that peculiar to all others — apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, or teachers, etc. Yes. The age of that heaven-inspiring gift to the Church — " dis- cerning of sjjir its,' ^ was about to pass away. The directions of Paul to Timothy, Let the " deacons first be proved,^' etc : " Lay hands suddenly on no man," etc., furnishes a clear intimation of the apostle's conviction, that the ministers of Christ's Church were no longer, as in the case of Timothy, to rely upon the miraculous agency of a ^^ prophecy,^'' to announce the fact to themselves or to 157 the Cliurcli. Indeed, it were the same as though Paul had said to them, ' Ilereafter, of those who are to be set apart as office-bearers in the Church, there should " be prudent delay, until a vigilant and prayerful observation shall have clearly discovered those inti- mations of the Divine will" respecting them, " which are to he ga- thered from the ordinary sources of providential direction. Let not your hand," therefore, "be laid upon an individual until you can nave reasonable satisfaction that God's hand, qualifying him for the work, has preceded yours, ordaining him to its discharge. You then perform an obedient and intelligent service. You put your hands to God''s hand, and by your deliberate concurrence in the work, you help to clear the path and cheer the mind of the candidate for office, who may be trembling under a sense of its responsibility, and seeking the comforting indications of Divine guidance in the conclusions and countenance of those who are more experienced than yourself* And, the evidence confirmatory of this change in the mode of designation to office — if, indeed, such evidence were wanted — may be gathered yV'om those qualifications so minutely particularized Jyy the apostle., as pr^e-requisites therefor. In the case of a bishop, they embraced the following twenty-three particulars : "A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach ; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre ; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous ; one that ruleth well his own house, having his chil- dren in subjection with all gravity ; (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God ?) not a novice, lest being hfted up with pride, he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must have a good report of them which are without, lest he fall into reproach, and the snare of the devil,"* He must also be, " not self-willed, not soon angry, a lover of good men, 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 convince the gainsayers."' In the case of a deacon.^ take the following : He " must be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre, holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience," etc' Surely, the presence in the Church of miraculous guidance, if continued heyond the limit here 'prescribed to it^ had rendered superfluous such marks or signs of guidance in the premises. But, from the very nature of the Pauline instructions and directions here laid down, and the qualifications specified as indispensable to a title to office, Timothy and Titus, with the churches, could not pther than infer, that they had at length arrived, through the miraculously appointed agency of the apostles and their coadju- tors., at that " unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son (1) 1 Tim. 3 : 1-7. (2) Tit. 1 : 6-9. (3) t Tim. 3 : 8. 9. * Stratten's Argument against Apostolic succession. London, 1845, 158 of God," by which they had grown " unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." That " foundation of the apostles and prophets," of which " Jesua Christ himself is the chief corner-stone," and upon which, in all future time, the Church was to be " built," HAD NOW BEEN LAID, BROAD AND DEEP* The churches planted by the apostles had seen their miraculously endowed and inspired found- ers and guides, one after another, cut down by death. And, Paul had written to Timothy, informing him that the time of his de- parture was at hand — that he had finished his course. Ilence, the instructions etc. regarding the future ministry of the Church, as above, while they served as a note of assurance on the one hand that she was not to be left in a state of perpetual widow- hood; on the other, she was furnished with a line of demarkation, wherewith to determine at what point ended the extraoi'dinary and temporary^ and at what commenced the ordinary and perma- nent ministry of the Church. As to the mode of induction into office^ the rite of " laying on of hands," as an action symbolic of the concurrence of the human with the Divine will as practiced by the apostles and others after the example of Christ, and with which they were so familiar, not having been abrogated, was adopted as a standing rule. And now, as to the orders about which Timothy and Titus were to employ their minds and hands, in forming the model for the future permanent service of the Church. These, we have said, were the following: elders or preslyyter-hishops^ and deacons. The evidence that no others are included in the filial instruc- tions given to them, will be furnished in the next section. ♦ If we except the Apocalypse of the apostle John, which was written a.d. 96, the entire canon of the New Testament Scriptures — the four Gospels, the Acts, and the eighteen Epistles, had all been sent abroad for the instruction of the churches, prior to the death of Paul. Some writers think this doubtful, as to the epistle of Jude, which was written in the year 64, and the 2d epistle of Peter, in 65. The circumstance, how- ever, of the absence of any data upon which to determine the precise chronology of the death of Paul, leaves for the support of the above doubt no other ground than that )povi, according to this author, expresses the casting of a popu- lar vote ; the term, icXOfo"s, being used in the sense of xpn'pof, a suffrage, or vote, so that what the evangelist meant to say was simply this : ' And those who were present gave their votes.' » (De Rebus Christ., Sacc. 1. ^ 14. Note) . See Coleman's Apost. and Prim. Chh. p. 54. t Horn, ad locum. Vol. IX., p. 25. Comp. also Cyprian, Ep. 68. Coleman, pp. 55, 56. 163 precedents present to tlieir minds, and especially that of the model organization at Jerusalem, it is not sapposable that either they or the churches could have lost sight of the long-standing usage of election by popular suffrage. We shall assume, then, that thus it was with those elders, rrpea/Surepot, appointed by Paul and Barna- bas at Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch.' The question here turns wholly upon the interpretation of the term, ;:^;tiporox'?/aav-ec, "when they had ordained," or, as in the margin, ^'■when with lifting up of hands they had chosen them^ Two points are here involved. First, whether the choice was limited to the two apostles': and second, whether the act was an ordination or consecration. That it was neither the one nor the other, we argue, 1st, From the fact that the same word is used in reference to the companion of Paul mentioned, 2 Cor. 8 : 23, who is declared to have been x^i'QorovTjdeig, " chosen of the churches." 2d, From the current import of the term x^K^orovelv : * it means, to give a vote by stretching out the hand : to choose^ to elect ; and is thus used both in classic Greek, and primitive ecclesiastical writers. " Demosthenes exhorts the Athenians in popular assembly to elect, xeLQOTovr]aat, ten men to go on an embassy to the The- bans."f " It will become you," says Ignatius to the Church at Philadelphia, " as the Church of God, to choose^ ;^;£fpoTov^aa(, some deacon to go there," that is, to the Church at Antioch.":}; Again, To the Church at Smyrna, " It will be fitting, and for the honor of God, that your Church elect, x^i^poTovrjoai, some worthy delegate," etc. II ... " The Council of Antioch forbids a bishop to be chosen, x^i^QO'ovelodo), without the presence of the synod, and of the metropolitan."! . , . " Again, in the Greek version of the Codex Ecclesiae Africanee, the heading of the XlXth Canon is, that a bishop should not be chosen, ;^;eiporovei(T0at, except by the multi- tude, drcb TToXXojv.^l Finally, to the same effect is also the follow- ing extract from Tyndal : " We read only of the apostles, consti- tuting elders by the suffr-ages of the people, Acts 14 : 23 ; which, as it is the genuine signification of the Greek word, x^-Qorovijaavreg, so it is accordingly interpreted by Erasmus, Beza, Diodati, and even English Bibles, till the Episcopal correction [?], which leaves out the words, by election, as well as the marginal notes, which af- firm that the apostles did not thrust pastors into the Church through a lordly superiority, but chose and placed them there by the voice of the congregation.""^^ Tyndal's translation is as follows : " And when they had ordained them seniours by election, in every (1) Acts 14 : 21-23. * Robinson renders the word to choose by vote, to appoint. So Parkhurst on " Xtiporo- v'.o>; — from x-'P^ ^he hand, and Tcroi,a, perf. mid. of rtivw, to extend, stretch oiU.^^ (Park- hurst's Gr. Lex., which see.) t Oration on the Crown, ^ 5.5, and § 9. t Ad Phil. c. 10. II Ad Smym. c. 11. § Cone. Ant. c. 19. •[[ Cited by Suicer, ad verbum. ** Rights of the Church, p. 358. 164 congregation, after they had preyde and fasted, they commennd them to God, on whom they beleved." It is reasonable therefore to conclude, od. That in the Pauline instructions to Timothy and Titus in reference to the appointment of officers in the churches of Ephesus and Crete, together with the manner in which the apostle addresses himself to the whole Church in the epistles directed to them ; the well-understood import of the term ;^£fpoTomv as denotive of the doctrine of popular suffrage, taken in connection with the general practice of the churches as corresponding therewith, precluded the necessity of any further specific rules to that end.* Finally, in reference to the ecclesiastical arrangement predicated of the divinely-appointed order of teaching and ruling elders in each church, and which, on examination, will be found to have borne a very close resemblance to that of the synagogue worship, etc. ;f — we remark, that, while it has the sanction of Scripture, as we have shown, it is most reasonable in itself. In the matter of ecclesiastical polity, a choice is obviously con- fined to one of three systems: jurisdiction by the members of the Church generally ; by the minister exclusivel}'" ; or by a company of elders. Now, in regard to the first of these systems, while it is delightful to contemplate that each member of the mystical body of Christ is " a spiritual ofiice-bearer" — being " made kings and priests unto God" ' to " offer up spiritual sacrifices by Jesus Christ :" " yet, when we consider on the one hand the multiform secular and domestic cares devolving on each, and on the other the numerous instances in every church of incompetency to manage its affairs, we cannot well resist the conviction of a want of wisdom in such an arrangement. Besides, does it not " appear somewhat anomalous to speak of a society superintending itself" ? — " The Church is sometimes compared to a flock — sometimes to an army — sometimes to a kingdom ; and none of these emblems afford much countenance to self-superintendence. Where is the flock, in which the distinction is lost between the sheep and shepherds ? — where the army, in which the soldiers are indiscriminately privates and officers? — where the kingdom, in which rulers and subjects are convertible terms ? Add to this, the almost inevitable heart- burnings, and discord, and jealousies incident to the infirmities, prejudices, and party interests inseparable from miscellaneous legislation and the exercise of discipline on this hypothesis, and it is difficult to repel the conviction, that it cannot be according to the mind of the Spirit. And, The apostolic injunction to the Hebrews, " Obey them that have (1) nev. 1 : 6. (2) 1 Peter 2 : 5. * See the whole of this subject more fully discussed in Coleman's Apostolic and Prim- itive Church, pp. 53-64. t See on the analogy of the Christian Church to the Synagogue, etc. the Rev. Dr. Addi- son Alexander's new work, "Essays on the Primitive Church Offices." Essay I., on Scripture Elders. (New York, Charles Scribner, 1-1.5 Nassau street. 1851.) 165 the rule over you," ' very naturally reminds us of " a body of super- intendents distinct from the general community, and can hardly suppose the parties who are addressed to wield the very power they are exhorted to respect." The question, then, presents itself : Is this right to " rule," etc., exercised by the minister exclusively ? It requires but a glance at the numerous and complicated elements of labor in ever}^ church, to perceive that it "cannot be the ex- clusive trust of one individual." Its concerns, spiritual and secu- lar— private and public — domestic and foreign — pastoral and dis- ciplinary— viewed in connection with the vast responsibilities as- sumed by him who would attempt it, would " give occasion for friends sa^'ing to him, as Jethro said to Moses, on seeing all that he did to the people : " What is this thing that thou doest to the people ? why sittest thou alone^ and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even ? The thing that thou doest is not good. Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou and this people that is with thee, for this thing is too heavy for thee : thou art not able to perforin it TUYSELF ALONE." ' And yet it is not denied that it is the duty of every minister to take the oversight of all the flock over which the Holy Ghost has placed him ; but this by no means supposes that such a superin- tendence is of itself sufficient. It is to be borne in mind that un- divided power is a perilous temptation to imperfect humanity ; and the clergy (as may be seen in Part III. of this Treatise) have shown that they are not more exempted than any other class from its de- leterious influence on the temper and conduct. If there had NEVER BEEN A PoPE OVER A SINGLE CHURCH, THERE NEVER WOULD HAVK BEEN A PoPE OVER THE ChRISTLA.N WORLD ! The ecclesiastical polity of the New Testament — that, we mean, designed for the permanent edification and upbuilding of the Church — we believe to be equally removed from both the extremes here brought to view. It forms the via media between the Scylla of an always dubious and oftentimes injurious system of church democracy, on the one hand ; and the Chary bdis of an antichristian spiritual despotism, on the other. Having for its basis the untram- meled rights of the elective franchise, each church, reserving to her- self the independent control of her secular concerns, also commits her spiritual interests, not to one, but to a college of office-bearers, endowed with qualifications, intellectual, moral, and spiritual, to fit them for their work ; and with " gifts differing according to the grace given unto them," adapted to all the exigencies of her mili- tant state, whether doctrinal, practical, governmental, or disciplinary. Of course, these office-bearers, being " chosen by the churches" under the guidance of an all-wise and all-gracious Providence, is, in its character, purely representative, and hence rigidly republican. Finally, on the subject of the ordinary atod permanent ministry of the Church, we now proceed to show, that the Pauline instruc- (1) Heb. 13 : 7, 17, 24. (2) Kxod. 18 H, etc. 166 , tions to Timothy and Titus reduced the whole number of minis- terial appointments to the dual orders of Presbyter-Bishop^ and Deacon. This will appear, if we consider, First, the use, interchangeably, of the titles, Elder ^ TrpeofivTEpog, and Bishop., emoKonog, to denote the same office. If to this it be objected, that it is irreconcilable with the hypothesis which affirms the existence, under one order, of separate and distinct functions — for example, that, while some of the same order, besides ruling, labored also in word and doctrine, others ruled only : — we reply, that the Scriptures furnish various examples, to show that entirely separate and distinct functions may formally center in one and the same person. Thus, Melchisedec was formally a Mng and a priest ; David was formally a king and a prophet / and Peter, though an apostle., yet styles himself " an elder," -ngeofivrepog, in common with others who bore that appellation, " The elders which are among you I exhort, who also am an elder, ^^ etc' In reference to this last instance, we remark, that it is clear that Peter Avas so an elder that he was still an apostle ; and so an apostle that he was still an elder ; his eldership did not exclude his apostleship, nor did his apostleship swallow up his eldership. If then Peter, or any of "the twelve," could be formally both apostles and elders, what hinders but that, among a college of elders or presbyter-bish- ops, some of the order, besides governing, should also exercise the functions of pastor and teacher ? But, Second. A reference to Paul's address to the Church at Philippi, will afford additional light and confirmation of the position here laid down. The facts, we premise, in reference to this city, Philip- pi, that the apostle had been directed thither by express revelation from heaven ;" that it was the city in which he had first opened his commission, and in which he had established the first Christian Church founded by himself in all Europe / and, that it occupied the place of " the chief city in that part of Macedonia ;"' all tend, from the prominence of its position, to commend it to our special regard. Nor these facts only. Lydia and her household, and the Jailer and his household, were enrolled among the members of this Church. Above all, this Church, more than all others, had pre- served the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,"^ not only, but had ever treasured up the most grateful afiection towards the apos- tle, of which, the relief they afforded him when in distress, and especially when suffering as a prisoner at Eome, is the evidence. Indeed, of the two churches, that of Philippi and that of the im- perial city, Rome, if there be any virtue in contrast, it is not difii- cult to determine which of the two held the preponderance in the estimation of Paul. We will place the two passages side by side. Speaking of the Church of (1) 1 Pet. 5 : 1. (2) AcU 16 : 9-12. (3) Acta 16 : 12. (4) Eph. 4 : 3. K 167 ROME, PHILIPPIANS, He says : — " Some indeed preach He says : — " I thank my God upon Christ o( envy and strife; and some every remembrance of you, always in also of good-will : the one preach every prayer of mine for you all, mak- Christ of contention, not sincerely, sup- ing request vriih joy, for your fellowship posing to add affliction to my bonds "^ in the gospel from the first day until While to the now."' We come now to observe, that the date assigned to Paul's first visit to Philippi, is a.d. 53. The Epistle, as above, was written A.D. 62 or 63. During this interval, therefore (about ten years), sufficient scope had been given to the apostle to pe^jfect its organi- zation in all the essentials appertaining to the standing orders of ministry of an Apostolic Church. What, then, were these orders? His epistle opens thus : — " Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are in Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons." Now, it is here to be particularly noted in the first place, that the apostleship, together with the primitive order of Evangelists, as we have shown,* from their special and extraordinary character, not being transmissive, and hence, extraneoiis to the ordinary and standing ministry of the Church, cannot be included in the above category. Nor, second, can it be supposed that, by the term " Bishops," the apostle speaks of an order superior to Elders or Presbyter-Bishops. For, besides the fact of the interchangeable use of the titles "Elder" and " Bishop" to them as demonstrative of their identity ; the twelve apostles are no where in the New Testament called his/iops, and hence, could not be included in the orders there enumerated. It follows, that the apostolic organiza- tion of the Church at Philippi was constituted simply of the two orders of bishops and deacons. And, no other orders being includ- ed in \h.Q final instructions given by Paul to Timothy and Titus, these two orders, namely Bishops and Deacons, and these ONLY, were designed to constitute the ordinary and permanent ministry of the Christian Church to the end of time. The office of deacon, — an account of which is given in the 6th chapter of the Acts, at the time of the penning of this epistle, had been in existence about thirty years. Their functions may be in- ferred from the circumstances which originated the office. The phrase in that passage, " to serve tables," is obviously employed to describe the trust and distribution of the funds of the Church. There was then but. one source whence these funds were derived — the voluntary contributions of the people. They were, however, sufficiently ample, all the property of the Church being put into one common stock. There were inconveniences, however, which arose from this abundant liberality and implicit confidence. Those (1) Philip. 1 : 16. (2) Philip. 1 : 6. ♦ See pp. 152-153. 168 who received the distribution, awarded to the apostles less of grati- tude and trust than those who supplied it. Tlieir hands, though " they coveted no man's silver or gold," were cumbered. Their minds were embarrassed with conflicting claims and expecta- tions. Their ministry was liable to reproach and hindrance. They felt the necessity — they saw the reasonableness, of de- volving the whole of these affairs upon the hands of others, who are known and approved for their wisdom, piety, and integrity. In transferring the funds of the Church to the deacons, they transferred to them, at once, the ad^ninistration of all tempo- ral affairs. And, by so doing, ' they established a principle most wise and healthful, and which, in its exhibition, was to last as long as the imperishable pages which record the measures they, on this occasion, directed :' the object being, ' to relieve the minds and hands of those who have the spiritual oversight of the flock, that they might thereby "give themselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word." ' In conclusion on this subject of the deaconate, we remark, that, while those who " used the office of a deacon well," might thereby be admitted to the exercise of other and higher functions, as in the instances of Stephen and of Philip ; yet, their designation to their office no more included such an office prospectively, than in the case of any other individual possessed of the requisite qualifica- tions. It results, that the ministry, apostolic, designed for the ordi- nary and jjerpetual service of the Church to the period when "the fullness of the Gentiles be come in,"' as furnished in accord- ance with the divinely -inspired model exhibited in the instructions — not, be it particularly noted, of Peter, but — of Paul, was, the DUAL orders of PRESBYTEK-BISHOPS, and DEACONS. SECTION VI. Recapitulation of the argument, etc. — Conclusion. We have now, so far as we know, conducted the reader over the entire scriptural ground relating to the re-organization of the Church under the ministry of Christ and his Apostles. We have seen how, by the perfect obedience rendered by our blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to the law, moral, ceremonial, and media- torial. He changed the moral relation of man to his God, by re- moving him from under the Ilagar or Sinai covenant of works, which gendereth to bondage, and placing him under the older Abrahamic covenant of grace : and hence, that Justification ey (1) Rom. 11 :25. 169 FAITH IN Christ, who " is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth,'" was thenceforward to constitute the only ground of the sinner's acceptance with God. And, Corresponding with this fundamental change, — constituting, as it did, the grand turning --point of the Church's transit from Judaism to Christianity, — is the nature and design of those ordinances, and of that ministry which was instituted by Christ and his Apos- tles. They were intended, not as an end^ but as a means to an end ; not as, in themselves^ possessed of any saving virtue^ or efficacy either in- herent or derived. To suppose the possession of such saving efficacy by them, involves the ascendency of the religion of sense — of symholico-ecclesiological-ism — as comprehensive of a Judaico- Chris- tianized or sacerdotal priesthood, and of ceremonials and a stereo- typed ritual, over the simple, unostentatious, spiritual religion of faith. A carnal and unyielding Judaism thundered in the ears of its votaries, " except a man be circumcised after the manner of Moses, and keej) the law, he cannot be saved. "^ Christianity, Judaized, teaches, except a man be baptized, etc., he cannot be saved. Both systems strike at the very root — the heart — of true Christianity, which has for its foundation the great fundamental doctrine, justification through faith in the perfect obe- dience AND THE PIACULAR OR EXPIATORY SACRIFICE OF JeSUS Christ for sin ! " For, in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision ; but a new creature."^ " For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly ; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh" — the same thing being true of the external rite of baptism — " but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision (or baptism) is that of the heart, in the SPIRIT, and not in 4he letter ; whose praise is not of men, but ofGod."- In conclusion on this subject, I would add — what I earnestly pray may find a deep and abiding place in the mind and heart of every true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ — that the only invulnerable stand-point in this age of religious declension and of doctrinal defec- tion from "the faith which was once delivered to the saints," is, an enlightened, firm, and uncompromising resistance of, and opposition to, the already wide-spread and rapidly-increasing tendency to SUBORDINATE the Head, CHRIST, as " the great Shepherd and Bishop of our souls," and the Spirit's agency in our enlightenment, regeneration, and sanctification ; to the supkemacy of a system CLAIMING TO DISPENSE God's GEACE THROUGH THE CONDUIT OF EXTER- NAL SACRAMENTS DISPENSED AT THE HANDS OF A JUDAICO-CHRIS- TIANIZED PRIESTHOOD ! From this system, — the danger of our exposure to which is in- creasedj'it^^ in proportion as it is presented to us under the guise of an EVANGELICAL GARB, may God of his infinite mercy preserve those of (1) Rom. 10 : 4. (2) Acts 15 • 1, and v. 24. (3) Gal. 6 : 1 J ; see also v. 0. (4) Rom. i : 26, 29. 170 his people who have not, and speedily deliver those of them who have, been seduced by its insidious blandishments from " the old paths AND THE good way" of primitive truth and order, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. N.B. — We refer the reader to the Table of Contents, and to the Alpha- betical Index of the subjects discussed in these pages, as a suitable sub- stitute for a more detailed recapitulation of the General Argument. 171 PART III. MINISTERIAL PARITY, VERSUS PRELACY. CHAPTER. L THE PREDICTED TRIAL AND APOSTASY OF THE CHURCH, UNDER ■ THE CHRISTIAN DISPENSATION. SECTION I. Introduction. The characteristics of the New Testament Ministry, as exhibited in Part II. of this Treatise, shown to have been eniinently simple and fraternal. — This Ministry to be the center-point of a further trial of the Church's integrity to Christ the Head. — Her defection the subject of prophecy. — The basis of that defection, the tendency of all orders of creaturehood, angelic and human, to self-deification. — Its mode of development in the Church, a love of " the pre-eminence." — Its progress, gradual. — Its fruit, the Papacy. The Church, as reconstituted under Christ and his apostles, whether it relates to her ordinances or her ministry, presents to view a most strilcing contrast to the same Church under the last preceding dispensation. The splendors of the temple worship are exchanged for the private chamber, the sea-shore, deserts, moun- tains, dens, and caves of the earth.' The Levitical ritual service and almost numberless ceremonials give place to the offering up of "all manner of prayer and supplication,'" and of "praise,"^ upon the altar of faith, as " spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." * And, the gorgeous array of sacerdotal vestments are displaced by the seamless robe^ of the antitypal " High Priest of our profession," a fisherman's coat," or a Pauline cloak/ Then also, the ministry of the Church, — Though like the Aaronic priesthood, its origin (whether appertaining to the extra- ordinary and temporary, or the ordinary and permanent, parts thereof,) was divine ; yet, in its nature, orders, functions, and ends, (1) John 20 : 19. (2) Eph. 6 : 18. (3) Heb. 2 : 12. (4) 1 Pet. 2:5 (5) John 19 : 23. (6) John 21 : 7. (7) 2 Tim. 4 : 13. 172 how changed ! These marks of dissimilarity, however, and which evidence the total absence of all analogy between them, will fully appear as we advance. What more particularly concerns us now is, to advert to that portion of the ministry connected with the New Testament age, which, as has been shown in Part II. of this Treatise, was designed for her ordinary and standing service, extension, and edification to the close of time. This ministry, then, we remark, being cast in the apostolic mould of the inspired Paul, (of which his instructions, etc., to Timothy and Titus are the embodiment,) how sublimely simple ! How eminently fraternal ! We here behold the Preshjter-hishop^ in accordance with his pastoral relation to the Church, appointed — not to "lord it over God's heritage," ' as "though he had dominion over their faith ;" ' " but, as being ensamples to the flock," to " feed the flock of God which is among them, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly, not for lilthy lucre, but of a ready mind."' And, in his ecclesiastical relation to t\ie ruling eldei\ ap- pointed, not to assume over him the prerogatives of a spiritual despot, but to act with him as a coadjiitor in the government and discipline of the flock, and finding in that coadjutor a willing ^j»a/'- ticipant in its weighty and otherwise perilous responsibilities. And both these, by the wisely-adapted functions of the deaconate, happily relieved from the cares and anxieties of its temporal con- cerns. Now, we can conceive of nothing connected with the hene esse — the well-being of the Church in every subsequent period of her militant existence, and under every supposable variety of external circumstances, which such a ministrj^ was not fully adequate to promote. With the model-church apostolic, doctrinal, govern- mental, and disciplinary, before them, their "work" was, not to lay a neiv foundation ; not to labor as though sent to complete an unfinished mission assigned to others; but, to '•'■ huild upon'''' that " foundation" already furnished them at the hands of " the apos- tles and prophets," and of which " Jesus Christ was the chief- corner-stone." No. Jesus Christ bequeathed not to the Church a single vestige of what originally constituted the essential elements of the office apostolical. Their functions, as we have shown, from their nature and the design of their conferment, were absolutely in- communicable. And, taking human nature at what it ever has been and still is, — that feature of it, we mean, by Avhich it has been so strikingly characterized under every state and condition, inno- cent or fallen, patriarchal, Levitical, or Christian, namely, its ten- dency to SELF-EXALTATION : the intelligent and pious mind cannot but admire the wisdom of God in the construction of a ministry for the permanent service of the Church, which, from the simplicity of its structure and its fraternal character and relations, carries with (1) 1 Pet 5 : 3. (2) 2 Cor. 1 : 24. (3) 1 Pet. 5 : 1-4. 173 it the evidence of its adaptedness to curb all unholy aspirations after " the pre-eminence." ' How adinii'ably adapted such a ministry, therefore, to preserve and promote that xmion of the mystical body of Clirist in its visible form, for which Christ prayed and the apostles labored ! So far from furnishing any ground of contention as to who " should be the greatest in the kingdom of God,"^ the one order of pres- byter-bishops, though exercising their functions, some, by teach- ing or preaching and ruling, and some by ruling only, the plat- form of equality of the ecclesiastical corps involved any the least departure from the original regimen, into a positive usurpation of prerogatives totally foreign thereto. "We are here reminded, and cannot but re-quote,* the strong and emphatic language of Bp. Jer. Taylor, on this subject. " Whatsoever was the regiment of the Church in the apostle's times, that must be perpetuall, — and if the Church be not now governed as then^ we can show no divine authority for our government, which we must contend to doe, and doe it too^ or be called USURPERS." Indeed, the wisdom of God, in a final commitment of designation of this ministry to the Church under the guidance of His special providence,f left no pretext for a primacy of one over the other or of suprem,a^y of one over the Church, not only ; but as of the functions, so the very name aTr6<7TO/lof, apostle, was withholden from them. Like the keys of Peter, the name and functions apostolic were carried to heaven with them ; and, when shall have arrived " the times of restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began ;"' then, the identifica- tion of the " SIGNS" of their apostolicity with the trophies of their ministry while on earth, will constitute their passport to the " twelve thrones" on which they " shall sit," as judges of " the twelve tribes of Israel."* Nevertheless, to the intent " that no flesh should glory in his presence," God has ordained that creatureho^od, under every dis- pensation, should be subjected to a test of their integrity. Indeed, this feature of the moral government of God reaches to all orders of created intelligences. It involves, in all, the existence of a principle, which, for the sake of distinction, we shall denominate an innate lust for "the pre-eminence." In other words, it is a propensity in the creature to aspire after self-deification — " to exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped."^ It is " tlie mystery of iniquity^''^ in antagonism with " the mys- tery of godliness. ''^^ And, without stopping now to argue the con- sistency of this propensity as existing in all orders of creature- hood, angelic and human, with the divine benevolence, we re- mark, that, wheresoever and whensoever it has been developed, it (1) 3 John r. 9. (2) Mark 9 : 34. (3) Acts 3: 21. (4) Matt. 19 : 23. (.5) 2 Thess. 2 : 4. 16) 2 Thess. 2 : 7. (7) 1 Tim. 3 : 16. * See p. 97. t See pp. 156-158. 174 has been actuated by one undivided purpose, namely, that of de fcating God's design from eternity to unfold, promote, and secure his own declarative glory, through the medium of self-manife sta- tion in the PERSON of his eternal, only-begotten, and well-be- loved son, Jesus Christ — " Gon manifested in the flesh." In the angelic order, this lusting for " the pre-eminence" manifested itself on the occasion of their revolt against the revelation of God's pur- pose to unfold his divine glory through a nature other than their own. They, in other words, refused to stand in him — Jesus Christ — by and for whom' they were created as subordinates. Hence the record respecting them : " tliey abode not in the TRUTH." "^ So, of man, first, in innocence. Created in the inxage, and after the likeness of God^ — that is, as he is revealed through Christ, who is the declared "express image of his per- son"^— and invested with earthly dominion ;* yielding to Satanic influence, the same propensity exhibited itself in his decision not to hold his prerogatives under another. His resolve was, ^^we will he as Gods, to knovj good and evil ;"° thus aiming to supplant Him who was " set up from everlasting, or ever the earth was,"' from his rightful relation to the eternal God as his co-equal and co-eternal son. The same of man, second, in his fallen state. The degenerate Cainite antediluvian race, inheriting the spirit of their infidel ancestor, proudly rejected the doctrine of piacular or expia- tory sacrifice for sin, through the promised seed of the woman.* And, the nation of Israel, called out and separated from an idola- trous Avorld as God's peculiar people, with every blessing vouch- safed them which heaven could bestow or they enjoy, and secured to them by a "covenant ordered in all things and sure;"' yet, they gave the precedence to that "bondage'"" which followed their choice of the Hagar or Sinai covenant of worJcs^ over that of grace, as the ground of their justification before God, not only; but, prompted by the emotions of a fretful impatience, they first place an earth-born usurper on that throne occupied by God him- self as their king," and then follow up that act by their relapse into an idolatry deeper and darker, and more revolting, than that of their Gentile neighbors,'^ until at length they fill up the mea- sure of their iniquity, by imbuing their hands in the blood of their Messiah.'' But, this is not all. The preceding memorials of creaturehood instability were to be followed by yet another. The Church op Christ, as reconstructed under the new dispensation, was also to be subjected to a fiery ordeal, as a test of her integrity to her great and glorious Head. Yes. That model of the Church as reconsti- tuted by Divine appointment, in her doctrines, ordinances, minis- try, government, and discipline ; and which, from their transcend- (1) Col. 1 : 16. (2) John 8 : 44. (3) Gen. 1 : Q6, 27. (4) Heb. 1 : 3. (5) Gen. I . 28. (6) Gen. 3:5. (7) Prov. 8 : 23. (8) Gen. 3 : H. (0) 2 Sam. 23 : 5. (10) Gal. 4 : 24 ; Heb. 2 : 15. (11) 1 Sam. 12 : 12. (12) 1 Kings 16 : 25 ; Jer. 7 : 26. (13) Acts 2 : 23. 175 ent simplicity and fraternity of character, were so eminently calcu- lated to preserve and promote the " unity of the faith in the bonds of peace,'" by fixing her eye on Christ as " Head over all things to the Church" "till he come," has nevertheless been made to sub- serve the purposes of the most flagitious perversions of truth, and to gratify the wildest ambition known in the annals of time. And — awful tjiought ! — with the same design with those acts of revolt and apostasy from Christ commenced in heaven, and con- tinued on earth, which preceded it — that of an attempt to rob God of Ms glory^ hy the dethronement of Christy as the divinely- constituted Heir of all things.'''''^ Some, doubtless, there are, who would denounce the sentiment here uttered not only as a breach of Christian courtesy and charity, but as absolutely libelous, even if confined, in its intended appli- cation, to those implicated in the upholding of that stupendous apostasy, called Popery; yea, and that too, with the admonitory prediction of Paul before their eyes, " Let no man deceive you by any means : for that day (the day of Christ's second appearing) shall not come, except there come a falling away firsts and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition ; who opposeth and exalt£th himself above all that is called God ^ or that is worshiped ', 80 that he^ as God^ sitteth i?i the temple of God, showing himself that he is God^^ But, to this diluted, though, it may be, well-meant liberality, we oppose the motto, Veritas est maxij^ia cakitas — " Truth is the greatest charity^ No one admitting the canonicity of the New Testament Scriptures, will venture to impugn the inspiration of the above Pauline prophecy. We appeal then, whether it be in the power of language more vividly to portraj' the nature, charac- ter, and aim, of what was to constitute the great antichristian apostasy : that it was to consist of an attempt, as we have said, to rob God of his glory by the dethronement of Christ from his rightful position in the universe, as the divinely constituted " Heir of all things." The predicted "falling away," as above, was to eventuate in the enthronement, " in the temple of God," of " the man of sin ;" in which temple^ he should " exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God," would "show himself that he is God" ! Now, what, we ask, is this, if it be not a self-deification of creaturehood under the Christian Economy and m the Christian Church ? But in addition to the above, we add, that the same apostle had before spoken on this wise : "For I know, that after my departing, shall grievous wolves enter in among you^ not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.''^ And on another occasion, thus : " Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times (1) Eph. 4 : 3. (2) Heb. 1 : 3. (3) i Thess. 2 : 3, 4. (4) Acts 20 : 29, 30. 176 some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron ; forbidding to marry, and com- manding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be re- ceived with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.'" Then, in the next place. Eegarding the mode of i^anifestation of the above self-deiiied antichristian apostacy, the apostle thus speaks : " Ilis coming," says he, " is after the working of Satan," — (the first, and hence, the leading^ aspirant, to the Godhead of Christ, and he in whom is to be headed up the personal antichrist of the last days)—" with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness."' Finally, his liarhingers were the " wolves," " men," who should "depart from the faith," etc. spoken of in the preceding prediction. For, whether they should appear in the capacity of heresiarchs, who should " bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them,"'' or assume a more evangelic garb, and under the covert of " good words and fair speeches" " speak perverse things ;"' the apostle, having affirmed of " Satan," that, to accom- plish his designs against Christ, he " transformed himself into an angel of liglit^'' he argues: "It is therefore no great thing if Mb ministers he also transformed as the ministers ^^ righteousness^''* And, that these, one and all, might be known throughout all time, the apostle, in addition to their acts^ affixes to them an xm- mistakable title. They were to " transform themselves into the APOSTLES of Christ."* The apostles, as we have seen, were en- dowed with miraculous powers, as the " signs" of their apostleship. But what were these to those who assumed the functions apostolic, without their title ? They knew well, and appreciated, the value of a name, as denotive of official rank, and as a ready passport to popular favor. Under the name, they relied to escape detection, as " false apostles, deceitful workers,"' — the iiarbestgers, as we have said, of the great antichristian apostasy. And, the subtlety and success of their imposture, may be inferred from the fact of their prevalence, in Paul's day, in the Church which was scattered through " the regions of Achaia."' Nor did the sig7is of his apostleship, which had "been thoroughly made manifest" in all the Corinthian churches throughout Achaia, as proofs of the falsity of their claims," succeed in their extermination. The apos- tle John's commendation of the Ephesian Church, for having " tried those who said they were apostles, and were not, but were found liars,'"" furnishes evidence of their existence in the Church at the close of the first century. Now, it is to the " deceitful" workings of this " false" apostoli- city, that we are to trace the origin of that " mystery of iniquity" (1) I Tim. 4 : 1-3. (-2) 2 TlicsB. 2 : 9, 10. (3) 2 Pet. 2 : 1. (4) Acts 20 : 30. (.5) 2 Cor. II : 14, 15 (6) 2 Cor. 11 : 13. (7) 2Cor. 11 : 13. (8) 2 Cor. 11 : 10. (9) 2 Cor. H : 13. (10) Rev. 2 : 2. 177 which, commencing in apostolic times and on apostolic ground, has at length well nigh attained the fullest expansion of the great anti- christian apostasy. It is an emanation of that lust for "the pre- eminence," which, as we have shown, is common to all orders of creaturehood. Its process of development was gradual. In the full blaze of light afforded to the New Testament Church by the admonitions of Christ to his apostles, warning them against indul- gence in a spirit of unholy emulation to "lord" it over God's " heritage" or over one another ; and of the apostolic injunctions upon all to preserve "the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace;" and especially of their exposures of the false pretensions of those who in their day laid claim to apostolic prerogatives ; it is not to be supposed that the transition from primitive simplicity in doc- trine, ordinances, worship, government, and the ministry of the Church to a system of will-worship, superstition, and spiritual tyranny, could be the work of a day. This lusting after " the pre-eminence," so far as definitely de- veloped during the apostolic age, is illustrated in the conduct of Simon Magus in coveting apostolic prerogatives ;' and in that of Diotrephes,^ who arrogated ecclesiastical superiority over " the brethren" of the presbyterate.* These two facts taken together, serve to show the strength of the propensity of fallen creaturehood of which we have spoken, to aspire after primacy and supremacy "in the Church of Christ. It betrayed Simon the sorcerer into the presumptuous attempt to purchase the ^^ power^'' apostolic, with his ill-gotten gains.' And, impelled by the same propensity, what this apostolic aspirant failed to obtain by a bribe, Diotrephes re- solved to USURP ! And thus, we now observe, has it come to pass, that through the craft and subtlety of the ecclesiastical aspirants of after ages, the divinely-appointed ordinary and perpetual ministry of the Church, — a ministry so signally marked by its simplicity and fra- ternity of character — a ministry so admirably adapted to preserve unity in the body of Christ, — has been so far invaded, as iinally, and for a long period, to have been almost universally supplanted, by that most stupendous and terrific system of ecclesiastico-politi- cal and spiritual despotism, THE PAPACY : — that " infernal de- vice, that deepest conception and mightiest achievement of Satan, into which he hath admitted the whole canon of truth, and yet contrived that it should teach only error ; into which he hath ad- mitted the whole revelation of light, and yet contrived that it should breed only foul and pestilent darkness. Oh, it is an ample net for catching men ; a delusion and bondage made for the world, as the Gospel was a redemption made for the Avorld. No partial (1) Acts 8 : 18, 19. (2) 3 John, comp. v. 9 with vv. 5-8. (3) Acts 8 : IS, 19. * Else, icho, and what were they ? The apostles, as such, are never thus designated. Or if "the brethren" were apostles, then Diotrephes must have claimed to be their Pri- mate! This would have been to OM^Pe^er Peter! (See Pt. II., pp. 115-123.) What then, on the Romish hypothesis, becomes of Peter's Primacy ? 12 178 error, but a stupendous deception, and universal counterfeit of truth, which hath a chamber for every natural faculty of the soul, and an occupation for every energy of the natural spirit, pennitting every extreme of abstemiousness and indulgence, fast and revel- ry; melancholy abstraction and burning zeal; subtle acuteness and popular discourse ; world-renunciation and worldly ambition ; embracing the arts and sciences and the stores of learning ; adding antiquity and misrepresentation of all monuments of better times, and covering carefully with a venerable vail that only monument of better times which was able to expose the false ministry of the infinite superstition, and overthrow to the ground the fabric of this mighty temple, which Satan had constructed for his own glory, out of those materials which were builded together for the glory of God and of Christ!" 179 CHAPTER n. EXAMINATION OF THE PRELATICAL DOGMA ROMISH, TRACTARIAN, AND HIGH AND LOW CHURCH — OF AN ALLEGED UNINTERRUPTED SUCCESSION FROM THE APOSTLES, BY SEMINAL DERIVATION. SECTION I. Preliminarj' remarks. — Prelacy. — Its diversified forms. — Substantially the same. — Con- sidered as a question of fact. — Four stand- points regarding it, as landmarks in the discussions which follow. — Protean character of the Prelatico-Episcopal theory. — If true, must be shown — 1st: To be derived directly from Christ himself — 2d : Must exercise all the functions Apostolical, especially that of conferring the 'gift of the Holy Ghost" — 3d : Must prove that they were appointed to complete what the Apostles left in an unfinished state. The Papacy, then, as described in the closing paragraph of the last section, in its ministrj^, doctrines, ordinances, rites and ceremo- nies, etc., we hold to constitute that grand defection from the min- istry, doctrines, and ordinances of Divine appointment, predicted by Paul. That grand Papal apostasy we believe to be the result of a usur- pation of the original Heaven-appointed but untransferable func- tions of "the twelve apostles of the Lamb." But, what we allege, as above, to have been a usurpation, modern prelacy or episcopacy affirms a warrant — -jure divino — for the continuance of the apostolic office and functions to the end of world. Hence the dogma of an unhroke^i apostolical succession from tJie JSfew Testament times d/)wnto this day. We must here note as of importance in the premises, that, with the exception of the differences which have obtained among the various prelatico-episcopal sects regarding the number of orders and the variations of mode in the exercise of their functions, the above dogma of an unbroken apostolical succession as advocated by Romanists, Tractarians, and by High and Low Churchmen, is substantially the same. The evidence of this will be forthcoming. We have now to do however with a question of fact. We ask then, Were there, or were there not, true successors to " the twelve," as well as " false" pretenders., during and subsequently to, the New Testament age ? 180 In reply, we shall assume the four following propositions as stand-points for proof, to be adduced in the sequel, as derived from "Holy Scripture and ancient authors," etc., namely : I. That there is not, in the entire records of the New Testa- ment, the shadow of evidence, that either one of "the eleven" apostles or Paul, ever transferred his functions as deri/ved from, Christy either in whole or in part ^ to another. II. That " the false ministry of that infinite superstition" called the papacy, sprung up from, and has been nurtured and sustained by, those who, fi'om apostolic and primitive times to the present day (under Avhatever sectarian designation known), have claimed, or do now claim, apostolical prerogatives. And, consequently, III. That, inasmuch as, inherent in the very texture of pre- latical episcopacy is the germ of the papacy, the early ^o^^apos- tolic episcopacy having produced that " infinite superstition ;" modern episcopacy., even in its mildest form., preserving the ele- Tnents of^the original germ^ has the same tendency Romiswaed, as that of the magnetic needle to the body which attracts it. These several propositions sustained, it will follow, rV. That the numerous recent and continued defections, cleri- cal and lay, from the communion of the Anglican and American Episcopal Churches to that of Rome, follow in the relation of cause and effect. Pkotestant Episcopacy, the leaven: Romanism, the lump. Impressed with a conviction of the claim to my belief, of the sentiments involved in these stand-points — the result, I may say, of a protracted, laborious, and, I trust, prayerful investigation of the subject in all its parts and bearings (a,nd of which this Treatise is the fruit), it was from a solemn sense of duty, that I withdrew m}- connection from the Protestant Episcopal Church. This act was induced under the persuasion, that, for myself, at least, there was no safety but in leaving a road which, though varying in width from, yet at all points shelved off towards, a fearful precipice — the papacy. It is not our purpose to take up the stand-points assumed in the preceding section seriatim. They are designed simply as land marks upon which to fix the eye in our progress along a path of unparalleled intricacy. Nothing is more obvious than that the sys- tem of Prelacy, though claimed by its advocates to form the focus of UNITY to the Church, and that it is so clearly taught as to be " evident unto all men reading holy Scripture and ancient au- thors," yet present almost as many theories regarding its origin, ^ature, orders, powers, etc., as there are writers in its defense. 181 Polemically, we affirm that there is no other system of so Protean a character. Under its quadrupled forms, Romish, Tractarian, and High and Low Church, we know of no two writers of either school who will unite in furnishing a reliable definition of their own scheme respecting it. Rome has never yet decided ivhere or in what consists the seat of its power. And, of the other episcopal sects, their mutual denunciations of each other and of their respective systems through the medium both of the pulpit and the press, in book, and pamphlet, and periodical form ; and their variations in those ceremonials and deviations from the so-called " form of sound words," so long and so oft the loud boast of a uniformity which bids defiance to innovation, sufficiently attest the truthful- ness of the view here exhibited of it. With the promise, how- ever— in the proper place — of such a definition of Episcopacy as its current nomenclature will be shown to warrant, we proceed now, as preliminary, to a discussion of the main subject, to a state- ment of several considerations as illustrative of what is absolutely fundamental to a consistent theory of the dogma in question. We remark, then, 1. That, fundamental to such a theory is the derivation^ directly from Christ himself of the commission to exercise apostolic powers. That this is true of the original " twelve," none will deny. So, on this subject, we claim to have furnished evidence the most irre- fragable, in our vindication of Paul's right to the apostleship as one of " the twelve," over that of Matthias.* In the appointment of a successor to Judas, it was shown that that of Matthias was defective. For, besides the fact that his election over his compe- titor, Justus, was decided by " lot" — an equivocal, and, as was proved, unauthorized mode of procedure in a matter so solemn, momentous, and responsible — it was founded in a premature act on the part of the " hundred and twenty" disciples, instigated by a well-meant though mistaken view of duty as urged by Peter, he leaving received from Christ's own lips a prohibition to perform that act not only, but any and every other, until endowed " with that power" from on high, which awaited the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. On the other hand, Paul's language is, I am " an apostle (not of nian^ neither hy man^^ — either by " lot" or otherwise — " but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead").' And again: "But I certify you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of we" (and which is equally true of his compeers in office), " is not after men, neither icas I taught it^ hut by the revelation of Jesus Christ.'" Now, evidently, if there be any meaning in language, the apostle, in the above passages, must be understood by implication to affirm, first, that none either were or could be apostles, but those who de- (1) Gal. 1 : 1. (i) lb., V. n. 12. * See Part II., pp. 133-136. 182 rived their commission and authority directly from Christ himself. Second, that the Gospel which they preached as such, was derived from the direct revelation of Jesus Christ. And hence, third, that any whose apostleship is human merely, that is, which is after man, or of man, or hy man, whether 5(?Z/'-derived or obtained from another, is a USURPATION! and, hence, "FALSE"!! And then, as fundamental to the validity of the claims of such to the apostleship, it is indispensable, 2. That they possess and exercise^ whole and entire^ whatever constituted the original apostolical functions^ pre-eminent among which was their power to confer on others the gift of the Holy Ghost. By referring to Part II., page 108, the reader will see in what consisted the qualifications and endowments of the original " twelve." Now, of these endowments, their power to confer on others the gift of the Holy Ghost constituted the principal badge of their apostleship. He who exercised this power, therefore, was necessarily endowed with every other function peculiar to their office. The Evangelist Philip, though he wrought many miracles, for example, casting out devils, and healing the leprous and the lame,' etc., yet could not confer the Holt Ghost on those who be- lieved. Hence, Simon Magus, possessing the sagacity to discover this difference in the distribution of miraculous powers in the pri- mitive Church, and knowing that could he but possess himself of the greater power of the Apostle Peter, he could exercise also all the lesser functions of the Evangelist Philip, made a bold push for the apostleship. His whole procedure demonstrates that what he aimed at was, the possession of what lay heyond the functions of the inferior orders,* viz., THE POWER TO CONFER THE HOLY GHOST. The same, with those who in Paul's and John's times usurped those apostolic functions which Simon failed to obtain by a golden bribe. " Transforming themselves into the ministers of righteousness," as the " false apostles and deceitful workers" of those times, they well knew that a failure to furnish a counterfeit to each, and all the " powers and signs and wonders" Avrought by " the twelve," could not fail to expose their imposture and subject them to merited infamy. Their success in their en- deavors to " deceive if it were possible the very elect," depended on this circumstance alone. To " 5«y that they were apostles," while they professed inability to do the work of apostles, had been with them a contradiction and an absurdity. And, that they actually wrought miracles in attestation of their alleged claims as the representatives or successors of " the twelve," lays our credii- liiy under no greater contribution, than in the case of those re- corded of the Egyptian magicians in the days of Moses. (1) Acts 8 :6. * See Part II., pp. H7, 148. 183 > We hence argue, that, if these " false apostles and deceitful workers" of the New Testament age, thus " transforming them- selves into the apostles of Christ," arrogated the possession and exercise of all the prerogatives of " the twelve ;" then, surely, those who since their times claim to be of the true apostolical succession in a line of unbroken continuity, must possess similar functions, or, whatever else they may be, they " are not apostles, but are found liars." To the preceding, we add, 3. That, admitting, for the sake of the argument, that the apos- tolic office and functions as above described were intended to be perpetual, it follows, that the end or design of their continuance must have been the same with that for which they were originally given : in other words, that the same necessity which then existed for their exercise, now exists : at least, that they are continued in the Church in order to complete what the first apostles left in an unfinished state, — or, that the model Church-apostolic, though constructed in all its parts according to the pattern revealed by the Holy Ghost, in her constitution, ministry, doctrines, ordinances, etc., was not adequate to " ih.Q perfecting'''' of the mystical body of Christ, " the Church," which " should after" — that is, through all succeeding generations — " believe on him to life everlasting," till she should attain " unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" ; — the very basis, this, we affirm, of that Scripture-detracting, God-dishonoring, soul-ruining dogma of Rome, so zealously supported by her modern German panthe- istico-neologic and prelatico-semi-papal allies — the doctrine of Development : a dogma — rather the dogma, which involves a de- nial of those two grand principles — the pillars upon which rests the entire structure of our Protestant Christianity — first, the abso- lute sufficiency and supremacy of " holy Scripture" as the rule of our faith and as the standard of appeal ; and second, ministerial equality. 184 SECTION n. The only modes of escape from the above hypotheses — 1st: Positive evidence that Christ delegated to others the authority to propagate said succession — 2d : Also of the persons by whom and on whom, and the time when and the place where, said apostolic office and functions were conferred. — The system defined. — Exami- nation of the alleged evidence in support of — namely, " holy Scripture and ancient authors." I. "Holy Scripture" — prelatical arguments from — (1.) " Lo, I am with you al way," etc. — ;2.) "As my Father hath sent me," etc. — (3.) "No man taketh this honor," etc. — Bishop McCoskrey on — Remarks on. — Necessity of exhibiting the system as it is. — Proof that, cardinal to said system is its perpetual priestly and sacerdotal character with vicarial functions. Now, from the first two conditions mentioned in the preceding section, as fundamental to a consistent theory of an unbroken apos- tolical succession, namely, first, that the office and functions of each and every link in the chain be derived directly from Christ ; and second, that they possess and exercise all the functions of "the twelve ;" remain the only following modes of escape, to wit : — 1. To adduce the evidence of an explicitly authenticated dele- gation^ hy Christ himself to others^ of authority to jp'ropagate said office, together with an explicitly authenticated account of the per- sons hy whom, and of the circumstances of time and place, and of the persons on whom, said office and functions were conferred, from the apostle's times down to this day. And, 2. To adduce Scriptural authority to show, that the original functions apostolic were partly extraordinary, partly ordinary ; and, that their office as apostles, consisted of the latter only, and hence, that this office^ as constituted of their ordinary functions, was THE THING to be transferred to their alleged successors. We now proceed to show, that the above two hypotheses form the basis of the tnodern prelatico-episcopal theory of an unbroken- apostolical succession. Eeduced to the form of a definition, the current nomenclature of the standard authorities and advocates of this theory, is as fol- lows. Alleging that the apostolical is merged into the prelatico- episcopal office, and that it is in all respects identical with it ; it adopts a course of reasoning which makes the Church to exist SEMINALLY in the apostolic, that is, the now Episcopal, orders, and of which the following is the substratum of the system : — ^^MuUa ecclesia sine episcopo^ "Without a Bishop, there is NO Chukch." Our first business now is, to review the evidence adduced in sup- port of the prelatico-episcopal hypothesis of a delegated authority from Christ to others, to propagate the apostolic office. This evi- dence is of two kinds. Scripture and Tradition. Let us attend to the evidence as alleged, 185 I. — From " Holy Scripture." Of this class, are the three fol- lowing passages. " Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." " As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you." " No man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." These three passages collectively, it is affirmed, set forth, the first, the Divine purpose to continue the apostolical office and functions in the Church to the end of the present dispensation. The second, the fact of authority delegated by Christ to his apostles to that end. The third, the same fact re- asserted, together with a declaration of the nature and character of their functions : — " Called of God, as was Aaron !" The argument, as predicated of these passages, is, that as the prom- ise of Christ's continued presence with his apostles in the first pas- sage could not relate to them perso7ially^ — they being short-lived like other men, — it must refer to their office : that this office, accordingly, as perpetuated by the authority with which the apos- tles and their successors are invested in the second, furnishes the only evidence of the existence, in the Church, from the apostles's times of " the ministry of reconciliation ;" and, that, as in the third, all orders and ministrations are invalid, null, and void, ex- cept as derived from those who are alleged to have been " called of God, AS WAS Aaron." Take the following quotations in illus- tration. Of the First, " Zo, / am with you oXway^'' etc.. Bishop McCoskrey says, — " This passage, must have at once satisfied the minds of the apostles, that the office they had received from the Savior, was not to cease — that it was to continue until the glad tidings of salvation had been conveyed to the ends of the earth. They could not live to this period, and therefore all doubt as to their right of transfer must have been removed from their minds."* Of the Second, " As my Father hath sent me," etc., he says, — that Christ " ^v^an.^/e?Tec^ the power he received from God his Father, the words of the text most fully declare."f Again. " This point then is clearly settled ; that the apostles held the only ministry which was of Christ. Not only the power to rule and govern the Church, but of course it must follow, to continue the same 'power. If not, there never has been any authorized ministry in the Church, and all who profess to be commissioned as ambassadors of Christ, are gross impostors. There can be no escape from such a conclu- sion."j: Of the Third, " No man taketh this honor^'' etc., the Bishop argues, that as Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest," but was anointed for his office as a public teacher by the descent upon him of the Holy Ghost ; so, " the apostles were admitted to the exer- cise of this power in the same manner." And, "in this transac- tion," says he, " they were raised up to the very same office which * Sermon : Episcopal Bishops the Successors of the Apostles, p. 14. t lb. p. 7. % lb. p. 12. The Italics are ours. 186 Christ himself held."* Then, having spoken of Christ as a High J^riest, and that, as "there were three grades in the ministry under the Jewish dispensation," namely, the High Priests^ Priests^ and Levites ; and in analogy with which during his ministry, were Ilirti- sdf^ as '• the High Priest ; the ajpostles — the priests ; and the seventy — the Levites ;" so, " immediately preceding his ascension, he transferred it," i.e. the HIGH PEIESTHOOD, " to the apos- tles." * * * '* They then stood as his representatives, and arranged the ministry after the model which he himself had fol- lowed, namely, in accordance with the ministry of the Church as IT EXISTED PKioK TO uis COMING ;"f namely, the AAKONIC PRIESTHOOD. It were an easy matter to fill pages with similar quotations from the standards and other writings, explanatory and in defense of Protestant prelacy. The above, however, will suffice for our present purpose. We proceed now respectfully to demur to the tone of assurance, if not indeed of infallibility, indicated in the above passages. We cannot concede the ex-cathedra statements of the learned Bishop of Michigan, that the points involved are so " clearly settled," as " that there can be no escape from" the " con- clusion" to which he has arrived. In regard to The first passage. We are not so sure that Christ's promise to " the twelve" to be " with" them " alway," etc., " at once satisfied their minds that the ojflce they had received" from him " was not to cease." In the first place, as the phrase itself, " I am with you," is susceptible of at least four different meanings — I am with you personally, providentially, graciously, or with miraculous power; it is clear that Christ's personal presence could not have been in- tended, for he was just about to leave them ; nor yet his providen- tial and gracious presence, for these being common alike to all be- lievers, there was no occasion of a special assurance of the continu- ance of either to them. It follows, that our Lord could only have meant to be with them in a miramilous manner. The promise in this sense was fully verified to them. For, as well aftei\ as before, the ascension, it is recorded of them that " they went forth every where, the Lord worMng loith them., and confirming the word with SIGNS following." Nor is it, we remark further, quite so cer- tain as his Kight Reverence would intimate, that the apostles did not understand the language of their Divme Master according to its literal and grammatical sense, "Z(9, 1 am with you alway ^^^ etc. And if so, then their office was to terminate with theynselves. As "the WITNESSES of Christ's resurrection," their commission was, " Go ye into all the world," etc. They did so. " They went forth everijwhere ;" and, in conjunction Avith the subordinate orders which God had " set in the Church" to co-operate with them " for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the minis- try, and for the edifying of the body of Christ," — " prophets, * Sermon : Episcopal Bishops, etc. f lb pp. 10, 12. 187 evangelists, pastors and teacliers,'" — they preaclied that gospel "^o every creature T Hence the following testimony of Paul, " Veri- ly, their sound went into all the earthy and their words unto the ENDS OF THE ^^'■ORLD."^ By preaching and teaching, by word and by epistle, their divinely commissioned work was to continue, accompanied with the miraculous presence of Christ "working with them," " until" (|tie%pt, Greek, donec^ Latin, adverbs denoting the time how long) believers had " come into the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man :"^ and, as elsewhere shown,* with this agrees the li7nit of tJie j?romise of Christ to the twelve, as set forth in the words, ecjg rrjg awreXetag rov aloovog, 'TILL the conclusion of this age or stately assigned to you my apostles, for the ingathering and planting of the Church. "We submit then, that prelatists must either adopt the view here advocated, or else prove (what we deny) that Christ has heen with the ministry of the Church after a miraculous manner^ from New Testament times down to the present day. Of this subject, how- ever, more anon. Of the Second passage, we remark, that it is clearly a petitio principii — a begging of the question — to affirm that it admits of no other construction, than " that Christ transferred the power he received from his Father" to his apostles. Why, we ask, may it not be un- derstood to set forth the equality of prerogative of Christ with the Father, in the matter of dispensing commissions to others. That this is the sense of the passage, we thiuk is clear from our Lord's having preceded the commission given to " the twelve," " Go ye therefore into all the world," etc., with the announcement, " All power is given to me in heaven and in earth."' We affirm that it is that '■^ all poioer''^ to which the passage under consideration looks, as the source of the great apostolic commission. The passage treats of a comjyarison of powers. " As" Christ's commission as the " sent'" of God, " set up from everlasting" as the Great Media- tor, emanated from the Father, who holds the relation of rectoral Head in the plan of human redemption; " even so,^' the commis- sion of the twelve as the senf" of Christ, emanates from that au- thority with which He is invested, in virtue of His "finished" work on the cross and in the grave, as our Eedeemer. We only add now, that, on the other hypothesis, as we shall have occasion to show in another place, is involved more than a mere transfer of Christ's 2?riestly office. The third and last of the three above named passages, as we have said, is employed by the advocates of prelacy as denoting the scriptural nature and character of the official functions apos- tolic, which, thc}^ allege, " the twelve," as the delegated " repre- sentatives" of Christ on earth, were authorized to transfer to others. (1) Eph. 4 : 11, 12. (2) Rom. 10 : 18. (3) Eph. 4 : 13. (4) Matt. 28 : 18. (5) John 5 : 30, (6) John 20 : 21. * See Part II., pp. 138-140. 188 " No man taketJi tJiis honor unto hiriiself^ hut he that is called of Gody AS WAS Aaron." The importance of this subject, and its bearings on the ques- tions at issue, will justify the space appropriated to it in these in- quiries. We have at length arrived at that point in our progress, where we must look the prelatico-episcopal system in the face, AS IT IS. The subject of its alleged uninterrupted perpetuity as seminally derived from the apostles, as a question of fact, will be duly considered in its proper place. What now concerns us is, to determine, in the light of "holy Scripture and ancient authors," together with what is claimed in its behalf by its modern advo- cates, what is its true nature^ character and tendency^ as a whole. To do this effectually, it must be stript of all meretricious appen- dages, and be drawn from the cloud of dust and smoke into which it is enveloped, whether by the arts of an insidious sophistry, or the ignorance of a blind and mercenary zeal. Our own deliberate persuasion is, that the mass who have been reared from the cradle under its influence, and the many who are seduced by its blan- dishments from "the old paths and the good way" of simple primitive truth and order, do not understand it. How can it be otherwise, while trusting to the Babel -tongued teachings of its self- interested advocates ? Under its Protestant guise, what stores of learning, and what pov.^ers of eloquence are employed — but, as we shall show, without success — in shielding it as a system from the imputation of its Romexoard tendency ! As a system, our firm con- viction is, that, but for its advocacy by, and the support which it receives from, the so-called Evangelical Low Church party in the Anglican and American Churches, such a thing as Pkotestant Episcopacy, as we said, would soon be numbered among the things that were ! Cardinal to the system of episcopacy, then, we af&rm, is its alleged perpetual priestly or sacerdotal character, with vicarial powers : to which subject we shall direct the reader's attention in the following section. fi 189 SECTION m. Examination of the alleged evidence, as derived from the typical character and conse- quent analogy of the Christian ministry to the Aaronic priesthood. — Definition of the theory. — Quotations from its four classes of advocates: — I. The Romish the- ory : — II. The Tractarian theory : — III. The High Church theory ; Bishop McCos- krey : — IV. The Lowr Church theory ; Bishop Grisw^old. — The Book of Common Prayer. — Episcopacy as founded in expediency. — Fallacy of. — Proof, that in its most y diluted form, it is invested with vicarial powers. — It is Judaism with a Christian name — Is identical with the High Church, Tractarian, and Romish theories of. — Consequences : contentions, strife, divisions. — Dilemma of the Low Church party. — Must place their system on the platform of expediency alone, or admit its priestly character. — Mode of their attempt to escape from. — The reader admonished. — Trac- tarians, etc. the most consistent. Proceed we now to an examination of the arguments in support of the prelatical theory, as alleged to be founded, I. In the typical character and consequent analogy of the Chris- tian ministry with the Aaronic priesthood. And, II, In the alleged perpetuity of said ministry in the line of an unbroken succession from the apostles's time. I. Episcopacy, as a system, is founded on the hypothesis, that, as the Aaronic priesthood, which originated in express Divine ap- pointment, was ti/jrical, it must refer to, and can only be realized in, a corresponding ministry under the Christian disj^ensatioti, as ap- pointed by Christ. Such a ministry only, "is called of God, as was Aaron." We shall proceed at once to lay before the reader quotations illustrative of this point from the writings of the various sects who bear the name. And, 1. The lioMiSH theory. The Eoman Pontifical is the exponent of the Eomish dogma in this matter. In giving directions for the manner of " conferring holy orders" in the ordination of deacons, the bishop is instructed to speak to them as about to be introduced into the I^evitical order, saying, " In the old law, the one tribe of Levi was chosen from out. of the twelve, which should serve the tabernacle of God, etc. — whose name and office, beloved sons, you hold, hecaicse you are chosen into the Levitical office, for the min- istry of the tabernacle of witness — that is, the Church of God." And, in the ordination of priests, the bishop prays, that, like the seventy elders, and like Eleazar and Ithamar, sons of Aaron, they may be endued with the Spirit, etc.* 2. The Tractarian theory. Take the following in illustration : "The priests of the sons of Levi shall come near ; for them hath the Lord thy God chosen to minister unto him," etc. ; (Deut. 21: * Roman Pont. Tom. VIII. ^ 4, 12. 190 5.) " Now, my lord, this is what we mean by the authoritative ad- ministration of the Christian clergy, whether they be by way of benediction, or of any other kind."* "It was on account of Christ's words to his apostles, 'as my Father hath sent me,' etc. that Ignatius, Cyprian, and others, represent the whole college of bish- ops throughout the whole world as one person, sitting in one chair, attending one altar, and that, therefore, is the one Eucharist which is celebrated by this one pkiesthood," etc.f " Whoever is asso- ciated in the priesthood of Christ, ought" etc. — " Bishops and priests," saith St. Ambrose, " are honorable on account of the sac- rifice they offer.":]: " If we would guard against popular mistakes in the subject at large, it will be necessary to examine first, what the Church Avas under the Old Testament^ for there we find its m^igi- not establishment, its form, its authority, its ministry, its unity and uniformity, its maintenance, its independence, which things being so particularly laid down, no new establishment is to be found in the Epistles or the Gospels of the New Testament, but the ancient con- stitution is referred to, to show us, in certain cases, what ought to be from what has been."§ "As the Church of God hath always been the same in its nature, it hath likewise preserved the same form in its external economy, the wisdom of God having so or- dained, that the Christian Church under the Gospel should not depart from the model of the Church under the law There were then three orders of priests in the Jewish Church : there was the high priest, and the sons of Aaron, and the Levites. In the Church of Christ, there were the order of the apostles, the seventy disciples, and last of all the deacons, etc. The same form is still preserved in every regular Church of the world, which derives its succession and authority from the Church of the apostles," etc. I " Can you, Sir, when you consider that bishops are appointed to succeed the apostles, and, like them, to stand in Christ's place, and exercise their kingly, priestly^ and prophetic office over their flocks," etc.t (3.) The High Church theory. Bishop Hobart. " From the first, there have been three grades in the ministry. Under the Jew- ish dispensation, there were the high priests, priests, and Levites, When Christ appeared to establish the Gospel dispensation, there were subordinate to him as the great High Priest of our profession, the apostles, and the seventy. After his ascension, we find the ministry constituted under tne three grades of apostles, elders, or presbyters, sometimes called bishops and deacons. In the churches which the apostles founded, we still discover three grades. In Ephesus and Crete there were Timothy and Titus (apostles), elders * Law's second leller to Bishop of Bangor. (Tracts for the Times, Vol. III. p. 156.) + Johnson, on Unbloody Sacrifice. Part II., Chapter 3. (Tracts, etc., p. 157.) X Bishop Wilson, Private Thoughts. (Tracts, etc., p. 161.) ■ § Bishop Home, Diocesan Charge. (Tracts, etc., p. 166.) II Jones, of Nayland, Lecture on Hebrews 3. (Tracts, etc., p. 169.) i Bishop Hicks, Treatise on the Episcopal Ordination. (Tracts, etc., p. 155.) 19i or presbyters, sometimes 'called bishops, and deacons."* Bishop McCosKKEY. " So long as the Savior exercised the office of high priest, and before he transferred it to the apostles immediately preceding his ascension, there were three grades in the ministry, as Avas the case in the Church under the Jewish dispensation. Christ, the high priest ; the apostles, the priests ; and the seventy, the Levites. The apostles did not reach the highest grade, so long as the Savior exercised any ministerial authority on earth, hut were raised up to it as he was about returning to heaven. They then stood as his representatives, and arranged the ministry after the MODEL which he himself had followed, viz., in accordance with the ministry of the Church 05 it existed prior to his coining y\ (4.) The Low Church theory. Bishop Grriswold. "The law given by Moses was a shadow of good things to come ; it in all things typified the Oospel state^ and is called ' a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.' And, accordingly, it had the three orders of the ministry — the high priest, the priests, and the Levites — with different and distinct powers and duties." He then adds, " these facts prepare us to expect that the like number of grades in the minis- terial office would he continued in the Chzirch,^^ etc. " Thus, it appears that, during Christ's ministry, there were three different orders or grades of preachers. First, Himself, acting as the high priest, or bishop, in his own person, and governing the Church ; secondly, the twelve ; and thirdly, the other seventy." " After he ascended into heaven." This appears from the " two" following facts : " First, that Christ, immediately before he left the earth, advanced his apostles to that rank in the Church which he was leaving. ' As (he says) my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.' " And a little further on, the bishop adds, that Christ " appointed them to the office that he was leaving." " The other fact is, that not long after, ministers of a new order were ordained by the apostles, called deacons.":]: Finally, (5.) The Book of Common Prayer will be found to inculcate the same theory. For example : In the "form and manner of order- ing priests," in presenting the candidates to the bishop, occurs the following: "Reverend Father in God, I present unto you these persons present, to be admitted to the order of priesthood^ Then the bishop says, " Good people, these are they whom we purpose, God willing, to receive this day unto the holy office oi priesthood " etc. In the collect, thus : " Almighty God, Giver of all good things, . . . mercifully behold these thy servants, now called to the office of priesthood,^^ etc. In laying on of hands, thus : " Receive the Holy Ghost for the office of a priest in the Church of God," etc. And so, in reference to the altar. In the office * Hobart's Apol. for the Apost. Ordn., pp. 144, 145. f Episcopal Bishops ; the Successors of the Apostles. A sermon, etc. 1S42. p. 12. t Bishop Griswold on the Apostolic Succession, p. 5. Tracts on the Church. No. I. Boston. 1843. !lr92 of institution, the rubric directs, "then "shall the instituted minis- ter kneel at the altai- to present his supplication for himself," in this form: "O Lord, my God! I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under mj roof; yet thou hast honored thy servant witli appointing him to stand in thy house, and to serve at thy holy altar,^^ etc. And, in the communion service, the act of conse- cration of the elements is denominated " the oblation," or sacri- fice, celebrated and made before the " Divine Majesty," etc. We also remark by the way, that in the rubrical directions given for the administration of said communion, the term " priest" occurs seventeen times ! In the view, and on the authority, then, of these statements, we affirm that, cakdinal to THE SYSTEM OF EPISCOPACY, is ITS PRIESTLY OR SACERDOTAL CHARACTER. As We havC Said, it starts on the hypothesis, that the Aaronic priesthood, being typical, could refer to, and be realized in, none other than a corre- sponding ministry under the Christian dispensation ; and hence affirms that such a ministry was actually established, first, by Christ himself, and second, by the apostles, in virtue of power derived from Him. True, this sequence is denied by some of the advocates of the system, who plead for and justify its adoption on the ground of expediency alone; the ground, the highest ground, and (as we shall show in the sequel*) the 07ily ground on which it was placed during the early post-apostolic age, not only, but also at the com- mencement of the Anglican Eeformation.f The above statements, however, clearly indicate that, inherent in the system even in its most diluted form, is the assumption of official prerogatives, the possession and exercise of which it were preposterous to defend on the ground of expediency alone. The reader need not be told, that the veriest shadow of a shade of the prelatical scheme claims in its behalf, that it is the only legitimate chan- nel by and through Avhich has been and can be perpetuated in the Church, a valid ministry and ordinances ; a hypothesis obviously ■incompatible with the princi|)le of expediency, which, if offered in jusiilication of one, is equally eligible in behalf of a dozen con- flicting systems ; a fact, we observe, that, at an early period of the existence of episcopacy during the post-apostolic age, and again at the period of the Anglican Eeformation dating from the time of Laud, induced its removal from off so precarious a, basis, and the placing it on a footing of authority, jure divino, analogous to that of the Aaronic oi-ders. Again, This point attained, and a similar process follows the discovered insufficiency of the argument for Episcopacy, as founded in the alleged analogy of its three orders of Bishops, Priests, and Dea- cons, with those of the Levitical Priesthood. To clothe the triple * See Chap. IX., Sec. I. of Part III. t See Introduction, pp. 15-18, 21. .^ 193 Christian orders witH ajDpropriate fiiiictions, tliey must not only be considered as analogous to, but as the antitype of, the Aaronic priest- hood ; and hence, that it becomes the legitimate inheritor of the dignity, privileges, and duties, which inhered in the type. We repeat, therefore, that the prelatico-episcopal theory in- volves the dogma of an unbroken apostolical succession, with VICARIAL POWERS. It is a Judaico-christianized priesthood. Yea, more. As the offspring of a time-serving expediency, it was the Papacy in embryo ! In evidence, it is sufficient to take a view of its practical workings in the time of Laud, and of those of our own day. These demonstrate that, under whatever pretense it may be put forward, it is to the Christian Church what the ancient king- ship of human device was to the theocracy of the Hebrew com- monwealth. As that aimed at the dethronement of the Christ of God as the only legitimate KiXG of Israel ; so this seeks to usmy those prerogatives which, as we shall presently show, belong alone to Christ as ''the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls" and "the Head over all things to the Church." We have spoken of the practical workings of this theory, and of its removal from off the quicksand basis of expediency, for that alleged to be founded in divine right. Its nature, character, and tendency, from this jDoint^ are developed in the quotations given under the four classes of its advocates, Romish, Tractarian, and High and Low Church, as above. Now, invert this order, and you are furnished with an illustration of the process by which this un- scriptural and antichristian system, conceived and brought forth under the specious guise qf expediency, grows to the full maturity of that "infinite superstition, the Papacy." This system, as we have seen, claims to be a priesthood^ the anti- type of the Aaronic, not only, but of that of Melchisedek. Take, now, the argument advanced in support of the theory of Pro- testant episcopacy. It assumes, First, that Christ was an High Priest. Admitted. And, on the basis of this assumption, it alleges. Second, that Christ, prior to his ascension, transferj-ed this priest- hood from himself to his apostles, " As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you." Let us now turn to Bishop Griswold, the leader of the party and the advocate and interpreter of the theory of Low Churohism for about half a centur3^ He tells us that " the law of Moses," " in all tilings typified the gospel state f and that, inasmuch as " it had the three orders of the ministry — the high priest, the priests, and the Levites — with different and distinct powei-s and duties ;" so Christ, " acting as the high-priest, . . . immedi- ately before he left the earth, advanced his apostles to that rank," or "he actually did give them" that "ministry" which "the Fa- 13 194 tlier had given him ;" that is, " he appoints them to the office which he was leaving^ * It must here be borne in mind, that we are now treating of the priestly or sacerdotal character of Protestant Episcopacy in the abstract. Of its other powers, we shall have occasion to speak hereafter. We now remark, that you look in vain through the higher developments of the system, — Bomish, Tractarian, and High Church — for a fuller and more explicit statement of that feature of it of which we now speak. Indeed, of those who rank among the High Church party, we know of no writer who gives a fairer picture of the s_ystem, as it is. And, to it the Tractarian party subscribe their hand and seal, the only difference between themselves and their coadjutors, consisting in the variations iVi the mode of its exhibition. To this circumstance alone, are to be traced the heart-rending "contentions, and strife, and divisions,"' which are now rending the body Episcopal, in both hemispheres. The so- called Evangelicals of the Low Church school, unquestionably oc- cupy in this controversy no- enviable position. Consistency f de- mands of them as the condition of a longer tenure of their beloved theory, either that they retain and advocate it on the simple ground of expediency alone, or that they admit its priestly or vicarial cha- racter. Their choice is, by an adroit use of equivoxial terms and phrases, to evade both horns of this dilemma. In this, they see their account. While Episcopacy, arrayed in their ambiguous drapery, to a superficial observer, appears^ on the one hand to claim his regard as founded in divine right : on the other, the marks of its identity with its higher forms of development, are, to say the least, greatly obscured May I here be permit- ted a moment to pause, while I caution the reader? "Beware," then, "of men,'"* and of that class in particular, of whom I am now speaking — those who " say they are apostles^ and are notJ^ E.e- member, it is "by good words and fair speeches'':|: — equivocal terms and phrases — ambiguous drapery, that such seek to " de- ceive''^ the unwary. On the other hand, the Tractarian affirms, tliat, take away from, episcopacy its sacerdotal character, and the whole system at once (1) 1 Cor. 1 : 11 ; 3 : 3. (-2) Matt. 10 : 17. * Bishop Griswold on the Apostolical Succession, pp. •'), 6. Tracts on the Church, No. I. Boston, 184.3. The writer is here reminded of a conversation which passed some years ago between himself and Dr., now Bishop, Eastburn, the successor of Bishop Gris- wold in the diocese of Massachusetts, on the subject of Episcopacy as analogous to, and the antitype of, the Jewish Priesthood. On that occasion, said the Right Rev prelate, under whose imprimatur the above Tract, as the first of a series in defense of the eccle- siastical polity, doctrines, etc. of the Protestant Episcopal Church is issued, stiongly re pudiated the resting its claims on any other ground than that of k.xprdiency alone : and hence, denied all resemblance between the two, whether of analogy or of type. The circumstance is here alluded to, simply to illustrate and confirm what we have said of the impossibility of upholding said theory on the expediency principle alone, and, we might perhaps add, especially when subjected to the external pressure of a miter I t See Introduction, pp. 33, 34 X See article •' Beware of false doctrine," p. vi., of this Treatise. 195 falls to tlie ground. He contends that, modify and mould it as you may, you cannot annihilate the virus which warms its heart, and courses through its veins. And, with a zeal worthy of a better cause, he exclaims — consistency my course, if my final des- tiny be EOME. And, if it be true, as the above-named patriarch of Low Church- ism affirms, viz. : that Christ, as the antitypal fligh Priest of the old law, did transfer His official rank to his apostles, then the Trac- tarian is right. There is no alternative : Geneva or Rome ! SECTION IV. Arguments aemonstrative of the fallacy of the alleged typical analogy of the Christian ministry to the Aaronic priesthood — 1st: The two compared — 2d: Christ himself the only antitype of the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices — 3d : No resemblance between the orders of the two — The test applied — (1.) to the Anglican episcopacy — (2.) to the Romish. — 4th : Further proof, derived from the absolute perfection of the antitypal sacrifice of Christ — 5th : No evidence of the transfer by Christ to others, of His priestly office and functions. — Conclusion. — The Romish and Trac- tarian theories the most consistent. — Unfortunate dilemma of Low Churchmen. Proceed we now, however, to a series of scriptural arguments, demonstrative of the fallacy of an alleged episcopo-priestly Christian ministry, as antitypal of the Aaronic orders. \Ve affirm, then, 1. — That the Aarom'cal priesthood luas in no sense typical of the Christian ministry. The ministry of Christ himself, from his bap- tism to his crucifixion, was not that of a sacrificing priest, but of the '■'■great Prophet'' and " Teacher""' sent from God. And, surely, there was nothing in this analogous to, or antitypal of, the Aaronic priesthood. Then, too, what Christ communicated to his apostles both of doctrinal and practical Christianity during that period, he commanded them to "teach" to " all nations."' True, the things taught by Christ included the great doctrine of piacular or expi- atory sacrifice for sin, and the sacrifices, etc. under the law pointed to himself as " the Lamb" to be " slain" for the sins of the world. But to show that his ministry was strictly prophetical^ he abstained, during its exercise, from all invasion of the priesthood of the tem- ple, not only, but deferred, till a little prior to his crucifixion, the disclosure of the fact to his disciples, that He was to die, as a sa- crifice for the sins of the people. ^ And that, for the simple reason, 2. — That^ in Himself o-s the antitype, centered all the typps and. shadows of the Priesthood under the law. Their office, the aj^ostle tells us, was to " serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.''^ * Their design, then, may be gathered from the following. (1) John 3 :2. (2) Matt. 2S : IP, 20. (3) Matt. JG : 1 .3. (4) Heb 3 : 3. 196 " Every "high priest," continues he, " is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices." ' And again, " Every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. lie ought, as for the peo- ple, so also for himself, to offer for sins." ' To offer sacrifice for sins — to make intercession for the people, therefore, and not to distinguish between mere grades of office, was the province of the Type. Now for the Aniitype. Of the incarnate Jesus, says the apos- tle, " in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his breth- ren, that lie might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to maize reconciliation for the sins of the ^)eopZe." ' Now, under the law, this work was parceled out among the different orders of the priesthood. While the lower orders of priests offered the sacrifices in the outer court, it was the province of the high priest alone to enter into the holy of holies with the sprink- ling of blood, to intercede for the people before the mercy -seat. But Christ, as the antitype, merged in his own person the work of both. " Once, in the end of the world," says the apostle, " hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" ■* This he did when he suffered death upon the cross " without the gate."' The other act was fulfilled in Him, " when he entered, not into the holy place made with hands, but into heaven itself, there to appear in the presence of God for us."' It hence follows, that in- asmuch as the sacrifices of the priests in the outer court were un- availing, if separated from the intercession of the high priest in the inner sanctuary ; so, of the antitype. Christ's sacrifice on the cross, separated from his entering into lueaven itself with blood, as our priestly intercessor, had left the sinner without hope. The type, therefore, we insist, first, adumbrated Christ's sacrifice of himself on the cross without the gate ; and second, his priestly office in our behalf in the heavens. What language can be more emphatic on this subject than the following : " If he (Christ) were on earth^'' says the apostle, "he would not be a priest, see- ing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law." ' And he makes it the ground of our assurance, that " we have a great high piiest that is passed into the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God:"* and that, "because he continueth" there "ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood ;" not, be it observed, after that of Aaron, but "after the order of Melchisedec :^^* a High Priest, " who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens." '" Query. If, according to the above reasoning of the apostle, the cii'cumstance of Christ's own presence on earth, would nullify his priestly office, how coidd he, as is af- firmed by prelatists, transfer that office to mere mortals, with authority to perpetuate it to the end of time ? Would he, could (5) Heb. 8 : 3. (2) Heb. 5 : 1-3. (3) Heb. 2 : 7. (4) Heb. 9 : 26. (5) Heb. 13 : 12. (6) Heb. 9 : 24. (7) Heb. 8 : 4. (8) Heb. 4 : 14. (9) Heb. 7 : 21. (10) Hob. 7 : 24-36. 197 he, authorize them to do what he could not do himself f How idle, how preposterous, then, to pretend the perpetuation of an epis- copo-priestly ministry on earth, antitypal to that under the law ! But, as further evidence of the fallacy of this pretense, we re- mark, 3. — That there is a total absence of all analogy between cither tlie orders or iJie functions of the Christian ministry^ and that of the Aaronic priesthood. We shall apply this test, I. To the Episcopacy of the Anglican Church.* First, its Orders. These are divided into two degrees, the higher^ that of bishop and archbishop ; and the lower^ that of canon, prebend, dean, and archdeacon. But the rite of ordination being confined to the three orders of bishop, priest, and deacon, the analogy, so far as number is concerned, has the merit, at least, of a correspondence to that of the Aaronic priesthood, thus : — ■ BEFORE THE CRUCIFIXION. AFTER THE CRUCIFIXION. Jewish. Christian. High Priest, . . Jesus Christ. High Priest, . . Apostles. Priests, . . The Twelve. Priests, . . Priests. Levites, . . Tlie Seventy. Levites, . . Deacons. But beyond this, in the very point most essential to the support of the dogma of apostolical succession attempted to be built upon said theory of analogy, there is a total failure. The high priest, under the law, was the only one of his order. He stood alone during his natural life. Where then the analogy between that order and " the twelve apostles of the Lamb," together with the myriads upon myriads who, since their day, have said, and still " say, that they are apostles" ? In regard to the other orders, it were a waste of time and paper further to pursue this subject of analogy; and especially, since Bishop Griswold has omitted to supply, in his statement, an antitype answerable to the second order of the alleged type ;f while Bishop McCoskrey throws out of the account the seventy disciples, upon the ground that "their commission had expired prior to the crucifixion of Christ.":]: Query, How will prelatists 7-epair this chasm ? Perhaps, however, the antitype will share a better fate, when put to the test of a resemblance between. Second, their functions. Bishop G-riswold, in treating of the subject of the type, not only speaks of the three orders of that priesthood, but of their " different and distinct powers (or func- tions) and duties."! ^7 ^^^^ we are of course to understand, that the things foreshadowed therein hold good in respect to the alleged ♦ The same, of course, will apply equally to the Episcopacy of the American Church. t Bishop Griswold's Sermon, p. 5. J Sermon. Episcopal Bishops the Successors of the Apostles, etc. p. 12. j Bishop Griswold on Apostolic Succession, pp. -5, 6. 198 antitype. Now, that Christ, as the great antitypal High Priest, verified in his own person both the orders and the functiotis of the type, there can be no dispute. But the theory of analogy as above, alleges the transfer by Christ to the apostles prior to his as- cension, of the very order and functions with which IIe had been invested of the Father. Thus, Bishop Griswold, Christ " appoints them (the apostles^ to the office which he was leaving."* Bishop McCoskrey. " Tne Savior," says he, " exercised the office of HIGH riiiEST," and "he transferred it to the apostles," who " were raised up to it as he was about returning to heaven. They then stood as his representatives^ and arranged the ministry after the model which he himself had followed, viz., in accordance with the ministry of the Church, as it existed prior to his coming ;"f that is, as the antitype of the Aaronic priesthood, in its orders and functions. An hypothesis this, we repeat, which, as its sequence, makes the orders and functions of the Christian ministry strictly priestly — a priesthood, after the order of Aaron, Episcopacy — our Low Church brethren being judge, — episcopacy is nothing with- out it. Take away its priestly character, and it topples to the ground. It is its life, the mainspring of all its workings. But, the two ministries, " In what do they resemble each other ? "Did the high jjriest ordain the priests? No. Did he confirm the people ? No. Had he the exclusive right of government ? No. On the other hand : Do the bishops discharge any duty analogous to the offering up of the yearly sacrifices on the great day of expiation? No. Have they the peculiar privilege of entering into the immediate presence of God ? No. Is the order of God attached to their persons ? or have they any special right of de- claring the divine will? No. He who has sagacity enough to detect, in the appropriate functions of the high priest, anything tliat deserves to be called a type of the functions of a Christian bishop, can never be at a loss for types and antitypes, so long as any two objects remain within the Bible or without it. Their prerogatives and offices are so absolutely dissimilar, that to make one tlie image of the other, is to pour overwhelming ridicule upon the whole system of typical ordinances. The success will not be much better, if we go down to the second or third grades of the priesthood. If the reader has an hour which he cannot employ more prolitabl}^, he may throw it away in hunting for likenesses between the priests of the Law and the Gospel, between the Levite and the episcopal deacon.":}: Thus argued that distinguished divine. Dr. Mason. His reasoning has never yet been answered. Pass we now to an application of the above test, 11. To the Episcopacy of the Romish Church. And, * Bishop Griswold on Apostolic Succession, p. 6. t Sermon. Episcopal Bishops the Successors, etc. p. 12. X Christian Magazine. Vol. I. p. 320. Edited by Dr. Mason. 199 First, its Orders. These are seven in number, and are divided into minor and greater. Of the minor are the four following, viz., porter, reader, exorcist, acolyte. The three greater are, the sub deacon, the deacon, and the priest. But the Council of Trent, which determined the number of the orders, in its catechism dilates the highest order, that of the priest^ dividing it into the five following degrees, viz., priests, bishops, archbishops, patriarchs, and THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF, whom Cj'ril, Archbishop of Alex- andria, denominated in the Council of Ephesus, " The father and patriarch of the whole world" ! But, agreeably to the declaration of the Council of Trent, that " the order of the priesthood," though of " different degrees of digni- ty and power," is, nevertheless, " essentially one :" in point of consistency^ has the decided advantage in the matter of analogy in this particular over that of the Protestant theory ; the Pope, as the vicegerent of Christ upon earth and the only Head of the Church, answering to the one only High Priest. Speaking of the other theory, a recent writer has well and truly observed : — " The high priesthood must have but one incumbent, and the bishop's order must have more than one ; and if so, how could the former be the type of the latter ? There is no getting rid of the difficul- ty which this Adew presents. If a type and antitype must resem- ble each other at all, then it is not possible, that the one high priest of the Mosaic economy was intended to prefigure the hun- dreds of bishops, who are in ofiice, at the same thne, in the prelat- ical system."" It is no marvel, therefore, in tracing the practical workings of this theory, to discover, under its Tractariun form, the adoption, whole and entire, of the Komish claim. Hence their (the Tractarians) quotation from Johnson on Unbloody Sacrifice, who says that " Cyprian, and others, represent the whole college of bishops throughout the world as one person, sitting in one chair, attending upon one altar,^^-[ etc. It needs no argument to prove that the Romish Church claims for its ministry, Second, pnestly fmict ions. Of this fact, there is no attempt on the part of the papist at concealment or evasion. " He makes the terms priest, altar, sacrifice, as fully significant when applied to the New Testament ministry, as they were when used to denote the Jewish. The Council of Trent have not accommodated the meaning of the words — retaining the name and discarding the substaiice^' — the Jesuitism, we affirm, of Pjrotestant Episcopacy ; — " but boldly, affirmed, that there is no real difference between the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and in the mass — the difference being only circumstantial, the one an offering made by himself, the other by the ministry of the priest.":j: ■* SnodgTuss on the Apost. Succ, p. 148. t f'ee p. 190. X Hist, of Councils, Lib. 6, p. 455, as quoted by Duffield oj Episccopacy, p. 60. 200 To the preceding, we add another argument, as further demon- strative of the futiUty of this theory of analogy. It is founded 4. On the absolute perfection of the antitypal sacrifice of Christ. Hear Paul on tliis subject. " Every high priest" of the Aaronic order " standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins : but this man," Jesus Christ, "after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God ; from henceforth expecting, till his enemies be made his footstool ; for ly one offering he hath per- fected forever them that are sanctified^' Now, the argument here is, that, though our blessed Lord took not the " honor" of his priestly ofiice " unto himself," but was " called of God as was Aaron;"'' yet, inasmuch as "perfection" was not " by the Levitical priesthood," (it being " evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda., of which tribe Moses spake nothing con- cerning priesthood),"^ there was a needs-be " that another jDriest should rise" after another order than that of Aaron, whose priest- hood, though perpetuated by succession, was nevertheless limited. The functions of Christ as our "High Priest over the house of God" " in the heavens,"^ must necessarily be perpetual. Another " simil- itude" than that of the Aaronic priesthood, therefore, is employed by the Holy Spirit to denote it, even that of "Melchisedec," who, being " without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life ; but, made like anto the Son of God, ahideth a priest continually T'" Yes, Jesus Christ, " who is made" a High Priest, " not after the law of a carnal com- mandment, but after the power of an endless life,"" required such a " similitude to denote it. Hence " He testifieth. Thou art a priest /ivrey*?/", after the order of Melchisedec."' Christ, therefore, " because he continueth ever., hath an unchangeahle priesthood."' And, in this consists its perfection. Finally, on this subject, we add, 5. That there is a total absence of all scriptural evidence^ that Jesus Christy as is alleged^ ever did transfer his priestly office and fmctions to his apostles., with power to transmit them to others as their successors to the end of time. If what the Scriptures affirm of the nature and end of the office and functions of Christ, as the antitypal " High Priest of our profession" as shown above, be true, — that though, as connected with His expiation of human guilt by the sacrifice of Himself " without the gate," His work commenced on earth, yet that the sphere of its exercise is confined to " the heavens" as our Intercessor at the right hand of God; and also, that the " one sacrifice" which He offered " for sin" was in itself complete, " perfecting forever them that are sanctified," and there- by constituting Him " the author and finisher of our faith ;" then, it is not possible that He could have delegated that office and (1) Hch. 10 : n-14. (2) Heb. 5 : 4, 5. (3) Heb. 7 : 14. (4) Heb. 10 : 01. (5) Heb. 7 : 15 ; and v. 3. (6) Heb. 7 ; 16. (7) Heb. 7 : 17 ; 5 : 6, 10 ; 7 : 11, 21. (8) Heb. 7 : 24. 201 those functions to any mere mortals. We look in vain for any such evidence in the terms of the commission given by Christ to his apostles. And, if we look heyond that commission, where, we deferentially ask, is to be found in the New Testament any, the least, allusion, to the existence of " priesthood and of priest, of altars and of sacrifices," or "any sacrificial language and ceremo- nies pertaining to divine worship and the sacraments," as that ad- vocated on the hypothesis either of the Romanist, the Tractarian, or the High or Low Churchman ? The Church of Christ has, in- deed, her altar, and sacrifice, and priesthood. But, this priesthood slays no victim. It is " an holy priesthood, to offer up," on the altar of faith, " spiritual sacrtfia-s^ acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."' And, it is a priesthood common to the whole body of the called and sanctified in Christ Jesus, who, " as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house."* Our blessed Lord, having "once in the end of the world appeared, to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself," " there is no more offering for sin."' He retains, «Vi Ms own person, the everlasting sacerdotal order of Melchisedec ; and has given to his Church, not a new order of sacrificing priests, but an order, which, as we have shown, from its very structure, was every way calculated, as it was evidently designed, to guard those holding it from an invasion of his immutable bights. In conclusion, then, on the subject of this alleged correspondence between the Christian ministry and the Aaronic priesthood as its type, we are compelled to accord to the Romish theory, the merit of the greater consistency. In that form, it is JUDAISM, meta- morphosed into, and baptized b}^, a Christian name ! Her priestly orders, arrayed in their gorgeous vestments, and offering upon the summit of her altar the unbloody sacrifice of the mass, and the salvation which she claims to dispense to the faithful in virtue thereof, is but the higher form of development of that system of episcopacy, originally introduced on the ground of expediency alone. While, therefore, we sympathize with, we cannot but admit that our Low Church brethren render themselves justly liable to, that imputation of inconsistency .^ so liberally cast upon them by their Tractarian and Romish allies. To illustrate this matter. The evangelical advocates of prelacy in both hemispheres, aware that the genius of the Judaic system consisted in its elevating the ex- ternal ordinances and rites of the Church above and beyond their original design, teaching, as in the case of the Judaizing corrup- ters of the faith in the Galatian church, that, " except a man be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, he cannot be saved :"* stro'ngly inveigh, against the introduction into "the Church" within the last twelve or fifteen years, by the Oxford Tractators, of an order of things, calculated, as they are designed, to unpkotes- TANTizE the Church; for example, unduly elevating the sacra- ments— baptism and the holy eucharist — by investing them wdth (1) 1 Peter 2 : 5. (2) 1 Peter 2 : 5. (3) Heb. 10 : 18. (4) Acts 15 : 1. 202 an opus ojperatmn as channels for the conferment of saving grace, and the consequent inculcating the heretical dogmas of baptismal regeneration, transubstantiation, priestly absolution, etc. etc. together with the revival of numerous Komish ceremonials, customs, and the like. Now, in these protestations, accompanied, as they have been and still are, witli the most commendable efforts to arrest their progress, these brethren share in our deepest sympathies. But, the retoi't courteous^ from both sides of the Atlantic, we are constrained to say, has been as consistent as it is emphatic. Episcopacy, say the Tractators, being founded in its analogy to the Aaronic orders, and as such, engrafted, by Christ himself, into the constitution of the Church as modeled by himself and his apos- les, is, in all its essential features, a priesthood. And, they thence argue, that the analogy, to hold good, involves the perpetuity of priests, altars, sacrifices, etc. But, that argument, as we have shown, is advanced as the hasis of prelatical episcopacy alike by the Low Church or Evangelical party, as by those of the High Church and Tractarian schools. Hence their demand of their Low Church brethren, the follow- ing tribute to consistency — either, first, an adherence, as good Churchmen, to ALL the principles involved in an application of the type to the things signified ; or, second, a surrender of the argument of analogy in its defense. This, however, would be to surrender the entire Episcopal scheme, and would place them on the platform of that simply fra- ternal and pastoral system of ecclesiastical polity, presbytery, the antipode of its sacerdotal claims. Between these, as we have said, there is no via media.* We must insist that episcopacy, on the ground of expediency alone, is utterly indefensible. f We must also insist, that, to retain episco23acy as founded in its anti- typal correspondence to the Aaronic orders, and avoid the danger of a collapse into the Judaico- Romanic system, is as consistent as to hope for the preservation of sound health in the midst of a pestilential atmosphere. Between it and "pure Protestantism," there is not one congenial element. The four antagonistic theo- ries of it as exhibited above, viewed controversially in its unnatu- ral alliance with pure Protestantism, is a gordian knot which never can be untied ; it must be CUT. Those earthquake commotions which, superinduced by this unnatural alliance, have so repeatedly, since the time of Archbishop Laud, shaken the Anglican hierarchy and her adopted daughter in America to their center, furnish the evidence that nothing short of a total divorcennent of the two, can ever restore quietude within her distracted pale. Our sincere regard for their spiritual welfare, and their speedy relief from this uncomfortable dilemma, induces the utterance of the prayer in their behalf — May the Lokd " hasten it m his time 1" * See Introduction, pp. 4-6, 35. t See, on this subject, the section next following. 208 CHAPTER ni. OF THE ALLEGED POWERS OF THE PRELATICAL PRIESTHOOD. SECTION L The apostolical powers, if continued, must be exercised whole and entire. — Division of their functions by prelatists into extraordinary and ordinary. — Bishops Taylor Griswold, and Mcllvaine on. — Design of. — Fallacy of. — Dr. Barrow and Cardinal Beliarmine on. — Prelatical dilemnia. — Though they deny the continuance of the ex- traordinaty functions apostolic, yet claim to exercise the highest of their miraculous powers, namely, that of conferring " the gift of the Holy Ghost." — Proofs, quotas tions from — 1st : The Romanists— 2d : Tractarians — 3d : High Church ; Bishop Jeremy Taylor — 4th : Low Church ; Book of Common Prayer, (Ordinal of Or- dination.)— Discretionary form of. — Remarks on. — Bishop Mcllvaine. — Policy of the above scheme. From the evidence furnished in the preceding section, of the IDENTITY of the Prelatico- Episcopal theor\^, Romish, Tractarian, and High and Low Church, at least, in all its essential features as a Christianized sacerdotal priesthood ; we leave the reader to de- cide upon the merits of our arguments, demonstrative of its fallacy. This, however, is but one feature of the system. We have thus far only considered its alleged sacerdotal character in the ahstract. We have now to lay before the reader, what the same classes of advocates respectively claim in behalf of THE POWERS OF THAT PRIESTHOOD. We have assumed, as indispensable to the support of the prelati- cal dogma of an unbroken apostolical succession, the proof of its possession, lohole and' entire^ of whatever constituted the original apostolical functions, pre-eminent among which, was their power to confer on others the GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST.* Now, we are aware, that, in order to evade the above sequence of this theory, some of its advocates institute a distinction between the original functions apostolic, alleging, that some were extraordi- * See pp. 182-183. 2M nary, some ordinary; and, that the latter only^ constituted the OFP'iCE apostolic which was transferred to their successors.* Thus Bishop Jeremy Taylor : " In the extraordinary privileges of the apostles they had no successors, therefore of necessity a suc- cessor must be constituted in the ordinary office of apostolate. Now what is this ordinary office ? — Preaching, baptizing, conse- crating, ordaining, and governing. "f Bishop Griswold : "• Christ did not promise that the working of miracles should continue to the end of the world, but that he would always be with the office. Working miracles was not their office. — It was to preach, to bap- tize, to lay on hands, and to govern the church.":}: Bishop Mcll- vaine : " The essential office of the apostles, sent to subdue and establish, and rule, as ambassadors of Christ," the Bishop argues at considerable length, must not "be confounded with those extra- ordinary endowments, and all that striking array of miraculous powers with which they were famished for their enterprise." Speaking of these latter, he says, " Essential to its success in those days, they undoubtedly were ; bat essential to its nature, they cer- taiulj" were not. We must not confound authority to act, with the means of acting successfully," etc. And, he tells us, that " the authentic voucher of office is the commission," etc.§ A convenient door of escape, this, from the responsibility of performing some acts apostolic — for example, that of speaking with tongues, healing the sick, raising the dead, etc. By thus summa- rily disposing of these, as mere temporary appendages of the origi- nal office, they furnish a plausible pretext, to say the least, on which to assume that the system of Prelatical Episcopacy stands on a level with the apostolic office — in other words, that bishops are to be regarded as apostles. Others, it is said, wrought miracles be- sides the apostles. " Even laymen did that."|| It is hence con- tended, that " as we cannot argue there are no presbyters, and deacons, and private Christians now, because they have no longer power to work miracles as they are recorded once to have done ; so neither can it be argued there are no apostles noio^ because they possess no longer the supernatural poAvers which distinguished the original apostles." But, we ask : Of those acts which prelatists admit to have con- stituted the ordinary office of the apostles ; did they preach, speak, write, baptize, ordain, govern, etc. as ordinary men? This must be conceded, or, on the hypothesis of an alleged transfer of their OFFICE as constituted of these functions, their so-called successors must inherit from them the same inspiration — a miraculous en- dowment— under which the}^ preached, etc. ; otherwise, there is no ministry in the Church noio^ because men no longer preach, etc. by inspiration, * See p. 184. f Episc. Assert, p. 14, etc. X Griswold on Apost. Sure. Tracts on the Church, No. I., p. 7. \ The Argument for the Apost. Succ. By Bp. Mcllvaine. Albany, 1843. pp. 4, ^, etc. II Griswold's Apost. Succ. Tract No. I., p. 7. 206 It had been -well for prelatists, who display so much ingenuity in distinguishing between things which do not differ, had they dis- covered another distinction : that, we mean, between the nature and extent of the miraculous powers apostolic, and those of pres- byters, deacons, and private Christians. With the former, super- natural endowments were conferred as the signs of their apostle- ship. They were therefoi'e conferred for the express j^urpose of confirming the inspired teachings and other acts apostolic. They were the proofs of their inspiration. They hence formed a part, not only, but, as we have elsewhere said,* they constitute the very basis of the apostolic commission. Without these poavers they WERE NOT APOSTLES. What, " the commission,'' (Matt. 28 : 18, 19, 20,) independenth^, " the authentic voucher of office ?" The Lord Jesus Christ has decided otherwise. " If a man bear witness of himself, his mtness is not true.'" " The commission," therefore, we affirm, proclaimed by the apostles by the word of mouth or ex- hibited on a piece of parchment, unaccompanied by an " authentic voucher," had forever remained a dead letter. The ajjostleslivp of Peter and his compeers, as predicated of this commission as given, Matt. 28 : 18, 19, 20, we have shown, so far as connected with the instance of his and of their agency in the appointment of Mat- thias, f was null and void^ for the simple reason that their official functions were incomplete^ till the descent upon them of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. Before the crucifixion, the official functions apostolic embraced, in common, those of preaching^ teacliing^ baptizing^ and the worhing of miracles. " And he or- dained twelve — that he might send them forth to preach, and to have power to heal sickness and cast out devils."' Thus Mark; so also Luke : " And he called the twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure dis- eases, and he sent them to j)reach the kingdom of God." Accord- ingly "they went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing everywhere.'" After the resurrection, Christ expressly " commanded them that they should not depart fi-om Jerusalem, but WAIT for the promise of the Father" in reference to their fidl endoioment of official "power," by their being ^^ baptized with the, Holt Ghost."* And, this official " power" conferred, and, pre- eminent among the signs of their apostleship, Avas their " power" to confer on others, not, mark, the official " power" itself, which, as we have elsewhere shown, was absolutely incommunicable,:}; but, THE GIFT OF THK HoLT Ghost. Truc, this gift, upou whomsocvcr conferred, as in the instances of the Samaritan converts by Peter,' and of the disciples of Ephesus by Paul,* included miraculous en- dowments. But, being derived from, they were inferior to, the " power" which bestowed them. (1) John 5 . 31. (2) Mark 3 : 14, 15 : see also chap, f) : 7-13. (3) Luke 9 : 1-6. (4) Acts 1 : 4, 5. 6 (5) Acts 8 : 14-17. (6) Acts 19 : 1-7. * See Part II., pp. 111-116. t See Part II., pp. 133-138. t See pp. 107-114. 206 If, then, the fact that those who preached, baptized, ordained, etc., in virtue of authority which they derived from the apostles, clothed them with apostolical functions, it follows from the above reasoning, (and in regard to which we challenge refutation,) that those, yea, even private Christians not excepted, who derived the power to work miracles from the same source, ar'e also apostles. Surely, prelatists need not be at a loss after this, for materiel out of which to coin New Testament apostles ! We must, in passing, beg to introduce to the reader's notice the following on this subject, from the learned Dr. Barrow. In his work on " the Pope's Supremacy," (of standard authority with Episcopalians,) speaking of the nature, design, and end of the apostolical office compared with that of a bishop, he says, " The OFFICES of an apostle and a bishop are not well consistent, for the apostleship is an extraordinary office^ charged with the in- struction and government of the whole world, and calling for an answerable care" — " but episcopacy is an ordinary charge, affixed to one place," etc. And again : " The apostolical office, as such, y{2L^ personal and temporary^ and therefore, according to its nature and design, not successive and communicable to others in per- petual descendance from them. It was, as such, in all respects extraordinary, conferred in a special manner, designed for special purposes, discharged by special aids, endowed with spjecial privi- leges, and was needful for the propagation of Christianity and founding of churches," etc. Then follows his enumeration of what constituted the marks of an apostle. These may be found in this Treatise, Part II., p. 109. He then adds : " Now, such an office, consisting of so many extraordinary privileges and miraculous powers, which were requisite for the founding of the Church and the diffusion of Christianity, against the manifold difficulties and disadvantages which it must needs encounter, was not designed to continue hy derivation^ for it containeth in it divers things w^hich apparently were not communicated, and which no man without GROSS imposture AND HYrOCRISY COULD CHALLENGE TO HIMSELF," "Neither," he adds, "did the apostles pretend to communicate it : they did, indeed, appoint standing pastors and teachers in each church ; they did assume fellow-laborers, or assistants, in the work of preaching and governance, but they did not constitute apostles equal to themselves in authority, privileges, or gifts, for, who knoweth not" (saith St. Austin) " that principate of apostleship is to be preferred before any episcopacy." And he then quotes from the Romish Bellarmine the following, on the same subject : " The bishops have no true apostolical authority. Wherefore, St. Peter, who had no other office mentioned in Scripture, or known to anti- quity, beside that of an apostle, cotdd not have 2)TopeTly and ade- quately any successor to his office : but it naturally did expire WITH his person, AS DID THAT OF THE OTHER APOSTLES !"* * Dr. Barrow, on the Pope's Supremacy, pp. 63, 64, 65, New York edition. '84.'i. 207 We leave the advocates and admirers of prelacy to reconcile Bishops Taylor, Griswold, and Mcllvaine, with Dr. Barrow and Bellarmine, on this subject, as best they may. We repeat, that the apostles, aware of the nature, design, and limits of their official functio7is^ whatever other offices they instituted as connected with " the work of the ministry," yet never conferred on others that " power" in which all their functions, like the rays of light to the sun, concentered, the power to confer on others the GiFr of the Holy Ghost. Yet, strange to say, the divorcement^ as above, of the miracu- lous powers from the other functions apostolic, as a mode of escape (adopted by the above writers) from the consequences to which we have alluded, as following the admission that they formed a part of the original office, to the contrary notwithstanding, the prelati- co-episcopal s^ystem advocated by them, invol.ves, in the exercise of their so-called ordinary apostolical functions, what all must ad- mit to have constituted the HIGHEST MIRACULOUS ACT ever put forth by the original apostles themselves — that, we mean, of conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost! Yea, and that, as we shall now proceed to show, holds equall}' true of the four phases of the system, Romish, Tractarian, and High and Low Church. 1. The Romish. The fourth section of the fourth Canon of the Decrees of the Council of Trent, is as follows : " Whoever shall affirm that the Holy Spirit is not given by ordination, and therefore, that bishops say in vain, 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost;' or that thereby a character is not impressed ; let him be accursed." 2. The Oxford Tractarian, or Puseyite Scheme. " We have confessed before God our belief, that through the bishop who or- dained us, we received THE HoLY Ghost, the iMioer to bind and to loose, to administer the sacraments, and to preach."* • The Bishop of Exeter (Phillpotts), in commenting on the " Pre- face" to the Form and Manner of " making, ordaining, and conse- crating of bishops, priests, and deacons, according to the order of the Church of England," holds the following language : " Of im- position of hands, here declared to be necessary to valid ordination, it is not easy to conceive Avhy the Church should thus declare it to be necessary, unless because it holds, in common with all acknowledged branches of the Catholic Church to the time of the Reformation, that the same form of ordination, in other words, the giving the Holy Ghost for the offices of the Christian ministry, which was observed by the apostles themselves, was also, under the direction of the Holy Ghost, transmitted by them for the per- petual observance of the Church," etc.f 3. High Churchmen. Bishop Jeremy Taylor. " The summe * Tracts for the Times. No. I. p. 2, etc. t Episcopal Charge, etc., by the Bishop of Exeter. 1839. Bricknell's Judgruent etc. p. 277. 208 of all is tills, that Clirist, to tlie apostles, gave a plenitude of power, for tlie wliole commiasmi was given to them in as great and comprehensive clauses as were imaginable, for by vertue of it, they received a ijower of GIVING THE IIOLY GIIOST in conjirmatixm^ and of giving his grace in the collation of holy orders^'''' etc. " And his power," he adds, " was not temporarv, but successive and perpetuall, and was intended as an ordinary office in the Church," etc.* 4. Low Churchmen. These, in their adoption and use of "the Book of Common Prayer" of the Anglican and American Epis- copal Church, adopt with it the stereotyped "form and manner of ordering priests," etc., as therein set forth. K"ow, in that form, the bishop, in the act of imposing hands on the head of the candidate for priest's orders, says thus: "Receive the Holy Ghost ^or the office and work of a priest in the Church of God^^'' etc. True, in the compilation of the American Prayer Book from the Anglican liturgy, the following modified "form" was appended for the discretionary use of those who might prefer it : " TaJce thou authority to execute the office of a priest in the Church of God," etc., an addition,f we observe, effected through the influence of Bishop White, Bishop Seabury finally consenting, though with great reluctance.:}: Now, this modified discretionary " form," when contrasted with the other, at first sight one w^ould suppose was the offspring of a Presbyterian adviser ! But, we ask, in the first place, how often is it used as a substitute for the other? The Avriter, who has wit- nessed the ordinations of many priests by different bishops, does not recollect a single instance. And, that it is considered as a mere dead letter, we think may be safely inferred from the fact, that, in "the form of ordaining or consecrating a hishop^'' the above discretionary " form" is not inserted! But, if necessary in the ordination of a priest, why not in the consecration of a hishop ? If, in the use of the first " form," when ordaining a priest, there were grounds to apprehend the exercise of a function imicarranted by the " power" claimed to have been derived from the apostles, by what rule is the exercise of that power justified when conse- crating a bishop ? Bishop Mcllvaine, however, has settled the matter for us. In a recent sermon, preached at the consecration of Dr. Upfold as Bishop of Indiana,§ founded on Eph. 3:8, " Unto me who am less than the least of all saints is this grace given, that I should preach," etc., he remarks : " There is no objection to the supposition that in these words he (Paul) referred partly to his office of apostle- ship as a grace. In receiving it (that is, the ojice of apostleship), * Bishop Taylor's Episcopacy Asserted, p. 46. Oxford edition. 1642. Small 4to. t An addition to, we observe, not an alteration of, the Anglican form. The American Prayer Book still retains that form. t Bishop White's Memoirs of the Church, p. 203. Philadelphia edition. 1820. § Reported in the Protestant Churchman of March 9th and 16th, 1850. 209 he in a certain sense received the Holy Guost, since all authority to minister in the Gospel is of the IIolj Ghost," And then, in a note appended to said sermon, he sajs, " nothing more than this is meant by the language of the office for the consecration of bishops, ' Receive the PIoly Ghost for the office and work of a bishop,' " etc. " Nothing more." What higJie?- meaning, pray, could be attached to said language? The " ojice of apostleship" was now about to be conferred on Dr. Upfold through the ^^ grace'" or "gift of THE Holy Ghost," by the imposition of hands of three con- secrators in unbroken succession from Paul, from whom the "power" of "conferring" said " grace" was especially derived, and of whom my very worthy and learned friend. Bishop Mcllvaine, was one. The occasion required at his hand, a vindication of the act. Suffice it to say, that that vindication is complete. In the same note, the bishop tells us that the " substitute'^ allowed to be used in the ordination of priests is of similar import with that of the original form — "Eeceive the Holy Ghost," etc. It is clear, then, that the system of prelacy, though it disclaims miraculous powers apostolic in behalf of their alleged successors, on the ground that they, being extraordinary, were hence tempo- rary, and therefore formed no part of their office, yet nevertheless claims to exercise the highest miraculous prerogative of the apos- tolic college ! And, we submit, whether, to a thoughtful mind, the reason is not obvious. It were absurd to assume the 7ia7ne without the thi?ig* — the office without the functions. Why it is then, that, disclaiming the lesser^ the advocates of prelacy at the same time arrogate the exercise of the greater^ of the functions apostolic, can, so far as we know, be accounted for on no other principle than that found in the difference of their nature, modes of operation, and effects. The former have to do with the physical world, and hence are tan- gible to the senses. The latter, with the spiritual world, and hence is addressed to man's faith. The assumption of the apostolic pre- rogatives, %ohol& and entire^ therefore, must be authenticated by their casting out devils., speaking with tongues, curing diseases, raising the dead, etc., or, in the event of their failure to do so, work out a tangible demonstration that they " are not apostles." Creaturehood proneness to credulity and superstition, on the other hand, has rendered man a more ready dupe to the assumptions of a power purely s])iritual. It results, that, under a covert denial of the continuance of miraculous powers in the Church, that as- cendency has been obtained over the credulous by limiting their claims to the possession of this latter power, which similar preten- sions to the former had defeated. * See Part II., pp. 146-148. 14 SIO SECTION n. The same subject continued. — On the extent of the alleged powers apostolical, as claimed in behalf of their successors. — Preliminaries. — Substratum of the prelatico- episcopal theory. — Principle involved, namely, Prelacy, as essential to the being of the Church. — Argument for, not the name, but the acts, etc. — Bishops Griswold and Mcllvaine. — Essential to the support of. — Fallacy of. — The name apostle, retained by BLshop Mcllvaine. — Equivocal and contradictory use of. by prelatists. — Bishops Mcllvaine and H. U. Onderdonk compared. — How used in the time of Ignatius. But, we have thus far spoken of the priestly character of the prelatico-episcopal system simply in the abstract. We come now to treat of THE EXTENT OF THOSE POWERS, claimed in its behalf by its respective advocates, Eomish, Tracta- rian, and High and Low Church. Preliminary to an exhibit of these alleged powers, we must beg to call to mind our declared belief, that episcopacy, as adopted on the ground of expediency at an early period of the post-apostolic age, containing within it the germ of the papacy, finallj^ attained to the full maturity of that "infinite superstition" as it now exists ; and also, that, under its various Protestant forms, it has the same tendency Eomeward as that of the magnetic needle to the body which attracts it.* As a stand-point under which to exhibit the nature and cha- racter of these alleged powers, we shall, for the benefit of the reader, introduce in this place what may be termed the suhstratum of the whole system. It is this : — ■ " Nulla ecctesia sine episcopo''' — " "Without a bishop, there is no Church :" in other words, Episcopacy is essential, to the being of THE Church. This hypothesis calls for remark regarding the two following particulars : — the mode or criterion of recognition, and the extent of the powers or functions of the Episcopate. I. First, then. The mode or criterion of recognition of the Episcopate. What is it ? Prelatists, discarding the names or titles, tell us that the successors of the apostles are to be known by their acts. Instance the following : Bishop Griswold says, " The name of apostle was not long continued." — '' This circum- stance," he adds, "has led some to suppose, that the apostolic office ceased with those who first bore the name. To decide this, you have only to consider what was their ojice.^^-f And so. Bishop * See p. 180. t Bishop Griswold, on Apostolical Office, p. 7. 211 Mcllvaine. " What was the peculiar nature of the supervision, or episcopate exercised bj the apostles, that name^ of itself, does not indicate."* Others, it is argued, were called apostles, who were not such in the same sense with "the twelve," therefore, the name can decide nothing ! But we ask. For what purpose are names given ? Certainly, to distinguish between persons and things that differ. Why then divorce the name from the thing designated by its use? Evi- dently, the name and thing — office — must in every case be taken together, a condition indispensable in discriminating, and under which alone we can discriminate between the official acts of a supe- rior and an inferior dignitary bearing the same name. Viewed, however, in connection with the prelatical theory, the above divorcement of the name from the office forms an essential element in the argu^ient for the apostolical succession. It is predi- cated, and is necessary to the support of, the distinction as alleged by prelatists, between the extraordinary and ordinary functions apostolic. Bishop Griswold being judge, "the name of apostle was not long continued." — Hence, " after their death., their suc- cessors in office, in honor of the first apostles, modestly, by general consent, assumed the name of bishop."t The only criterion there- fore left us, to decide whether or not they are successors to the apostles, is to look, not at their names, but at their acts. The apostles preached, baptized, ordained, governed the Church,, etc. Bishops do the same. Therefore, bishops are successors to the apostles. To bishops was transferred the apostolic office. " Modestly, by general consent, assumed the name of hishofP What an act of modesty ! — to claim the office or functions^ and discard the name which designated them. The great Dr. Barrow has decided in reference to this office apostolic, that, " no man., without gross imposture and hypocrisy," can " challenge it to him- self" We may be excused therefore if we add, that the history of the Church of Christ from the second century, forms one con- tinuous line of evidence of the deep hypocrisy of this pretense. I submit it to the sober decision of the reader. Let it be supposed, that, " in honor of the first apostles," the name., rather than the office, of the apostles, had been the thing selected by their so-called successors. What had been the result? This may be inferred from the c^tiovs, powerlessness of a mere name for evil, compared with \kiQ, jpotency of powers assumed by those for whom they were never intended. The unchecked ambition for " the pre-emhstence" which the choice of the latte/r has produced, has brought down upon Christendom the dark cloud of Paul's predicted apostasy from the faith, and drenched the world in blood! But, do prelatists discard the name., apostle ? Bishop Mcllvaine scouts the idea of any " arrogance" or " presumption" in retaining ♦ Argument for the Apostolical Succession, p. 5. t Bishop Griswold, on the Apostolical Office, p. 7. 212 it, any more than in setting up a claim to the oflfice. Being termed " successors of the apostles," that is, in name, and having " suc- ceeded to the apostolic office," " whether it be arrogant or not," says he, " depends entirely upon whether it be true.'''' lie assumes that it is true. Yea, more. As though to refute the plea of modest}^ as above alleged by Bishop Griswold in substituting the name of bishop for that of apostle as a mark of " honor" to "the twelve apostles of the Lamb;" this pious and humble prelate con- tends that, the names of apostle and bishop, being used inter- changeably to denote the same office, the successors of the apostles are entitled as well to the one name as the other. In answer to the question, " What was the peculiar and characteristic nature of the apostolic office ?" He replies : " They themselves applied to it a name which will aid the answer. Peter, in addressing his brother apostles concerning the filling of the vacancy caused by the death of Iscariot, expressly styles the office which the traitor had vacated, Ms hlshopriG, or his e'piscopate^ as the original* reads. The same is also called, in the same transaction, his ajjostleshijj. Hence, in the writings of the Fathers, the names of apostle and hishop are used as pertaining essentially to the same office.'''' (And he quotes Cyprian and Hooker in his support).f Just precisely what vje affirm. Wayne and office go together. The former, as expressive of " the peculiar and characteristic nature of" the lattei: We must, however, rely upon the Bishop's generosity, to reconcile the above statement, with that already quoted from page 5, of his argument. " What was the peculiar nature of the supervision, or episcopate" — that is, office, '* exercised by the apostles, that name, of itself, does not indicate." One other instance, as a further evidence of the equivocal and contradictory mode of dealing with this subject by prelatists. It occurs in connection with the names, " Angel" and " Star," as de- notive of official ministerial rank. In reference to these, one writ- er " stakes the cause of prelacy upon the fact, that the angels were called lishops.''^ While another "is at no loss to assign a sufficient reason why they were not called bishops." Take the fol- lowing in illustration. * impD, PEKUDDATHo, Psalm 109:8; ETritTKiTriV, Episcopen, Acts 1:20; signifies charge, employment, oversight, or office, as a ivhole, It is to be borne in mind, that this is the only instance in which this name is applied by the apostles to themselves ; and that, as a synonym of the name apostle, it is never, in the New Testament, applied to others. Paul, as we have shown, (p. 159,) uses it interchangeably with the name TptajJvTtpos, elder, in Acts 20 : 17, 28 ; Titus 1 : 5, 7, an office inferior to the bishopric of the apostles t Argument for the Apost. Succ. pp. 4, 5. 213 Bishop Mcllvaine says, that to these Bishop H. U. Onderdonk says, angels " was appropriated, during their " These ' angels' were addressed just at lifetime, the title of bishops, as a dis- the time, when, as we learn from other tinctive title of their special office." sources, the name of apostle was about This, he says, " is not disputed ;" and being relinquished by those individuals he quotes Ignatius as evidence. "Ig- so called in Scripture, and the name of natius. Bishop of Antioch, who person- bishop was in transitu from the second ally knew and conversed with St. order to the first ; the former title was John, writing to the Church of Ephe- losing, or beginning to lose, its more BUS not more than twelve years after general application ; and the latter St. John had addressed the angel of had not yet acquired its final appropria- that church, in the book of Revelation, tion."— "The dignitaries in question," expressly says that Onesimus was then i.e. the ' angels,' were addressed, when its bishop, — ' who,' says he, ' according it was somewhat too late to call them to the flesh is your bishop.' "* apostles, and too soon to call them bishops." Here, then, the terms 'angel' and 'star' being symbolic, f we have seven alleged successors of the apostles, for a period, at least, without a name. Eespecting the above, we shall only remark, first, that Ignatius was right in one thing. He says of these bishops, that they were such '■'■ according to the flesh;" which, admitting that the docu ment is authentic, furnishes proof that they were not such accord- ing to the Spirit : that they were of man and ly man : 7iot bv Jesus Christ and God the Father. Second, at the time of which both these bishops speak, that of Ignatius, it "is confessed on all hands," that the name, bishop, was the title, not of a prelate, but of a parochial pastor : it was used interchangeably with that of elder, or presbyter, to denote the same office. If, then,^ according to Bishop Mcllvaine, these angels were then called " bishops," as " the distinctive title of their special office," it follows, that they " were not prelates, but parochial pastors." We leave it with Bishop Mcllvaine to evade " this logic" as best he can. * Argument for the Apost. Succ, pp. 10, 11. t See p. 130. 214 SECTION III. The subject continued. — Extent of the alleged prelatical functions. — Their incongruous and discordant views of. — The subject applied — 1st : To the nature, character, and powers of "the twelve" — Alleged Headship of Christ transferred to them — Bishops Griswold and McCoskrey — Absurdity of — 2d : Its transfer by the Apostles to others — Bishops Griswold and McCoskrey — Whole and entire. — Contradicted by the dis- tinction made by them between the extraordinary and ordinary functions apostolic. — Continuance of miraculous powers in the line of prelatical bishops, positively affirmed by Maurice. — Made to depend, however, on their faithfulness. — By others, denied. — Quotations from " Tracts for the Times," Bishop Mcllvaine. — Rev. Mr. Melville. — Taken together, the system is complete. But let us see whether less of incongruity attaches to the views of these writers, in regard to what they allege, II. — Of the extent of the powers or functions of the apostolate, as alleged to have been derived, first, from Christ personally to the apostles ; and second, from the apostles to their successors. "We will here venture the afiirmation, that the above exhibit of the discrepancies of prelatical writers regarding their use of the name, apostle, etc., will sink into insignificance beside the univer- sally discordant and incongruous views which they present on the subject of their alleged transferred office. 1. First. Of the nature^ character, and extent of the powers or functions apostolic, as relating to "the twelve." Bishop Griswold. " Christ, immediately before he left the earth, advanced his apostles to that rank which he was leaving." And again : " He (Christ) appoints them (the apostles) to the office which he was leaving."* Bishop McCoskrey. " Everything that could be possessed by a mere human being, was given to them (the apostles) by the Savior. He was, as the apostle declares, the head of the body, consequently this headship was transferred," etc.f The ^'■rank^'' " oy^ce," and " /«eacfe/wy of Christ, transferred to his apostles ! We here deferentially ask : Will prelatists venture to institute a distinction in reference to the functions which merge in the " rank," " office," and " headship" of Christ, similar to that urged in reference to his apostles? We think not. It would hence follow, by parity of reasoning, that the apostles were placed on a platform of equality with Christ Himself. The streams are equal with the fountain whence they emanate. As the office of Christ is only to be known by His acts ; and as, in view of His inherent * Bishop Griswold on the Apostolic Office, p. .5» t Bishop McCoskrey's Sermon on Apostolic Bishops, p. 7. 215 possession ot the Spirit without measure, He "spake as never man spake,'" healed the sick, cast out devils, raised the dead, etc., so, of course, of X}ie Junctions^ inherent in the "rank," "office," and " headship" delegated by Him to his apostles. Otherwise, Christ is divided! But, so far from this, the bishop, though he explains Christ's headship to " mean that which belonged to him in his human nature, as Head and Governor of the Church,"* yet reiterates some half dozen times, that Christ, " as he was about returning to heaven," transferred his office as high priest, to his apostles, not only, but with it, " the power which he received from the Father;'" that, " in this transaction, they were raised up to THE VERY SAME OFFICE which Christ himself held." " In short, that they were empowered to "do everything which Christ would have done, had he continued on the earth !"f We here ask, by the way : Had Christ " continued on earth," would he have been a ^ne5^ .^ Let Paul answer: "For if Christ were on earth, he should not be a priest." But Christ is a priest, yea, even that "high priest after the order of Melchisedek," who hath an unchangeable priesthood." But if unchangeable, it must now be in exercise. And, as we know that it is not continued by Christ personally on the earth, it must be continued "m the Jieavens^ "This man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins," as a " high priest forever, after the order of Melchisedek," "forever sat down at the right hand of God." It happens, after all, that Christ IS divided. "His "rank," " office," " headship" — his high priesthood, together with all " the power which he received from the Father," transferred to his apos- tles, who thereby became his "representatives," or "permanent rulers and heads on earth. ":{; The Holy Ghost has decided otherwise. The impossibility of such a transfer, in whole or in part, is manifest from the very na- ture of the great mediatorial work. For, while, "for the suffering of death" in expiating human guilt, "it behooved Christ to be made like unto the brethren ;" the efficacy of that atonement, etc., is available in our behalf only in virtue of the union of the divine with the humcni nature. That the " all power in heaven and in earth" given by the Father to Christ, therefore, is absolutely incom- municable^ will appear from the fact that the transfer by Christ to his apostles of his human nature only, while, in Himself, the union of the divine with the human nature was indispensable to the effi- cacy of His work as mediator, had been but to render inefficacious and void his official and priestly functions, as put forth by man. And yet, (1) John 3 : 34. (2) Matt. 28 : 18. * Sermon, etc., p. 10. f Sermon, etc., pp. 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, etc. t Sermon, etc., pp. 8-12. 216 2. These powers or functions, as alleged to have been received bj the apostles from Christ, are declared to be transferable. Thus, Bishop Griswold. " Christ promised to be with them (his apos- tles) even to the end of the world, evidently meaning them and their successors in the same qi/ice.^^* Bishop McCoskrey. " This point then is clearly settled: that the apostles held the only ministry which was of Christ. Not only the power to rule and govern the Church, but of course it must also follow, to continue the same office. If not, there has never been any authorized ministry in the Church, and all who profess to be commissioned as ambassadors of Christ, are gross IMPOSTORS."t We would respectfully remind Bishop McCoskrey, that he is sadly at issue with the learned Barrow on this point. :^ Well. These powers or functions : Were they to be transferred in whole or in pay-t ? The apostles, undeniabl}', besides being in- spired men, were endowed with miraculous powers. Allowing, then (in the sense of a logical deduction of), the statements made respecting them by the above writers, the sum of the matter is this: The apostles were advanced by Christ himself to the same rank, office, or headship in the Church which he was leaving, with au- thority to transfer " the same power''' to their successors. Bnt, this rank, office, or headship apostolic, included the func- tions both of inspiration and of miraculous powers. Therefore, the successors of the apostles, receiving from them "the same powers" which ih.ej received from Christ, are endowed with mspyiration and miraculous functions ! And thus, as the reader casts his eye along the alleged unbroken line of succession from Peter, or Paul, or both, in addition to those of the Papal line, prominent among the continuous links, he finds Apostle alias Bishop H. U. Onderdonk, of Pennsjdvania ; Ap>ostle alias Bishop B. T. Onderdonk, of New York ; Ap>ostle alias Bishop S. A. McCoskrey of Michigan ; AjMsile alias Bishop C. P. Mcllvaine, of Ohio ; Apostle alias the would-be My Lord Bishop C W. Doane, of New Jersey, etc., etc., some of whom, at least, it must be ad- mitted, have been marvelously inspired, and have performed many marvelous wonders ; but, with what evidence that they were of the same nature and character with those of the onginal functions apos- tolic, we leave others to decide. At this point, however, we are admonished not to bear " false witness against our neighbor." Protestant prelatists remind us'of the distinction on which they insist, between the extraordinary powers and the ordinary functions of " the twelve ;" and, that the "rank," office or " headship" transferred by them to their successors ♦ Bishop Griswold on Apostolic Office., p. 6. t Bishop McCoskrey's Sermon on Apostolic Bishops, p. 12. ^ t See p. 109. 217 relate exclusively to the ordinary powers apostolic. We refer the reader to our quotations on this subject (page 204) from the writings of Bishops Taylor, Griswold, and Mcllvaine. And, in addition to what we have there offered, to show that the above is a distinction between things which do not differ, — miraculous powers, under the first two commissions, as proved from Mark 3 : 14, 15 ; 6 : 7-13 ; and Luke 9 : 1-6, forming the components of the same official functions ; also, the error of this class of writers in overlooking a real distinction, — that, we mean, between the nature and extent of the original powers apostolic and those which were derived from them ; and, finally, the fact that the name apostle (Bishop Mcllvaine being judge) is given to define "the peculiar and characteristic nature of the apostolic ofl&ce,"* and that, hence, both must go together ; we now add, that, while they retain in their liturgy the present stereotyped form for the ordina- tion of priests and the consecration of bishops, — that of claiming the exercise of the highest act of miraculous power apostolic, viz., the conferrmg the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands : we can- .not but view the argument as founded on this plea as utterly incongruous, futile, and vain. To the reply of Bishop Mcllvaine to the question : " Were these miraculous gifts so connected with the apostolic oflftce as to constitute in any sense its distinguishing characteristics ?" viz., that " they are not mentioned in the com- mission" (referring to Matthew 28 : 18, 19, 20) : it is sufficient to say, that every commission comprehends three parts : 1st, Qualifi- cations for acting; 2d, Authority to act; and 3d, Directions how to act. The first, however, is the measure of their official func- tions. Their office is known by their names and by their acts. Christ, in the exercise of his office, not ovly taught, preached, etc., but wrought miracles. His apostles did the same It were as consistent, therefore, to apply the above distinction to Christ as to his apostles. Query. Will these writers condescend to recon- cile this divorcement of miraculous powers from the function of preaching, etc., with the following passage regarding the official powers of our blessed Lord, as the elect " high priest of our pro- fession" ? " The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me \o preach the Gospel to the poor ; he hath sent me to Ileal the broken-hearted ; to preach deliverance to the captives, AXD RECOVERING OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND" ?' Eelief fi-om the dilemma involved in this indefensible hj^pothesis, however, is at hand. It affords, we affirm, the only possible es- cape therefrom. That redoubtable champion of Prelac}^, Maurice, " whose praise is in all the Churches" Episcopal, speaking of these very powers apostolical as derived from " the twelve," says, " that, according to the doctrine which has always prevailed in the Church, the Episcopate does contain in it the administration of the (1) Luke 4 : 18. * See Sermon, Argument for the Apostolic Succession, p. 4. 218 sacraments, the delivery of absolution, the preaching of the gospel, the ministering to the sick and poor, — all the functions, in short, which were at any time committed by our Lord to his immediate disciples ; and, tliat the BISHOPS HAVE, AND OUGHT TO BELIEVE THEY HAVE, all needful powers to perform THESE functions " ! The above, the learned author designs as a reproof to the de- luded Irvingites, as the expectants of a restoration, to the Church, of the original office apostolic with miraculous powers, as though, says he, " there be any reason to expect that an order will be in- troduced by SIGNS and wonders, which seems to be ALREADY IN BEING"!!* To this, however, it may be objected, that the learned Maurice intimates that though "Christ is still present in the Church," the continuance of the original functions is made contingent on the faithfulness of their successors. Christ, he says, "would still communicate actual powers to his ministers, if their faithlessness did not interfere'''' !\ Have, then, the "actual powers" apostolic been forfeited by the " faithlessness" of their successors ? Where, then, pray, are we to look for the office ? An office without func-* tions ! The above admission would work inevitable ruin to the stand-23oint — the substratum of the Prelatical theory, — " Nxdla ec- clesia sine episco'poi!'' We should then have " a church without a bishop " ! But, no. Prelatists have no idea that the perpetuity of apos- tolical successors and the consequent existence of " the Church," should be thus suspended upon the precarious basis of an " IF," predicated of the personal unfaithfulness, etc. of those who form the connecting links. That the " actual powers" apostolic, — though " transmitted through corrupt channels," — for example, " traitors," like Iscariot, or the " deficient and untaught," even though they teach " falsehood" and administer "sustenance little better thau poison," — cannot be vitiated or destroyed, we refer the reader to the following prelatical gems : — " Nor, even though we admit that many of those who formed the connecting links of this holy chain were themselves unworthy of the high charge reposed in them, can this furnish us with any solid ground for doubting or denying their power to exercise that legitimate authority with which they Avere duly invested, of trayis- mitting the sacred gift to worthier followers." — " The very question of worth, indeed, with relation to such matters, is absurd. Who is worthy ? Who is a fit and meet dispenser of the gifts of the Holy Ghost?" — "And, be it remembered, that the apostolic powers, if not transmitted through these, in some [manj- ?] in- stances corrupt channels, had not been transmitted to our times at ally — " The wn/worthiness of man, then, cannot prevent the good- * Maurice's Kingdom of Christ, pp. 379-382. f Ibid. p. 381. 219 ness of God from flowing in those channels in which he has des- tined it to flow." * Bishop Mcllvaine, speaking of " the prejudice" " as to personal character and fitness" "of the modern successors with the first in the chain," " occupying, individually, just that relation to the pre- sent Church which the apostles, by virtue of the essential features of their office, sustained individually to the Church of their day," by way of exposing its unreasonableness, says : "Be it remem- bered that Judas Iscariot was numbered with the apostles by the Savior himself, and Judas was a traitor." f The distinguished Mr. Melville, of London, expressly affirms : " If, whensoever the minister himself is deficient and untaught, so that his sermons, exhibit a wrong system of doctrine, you will not allow that Christ's Church may be profited by the ordinance of preaching ; you clearly argue that Christ has given up his office, and that he can no longer be styled the ' minister of the tabernacle.' When every thing seems against the true followers of Christ, so that, on a carnal calculation, you would suppose the services of the Church stripped of all efficacy, then, by acting faith on the Head of the ministry, they are instructed and nourished, though in the main, the given lesson he falsehood, and the proffered sustenance he little better than poison " ! Thus, then, while Maurice steps forward to the relief of his brethren from the sequence of their distinguishing between things which do not differ ; they again return the compliment, by point- ing out to hira how quite unnecessary it is that he should shrink from his former declaration, that " according to the doctrine that has always prevailed in the Church, the Episcopate "has been sig- nalized "by signs and wonders already in heing." This, we again repeat, is the only consistent and legitimate de- duction flowing from the prelatical hypothesis of a ministry de- rived from the apostles, and endowed with those " same powers" in unbroken continuity to the present day, which they affirm to have received from Christ. Bishop Seabury, therefore, was right in ojpposing the introduction as a substitute for the original, of a form for the ordination of priests and the consecration of bishops, of an equivocal character. Equivocal ? 0, no, sa3'S Bishop Mcllvaine. The substitute, " Take thou authority to execute the office of a priest in the Church of God now committed to thee by the imposition of our hands," etc., " expresses the interpretation of the Church as to the words of the other : ' Receive the Holy Ghost for the office," etc.:}: Then they are of equivalent import. Else, where the consistency of allowing the use of either indif- ferently, at the discretion of the ordaining bishop ? * Tracts for the Times, No V., pp. 9, 10, 11, 12. t Sermon, Argume nt for the Apostolical Succession, p. 8. X See Sermon, Protestant Churchman of March 16, 1850. 220 SECTION IV. Aggregate powers of the prelatico-episcopal priesthood, as advocated by, 1st, The Ro- manists.— (1.) Of the priesthood generally. — (2.) Of the popedom in particular. — (a.) Immaculate. — (b.) Infallible. — (c.) Their spiritual powers. — (d.) Their tem- poral powers. — (e.) Their supremacy, absolute and universal. — (3.) The Romish, " the mother and mistress of all chyrches." — Means employed for her extension and support. — 2d. Protestant prelatists, Anglican and American. — (1.) Of the ministry as a Christian priesthood.— (2.) Of their official powers. — Bishops Gris- wold and McCoskrey. See p. 191. — (a.) Immaculate. — (6.) Infallible. — (c.) Their spiritual powers. — Absolution. — Mediation. — Dr. Dodwell. — Bishops Gris- wold and Mcllvaine. — Inference. Come we now, III. To exhibit a condensed view of the aggregate powers of the prelatico-episcopal priesthood, as alleged to have been derived from Christ through the apostles, as set forth, 1. In the EoMiSH theory of that system. The extent of the " all ministerial power" of the Church of Rome, may be collected from her almost numberless canons, bulls, decre- tals, and rescripts, issued from time to time by her popes and coun- cils, one and all of which, claiming to be of equal authority with holy Scripture, are held to be infallible. The following extracts will illustrate her claims : (1.) In behalf of her ministry as a Christian priesthood. This ministry she affirms to be, not only the antitype, but that it is actu- ally identical with, the jDriesthood of the old world, as existing even anterior to that instituted by Moses. The decretals authoritatively announce, that " the institution of the papacy began in the Old Tes- tament, and was consummated and finished in the New."* — " The greatness of the Pope's priesthood began in Melchisedek, was so- lemnized in Aaron, was continued in Aaron's sons, was made per- fect in Christ, was represented in Peter, was exalted in the ponti- fical universal jurisdiction, and was manifested in Sylvester and his successors."! " The order of the New Testament priesthood first began in Peter ^X (2.) In behalf of the stupendous powers alleged to inhere in this pontifical priesthood. In a general way, they are thus expressed : "As the authority given to Peter belongs to his successors, who therefore, in all the world, ought not to be subject to the pope's decrees, which have such power in heaven, in hell, and upon earth, with the quick (or the living), and also the dead."§ But, we must descend to particulars. They are declared to be, * Distinct. 12, C. Decretis. t Antoninus, Summa Majoris, Pars 3. \ Distinct. 21, C. In novo. § Distinct. 21, C. Decretis.— ifo. Dist. 19, C. Ita Dominus. Nklvdas. Dist. 22, C. In tantum. 221 (a.) Immaculate. "The popedom Latli neitlier spot, nor wrinkle, nor any such thing,"* (5.) infallible. " The pope, who is judge of all, can be judged of none; neither emperor, nor priests, nor kings, nor people. Who hath power to judge his jadger The pope has power over coun- cils, but councils have no power over the pope, on account of his PRE-EMiisrENCE."f " God hath reserved the pope from the judg- ment of man to his own judgment/':}: " Tlie pope is free from all laws, so that he cannot incur any sentence of irregularity, suspen- sion, or excommunication, or penalty, for any crime." The pope is to be presumed to be always good and hol}^ and though he be not holy, and be destitute of merit, yet the merits of Peter, his pre- decessor, are sufficient for him, who hath bequeathed a perpetual inheritance of merits and dowry of innocence to his posterity, so that, although the pope be guilty of homicide, adulter}-, and all other sins, he may be excused, by the murders of Samson, the thefts of the Hebrews, and the adultery of Jacob. § Hence, " the Court of Eome never was found to slide or decline from the faith of apostolical tradition, or to be entangled with any novel heresy '"| "As the primacy of Rome hath not been preserved by any general council, but was obtained by the voice of the Gospel and the mouth of the Savior, "*j[ therefore he is declared to be " infallible without defect^'"' "upon every point of revelation," and that he "pro- nounces sentence clearly, distinctly, and with certainty infallible ;" and that to the extent that it involves the '■'• plenary poioer^ First, to determine upon the canonical authority of the sacred Scriptures, and demand the belief or rejection of them in conformity with the papal decision. Second, to authorize the knowledge of the sacred volume for us. Third, to expound the sense of the Holy Oracles, and with all that certitude, that every Christian without scruple can believe it. Fourth, to decide peremptorily upon the additional doctrines and duties which are indispensable to salvation, and to supply, as emergencies require, from tradition and expediencv, the deficiencies which they avow are obvious in the Scriptures of truth. And Fifth, to decide all controversies without reference to Scripture, conscience, or any other tribunal."** (c.) Their spiritual powers. "The pope is, by divine right," in matters spiritual, declared to be " the sovereign head, supreme judge, and lawgiver in all things relating to religion, whether as to faith, manners, or discipline." " The pope is all in all, and above all, so that God and the pope, the vicar of God, are but one con- * Pelagius. Distinct. 21. t Innocent. Caus. 6, Qu. 3, C. Nemo. Gelasius. Caus. 9, Qu. 3. C. Cuiicta. t Symmachus. Caus. 9, Qu. 3, C. Aliorum. § Distinct. 40, C. Si papa. — Thomas. Qu. 3, C. Per principalem. Hugo, Dist. 40, C. Non nos ; Glossa. — Causa 12, Qu. 3, C. Absis. II Pope Lucius. Dist. 24, Qu. 1, C. Enim vero. i Pelagius. Dist. 21, C. Quamvis. ** Innocent. Elect. C. Venerabilem. Zachary. Caus. 15, Qu. 6. C. Alius. Gregory VU. Clement. C. Pastoralis, etc. (See Fox's Acts and 3Ionuments.) 222 sistorj, for he is able to do almost that God can do, cla/ofi non errante., Avithout error."* " God, not man, separateth that which the pope dissolves ; therefore, what can you make of the pope but that inc IS God ? — Wherefore the pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the preceptii of Christ,"f in regard to war, marriage, divorce, revenge, swearing, usury, homicide, perjujy, and uncleanness" !:{: "Thus the pope- hath all power in earth, purgatory, hell, and heaven, to bind, loose, command, permit, elect, confirm, depose, dispense, do and undo. Therefore, it is concluded, commanded, declared, and pronounced, to stand ii^on necessity of salvation, for every human creature to be subject to the pontiff of Rome."§ (d) Their temporal powers. " The power of the keys is given to the pope immediately from Christ. By the jurisdiction of which keys of binding and loosing, and dominion, the fullness of papal power is so great, that even emperors and all others are subjects to the pope, and ought to submit their acts to him." || " There are three kinds of power on earth : Immediate ; which is that of the pope from God : Derived ; to other prelates from the pope : Ministering ; belonging to emperors and princes to minister for the pope."^ Hence, in virtue of this alleged divine right, one pope translated the empire froni the Greeks to the Romans ; another put down Childeric and set up Pepin ; another appointed the king of Sicily ; another stirred Rudolph against Henry IV. : another made Henry rebel against his father the emperor ; another forced Henry II. of England to go barefoot to the tomb of Becket ; another caused John to kneel and offer his crown to Pandulph the Legate ; another prostrated Hugo of Italy, and absolved his sub- jects from their allegiance ; another excommunicated Henry V., and obtained all his rights ; another placed England under inter- dict ; and another put his foot upon the neck of the Emperor Frederick, and reproved him for holding the wrong stirrup of the horse he was mounting.** In addition to the above, their powers are declared to be, (e.) Universal. " All the earth is the pope's diocese ; and he has * Hostiensis, C. Quanto de translat. preb. — Baptist Summa Casuum. t Decret. de translat. Episc. C. Quanto. j Nicholas. Caiis. 15, Qu. 6, C. Auctorit. Martin. Dist. 14, C. Lector. Gre/^ory. Dist. 32, Qu. 7, C. Quod proposuisti. Innocent IV. Sixt. Dec. De Sentent. Ex-Com. C. Dilecto. Alexander HI. De decimis. C. Exparte. De Elect., et Elect. Protestate. C. Significasti ; Glossa. Bap. de Sumcas. Innocent IF. De Elect. C. Veni-rabilem. Extravag. de Jurejurando, C. Venientis. Martin V. Extravag. C. Regimini TJnivers. Eccles. Urban II Cans. 23, Qu. 3, Excom. f) Sixt. Decret. C. Felicis. Glossa. Boniface VIII. Extravag. De Majorit. Et Obed C. Unam Sanctum. II Dist. 19. C. Si Romanorum. Gab. Biel. Lib. 4.— Dist. 19.— Pet. de Palude — Dist. 19. Innperator. * ^ Sum. Mag. Pars 3. Antonini. Innocent III. Sac. Unci. C. Qui Venisset. ** Innocent. Elect. C. Venerabilem. Zachary. Caus. 1.5, Qu. 6, C. Alius. Gre- gory VII. Clement. C. Pastoralis. Platina. Nauclerus. — Polydore Virgil. Urban. Caus. 15, Qu. 6, C. Juratos. Alexander III Spons. et mat. C. Non Est. Adrian. Vit Rom. Pont. Bulla Adriani. — (See Fox's Acts and Men.) 223 the authority of the King of all kings over their subjects."* And this upon the following ground : Melchisedek was king as well as priest. The priesthood of Aaron was an ecclesiastico-polilical sys- tem. Christ was King as well as Priest. Peter wielded the sword as well as the spirit, and dealed out death and damnation to the covetous Ananias and Sapphira. Therefore, " the pope is head of the Church of Rome, as a king over his judges; for he is Peter's vicar and successor ; vicar of Christ ; rector and director of the universal Church ; chief magistrate of the whole world; head and chief of the Catholic Church ; universal pope and diocesan; most mighty priest — neither God nor man, hut between both, the admira- tion of the universe, having both swords of temporal and spiritual jurisdiction, " etc.f And so, " THE PAPACY" is declared to be " the mother and. mistress of all other Churches of Christ ; from whose rules no per- sons should deviate ; but like as the Son of God came to do the will of his Father, so must you do the will of your mother the Church, the head whereof is Rome.":}: "Be it known to all men, that Rome is the prince and head of all nations ; the mother of faith ; the cardinal foundation whereupon all Churches do depend, as the door upon the hinges ; the first of all seats, without spot or blemish ; the lady, the mistress, and instructor of all Churches ; and a glass and spectacle to all men, to be followed in every thing which the Roman pontiff observes and ordains."§ The meaiis employed, to uphold and promote this " all ministerial power" II of the Papacy. They are, 1st, The elevating Traditiois" not only on a level with, but above, " Holy Scripture ;"*f 2d, De- nying the Scriptures to the laity ; 3cl, Trampling on the con- sciences and the rights of men ; -ith, Clerical celibacy ; 5th, Im- posing the doctrine of sacramental grace, — baptismal regeneration — transubstantiation, etc. ; 6th, Image worship ; 7th. The Con- fessional ; 8th, Pilgrimages and Penances ; 9th, Monasticism ; 10th, The Inquisition ; 11th, Purgatory. * Dist. Caus 11, Qu. 3. Si inimicus. Glossa. t Bulla Doiiationis, Dist. 96. C. Constantine. Paschalis. Dist. 63. C. Ego. Cle- ment V. C. Romani. Glossa. Bonif. VIII Sixt. Decret. C. Ulbi. Boniface. Pro- hem. C. Sacrosancta. Anadetus. Dist. 22. C. Sacrosancta. Bonif. IV. Sixt. Decret. De Penit et Remis. C. -5. Glossa. Alexaiid. IV. Sixt. Decret. C. 4. Glo.«sa. Hilarius, Dist. 2-5. Qu. 1. Nulli.— Sixt. Decret. C. Ad Arbitris. Glossa. Boniface. Sixt. De- cret. De Const. C. Licet. Innocent III. De trans. C. Quanto. Prohem. Clement Glossa. " Papa Stupor mundi. Nee Deu.s, nee homo, quasi neuter es inter utrumque." Boniface. Extravag. De Majorit. et Obed. C. Unam. Dist. 22 C. Omnes.— Sixt. De- cret De Senten. et Rerum. C. ad Apostoli, and the Glossa. t Lucius. Dist 24. Qu. 1. C. Recta.— Co/i'ar^us. Dist. 12. C. Non decit. — Innocent. Dist. 11. C. Quis. § Caus. 2. Qu. 7 C. Beati. Nicholas. Dist. 22. C. Omnes. Jnacleius. Dist. 22. C. Sacrosancta. Pelagius. Di.st. 21. C. Quamvis. Nicholas. Dist. 21. C. Denique. Ste- phen. Dist. 19. C. Enim Vero. II See Part I. of this Treatise. '^ Bishop McCoskrey's Sermon, Episcopal Bishops the Successors, etc., p. 13. 224 Thus mucTi, then, respecting " the false ministry of this infinite superstition." And, though the arrogant and blasphemous as- sumptions of the system as here exhibited by modern Jesuitical artifice, are sought to be palmed upon the credulous and unsus- pecting under a more modified and equivocal guise ; yet " it should be remembered that not one jot or tittle of the whole farrago of impiety and despotism has ever been denied or rescinded ; and that the whole is uniformly taught by every Romnu priest to his votaries, and constantly exacted in all places and ] >eriods, when it can be done with certainty of success." Of this, the anomaly of the so-called French Eepublic, in her recent unholy crusade against the Italian Triumvirate, in their struggle for a divorcement of the Papal sword from the miter, and the conduct of his Holiness Pius IX. since his restoration, furnish ample proof. We shall now proceed to compare with the above, the aggre- gate powers of the Prelatico-Episcopal priesthood, as set forth, 2. In the Protestant theory, Anglican and American, of that system. And, (1.) Of its claims in behalf of the ministry as a Christian priest- hood. The sources of information defining their powers, lie scat- tered through the standard writings of their advocates, their re- spective rituals, and the records of dioceses, prelates, parliaments, kings, etc. Regarding their views of the Christian ministry as a " priesthood," we must refer the reader to our quotations from the writings of the Oxford Tractate rs and of the High and Low Church parties, etc., as given on pages 189-192, inclusive. (2.) Of the official powers alleged to inhere in this priesthood. These are declared to be "the same" with the "rank," "office," and "headship" of Christ, — even all " the power which He re- ceived from the Father," so that they are enabled to '■^ do every thing which He would have done, had He continued on earths* But, Christ was both immaculate and infallible. Therefore Episco- pacy is, {a.) Lnmaculate. We say. Episcopacy. Individual bishops may be "traitors," " deficient and untaught," " corrupt," " unwor- thy," etc. But inasmuch as we are informed " that Ignatius, Cyprian, and others," have decided that " the whole college of bishops throughout the whole world" is " ONE PERSON, "f etc., in other words, that Episcopacy is ubiquitous ; its inherent purity cannot be vitiated, though " transmitted through — some," 3^ea, even " many, corrupt channels.":}: Thus reasons Rome.§ (J.) Infallible. Bishop McCoskrey, when speaking on the * See quotations on this subject, pp. 214, 215, etc. t See quotation, pp. 189, 190. X See quotations, pp. 218, 219. S See quotation, pp. 220, 221. 225 subject of the transfer of the apostolic powers to their successors, and of their knowledge of duty in regard to it, says that " mistake on this subject was impossible ;" for, sa3^s he, " the Holy Ghost" was given to them " to keep tliem from any act •wliicli would he wrong^'''* etc. " Nor," says he, " has the power (given by the Savior) been taken back. On the contrary, it is to continue to the end of the world."f True, "the individuals who hold the office thus given," says he, " may and do change ; but the office creat- ed [Episcopacy] has not, nor can it clia'nge^''X etc. And, in con- firmation of this point of apostolical infallibility, he refers us to the appointment of Matthias by the apostles ; who, he says, " under the guidance of the Spirit" {i.e.^ as bestowed on them " on the day of Pentecost") "which was to lead them into all truth," " could not err in a matter which would forever after give character to the Church of Christ."§ Indeed, infallibility is an inseparable adjunct of Episcopacy. Prelatists tell us, that the system, not being posi- tively set forth in, or even strictly deducible from, the New Testa- ment Scriptures aJone^ must depend upon evidence superadded to Scripture. But, this superadded testimony, alias^ tradition, un- less autJioritative^ is valueless, when offered as evidence of the un- broken transmission of an office claimed to be founded in divine ri(j 'i t. To be authoritative, it m ust he inspired. You have then but to truce til is superadded testimony to its source — the apostles, and their successors. Hence the infallible apostolic traditions,]] etc. Referring tlie reader to what we have offered on the subject of apostolical infallibility, as connected with the alleged apjDointment of Matthias as the successor of Judas, *][ etc., we pass to an ex- hibit {c^ Of their spiritual powers. First. Of episcopo-priestly absolution. On this sub- ject, one of the most distinguished prelates of the American Epis- copal Church holds the following language. " It is the explicit sense of our Church, that the power of remission and retention of sins is as permanent as the ministry, and is an essential preroga- tive of the sacerdotal office." And, he adds, — "to 7'emit sins, is to be understood in its literal acceptation : such was the under- standing of our Church when the Liturgy was prepared."'^* No doubt, Bishop Ives. You are right. In this matter, Ave hold that you are more sinned against than sinning. Your only crime, in our view, is, an honest and fearless exposition of your own stand- ards. All attempts to evade the " soft impeachment" of the abso- luteness of this " prerogative" are vain, so long as the form of ab- solution in the morning and evening service of the Book of Com- * Bishop McCoskrey's Sermon, Episcopal Bishops Successors of the Apostles, p. 14. t lb., pp. 8, 9. t lb., p. 8. § lb., pp. 15, 16, 17. II See Part I. Preliminary Essay on Tradition, pp. 16, et seq. ^ See Part II.. pp. 133-137. Part III., pp. 181, 182. ** Bp. Ives's Sermon before the Convention of the Diocese of North Carolina, 1843. 15 226 mon Prayer is headed by the rubric following, namely : " The declaration of absolution, or remission of sitis; to be made by the priest alone, standing, the people still kneeling." And hence, /Second. Of episcofo-priestly mediatoiiship, " None but the bishops" says Dr. Dodwell, "can unite us to the Father and the Son." " Whoever is disunited from the visible communion of the Church on earth, — must consequently be disunited from the invisible communion of the holy angels and saints in heaven, and what is yet more, from Christ and from God himself It is one of the most dreadful aggravations of the condition of the damned, that they are banished from the presence of the Lord," etc. " The scmie is their condition, also, who are disunited from Christ, by being disunited from her visible representative, the bishop."* And hence, the importance with which this theory is invested by all classes of its advocates. Speaking of the apostolical succes- sion, " it is a question," says Bishop McCoskrey, " involving the eternal mterests of millions, ^^f etc. Bishop Griswold tells us, " if differing denominations of Christians are ever brought to strive together for the faith of the Gospel, it will be by their uniting in the government, (whatever t/iej/ may decide it to be) which God has set in his Church,":}: i.e., bishops. And so, Bishop Mcllvaine : *' But where shall we find these officers, of whom it may be said without arrogance, — they are the successors of the apostles ? Where are they ? The question we have no right to treat as un- important."— It is "by no means of a merely incidental conse- quence ; but on the contrary, of vital connection with the perma- nent interests of religion,"§ - Episcopacy, — " vital" to the " interests of religion ;"— " involv- ing the eternal interests of millions," JVo " striving together for the faith of the Gospel" without it. And these, the avowed sentiments of tv/o of the most distinguished prelates and powerful advocates known in the ranks of the so-called Evangelical or Low Church party. No. " None but the bishops can unite us to the Father and the Son." Like the Pope of Eome, they are " neither God nor man, hut hetween hotJi.''^ On this subject, we would ' nothing extenuate, nor set down aught in malice.' " God forbid." But we deferentially ask, what else, what less, than the assumption of a mortal mediatorship between God and the souls of men, is the fair inference from these statements ? It is the sup- planting Jesus from his rightful place in the great plan of human redemption, as the " one Mediator between God and man."' (1) 1 Tim. 2 :5. * Dodwell's Lectures on the Apostolic Succession, p. 105. t Bishop McCoskrey's Sermon, Episcopal Bishops Successors of the Apostles, p. 7. X Bishop Griswold on Apostolic Succession. Tracts for the Church, No. I., p. 17. § Argument for Apostolic Succession, etc. 227 SECTION V. Episcopo-priestly arrogance, exclusiveness, etc., in regard, 1st. To the ministry. — Re- marks on. — Protestant Prelatists. — Dodwell. — Bishops Griswold and McCoskrey. — Book of Common Prayer and Rev. S. H. Tyng. D.D.— 2d. The Church, Anglican and American, identical. — Rev. Mr. Palmer, Bishop Hobart, Fowler's Catechism, and Bishops Brownell and Griswold. — Of the Episcopal theory of the Church. — (1.) Spiritual. — (2.) Ecclesiastico-political. — Anglican. — Her union with the State. — Henry VIlI. declared the supreme head of, in Spirituals and Temporals. — Absolute and unlimited. — Continued under Edward VI. — Restored under Elizabeth. — Re- mains in force to this day. Third. Of episcopo-priestly Arrogajstce and exclusiveness. And that in reference, 1st. To the Ministry. ^ We would simply here note, by the way, what Romanists offer on this subject. " Such privileges were granted by Christ to the court of Rome, that unless prelates and ministers of every country take their origin and ordination from the Pope, they are not counted of the true church,"* " Whoever shall affirm that all Christians (that is, ministers not Romish) have power to preach the word, and administer all the sacraments, let him be accursed."f Turn now to the voice of Protestant prelacy. " None but the bishops can unite us to the Father and the Son.";}: " Those who profess to be ministers of the Gospel, without having received Episcopal ordination, possess no more ministerial authority than any private Christian."§ Bishop Griswold makes Christian union depend upon the adoption by " differing denominations of Chris- tians,"— that is, Presbyterians, Reformed Dutch, Congregationalists, Methodists, etc., — of the Episcopal ministry or " government," which, he declares, is the only ministry " which God has set in his Church."! Bishop McCoskrey, speaking of the apostolical succes- sion, affirms that " if " it has not been continued in the Church down to the present day, then " there never has been any author- ized ministry in the Church, and all who profess to be commissioned as amijassadors of Christ, are gross impostors." " Then all who call themselves ministers of Christ are not only deprived of all right to preach, but also the only comfort which could sustain and cheer them in tiieir arduous and oftentimes thankless office — the presence of the Savior," etc.^f In the Book of Common Prayer, the preface to the form of " making bishops," etc., declares, "It is evident unto all men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient * Dreido de Dogmat. Var. Lib. 4. t Council of Trent, Session 7, Canon 9. I Dr. Dodwell on Episcopacy, p. 105. \ Rev. Palmer Dyer, of Whitehall. Work on Episcopacy. II Bishop Griswold's Sermon on the Apostolic Office, p. 17. l Bishop McCoskrey's Sermon, Episcopal Bishops the Successors of the Apostles, pp 12, 13. ^ 228 authors, that from the apostles's time, there have been these orders of ministers in Christ's Church, — bishops, priests, and deacons," — and "that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were approved and admitted thereto by lawful (that is, Eim- copal) " authority." And the Kev. Dr. T3aig, speaking of the op- position which the advocates of Episcopacy " suffer, from the mul- tiplied Protestant denominations around" them, " Avho renounce, and not unfrequently revile," their " episcopacy ; or from the liomish Church, which denies their ministry," etc., says, " Let God be praised, — there is but little variety of judgment, and no readiness of concession^ among any of our ministers."* And thus, all who are not Episcojpally ordained, are reminded of the analogy which they hold to the schisraatical and rebellious company of Korah, Dathan and Abiram in the camp of Israel, and, hence, that they are doomed to share a corresponding fate ! But from this let us turn to an exhibit of their views, 2d. Of the Church. In the first place : " Nulla ecclesia sine episcopo.'''' " Without a bishop there is no church." In other words, " None but the bishops," being of the essence of the Church, " can unite us to the Father and the Son." In the next place : " The Church," as thus subsisting in, and dependent for its perpetuity on. Episcopacy.^ we pass to speak of the identity of the Protestant Anglican and American branches of it. Both bear the same title, the latter sustaining to the former the relation of a daughter to the mother. We shall, therefore, treat them as one — •' The Church." Of this, prelatists will not complain. In consistency with the current nomenclature of their writers on this subject, they appropriate to their communion the epithets, "Holy Catholic Church" — " Holy Mother"— "The Church"—" The Apostolical Church of Christ," etc. Take the fol- lowing as a few of the numerous extracts which might be given, in illustration, (1.) Of her arrogant^ proscripiive, and denunciatory claims. Palmer, in speaking of the rejection of episcopacy by the Presby- terians of Scotland, says, " All the temporal elements and powers of the whole world could not cure this fault, nor render them a portion of the Church of Christ." " They are 7io part of the Church of Christ." " They are human societies." " They and their generations are as the heathen; and, though we may have reason to believe that many of their descendants are not obstinate in their errors, still, it seems to me that we are not warranted in affirming absolutely t/iat they can he saved.^^-f Bishop Hobart : " But where the Gospel is proclaimed, communion with the Church (Episcopal), by the participation of its ordinances, is the indis- pensable condition of salvation.":}; " As there is but one hoiy * Plea for Union. A Sermon, by S. H. Tyng, D.D., Philadelpnia, 1844, p. 15. t Palmer's Treatise on the Church, Vol. I., pp. ] 10, 309, 407. X Hobarl's Companion to the Altar, p. 202. 229 Catholic or universal Church, — that is, " the Protestant Episcopal Church," — " we, who are called, have no hope of salvation, l)ut as being faithful members of tY."* Bishop Brovvnell, of Connecticut, speaks of " the Protestant Episcopal Church as an oasis in the desert," which is but the echo of Dr. Hook, of Leeds, England, who, in speaking of the Church in the United States, uses the fol- lowing language : " There you may see the Church, like an oasis in the desert, blessed by the dews of heaven, and shedding heavenly blessings around, in a land, where, because no religion is estab- lished, f if it were not for her, nothing but the extremes of infi- delity and fanaticism would prevail.":}: And, finally. Bishop Gris- wold, in his exposition of the apostolical office, as already quoted, says : " Indeed, if differing denominations of Christians are ever brought to strive together for the faith of the Gospel, it will be by their Jirst uniting in the government (Episcopacy) which God has set in his Church." So, (2.) Of the Episcopal powers of the Church. (a.) Spiritucd. A recent writer, in speaking of our standard ver- sion of the Bible as the gift to us of " the Church of England," says of her, that " she must preach to you the word, and nothing else — she must administer to j^ou, according to the record of her testi- mony, which you hold in your hands. Within her prescribed boundaries, her power is absolute over you, so long as you remain in her communion — a communion which you cannot renounce, except at the p)eril of your salvation !"§ One of the Oxford tractators affirms: "Our people, by separating themselves from our communion, separate themselves not only from a decent, orderl}^, useful society, but from the only Church in this realm (England) which has a right to be quite sure that she has the Lord's body to give to his people."! Dr. Henry, the American editor of the "Tracts for the Times," says, " it is now almost universally believed, that God communi- cates his grace only through faith, prayer, spiritual contemplation, communion with God," etc. But, to show how exceedingly hereti- cal all this is, he adds: "It is the Church and her sacraments, which are the ordained, direct, visible means of conveying to the soul that which is invisible and supernatural. "^ There is, however, yet another feature of this system of Protes- tant prelacy, which we must not overlook. We allude to Episcopacy, {I).) In its eGclesiastico-political aspect. Let not the reader be startled at this. Our business is, to look Episcopacy in the face as * Fowler's Catechism. t Attached to the title of the Anglican Church is the phrase, "As by law estab- lished ;■' which phrase is omitted in that of the American branch. How far the latter differs from the former in its f]nrit and inteyit, will form a subject of future remark. X Quoted in Episc. Exam, by Chor. Episcopi, p. 70, Utica,'l8'19. § Quoted by Dr. Snod^ras.s, on Apostolical Succession, p. 24. II Tracts for the Times, No. IV., p. 5. \ Tracts for the Times. Advertisement, Vol. II., edited by Professor Henry, cf the New York University. 230 IT IS, not only, but to exhibit it as such, to others. We shall then, dash right on, in medias res. The evidence of the ecclesiastico-poHtical character of the Angli- can Church, is, her union with the State. Whence arose it? Henry VIIL was seated on the English throne, April 22, 1509.* The reader need scarcely be informed, that England was at that time subject to the see of Rome. The ecclesiastical prerogatives of the crown, which, for a long period, consisted in "the inves- titures of bishops and abbots," were finally wrested from its grasp, and for more than three centuries were merely nominal.f Under this crafty and aspiring monarch, however, the tables were soon turned. A lover of learning, and, in the early part of his reign, a zealous devotee of Rome, his reputed book against Luther pro- cured for him, at the hand of Leo X., the title of " Defender of the Faith.":}: But, notwithstanding his acknowledgments, and fulsome adula- tions, of the pontifical authority, spiritual and temporal, in that work, he converts the papal bull of excommunication issued against him by Pope Clement VII. for peristing in his divorce from Queen Catharine, into a stepping-ladder for the assumption, him- self, of similar powers. Nor was he wanting in agents to second his designs. The first blow struck at the papal authority in England, was the king's in- dignant refusal to appear before the tribunal of Rome, upon the citation of the pope.g This was followed, soon after, by his twice- repeated abolition of the papal power in England.| The bishops and clergy meanwhile co-operating with him, he finally, upon the strength of arguments adduced by the former against the papal supremacy in England, as alleged to be drawn from Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of councils, on the one hand, and in support of the spiritual and temporal supremacy of the king, as alleged to be founded in Scripture, the practice of the primitive Church, and as drawn from reason and the laws of England, on the other : and, having procured from the latter a declaration against the pope's supremacy, he was at length, first, by the con- vocation of Canterbury, and subsequently by act of Parliament, declared to be " The Piotector and Supreme Head of the Church and the Clergy of England; "or, " That the King was the Supreme Head in earth, of the Church of England," which was, accordingly, annexed to his other titles.^ True, upon the presentation of the first petition before the convocation, it was moved by some to add these words to the title, to wit: "in so far as it is lawful by the law of Christ." But Parker says, the king disliked that clause, since it left his power as " supreme head" of the Church on "earth" still disputable; therefore, it was cast out, and the petition * Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. I, p. 1. f lb-, P- 18. X lb., p. .31. (j lb., p. 125. II lb., pp. 223-23.3, 340, T lb., pp. 182, 183, 256. 231 was carried as it was first brouglit in.* Hence, agreeably to the letter and spirit of the powers, temporal and spiritual, vested in the English monarch under the above title, one of the last statutes enacted by him is the following : — that ^'"Archbishops^ hishqps, archdeacons^ and other ecclesiastical persons^ have no manner of jurisdiction ecclesiastical^ hut by, under ^ andfrom^ his royal majesty ; and, that his majesty is the ONLY SUPREME HEAD OF THE ChDECH OF EnGLAND AND IRELAND ; to whom^ by Holy Scripture^ all authority and power is wholly GIVEN, to hear and determine all manner of heresies^ errors^ vices, and sins ivhatever, and to all such persons as his majesty shaU appoint thereunto?''^ It is here to be particularly noted, that the above ecclesiastico- political system of the Anglican Church remained in fall force under Edward YI., and that, though supplanted under the bloody Mar}'- by the restoration of the papal supremacy, yet it was again revived under Elizabeth, by act of Parliament. And so, says Mr. Isaac Taylor, the author of "Spiritual Despotism" (himself an Episcopalian), ^Ho the present day (1835), the English establish- ment has not relieved itself of the humiliations that resulted from the surrender it at first made, of its independence to the civil magistrate.":}: SECTION VI. Hence the surrender, by the Anglican Church, of her independence to the Civil Magis- trate.— Henry VIH. the fountain of the English Apostolical Succession. — See the King's commission to Cranmer — Renewed under Edward VI. — The American Episcopal Church at the period of the Revolution. — Bishop Seabury, of Connec- ticut.— Derivation of American Episcopacy. — Obstacles. — How removed. — Ap- proximations, in spirit and in form, of the Ecclesiastico-political character of the American to the Anglican Hierarchy. — Her unprotestantizing tendencies. — ^The British Critic. — The New York Diocesan Conventions of 1839 and 1843. — Rev. S. H. Tyng, D.D. — Objections. — These are but individual opinions, etc.— Reply. — Hobartian sentiment of Charity towards Anti-Episcopalians. — Fallacy of Six inferences from the above. — Conclusion. By the surrender of the independence of the Anglican Church to her ruling monarch, as above represented, he became, as we shall now show, the rouNTAiisr whence flowed the Apostolical successions of the Anglican and American Episcopal Churches. Hence the following, as the king's commission, authorizing the de- signation of bishops, etc., to their office. " Since all jurisdictions, both ecclesiastical and civH, flowed from the king as supreme head, * Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. I., p. 183. t Henry VIII.. statute .37, chapter 17. t Spiritual Despr.tism, p. 270. 232 and he was the foundation of all power, it became those who exer- cised it only {pj'cecaHo) at the king's courtesy, gratefully to acknowl- edge, that they had it only of his bounty, and to declare that they would deliver it up again, when it should please him to call for it," etc.* Then, too, compare the following, as declarative of the ahsoluUmess of the supremacy here set forth, with that claimed by the Roman PontifF.f " Howbeit the power of the magistrate be limited, and their office prescribed by God, and that they may likewise fall into great offences ; yet it is no where permitted to subjects to call their pinnces in question y or to make insurrection against them^ God having reserved the punishment of princes TO niMSELF.":}: We will leave it for others, better versed in the science of hair- splitting than we, to decide between the merits of an ecclesiastico- political system, founded in an alliance of the regal with the sacer- dotal powers by a so-called spiritual head of the Church, and a system having for its basis, the assumption by a temj^oral prince, of absolute ecclesiastical and spii'itual prerogatives. So far, then, as regards the Anglican Church, suffice it to say, that Cranaier's bishopric originated under this commission during the reign of Henry VIII., and that after Henry's death he refused to exercise his functions as such until it was renewed under Edward VI.§ Of the American Church, we now remark, that, by the Eevo- lution, the Episcopal churches of the colonies were severed from the crown and Church of England, and were left without a head. It is scarcely necessary to advert to the well-known expedient of Dr. White, of Pennsjdvania, to supply this defect, which was, by a consolidation of all the Episcoj)al churches throughout the United States into one body, under a system of ecclesiastical regimen, which, in all its features, was essentially Presbyterian. That this plan met with opposition, is true.|| It is also true that the necessity urged by Dr. White in justification of the above measure, was finally superseded by the procurement of the Epis- copate for the American Church, by the consecrations of the Rev. Drs. White, ]\fadison, and Provost. It is necessary here, however, to advert to the fact, that, pending the state of things just adverted to, Connecticut had supplied her- self with a bishop — the Rev. Samuel Seabury — whose consecration was derived from the non-juring bishops of Scotland. But this consecration was by many pronounced invalid^ which circumstance resulted in the determination to seek for the succession through the English channel. * Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. I., p. 429. t See p. 220. X Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. III., p. 429. \ lb., Vol. I., pp. 4-29. 430 ; and Vol. 11., p. 8. II See letter of Rev. A. C. Jarvis to Mr! White, March 25, 1783. Essays on Epis- copacy, etc. T. & J. Swords, New York. 180G. 233 In the very outset, however, the candidates for the American Episcopate were called to encounter a barrier, which no power could remove, save by a special act of king and parliament. "By the law of the realm," as we have seen, the king was declared to be " the protector and supreme head of the Church and clergy of England and Ireland." "Archbishops, bishops," etc., had "no manner of jurisdiction but by, under, and from, his royal majesty." Prelacy, created by the state, was under the absolute control of the state. No bishop could, if he would, move hand, or foot, or tongue, hut by the sufferance of the croivn. Their consecration, there- fore, was, to all intents and purposes, subject to, and dependent on, the capricious will of England's ecclesiastico-political head. We repeat, the capricious will. For, there M'ere difficulties in the way. First and foremost, were the prej udices to be surmounted, in order to the extension of the royal clemency toward the sub- jects of a government which owed its origin to the abjuration of British misrule. Another obstacle arose from the exactions of " the oath of allegiance" to the crown of Great Britain, and of "the supremacy of the king as head of the Church," and also of "the oath of due obedience to the archbishop," all of which were indispensable in the case of the applicants as foreigners. A compromise^ however, was finally made, by the enactment of special laws to meet the case of " divers persons, subjects or citi- zens of countries out of his majesty's dominions," who, having adopted the doctrines and liturgy of the Church of England, desire to provide themselves with "a regular succession of ministers for the service of their Church, according to the form of consecration of the Church of England." That law provided — First, " That no person" (that is, no foreigner) " shall be consecrated bishop in the manner herein provided, until the archbishop of Canterbury or of York, for the time being, shall have first applied for and obtained his majesty's license^ by warrant under his royal signet and sign manual, authorizing and empowering him to perform such conse- cration," etc. Second, " That no person or persons consecrated to the office of bishop in the manner aforesaid, nor any person or persons desiring their consecration from and under any bishop so consecrated, nor an}" person or persons admitted to the order of deacon or priest by anj- bishop or bishops so consecrated, or by the successor or successors of any bishop so consecrated, sludl he thereby enabled to exercise his or their respective offices within his ma- jesty's dominions,^^ etc. " The summe of all," as Jeremy Taylor would say, " is this :" — The three American candidates for the Episcopate before the Bri- tish throne, accepted coixsecration on these terms^ and they received their miters from the hands of English prelates, the existence of whose office and functions ecclesiastical was derived solely from, and the exercise and perpetuity of which depended solely on, the • 234 SUPREMACY, temporal and spiritual, male or female, OF A WOKLDLY MONARCH! We would, therefore, respectfully propound to American pre- latists : Where is the difference in the origin and nature of the Anglican and American Episcopacy ? Both were derived from the same source. And, if it be said, it was the act of consecration by " lawfully authorized" agents, which made them bishops ; still, the authority to act, and upon which the validity of the consecra- tion depended, "flowed from the king as supreme head," and as " the foundation of all power." On this subject, the learned and honest historian Bishop Burnet has said : " After he had taken his commission, Bonner might have well been called one of tlie king's hishojjs."* But so was Cranmer ; and that, from a conscientious belief in the divine right of the king in the premises; whereas Bon- ner submitted as a mere matter of expediency, f And, the Protestant Episcopal Church of England " as by law established," — not by the law of Christ, but of the crown and parliament — still holds her episcopate under that tenure ! The same follows, of course, in re- gard to the American " Protestant Episcopal Church." Such, then, being the ecclesiastico-political origin of the Ameri- can Episcopacy, it is as well, perhaps, in this place, to devote a page or so to another matter of no small interest in these discus- sions. It relates to, (3.) The tendency of the American branch, to approximate, in this particular, both in spirit and in form, to her maternal ally. The question then presents itself: Is it so ? If not, we ask. How are we to account for certain phenomena in the progress of those developments of the system, of which the most casual observer cannot but be cognizant ? Who does not know that, in consistency with the exclusive and intolerant claims and denunciatory spirit inseparable from the " all ministerial power" assumed by pre- latists, the stereotyped cognomen " the Church," is placed in designed contrast with the alleged self-constituted, irresponsible, and schismatical conventicles of non-Episcopal bodies ; while the style and title of each and every bishop is, — not the bishop of the Churches in this or that particular State, but the bishops of the States themselves ! Thus we have — the Bishop) of Pennsylvania ; the Bishop OF New York ; etc. ; and, though last, not least, the would-be ' My Lord Bishop of Jersey' ! We are fully aware of the fact, that the least intimation of a tendency, in the American prelatical system, toward the erection of itself into a National Reliyion, will be denounced as libelous. Still, we cannot forget that, in the j-ear 1693, which marks the first step of advance of that system to ecclesiastical distinction in the colonies, under the auspices of "Colonel Benjamin Fletcher, who had been appointed Governor the year before, a man of great ardor and boldness, and warmly attached to the Episcopal Church," * Bishop Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. I., p. 429. t lb. p. 430. 235 a foundation was laid for a Church establishment in her favor : and that, although the House of Assembly was decidedly hostile to the measure, yet that, owing to tne untiring perseverance of the Gov- ernor in its behalf, an act was finally passed, which constituted the Episcopal THE National Church ! It is notorious also, that the Episcopal Church in Maryland and Virginia, where it was much more extensive than in this State [New York], had legal establish ments for its support. Indeed, that the tendency of that system as above intimated, rests not on mere conjecture, a recent writer, look- ing, doubtless, through the State-titled dignitaries of " the Church," back to the time of Governor Fletcher, in speaking of the Angli- can Church and her American daughter, says — " The two greatest and purest national Churches, are now evidently approximating to each other, much in spirit, somewhat in form. — The American Churchman," he continues, " is to lay aside many of his ultra re- publican prejudices, when looking at the Church of England. — He is to recognize further, in its alliance of church and state, a moral and Christian bond, as well as a legal and arbitrary one, and take care lest his well-founded objection to the one, lead him to under- value the inestimable blessings that flow from the other,"* etc. '• The Protestant Episcopal Church in these United States," with her Anglican mother, " the two greatest and purest natio7ial Churches^ Willing to leave the reader to his own reflections and inferences in view of these facts, we pass to an exhibit of another class of approximations, in " spirit" and in " form," of the American Church to her Anglican progenitor. One significant " sign" of the above "approximating" process, may be gathered from her zealous endeavors to divest her of her Protestant character. The " momentous object" of the Tractarian movement in England was declared to be, that of " UNPKOTEST- ANTIZING" the Anglican Church. And, having commenced the work, the " British Critic" holds the following language: " We cannot stand where we are ; we must go backwards \i.e.^ to Gene- -ya] or forwards \i.e.^ to Borne'] ; and it Avill surely be the latter. It is ahsolutely necessary towards the consistency of the sy stein — [i.e.^ of Prelacy] that truths should be clearly stated, which as yet have been but intimated, and others developed which are now but in germ. And as we go on, we must recede more and more from the principles, if any such there be, of the English Eeforma- tion."t The very princi^Dle, this, for which we contend. We challenge the advocates of prelacy to evade it. The a?i^i-evangelic fruits of the Laudean system, — itself, as we insist, but the natural pro- duct of the prelatical scheme at first founded in expediency,:}: — had completely paralyzed the spiritual energies of the British nation. *f The Church of England and in America compared. New York, 1841. t British Critic, No. LIX., p. 45, 1843. % See Chap. VI., Sec. I., of this Treatise. 236 With the " form," they liad lost th-e " power" of " godliness."' Under tliese circumstances originated, under God, the ministries of a Wesley and a Whiteficld. The result of their ministrations was, the diffusion, as well within as without, the pale of " the Church as by law established," of an influence which, for a while, checked the lioineward tendency of Episcopacy, and gave to it a Genevan direction. Thus was it, at the time of the commencement of the Oxford Tractarian movement. Episcopacy, under the influence of the \Vesley and Whitefield Eeformation, had sunk to so low a standard in the Church, that, in the estimation of these Oxonians, its days were numbered, unless, by a vigorous effort, it be restored to its natural and legitimate powers and immunities, This was " absolutely necessary towards the consistency of the system." Hence, with this movement, corresponds The^j>^a?i for its accomplishment. Having stated, as a "fact," that " the progress of Catholic opinions in England for the last seven years [ending in 1S41] was so inconceivable, that no hope should appear extravagant;" another writer says, "Let us, then, remain quiet for some years, till, by God's blessing, the ears of Englishmen are become accustomed to Jiear the name of Uo^siE jrro- nounced with reverence. At the end of this term you will soon see the fruits of our patience."* This prognostication of the Prophetico-Anglican Baal, how si oiialljr verified ! Of the original leaders of this " unprotestant- izing movement," where now is Newman, the author of Tract No. 90? Where is Ward, the author of "The Ideal of a Church"? And where Oakley, and Faber, and hundreds of others of the clerg}^, besides a large number of the laity of both sexes ? So too, in the A'nierican Episcopal Church. These same " un- protestantiziug" principles, in all their length and breadth, have been commended to and pressed upon, both the clergy and laity by so many clothed with the highest authority in the Church, seconded by the co-operation both of the j^ulpit and the press, that the leaven is now fairly diffused throughout almost the entire body.f Attempts have even been made, sanctioned by more than one Episcopal Chair, as we have said, to erase from their ecclesiastical escutcheon the very name of—" Protestant." Witness the acts of the Diocesan Conventions of New York in 1839 and 1843, on this (1) 2 Tim. 3 :5. * Letter of John Dobree Dalgairus, Esq., M.A., aZtas, Rev. G. Spencer, of Oxford, to the Editor of the Univers. Bricknell's Jiidg., etc.. p. 678. t Hence the conslant lamentations of the so-called Evangelical Low Church party in that body, as may be seen by reference to any number of the Protestant Cliurchinan. e\.c.^ for the last eight years ; a fact, 1 submit, confirmatory of the position assumed in this Treatise, namely : that the ground occupied by them furnishes the only prop to the entire fabric under its present title. And, these lamentations will be found exactly to quadrate with the fear, on their part, that, just in proportion with the discovery, by the Evangelicals of "other denominations,'- of the Romcward tendency of the theory of prelacy as it is, will be their loss of the prospect of building up their Church on the ruins of others. 237 subject, "Witness also on the same subject a communication ad- mitted into the columns of The Churchman of 18-1:3, declaring that " the title-page of the Book of Common Prayer contained 'jyrima facie evidence of schism," etc., " and boldly recommending a re- union wn'n Rome, on the common basis of the authorized Decrees of Trent," And, if further evidence be wanting, we have only to refer to the ordination, in St, Stephen's Church, New York City, of the young semi-papist Carey by Bishop Onderdonk in 1843,* and of the advocacy of that Episcopal act by the Rev, Stephen H. Tyng, D,D. ; together with the bold advocacy, by The Churchman and other church journals for the last eight or ten years, of the theology of the Tractarians, and particularly of Newman's famous " Tract No, 90," in support of the monstrous proposition, that a clergyman of the Protestant Episcopal Church might hold all the doctrines contained in the Romish Creed of Pope Pius IV., (the anathemas excepted) and yet, in virtue of his having subscribed to the XXXIX Articles, continue to serve at her altars. Nor is the cry of " peace! peace!" proclaimed from the pulpit and through most of the religious journals of "the Chukch" in the midst of these commotions, as a means of securing this end, the least portentous "sign" of the future. " Coming events cast their shadow before." To ^'"remain quiet for some years^ till, by God's blessing (! ?) the ears of " Protestant Episcopalians in Ameri- ca " are become accustomed to hear the name of Rome pronounced with reverence," is the policy alike of the " unprotestantizers" of the Church in both hemispheres. Indeed, the most zealous pro- moters of the scheme,, are the first to decry any such intent. Take, as evidence, a pamphlet " No Union with Rome ; an address to the members of the Protestant Episcopal Church, — occasioned by the unjust accusation of a tendency in our communion towards the errors of the present Church of Rome, by the Rev, S, F, Jarvis, D,D,, L,L.D,"f "Occasioned by the unjust accusation," etc. And yet, the learned author of this very address, — and who, let it be recollected, sustains to the Protestant Episcopal Church in these United States, (and that by the appointment of the General Con- vention) the high and responsible relation of "Historiographer" of the Church ; — rejoices that " the truly Catholic doctrines held by the Church of Rome" in this country "are prominently brought forward;" and, that "those [doctrines] which, in reality, are heret- ical, are softened and explained away ;" and, that he is "neither sorry nor alarmed, when he hears them telling their laity, that we" * For the edification of Low Churchmen, and the information of those of '-other de- nominations," we respecfully refer them to •' A Letter sustaining the recent Ordination of Mr. Arthur Carey ; By Stephen H. Tyng. D.D., Rector of the Church of the Epiphany, and lately one of the editors of the Episcopal Recorder.'''' (D. Appleton & Co., N. Y., 1843.) And also of an " Epistle" to him by " Washington Plens. Esq., in which he shows, that the said Dr. Tyng carries his advocacy of the powers of the Epi.«co- pate to such an extent, that even Dr. Seabury said he could not go the same length with him. t An Address, etc. H. Huntington. Hartford, Conn. 1843. (Lately deceased.) / ^ 238 (i.e.^ of the Protestant Episcopal Church) "are advancing TOWARDS THEM ;" and closes his address by expressing the " holy hope, at no distant period, of being united in one holy commun- ion," etc.* In conclusion, then, on this subject. The scheme, it would ap- pear, of leveling up the principles of the Protestant Episcopal Church in her ministry, doctrines, ceremonials and polity, till they can coalesce with the leveling doum policy of the Komish system, is the process by which this " union" is to be accomplished. Yes. AVhat Home deems " heretical" in the doctrines, etc., of the Angli- can and American Protestant Episcopal Church, is to be raised, " by little and little," to the standard of the creed of Pope Pius IV., and those which, in the Pomish Church, " in reality are heretical," are, "by little and little," to be ^^ softened and explained away^^ " till, by God's blessing, the ears of [Episcopalians] are be- come accustomed to hear the name of Rome pronounced with reve- rence" ! Who, then, can doubt that, "at no distant period," as Dr. Jarvis expresses it, the long-divorced Anglican branch of the papal apostasy, with her American offspring, will be again "united in one holy communion." And, Finally, for this consummation, if the practical workings of a gray-grown and almost universally prevalent theory, developed under every variety of circumstances as to time, place, characters concerned, etc., may be taken in evidence, that of the dogma of an unhroken apostoliccd succession is of itself sufficient. In- deed, all other approximating influences hold to this dogma the relation of effect to its cause. As its natural offspring, they be- come the faithful agents of its support and extension. Nor are they the less tenacious in their regards for, nor less effective in their support of, the honor, and the arrogant, exclusive and pro- scriptive claims, of their common parent, when " softened and ex- plained away" under the false drapery of LOW CHURCHISM" ! We are aware, however, that to the above it is objected — these are hut the incaidiously-expressed opinions of individuals.^ and are not therefore to be taken as exponent of the general sentiment of "the Church" on the subject in question; and, we are reminded of the liberal and Catholic Christianity of Episcopacy, as set forth in the Hobartian sentiment following : " Separation from the pre- scribed government and regular priesthood of the Church, when it proceeds from involuntary and unavoidable ignorance or error, we have reason to trust, will not intercept from the humble, the peni- tent and obedient, the blessings of God's favor."f But, the deep obligation which this exhibit of charity and Chris- tian magnanimity imposes on yjo/i-Episcopalians, to the contrary notwithstanding), the fact, we apprehend, of the miscellaneous character of our quotations as above, being selected alike from the * An Address, etc H. Huntington. Hartford, Conn. pp. 43, 44. t Hobart's Companion for the Altar, p. 202. 239 writings of Tractarians and of High and Low Cliurclimen, both Anglican and American, cannot other than awaken a suspicion, that, after all, it is designed as a Jesuitical clap-trap — '* bj good words and fair speeches," to "deceive the hearts of the simple.'" Otherwise, how is it, we ask, that the same Bishop Hobart, in his " Companion for the Festivals and Fasts" of the Church, in a quo- tation from Daubeny, says — " Whoever IS in communion with the bishop, the supreme governor of the Church on earth, IS in com- munion with Christ, the head of it ; and whoever IS NOT in com- munion with the bishop, is thereby CUT OFF from communion with Christ ;" and this is declared to be a " general conclusion," " established" by " the uniform testimony of ALL the apostolical and primitive writers."* Dr. Mason, in quoting this passage in his " Essays on Episcopacy," etc., asks, " How many bow-shots are such writers otf from the territory of ' our sovereign Lord the pope ?' "f Will Protestant prelatical traditionists, the advocates of the "ancient authors" of prayer-book notoriety, please answer? No. The above extracts, when analyzed, affirm of this Angli- can and American Protestant Episcopal Church, that she is, 1. The only " visible Catholic Church of Christ on earth ;" " an oasis in the desert," without which "nothing but the extremes of infidelity and fanaticism would prevail." 2. That she only, as having " the ordained, direct, visible means of conveying to the soul that which is invisible and spiritual," is empowered to dispense sacramental grace ; in other words, to " give the Lord's body to the people." 3. That, as the only " Universal Catholic Church of Christ on earth," " her power over her members is absolute." 4. That, consequent of her ecclesiastico-political origin, the two branches, Anglican and American, of which she is composed, con- stitute " the two greatest and purest national churches" on earth. 5. That, on the principle of "approximations," the "national" American is rapidly advancing towards the " national" Anglican, and both towards a union, " at no distant period," " in one holy communion," with " the Church of Rome." And hence, and finally, 6. That all other Churches bearing the Protestant name, are mere " human societies ;" that their members " are as the heathen ;" that they are " disunited from the communion of the Church on earth," from " the angels and saints in heaven," and " from God and Christ himself," and that communion with her " is the indis- pensable condition of salvation." Now, we appeal. " To unchurch," as do the above prelatical flourishes of the pen, "all the non-episcopal denominatious under heaven, and cast their members, indiscriminately, into a condition (1) Rom. 16 : 18. * Hobart's Companion for the Festivals and Fasts of the Church, p. 59. t See '• Essays" etc., p. 31, noCe. R. Carter, New York, 1844. 240 worse than that of the vcrj- heathen ;" to declare, that " all those glorious churches which have flourished in Geneva, Holland, France, Scotland, England, Ireland, etc., since the Heformation ; and all which have spi'cad, and are spreading through this vast continent — that those heroes of the truth, who, though they bowed not to the miter, rescued millions from the Man of siu, lighted up the lamp of genuine religion, and left it burning with a pure and steady flame to the generation following — that all those faithful ministers, and all those private Christians who, though not of the hierarchy, adorned the doctrine of God their Savior, living in faith, dying in faith ; scores, hundreds, thousands of them going away to their Father's house under the strong consolations of the Holy Ghost, with anticipated heaven in their hearts, audits hallelujahs on their lips — that all, all," in consequence of their "involuntary and un- avoidable ignorance and error," were and are " without the pale of the visible Church," and as such, left to " the uncovenanted mercies of God:" andyet^ the system which, both in theory and practice, does this, is neither exclusive or denunciatory ! " Communion with the Church" (Episcopal) "where the Gospel is proclaimed, by a participation of its ordinances," declared to be "the indis- pensable condition of salvation ;" and yet, the system which de- clares it claiming exemption from the imputations of intolerance and proscription ! Wh}^, " the very idea of such an escape, how- ever to be effected, is repugnant to that of an indispensable condition. No ; if the condition be indispensable, they who reject it must perish." For, " if they who reject it may still be saved, it is not indispensable ; otherwise, the definition may run thus : an indis- pensable condition is that Avhich may be dispensed with." " The alternative then," — maugre all the pretenses of charity toward those without the pale of " the Church," though placed there by "involuntary and unavoidable ignorance and error;" in other words, without any fault of their own, — the only alternative is, " Episcopacy or Perdition."* * Mason's Essay on Episcopacy. 241 CHAPTEE IV. OF THE PEELATICO-EPISCOPAL THEOET OF ORDINATION, AS THE ONLY ALLEGED DIVINELY- APPOINTED MODE OF PERPETUATING THE APOS- TOLICAL SUCCESSION. SECTION I. Recapitulation of the preceding two additional points of inquiry. — Ordination, or " the laying on of hands" by Christ, liis apostles and their successors, alleged to be the only channel of perpetuating a valid ministry and ordinances, through " the gift of the Holy Ghost." — Quotations from Romanists, the Anglican and American Ordinal, Bishop Taylor, Dr. Hook, and Bishops Beveridge, Hobart, Griswold, and Mcllvaine. — Remarks on Ordination in Part II. of this Treatise. — Fallacy of the above theory. — Three inferences. — Prelatical and Anti-Prelatical theories com- pared.— Proof that the Prelatical theory is borrov^ed from Rome, etc We have now presented to the reader a view of the Prelatico- Episcopal theory in the aspect, I., of its nature and character as a Christian Priesthood^ founded on the alleged antitype of the Aaronic and Melchisedekiau orders, with an exhibit of the argu- ments for and against it. And II., of the extent of its alleged poioers^ as claimed to have been derived, first, from Christ to his apostles ; and second, from his apostles to their successors. And, third, that these powers were claimed to have been transferred whole and entire^ which was proved, fourth, by quotations from the four classes of its advocates, Romish, Tractarian, and High and Low Church ; and that, pre-eminent among these powers was that of conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost — the highest preroga- tive apostolic. Two additional points of inquiry in this connection yet await • us. These relate, I. To the channel through which this divine gift is alleged to have been conveyed ; and, II. To the alleged fact of its uninterrupted transmission from the apostles's times down to this d&j. 1. First, then. The channel through which this divine offt IS alleged to have been conveyed. Prelatists, having assumed that the New Testament apostles were to have successors to the end of the world, allege that the power to transfer the gift of the Holy Ghost, was imparled to them 16 242 and to their succepsors by o7-dinalion, or the laying on of hands ; and that consequently, it is not only unscriptural but highly pre- sumptuous and perilous, for any not Episcopally consecrated or ordained, to exercise any of the functions of minister in the Church of Christ. Take the following, as expressive of the general view of this subject. Bomanists tell us, " Whoever shall affirm that the Holy Spirit is not given by ordination^ and therefore, that the bishops say in vain, Receive the Holy Ghost — let him be accursed." * In the Anglican and American Protestant Episcopal Church, at the consecration and ordination of every bishop or priest, is used the form following : — " Receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God, now committed to thee by the imposition of pur hands,^^ etc. Perceval saj's : " The suc- cessors of the apostles are those who are descended in a direct line from them by Ute imjjosition of hands^ f Bishop Taylor : "To the apostles he (Christ) gave a plenitude of power" — " they received a power of giving the Holy Ghost, in the collation of Holy Or- ders," and their " successors had the same right," etc.:}; Dr. Hook says : " The prelates, who at this time rule the churches of these realms, were validly ordained by others, who, by means of an un- broken spiritual descent of ordination, derived their mission from the apostles and from our Lord."§ " Through the bishops who ordained us, we received the Holy Ghost." || Bishop Beveridge says : " The apostolical line hath been preserved entire, by virtue of that apostolical imposition of hands, which, being begun by the apostles, hath been continued," etc.^^ Bishop Hobart says that " the only source of power in the Christian Church flows from its divine source through the channel of the first of the three orders," namely, bishops.** Bishop Griswold says : " Ever since the apos- tles's days, none but those who have the general oversight of all the churches in a city, or state, or province, with poiver to ordain, are called bishops," and that " such only are commissioned to transact with mankind the momentous concerns of their eternal salvation. "ft According to Bishop McHvaine, this spiritual pro- creating apostolic " seed is in itself, after its kind," and " at every step of the succession it is precisely the same ministry and just as much of God, sanctioned by his authority and sustained by his power, as if it had been received from the laying on of the hands of Christ himself'' And, finally, that this spiritual procreating " seed," though conveyed through a polluted conduit, — " corrupt * Council of Trent, Ch. IV., Sec. 4, of Can. 1, p. 85. t Perceval's Coll. of Papers, p. 12. t Bishop Taylor's Episc. Assert. Oxford Ed., 1642. Small 4to., p. 46. § Two Sermons on the Church and the Establishment, pp. 7, 8. II Tracts for the Times, No. VII., p. 2. TT Bishop Beveridi^e's Sermons on the Church, p. 26. ** High Churchman Vindicated, p. 1 1. 1826. tt Bishop Griswold on Apostolical Succession. Tract No. I., pp. 7, 8. 243 channels"* — " the deficient and untaught" — even " though, in the main, the given lesson be falsehood, and the proffered sustenance little better than poison,"f yet it cannot be vitiated or destroyed : for, says Bishop McHvaine, " let it be remembered that Judas Iscariot was numbered with the apostles by the Savior himself, and Judas was a traitor !"+ In treating of this subject of ordination in Part II., || we observed, that while some sunk it helow^ and others raised it ahove^ the scrip- tural standard, Paul having placed it among the rudiments of Christianitv — " the doctrine of laying on of hands" '—by which it was erected, into a standing religious rite ; its manipulating action bemg svmbolic, it became fundamental to an understanding of its nature and design, to determine in what that symbolic action con- sisted : whether it was a mere unmeaning ceremony, or, whether it was a sacramental channel for the communication of grace from one to another. Our exhibit of the uninterrupted perpetuity of this rite, together with the solemnly interesting occasions on which, and the persons by whom, it was administered under the three dispensations. Pa- triarchal, Jewish, and Christian, furnished sufficient evidence that that symbolic action was something more than a mere idle form ; and, the proof there adduced, that, when performed even by Christ himself, the benefits conferred did not spring from any " inherent virtue in his human hand," but from " the poicer of the Deity mysteriously united with his humanity : and also, that the apostles most emphatically disclaimed that it was by their " own power or holiness," but " through /azilA in the name of Jesus," that they dispensed the blessings of the gospel to the bodies and souls of men, demonstrated the absurdity of the other. Claiming, then, to have pLaced this matter beyond the reach of controversy, three inferences follow ; namely : — 1st. That faith in Christ, and not any inherent efficacy either in the apostles personally or by their manual impositions, is the divinely appointed channel of communicating grace to the soul. And hence, 2d. That ordination by " the laying on of hands," does not and cannot convey, either the spiritual qualifications or official func- tions, essential to a Christian minister. To which we may add, 3d. That scriptural precedents in these premises show, that " the laying on of hands" in ordination, though the ordinary^ yet cannot be regarded as the only, criterion of a valid ministry. In what terms, then, we ask, can be portrayed a theory of eccle- siastical polity, claiming powers based on principles totally the reverse of those here exhibited, of a class of men who arrogate (1) Heb. 6 : 1, a. * Tract No. V., pp. .'), etc. \ Afelville's Sermons. J Argument for Apostolical Succession, p. 8, etc || See pp. 142-151. 244 to themselves a, " power and holiness," and to their ordinations by " the laying on of hands," an efficacy hi iinjMi'tiiig hoth grace a/nd official functions to others ? As we would temper our indig nation against such arrogance, by the plea of a " reason to trust" that, in many instances, such pretenses proceed " from involun- tary and unavoidable ignorance and error," yet Ave appeal, whether, in the light of the extracts above given, such is not true of the theory of prelacy, as advocated by the several classes of writers there quoted. Briefly, then, the opposing theories — which, for our better un- derstanding of the subject, we shall place in juxtaposition — when analyzed, are as follows : THE ANTI-PRELATICAL THEORT THE PRELATICAL THEORY Makes ordination to consist in a con- Claims to confer the Holy Ghost in the nection of the Divine Agent — the Holy acts respectively oi consecration, ordina- Spirit — with the human, in the dispen- tinn and confirmation, " by virtue of that sation of blessing to others ; the latter, apostolical imposition of hands, which, as the mere giving of a definite form to being begun by the apostles, hath been the infinite power. In other words, continued," etc., " by means of an un- that it denotes that the instrument, broken spiritual descent of ordination," man, is one with God, in declaring his which "seed is in itself, after its kind," purposes towards others on whom some and indestructible. In other words, special blessing is to descend, or by that the diviTic afflatus, like the electric whom some special work is to be per- _^uid through a Leyden jar, is communi- formed. cated in various forms, to all whose heads are placed under prelatical hands. And, in this consists their " all ministerial powers." For, " to the apostles," says Bishop Jeremy Taylor, Christ "gave a pleni- tude of j)ower^ for the whole commission was given to them in as great and comprehensive clauses as were imaginable, for by virtue of it, they received a power of giving the Holy Ghost in con- firmation, and of giving his grace in the collation of holy orders," etc., which " power was not temporary, but successive and per- petual," etc.* If not mistaken, however, we can account for its origin in another way. We denj^, either that Christ ever gave to his apos- tles the power to transmit the Holy Ghost to others in the form and manner above alleged, or, that they ever did thus transmit it. We have proved from Scripture, first, that though the apostles conferred the Holy Ghost on others by the laying on of their hands, yet, having disclaimed that it was " by virtue" of any "power or holiness," either of their own hands or hearts, that they did it, but hy faith in Christ, f it follows, that that symbolical action with them can be understood in no sense other than that of a vailing of the bestowment of the Spirit's gifts and graces under a visible form. And this we have confirmed by the scriptural * Bishop Taylor, Episcopacy Asserted, p. 46, etc., ed. O.xford, 1 642. t See Part II., pp. 144, 145. 245 proof, second, that their power as the instruments of conferring it under that visible form, was absolutely incoinmunlcahlc.^' There is no recorded instance in the New Testament of the bestowment of this "gift" on others,f by those who received it through "the laying on of the hands ot Peter ^ or John^ or Paul. No. This Anglican and American prelatical pretense is of JRomish origin. By a comparison of " the form and manner" of " ordaining or conseci'ating" bishops and priests in their joint ritu- als, with the fourth section of the first canon of the Tridentine De- crees,:}: the reader will at once see that the former is but a copy of the latter. PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL. ROMISH. Receive the Holy Ghost for the office " Whoever shall affirm that the Holy and work of a bishop in the Church of Spirit is not given by ordination, and God, now committed to thee by the im- therefore, that bishops say in vain, position of our hands, in the name of ' Receive the Holij GhosW or that there- the Father, and of the Son, and of the by a character is not impressed, etc., Holy Ghost. Amen." let him be accursed." The last remaining topic on our hands, that of the alleged un- broken apostolical succession in the line of bishops by ordination, a subject of paramount importance in these inquiries, and the basis on which the entire fabric of Episcopacy rests, will form the mate- riel for the next section of our inquiries. SECTIOlSr II. Direct examination of the alleged fact, regarding an unbroken apostolical succession from "the twelve" down to this day. — 1. The Romish system.-;— 2. The Tracta- rian or Puseyite system. — 3. The High Church system. — 4. The so-called Evangelical Low Church system. — 5. The Book of Common Prayer. — Summary of the above. — Preliminary. — Three consecrators indispensable to impart validity to each consecutive link in the alleged chain. — Canons, on. — (1.) Requires Episco- pal baptism. — (2.) Ordination as deacon and priest. — (3.) Imposition of hands by three bishops. — Apostolical Canons. — Du Pin and Bishop Griswold. — The process of prelatical ordination illustrated- — All who are not so ordained, denounced as "gross impostors." — Bishop McCoskrey. "We have said, that, though the gift of the Holy Ghost was im- parted to others by the imposition of apostolic hands, yet that in no instance was the power vested in them to that end, imparted to others. That " power," we re-affirm, was incommunicable. *See Part II., pp. 145-147. t The instance of the conferment of this gift on Paul by Ananias (see Acts 9 : 17\ cannot, at least on the prelatical hypothesis, be considered as an exception, inasmuch as he was not an apostle. (See vv. 10, 12.) t Chapter IV., the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and Ordination, Council ot Trent. Brownlee's edition, New York, 1842, p. 85. 246 Ik. .. '■■^ On the other hand, as we have seen, prelatists allege that that " power" apostolic was transferred to a race of men, called their " successors," through the same medium, namely, by the laying on of hands. And, in proof, they assert, II. — As A FACT, ITS UNINTEERUPTED TRANSMISSION FROM THE APosTLEs's TIME DOWN TO THIS DAY. In evidence, take the following extracts. 1. — The Bomish system. " Only those that can derive their lineage from the apostles are the heirs of the apostles. — It is the proper inheritance which they have received from the apostles, and the apostles from Christ. ' As my Father hath sent me,' " etc.* 2. — The Oxford Tractarian or Puseyite system. " I fear we have neglected the real ground on which our authority is built, our apostolical descent. — The Lord Jesus Christ gave his Spirit to his apostles ; they in turn laid their hands on those who should succeed them ; and these again on others : — and if we trace back the power of ordination from hand to hand, of course we shall come to the ajjostles at last. We know we do, as a plain historical fact ; and therefore all we, who have been ordained clergy, in the very form of our ordination, acknowledge the doctrine of the apostolical succession,"f etc. "As to the fact of the apostolical succession, that is, that our present bishops are the heirs and repre- sentatives of the apostles by successive transmission of the pre- rogative of being so, this is too notorious to require proof Every link in the chain is known from St. Peter to our present metropol- itan.":]; Froude, Perceval, Keble, Palmer, and Newman, at a meeting held. at Ariel College, August 4, 1843, agreed to main- tain "the doctrine of apostolical succession as a rule of practice, — that is, that the successors of the apostles are those who are de- scended in a direct line from them by the imposition of hands ; and that the delegates of these are the respective presbyters whom each has commissioned," etc.§ 3. — The High Church system. Bishop Jeremy Taylor : The apostolical " power was not temporary, but successive and perpetu- al^ and was intended to be an ordinary office in the Church, so that the successors of the apostles had the same right and institution that the apostles had, and though the personal mission [i.e., of their successors] was not immediate, as of the apostles it was, yet the commission and institution of the function was all one," etc. Dr. Chapman : " The principle for which we contend, necessarily * Grounds of Catholic Doctrine, p. 17. t Tracts for the Times, No. 1., pp. 2, 3. j Tracts, etc., No. VII., p. 2. \ Perceval's Collection of Papers, p. 12. 247 demands an uninterrupted succession of Episcopal ordination from the apostles's times down to our own." — " Those whom we are ac- customed to honor as the fathers of the Church, always preserved with the greatest care the catalogues of bishops in their respective Sees from the beginning."* Bishop Beveridge : " The apostoli- cal line hath through all ages been preserved entire, there having been a constant succession of bishops in it [the Church], as were truly and properly successors to the apostles, by virtue of that apostolical imposition of hands, which, being begun by the apostles, hath been continued from one to another, enicr stnce that time down to oursr\ Bishop Hobart: "The constitution of the min- istry in that form in which the High Churchman advocates it, sup- poses the derivation of the authority to minister in holy things from the only source of power in the Christian Church, its Divine Head ; — which authority flows from its Divine Source, through the channels oiXk^e, first of the three orders of the ministry [bishops] which from the apostles'' s time have been in the Christian Church."^ 4. — The Low Church sj^stem. Bishop Griswold : Christ promised that " there should be continued an uninterrupted succes- sion of such officers [apostolic] in this Church, endowed with these ecclesiastical powers," etc. " Ever since the Ajjostlcs's days^ none but such., ..are called Bishops."§ The Rev. Dr. Tyng : The oppo- sition from " Protestant denominations" to Episcopacy " will grant peace upon no terms, other than the entire renunciation of the claims which we make to a scriptural ministry, and of our derived right thereto, through an appointed succession from the apostles. This is a jpoint which we can never with a good conscience yield. ''"'l Bishop Burgess, of Maine : " The first bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States were ordained or conse- crated as bishops by the bishops of the Protestant Episco- pal Church of England or Scotland. These had been con- secrated by bishops before them, who had also been consecrated by others, hach to the times of the aj>ostlesy*li Bishop Mcllvaine, having referred " us to the analogy between the new creation and the old, in regard to origin and succession," and that vegetables and man, though at first produced by miracle, were continued b}^ ordinary laws, each having " seed in itself after his kind," argues thus : "I know not that a man, or an herb, is any the less a man, or an herb, or any the less descended from the miraculous begin- nings of creation, because the laws of growth were but ordinary, and the intermediate agency of production was but man. And so I know not," he adds, "that a minister of the Gospel is any the * Chapman's Sermons on the Church, pp. 100, 101. t Bishop Beveridge's Sermons on the Church, p. 26. j High Churchman Vindicated : a Charge, p. 11. 1826. § Bishop Griswold on Apostolic Succession, Tract No. I., pp. 7, 8, 9, etc. II A Plea for Union, a Sermon, etc. 1844. pp. 16, 17. t " A Stranger in the Church."' A Tract. By Bishop Burgess. 1848. p. 8. w 248 less a successor of the apostles, because, instead of receiving liis authority, like them, immediately from Christ, it has come to him by the intermediate communication OF A chain fastened, at ITS BEGINNING, UPON THE THRONE OF GOD, AND PRESERVED AS INVIOLATE AS THE LINE OF TUE DESCENT OF ADAM, OR THE SUCCESSION OF SEEDTIME AND HAR- VEST, OF DAY AND NIGHT, OF SUMMER AND WIN- TER"!— "Its seed is in itself, after its kind," and, at EVERY STEP OF THE SUCCESSION IT IS PKECISELY THE SAME MINISTRY AND JUST AS MUCH OF GoD, SANCTIONED BY HIS AUTHORITY AND SUS- t/^ined by his POWER, AS IF IT HAD BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE LAYING ON OF THE HANDS OF CHRIST HIMSELF"!* As the Rev. Dr. Hook, the distinguished Vicar of Leeds, England, is thought by some to have considerably lowered his former tone of churchmanship, we will present the reader in this place with the following specimen from his pen : " The prelates, who at this time rule the churches of these realms, were validly ordained by others, who, by means of an unbroken spiritual descent of ordination, derived their mission from the apostles and from our Lord. This continued descent is evident to every one who chooses to investigate it. Let him read the cata- logues of our bishops ascending up to the most remote periods. Our ordinations descend in a direct unbroken line from Peter and Paul, the apostles of the circumcision and the Gentiles. These great apostles successively ordained Linus, Cletus, and Clement, Bishops of Rome ; and the apostolic succession was regularly con tinned from them [i.e., the " Bishoj)s of Rome^'' which, please mark] to Celestine, Gregory, and Vitalianus, who ordained Patrick bishop of the Irish, and Augustine and Theodore for the English. And from those times, an uninterru^jted series of valid ordinations has carried down the apostolical succession in our churches to the present day. There is 7iot a bishop, priest or deacon, among us, who cannot, IF HE PLEASE, ti'ace his own spiritual descent from ST. PETER and ST. PAUL."t "We will conclude these extracts with the following. 5. From " tlte Preface^'' to the "Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining and Consecrating Bishops, Priests and Deacons" in the Anglican and American Book of Common Prayer : " It is evi- dent unto all men, diligentl}^ reading Holy Scripture and ancient authors, that, from the Ajjostles's times, there have been these orders of ministers in Christ's Church : bishops, priests, and deacons ; * Argument for the Apostolic Succession, by the Right Rev. Charles P. Mcllvaine, Bishopof the Diocese of Ohio, 1813. For the benefit and consolation of the "illegiti- mate brood of dissent," this very evangelical bishop, in the last three lines and a half of his "argument" says: — " We have taken good care, while speaking the doctrine of our Church, with all plainness, to avoid all reflections upon those parts of Protestant Chris- tendom.' with which, on this head, we are sorry to differ." Q.uite cool, truly. t Two Sermons on the Church aaJ the Establishment, pp. 7, 8. 249 which offices were evermore held in such reverend estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them^ except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are requisite for the same ; and also by public prayer, with im- position of hands, were approved or admitted thereto by lawful authoriti/,'^ accompanied with " EpisGOjxd consecration or ordi- nation." Briefly, tlien, of the above extracts, this is the sum : Prelacy, it is declared, " necessarily demands an uninterrupted succession of Episcopal ordination from the apostles's times to our own." — (Dr. Chapman.) " As the heirs of the apostles" (Romanists), "every link in the chain is known from St. Peter," 'etc. — (Tract- arians.) " It is a chain fastened, at its beginning, upon the throne of God, and preserved as inviolate as the line of the descent of Adam, or the succession of day and night, of seedtime and harvest, of summer and winter," etc. — (Bishop Mcllvaine.) And that, because Christ promised that " there should be an uninter- rupted succession of the office," etc. — (Bishop Griswold) ; in evi- dence of which the " fathers of the Church" have "always pre- served with the greatest care the catalogues of bishops," etc.— (Dr. Chapman.) This is " a plain historical fact," "too notorious to require proof "—(Tractarians.) " It is evident unto all men," etc. — (Dr. Hook and the Prayer Book.) So that " there is not a bishop, priest, or deacon" in the chain, " who cannot, if he please, trace his own spiritual descent from St. Peter and St. Paul." — (Dr. Hook.) " And this," says Dr. Tyng, " is a point which we can never, with a good conscience, yield." Before we pass to a scriptural and historical examination of the above claims, however, there is one other point, which, on prelati- cal principles, is fundamental to their theory. It is this: The designation of each link in the chain^ to his office^ hy three consecrators, each link having previously received the grace of a canonical baptism* and of ordination to the Deaconaie and Presbyterate. Canon I. On Episcopal Baptism. " The want of episcopal bap- tism," that is, to the person ordained or consecrated, "is an essen- tial defect." Canon II. " That ordination has been judged invalid where the person ordained bishop had not been previously ordained a deacon and a priest ; that is, ordination per saltum does not convey the grace."f Canon III. To constitute a valid consecration, the imposition of hands of at least three bishops is indispensable. This last canon is founded on what is alleged to be the first of * It is on this ground that consistent prelatists deny the validity of baptism as ad- ministered by Presbyterian hands, and of which, as I have shown, the Rev. Stephen H. Tyng, D.D., is one. Why, even the RomanisLs admit the validity of lay-baptism ! t See Dr. Field, as quoted in Smith's Lectures, p. 116 ; and Bingham's Antiq., B. II., sec. 12. (Duffield on Episcopacy, p. 257.) 250 the " canons" called " apostolical." In other words, that it was enacted by the apostles themselves ! Now, on this last point, as that which principally concerns us, it is worthy of special note, that Protestant prelatists seem more tenacious than even Romanists themselves The learned Du Pin, of standard authority in the Romish communion, positively denies that these canons originated with the aj)ostles, but ascribes them to a much later period, the whole number (eighty-five in all) having been enacted between the close of the second and the opening of the fourth centuries.* But, in opposition to this, Bishop Griswold, treating of the apostolic office as applicable to that age, says : " One of the first, or highest order, was not ordained by a single person ; several holding the apostolic office united in giving such orders." And again : " Several bishops unite in ordaining a bishop. Among us there must he at least three bishops to ordain one to the same office." And " thus," he adds, " you will see that we strictly conform to apostolic usage. "f " One bishop," then, " lacks power, it would seem, to communi- cate the apostolic virtue. To do the thing unexceptionably, three are required, and fewer than two cannot transmit it at all. It is a law of the electric fluid, that if a single Ley den jar be well charged, it yields a smart shock. Double the number of jars, and connect them, and the shock is doubled. Every additional jar gives ad- ditional strength to the shock, until at length, by the sheer force of numbers, we construct a batterj'- powerful enough to explode gun- powder, or to light tapers tipped with sulphur. But the apostolical fluid is regulated by other laws. A single jar, let it be charged as it may, gives no shock whatever; set beside it a second jar, and there ensues what may be regarded a shock in cases of dire neces- sity, not otherwise. Add yet a third, and the battery is complete. The fluid glances nimbly along, and ignites tapers at the noon- day altar.":}: We repeat : Consecration by THREE BISHOPS an indispens- able condition of the transference, to another, of a valid claim to the apostleship! All others, not so consecrated or ordained, are " GROSS IMPOSTORS." * Du Pin's New EcclesiasD'cal History, pp. 13, 14. Fol., London, 1693. t Bishop Griswold on Apostolic Succession. Tract No. I., p. 9. X The Witness, Edinburgh, April 27, 1842. 251 SECTION m. Prelacy, as claiming to be the antitype of the Aaronic orders, must hold its analogy to the mode of its transmission and perpetuity. — The two modes compared. — Query. Did Christ impose his hands on the twelve ? — Proof that he did not. — Import of the terra KaBiarnfi. — Archbishop Potter on. — Absurdity of the prelatical hypo- thesis. Let US examine this subject of three consecrators as essential to a valid ministry, as above alleged, in the light of " Holy Scripture." The prelatical argument for the Christian ministry as alleged to be founded in its antitypal relation to the Aaronic orders^ requires, of course, that the analogy holds good in regard to the mode of its transmission and perpetuity. " No mem taketh this honor unto him- self^ hut he that is called of God^ AS was Aaron.'" We will com- pare the two, thus : THE TYPE. THE ALLEGED ANTITYPE. 1. Aaron was consecrated, not by a 1. Prelacy requires the consecration high priest, but by Moses, the Jewish of apostles vel bishops, hy apostles, and lawgiver. — (Lev. 8 : 1-12.) none others. 2. Aaron was consecrated by a single 2. Prelatists say, " Among us there agent, Moses. — (Ibid.) must be at least three bishops to ordain one to the same office." 3. Levitical Priests and Levites, by 3. Prelatical Priests and Deacons, by the same. — (Lev. 8 : 13. the Bishops and the Priests present, etc. (See Rubric.) 4. In Aaron's consecration there was 4. No man may " presume to execute" no laying on of hands employed. — (Com- the offices of Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, pare Lev. 8 : 1-12 ; No. 20 : 23-29.) " except he were first called," etc., '■'■with imposition of hands,'^ etc. — (See Preface to Form.) So much, then, as to a correspondence between the Type and the Antitype. Pass we on now to the New Testament. And, first. As to the mode of designation of the apostles to their office, we ask : Did Christ impose hands on them f Let us see. The term " ordained" is used to denote the same act as the term " chose."^ 'The original word, KaOiciirril^ in the New Testament, in two instances is ren- dered " ordain," and in about twenty, " ordained." In two of the above instances it refers to the ordination of the apostles /^ and in five instances, to the ordination of others.* But in neither case is there the least allusion made to the imposition of hands as tJie mode of ordination. The term simply imports, to constitute, ap- point, ordain to an office, set over, establish, regulate,* etc., but does not define the mode of doing either. In reply then to the (1) Hcb. 5 : 4. (2) Compare Mark 3 : 14, In, with Luke 6 : 1.3. (3) Mark 3 : 14, 15 ; John 15 : 16. (4) Heb. 6:1; Acts 1 : 22 ; 1 Tim. 2:7; .-Vets 14 : 23 ; Titus 1 : 5. * See Parkhurst's Greek Lexicon, and Wright's Greek and English do., on the word, 252 above question, we shall let one speak, whom Protestant prelatists regard as of the highest standard authority. Archbishop Potter, in treating of this subject, says : " The rite of imposing hands, whereby other ministers were ordained, was never used in mak- ing apostles. It was a distinguishing part of their character, that they were immediately called and ordained by Christ himself, who gave them the Holy Ghost by breathing on them ; but neither he nor any other is ever said to lay hands on them."* We must here again reiterate. On the prelatical hypothesis of ordination by " the laying on of hands," as the ONLY mode of transmitting validly the functions apostolic, agreeably to the alleged commission, "as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you;" the FatJier must have imposed hands on the head of his Son ; Christ his, on the heads of his apostles ; the Apostles theirs, on the heads of their successors ; and their successors theirs, on the heads of, etc., down to this day. Otherwise, how could the " chain," as Bishop Mcllvaine affirms, be " fastened, at its beginning, upon the throne of God, and preserved as inviolate as the line of the descent of Adam," etc.?f Accordingly, the New Testament import of the term, together with the authority of Archbishop Potter in support of our version of it as respects the ordination of the apostles by our Lord, to the contrary notwithstanding, the advocates of the dogma of an unbroken apostolical succession persist in placing it on the ground of a seminal transmission of the " grace'"' of " holy orders^'' through the ^procreating process of manual irnpositions. A valid Christian ministry perishes, except as preserved through this all-potent channel ! Ordination by " the laying on of hands," is to Episcopacy what life is to the body ! Nor, we add, must we overlook the alleged condition fundamental to its valid transmis- sion— the agency of three consecrators ! * Potter on Church Government, p. 264. t The reader is desired particularly to keep this fact in view, as on it depends the en- tire validity of their alleged claim to the possession of the only true ministry and sacra- ments of the Church, by an unbroken succession, etc. 253 SECTION IV. The question of genealogy, as involved in the theory of prelacy. — The term defined. — Applied, 1. To Christ, — 2. To the Jewish commonwealth. — 3. To the Leviticai priesthood. — Illustrations of the exactness of their tabular views. — High prelatical claims of, in support of the alleged succession. — Preliminaries to a further exami- nation of — The law of analogy requires a correspondence between the Christian ministry and its alleged Aaronic " model" in the articles of, 1st. Their respective vocations. — 2d. Their limits or spheres of operation. — 3d. Prelatical dilemma. — The Christian Church built, not on apostles, etc., but on priests. — 4tb. Another. — Twelve foundation stones. — Twelve chains. — Proof, that such an analogous genea- logical succession formed no part of the apostles's mission. — Inference. The dogma of apostolical succession, therefore, involves the question of genealogy. Genealogy is simply the record of one's descent. On this sub- ject, we remark, that it evidently formed no part of the divine economy that every link in the chain of each individual from Adam should have been preserved whole and entire. Even the Anglican regal succession is traceable no higher than to the Nor- man or Saxon races. Indeed, two such chains only have been preserved to us, that of the incarnate Son of God, and that of God's ancient covenant people, the Jews. A third, confined to a shorter period, is that of the Leviticai priesthood as continued in the line of Aaron. Nor, be it observed, are these genealogical records to be looked upon as unmeaning and unimportant appendages to the sacred canon. 1. That of our hlessed Lord was designed to authenticate his claims as the true Messiah. And hence, its twofold end. First, it sets forth Christ as " the minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers," that, as the " seed" of Abraham and " the son of David," he " should sit on his throne," swaying the scepter of a finally triumphant and ever Mddening empire. And second, it exhibits to us Christ as " the second Adam, the Lord from heaven," as " head over all things" to his redeemed " body, the Church," and shows us that, while to her his " name is above every name," the names of her members as gathered out of all nations are so dear to him, that he registers them in the book of his genealogy — " The Book of Life," so that, " when he shall appear the second time," to com- plete their salvation, presenting them before the eternal throne, he will say, "Behold, I, and the children whom thou," father, "hast given me !" Lord, is my name written in that Book of Life? 2. That of the great Jewish co'tntnonwealth. Its design was, to answer the purpose of a title-deed of that jDortion of the promised land allotted to each tribe and family, as also to secure to them their religious and political immunities, on which account, 254 to preserve such a table, was an obligation imposed on them by the laws of the Theocracy. And, furthermore, considered as that miraculously preserved race of whom it was predicted, " Lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the na- tions ;"' this, their genealogical title-deed, is destined ere long to evidence to the world that they are the only rightful heirs appa- rent to that territory known in holy writ under the -designation of " Canaan," " the glory of all lands.'" 3. The record of the Levitical priesthood. That order was appointed, that they might " minister to the Lord in the priest's office," as " an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.'" " No man," therefore, might assume it, but he that should be " called of God, as was Aaron,"* and that, for the reason that it adumbrated the great antitypal sacrifice for sin, which, " in the fullness of time" was to be offered up once for all, in the person of Jesus Christ. It is obvious, therefore, that the purposes for which these genea- logical records were kept, could only be attained hy their accuracy and completeness. That relating to Christ, is authenticated in the third chapter of Luke, 23d and 38th verses inclusive, furnishing every link through a long period of over four thousand years. That connected with the Jews, every individual of that vast com- monwealth could trace upwards the distinct line of his ancestry to Jacob, Isaac and Abraham, and through them, still higher, to Noah, and to Adam. And, in regard to the Levitical priesthood, two miracles were wrought in attestation of its sacredness and in- violability as a positive institution of God — the destruction of Ko- rah and his company for their schismatical attempt to invade it; and the budding, blossoming, and almond-bearing of Aaron's rod (among the twelve rods which God commanded to be laid up before the Ark, bearing the names of each tribe) in a single night, as a standing memorial or token against the rebels. Nor should we overlook another most important fact in this con- nection, as illustrative of the exactness with which the sacerdotal catalogue was preserved, and the consequence attendant u])on the smallest defect in the title of any claimants to the office. The case alluded to is the following, as recorded by Ezra. " And of the children of the priests : the children of Hebaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai (which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name) : these sought their register among those that were reckoned hy genealogy^ but they were not found : therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.''^ Nor is it a little remarkable, that neither the plea of their betrayal into the neglect of preserving their fami- ly register occasioned by their captivity in Babylon, nor the tra- ditional evidence at hand of their legitimate title thereto, could avert their ejectment from the priesthood ! (1) Numb. 23 : 9. (2) Ezek. 20 : 6. (3) Exod. 18 : 1 ; U : 13 ; 1 Chron. 23 and 24. (4) Heb. 8 : 4. 255 !From the important bearing of this matter on the subject in hand, we shall insert in this place several specimens illustrative of the hdelity, accuracy, and completeness of the genealogical re- cords alluded to above. CHRIST from ADAM. Luke 3 : 23- 38. Christ, the son of Joseph, which was " Heli, (t 11 Maithat, (( 1 Levi, (I (( Melchi, (1 C( Janna, « 1( Joseph, 1! u Maitathiusy I( 11 Amos, (I (( Naum, (i «( Esli, C( (( Nagge, etc., etc.. , etc (( (( Adam, 11 (( God. IT. THE TRIBES and their families. Numbers 26. Jacob or Israel. Reuben, the eldest son of Israel : The children of Reuben, Hanoch, of whom Cometh the family of the Hano- chites ; of Pallu, the family of Pal- luites ; of Hezron, the family of the Hezronites ; of Carmi, the family of the Carmi tes, etc. These are the families of the Reu- benites, etc. And so of each of the other tribes. III. THE HIGH priesthood.* 1 Chronicles 6 : 49. 1. Aaron, Lev. 8 : 1-12, and his son. 2. Eleazar, Numb. 20 : 23-29, " 3. Phirwhas, indg. 20: 28, 4. Abishua, 1 Chron. 6 : 50, " 5. Bukki, 6. Uzzi, 7. Zerahiah, 8. Meraioth, 9. Amariah, 10. Ahiiuh, etc., etc., etc. 51, 52, IV. THE PRIESTS's COURSES.f 1 Chronicles 24 : 1. 1. Jehoiarib, 2. Jedaiah, 3. Harivi, 4. Seorim, 5. Malchijah, 6. Mijamin, 7. Hakkoz, 8. Abijdh, 9. Jeshua, 10. Shecaniah, etc., etc., etc. 1 Chron. 24 : 7 u u " " 8 (1 (( " " 9 I'. u " 10 " 11 * The High Priesthood was continued to the house of Eleazar till the time of Uzzi, when Eli, the first in the line of the house of Ithamar, assumed it. Here it continued through Xhitub, Ahiah, Ahimelech, and Abiathar, (1 Sam. ] : 9 ; 22 : 11 ; 14 : 3 ; 22 : 11 ; 1 Kings 2 : 26), to Zadok, of the house of Eleazar, to whom the priesthood was restored by Solomon, in accordance with a promise made to Phinehas. Eleazar's son, of a perpetual priesthood, for his ardent zeal manifested in the punishment of the offenders in the matter of Peor. (See Numb. 2-5.) We add further, that from Zadok the priest- hood was continued in a direct line to Onias or Maiielaus, after whose death the lineal descent was disregarded ; appointments to the office of High Priest fell into the hands of the ruling faction, and thereby lost the sacred character by which it had been distin- guished, and wa.s finally converted into a mere engine of State. 1 This register exhibits the names of those persons to whom were assigned the priest's office " under Aaron their father, as the Lord God had commanded him.'' (1 Chron. 24 : 19.) They descended promiscuously from the families of Eleazar and Ithamar, (1 Chron. 24 : -3-6,) in the order of twenty-four courses. (1 Chron. 24 : 7-18.) Zacha- eias, mentioned Luke 1 : 5, was of the course of Abiah. 256 In tbcso examples of genealogical records, nothing can be more explicit, straightforward, and clear. And, we submit, whether, from the claims of prelatists to equal fidelity, accuracy, and com- pleteness iu behalf of their ecclesiastical genealogy, their alleged records should not be equally explicit, straightforward, and clear. They assure us that " those whom they are accustomed to honor as the fathers of the Church, always preser\^ed with the greatest care the catalogues of bishops in their respective Sees from, the he^inninq ;^'' — (Chapman): that the " chain, festenrd, at its hegin- mng^ upon the throne of God," has been " preserved as inviolate as the line of the descent of {e.g.^ the Son of God from) Adam ;" — (Bishop McTlvaine) : and hence, " that there is not a bishop, priest, or deacon among them, who cannot, if Tie please, trace his own spiritual descent from St. Peter and St. Paul." — (Dr. Hook). Now, nothing, surely, can exceed the tone of confidence in which these statements are put forth : and, accomj)anied as thc}^ are, with the authority of names ranking high in the theological firmament of both hemispheres, we are not surprised at their influence in pre- disposing the mind to pay to them the homage of an implicit faith. Preferring, however, an examination of the " kegister," in which these prelates allege that they have " always" been " reckoned by genealogy" " with the greatest care," for ourselves, after one or two preliminaries, we shall proceed to subject it to the double ordeal of " Holy Scripture and ancient authors," etc., in its application to the claims of " the Church," Romish and Anglican. We remark, then, — That the theory of an ecclesiastical genealogy on the prelatical hypothesis, affirming, as it does, that the office and functions of the High Priesthood of Christ, which had for its " model" the Aaronic orders, was transferred by him to his apostles, and by them to their successors, involves also the necessity of an analogy hetween tlie Christian ministry and that ^'' model,'''' as it regards their respective vocations and limits. If Christ, as the antitype, of the Aaronic priesthood, instituted the Christian ministry after the " model" of that priesthood, it follows, that there must have been a correspondence between them, 1, In the article of their respective vocations. But, how dis- similar! The origin of the Levitical priesthood, and of Aaron's call thereto as the first of the order, transpired under circumstances of peculiar interest and solemnity. It involved the creation of a new office in the Church of God, not only, but that office Avas to supersede the long established rites of patriarchism. It was to be to the Jews as a nation, what that had been to the families of the preceding age. And, with its multitudinous rites and ceremonies, it was to be perpetuated by lineal descent from Aaron. But, the ministry of Christ formed also the basis of a new econo- my / and as such, like that which had preceded it, was attested by miracle, in proof, that Christ took not the honor unto himself, but 257 was called of God as was Aaron ;' not, be it observed, as thougli Christ was a continuous link in the Aaronie chain, thus merging it into that of the Christian ministry : so flxr from it, his lineal *' descent is not counted from them ;" " for it is evident," says the apostle, " that our Lord sprang out of Juda, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.'" No. Christ's priesthood "is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life :"' the antitypal " High Priest of our pro- fession," " called of God as was Aaron," as to its office and func- tions ; and after the order of Melchisedec, as being uncliangeable and incomrmmicable. " Wherefore, he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them."^ These, then, and similar of the Pauline statements in his Epistle to the Hebrews, we must insist, more than suggest the marked dif- ference in the nature, character, and design, of the two dispensa- tions ; and especially, we would observe, as it regards the question of an analogy of ministerial succession, under each. The Jewish economy was typical and symbolic — " the shadows of good tilings to come," not only, but its very priesthood partook largely of all these characteristics. Nationally, it had for its ulterior end the security, to the commonwealth, of the possession of the earthly Canaan. It was, consequently, concentrative and exclusive. On the other hand, the Christian dispensation, encompassing within its expansive embrace " all the nations and families of the earth"* who were to "be blessed" in Abraham through "the seed Christ," ' was universal and diffusive. It was to the former dis- pensation what the substance is to the shadow — the antitype to the type. It was also spiritual in its nature, and had for its end, the bestowment of a heavenly and an eternal inheritance. Now, that rrs ministky partook of all these characteristics, the facts of the case fully evince. Unlike the Aaronie order, when Aaron, attired in his gorgeous sacerdotal vestments, and standing before the stately altar located within " the holy of holies," is in- augurated into his priestly office in the presence of all the congre- gation ; in the vocation of the twelve apostles, Christ, invested with all power in heaven and on earth, as though to stamp with an in- delible and unmistakable seal, the dissimilarity between the office and the functions Aaronie and apostolic, puts forth the simple command alike to Matthew the tax-gatherer and Peter the lisher- man, " Follow me." They obeyed. Henceforth they become the constant companions of Christ during his ministry, and the eye witnesses of his death and resurrection ; and hence, were possessed of the qualifications indispensable to the due execution of the mandate, " Go ye into all the world," etc. Where, then, we ask, in the aspect of these facts and circumstances, is there any, the (1) Heb. 5 : 4. (2) Heb. 7 : 6, 14. (3) Heb. 7 : 6. (4) Heb. 7 : 25. (4) Gen. 12 : 3. (6) Oal. 3:16 17 258 least, analogy, between the vocation of Aaron, and that of the " twelve apostles of the Lamb" ? And so, 2. Of the limits assigned to their respective spheres of action, as inclusive of the circumstances of person and place. Prelacy, as we have seen, involves " headship," as a center of unity to the visible Church ; for example — Peter occupying the chair of pri- macy and supremacy at Jlome — or Peter and Paul, as the first and joint Bishops of Eome — or Timothy of E|)hesus, Titus of Crete, etc. — The Pope of Rome; the- Archbishop of Canterbury ; the BisJwp of New York. In either case, the difference in the nature and character of the prerogatives assumed or the territory occu- pied, whether larger or smaller, being merely circumstantial, all inferior orders, whether clerics or laics, being subordinate to and dependent on, the Head, center in Him, as the bond of union to the body. Now, be it conceded that, in the high priesthood of Judaism centered such a bond of union to their ecclesiastico-political com- monwealth, such an arrangement was practicable and available not only, but actually grew out of, and hence was in perfect har- mony with, the circumstances of the Jews as an isolated nation, with a sj'stem of religion concentrative and exclusive. Aaron, ministering before the Lord in the tabernacle, which, during the encampments in the wilderness, occupied the center of the sur- rounding tribes as they were stationed, three on the East, three on the West, three on the North, and three on the South, might well attract all eyes to him as their visible head and center of unity. The same, during the more permanent location of the tabernacle in Shiloh. And the same, after the erection of the temple at Je- rusalem, " whither the tribes went up, the tribes of the Lord, unto the testimony of Israel, to give thanks unto the name of the Lord." ' Hence, its peculiar adaptation as a center of unity in a visible Head. But, how diverse from this arrangement, that of the Christian dispensation ! The sphere of its operations is commensurate with the remotest bounds of the earth. "The field is tue wokld."^ The gospel is to be preached "in all the world" and "to every creature,"' etc., circumstances one would suppose, every way in- compatible with the idea of a center of unity in a visibly located head, essential to which is, that he be accessible to all, not only, but that he be seen by all. Under the Jewish economy, this was both possible and practicable. Hence, three times a year, all the members of the Church repaired to their high priest as the visi- ble head of unity, at Jerusalem. But, the commission apostolic was an itineracy. Take, for example, that of Peter. Prelatists affirm, that he was for about twenty-five years bishop of Rome. The question of his ever having been at Rome will be examined in another place. We deny it. " We read of his being at Jeru- (1) Ps. 122 : 3. (2) vlatt. 13 : 33, (3) Mark 16 : 15. 259 salem, at Samaria, at Lydda, at Joppa, at Cesarea, at Antioch. We conclude from one of liis epistles that he also traveled through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithj-nia. And this was just what was proper for him to do as one of the apostles, whose mission, as we have said, was to all the nations of the earth. ; but certainly which he should not have done if he were appointed the "visible head and center of unity" of the Church at Rome. " What : a center of unity, perpetually shifting its place, and per- ambulating the world! A visible head of the whole Church, when only the residents of one little province at a time could tell where he was to be found ! A supreme ruler without a capital, or court, or officer, or certain dwelling-place ! A successor to Aaron, without a sanctuary, or vestments, or vessels of service !"* We affirm, therefore, that neither in the vocation of the apostles, nor in the sphere of action assigned to them by Christ, is there the smallest possible resemblance to those of the Aaronic priest- hood. And these circumstaiices, when taken in connection with the fact that Christ, though the antitype of that priesthood, did not form a continuous link in the Aaronic chain of succession, (not being of the tribe of Levi, but of the tribe of Juda, " of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood,") and could not have transferred to his apostles an office and functions which, from their very nature, as we have shown, were absolutely incommuni- cable, demonstrate, we think, that the idea of an unbroken apos- tolical succession formed no part of the elements of that ministry instituted by Christ. Again. 3. There is, on the prelatical hypothesis as above, another difficulty. How, we submit, is their alleged analogy between the existing ministry (Episcopal) and the Aaronic orders in the matter of an unbroken succession, to be reconciled with the New Testa- ment declaration concerning " the household of faith," which is said to be " built upon the foundation of the apostles and pro- phets,"^ etc? Clearly, on that hypothesis, one of two alternatives follow : either, first, the admitted identification of the sacerdotal character of the office apostolic with that of the Aaronic, in the sense that the terms high priest and apostle are used interchange- ably— a dilemma from which, by the way, the so-called " Low Churchman" will, if we mistake not, find it no small task to extri- cate himself; or second, the admitted faet, that " an horrible thing hath been done in the land," even that of substituting, in the place of the New Testament Apostles, the office and functions of an ab- solutely abrogated priesthood ! 4. Another difficulty : I'he above " foundation," so far as constituted of the " apostles," was constructed, not of one, or of six, but of " twelve" stones, and hence bore an exact analogy to (1) Kph 2 : 19, 20. * Stratten's Srripture Arj^iimpnt against Apostolic Succession. London, 1845. pp. 103, 104. 260 the foundation-stones of the Hebrew commonwealth — twelve patriarchs — twelve apostles. Now, take in this connection the tenacity of the tribes in preserving, entire, their respective gene- alogical records. These constituted, as before remarked, the title- deeds to their inheritance of the allotments parceled out to them upon the divisions of the Holy Land by Moses and Joshua. And, they had respect to the future. Looking down the vista of coming ages, though, for their sins, they were destined to be led " captive into all nations,'" and to be " trodden down of the Gentiles until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in ;'" yet, " touching the election," being still "beloved for the fathers's sakes,'" when "the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to restore the remnant of his people, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth,"* then shall they occupy, in exact accordance with the ori- ginal order of their title-deeds, their long-lost, but now restored, inheritance. 5. The question then presents itself: Did it form any part of the work of "the twelve apostles of the Lamb" as the foundation- stones upon which, in conjunction with the "prophets," the Chris- tian Church was to be built, to place the tenure of the inheritance of " the household of God" on the basis of an analogous genealo- gical title-deed? Evidently, the nature, character, and design of the two dispensations show that it did not. For, not to mention the fact of the ecclesiastico-political economy of the Jewish Church state under the Theocracy, bound down as it was, in bondage to the Sinai covenant of works," as opposed to the " easy yoke" and " light burden'"' of the Christian economy under the laM^ of grace ; while the former was to pass away,' the latter was destined to exist throughout all future ages.' Hence the decree of Heaven, that the title-deeds of " the children of faith," under this economy to that inheritance which is incorruptible," should consist of the registry of "the names of the first-born" in the genealogical "Book of Life,"* as kept, not hj the twelve apostles, but by the vigilant eye and unerring pen of Christ, " the chief corner-stone.'"" 6. Let us, however, for the sake of the argument, admit that a genealogical registrj^, analogous to that of the Jewish state, was assigned to the keeping of the so-called ajDOstolico-priestly " repre- sentatives" of Christ. Analogical consistency requires that, as each of the twelve patriarchs, holding a federal relationship to their respective tribes, stood at the head of the registry of the families represented bv them, so with the " twelve apostles." The dogma of apostolical succession, TF FOUNDED IN TRUTH, must, to be consistent, exhibit a tabular view, separate and entire, of each of the original " representatives." That the original col- lege of " the twelve" should be broken up, and a large majority (1) Luke 21 : 24. (2) Luke 21 : 24. (3) Rom. 11 : 28. (4) Isa. H : 11, 12. (5) Gal. 4 : 34. (6) Matt. 11 : 29, 30. (7) Heb. 8 : 13. (8) Dan. 7 : 27. (9) Philipp. 4 : 3. (10) Eph. 2 : 20. 261 of them be consigned to the shades of an irrecoverable oblivion, while some one or two only — to prop up a favorite theory — are clothed with pre-eminent apostolic honor and power, how at war with that bond by which they were equally united to Christ, the Head ! You see this, as illustrated in their united converse with Christ from the time of their call to the apostleship, to the cruci- fixion. You see it after the ascension, when, a vacancy being created by the apostasy and death of Judas, the number, " twelve," is preserved by the call of another — the Apostle Paul* — to fill it. You see it in the predicted glory which Christ announced awaited them as the reward of their work : " In the regeneration ... ye shall sit on twelve thrones,'" etc. And you see it, finally, in their eternal and immutable union in the apocalyptical Jerusalem. " And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them THE NAMES of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.'" It follows, therefore, on the prelatical hypothesis of an unbroken genealogical succession, that " there might be twelve lines of descent" from the twelve apostles, not only, but that " the model in the true Jewish genealogies shows that there ought to be twelve lines of descent."f Add to the above that scriptural injunction, " What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,'" and a pious and en- lightened mind cannot but shrink with instinctive horror at the thought that any, bearing the Christian name, should be so reckless of palpable truth, and so determined in the support of a mere dogma, as to interrupt and infringe upon, their equal rights and honors, and their indissoluble unity I SECTION V. , Direct examination of the prelatical theory of succession as an alleged fact. — Involves the process of a procreating power. — Absurdity of — Illustrated in the case of Paul and Judas Iscariot. — Anti-prelatical theory of the succession. — Archbishop Whately on. — The two theories compared. — The high pretensions of prelacy. — Tremendous consequences pending the issue. — Must be subjected to the severest test. — Requisites for. — I. Authentic documents — None to be found. — II. An au- thentic '"Register" or catalogue — None ever produced. — III. A triple agency in welding each successive link — The pretense preposterous. — IV. Such procreating power has no archetype in nature — Hence designated by Paul, " endless gene- alogies," (1 Tim. 1 : 4.) We have now fully considered the subject of the alleged eccle- siastical genealog}^, as involved in the prelatical dogma of an un- broken apostolical succession. Our examinations of the genealogi- cal records of "Holy Scripture," furnish no indications either as to the origin, or directions to perpetuate, such a record. On the (1) Matt. 19 :28. (2) Rev. 21 : 14. (.•?) Matt. 19 : 6 * Part II., pp. 133-136 t Stratten, p. 37. 262 contrary, from the nature, character, and design of the three lines therein recorded, — those relating to our blessed Lord, to the Jew- ish nation, and to the Levitical priesthood ; — in addition to the fact of the total absence of all analogy between the two dispensa- tions, Jewish and Christian, and of their respective ecclesiastical orders in regard cither to the circumstances of their vocation or spheres of action ; the difficulties involved in said theory,— that of substituting an absolutely abrogated priesthood in the place of the New Testament apostles, on the one hand, and the limiting the honors and powers common to all " the twelve" to some one or two of their number on the other, all combine to demonstrate its utter fallacy. Prelatists, nevertheless, persist in alleging the fact, of such an ecclesiastico-genealogical succession. This brings us to the point of our proposed direct examination of its validity. Is it then, as a fact, sustained hy the combined authority of " Holy Scripture and ancient authors ".^ I. First, then. To conduct our examinations into the validity of this alleged fact understaudingly, we must know the jDrecise sense attached to the term, succession, by prelatists. Assuming, then, " the truth and authority of an ecclesiastical genealogy," they affirm, " that a spirit of life is infused into the act of ordina- tion, which gives it a procreating power. The individual who re- ceives ordination connects a paternal relation with the hands from which it comes. It is alleged that this paternity must in some wa}'' be manifest, and well-assured, through all ascending links, until 3'ou come up to the homds of an apostle ; and, that through the unbroken links of this lengthening chain alone, can the grace of ministerial authority and sacramental efficacj^ be conveyed."* In brief, Christ transferred "the offce'''' which he was leaving to his twelve apostles, with power to transfer " the very same office" to others, as their successors, the mode of transfer in each case being that of manual impositions. This, Bishop Mcllvaine, in speaking of the appointment of Matthias as the successor of Isca- riot, says : "It was communicated hy the liands of those [the apos- tles] who received it from the Lord."f But, we ask : Is this the true idea of the term ? Let us see, " If a king create a peer, with right to transmit his title to his de- scendants, the heir of the family, as he rises to wear his honors, becomes the successor of the first peer, not of the king — of him who received the title, not of him who gave it.":}: Now, it were a waste of time further to argue the fallacv of the alleged transfer, by our Lord, of his priestly functions to mere * Stratten's Scripture Argument against the Apostolical Succession. London. 1845. + Bishop Mcllvaine's Argument for the Apostolical Succession, p. 9. X Straiten, p. 154. 263 mortals. That therefore aside, we contend, " if the apostles, in the plenitude of their authority, had created any order of ministers in the Church with power to perpetuate their honors and functions, those who received the entail would become the successors of the first of their order, not the successors of the apostles themselves."* Again. We submit, that there is an essential difference be- tween the uninterrupted perpetuity of an of&ce, and that of its continuance by a succession, as alleged by prelatists. The true idea of a seminal succession necessarily implies an existing chasm (be it of longer or shorter duration) hy death ^ between A. and B., otherwise B. becomes a usurper of an office which still exists. The case of Paul's appointment by Christ to fill the vacancy in the apostolic college occasioned by the death of Iscariot, is in point. And this we affirm, and shall prove in the sequel, is the only instance of a legitimate apostolical succession on record. The idea that "a power," civil or ecclesiastical, "to fill a vacancy in office," is identical with "a power to perpetuate an order," is preposterous. " We understand matters in these United States, much better than to identify such things."f The office has for its basis, the constitution, divine or human, ecclesiastical or civil, as the case may be ; the agency employed in inducting into office, is but the visible seal affixed to the power- — the constitution — which created it. It follows, that the Aaronic priesthood was not, in the strict sense, a succession. The mode of its continuance rather elimi- nates the idea of the uninterrupted perpetuity of the qfflce. Aaron, with his own eyes, looked upon him who was to perform the same services, at the same altar, and in the same place in Avhich he had for the period of thirty-five years been engaged, ere they were closed in death. And, with the exception that the Aaronic priest- hood was perpetuated by lineal descent from Aaron, the same prin- ciple will apply to the uninterrupted continuance of what was de- signed to be, and has been, the ordinary and standing ministry of the New Testament Church. And this leads us to remark, that, so far from a denial, as is al- leged, of the uninterrupted perpetuity of the Christian ministry b^ «7i^i-prelatists, they insist that the legitimacy of such an inference rests entirely upon the evidence, whether that unbroken continuity depends upon a transmission of the office seminallj" through indi- vidual hishops, or whether it consists in the perpetuity of a Chris- tian ministry generally. Of the prelatical hypothesis, they deny, that there is any the least countenance or support therefor, in " holy Scripture." With Archbishop AYliately, they affirm, that the fallacy of the prelatical scheme "consists in confounding to- gether the unbroken apostolical succession of a Christian ininistry generally, and the same succession in an unbroken line, of this or that particular minister.":}: * Stratten, p. 164. f Duffield on Episcopacy, p. 97. t Whately's Essays on the Kingdom of Christ, Essay III., pp. 180-18]. 264 They also further insist that, if their hypothesis, so far as con- nected with the evidence to be derived from "ancient authors," is liable to tlic contingency of interruption — in other words, if proof can be adduced of the non-existence^ at any given period since the days of Christ and his apostles, of such a Christian ministry gene- rally, that is, a ministry not prelatically consecrated ; 3^et, that such a ministry, to say the least (prelatists themselves being judges), has equal claims to validity with the other, unless proof can be furnished, express, positive, amounting to the clearness of demonstration,* * On this su])jpct, we quote the following, from the very able " Essay on the Primi- tive Church Officers," a work attributed to the Rev. Dr. Addison Alexander, Professor of Ecclesiastical History, etc., in the Princeton Theological Seminary, New Jersey. New York: Charles Scribner. 1851. He says — "The impossibility of prnvina: a particular succession, in the case of any minister, is tacitly ad- mitted, on the part of those who claim it, by evading; the demand for proof, and simply alleging the fact to be notorious. The case of ministerial succession is compared to that of natural descent from Adam or Noah, which no man can prove, but which no man disputes. The fallacy of this analogi- cal argument scarcely needs to be exposed. The descent of any individual from Adam is notori- ous only on the supposition that the whole human family is sprung from a single pair. This being assumed, the other follows of necessity. If all descend from Adam, so must every one. To make the cases parallel, we must =up])Ose a plurality of races, and a dispute to which of these a certain individual belongs. In that case the appeal to notoriety would be absurd, and in the absence of explicit genealogies, the only proof available would be correspondence in the physical characteris- tics of the progenitor and his alleged descendants. In the supposed case this might be a difficult and doubtful process from the want of any accurate and authentic description of the ancestor. But m the case of ministerial descent, we have the advantage of a description not only exact, but infal- lible, with which those claiming to be successors of the primitive ministers may be compared with rigorous exactness. Let us suppose that according to the Scriptures men had sprung from two dis- tinct originals, and that these were represented as distinguished by the same external marks which now distinguish Africans from Europeans. If any one should claim to be descended from either of tliese stocks, and his pretensions were disputed, the nearest approach that could be made to a solu- tion of the question, would be by comparing the complexion, features, form, hair, etc., of the claim- ant with the like p.^irticulars ascribed in Scripture to the father of the race. The application of the rule might be precarious, but without specific genealogies, no better proof could be adduced, or would be called for. " This imaginary case affords a close analogy to that of apostolical succession. Certain bodies of men claim to be exclusively descended, by official derivation, from the primitive apostles, and re- ject the claims of others to a similar descent, upon the ground that they are not able to produce specific proofs of an unbroken succession : and when charged with the same defect in their own orders, they appeal to notoriety, as if there were no room to doubt or question their extraction. But it may be questioned on the same grounds upon which they question that of others, and the only way in which the point at issue can be settled is by comparing the distinctive attributes of those who now profess to have succeeded the apostles in the ministerial office, with the corresponding traits of the apostles themselves. By tliis test we are willing to abide. We lay no claim to apos- tolical succession, except so far as we agree with the apostles and the primitive ministry, in doc- trine, spirit, discipline and life. And we consider our opponents as reduced to the necessity, either of submitting to the same test, or of proving in detail their individual descent from the apostles. The attempt to substitute for such proof the admitted fact, that the Anglican or Romish clergy of the present day are, as a body, the successors of the apostolic ministry, is to evade the difficulty by confounding general and particular succession, by insisting on the latter when our orders are in question, and producing the former when their own commission is demanded. This is a virtual admission of tlie fact, wliich forms the ground of our last objection, to wit, that apostolical succes- sion, in the strict sense of the terms, and as a practical test of valid ministrations, is impracticable, and therefore useless. " If then, as we have tried to show, this doctrine is not only unsupported by express command and binding example, and by any necessity arising from the nature of the ministerial office, or the ends for wh^ch it was established, but at variance with the doctrine of Christ's headship, superseded by the surer test of doctrinal conformity to apostolic teachings, contradicted by the providence of God, and practically useless even to its advocates ; it is not perhaps too bold an inference from these considerations, that an incapacity to trace our ministerial authority in regular succession, step by step, to the apostles, is no conclusive argument, nor even a presumptive one, against the validity of Presbyterian orders. Here we might safely rest the defense of our ministrations against all attacks connected with this point of apostolical succession ; but we cannot do justice to the strength of our position, without cxiiibiting tlie subject in another point of view. We have en- deavored to show, that the apostolical succession, which we are accused of wanting, is not essential to a valid ministry. This would suffice to justify our claims, even on the supposition that our op- ponents possess in the highest degree wliat they demand of us, and that we, on the otlier hand, are utterly without it. But we have furthermore seen reason to believe that our opponents have it in a much more limited degree than that which they require of others. This, in addition to the unes- sential character of the advantage, would at least have the effect of bringing us nearer to a level 265 1. That the so-called seven orders of the Romish priesthood, or the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons of the Anglican ministry, have been transmitted through an uribrohen line, during that period. 2. That each link has been added to the chain, in accordance with the alleged apostolical forms and ceremonies, namely, conse- cration hy three hishojys, preceded by a lawful baptism, and ordi- nation as a deacon and a priest* The declarations, that the first link in the alleged apostolical chain is "fastened to the throne of God," and that the entire chain has been " preserved as inviolate as the line of the descent from Adam, or the succession of seedtime and harvest, of day and night, of summer and winter ;"f and hence, that "every bishop, priest and deacon" of the hierarchy " can, if he please, trace his own spi- ritual descent from St. Peter and St. Paul;":}: these declarations, we repeat, taken in connection with the paternal relation which is claimed to exist between the apostles and their successors, and which is made to depend on " the sacramental virtue" transmit- with our neighbors, still supposing apostolical succession in the ministerial office to be altogether wanting upon our part. "But even this residuary difference between us, with respect to the validity of our pretensions, disappears when it is known that, so far as apostolical succession can be verified, the Presbyterian Church in the United States possesses it, as really and fully as the Church of England. In making this assertion, as in all the reasonings of the present essay, we assume as proved already, that a superior order in the ministry to that of presbyters is not essential to the being of the Church, but that from the beginning presbyters have exercised the highest powers now belonging to the minis- try. If so, it is through them that the apostolical succession must be traced, and we accordingly maintain that our orders may be just as surely traced in this way up to apostolic times, as those of any other Church through bishops. The denial of this fact has, for the most part, been con- nected with the false assumption that the ministry of our Church has been derived from that of Ge- neva, and depends for its validitj' on the ministerial authority of Calvin ; whereas we trace our orders, through the original presbytery of Philadelphia, to the mother-church of Scotland, which is well known to have been reformed with the concurrence and assistance of men regularly ordained in the Churcli of Rome. The principal admixture of this Scottish element, in our earliest presby- teries, was witii New England Puritans, among whom only two examples of lay-ordination are be- lieved to have occurred, and whose ecclesiastical system was originally founded by regularly or- dained priests of the Anglican establishment. Tlie proportion of those members, in our primitive church-courts, whose ordination was derived from more obscure and doubtful sources, such as the Welsh and English Independents, was extremely small. Whatever then a regular succession may be worth, we can lay claim to it as far back and as certainly as any of our adversaries. " This fact is indeed so 'notorious,' that it has been met, for the most part, not with a denial of the fact itself, but with an allegation, that the only apostolical succession in existence is derived through bishops, as superior to presbyters. It is the need of something tti destroy the force of pres- byterial succession, as a fact which cannot be denied, that has occasioned the perpetual and almost universal combination of the doctrine of Succession with the doctrine of Episcopacy, as alike es- sential to the organization of the Church. We have ventured, however, to discuss them separately, and have thus been led to the conclusion, that the higliest powers of tlie Churcli belong tu presby- ters as such ; that succession, if derived at all, must be derived through them ; and that through them we possess it no less certainly and fully than the Church of England or the Church of Rome. We cannot indeed show that every link in the long chain has been without a flaw, but neither can our adversaries do so upon their part. Until the reformation the two lines are coincident, and since that time, the continuation of the series of presbyters, in Scotland, England, and America, is as cer- tain and notorious as that of bishops. Supposing, then, as we of course do, that the rank which we have claimed for presbyters is justly due to them, it follows necessarily, that no objection to the validity of Presbyterian orders can be founded on the want of apostolical succession ; partly be- cause we are as really possessed of it as any other ministers or Church whatever. When any urge this argument against our ministrations, they assume two facts, both essential to the truth of their conclusion ; first, that such succession is of absolute necessity ; and secondly, that they alone pos- sess it. If either of these assumptions is unfounded, it destroys the argument ; for if succession is not necessary, it matters little who has or has it not ; and if on the other hand, we have as much of it as our opponents, they can have no pretext for impugning the validity of our ministrations. By disproving either of tho.se two positions, the conclusion is destroyed. By disproving both, it is doubly detroyed, 'twice dead, plucked up by the roots.'" ♦ See p. 249. t Bi-shop Mcllvaine's Argument, etc., p. 9. X Dr. Hook's two Sermons, etc. 266 ted to them through imposition of hands, and without which all who claim to be ministers of Jesus Christ " are gross impostors,"* warrant the demand for such demonstration. No. It is not suffi- cient to be told, that this is a matter " too notorious to require proof;" that "it is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient authors ;"f and, that "any bishop," etc., " CAN, IF HE PLEASE," tracc his spiritual pedigree back to Peter and Paul. In other words, that the most trifling effort imaginable is all that is requisite to satisfy the most scrupulous ! An insinua- tion, we affirm, which, for polemical casuistry, Jesuitical sophistry, and bold assumption, stands unrivaled in the department of let- ters. The tendency is, that the unsophisticated mind, in falling upon them, captivated by, and subdued into a holy reverence for, the ex-cathedra authority of the "oracle speaking from its place of mystery," is betrayed into tlu very neglect of that diligent read- ing of "holy Scripture and ancient authors," which they would seem so earnestly to recommend." No, — we again repeat. No bishop, priest, or deacon interested in this matter, is left at liberty to suspend an examination of the evidence, whether indeed he forms one of, or is in any way connected with, the links in the alleged unbroken chain of succession from the apostles, Peter and Paul, upon " a mere caprice of his mind's volition." Is it not clear, on the prelatical hypothesis, that " if he can," it is not, "if he please"? That, "if he can, he should feel it to be at his peril if he does not do it" ? That, " if the present regeneration and pardon, and the eternal safety of the flock to which he ministers, depend on the certainty of his being lineally descended from an apostle, then, before he assume the tremendous responsibility," "he is bound, by all the considerations which can weigh with a rational and virtuous mind, to make, first, him- self, and then those who are to receive grace by him, quite sure upon this vital point" ? And finally, that " no labor, no cost, no travel should he spare, — no rest should he take, night or day, until he possess the indisputable genealogical document, clear in the whole line, and firm in every link of the chain ?" :j: And, upon a peradventure that these interrogatories may move any to re-assert the prelatical claims, Ave would beg deferentially to suggest the following course, as calculated greatly to facilitate the labors of the teacher, not only, but to inspire confidence in the minds of the taught. First, then : — in regard to the documents^ necessary to authenti- cate the genealogy of every individual in question. They either exist, or they do not. If they do exist, they must have been pre- served entire and immaculate. The uncertainty and deficiency of man's pleasure must have been provided against by the certainty * Bishop McCoskrey's Sermon, etc. t Preface to Ordinal, etc., B. of C. Pr. t Straiten. 267 and completeness of tlie Divine pleasure, which considerations, of course, argue miraculous interposition in their behalf. No other documents than such, can be admitted in proof of the unbroken continuity of a claim, which, " at its beginning," is alleged to be " fastened to the throne of God." " Iloly Scripture and ancient authors," are claimed to constitute these documents. We appeal, then : they mtist be admitted to stand on a basis of equal autho- rity. But the documentary evidence derived from " Holy Scrip- ture " in the premises, forms but a very inconsiderable portion of tlie whole. Dr. Chapman tells us, that "those whom we are ac- customed to honor as the_ fathers of the Church, always preserved with the greatest care the catalogues of bishops,"* etc. But, who are these "fathers of the Church"? Are their genealogical regis- ters, like those of "Holy Scripture," immaculate? If not, how can we trust them in a matter upon which are suspended " the eter- nal interests of millions " ? f Again, Second. Than prelatists, no class of men rank higher in the scale of intellectual endowments, acquirements, and zeal. How diligently have they cultivated every obscure nook and corner of classic soil ! What word is there that they have not traced to its root ! What sentence, difficult or defective, which they have not toiled to elucidate or restore ! Who, besides, have produced more numerous and elaborate works in the departments of divinity, the abstruse sciences and the arts ! We now ask then : will they re- fer us to one clear and authentic ecclesiastico-genealogical "regis- ter" of the alleged succession of bishops, etc. from Peter and Paul ? Their neglect to do so, cannot other than involve them in the guilt of a dereliction of duty in the defense and support of a theory professedl}^ so dear to them, or render questionable their sincerity in its adoption. And then too, consider, Third, the condition indispensable to the authentication of such a catalogue, that of a triple agency in the welding of each link, suc- cessively, to the mighty chain. The priests and deacons aside, take, for example, the last consecrated link in the American chain — the Rev. Dr. Upfold, of the diocese of Indiana. Should it happen to "please" him, in compliance with the wish of some Presbyterian inquirer, to enter upon the task of tracing back his alleged " spiritual descent" to the hands of Peter and Paul," — bearing in mind that, from the point whence he starts, the law of congruitv will require an increase of certainty just in proportion with his retrograde computation from himself, — the validity of the orders of the three who consecrated him, must depend upon the validity of the orders of the three times three {nine) who conse- crated them, and theirs again, upon the three times nine {twenty- seven) who consecrated them, etc. etc., each last number being mul- tiplied by three, from generation to generation, until at length (as * Sermons on the Church, pp 100, 101. t Bishop McCoskrey's Sermon. 268 is now the fact) tlie genealogy of the so-called Christian priesthood becomes as inextricable and impracticable in tracing, as is the the- ogony of the myriads of deities who people (fabulously) the tem- 2:>les of Ilindostan. Nor — as we must further remark in. this con- nection— will it at all lighten the task of the good bishop to find, that, so soon as he comes, in the catalogue, to the name of an in- dividual who was not ordained by the help of his predecessor to the See to which the catalogue belongs, the antecedent line is directly cut off from that which he had been previously tracing, into num- berless collateral lines, the validity of the orders of which must be equally authenticated with the other! Take, in illustration, the Anglican Church, and Avho does not know that there is not a See in it, which has not been filled again and again by translation, and whose line, consequently, as to ordination, has not in that mode been cut through and through into fragments of which it would be difficult to find the number, and sometimes to make out where the one ends and the other begins. Nor does the difficulty of the task terminate here. The multiplying threads of the labj-rinth which he has been threading may now stretch outward, and lead him out of these realms across to the continent, and round about to one and another, if not to all, of its Episcopal Sees. Having reached the period at which Rome held supremacy in England, he may find an Italian, a German, or a Gallic bishop, here and there assisting in ordination, or even installed by translation ; and where then will end his wanderings after the ascending lines of his pedigree ? Finally, on this subject, we remark. Fourth, that there is a peculiarily connected with Episcopal genealogy which is found in no order of nature, and no analogy of official transmission : that, we mean, of the reproduction of each successive link in the chain, by three consecrators. It is a mode of descent and propagation which has no archetype in nature. There is in it no special beauty nor fitness to commend it to a penetrating reason which finds out and puts together the hidden links that connect God's varied and wonderful works with each other ; no affinity and harmony, but, on the contrary, a marked discordance with essential theological truth, as that Avhich declares that Christians are born ''not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."' Nor need it be affirmed, that, to the prophetic eye of the apos- tle, the interior of this labyrinth, trebling its mazes at every step, lay open and exposed ; but if it did, could he have employed a word more descriptive of its nature, or of its variance with the ge- nealogical records of Holy Scripture than the phrase, " endless ge- nealogies" ?* (1) John 1 : 13. * Straiten, etc., ad seq. 269 SECTION VI. Scriptural examination of the above theory. — " The Twelve Apostles." — These, if equal, must each have a sejiarate chain. — Denied by Prelatists. — Yet cannot agree as to whom the honor of starting the chain belongs. — Creed of Pius IV. — ^Dr. Hook. — Rev. A. B. Chapin. — St. Peter. — St. Paul. — St. John. — St. James, etc. — Starting of the chain as an alleged fact. — Dr. Stone. — Mode of, by " laying on of hands." — The first links. — Bishops McCoskrey and Mcllvaine. — Positive evidence indispensable. — Tested by its application, 1st, to Matthias. — Fallacy of. — 2d, to Barnabas. — Bishop Mcllvaine versus the Evangelist Luke. So mucli, then, for the up-hilledness of an attempt to trace one's prelatico-" spiritual descent" back to Peter and Paul. Perhaps, however, we may find a firmer foot-hold " at the beginning'^ of the chain. Waiving further preliminaries, therefore, we come now to subject the alleged uninterrupted succession of Prelatists " from the apostles's times" to the test, I. Of " Holy ScRiPTUEE." It will of course be conceded, that the original college of the apostles formed the first " twelve" links in the alleged chain. Thus, Bishop McCoskrej : " The apostles were raised up to the highest grade by the Savior, as he was about returning to heaven. They then stood as his representatives, and arranged the ministry after the model which he himself had followed," viz., the Jewish priesthood.* Now, we have proved that the powers of " the twelve" were equal, that is, that no one had a primacy over the other, or supre- premacy over the Church, f Will it not thence follow that there ought to be twelve separate chains^ all equally " fastened to the throne of God, and preserved as inviolate as the line of the descent from Adam" ? What good reason can be assigned why " the honor and riches of the patrimony" should be confined to some one or two of the n amber ? And yet, such is the result of the practical working of the Pre- latico-Episcopal scheme. Nor is this all. Its advocates are not agreed among themselves, to whom belongs the honor of com- mencing the unbroken chain ! The creed of Pope Pius IV. declares " the Roman bishop" to be " the successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles and the vicar of Christ." And Bellarmine positively affirms, that "the right of succession in the popes of Pome is founded in this, that Peter, by Christ's appointment, placed his seat at Rome, and there remained till his death."f On the other * Bishop McCoskrey's SermoUj Episcopal Bishops the Successors of the Apostles, p. 12. 1842. t See Part II., pp. 116-123. J Bellarmine, Lib. IL, c. 1. 270 hand, Dr. Ilook and others affirm that there is not a bishop, priest, or deacon who cannot, if he please^ trace his own spiritual descent from St. Peter and St. Paul,*^* while the Rev. A. B. Chapin insists that the Anglican succession is derived, "not, as is often said, from Home," but from " Ephesus," of whom the apostle, "St. John," was the fountain-head.f Here, then, are no less than three apostolical competitors for the honor of " fastening" this chain, " at its beginning," to the throne of God ! Should it, however, appear that Eome, alone^ through her alleged viceregent, St. Peter, is, de facto, the channel through which courses the mighty chain, it will follow that the " spiritual descent" of the continuous links, both Anglican and American, can only reach back " to the throne of God" THROUGH HER TURBlb WATERS ! We must, however, hold the evidence of this in reserve for a future page. In starting this chain, the Preface to the Ordinal in the Book of Common Prayer informs us, that "it is evident unto all men read- ing holy Scripture, that from the apostles's times, there have been these orders of ministers in Christ's Church, bishops, priests and deacons," set apart thereto " with imposition of hands," etc. Speaking of this " Preface," that learned and distinguished divine of the Protestant Episcopal Church, the Rev. Dr. Stone, of Brook- lyn, L. I., in his recent work, entitled, " The Church Universal," says, that "it is evident," "as a matter of fact,^' "that there has been a trine ministry" in the Church of Christ " ever since the apostles's time." And, he adds, " for this, from the heart, I con- tend.":}: But, though so " evident," my worthy friend makes no further allusion to the connecting links in the chain than by a re- ference to " the occasional appointment, as in the case of Timothy, Titus, and others, of general supervisors over large territories," etc., " with power of ordaining to the ministry."§ Others, however, speak more definitely on this point. Bishop McCoskrey says of the apostles, that " one of the very first acts tJiey did, after they received the apostolic office, was, to transfer the very same power they had received from Christ ; and he adds, as "few persons are willing to reject the 'Acts of the Apostles,' they must recognize the transfer of apostolic authority to Mat- thias." "If so," he continues, "the position is established, that the apostles had successors."! Yes. " IF so." Bishop Mcllvaine also furnishes us with the following, to the same effisct. He says, " That the ojjiGe of the apostles did descend from them to successors ; that it was communicated to others BY THE HANDS of those who rcccived it from the Lord, is manifest." * Two Sermons on the Church and the Establishment, by Dr. Hook, pp. 7, 8. t The Primitive Church, by A. B. Chapin, New Haven. 1842. pp. 291, 292. X The Church Universal, etc., p. 132. New York: Houel & McCoy. 1846. § lb., p. 13.3. II Bishop McCoskrey's Episcopal Bishops the ."Successors of the Apostles, pp. 12, 14, 17. 271 And he instances " Matthias and Barnabas," with " Timothy," etc., in proof.* The " unbroken succession," then, " at its leg inning ^''^ is " fast- ened to the throne of God," thus : God — Christ — the apostle Peter, or Peter and Paul, or John — Matthias, Barnabas, Timothj, etc. But, we submit. Each of the above links from the apostles, as so many alleged "facts," whether pope, prelate, priest, or deacon, who, perchance, may " please" to " seek their register among those that are reckoned by genealogy," must addnce proof positive that " their names are found" there ; or, as in the case of those Aaronic claimants of similar honors — *' the children of liebaiah, of Koz, and of Barzillai," they must be pronounced '"'• 'polluted^'' and be '* PUT FROM THE PRIESTHOOD "! Nor is this all. If, perchance, upon examination, the boasted catalogue of the prelatico-sacerdo- tal line should be found without a duly authenticated head — with- out that FIRST LINK by which the whole chain is declared to be " fastened to the throne of God," Avhat then? We may, perhaps, without presumption, assume the title of Episcopio- Presbyterians^ and propose an exchange of position of the parties in this contro- versy ; the prelatical denunciators of others as schismatical intrud- ers into the ministry, being found the only true antitypjes to those intruders into the priestly ofhce and rebels against Moses and Aaron — Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, whom God destroyed in the camp of Israel. Proceed we now therefore, to an examination of the alleged claim in behalf of, 1. — MattTiias^ as the first link in the above chain. Let it now be borne in mind, that the above writers declare that it " is mani- fest^'' " as a matter of fact," that the apostles "transferred" to Mat- thias, by the laying on of their hands, "the very same power they had received from Christ." (1.) First, then. Of the power transferred. To determine what it was, depends, of course, on the precise powers of the apostles themselves at the time of its alleged transference. The prelatical hypothesis as above, must suppose that they were complete and perfect — a transfer of " the very same power," which " they re- ceived from Christ." Otherwise, Matthias could not have been placed on a footing of equality with the others. On this subject. Bishop McCoskrey informs us, that the apostles " were not to enter upon the duties of the office which Christ had transferred to them, until they had received in a full and open manner, the Holy Ghost. Prior to the ascension of the Savior, they had received the power to act as apostles, but not the gift necessary to fit them for dis- charging the duties connected wdth the office. The former, namely, the power, was given when Christ breathed on them and said. Receive ye the Holy Ghost — the latter, namely, the gifts, on the day of Pentecost. Hence they were commanded not to de- * Argument for the Apostolic ^u cession, p. 9. v*^ 272 part from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith Christ, je have heard of me."* But, the distinction here made between the "j?6»wer" and the " gift ;" on what authori- ty, wc ask, is it based ? If it was official power conferred by the Holy Ghost in the former case, Avhy not in the latter ? We refer the reader to Part II., pp. 110-11-i of this Treatise, for the scriptu- ral proof, that the powers apostolic were cumulative^ having been marked by three difl'erent stages of development, and of which, the last, — the Pentecostal gift of tongues by the Holy Ghost — was the completion of their powers. Then too, official power, without either the qualification to discharge, or the authority to execute it, what, we ask, is it worth ? And yet, even according to the Bish- op's own showing, the appointment of Matthias tromsjnred before the da}^ of Pentecost, and in direct violation of the command of Christ. On Ms hypothesis, therefore, it was premature, and hence, unauthorized. On ows^ he could have been made, at most, but Jialf an apostle. Prelatists are welcome to either horn of this di- lemma. Then, (2.) As to the alleged mode of Matthias's designation tolas office, namely, " hy the hands'^ of those who "received it from the Lord." Yes, the procreating power, indispensable to the valid transmission of the apostolate, perishes, except as it is preserved through this all-potent channel. Nor must we forget that three consecrators are indispensable, (agreeably to the alleged apostolical canon,) to give validity to the act. Which three of " the eleven," then, were concerned in this transaction ? Was it the three " pillars,'" Peter, James, and John ? We are assured that, any " bishop, priest, or dea- con, if he please," can answer. As we have shown. Archbishop Potter, as one of them, thought differently. And, no marvel. For, in the first place, it " is manifest" from the inspired record, that, though Peter proposed this measure, yet the whole preliminary process was transferred to, and was carried out by the " men and brethren" composing the " hundred and twent}^" disciples,'' and that Peter and his ten apostolic colleagues united with them in referring the final decision of their nominations to the Lord.^ Ergo, Matthias was not appointed by the apostles. Then, as to "the lay- ing on of hands" in this transaction, it "is manifest" from the sacred narrative, that a mode, entirely different, both in nature and in form, was employed. Matthias's election was decided by " lot."* On the prelatical hj-jjothesis, therefore, of the ordination or conse- cration of each consecuitive link in the chain by the imposition of hands of three consecrators, as indispensable to the conveyance of the sacred fluid, grace, office or functions aposfolical ; how, we ask, is the omission of any specific directions to that end by our Lord on the one hand ; or, if it did occur, the silence of the sacred penman ia (1) Gal. 2 : 9. (2) Acts 1 : 15, 16. (3) Acts 1 : 23, 24. (4) Acts 1 : 26. * Sermon, Episcopal Bishops the Successors of the Apostles, pp 10, 11. 273 regard to any sucli action on the other, to be accounted for, when both the circumcision of Timothy by St. Paul, which was a mere matter of expediency, and his ordination by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, are recorded with the utmost precision ? We leave those " who say they are apostles," to reconcile these in- congruities, as best they may. And, if it may '* please" any one of them, after what we have here and elsewhere said on this sub- ject, to show that Matthias rather than Paul, has the better claim to the apostolic vacancy created by the fall of Judas, whether in the Church on earth or in heaven, we think they will have to do it by other records than those of Luke, John, or Paul. Pass we now, to test the prelatical claims in behalf of, 2. — Barnabas, as the second alleged link in the golden chain. , It " is manifest," Bishop Mcllvaine assures us, that " the office of the apostles" " was communicated" to Barnabas, " Jy" their " ha)idsy* Surely, then, the Bishop might have furnished us with what is so important a desideratum in the premises, — the names of his three consecrators. We have before us, however, a more in- falhble guide. Luke informs us, that upon him were laid the hands of three persons. But, were they apostles ? Nay, verily, they were the ^^ prophets and teacher i'' of the Church at Antioch, namely, Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen.' Upon a peradventure, however, that prelatists should claim that these were apostles, how, we ask, are we to reconcile such a claim with their scheme of dio- cesan episcojjacy, which, so far from allowing several bishops to belong to a single church, is based on the hj-pothesis of only one bishop over many churches in a province or state, as the case may be ? But, Barnabas is called an apostle. On this subject, we refer the reader to Part II., pp. 131-132 of this Treatise ; only adding in this place, that in his epistle, which is received as genuine, but not canonical, Barnabas disclaims apostolic authority; and by the early fathers, though sometimes styled an apostle, he is ranked among companions of the apostles or apostolical men.f In the order of the remaining alleged links, the Rev. Dr. Stone, speaking of the apostles, tells us, that " one of their first acts was, to originate, by prayer and the laying on of hands, an order of deacons ;" and that " another" act of " frequent occurrence was the ordaining of elders," or "presbyters;" (all of which is scriptu- rally true ;) " and a third was, the occasional appointment, as in the case of Timothy, Titus, and others, of general supervisors over large territories, who, whatever the powers and prerogatives of the other orders may have been, certainly had, for themselves, the power of ordaining to the ministry. Thus much, at least," he (1) Acts 13 : 1-3 ♦ Argument for the Apostolic Succession, p. 9. t Literary History of the New Testament, p. 244. London ; Seely, Bumside, and Seely. 1845. 18 . 274 adds, " is plain on the very face of the Scriptures."* Now, there is in these extracts from the work of my learned and worthy friend, to say the least, a nearer approach to a compliance with the canon apostolic in its bearing on their " very first acts," than that affirmed by Bishops Mcllvaine and McCoskrey. That canon enacts, that '^ ordination per saltu7n does not convey the grace."t The above order, however, provides for the ascendhig scale — first, a deacon, then a priest, then a bishop. Still, to say nothing of those " general supervisors over large territories," (namely, dioce- san bishops) to whom the Doctor alludes by the very equivocal phrase, " and others,":}: we are not informed as to whether even Timothy and Titus "purchased" to themselves the better degree of the apostleship, agreeably to the requisitions of the above canon. SECTION vn. Same subject continued. — 3. Timothy — Dr. Stone. — Bishop Griswold. — Positively af- firms his consecration by " several" apostles, namely, the Ephesian presbytery. — Ar- gument in support of. — Fallacy of — The apostolicity of the Ephesian presbytery denied by Bishop Hobart. — His interpretation of Mcr, and Aia. — Fallacy of. — The question fundamental in these premises is, was Paul personally identified with the Ephesian presbytery in Timothy's ordination ? — Proof that he was not. — Conclu- sion.— A choice between two absurdities. — 4. Titus. — Remarks on. Pass we now to the next link. 3. Timothy. — Kegarding the mode of the consecration of Timo- thy, as it is so " plain on the very face of Scripture," Dr. Stone says nothing. He considered it, we suppose, "too notorious to re- quire proof" Not so Bishop Grisv/old. Having informed us that " one of the first, or highest order, was not ordained by a single person," but that " several, holding the apostolic office, united in giving such orders," he affirms, " Timothy himself had been so ordained."§ But, not unless " the presbytery" who ordained him were all bishops in the prelatical sense ? And such. Bishop Gris- wold claims that body to have been. He tells us, " it is most pro- bable that a presbytery then" [speaking of the apostolic age] " was a college of bishops^ and that several of them were present, and assisted at the ordination of Timothy." Here then, we have a mat- ter that is so " plain on the very face of Scripture," that it is " MOST PROBABLE !" The argument of the Bishop in support of the above theory is as ♦ The Church Universal,? 13,3 1846. t Dr. Field, quoted by Dr. Duffield on Episcopacy, p. 257. } But referring, as we suppose, to Barnahas, .indronicus and Junia, ^polios, Epapro- ditus, etc., respecting whom, see Part I., pp. 127-132. J Bishop Griswold on the Apostolical Succession. Tract No. I., p. 9. 275 follows : First. He informs us that the terms " elders, presbyters and priests," are "all words of the same meaning."* Then, second, that " the apostles are sometimes called presbyters." Therefore, third, the presbytery which ordained Timothy " was a college of apostles." Now, to say nothing of the palpable incongruity between the conversion of the Ephesian presbytery into a college of apostles upon the strength of the import of a mere name, and the current denial of prelatists that ecclesiastical functions or offices can be de- termined by mere names or titles alone, in addition to what we have offered in proof that the terms " elder," TTpeafSvrepog, denoted age,f and that, being a generic term of office, it might, and did, comprehend different species or orders, and that hence, an apostle — for example, Peter — might apply it to himself; also, that it was principally used during the apostolic age, interchangeably with the title emaKOTTog, bishop or overseer, as denoting the same office ; we now affirm, in reply to the above statement of Bishop Griswold re- garding it, that, of all the advocates for the sacerdotal or PiiiESTLY character of the Christian ministry, not one can be found to ad- vance it in more glaring terms. For, if the terms " elders, pres- byters, and priests," are "all words of the same meaning," and the fact, that the apostles having sometimes called themselves elders, made the Ephesian presbytery " a college of apostles," it follows that, having received " the very same power" from " the twelve" which they received from Christ, (inasmuch as that power con- sisted, as is alleged, of the transfer of Christ's ojioe to them which he was leaving,) they must have exercised, with them, the same functions, priestly, which Christ exercised. But we deny, 1. That the words elder or presbyter and priest, are synonymous. No two words are more dissimilar. The word ngeafivTepog, pres- byter or elder, denotes one of the qualifiGations, namely, maturity of age, as befitting one filling the office of either an apostle or a bishop, and hence is used in common by both. On the other hand, the name ' IsQsvg (hiereus), a priest, from ' lepog (hieros), sacred, de- notes a person consecrated to God, to offer sacrifices for sins.' As such, it is applied to Melchisedek, a patriarchal priest," to the Le- vitical priests,^ to a heathen priest of Jupiter,* to the Jewish high priest,* to Jesus Christ, as the great antitypal high priest after the order of Melchisedek,* and it is employed to denote the great body of the redeemed on earth and in heaven, as forming a " holy priest- hood, to offer up the spiritual sacrifices of prayer and praise, ac- ceptable to God by Jesus Christ."' But, in no single instance^ we (1) Heb. 5 : 1. (2) lb. 7 : 1. (3) Matt. 8:4; 12 : 4. .5 ; Luke 1 : 5, etc. (4) Acts 14 : 13. (5) Acti 6 : 24. (6) See Heb. 7 : 21. (7) Compare 1 Pet. 2:5; with Rev. 1 : 6 ; v. 10 ; 20 : 6. See also Park- hurst's Greek Lexicon, on tlie word. * Bishop Griswold oa the Apostolical Succession, p. 8. f np£ 286 Romanists, however, not only usurp the title in its earthly sense, but in the sense also in which it is applied to the eternal God. The vicar of Christ in the chair of St. Peter is sometimes styled " Lord God the Pope,"* We add, in conclusion on this subject, tliat it should be distinctly observed, there is as much sophistry in the use of the word Pope, as was ever played off on earth. This word, in the East, was first applied to all bishops, and is now so applied in Russia. It was in the fifth century applied to the senior bishops and metropolitans of the West ; but it was not until the time of Gregory VII., a.d. 1073, that it was exclusively appropriated, by his own innovation, to the bishops of Rome. Is it not more than significant, that the American Protestant bishops should have assumed the title, for example, "The Right Reverend leather in God, John Henry Hobart, Bishop of the Dio- cese of New York" ? This premised, respecting the matter of right to the pontifical chaii', we affirm, Second : That there are other apostles, who might ha/ce urged superior claims to a primacy in the Church, to those of Peter. This is true, 1. Of the apostle James. In evidence, take a glance at the convocation in Jerusalem, as recorded Acts 15. By whom was it convoked ? Answer : By some two or three of the churches of Antioch. Of whom composed ? Answer : Of *' the apostles and elders," and of " the Church" in Jerusalem. Who occupied the pontifical chair ? Certainly not Peter, but James, who commanded their special audience, and who, having drafted the decree commencing with, " My sentence is," etc., was honored with the acquiescence therein of " the apostles and elders, with the whole Church !" Finally, duplicates of this de- cree, in the form of "letters," were sent to the diftereut churches by a delegation appointed — mark, neither by James nor by Peter, but by the convocation composed of " the apostles and elders, and brethren." "It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord," etc. While, therefore, the inspired narrative exhibits a total absence of all apostolical primacy or supremacy in the Church, James evidently filled the most conspicuous post in the above transaction. The same, we affirm, is true, 2. Of Paid. We here premise, respecting Peter, what cannot be deemed other than singular, that in no instance does that apos- tle appropriate to himself the title of paternity, in his relation to the Church. So far from it, as though he had possessed some pro- * See pp. 221, 222. 287 phetic foresiglit of tlie use which would afterwards be made of his name, and some settled caution to abstain from every syllable which might be employed in imputing an ofQcial paternity to him, his words arc studiously fraternal : "To the elders which are among you, I exhort, who also am an elder .""^ Paul, however, unlike Peter in this respect, does employ paren- tal phraseology. He calls Timothy his own son in the foith," and his '■'■dearly beloved son ;" and Titus, his " oum son after the com- mon faith.'" So far, therefore, as this appellation is concerned, Paul, and 7iot Peter, was the first Pope ! Still, we deny that Paul used this appellation in an official sense, but simply as expressive of that paternity which grew out of the spiritual relation, to him, of those who, "in Christ Jesus, he had begotten through the Gos- pel."^ When he has occasion to speak of office — as in his address to Timothy, he employs a term expressive, not of the paternal, but of the fraternal bond : " Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brotJierP* Again. On the Eomish hypothesis of the celibacy of the cler- gy, Paul, who was a bachelor^" might justly claim a precedence over Peter, who had a wife.^ One other consideration may yet be added. "We refer to the fact, that the Galatians looked upon James, Cephas, and John as " pillars," equally sustaining the weight of the affairs of the Church at Jerusalem not only, but, having cast a suspicious eye toward the claims set up by Paul as one of the number, he pro- ceeds, not to detract from their honors, but to vindicate his own. And in what way ? Why, yielding the point that the others were "pillars," he places himself beside them, on the ground of perfect equality. Peter (Cephas) is one of the number. And, calling to mind the origin or source and functions of his office, though " one born out of due time," yet he says, " in nothing am I behind the very cliiffest apostles."' And in addition to this, it is positively declared, that, "upon him (Paul) was the care oi all the churches.^'^ And, that he " labored more abundantly than they all,"* Finally, 3. In behalf of the apostle John, we have somewhat to offer. Let it be borne in mind, that that remarkable reply of Christ to Peter respecting him,—" If I will that he tarry till I come ;"'" and which was construed to mean (though erroneously*) that "he should not die," was still abroad among the brethren. And, as aU the apostles, save he, had " fallen asleep in Christ" at the close of the first century, he being still present with the Church to dis- pense to her in all its plenitude, the benefits of his apostolic office, that circumstance seemed to countenance the above conjecture re- specting him. At this epoch, he stands before us as the venerable patriarch of the Christian Church. His personal history is identi- (1) 1 Pet. 5 : 1. (9) 1 Tim. 1 :'l ; 2 Tim. 2:1; Tit. 1 : 4. (3) 1 Cor. 4 : 15. (4) Ph'lem. 1. (5) 1 Cor. 7:1,7. (6) Matt. 8 : 14. (7) 2 Cor. 11 : 5. (8) 2 Cor. 11 : 28. (0) 1 Cor. 15 : 10. (10) John 31 : 2-2. * See Part I., Preliminary Essay, etc., pp. "73, 76. 288 fled witli its most sacred events and memorials. He had been with his Lord in the splendor of the Mount of transfiguration, and in the gloom of the agony of Gethsemane. He had leaned upon his bosom at the pascal supper, and had received from his tremulous lips when hanging on the cross, the tender charge to be a son to Mary his weeping mother. Her history, from that time, had been intertwined with his own ; for, from' that day, he had taken her to his own home. lie had taken his full share in the journeys and sufferings of the apostles ; and, if he had not labored more abund- antly than they all, yet he had labored during a longer pei'iod ih&n they all. And now, wrapt in the visions of the future, he becomes the amanuensis of the Spirit, in recording the prophetic fortunes of the Church, to the close of time. How is it, then, we ask, since he became in age the acknowl- edged patriarch of Christianity, that the supremacy was never claimed for him? The subject of the next section will furnish a reply. SECTION n. Fallacy of the Romish theory of the Succession, as derived from the nature of traditional evidence. — Proof, that Peter never visited Rome. — Acts 15 quoted. — Examination of traditionary fragments. — Eusebius, Papias, Dionysiasof Corinth, Caius, Irenaeus. — His statements regarding Polycarp invalidated. — The Latin translation of his works not reliable. — He does not affirm that Peter was Bishop of Rome. — Further proof from Paul's Epistle to the Ronjans. — Romanists not agreed as to Peter's primacy at Rome. — Direct proof from Scripture. Was Peter ever at Rome ? As it respects the apostle John, there was no tradition which could connect his latter days with Rome. Such a tradition, how- ever, is alleged in behalf of Peter. The authorities, therefore, shall be forthcoming. Pass we now, Third: To another argument, in proof of the fallacy of the primacy of Peter. It is drawn from the nature of traditional evid •nee. We remark then, that, from the magnitude and ulterior bearings of the above alleged fact on its traditional authority, reason justi- fies the demand, that the evidence rest, not on mere hearsay, not on probability or conjecture, but on the testimony of an eye and ear witness of the fact alleged ; such, for example, as that 289 given by Jolin of the life, actions, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus — "That which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you.'" On such testimony, proof being available of its un- corrupt transmission down to this day, the mind can rest with un- doubting confidence. But is this, we ask, the character of the tradition regarding Peter, to which Romanists demand our unqualified assent ? So far from it, on this the vital point of the entire fabric of the Papacy, we are thrown upon the legendary testimony of an un- written tradition, stretching, not through five, or fifty, but through a period of about two hundred years. The contrast between a doubtful and an authentic tradition, (and which is fundamental to an understanding of the merits of the question before us,) may be thus stated. " Suppose that, in the year one thousand, a tradition had been current that a certain bridge over the river Tiber had been built in the time of the apos- tles, and that Peter laid the corner-stone of the Roman abutment. Some incredulous persons began then to doubt of the matter, and called upon those who afiirmed that Peter laid that stonfe to prove it. They go to work. They found very man}^ to believe it in the tenth century : fewer in the ninth, fewer in the eighth, fewer in the seventh, till, within two hundred years of the time, they find only one person that affirms faith in it, and with him it is an unwritten tradition. All record ceases. There is a perfect chasm of two hundred years without a single witness." This, then, we afiirm, is true of the Romish tradition regarding Peter's residence at Rome, as its first bishop. Still, Romanists at- tempt to bridge this chasm, not only, but the advocates of Prelacy of all grades, insisting with them that tradition is decisive on this point, are equally interested in the consequences involved in it, But,* Fourth : We, however, deny that Peter was ever at Rome. The New Tes- tament Scriptures, of course, are entirely silent on the subject. Let us then examine the Traditional evidence of the fact, as alleged by Romanists, etc. The facts of the case, in regard to Peter, are simply as follows : His life, so far as furnished in the inspired records, is brought down to a. d. 49 or 50, and leaves him at Jerusalem (Acts 15). From this point, for all further information respecting him, we are wholly dependent on the bewildering uncertainty of early tradi- tion. " We will now proceed to present its scanty fragments before the reader, with such expository remarks appended as the case may require. (1) John 1 : 3. * See also on this subject Section V. (1) Peter ^ of this chapter. 19 290 According to Eusebius,^ Peter's first visit to Eorae is placed in the second year of Claudius, A. d. 44, and his martyrdom in the fourteenth of Nero, a. d. 69. This, however, evidently clashes with the chronology of the New Testament as above, not only, but with the fact, that he had not visited Kome at the time of Paul's writ- ing to the Corinthians from that city, A. D. 57 or 58, or up to the date at which the history of the Acts closes, about a. d, 63. And, to say nothing of Epiphanius, who places his martyrdom in the twelfth year of Nero, and Cave in the tenth ; the early and pre- vailing tradition of his martyrdom at Rome with Paul, is made to rest, first, upon a forced interpretation of a passage in the epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, in which he alleges the fact in plain terms, but without indicating anything as to time or place. Second, upon Papias,f who affirms that Peter was at' Rome, but who evidentl}' invalidates his own testimony, by confounding Rome with Babylon. :j; Third, upon the statement of Dionysias of Corinth, who, as cited by Eusebius, speaks of the same apostles as "going together into Italy," and that they taught there, and suffered martyrdom about the same time. Fourth, of the state- ment of Caius the presbyter, that the trophies or tombs of Peter and Paul were still to be seen in the cemeteries of Rome, with their names inscribed upon them. But chiefly, fifth, upon that of Irenaius, the scholar of Papias, and the disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of the Apostle John. He flourished in the second century, and was by birth a Greek. Polycarp's conversion is set down at the year 80, and John lived to the close of the first cen- tury. So that John taught Polycarp, and Polycarp Irenseus. And hence the proximity of Ireua3us to the apostles is urged in proof of the clearness of the testimony in his day. Somewhat plausible this, truly. But, in addition to the consideration, that the nearer we approach any true event, the more numerous should be the vouchers of its reality and authenticity ; and that, if de- pendent on tradition, that that tradition should be proved ; of this testimony of Irena^us, we remark. First, that, whatever it be, it is seriously invalidated by his statement regarding Polycarp, who, he affirms, was appointed ♦ The earliest ecclesiastical historian extant. He was Bishop of Caesarea, and wrote his history in the early part of the fourth century t Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, was supposed by Ireneeus to have been instructed by the Apostle John. {Spanheim's Ecclesiastical History, p. 194 ) See also Literal History of the New Testament, pp. 177, 10.'')-197. London, lS4r). X Peter's first epistle is dated from Babylon, and hence the ancient supposition that, under this name, Rome was intended ; but it is one of the most unfounded conjectures that ever obtained the stamp of tradition. Yet, it is mentioned by Eusebius as a pre- vailing opinion, and has been eagerly adopted by the writers of the Roman communion, in order to prove the contested point of Peter's residence in the imperial metropolis. But Milman (History of Christianity, B. I., c. 2; B. H., c. 3) , following Lightfoot, says, " that Babylon was the scene of Peter'.' labors, and remarks that both Josephus and Philo, in two places, name Babylon as the habitation of the great eastern settle- ment. The notion, espou.sed by Greswell ^following Le Clerc and Pearson), that Babylon in Egypt is intended, is without any support from evidence. 291 bishop of Smyrna hy the apostles. The facts in the case are these • Poly carp died, A. D. 167. He was fifty years bishop of Smyrna. His ordination, therefore, must have taken place A. d. 117, before which time all the apostles had been removed by death ! How then, we ask, could he have been ordained "by the apostles"? But, Second. We have said that Irenteus was by birth a Greek. Now, the only fragment of antiquity relating to the subject in question — a fragment which was extant in the time of Constantine, and on which Eusebius himself relies — is not a Greek original, but a Latin ti-anslation of that father's works. It is also to be par- ticularly borne in mind, that the Greek version of Irenseus being lost, the Latin translation was not found for some hundreds of years afterwards. What, then, is his statement on this subject ? Simpl}^ this : that " these blessed apostles, Peter and Paul (mark, not Peter alone), founding and instituting the Church" — that is, at Rome — " delivered the care of it to Linus," etc.* In view of these facts, however, that this statement comes down to us second- hand, not only, but in a translated form ^ and at a remote period from the time of the original, our suspicion of its authenticity cannot fail to be awakened, and especially so when we take into the account the declaration of the learned Du Pin, already quoted, f regarding the inventions of false histories, and the mutilations and corrup- tions of the writings of that age, by the Catholics themselves. Then, as it respects the statement itself, we remark in the first place that, though it implies that both Peter and Paul were at Home, yet Irengeus does not say that either of them was bishop of Rome, but simply, that they ^''founded and instituted'''' the Church there. We proceed, however, to demonstrate in the next place, that the above statement involves one of two dilemmas : either that Irena?us states what is not true ; or, that the above translation of his works is a forgery. Our argument is this : Paul's Epistle to the Romans was writ- ten and sent to them, hefore he ever saw that city ; it was, con- eequently, sent to a Christian Church already " founded and insti- tuted" there. It follows, that Paul could have had no agency in that matter ; and also, that Peter's having done so, rests upon mere inference, based on no one knows how many editions of a second-hand statement from Irenasus. Nor, further, does it diminish our want of confidence in this alleged statement of Irenasus, to find such Romish writers as Bel- larmine and Barronius expressing themselves with different de- grees of assurance on this subject. Bellarmine positively affirms, that " the right of succession in the Popes of Rome is founded in this, that Peter by Christ's appointment placed his seat at Rome:":f * Irenaeus, Book III., c. 3. t See Part I., Preliminary Essay on Scripture and Tradition, pp. 60, 61. t BeUarmine, Lib. II., Chap. 1. 292 whereas Barronius only ventures to say, that it is not improbable that our Lord gave an express command that Peter should so fix his Sec at Rome, that the Bishop of Kome should absolutely suc- ceed him." To conclude our remarks on this mooted point, exchanging the dubiousness of traditional for the certainty of scriptural teaching, we learn, in regard to Paul, that, though he was at Rome, yet that it was in the capacity, not of the " founder" of that Church — not as its pontiff, but " as the jprisoner of the Lord^'' watering, indeed, by his teaching, his counsel, and his example, as he had previously done by his Epistle, that Church which had been planted by other hands, and these hands, not those of St. Peter ; for, as we have said in another place, while the New Testament Scriptures are entirely silent on the subject of his ever having been at Rome, " we read of his being at Jerusalem^ at Samaria^ at Lydda^ at Joppa^ at Cesarea^ and at Antioch / and, from one of his Epistles, we conclude that he also traveled through Pon- tus, Galatia, Gappadocia^ Asia and Bithynia; a circumstance, we must insist, totally irreconcilable with the above omission to re- cord the fact — a fact on which was suspended such stupenduous results to the Church and the world — had he ever been there. "With the preceding facts and arguments as drawn from Scrip- ture and tradition, demonstrative of the fallacy of the prelatical pretense that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, before us, we think we are safe in adopting the conclusion, that our blessed Lord dAd not establish a chair of primacy and supremacy in that See. SECTION in. The Romish dogma of an untroken succession subjected to the test of " ancient authors " or TuADiTioN.T-Preliminary. — It is a question of genealogy. — One absent link breaks the chain. — The pretense, a grand and stupendous deception. — Arguments continued, demonstrative of its fallacy.— Fifth. The Romish argument for, as based on the alleged preservation of the Scriptures by that Church. — Sixth. Rom- ish schisms. — Seventh. Absence of uniformity in the pontifical elections. Still, the Church of Rome alleges, that Christ ordained a suc- cession for the pe/petuity of that primacy, of Avhich Peter was the fountain or source. The existence of the alleged chair, and its occupant, however, having been proven as repugnant to reason as it is opposed bv Scripture and by fact, the fallacy of such an or- dained succession becomes at once apparent. The way is therefore open for our transit to the last sequence in the above proposition, namely, the dogma of an alleged unhroken succession. This dog- ma, it should be borne in mind, we are now to consider as a tra- ditional FACT ; and mark, it is a question oi genealogy ; it affirms 293 a continuous line of descent from Peter of Rome, down to the reigning Pope, Pius IX., " preserved as inviolate as the line of the descent of Adam, or of the succession of seedtime and harvest, of day and night, of summer and winter." — (Bishop McIlvaine.) Accordingl}', if one link be wanting, '•Ten or ten thousandth, breaks the chain aUke.'' — Pope. The "register," therefore, must be clear and perfect; and so^ worthy the sacred purpose of an exhibit of a " consecrated host" of popes, prelates, presbyters and deacons, bound, by links indis- soluble, in one grand golden chain, reaching upward, and " fast- ened to the throne of God." — (Bishop McIlvaine.) But all of which, WE hold to be, a grand and stupendous decep- tion— an ample net for catching men, a delusion and bondage made for the world, as the Gospel was a redemption made for the world ; the deepest device and mightiest achievement of Satan ; the which, if we prove it not, or if any pope, bishop, priest or deacon will condescend to convict us either of unfairness in our quotations, sophistry in our reasoning, or error in our deductions, we herebv pledge ourself, from that moment, to forfeit forever all right and title to " benefit of clergy," " book," and " bell." Having then, as we think, shown the fallacy of the Eomish pre- tense of the establishment in the Christian Church of a chair of primacy and supremacy, by arguments drawn, firsts from the ab- sence of any evidence therefor in holy Scripture; second^ from the superior claims of other apostles to the primacy over those alleged in favor of Peter ; thirds from the nature of traditional evidence in the premises ; and fourth^ from the evidence adduced in proof, that Peter never was at Rome, and hence, that, as a consequence, our blessed Lord could not have ordained such a succession from Peter as prelatists allege, we shall continue our former line of ar- gument, by way of adding to them those which demonstrate the fallacy of the dogma of an unbroken succession, as an alleged tra- ditional fact. Fifth : Romanists affirm the traditional ^preservation of the Scriptures hy that Churchy in support of their dogma of an unbroken succession. Its fallacy has been fully laid open, in our Preliminary Essay on Scripture and Tradition, to which we respectfully refer the reader.* Another argument in proof of its fallacy may be drawn, Sixth: From the nuinerous scMsms in the Church of Borne. These, according to some of their writers, were twenty -two in number. « See Essay, Part I., pp. 80-85. 294 Others make them twenty-six. Protestants count twenty-nine. Our space, however, will only allow a few examples in illustration. Take, then, first, the double election, as Popes of Eome, of Nova- tus aud Cornelius, a.d. 251, the latter of whom was at length put to death.* Second, that of Liberius and Felix, a.d. 367, of whom, if Liberius be the true Pope, then the Church had for her spiritual head, an Arian.f Third, that of Damasus and Ursicinus, in the midst of whose conflicting claims for the popedom, many lives were sac- rificed. This controversy, however, was finally settled by the banishment of the latter, a.d. 381, by the Emperor Gratian, in whose decision as an earthly ruler, on the hypothesis of the Romish succession, now rests the faith and salvation of the Romish Church.:}: Next we find, fourth, as in the preceding case, Peter's chair is filled by the Emperor Honorius, an Arian, who rejected Eulalius in favor of Boniface I., as the Vicar of Christ, a.d. 419.§ Fifth. Another schism occurred in the double election of Lauren- tius and Symmachus, a.d. 498, and which was also attended with war and bloodshed. || So, sixth, the simultaneous election of Boni- face II., and Dioscorus, a.d. 529, but the death of the latter soon after ended this strife.^f A seventh schism grew out of the election, at the same time, of Sylverius by the people of Rome, and of Vigil- ius by the Emj)ress Theodora. Here then we have a Pope placed in Peter's chair by a woman. But Vigilius, though he procured the banishment of his rival, who died in exile by famine, having killed his secretary by a blow with his fist, and whipped his sis- ter's son to death, and whom the Romans ever looked upon as a usurper, was never acknowledged by them as their lawful Pope.** Another : Eighth. After the death of Gregory VII., a schism ensued between Benedict VIII., son to Gregory the Count of Fres- cati, and one Gregory, who was elected by the Romans, and ejec- ted Benedict VIII. He, however, was subsequently restored by Henry King of Germany, but died a.d. 1034. Following this, another son of the Count Frescati, who assumed the title of John XVIII., was simonically elected in his place. Upon his death, a.d. 1033, Albert, the brother of the Count Frescati, placed his son Theophylact, a child of only about twelve years of age, in the papal chair, who took the name of Benedict IX. After the lapse of ten years, however, enraged at the enormous profligacy of his life, he was ejected in favor of S^dvester III., formerlj^ Bish- op of Sabina. But, during all this time, Benedict VIII. was still on the stage, and, returning from his voluntary exile, he expelled his competitor, and re-assumed the papal chair. His profligacy, however, incapacitating him for the duties of his office, he bartered the popedom to Gratian the Archbishop of Rome, who -assumed the name of Gregory VI. Here, then, we have, at the same time, three rivals for the papal chair — Sylvester III., Benedict VIII., * Du Pin, Vol I., p. 135. t Du Pin, Vol. I., p. 190. t lb. pp. 226, 227. § lb. p. 417. |I lb. p. 527. 1 lb. p. 542, ** lb. p. 552 295 and Gregory VI. Henry, however, having succeeded his father, Conrad, a.d. 1039, resolved to terminate this schism, which he sup- posed he had effected, by causing their deposition in several synods as usurpers, simonianists, and criminals, and by placing Suidger, Bishop of Hamburg, in their stead, under the title of Clement II. Nine short months, however, ended his career, a.d. 1047, when Benedict IX., the son of the Count of Frescati, re- turning to Eome, remounted the papal chair in opposition to Poppo, the Bishop of Bresse, who had been sent to Rome from Germany by the Emperor, bearing the consecrated title of Damasus 11.*^ Ninth. Other schisms and interregnums occurred between a.d. 1261 and 1379. f But passing these as of lesser importance, we remark, that for seventy years, there was a vacancy in the pontifi- cal chair of Rome. The Pope, during this period, was a resident, not of the eternal city, but of Avignon in Paris. Besides, for almost half a century, there was a double succession in the line of Popes, the one Italian, the other French. And finally, to cap the climax, the thirteenth century closes with the conflicting claims to the papal See of another tripod of formidable rivals, namely, Benedict XIII., of Spain ; Gregory XII., of France ; and John XXIIL, of Italy. And, to these, the Roman Cardinals add Clement VII. To mend the matter, the Council of Pisa, a.d. 1409, deposed both Gregory and Benedict, and, under a pretense of reforming former abuses, elected Alexander V. This, however, only increased the schism. Alexander was poisoned by his rival, John XXIII., who endeavored to conciliate the University of Paris, and convened a general council at Rome, hoping thereby to establish his authority to the exclusion of his rivals, but he failed. At the Council of Constance, a.d. 1414, John and Benedict were deposed ; Gregory abdicated ; and a new Pope was elected under the title of Martin Y.j;. It will furnish a suitable introduction to the uses to which these schisms will be applied, to advert. Seventh : To the total want of uniformity in the method of condiLcting iJie pontifical elections. Irenteus, it is affirmed, quotes a tradition which says that ' Peter appointed his successor.' If, then, we argue, Irenseus is good authority as to the fact of Peter's primacy at Rome as its first bishop, why, we ask, has not the Church of Rome imitated his ex- ample in this particular ? § But, so far from it, history and tradition furnish us with at least seven other modes, namely : — 1st. Nomination by the bishops, but election by the priests and people. 2d. Nomi- ♦ Du Pin, Vol. II., p. 206. t lb., see Vol. 11. I Riddle's Ecclesiastical Chronicles. Centuries 13. 14. 4 See pp. 249, 250. '^' 296 nation by the emperor or empress on their own responsibility, and election by the bishops. 3a. The transfer of the whole power to the emperor, by Leo YIII. Of the 4th, Barronius says, ' They (the popes) were introduced by powerful men and women. It was frequently the price of prostitution !'* By the 5th, according to " the decree of Pope Nicholas II., in his Lateran synod, ' The whole busi- ness was given over to the cardinals,' an order of men not heard of for the first thousand years after Christ ! This transpired a.d. 1059. Then 6th. The appointment of the popes by general councils, as those of Pisa, Constance, and Basil. Finally, that enacted by Nicholas II., constitutes the present mode. The popes make cardinals, and cardinals make the Pope ! " It is now affirmed, that the intrigues of papal elections incom- parably surpass the intrigues of any court on earth. The politics of France, of Italy, of Austria, are so incorporated with the schemes of the cardinals, or so bias or bribe them, that on the elec- tion of a pope it is usually said, "Austria has succeeded," or " Spain," or " France has prevailed this time." In one word, the papal chair is the most corrupt and corrupting institution that ever stood on earth ! The Eoman Caesars, or the Egyptian Dy- nasties, were pure and uncorrupt, compared with this mammoth scheme of iniquity" ! And, as a shield to ourselves against the imputation of a sacrifice of Christian courtesy and charity to Pro- testant 'malice afore-thought,' we shall take the liberty to submit the following testimonials from Komanists themselves, in the next section, regarding the moral character of many of the consecutive links. * Barronius Ann. 112, 8, and Sect. 141, 1. 297 •■^' SECTION rv. The subject continued — Eighth : Fallacy of the above dogma, as drawn from the moral character of the Popedom. — Barronius, Mich, de Chemaugis, Prideaux, Dr. Whitby, the Emperor Maximilian, etc. — Ninth : Romish concessions of breaks in this alleged chain. — Barronius, Bishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio. — Terrific pre- latical dilemma. — The attempt to escape from, by Protestant prelatists, under the plea that they are not dependent on Rome for their succession. — Subsequent notice of. — Bishop Purcell's mode of escape. — Fallacy of. — Tenth : Evident absurdity of the above dogma — Makes the uninspired Linus the primate over the inspired apos- tle John. — Eleventh : Closing argument. — Palpable defects of the best authenti- cated lists of the alleged succession. — The prelatical hypothesis of, absolutely ex- cludes the idea of an intervening break, as to time, in perpetuating the chain. The Romish biographer Plautina on — Bishop Purcell — The " Register" reliable, only in proportion to the uniformity and agreement of the chroniclers. We pass now to consider, Eighth : The vioral character oj many of the poniificat links in this alleged unbroken apostolical chaiyi, as further demonstrative of its fallacy. The chain itself, we remark, following the Romish Genealogical *' Register," and counting from Peter to the present reigning pope, Pius IX., is formed of two hundred and fifty-six links. We will begin with Laurentius. In the struggle to sustain his election against his rival Symmachus by the Emperor Theodoric, A.D. 498, Barronius says that " murders, robberies, and numberless evils were perpetrated at Ronie," so that "there was a risk of their destroying the whole city."'^ So of Vigilius, the rival of Sylva- nius, A.D. 540. Barronius says of him, that he was " implicated in so many crimes," that all virtuous men opposed him. Yet he was made pope.f Pope Stephen VI., A.D. 885, in the exercise of his infallibility, not only rescinded the acts and decrees of his pre- decessor Formosus ; but, collecting a council of cardinals and bishops as bad as himself, he actually had the old pope taken out of his grave, brought into court, where he was tried and con- demned ; after which, he cut off three of his fingers, and then plunged his remains into the Tiber ! Barronius says of him, that ' he was so wicked, that he would not have dared to enroll him in the list of the popes, were it not that antiquity gives his name " ! :{: At the opening of the ninth century, the popes were generally men of corrupt minds and profligate lives, obtaining the pontificate by the perpetration of the most shameful crimes, par- ticularly that of bartering it for gold. Barronius, speaking of this * Barronius Ann., Vol. VI., p. .562. t Ih. Vol. VIL, p. 420. X Barronius Ann. Plautina's Life of Stephen VL 298 period in his Life of Pope Stephen VII., a.d. 900, says, " the case is such, that scarce any one can believe it, unless he sees it with his own eyes, and handles it with his hands, namely, what unworthy, vile, unsightly, yea, execrable and hateful things the sacred apostolic See, on ivhose hinge the universal a'poslolic Church turns, [ ! ! ! ] has been compelled to see," etc. Speaking of the death of Pope Ste- phen VII., he writes, " Thus perished this villainous man, who entered the shcepfold as a thief and a robber, and who in the retri- bution of God, ended his days by the infamous death of the hal- ter^* Another writer, Genbrard, under the year 90-1, says, "for nearly one hundred and fifty years, about fifty popes deserted wholly the virtues of their predecessors, being apostate rather than apostolic !" Again. Barronius, under the year 912, says, " What is then the face of the holy Roman Church ? How exceedingly foul is it ! When most potent, sordid and a,bandoned women {meretrices) ruled at Rome : at whose will the Sees were changed ; bishops were presented ; and, what is horrid to hear, and unutterable, FALSE PONTIFFS, the paramours of these women, were intruded into the chair of St. Peter," etc. He adds, "For who can affirm that men illegally intruded by bad women [scoriis) were Roman Pon- tiff's !" Again. " The canons," he says, " were closed in silence ; the decrees of pontiffs were suppressed ; the ancient traditions were proscribed ; and the sacred ceremonies and usages were wholly ex- tinct." f The same writer records the election, a.d. 1034, of Bene- dict IX., at the age of twelve years ! which, he says, was accom- plished by gold, and he calls it, ("horrendum ac detestabile visce") horrible and detestable to behold ; and yet, he adds, that " the whole Christian world acknowledged Benedict, without contro- versy, to be a pope !" Finally, under the year 1004, he names three rival popes, whom, on account of their enormous crimes, he denominates " Cerberus, the three-headed beast which had issued from the gates of hell !" But Barronius is not alone in bearing testimony to the abomina- tions of the Papal See. In his book of Simoniacal prelates, cap, 1. Nich. de Clemaugis, archdeacon of the Church of Rome in the fifteenth century, says, "The Church is now become a shop of merchandise, or rather of robbery and rapine, in which all the sacraments are exposed for sale And therefore you see such men admitted to the priesthood and other holy orders, who are idiots, unlearned, and scarce able to read, etc. ; and Avho, when they read, pray, or sing, know not whether they bless God or blaspheme him ;" and who are " unquiet, gluttons, drunkards, praters, vagabonds, lustful, bred in luxury, and, in one word, idle and ignorant." * " Ita quidem possus facinorus homo quique ut fur et latro ingressus est ovlle ovium, laqueo vitam adeo infami excitu vindice Deo clausit." (Barronius, Vol. X.. p. 744.) t Barronius Ann. a.d. 912, and Brownlee's Letters on the Roman Catholic Contro- versy, pp. 36, 37. 39. 299 In his book also on the con'ujit state of the Churchy Cap. 3, he sajs, " That she was defiled with the sink of all vices, and might well be called the church of malignants ; that the saying of the pro- phet was now verified, that from the least of them to the greatest, EVERY OXE was given to covetousness ;" and " from the prophet to the priest, every one dealt falsely Who," he demands, " preaches or declares the Gospel ? Who, either by word or deed shows the way to eternal life ?" Further. Pope Marcellinus sacrificed to Idols.^ The Popes Liberius and Leo were Arians, and Pope Honorius adopted the heresy of Sergius. Pope Hildebrand also published heretical de- crees which were burnt by a synod held at Pome. Pope Sylvester II. was raised to the pontificate by necromancy. And, against Pope Eugenius, the Council of Basil pronounced the following sentence of de^DOsition, viz. : " We condemn and depose Pope Eugenius, a despiser of the holy canons, a disturber of the peace and unity of the Church of God ; a notorious offender of the whole universal Church ; a simonianist ; a forsworn man {per- jurum) ; a man incorrigible ; a schismatike ; a man fallen from the faith, and a wilful heretike."f It were, however, an almost endless task to recite the variety of forms and the depth of moral pollution, either of the pontiffs or of the Church of Pome. Ambition, covetousness, sacrilege, incest, simony, drunkenness, adultery, heresy, sorcery, murder, and every species of abomination, from the middle of the third down to the opening of the sixteenth century, for the most part, in one form or other, everj^where prevailed. Prideaux,+ in his " Introduction for reading histories, numbers amongst the popes, thirty-eight usurping Nimrods, forty luxurious Sodomites, forty Egyptian magicians, forty-one devouring Abaddons, twenty incurable Baby- lonians," etc. Glaber, the monk, as quoted by Dr. Whitby, speaking of the eleventh century, says, "That all ecclesiastical degrees, even from the popedom to the door-keepers, were op- pressed with damnable simony, and that this spiritual robberj obtained in all places." There is lying before us similar testimony- regarding the character of centuries twelve, thirteen and fourteen. The Emperor Maximilian, a. D. 1510, was wont to say, "0 Eternal God, if thou shouldst not watch over us, how ill would it go with the world which we govern ! I, a miserable hunter, and that drunkard and wicked (Pope) Julius."§ Now, from the aspect which this exhibit of the popedom, in a moral point of view, has on the question of an alleged unbroken apostolicity (and against which we beg the reader to contrast our scriptural portrait of the characteristics essential to the Christian ministry — Part II. pp. 102-105, — viz., a changed heart, a holy life, * Howel's Pontificate, p. 43. t Jewel's Def. of the Apol Part VI., p. 536. Ed., 1609. j The supposed learned Bisnop of Worcester. I Prideaux's Introduction, p. 143. 300 a divine call, suito.ble intellectual qualifications, soundness in doc- trine, freedom from indulgence in a spirit of self adulation, of jealousy, and of a love of the pre-eminence), let it be taken in connection with the sixth and seventh arguments, the numerous schisms in the popedom, and the want of uniformity in the mode of their election, and these with yet another, Ninth : Romish concessions of breaks in this alleged unbroken chain. Bar- ronius tells us that " false pontiffs were intruded into the chair of St. Peter by sordid and abandoned women ;" and he indignantly demands, '' who can affirm that men illegally intruded by bad women (scortis) were Boman pontiffs T^ But we can bring this matter nearer home than this concession of Barronius. The Romish Bishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio, in his debate with the Eev. Mr. Campbell, in 1837, stated in the most explicit terms, that ^Hhere were vacancies^ breaks in the chainl'' !* Here, then, on the prelatical hypothesis, the only channel of communicating the "grace, in the collation of holy orders," (Bishop Jeremy Taylor) — that of uninterrupted manual imposi- tion, is cut off! Episcopacy, Romish, Tractarian, and High and Low Church, made to depend upon the seminal transmission of apostolic functions by " the laying on of hands ;" the vital spark of each preceding link, by a direct act of its own, alleged to have been transmitted to others through a trij[>le agency, as indispen- sable TO PERPETUATE ITS EXISTENCE IN ANOTHER " Cach having seed in itself, after its kind," and hence, " preserved as inviolate as the succession of seedtime and harvest," or "as the line of the descent of Adam," and yet that existence continued, though the seed itself be destroyed — the only communicating medium of its transmission being CUT OFF. Of course, no one, hereafter, will venture to deny., that Episco- pacy is supported bv MIRACLE. The pretense of Protestant prelatists, (in order to escape this sequence,) that they are not dependent on the Romish line for their succession, will receive due notice in its proper place. Bishop Purcell, however, like an old experienced casuist, armed cajp-a-pie for every emergency, offers the following, as an escape from this dilemma. He says : " The lapse of a few years, before binding together the links of the apostolical succession, does not affect the great principle" of that succession. " We are," he adds, " no believers in metempsychosis, or that, like the supposed di- vinity of the Lama of Thibet, the soul of a deceased pope goes by a hop, skip and jump, right off, into his successor. We will wait six months or six years, to find a good pope. If the pope were a poor v/anderer in the mountains of the moon, it would not destroy * Debate, etc., p. 144. 301 his authority, thongli the See of St. Peter should be vacant for seventy years ;''^^ but, as it happens, the question is not, how the soul of a dead pope is transferred to another, but how the grace^ under the circumstance of " hreahs in tlie chains can be emploj'^ed in the forging and welding together of a new link ? Certainly, in this case, the only channel of communicating the functions apos- tolic, that of manual imposition, like the extinguished fluid of a demolished Leyden jar, is cut off; a consideration, we submit, of itself^ decisive of the fallacy of the whole dogma in question. Take, however, yet another argument, demonstrative of the im- possibility of the alleged unbroken succession. It is drawn, Tenth: From tJie evident absurdity which it involves. To illustrate this point : "If Linus," for example, was " the successor of Peter in the supremacy," he having, according to the chronology of the martyrdom of that apostle, succeeded him a.d. 64, it follows, that he must have become, by virtue of his primacy, su])erior to the apostle John; a man of the generation following the apostles GREATER THAN AN APOSTLE HIMSELF, yca, GEEATER THAN JOHN, THE MOST VENERABLE AND BELOVED OF ALL THE APOSTLES ; and that too, even when the Savior was grant- ing to him visions of heavenly glory — was sending by him Epis- tles to the Seven Churches in Asia — was completing, by him, the canon of inspiration — was pouring, through him, the light of pro- phetic sj^mbols which were to illustrate the whole future history of the Church and the world. Linus, greater than John, and that, at the very time when all the glory of the apostolate is gathered into one luminary, from whose ample orb the softened evening radiance is streaming over the face of nature, while on every eminence the prophetic watchfires are enkindling in its beams, which, after it shall have descended below the horizon, are to burn and illumine through all generations. f Our final argument, demonstrative of the fallacy of this dogma, is derived. Eleventh : From the tabular genealogical register of the Romish line of succession. In entering on this subject, we must beg the indulgence of the reader for our frequent intrusion upon his notice of that point, fun- damental, as we have said, to the prelatical theory of an unbroken apostolical succession, namely, the transmission, direct, of the ♦ Debate, etc., pp. 144, 146, 154. t See Stratten's Scriptural Argument, pp. 99, 100. 302 grace, office, functions, apostolic, " hy the hands of the apostlea^"* etc. Now, it is obvious, that this hypothesis, in the first place, ahao- lutely exclndi's the idea of an intervening space^ as to time^ in the uniting the consecutive links. For example : Take the liomish line. It is essential to its validity, that the hands of Peter, etc., as the first alleged pontiff, be employed in the forging and welding of the link next following. In him alone., (however others might have assisted at the anvil in blending the second link to the chain,) in him alone presided the element, the fire, that conld fuse, and thus prepare it for and unite it to that chain. Accordingly, that standard Romish biographer of the popes, Plautina, affirms, " that just before Peter's martyrdom, he appointed Clement to he hishop ofRome^'' the which, if this l3e so, it must be admitted that the chain said to be " fastened to the throne of God," was rightly started. Then, as to its continuance. The same Bishop Purcell, who, as we have seen, declares that " there were vacancies^ breaks^ in the chain," holds also the following language: Speaking of the suc- cession, he says, " it has been faithfully noticed, and regularly perpetuated in an unbroken chain of pontiffs down to the present chief pastor, (Pius IX.), auspiciously presiding over all the Church" I* These, then, are the points now at issue. First. " It has heen faithfully noticed.'''' That is, we suppose we are to understand, the "register," or catalogue, exhibits the suc- cession complete and perfect, for example, like that of the descent of Christ from Adam, etc. SECTION V. The records of early antiquity. — Our Canon on. — Eusebius. — His testimony defective. — The reader admonished. — Endless confusion of the chronicles of the first links. — 1st, Peter. — Flaccius Illyricus, Zanchius, Archbishop Cranmer, Dr Cave. — Peter's successor.— Variations in the Roman Pontifical Index.— Plautina, Tertullian, Rufinas. Epiphaneous, contradicted by Irenaius, Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine.— While Bishop Pearson, and Dr. Comber differ from them.— Cabussate, Prideaux, Howell, etc.— Papal authorities, etc.— Eight specimens of the first five links, culled from Eusebius and others.— Challenge to Prelatists to harmonize any two of them. But, indispensable to the validity of such an alleged " Register," is uniformity, or agreement, among the chroniclers of each succes- sive link added to the chain in the several articles of the persons by whom, and the circumstances of time, place, and occasion, etc., concerned therein, both ancient and modern. Let us then com- meuce our examinations, ♦ Roman Catholic Debate, p. 108. 308 I. Of the records of earhj antiquity. We now speak of the age immediatelj following that of the apostles. Of course, the testi- mony relating to this early period is exclusively traditionary. Our canon on this point (and tor the reasonableness of which we appeal to the decision of the candid reader) is, that our confidence in an alleged fact diminishes, just in proportion to the remoteness of the witnesses from the point of time when the event spoken of transpired. Now, in regard to the alleged unbroken apostolical succession, we have proved the positive existence of a chasm of about 200 years^ during which period there is a total absence of any testi- mony on which we can rely. Eusebius, the earliest ecclesiastical chronicler of these times, was compelled, as we have seen, to draw his information from what we have shown to be the exceedingly equivocal testimony of Clement of Eome, Papias, Dionysius of Corinth, Caius the presbyter, and Iren^eus.* Ilis ecclesiastical his- tory was penned about a. d. 320, under all the advantages which the greatest familiarity with these earliest fathers could afford ; and the Episcopal government having at that time obtained a firm footing in "the Church," the specific design of his work was, as he tells us, " to rescue from oblivion the SUCCESSIONS,"! in the Sees of Bome^ Jerusalem^ Antioch and Alexandria. We have only, however, to refer to his own testimony of the character of the sources whence he drew his information, as evidence of the palpable uncertainty with which he was trammeled in the very outset of his undertaking. In Book I., chap. 1, of his history, he says : " Acknowledging that it is beyond my power to present the work perfect and unex- ceptionable, I freely confess . it will crave indulgence, especially since, as the^rs^ of those that have entered upon the subject, we are attempting a kind of trackless and unbeaten path." And he confesses : " We are totally unable to find even the bare vestiges of those who may have traveled the way before us, unless, per- haps, what is only presented in the slight intimations which some" (viz., the earliest fathers above named) " in difierent ways have transmitted to us in partial narratives of the times in which they lived, etc.ij: The " bare vestiges," " slight intimations," "partial narratives," etc., of those early times, then, and which Eusebius denominates " torches at a distance," were the only lights aftbrded him, in his endeavor "to rescue from oblivion the successions" apostolical; an " unbroken descent," extracted from a traditionary^ " trackless and unbeaten path ;" a continuous chain, the first link of which, " fastened to the throne of God," reaches down to the present day with as much certainty as the scripturally recorded descent of * See pp. 288-292. t Eusebiuss Ecclesiastical History, B. I., c. 1, p. 14. Cruise's Edition. 1833. Philadelphia. X Eusebius, etc., p. 14. 804 Christ from Adam, but wliich Eusebius, upon whose genealogical register all prclatists are dependent in starting it, declared it to be " beyond kis power to present perfect and unexceptionable." May we not then be pardoned, if we entreat that those who, in these " last days," the " perilous times" of the Church of Christ, ^' say they are apostles,'''' and who allege it in behalf of those whom they claim to have preceded them in unbroken continuity "from ihe apostles's times," will pause. . . . While, in uddition to what has been ah'eady offered as demonstrative of the fallacy of their dogma, we pass to an exhibit of the confusion, endless, of the chroniclers of the first links. We shall begin with 1. " St. Peter r First then. In addition to the evidence already furnished that this apostle never was at Rome,* while Flaccius niyricusf and Zanchius:]; express strong doubts of his ever hav- ing seen that city, Archbishop Cranmer says, " It is not even certain that Peter was ever at Rome."§ And, to the same effect speaks the learned Dr. Cave. " There is," says he, " a npcorov tpevdog in this case lying at the bottom, it being generally taken for granted that Peter was in a proper sense Bishop of Pome, which yet I believe can never he made good^X But admitting, for the sake of argument, that Peter was the first bishop of Pome, we ask, 2. Who was his successor t This, we affirm, never has been and never can be, determined. The variations in the Romanorum Pontificum Pndex, as constructed by diflierent hands from the same sources on which Eusebius himself relied, furnish a clear illus- tration of the Babel-tongued tradition of these early times. Take, for example, Plautina. lie makes Clement the first bishop after Peter, by his own ajDpointment. And yet, this same writer assigns twenty-three years to the presidency of Linus and Cletus between that of Peter and Clement. How, then, could Peter have made Clement his immediate successor? Again: "Most of the Latin authors," viz., TertuUian, Rufinus and Epiphaneus, according to Jerome, "supposed the order to be, Clement^ the successor of Peter." But Irentcus, Eusebius, Jerome and Augustine, contradict these writers, and affirm that Linus succeeded Peter ; Avhile Bishop Pearson has proved that Linus died before Peter. Dr. Comber says : " The like blunder there is about the next pope. The fabu- lous Pontifical makes Cletas succeed Linus, and gives us several lines of Cletus and Anacletus, making them of several nations, and to have been popes at different times, putting Clement between them;" while he quotes Bishop Pearson as proving that "these were only two names of the same person ; and every one," he adds, * See pp. 289-292. t Catalogue, Testament Version I , pp. 484, 485. Ed. Sec. (See Powell, p. 107.) X Zanch. de F.ccles., c. 9. (Powell, p. 107.) \ Burnet's History of the Reformation, B. II y Cave's Goverament of the Ancient Church, pp. 9, 10. 805 " may see the folly of the Eomish Church which venerates two saints on two several days, one of which never had a real being ; for Cletus is but the abbreviation of ^wacletus's name."* Finally, on this subject, the Papists, and Protestant prelatists generally, make Clement thefowih in the line of succession from Peter. But, it were a needless task to pursue this subject further, Cabussate says, " the whole question," that is, of the succession, "is very doubtful." Prideaux affirms that " no certainty is to be had" on this subject. The learned Howell, who, with Prideaux, was a thorough Churchman, says : " It is evident how very doubt- ful and uncertain is the personal succession of the Eoman Bishop." Dr. Comber concludes this point by remarking, that the stupidity and fable here are " a sufficient proof there is neither tnith nor certainty in the pretended personal succession of the first Popes."f And Plautina acknowledges that the authorities on the subject in several of the following centuries, were full of confusion. And he complains, saj^s Prideaux, that they who were appointed Pro- tonotaries to register the passages in the Church, were in his time become so ilhterate, that some of them could scarce v/rite their own names in Latin.:}: The authorities from which are principally compiled the various catalogues of the Roman Pontiffs are, the early fathers, as above — Eusebius — Plautina's Lives of the Popes — Graveson's History of Ecclesiastics, 12 volumes, folio, Antwerp, 1610-1629 — Mura- tori, Annali d'ltalia, 12 volumes, folio, Genoa, 1773-1778 — Lives of the Popes, by C. W. F. Walch, D.D., Div. Profess. Gottingen, 8vo., London, 1750 — Bowers's Lives of the Poj^es, 2 volumes, 4to., London — Sketches of the Lives of the Popes, from Gavin's " Master-Key to Popery," 1820 — etc. Proceed we now to verify the fallacy of the alleged unbroken Romish chain, first, by an exhibit of eight specimens of the first five links, as culled from the early fathers by Eusebius and others, DOth ancient and modern. 1st. 2d. 3d. 1. Linus, 1. Peter, 1. Linus, 2. Anacletus, 2. Linus, 2. Anacletus, 3. Clement, 3. Cletus, 3. Clement, 4. Euarestes, 4. Clement, 4. Sixtus, 5. Alexander. 6. Anacletus. 5. Alexander. ♦ Dr. Comber, On Roman Forgeries in Councils. Part I., c. 1. t Powell on the Apostolical Succession, pp. 108, 109. t lb. p. 109. 20 4ih. 1. Peter, 2. Anacletus, 3. Clement, 4. Alexander, 5. Evaristus. 806 5th. 1. Linus, 2. Clement, 3. Anacletus, 4. Evaristus, 5. Alexander I. 7tli. 1. Peter. 2. Linus, 3. Cletus, 4. Evaristus, 5. Alexander, 6th. 1. Peter, 2. Clement, 3. Linus, 4. Cletus, 5. Alexander. 8th. Peter, Linus, Cletus or Anacletus, Clement, Euaristus, Now, Of these eight lists, the reader is desired to compare only the three following, namely, the 1st, which is taken from Eusebius ; the 5th, from an anonymous writer ; and the 7th, from the pen of the Rev. Wm. "Watson, former Rector of St. Peter's Church, Ply- mouth, Conn., 1841 ; with the confident tone of the advocates of prelacy in the affirmations of the ease with which they can demon- strate, with moral certainty, their " spiritual descent from the apostles." We hereby challenge the entire world of Prelatists, Romish, Tractarian, or High or Low Church, to harmonize any two of them. Let them go to work. Perhaps the ex-cathedra announcement of the Rev. Dr. Hook, of Leeds — " Any bishop, priest, or deacon can, if he please," may induce some champion to take the field. And, when he has authenticated tJie first five links of the golden chain, we will assign to him the farther task of harmonizing the following lists of that line, commencing with the sixth link, down to his Immaculate Holiness Pius IX., of 1852. SECTION- VI. Pive catalogues of the Popes of Rome. — Eusebius, Chapin, Watson, Anonymous, aud Gavin. — The prelatical theory of succession excludes any break in the chain. — Re- view of the above catalogues. — Variations both in names and the number of — Disa- greement between Chapin and Canon II. — His omission to notice the schisms in. — Ornits Pope Joan (a woman), the lOoth in Gavin's list. — Failure of the "Re- cord" at the very point where all should be explicit and complete — Illustrated. — First recorded instance of a consecration by three bishops, a.d. 585. m ^ HISTORICAL REMARKS i 3 n 1 C3 o W) Instituted 5bZy Water. Instituted Lineii Surplice. Instituted Lent. Instituted Sponsors. Denied Baptism to Jews. Martyred. A Campanian. Sent Embassador to Britain. Lover of Prelatical Power. Superstitious. Instituted three Yearly Fasts. Instituted Church Endowment. Died in banishment. Martyred. f ^ o 1-3 Eh p CNi— t(M-^COCCr-l^ OOOt^^COT-HOii-OOiGOiOO-^ 1 1— 1 1— 1 1— 1 r— 1 -I— 1 1 •n:iay£) a OOCOOt^T-lt-OOt-CNT— lOi'+lT— |(X) Ot— IC0C0rh(»0«0J:^CaOr-l(MC0C0 T-(i— It— I^HtHt— lrHTHi-HC0'^ rH,— li— ItHt— It-ItHtHCt— CX)aJOT-i(MOO-tiiOI;— OOCR) 308 &5 -^ ^ ^ p .^ ^ cs t) ^ ^ § 1— ( H s 12; fe a Co Q ?S G ^ C^5 y> 0 e h-1 ^ 7-( rH ,— 1 •iWAYf) 00 »0 10 >0 0 10 b- t^ 00 Ci (>? CM CM CM CM C<1 -rf iOiO>-OiO>OK:i':Ot-OOOi 0 CMG<1C<1(M(M(M(MCMClOCOCO GO lOkO>O>O>O>O':Dt^Q00i 0 CNC^G^G;(MOt-01CiiOC0 CO >0 lO lO 10 0 >0 d '-I ^ I M O ^ f-i SO pq<1 o O S O) '^ u O O a _ o CO PI p^ f^ 03 » ~oo T-H "^j P3 t/j f> s ^ ci; rn N i-J O p o tsjweq lOi rH Tfl CD CD !o 1—1 1—1 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 00 CO »o 00 c ""^ "^H "^^ "^i ''^1 CO cq 00 05 00 TtH CO CO Oi i-H C CD CO Tt^ "^ "^ "^ "^ CM CO 00 TtH CO CO O O lO (M O T-H t- CO CO -tH CO CD OO -tH -H -iH -* -* G<1 CD 00 OS -tH -tH CO CO T-H ^ c3 ,-^ , '^ _, I — I o f:; rQ CO -rt o Ph cti d •5b •r-t o ^ d O ta d d •43 o W 'M a -73 'T5 a> O ;-, O) -d 03 '-^^. d o d M is ft t ^ o r O) f-l Hi d s d o CO p. CO Q d CO 00 O t- -t^ l-H ^ a [^ • 7:5 .rt r-4 8 3 =^rd ^ -^ -S ^H 2 w S ® ^. fH j3 .d -d d^ d ^ d^ o a> e b£) Old t<| CO (D |i4 1^ •r-llOt~Oi-(T-(G^lOlOOiOO I It— i(?q I 10 rH CD CO G<1 1 CO 0 1 1 T-\ (M 00 It-IiO-^OOtHCOCOtH lt--CO000 1 1 T-H 1 0 G d d r-i ,0S ii;_h^_fq p;__Oj^_pq_pq_ft WWM^^eSw^> ?-i d 2 O "S d'^ (D c3 O - 0=^ to ^ d i=i s =^ d d .3 "^ CD r-< 0 ^ boi^ CD c* d.t^^ CD CO 10 01 CO t~ O CO CO 10 i-O t- t^ Oi 10 ^ O O 10 lO 10 CO O CD rH 10 00 O CO 10 >0 CD t^ t^ Oi 10 10 O UO O O kO Augustine, A.D. 597. CO CO 10 «:> C0OiC>O-*00O^C000>Ot3i>OOOCNOCOCOCDCOCOCDCOCOCDCDCDcDCOCOCOCOCO \> > ^ M ^ i_i b — S ._ ^^ iri O P CO .c3 .;i dC §0*co ^SSdddddr;;rj(D \F'P 'o ^ pHH^pQC^OcOPQPQQpqac^^^&HSWK--£^t-^-00 > 0 0 Si ^ ^ H <\ '? 0 a ^ S ^ O o p^ •XLTAYD •KIJYHO OS •^ _. o Em O O M C ^ !-< (-( ^ O <1^ ^ Ph rf d rt o . C/2 Oi .<; ~; _• o ■s-i d.^^ S.og^_^jO r^ g_ ^ faO g '1' s s k> « r^ 4*1 'TJ 'Ti CO Oh M J3 1^ Tj}^\>- CO aq Ph fin Q O Ph 0-1 O ^ 2 cop 0 i 1 1 1 I^S^^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ^ 0 1 T-H 00 CO t- r-i 1 T-H 1 1 OS 1 CO 1-1 r-l 0 0 1 CO >^ 1 rH 1 -^JH ^ CO 1 1 rH ICOt-OOOOiOCOi-H ; 1 tH r-l i-H fM G . 2 >- mm' ' ^ O CO H^ h-j ry2 OOQIS] m ;^ M d 2 =^ S rd.2 d OC0t^TH>0 M d d •- rH .H d hn d d -^ t> t>t> >^ !>^ !>,d d ^. Jh f;H fH O ocot^ooaiOT— ict>ocoj>-oo (X)000000000000C55OiOiO5O5<^OiOSO5 313 p P o Org !r^ CO ^.S S^ >> >^ o -j-i rO rcJ 0) 1=1 n rt3 0 (M i>.CO iQOCOt- ICOOiiOOi— I ICOO ICOCO ICO lO ^ir- |^t-TtlT:tH0000-*C<)TiH>OT-Ht~ C<) > 02 ^_d.d d c3 M > <■ ^ r— 1 .^ I— I _ ^ ^ +^ d -tJ 3 o d CD .2 "ka 2 "^ > ^So^o^'^J g^ gd §^ t^^ t ^t-lOOOl-^CMCM-^lOrHCDOO T-IC- c3 d rt © C; o 2^ d _o b rJQ ^5 CQ S Sh O OJ ■r-i »-l ^ d ,^ S d fc X! M P d 9 d "' ^ 2 ^ d o M 2 fl >-> l-H != d J O^S_§ -3 Q r/j 0 CO t^ O) Ol O 1— I (M CO -H >0 ,— IrHi— Ir-li— li— li-Hi-HrH(M01Cocoo5coco Plcococo-H'+tiococot^t-t-ooooasOiOO J |OiOiOiCbcbo:)OiOiOiOiOiOi050iOiOO John XL . . . Leo VIL . . . Stephen IX. . . Martin III. . . . Agapetus II. . JolmXIL . . Benedict V. John XIILf . Benedict VI. . Domnus II. . . Benedict Vll.f John XlV.f . John XV. . . Gregory V.f . Sylvester Il.f . John XVII. . JohnXVIIL . d COr^OOOiO'-HtMCO'+liOCOt-OOOsOT-^C^ C1 o OQ w O Ph Ph '-d Ph t> o ' a SH^ O iD c3 p3 rfi O O PI • o '^ CD ^^a^O^EH^W I 1 o o tH 1—1 1 1 1 Oi OS 1 1 1 CO tT) 1 C<1 o 1 1 1 1 1 rNI 1 CM > 03 .i:^ i c , . „ o „ r: t^ o iJ CO Ph ^ gPM > 'm -So S b =5 2 .a "^ a ot5 ' (—1 '^^ pi O I T3 '^ I— I 7^ >^ .S 3 "-^ '-' ri4 Pi o <^ a ^Pi o 53 , . , . _ OS (M -* -* tH CO QOai^t^CO(MCOCDt^OiGOOi^O O 1—1 C<1 CO ^ ^ rfl'+liO^O'XJt-OOOOasi— li— ICMCO oo o o o o OOOOOOOOOOt-It-It-Ii-I T— 1 1—1 rH 1—1 rH rH 1— li— IrHrHi— It— iT-HrHrHi— It— li— It— It— 1 I— I PI O bo S ^ 2 <^^ CO e? o CO eg p kJ > r/} :z; ■ ^ -H t^ 00 05 O t— I G<1 CO "^10 10^0 0 »0 lO lO to Oi o lo CO (:o CD 316 ?> s '■w !^ p 8 w e Id 5 •2 H « ^ 5~ O O c3 ^ d5 CO o 5~ ^ t25 tH '^ < r^ o « s" g :l r/l '^ 0) 5 ->1 «« CQ « ^' d o o H 02 a pc3 o fe g ^ o S •JsEIAYO 'NIJVHO O o ■xi I e3 M o >^ fl a ?-< ^-^ r^ Ti rt p o m 'o O O M M B CO O o o M d CD r/5 73 t-i ->j ^ Ti a rt T^ ^ fn 01 ^ ^ w C/3 tia • S o C5 r-l 'Ti Is ■TJ O CD T? Cl> t^ +?^ ^ ^ r- o h I I '^ I I I I I g' o n o si IP O (M t— lO T-H "* G<1 O i-H Cq CS rH lO '^O -* 00 T-M lO G<1 -^ TjH ;:o b- est. 00 -hi O CO GO 00 Oi i-H (M CO '^ O O O 1— I T-H 1— I 1— I >0 CO ^ OS T— I »o '^ ^ >0 O lO CO 00 oo O rt c3 CD o CD fl on ^ s d ^ ^ d 'en d tj I— I CD O EiqOCO'*Oii-Hi-Ot^O0i— lOSCDt^ ^'*'+I>O>0>O0000CX)00c32C35t-I 2 -^ t-H ^ d ^t^ o o Oo 2 b !^ !=> o go o +^ > d o X d 03 2<^ X ICO -H O O y I '£> CO CO o -+I iO 00 05 817 o O « << ■ kJ hfl 'P a o :5 1= a o <^ Ti TS a> a; o CQ ^ri3 CD Q rr-J H i-SJ CO K GO c-t I— I ^ 9 O ir; ^ -i-a -i-J -i-a ^ ■> o CO M 0) TS Si rj c! 2 M P-i rt ■^ o t> CD r^ CD 9 . > 0 00 t- 00 ^-i ^ 1— ( t- CO -<*l ^ CO-^CM'* ICi|(X)00CiOO'00i:^TH COCOt^T-H |COO^OO)Ttl llOCOCOCOt- THCjqc^JCM CMCNC^G^CM T-H lO t^ CM (X) 00 GO Ci CM CM c^ cq COCOO^COCOIr-l:^00 CO CO CO CO CO CO c^:) CO CO CO I— I ?N fcb 3 o !;< CD J=; cj QJ 1—1 ^ ^^ t> kJ > M — -I ^^>^ c«^^^ g O O crS d O .5 -S J 2 ^ ^ .2 ^ 2 <^ 0.2' 02 ^ ■7\ <0 d d O (D > -t-3 -t-ocoooT-1 CM G^l O CO o o 318 Tf) 1-1 w 1^ « >-:) m M 'fl r1 « o o o H OJ fcC w-H O fn 03 t^ O g h5 •KTAVf) 'KUVHO d CI O a o o CO .9^1 .>; a . P Pi CO e3 ^ (73 Ol OJ m 09 w •5 ^ wpq 15 ^ « I •s § CO o 03.2 MM Is s a <1J S Q;> -rH CO o 0) g PI W o cs W 3 -^^ -^ t> X '^3 t3 'T3 ^ •^ -0 co-^<:ooococoi>'coco O Oi .|CO''-Das l-^T— It^'X'OO^i— l-^CMCO |CO(M POOO ■i-ICO'*iO>0t^CX)OsO i-(-OG0'f'-l-0l0 C0'^0l0':0t^000500i-H(>;(MCO>0 1010 1— ItHt— It— li— (itHtHi— li— li— It— trHrHi— (rHi— It— ( t> •^ t> « .„^ 2 ?^ ?. .!_; CO "^ +o !» .in; > DhCU CO ,.q <1 (£1 1^ vJq <1 o :^>-' -c5 _q ;:^ --2 ^ O l-^OOOSOi-ICMCOTHOCOt^OO OOOT-lr^T—;i— (i— It— It— It— IrH (M(M(MCM(M(N(M(M(M CO CO U O CO +^ Qj O 9.2 lo^^^ O) c3 I I '^ i I I ' o f-l Ph'S ^ fco ^ a sh o aTi o a. CO -r^ -K 0-1 Oh a fin 8 ^ fl +J « CO c ap «« > ;=! c3 O) 03 ?^ «-, Q? be c3 c3 -, cS d 3 a> o tn 2 PL, Ph d^ P^ O O r.d O O r3 O O ^ > _ _ fLj E£] [v^ ClJ E^ S^^rf} I— • ^_, ).'p s rt S'8 |>^>-* ^M to b£) ^ ^ b£i o ci .2 g.^-S £ a § 9 a s bJ3 ^ O t^Oc/^tDO^OPf^HOH^^ 0) hH r^ -TS +i -1-2 s pH rt a a J I— I ^T I— I » S ^ F^ CD OiOOlOOOr- iCMOiOT— ICO'*»Ot^O- • • 1— 1 1— 1 1— 1 >— 1 !>■ ►— 1 >< 1— 1 >— 1 1— 1 • • • • X* 1—1 > »— I y~. hH 'A 1— H 1— 1 (— 1 <11 -+7 1— 1 hH hH hH hH hH hH hH -J- hH hH hH XIII. . XIV. . 1— 1 > >> > ^ =« c: o id o o >^ o a -(-3 n c3 +2 c3 cp G.2 1:5 "S ►-^ G G K;^ CD D P* m m to fcO o a ^^-^ boS n X a ?3 o X o d O OJ H 0* a a OO 3 'd!, 9 0) a ?1 O ^ O) r^ 1— t o6 tD ^ 1— 1 O G hH PQOPCOOPL, -^ »o •^ j^ r o — , ,_ Ol CO -+i lO c:d 1— rf: '^l , — * T— t Tl or. -f lO . K 'ts p g w « p ^ P •J o P \^ ^ o o to ! <1 § o ^ s Jl HISTORICAL REMARKS (Referring to Gavin's List of the Popes). Jansenists persecuted. Learned and liberal. Opposes the Jansenists. Friend of the Jesuits. Probably poisoned by the Ex-Jesuits. Died a prisoner to Bonaparte. Crowned Bonaparte Emperor of the French, Dec. 2, 1804 ; by whom he was deprived of all his territories in 1808, and made pris- oner in 1811. LENGTH OF TERM. P 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ^'r 1 1 1 M 1 kJ 1 O Gvl 00 rH CO i,-- CO •KIAYO . O O C/D Ol lO Oi T— 1 p CO -+I lo xi t- CD 1-1 • 1^ 1:^ 1^ t^ 1^ t^ CO ' t—ItHi— It— li— It—It-I Benedict XIII. Clement XII. . Benedict XIV. Clement XIII. . Clement XIV. . Pius VI. . . . PiasVIL* . . Leo XII. . . PiusVIIL . . Gregory XVI. . PIUS IX. . . •NIJYHO p O OO C5 1— 1 o O CM 01 CO -* GO GO 00 CO QO tH T— I T—l tH r-l 1^ PiusVIL . . . LeoXIL . . . PiusVIIL . . . Gregory XVI. . . PIUS IX. . . . i i-ICMCO'*iO':Oi:-GOOSOTH lOOlOOlOxOiOiOiOCOCO cMC^(M(McqG^(?q(M(?:icqoq o 321 Now, in casting his eye over this exhibit of the Romish genea- logical line, — and keeping in view the fact, that the theory of an unbroken apostolical succession (involving, as it does, the transfer, direct, of the grace, office, functions, apostolic, to those who, hav- ing been duly baptized, had been previouslj- ordained deacons and priests, — " by the hands of the apostles" and their successors, — three^ or at least two^ consecrators, being requisite to the validity of eacli act) absolutely excludes the idea of an intervening space, as to time, in the uniting the consecutive links ; we ask the reader to bear in mind in the first place, that the authorities from which are compiled the various catalogues of the Eomish bishops, are oj-iginally derived from their own standard writers, respecting which " unbroken succession," Bishop Purcell assures us, " It has been faithfully noticed and regularly perpetuated in an imhroken chain of Pontiffs doAvn to the present chief pastor," Pius IX., " auspiciously presiding over all the Church." We ask him in the next place, to weigh candidly the following facts, as presented on the face of the above catalogues, namely : (1.) That, in a(«ldition to the 'confusion worse confounded,' pre- sented in our exhibit of the eight examples of the first five links in the alleged chain, in the aggregate lines, the first four commence the sixth Pope with Sixtvs I., while Gavin, following Plautina, gives Alexander^ the lines continuing to vary down to 95. Then, from 96 to 104, Chapin and Gavin run together. And, from 105 to the end of the two catalogues, the utmost confusion prevails, there being no correspondence either as to the order of the succession, or the number of the Popes, — ^Chapin making the whole number 255, Gavin, 261 ; while the Romish " register" gives 256 as the true amount. (2.) Chapin, having informed us that Urban IV. the 180th, and Gregory XIII. the 20od, in his catalogue, Avere archhishoj>s at the time of their consecration ; and also that there were fifty-one who were hishoj?s at the time of their election to the Pontificate, states also, that eleven were deacons only,* and that Fabian the 19th in the line, and John XIX. the l-15th, are known to have been lay- men. Query. What then, in reference to these last, becomes of the canon which enacts, that "that ordination has been judged in- valid^ where the person ordained bishop had not been pkhviouslt ouDAixKD a deacon and a p7'iest^ that is, ordination per saltum, does not convey the grace ?" Then again. What were the other 189 at the time of their consecration ? For example, Bene- dict IX. the 146th in his list, and whom Barronius says was onl}'- 12 years old at the time of his consecration ? Then further : (8.) It may occur to the reader, after our exhibit of the numer- ous schisms in the popedom,f as not a little singular, that Chapin * The Primitive Church, pp. 354, 346. t See pp. 293-295. 21 322 atudiously avoids in his catalogue, the least recognition of them. Once more. (4.) Why does Mr. Chapin omit Pope Joan, the 105th in Gavin's list, from his catalogue ? The fact that this pope was a woman^ remained undisputed for six or seven centuries after her occupancy of the papal chair. Marianus Scotus was the first writ- er to authenticate the following circumstances respecting her, to wit : that she was born in Mentz, and having disguised her sex, traveled to Athens and throughout Greece, and having acquired a competent knowledge of literature, she came to Komc, was ad- mitted to holy orders, and at length, by unanimous consent, on ac- count of her excellent conduct, and great learning, was elected pope. She became pregnant by a servant, and died in child-birth when going to the Lateran. To prevent the recurrence of a simi- lar disgrace, the jpoi^jphyry chair was ordained, to determine the sex of a newly elected pontiff. It was not until since the Reform- ation^ that this fact has been disputed. And, in the controversy which it has elicited, Protestant prelatists have exhibited as much zeal as the Romanists themselves, in bringing it into discredit.* Again, ^ , (5.) In regard to the " register''' itself We submit, that it total- ly fails at the very point where^ to entitle it to our confidence, all should be explicit, clear and complete. Prelatists admit the ne- cessity of such a fullness of detail, to this end, by their mode of exhibiting the fragmentary catalogues of modern successions. Take in illustration, the following, in the Anglican line — Name of Bishop. Diocese. 1. Henby Standish, St. Asaph, War. Reg. 21. 2. John Voysey, Exeter, War. Reg. 22. 3. John Longland, Lincoln. War. Reg. 23. 4. Thomas Ceanmee, Canterbury, Cran. Reo^. 4. Consecrators. July 6, 1715. Warham. Canterbury, Sherborn, Chichester, John Young, Titular Bishop. Nov. 6, 1715. Warham, John Rochester, Thomas Leighlin. March 5, 1721. Warham, Fisher (Cardinal), John Exeter, 2. March 30, 1533. John Lincoln, 2, John Exeter, 2, Henry St. Asaph, 1, * See Spanheim's Ecclesiastical History, p. 350. Appendix, E. See also further on this subject, 323 Now, this principle, applied to THE FIRST LINKS in tliat chain which, " at its beginning" is alleged to be "fastened to the throne of God," would place the evidence in its behalf as a /act, beyond the power of resistance. But, as we have said, where such fullness of detail in the "registerof those who are counted by genealogy" is indispensable to authenticate its truth, there is a total blank. This is true of all the so-called catalogues of the primitive age — Jerusa- lem^ Alexandria, Antioc/i, Epliesus., and Rome. The chasm of which we have spoken in reference to this the most important period of all, has never been and can never be, bridged over. But we find that, just at that point of time when the predicted " falling away" from the New Testament faith and order of the Gospel mentioned by Paul, had sufficiently developed itself in the aspirations of ecclesiastics after '■'■ the pre-eminence,'''' to give form and consistency to a hierarchy yet in embryo, commenced the entry, into the newly opened " register," of Bishops of Rome. Consecrated. 18. Anterus, Nov. 21, a.d. 235. 19. Fabian, Jan. 11, " 236. 20. Cornelius, May 24, " 251." etc. etc. But even here, it will be observed, there is yet one grand defect. There is no record of the three canonical consecrators, without whose agency the links cannot be joined. Indeed, so far from this being the order observed in the consecration of the Popes, the Jirst recorded instance of a consecration by three bishops, is that of Pope John V., marked as the 82d in Chapin's list, a.d. 685, on which occasion officiated the three bishops of Ostium., Portiis, and Valiturnum, which practice was subsequently adopted by his suc- cessors. As the next chapter will treat of the Anglican Succession, we shall append, as a suitable introduction thereto, in the first section, an historical sketch of the rise and development of the theory of Episcopacy, as erected on the platform of Expediency alone. ♦ See Chapin's Catalogues, Primitive Church, etc., pp. 284, 291*295, etc. 324 CHAPTER YI. THE ANGLICAN LINE OF THE ALLEGED UNBROKEN SUCCESSION. SECTION I. Episcopacy, as founded in expediency alone. — Recognized the perfect equality of Bish- ops and Presbyters. — Was adopted as an ecclesiastical arrangement only. — Jerome on. — An unwarrantable innovation of the New Testament ministry. — Jerome. — Originated the distinction in ecclesiastical titles. — Amalarius, Theodoret, Bingham, etc. — A mere human device. — Formed the germ of Prelacy and the Papacy. — Prelatical denial of primitive parity. — Answer. — Jerome. — Bingham. — Diocesan Episcopacy. — Archbishop Whately on. — Ministerial parity affirmed by Bishop Mcllvaine to be unknown to the Church till the sixteenth century. — Answer. — Proof of its New Testament origin and primitive prevalence. — Was adopted by the first Anglican Reformers. — Principles on which it may be adopted or re- tained.— Appeal to those who are really Low Church. Having had occasion in the preceding pages, to advert inci- dentally to that theory of Episcopacy which is founded in expe- diency only, and a proper understanding of it, in contrast with the various forms of development of the system of prelacy being in- dispensable to an elucidation of what is to follow, we shall appro- priate the present section to an exhibit of its historic rise, progress, results, etc. AVe remark then, first, that this theory of Episcopacy is a totally different affair from that which claims for it an apostolic origin, jiure divino. It is conceded by anti-prelatists, that the former the- ory was brought into practical operation at an early period of the 2)08t-aj)OstoliG^age. It originated in the always plausible plea of necessity. The exigencies of the Church, it Avas argued, demanded it, as better adapted to good government, the eradication of heresy, etc., but that it fully recognized the fraternal character or perfect EQUALITY of tlic oflicc and functions of the elders^ -npeaiSvTepoi, and his/iojjs, e-moKOTToi, of the New Testament age, and that, primitively, it was held to be a purely ecclesiastical arrangement, I have shown, not only from the interchangeable use of the above titles as applied to the same person, but also from the declarations of prelatists themselves, confirmed by the writings of the purest ages of early antiquity, and the testimony of all the Christian churches in the world. The learned Jerome, who attained the zenith of his great- 825 ness in the early part of the fifth century, having thoroughly can- vassed the writings of the early fathers on this subject, holds the following language : " If any suppose that it is merely our opinion, and not that of the Scriptures, that bishop and presbyter are the same, and that one is the name of age^ and the other of o^^ce^ let him read the words of the apostles to the Philippians," etc., and, having argued the point from this and other passages, he adds : — " These things I have Avritten, to show that among the ancients^ presbyters and bishops were the same ; but, ny liitlk and little," says he, " that all the seeds of dissension might be plucked up, the whole care was devolved on one j as therefore, iho. 2)reshyter8 know that BY THE CUSTOM OF THE Churcii they are subject to him Avho is x\m\v jji^esident, so let the bishops know that they are above pres- byters more hy the custom of the Church than by the true dispen- sation of Christ, and that they ought to rule the Church in coni- mon^ imitating Moses, who, when he 'might alone ride the people of Israel, chose seventy with whom he might judge the people."* But, the histrionic sequel of this arrangement, however pure the motives of those with whom it originated, carries with it the evi- dence, that it was an unwarrantable innovation upon that divinely appointed order of things designed by Christ and his apostles for the permanent and ordinary upbuilding and edification of the Church, till the end of time. I affirm of it, that it formed the first step of departure from that platform apostolic, wdaich, while it wisely provides for a diversity in the functions^ yet stands so un- mistakably antagonistic to any the least rliversity of ra/tk^ in the ministry of Christ's Church. " The elders that rule well are counted worthy of double honor, esjjecially they (that is, of the elders,) who labor in word and doctrine." Here, a diversity of functions is declared to be entirely consistent with identity of ofilce. Wherefore, then, depart from that system of ecclesiastical regimen in which inhered all the powers and functions commen- surate with the utmost exigencies of the Church through all time, and every where? It provided for the incidcation and defense of scriptural "doctrine," for the interpretation of the "word," for general edification, and for the good government and discipline of the Church: in a word, as "built" upon that "foundation of the apostles and prophets," of which " Jesus Christ himself is the chief corner-stone ;" it was " profitable for doctrine, for reproof, and for correction and instruction in righteousness;" "the man of God" recpiired nothing more to make him '"'■ perfect^ thoroughly fur- nished unto all good works^ Since, then, no necessity existed therefor, there is no principle which could justify a departure from' such a regimen. Jerome tells us in what that regimen consisted. "/•*/';ument for the Apostolic Succession, Bishop McIIvaine, p. 14, Note. t Whately's Kiiitj;iloni of Christ. X S. Hieron, in Tit. C. I. 331 elusive, of tliis Treatise. And I now remark, that, of all the acts of imposition practiced upon the "unlearned" in these matters in support of a favorite theory, that stands first and foremost, which assigns to the system of ministerial parity, alias^ Pkesbyterian- iSM, an origin subsequent to the Anglican Reformation. So far from it, we refer the reader to the historical evidence furnished in this Treatise, (Chapter X. Section IV.) that " the Reformed Church of England as by law established," though adopting the episcopacy 1^1^ of three orders, bishops, priests, and deacons, nevertheless placed '■^~ it, not on the basis of prescriptive or divine right ; but, throwing herself back upon the primitive j9d5^apostolic platform of the second century, adopted it on the ground of expediency only, the first English Reformers — Cranmer and his coadjutors, backed by Royal authority, affirming, and that in the most positive terms, that hisJwps and presbyters were, by divine appointment, ONE AND THE SAME ORDER, and that to them belongs, EQUAL- LY, the right to ordairt- Nor this only. This theory of ministe- rial parity, alias Presbyteeianism, continued to be the ruling principle of the Anglican Church down to the time of Archbishop Laud, A.D. 1664. During this interval — a period of over one hundred years — " all the eminent Archbishops of Canterbury, with but two exceptions" — (I quote from a recent Episcojpal writer) recognized " the Church character of 7ion-Episco2)al com- munions," and have sealed that recognition with the fact, " that ministers not JFpiscojyally ordained held livings in the Church of England for more than one Tiundred years after the Reformation."* In conclusion, then, on this subject of Episcopacy as adopted on the ground of expediency alone, though, as we have said, having originated in the early age of the Christian Church, it formed (at least in our view) the first stepping stone towards the erection of that stupendous spiritual hierarchy, the Papacy / and though, since the time of Laud, the original Loio ChiircJi platform has been displaced by the unscriptural substitution therefor of prelacy by divine riglit ; yet, where it is, or may be adopted or retained on the same principles with those of its primitive and more modern Anglican forms ; with the experience of its past abuses operating as a beacon to guard against the rocks and shoals which lie beneath its surface, it being entirely free from the unchurching, denunciatory, and schismatical consequences of the opposite theory, there can be no insuperable objection urged against its continuance, A Ttturn to these original principles, on the part of the Anglican and American Episcopal Church, I affirm to be the only effectual antidote to the distracting contentions and divisions which now disturb her peace. At least, the really Low Church portion in that body, now that we have removed the superincumbent debris, with which prelatists have concealed from view the above historic *"Triie Churchmanship Vindicated," etc. By Rev. Mason Gallagher, Rector of Trinity Church, Covington, Ky. 1851. S32 facts for the last two hundred j'ears, are forced to a choice between two alternatives : either to adopt the above theory on the basis of its primitive and Anglican reformed principles, as their stand- point against the Babel-tongned theories of tlieir Romish, Tracta- rian, Hobartian, and so-called Low Church antagonists, and insist on the rfidoratlon. to the Church of its original and only leeiti'>>''*^'' landmarks ; or, to secede. SECTION n. The alleged Anglican Succession. — Aspect, etc., of England at the time of Henry VIII. Review of Rev. A. B. Chapin's work on " The Organization of the Primitive Church," etc. Proposes to trace the English Succession in several different ways. — Remarks. Proceed we now to an examination, II. — Of THE Anglican line of Succession. We have already taken a brief survey of the ecclesiastical as- pect of England, on the accession of Henry VIII. to the British throne, ajx 1509. England, now under the dominion of the Papacy, finds in her monarch a zealous advocate of Papal suprem- acy, and the recipient of pontifical honors. Then, growing impa- tient under the restraints, and indignant at the attempted dictation and control of a foreign spiritual court in the matter of his divorce from his ailianced queen, the proud king throws oft" the Papal yoke, and himself is constituted " the onl}' supreme head of the Chuich in England and Ireland," and that, as we have seen from the statute, in things spiiitual as well as temporal.* No. Passion- ately fond of the process of divorce fi'om his wives,f and of that of his kingdom from Papal Rome, as was this capricious monarch, it seemed never to have entered his head, that 'ihk Ciiukcii might have been immeasurably benefited by its divorce from the State. But, to return to the subject of our present remark : — the alleged Anglican " unbroken succession." The Rev. Mr. Chapin proposes to "give the English succession in several dijferent vxajsyX A labor, this, Ave submit, of supererogation ; one * See pp. 2.30, 232. t Heiirv Vlll. had six wives — Katharine, Anne Boleyn. Jane Seymour, Anne of Clevi's. Katharine Howard, and Katharine Parr. He was divorced from three of Ihem^ Ka/finrim, Anne Boleyn, and jlnne of Cleves. Two were beheaded — Anne Boleyn, and Katharine Howard. } The Primitive Church, p. 29L The italirs are our own. clearly autlicnticated " wa}'-" being quite sufficient for all practical purposes. Still, where this author leads, we must follow.* It will be well, however, in the first place, to examine a little into the souree of infmmation whence our author derives his mate- rials for his work. Having attended elsewhere to the argument for prelacy as alleged to be founded on " Holy Scripture," we shall pass over the portion of Mr. Chapin's book devoted to that depart- ment, and conline ourselves to his treatment of the subject on the authority of " ancient avithors." What, then, is Mr. Chapin's testimony regarding these " ancient authors," alias^ Tradition. Speaking of them in the matter of the light reflected on the subject of the early links in the chain, com- mencing, for example, with the " succession from Ephesus," he sa3^s : " We are not able to . consult the original records, being kept in a difterent portion of country, and these at present are im- perfect, many of the earl}^ records of the churches having been de- stroyed when the south of Europe was overrun by the northern barbarians. Since \hQ fourth century^ however, we are able to give the dates of the several successions, and enough has been preserved to give us the exact order of the succession up to the most primitive times. We copy from the great work of the Bene- dictines,f entitled Gallia Christiana, in eleven folio volumes, and which was above thirty -live years going through the press.":{: Wonderful ! It is here, however, to be borne in mind, that these Benedictine monks were the stanch advocates qf the 2)((2)(icy- Between the sixth and fourteenth centuries, the order embraced 24 popes, 200 cardinals, 7,000 archbishops, 15,000 bishops, 15,000 abbots, 4,000 saints, and 37,000 monasteries, .besides many emj:»erors, empresses, kings, queens, princes, princesses, etc.§ They are, therefore, to say the least, an interested 'part]! in this matter. Then, too, their " eleven" ponderous folios, considering the sources whence their con- tents were gleaned — the " imperfect" fragments which escaped the destructive hands of the northern barbarians of earlier times, how idle the pretense, that " enough has been preserved to give us the exact order of the succession up to the most primitive tmies." But this is not all. Mr. Chapin has himself furnished us with the ma- tcrid out of Avhich to construct a canon on the subject of tradi- tional testimony, somewhat to the following effect : " The state- ments of ' ancient authors' become valueless, just in proportion as they recede^ in point of time, from the apostolic age." For exam- * We speak advisedly when we say, that the work of the Rev. A. B. Chapin from which we here quote, is received as of standard aulliority by the Protestant Episcopal Church in this country. t The celebrated order of the Benedictines, the most ancient annonp; the Latins, was fornned about the middle of the sixth century, by Benedict Nursinus, of Unibria in Tlaly, who was first a soldier, then a hermit, and finally a monk. The order soon covered the whole face of Europe. (Spanheim's Ecclesiastical Hi.tlory, p. 299.) t The Primitive Church, p. '294. § See Spanheim"s Ecclesiastical History, p. 300. f 384 pie : speaking of the prelatical theoi}', he claims for its support ** the whole current of ancient authorities," by which he means the apostolical fathers, and affirms, " that no one has pretended to find a single opposing authority, until more than two hundred and fifty years after the death of St, John, a.d. 100 ; that is, not before a.d. 350 ;"* and he then refers us to Jerome, as quoted by Presbyteri- ans against prelacy, and says : " Such a person cannot be au- thority." Pra 3^, wherefore? Answer: '^ Because he did not live at the tiviey-\ But, did the Benedictines, from whose ^'■Gallia Christiana]'' he compiles his " Succession from Ephesus," " live at the time" of the commencement of that chain ? If Jerome's testi- mony, A.D. 850, "cannot be authority," how comes it to pass that the Benedictine folios, written several centuries after that period, are referred to as authoritative in determining " the exact order of the succession up to the most primitive times ;" or are we to under- stand, that " ancient authors" are unauthoritative, only when quoted in support of Presbyterianism ? Indeed, considering the bulk of these " eleven folios," compared w^ith what Mr. Chapin declares to have been the "imperfect" re- mains of " the early records of the churches" on which they had to depend in filling them, we cannot suppress the suspicion, that the spirit of an earlier age, when, according to Du Pin, in order to " keep up the piety of the faithful," the " Catholics were carried so far as to invent false histories^'' etc., had descended upon these Benedictine monks.:]: In conclusion on this subject, we deny^ " that no one has pre- tended to find a single opposing authority" to prelacy, until "a.d. 850." As we shall presently show, Mr. Chapin is either crimi- nally ignorant of the earlier "opposing authority" to that theory- adduced by Presbyterians, and which, in a writer of his pretensions, is quite unpardonable, or he has attempted to palm upon the unin- formed reader what he knows to be untrue. Now then, for the " several different ways" in which Mr. Chapin proposes to give " the English succession," preliminary to which, however, we must "consider two points- connected with the suc- cession of bishops in the English Church, which," this writer tells us, " are often confounded." He explains himself thus : " If we wish to trace back the authority of the present bishops, we must go, not in the line of bishops occupying a particular See, but in the line of their consecrators f the former, he calls "the succession of Episcopal governors ;" the latter, " the apostolical succession," " on which," he says, " all Episcoijal jpoiocr dej^ends^ He then fur- nishes the following example in illustration : "All the colonies [American] were originally attached to the bishop of London, and hence each of the dioceses in this country, where there was an Episcopal Church before the Eevolution, would trace the succession * The Primitive Church, p. 198. t lb., — . X See Part I., p. 61. 835 of Episcopal governors back to the bisliops of London ; but the apostolic succession is traced back through the archhishojps of Can- terhary^'''' etc., " or through the archbishops of Y&rk,'^* as they assisted at the consecration of our first bishops, "f SECTIOIT m. The subject continued. — Mr. Chapin's sources of instruction. — Tradition. — His testimony regarding them. — Benedictine monks, etc. — The " Gallia Christiana." — A mistake of Mr, C — His singular mode of tracing the apostolical succession. — Alleges the English succession to come from Ephesus, etc. — Claims Augustine as the first Saxon Bishop, and the first Archbishop of Canterbury. — Design of this theory, to avoid its derivation from Rome. — Two difficulties for Mr. C. — First: With those prelatists who admit said succession from Rome. — Second : With himself. — (1.) His authorities in support of his new line. — (2.) His error regarding Polycarp's alleged consecra- tion by the apostle John. — Eusebius, Gallia Christiana, Bade, Barronius. — Their statements irreconcilable with authentic data. — Dr. Cook, Bishop Pearson, Bishop Purcell, etc. — Tabular view, etc. With these instructions as our polar star, we are then told that the English succession is to be traced, not through Itome, but jfrom the See of Ajjhesus, founded by St. John, through ^'■Augustine, the first Saxon hishop^ as well as the fikst Aechbishop of Canter- bury," he having been consecrated, " very providentially," at Aries, " by VirgiUus, 24th bishop of Avles^ assisted by (Etherius, 31st bishop of Ljons, a.d. 596.":}: The reader will please put his thumb on these stand-points of Mr. C.'s theory. Consecrated, '•'■ very iirovidentially ^^ at ^Arles^'' etc. Wherefore? Answer: Because "the ancients themselves traced back" their {"i "episcopate and ecclesiastical rites" of " the Grallic churches," " to ■W^ St. John ;"§ hence, the English Church, deriving her succession from St. John, instead of St. Peter, through the pious, humane, and zealous Augustine, as the first archbishop of Canterbury, if true^ escapes, on the one hand, the guilt of schism imputed to her by her Komish and Presbyterian opponents, on the ground, as Mr. C. afiirms, that she lias "ever been legally and cationically independ- ent of '11 that Church; and, on the other, the opprobrium of having . derived her Episcopacy through that corrup)t channel. Indeed, the construction of Mr. C.'s argument throughout his whole book of 408 duodecimo pages, hinges on the deeply seated conviction, that tlie salvation of Protestant prelacy depends on his sustaining ♦ The rustom was, for the Archbishop of Canterbury to consecrate those of York, ex- cept when overruled by tlie popes. — ( Viile Howell's Pontif., p. 2S8; etc., and Bishop Godwin, p. C68.) t The Primitive Church, pp. 285, 286. X lb., pp. 291, 292. § lb., p. 292. II lb., p. 359. 336 these two points ; a failure liere, and there remains no redemption for her ; she must otherwise remain forever indelibly branded as a schismatical and semi-papal Church, But, in order to do this, there are, we respectfully submit, a nuDiher of difficulties in ilie ivay^ which it will be incumbent on Mr. C. to remove. There is the difficulty, 1. With those advocates of prelacy, who, admitting the deriva- tion of the English succession through the liomish line, contend, against their Presbyterian opponents, that no amount of moral de- linquency can invahdate the links or break the chain.* Then, there are several difficulties, 2. With Mr. C. himself (1.) The first relates to tlie authorities on which he relies for the support of his new line. He admits that the evidence relied upon to iJrovethat the Gallic Churches "derived their Episcopate," etc., from "St, John," " has been somewhat disputed,"-}- whether " with- out an}^ sufficient reason," as he affirms, we leave the reader to decide, when he shall have compared Mr. C.'s canon on the subject of " ancient authors," with the dates of his authoi'ities, viz., the Benedictine Gallia Christiana,:]: Spel. Concil.,§ Bede, etc. And, mark : The question at issue regards, not the genuineness of these several productions, but the authenticity of the alleged facts therein set forth. Is it, we demand, sufficiently authenticated by these writers, that the apostle John founded the See of Ephesus, and established a succession of bishops, of which he was the first link, through the bishopric of Aries, in twenty-four successive links, from Trophimus to Virgilius, the consecrator of Angustin ? Look at his own list of that succession. It makes the third in the line, viz., Martin I., to have been consecrated A. D. 254, leaving but two intervening links to fill up a gap of 154 years, from the death of that apostle ! Then, again : How is it that Aries, " the whole province" of which was at first " reckoned as the arch- dioccss of Lyons, a name it still retains," though at a later period it was reckoned as belonging to that of " Venice ;" and, " from the time of the Emperor Honorius," a. d. 424, it " had been ranked as the metropolitan city of Gall," and ^^■hich, as Mr. C, informs us, was " the reason Avhy Augustine was consecrated at Aries ;"|| how is it, we repeat, from tliis showing, that its succes- sion of bishops, in point of historical completeness, falls so far below that of the See of Lyons ? Here the line, commencing with " St, John," is continued regularly through Polycarp^ Po- thinus, etc., down to -^^Itherius, who, a. d, 596, assisted Virgilius the Bishop of Aries in consecrating Augustine.*!] Nor is this all. (2.) Mr. C. starts this line with the positi^•e affirmation, that * See pp. 218, 210. With which compare pp. 102-105. t The I'rimitive Church, p. 292. X See pp. 3.'i.'i. :VM. § OIJ manuscript of Sir H. Spelman {Concilia). II The Primitive Church, pp. 291, 292. i lb., pp. 294, 290. 837 " Polycarp himself" was " ordained Bishop of Smyrna, hy St. John.* Now here, we again repeat, is something tangible, if true. We ask, then : Is Mr. C. borne out in this affirmation by Euser bins ? That writer distinctly tells us, that " Polycarp received his Episcopate of the Church at Smyrna, at the hands of the eye- witnesses and servants of the Lord."f Now, supposing that Euse- bius here refers to some three or more of "the twelve," — and we admit that he docs, — what right has Mr. C, on the authority of the " eleven" huge folios of the Benedictine Monks, or Bede, or any other, to substitute in their place as the consecrators of Poly- carp, the single name of St. John" ? Nor will it avail that Bar- ronius, following the same authorities, affirms the consecration of Polycarp by St. John, A. d. 82.:}: Indeed, and in conclusion on this subject, we re-affirm§ that these authorities, one and all, are totally irreconcilable with admitted authentic historical data in these premises, Polycarp, at the time of his death, was above one hundred years old."|| Dr. Cook, M.D., the most distinguished lay advocate of prelacy of modern times, speaking of the date of Polycarp's martyrdom, though he quotes Bishop Pearson as plac- ing it A. D. 148, says that he stands alone in that opinion, and that " many learned men place it in 167, or thereabouts,"^ Others place it at a.d. 169 and 175, We shall adopt a.d. 167 as the rehable date.** Now, the Eomi^h Bishop Purcell places the date of Polycarp's conversion at A. D. 80. This gives between his con- version and death 87 years. Then, supposing that the " eighty- six (86) years, during which, according to Eusebius, Polycarp declared to the Proconsular of Asia he had served Christ,f f to be understood as the length of hi-S bishopric at Smyrna (but which no one pretends), he must have been consecrated A. D. 81, But it is generally conceded that he was bishop of that See only fifty (50) years, which willi^lace his consecration at a.d, 117. We will now give the dates of the deaths of " the twelve apos- tles," adopting Echard as the standard. :}::{: Of Lehheus no account is given. Iscariot is excluded. Of the remaining eleven, including Paul, Echard gives, * The Prim. Church, p. 292. t Eusebiiis's Ecclesiastical History, B. III., c. 36, p. 120. X Spanheim's Ecclesiastical History, p. 192. \ See p. 290-292. I! Spanheim's Ecclesiastical History, p. 192. «r Cook on the Inval. of Presb. Ord., Works on Episc, Vol. II., p. 2-56, sec. 127. 1831. ** Cook, as above. Lardner (Lit. Hist. New Testament. London, pp. 533.) Rid- dle's Eccles. Chron. London, p 25. Vater's " Syn. Chronistischen Tafeln." Cent. II. tt Eusebius's Ecclesiastical Histor}', B. IV., c. 15, p. 146. XX "A General Ecclesiastical History, etc., from the Nativity to Constantine the Great. By Lawrence Echard, A.M., Archdeacon of Stowe. London, 1729." 22 338 Nanus. Mtdm. etc. Names. Mtdm. etc. A.D. A.D. 1. James, son of Zebedee, 44 6. Peter, 68 2. Philip, 52 7. Paul, 68 3. Matthew, - - - - 60 8. Bartholomew, - - 72 4. James, son of Alpheus, 62 9. Thomas, - - - - 73 5. Andrew, - - - - 64 10. Simon, - - - - 74 11. John, - - - - 100 AlloAving, therefore, that Polycarp's consecration took place A.D. 81, it could not have been at the hands of the first ten of the above named apostles, for they were all in their graves seven years before that event ! and if, as is generally conceded, he was but fifty years bishop of Smyrna, he could not have been consecrated by " St. John," he having died seventeen years before ! So much for the boasted "succession from Ephesus," so far as it relates to the Knks of the line between " St. John" and "Augus- tine." SECTION IV. The subject continued. — The English succession from Augustine to the present Arch- bishop of Canterbury. — Cardinal Pole. — The English succession from Paul. — Bishop McCoskrey. — His authorities, etc. — Bishop Stillingfleet, Rev. H. Carey, Mr. E. Churton, etc. — A bird's-eye view of the relation of old Britain to Rome, about A.D. 595. — Favorable to the establishment of a universal spiritual empire. — Gregory I. — John, Bishop of Constantinople — Augustine's mission to Kent, Eng- land.— Romish. — His authority over the Anglican Bishops. — Proof, that England was not independent of Rome at this time. — Dilemma of Mr. C. — Double dilemma of Bishop McCoskrey and Mr. C. regarding the old British and the Anglo-English bishops. Let us, in the next place, examine this line from Augustine downward. Augustine, then, according to Mr. Chapin, having received his consecration at ' Aries," by the purer hands of Virgilius, bishop of Aries, and ^therius, bishop of Lyons, as " the first Saxon bishop," and "the first archbishop of Canterbury," forms the eonnectiTig link between ^^ St. Jolin^'' and the fresent incumbent of that See; and, in proof of the alleged uncorrupt and uninterrupted continu- ance of that Canterberian succession from Augustine, as entirely independent of the Romish line, referring to his list, he says : " It will be seen from this list, that we do not trace our succession through Cranmer's successor. Cardinal PoUy* The succession of Canterbury continued unbroken, with one of the links, because ♦ The Primitive Church, p. 004. 339 added bj Homish liands, thrown out. But, was tliis the onl/y addition thereto, made by the same hands ? We shall see. But we must premise, in the first place, that Mr. Chapin, as an advocate of Protestant prelacy, is not alone in his eagerness to trace the Anglican succession through another than that of " the corrupt and vitiated channel of the Romish Church." Thus, Bishop McCoskrey, speaking of the earh^ introduction of the Gos- pel into " Great Britain," says, " the first records of the Church established there, show that it was organized, as all the churches were, by the apostle, [Paul,] and in three orders, with the bishop as supreme ; that the succession was carried there by St. Paul, and continued uninten'upted in the Church." " The first records of the Church." Bishop Stillingfleet, speaking of these " records," says, " that by the loss of records of the Bri- tish churches, we cannot draw down the succession of bishops from the apostles's times."* The Rev. Henry Carey says, " We have no mention of bishops in the British Church, nor do we find any fur- ther information on the subject at all, until the year 814 ;"f and even the latest historian on this subject, Mr. E. Churton, and highly lauded by Bishop Ives of North Carolina, does not adventure further than to say, it is a mere supposition, that either Paul " was himself in Britain, or that he sent some of the companions of his travels to make known on these shores the name of Christ," and adds, that " the woes and persecutions which followed the first preaching of the Gospel in Britain, have destroyed all certain records of Chris- tianity in these early times.":}: It is not surprising, therefore, that " the first introduction of the Gospel to Britain has been attributed to James, the son of Zebedee, to Simon Zelotes, to Peter, to Joseph of Arimathea, as well as to Paul." A bird's-eye view of the political and ecclesiastical affairs of ancient Britain in her relations to old Rome, is indispensable to a proper understanding of the subject in hand. The Roman empire, having Rome in Italy as its metropolis, was founded B.C. 758. Prophecy had marked it out as a Gentile power which was to attain to universal dominion, and which should rule the nations ^^■ith a rod of iron.' At the time of the Nativity, it had grasped the rich- est portions of the earth, extending in length three thousand, and in breadth two thousand miles; and in the time of Augustus Caesar, was denominated " the v)hole worldJ^^ The Jews were at this time tributary to that power, and in a.d. 70, found themselves, as' was predicted of them, without either "place" or "nation."^ Britain formed the fiirthest western province known to the Ro- mans, but no circumstances, either of distance or peril, could save that province from her rapacious grasp. And though, B.C. 55, (1) Dan. 7 : 7, 19. (-2) Luke -J. : 1 (3) Comjiare Luke 2 : 1 with John 11 : 4et. * Origines Brit., pp. 81-83. t The Apostolical Succeesion of the Church of England, p. S. j The Early English Church, pp. 17, 19. 840 Caesar, having subdued France, met witli severe repulses from the valorous Britains, yet, subsequently to a.T), 43, the Eoman army, after nine years resistance under Caractacus, subdued them to the Eoman yoke ; nor did the valor of their heroine. Queen Boadicea, A.D. 61, together with the forty years war which ensued, succeed in the expulsion of tlie invaders from the island. Imperial Rome, however," now the mistress of the v. sttions jJoUii- GalJy, was destined to conflict with a foe clothed with a power other than that of Briton arms. The religion of the cross, during the first three centuries, had become co-extensive with tlic Roman dominions. When this latter power, therefore, with its paganism incorporated with, and inseparable from, its national and political institutions, was brought into antagonism with CHKisTiANiTy to- wards the close of the fourth century, Rome " saw her glories star by star expire," and the year a.d. 410, found Britain disen- thralled from her iron yoke. But, we have now to turn over the other side of this historic page. " While Rome saw her Emperor gradually falling from his throne, she saw her Bishop clothing himself in purple and scarlet, and (gradually) ascending the steps of the same throne," Let us look into this matter a little in detail. It is, then, conceded that Christianity was introduced into the island of Great Britain at a very early period. We are willing to admit the testimony of Tertullian of the second century, that " all nations have believed, .... and those places of the British isles, which were unapproachable to the Romans, are altogether subject to Christ."* Also that of Bede, who, in speaking of the tenth persecution under the bloody Diocletian early in the fourth century, says: " At length it reached Britain also, and many persons, with the constancy of martyrs, died, in the confession of their fiaith."f More : We will even admit as authentic the testimony of Gildas, the earliest British Christian whose works are preserved, that " the Sun of righteousness shone out upon this frozen isle a little before the defeat of Boadicea by the Roman legions," a.d. 6I4 Still, it by no means follows that the British bishops, who, it is affirmed, were present at the Council of Aries, a.d. 815, were prelatical bishops, continued in an uninterrupted line of succession from (St. Paul or ?) St. John. Indeed, if we may rely upon Churton's testimony regarding this period, it is more than doubt- ful whether any Christian churches could be found in England at this time. Speaking of the period between a.d. 303 and 314, he says : "In the time of Diocletian, it pleased the Almighty to per- mit the cause of truth, for the space of ten years (a. d. 303, up to 314), to undergo the most severe trial which the world had ever * Adv. Jud., c. 7. t Bede, B. I., c. 6. X Gildas de Excid. Gent. Brittania, p. 9. Ed. Joss. Evan's Prim. Ages. Gildas wrote about a. d. 560. 341 known. Gildas, the earliest British historian, tells us that at this time the Christian churches throughout the world were leveled with the ground ; all the copies of the Scriptures which could any where be found were burnt in the public streets, and the priests and bishops of the Lord's house were slaicghtered, together with their charge ; so that in some provinces not even a trace of Chris- tianity remained."* But, even admitting that the above persecution did not take effect in the province of Britain as elsewhere ; or, that the expa- triated bishops subsequently returned, yet its inhabitants had breathed but a short time in freedom and independence, after the expulsion of the Komans. For although the Eomans, up to A. d. 426, sent troops into Britain and assisted the natives " to build again the wall of the Emp. Severus, which extended from the mouth of the Tyne to that of the Esk, beyond Newcastle and Carlisle, as a protection against the Picts and Scots ;" yet, the Saxons, a. d. 449, made a descent upon, and violently seized on, the eastern parts of the island, and, pushing on in savage war, they drove great num- bers of the Britons luestward, even into Wales, where their posterity and language are preserved even to the present day. Speaking of Britain in reference to these calamitous times, Mr. Churton says : " It is impossible to find anything more disastrous than the state of Britain at this time. A famine had followed the ravages of the Picts and Scots ; then arose a bloody war among the native chiefs, and the Roman Britons ; those who had lived with the Romans in their cities, and learnt their language, were cut oif almost to a man." . . . . " From this time," he continues, " Christianity be- gan to disappear from the most important and fruitful provinces of Britain. As the Saxons founded, one after another, their petty kingdoms, they destroyed the churches, and the priests fied before them^-f Now, some of these refugees found their way to France, and settled in that part "called Brittany or Bretagne (alias, Aeles), from whom it received its name." While, on the other hand, Britain was occupied by two peoples totally distinct in language, in religion, and in laws, viz., the old Britons, who, with their flocks, had fled to Wales, and the Saxon invaders of their once peaceful homes. A long interval of one hundred and fifty years of heathen darkness, together with the most rancorous hatred and deadly wars, ensue, till a. D. 596, when Pope Gregory the Gh-eut sent Augustine, with other mmihs, to convert the SAXONS to CJtristianity. The circumstances connected with the origin of Augustine's mission, the source of that mission, its object, the sphere of its operations, its character and its results, each require a passing remark. And first : Of Gregory the Great. Of the period of which we * Churton's Early English Church, p. 20. t The Early English Church, p. 32. 342 now speak, the once mighty empire of Eome was a mere wreck, forlorn and powerless. And yet, marvelous as it may seem, at this very time, the mind of Gregory conceived the gigantic pro- ject of making liome the center of an universal spiritual kingdom. It was the oilspring of that ambition which often survives the wreck of fortune. The political state of the world, and the aspi- rations of ecclesiastics after " the pre-eminence," were maturing the way for the extension and establishment of the office of " uni- versal bishop." That title was now actually assumed by Gregory's cotemporary and rival, John, the patriarch of Constantinople, whose " strange daring and arrogance" that pope denounced as in- dicating " that the times of Antichrist were at hand."* And yet, the Roman Breviary tells us that Gregory " crushed the audacity of John" !f Gibbon says of him, that " his virtues, and even his faults, a singular mixture of simplicity and cunning, of pride and humility, of sense and superstition, were happily suited to his station, and the temper of the times. In his rival, the patriarch of Constantinople, he contemned the antichristian title of univer- sal BISHOP, which the successor of St. Peter was too haughty to concede, and too feeble to assume.":}: The idea of the conversion of the Saxons was conceived by Gregory before his election to the popedom. Bede§ informs us, that being one day at Rome in the market-place, among other articles of merchandise exposed to sale were " some boys, their bodies white, their countenances beautiful, and their hair very fine." Having asked what was their country and their religion, he was told that they were " Pagans," " from the island of Britain^ . . . "He therefore asked again, what was the name of the nation ?" And it was answered that they were called Angles. "Right," said he, "for they have an angelic face, and it becomes such to be co-heirs with the, angels in heaven." " What is the name," proceeded he, " of the province from which they are brought ?" It was replied, that the natives of that pro- vince were called Deira. " Truly are they De ird^'' said he, " withdrawn from wrath and called to the mercy of Christ. How is the king of that province called ?" They told him his name was yElla; and he, alluding to the name, said, "aZ/e%"a/i, the j^raise of God the Creator must be sung in those parts."|| Under these circumstances it was, that Gregory I., the 64th Pope^[ in the alleged line of succession from Peter, a.d. 596, ' sent * Bede's Epist Lib. IV. : 78. t Die XII. Martii. In festo Sancti Gregorii. \ Gibbon's Decline and Fall. \ Called '' the venerable Bede ;" he was a monk, and, though a native historian of the eighth century, yet he paid unreserved obedience to the Pope of Rome ; and so highly are his works esteemed by the Romish Church, that they are referred to as evidence in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and quoted for edification in the Romish Breviary. II Bede, Book II., c. 1. H See the Catalogue of the Popes. 343 AUGUSTINE, with otlier monks, to preach to the English,' or Saxons, the Pope having appointed that Augustine should ' be con- secrated bishop, in case they were received by the English.'* The whole company, at first intimidated by fear of the fierce and bar- barous character of the Saxons, and from their ignorance of their language, returned home.f But ' Augustine, being strengthened by the confirmation of the blessed Father Gregory, returned to the work of the word of God, with the servants of Christ,' i.e., the monks, about forty in number, 'and arrived in Britain.' They landed on ' the large island of Thanet on the east of Kent,' of which ' Ethelbert was at that time the most powerful king.' Through ' interpreters of the nation of the Franks,' furnished 'by the order of the blessed Pope Gregory,':}: they were admitted to hold audience with the king, who, though at first influenced by a superstitious fear of an exposure to ' magical arts,' yet, 'bearing a silver cross for a banner, and the image of our Lord and Savior painted on a board, '§ ' Augustine,' says Bede, ' by God's assist- ance, suppof'ted with miracles,'' (though not possessed of "the signs of an apostle," the miraculous gift of tongues,) ' reduced King Ethelbert and his nation from the worship of idols to the faith of Christ.'! Bede then informs us, that the king 'permitted them to reside in Cantekbuby, which was the metropolis of all his dominions.'^ And from thence, Bede tells us, Augustine sent Laurentius the priest, and Peter the monk, to Pome, to ac- quaint Pope Gregory that the nation of the English' (the Saxons) ' had received the faith of Christ, and that he was himself made their bishop.' * Bede, B. I., c. 23. t lb. J lb., c. 24. § lb. I) lb., Book II., c. 3. 1 lb. 344 SECTIOIir V. Proof j)ositive, that, in the time of Augustine, and fon nearly one hundred years after, no ecclesiastical connection existed between the fornner and the Litter bishops. — Mr. E. Churton, Bede, etc. — This, the most important point of the Historico-Prelatical Controversy. — Involves the necessity to show, I. — How the succession through Canterbury is derived from the " Old British Church." — Mr. C. here compared with himself — "The Culdees." — Mr. E. Churton. — Bede. — Aidan. — His ordination Presbyterial. — Inference fatal to Mr. C's theory.— II- — Must demonstrate the total exemption of the English Church from all subjection to, or connection with, the See of Rome. — '' The Old British Bishops" subdued to the obedience of Rome, a.d. 668. — Persecution of. — Bede charges it on Augustine. — Lauded by Mr. E. Churton. Thus, then, as we have seen, Augustine's mission originated with, and was appointed by, Pope Gregory I. That its object was, the conversion of the pagan Saxons. And, that its sphere of oper- ations was, Kent in England, of which Canterbury was tlie me- tropolis, and of which Augustine was made the first English archbishop. Hence, the radical point on which we are at issue with Protest- ant prelatists generally, and with the Rev. Mr. Chapin in particu- lar. - The question is, was Augustine a popish or an anti-popish pre- late ? If the former, then it follows, that the Anglican succession IS d?:kived from Ro:me. If the latter, and it can be made to appear that the English Church has "ever been legally and canonically independent of^""^ the Bishop of Rome., then, vice versa. If there is any meaning in language, Mr. Chapin affirms that Augustine's Archbishopric at Canterbury in Kent, England, was not of Rome : in other words, that it was anti-popish. Augus- tine was consecrated by the Archbishops of Aries and of L3'ons in Gall, (France,) and " the Gallic Churches derived their episco- pate" according to " the ancients themselves" from " St. John ;" and Augustine, being " \hQ first Sa.ron hishoj), as well as the first archhishopf of Cantei'hury^'' therefore, " the English bishops re- ceived their succession, not^ as is often said, from Rome, but from Arle8^''\ etc. Now, by turning over to page 360 of Mr. C's book, we find the following. " In 598, he (Augustine) wrote to Gregory, Bishop of Rome., for advice touching certain points of inquiry. One of the questions was, In what manner he ought to deal with the bishops of Gall and Britain ? .... In answer, Gregory tells him, that he has nothing to do with the Bishops of Gall, who were subject to * The Primitive Church, p. 359. t lb. pp. 291,292. 345 the Bishop of Aries as their metropolitan;" but, "that he ought to have authority over the British hishojfs,^'' etc. From the above, Mr. C. infers, " that there were canonical and lawful bishops in Britain hefore Augustine went there ;" " and consequently, he adds, " HE (Augustine) owed submission to the metkopolitan of Britain, (!) according to the then existing canons of the Church," namely: "the sixth canon of the Council of Nice, a.d. 325," which enacts, " that the ancient customs and rights of the Church should not be changed." It turns out, then, after all, that Augustine, through whom, as the connecting link between the English succession and that of EpJiesus through the lines of Lj^ons and Aries, and who is de- clared to be "the first Saxon bishop," and " the first archbishop of Canterbury," was a USURPER of the rights of the metropolitan of the British Church. Query. What has Mr. C. to oiler in reply ? But, no. For, on the one hand, authentic history shows how totall}^ at variance with the fact is the pretense of Augustine's schismatical infringement of the rights of a pre-existing metro- politanship in the old British Church. That no such order existed in that part of the dominion of Ethelbert where Augustine was established as Archbishop of Canterbury, is evident from the fact already alluded to, namely : that " the old British churches, exist- ing anterior to the Anglo-Saxon invasion, had been utterly swept from North Britain." Mr. Churton saj^s : " The last British bishops, Theonas of London, and Thadioc of York, retreated with the remnant of their flocks into Wales."* From Wales, therefore, and not from Old Britain, came those bishops, who, under Augus- tine's Oak on the bank of the Severn rejected his over- tures to submit to the papal yoke. Such were the so-called seven bishops, whom Augastine endeavored to bring over to the See of Rome. We repeat: the so-called bishops. Otherwise, why axe we not furnished with the unhroken chain through said bishopric from St. Paul, who, Mr. C. informs us, " about a.d. 63, appears to have visited Britain, "f where there has been " at all times since, a Church of the Jiving God" based on the prelatical platform, having derived her "ecclesiastical rites" from "the eastern churches" through " Aristobulus, a Greek, and the disciple of St. Paul ;":]: which, with other " facts, proves, beyond all cavil," says Mr. C, " that Ijpfore Augustine came to England, there was a church es- tablished there, duly organized upon apostolical principles, — with bishops owning and acknowledging no subjection to the pope." Yes, proved, " heyond all cavil,'''' though Mr. C. assures us that " the earliest history of the British Church has been involved in much obscurity, by the destruction of the records of that Church ;" * The Early English Church, p. 33. t The Primitive Church, p. 363. t lb. p. 364. 346 and, that " much doubt and uncertainty has been thrown over it, by the manner in which it has been treated by the later monkish historians, to whom we are indebted for very much of the history of those times." Ilence, " the number of bishops in England at that tiiiic^^ (the time of Augustine's mission there,) he says, " we do not know.''''* We must, therefore, in this instance, content ourselves to forego the benefits of the genealogical register, the entire validity of the English Succession being made to depend on the uninterrupted spiritual descent from St. Paul, of the seven above named protest- ing bishops against the attempted usurpations of Augustine, to the contrary notwithstanding. In regard to " the number of bishops in England" in the time of Augustine, however, we would respectfully inform Mr. C. that Bede makes mention of one^ — ' the Bishop of Luidhard, whom the pagan king, Ethelbert of Kent, had agreed (as the condition ex- acted by her parents) should accompany his wife Bertha, a Chris- tian lady of the royal family of the Franks, f to preserve her faith. Beyond this one bishop, — and who doubtless sympathized with Augustine, tliere was none other in England " at this time.'''' Those who met Augustine in the conference held on the banks of the Severn, were the exjyatriated bishops of the old British churches, existing anterior to the Anglo-Saxon invasion, and who had lied for refuge, some to Brittany in France, and some in Wales. Bede tells us, that ' the bishops, or doctors,' whom Au- gustine, with the assistance of King Ethelbert, drew together to confer with him at a place which is to this day called ' Augustine's Ac' (Oak), were ' of the next province of the Britons,':]: i.e., Wales. The first eflbrt of Augustine having failed, a second conference was appointed, which brought together seven of the above expa- triated bishops, and many of their most learned men from the monastery of Baucornaburg, or Bangor, over which the Abbot Binooth, who bore a prominent part in the debates with Augus- tine, is said to have presided at that time.§ Now, it is by a confounding of things which thus plainly differ — it is by identifying the English succession with the old British churches, (which are entirely separate and distinct,) by which Mr. C. and tlie advocates of Protestant prelacy of the same school with him, labor to blind the minds of the "unlearned in these matters,"! to a perception of the real points at issue. For, to prove that the English succession is derived through a channel independent of all connection with that of Kome, they must show, First, in what way the line of bishops through the See of Can- * The Primitive Church, p. 362. t Bede, Book XXV., c. 25. t lb., Book II., c. 2. § lb. See also Chapin's Primitive Church, p. 361. II The Primitive Church, p. 355. 347 terbury^ is derived from that of the expatriated bishops of the old British Church / and, Second, having done this, they must demonstrate the total ex- enwtion of that See from all subjection to or connection with, the Church of Rome ^ I. In regard to the first, we are not aware that even the learned ecclesiastical genealogist, Mr. Chapin himself, has ventured to offer any thing on the subject. True, on pages 356-358, under the head of " Province of Canterbury," he gives us a list of twenty-nine bishops in nine different dioceses, between a.d. 635 and 668. He then affirms, that " there were certainly seven* bishops living in England at the time of Aidan's consecration as bishop of "Lindis- farne, or Durham,"f a.d. 635, fi-om which statements, nothing is more natural than for those "unlearned in these matters" to infer, not only that there was 7io " scarcity of bishops in England" at the time of Augustine's mission, but, as one of the " seven" above named "bishops living in England" was " the metropolitan of his own province,":}: that that province was Canterbury ! whereas, according to his own dates of consecrations, the earliest in his list leaves an interval between Augustine's mission and it, of at least twenty-eight years ! nor will the reader pass over this fact as of trivial moment, when he reflects that Mr. C.'s statements, when stript of their — we hope, unintentional — ambiguity, he discovers that there is, between Mr. C.'s seven English bishops, and the old British bishops of Wales who met Augustine on the banks of the Severn, a gulf, which no prelatical sophistry can pass. Thus severed, then, from the old British churches, there remain two other alternatives to the English successionists — either to ad- mit their spiritual descent from Rome^ whose alleged unbroken succession Stillingfleet says : " is as muddy as the Tiber itself," or to derive it from " the churches of South Britain^'''' through " the Culdees." " The Culdees." Who were they ? Answer : Scotch lyresby- tersy or monks, belonging to the monastery of St. Columba, him- self " an Irish preshyter^ abbot, and monk," and under whom, a.d, 505, the Picts were converted to Christianity, and among others their king, Bridius. We quote from Mr, Chapin. " In return for his eminence, his piety, and his labors, Bridius gave to Columb the island of Hii, or lona, and conferred upon him the government of the island. Bede's account of this island is : ' That island hath for its ruler an abbot, [meaning Columb,] who is only a presbyter, to whose government all the provinces, and even the bishops (con- trary to the usual custom) are subject, after the example of their * From Mr. C.'s own lists, as we shall presently show, not one such bishop was pre- eent in England at that time, t The Primitive Church, p. 358. t lb., p. 358. 348 first doctor, [meaning Columb,] who was not a bishop, but a jprea- l)ytci\ and a monk.' "* But a revolution transpired in Northumbria, England^ which placed Oswald on the throne; and in the year a.d. 635, this king sent to the Scotch cJturches for a bishop, who, on his arrival, was established, says Mr, Churton, on "the island of Lindisfarne, on the coast of Northumberland, near to Bambrough, his o^n royal seat," A\'hich, Mr. Churton adds, " was the first foundation of the bishopric of Durham."f " The monastery of St. Columba" re- spoudocl to the call, by sending to Oswald the "Scottish mission- ary Aidan," who was also " followed by many other Scottish monks and priests, who were called Culdees, (quasi Cultores dei,) from their great piety and devotion." Now, true, the fifth chapter of Bede is entitled, the " Life of Bishop Aidan ;" and it is said, " from this monastery [in the island of Hiij Aidan was sent, having received the office of a bishop." And again, under date 652, he says : " Finnan succeeded him [AidauJ in the Episcopate, being also sent from the monastery of Hii, in the Scottish island, and remained a long time in the Epis- copate, (Episcopate. "):j: But, by ivhom was Aidan, for example, consecrated? Speaking of their proceedings in his case, Bede says, " Thus making him bishop, they (the Guldee Presbyters of the monastery of St. Columba) sent him forth to preach."§ To prove, therefore, that the consecration of Aidan was any other than Preshyterial^ it is incumbent on the advocates of prelacj^ to show when and by whom St. Columba and the Presbyters of his monastery were made pre- lates. This, we affirm, neither Bede, nor Bishop Lloyd, who has attempted it, nor Mr. C., either have done or can do. Will pre- latists condescend to inform us how it came to pass, that " the council of Cealehythe, held A. D. 816, decreed " that no Scotch priest should perform any function in England ?" We can inform them that it was " their waiit of metropolitan hishoj/s^ their con- tempt of other orders^ and the council's ignorance of the nature of their ordination.^^W Now, had the fact presented itself in any other book but one written ostensibly to demonstrate that the English succession was not derived from Rome, it had not appeared so extraordinary, that Mr. Chapin's " Chapter XXVIL," under the head of " alleged breaks in our succession," and which he pronounces "absurd," and " next to an impossibility," comes next after his exhibit of the tabular view of the Bomisih line from Peter to Gregory XVI. One would suppose that these "alleged breaks," from this circum- stance, related to that line. But so far from it, we are at once ' * The Primitive Church, pp. 355, 356, Bede, Book III., c. 4. + Early English Church, p. 65. X The Primitive Church, pp. 352, 356, Bede, Book III., c. 6, 17. § Bede, B. III., c. 3. II See Ree's Encyclopaedia, Art. Culdees. 849 ferred to the objection against tlic English succession, that from A. D, 668, "by far the greatest part of their bishops were of Scot- tish ordination by xViden and Finnan," etc., which objection, on the authority of Bede, as above, he labors to prove fallacious. The fair inference therefore is, that the boasted English succession is derived, not from Rome, not from Canterbury, but from the Culdee monk^ Aidan^ the first bishop of the diocese of Landisfarne or Durham, whose consecration, as we have shown, was presby- TERIAL ! With prelatists, if we mistake not, such a derivation, to use the language of Stilliugfleet, must be esteemed quite " as muddy" as that of Rome. Nor should it be forgotten in this connection, that, even admit- ting that Aidan was a bishop in the prelatical sense, yet, being no more than an ^'■Episcopal governor^'' he could not transmit the " apostolic siLccession, on which all Episcopal power depends," "that apostolical succession" being only traceable " back through the Archbishops of Canterbury or York."* Thus, patient reader, after having been compelled to " box the compass," in our perambulations of the meanderings of Mr. Chapin in his attempts to dodge " Old Rome" by way of " Ephesus^'''' through St. John ; of Britain^ through St. Paul ; of Scotland^ through Aidan ; and of Ireland^ through St. Columba ; we are actually brought back again to " AUGUSTINE, the first Saxon bishop, and the first archbishop of Canterbury." For, II. Second, we proceed to the evidence in proof that so far from it being true of the English bishops, as Mr. C. affirms, that " they have ever been legally and canqnically independent" of Rome, the comparatively brief intervals of such independence as mark their history, is but the measure of their schismatical rebellion against their only legal and ecclesiastical ancestor, Rome ! True, the old British bishops of Wales, whom, on the banks of the Severn, Augustine failed to subdue to the obedience of the Roman See, were not subjected to that yoke till about A. D. 668. Under Theodore, the pope's primate, in the See of Canterbury, England, "Rome triumphed." This triumph was signalized on the one hand by Wilfred's refusal, on his appointment to tho bishopric of York, to receive consecration at the hands of the Scottish bishops of Lindisfarne or Durham, and Litchfield, and his repairing to Paris, where he obtained it from Agilbert, the Arch- bishop ; and on the other, from the re-ordination of Chad, at the instigation of Theodore, he ha^dng been previously ordained bishop of York, on which occasion two Welch bishops were present and assisted."f Nor are we to overlook the agencies employed b}'- Rome in the accomplishment of this work. In reply to their re- * The Primitive Church, pp. 285, 286. t Churton's Early English Church, pp. 75-86. 350 fusal to accede to Augustine's demands, " that thej would do none of those things, nor receive him as their archbishop ;" Bedc re- ports him " in a threatening manner to have foretold, that in case they would not join in unity with their brethren, they should be warred upon by their enemies ; and if they would not preach the way of life to the English nation, they should, at their hands, undergo the vengeance of death. All which, through the dispensa- tion of the divine judgment, fell out exactly as he had predicted."* Yea, verily. For, " under Theodore and Wilfrid, the Welsh Christians were not even allowed to receive the sacrament with the English, unless they conformed," Bede relates, that at one time " there were slain of them who came to pray (j^resbyters) about a thousand and two hundred men and only fifty escaped by flight" If Thus, says Mr. Churton, speaking of Theodore, " he found the Church (English) divided, he left it united ; he found it a mis- sionary Church, scarcely fixed in more than two principal pro- vinces ; he left it, what it ever will be, while the country remains in happiness and freedom, the Established Church of England.^X Protestant Episcopalians, what think ye ? " The Established Church of England," with its foundation, according to Bede, soaked in the purest anti-papal blood that was ever spilt at the hands of Old Eome's sanguinary vassals, and that deed of perse- cution and of blood lauded by one of your very last and most distinguished advocates. SECTION VI. Distinction between the British Church and the Jnglo-EngUsh, admitted by Mr. C. His disingenuousness, and glaring sophistry. — Effect of. — Mr. C. further com- pared with himself in regard to Augustine. — Fallacy of the plea of his " very providential" {alias) Protestant (!) ordination, by the Archbishops of Aries and of Lyons. — Gregory's reply to Augustine's seventh of the nine questions proposed to him. — Legate of Leo L at the Council of Chalcedon, a.d. 455. — Decree of the Emperor .Justinian IIL — Not annulled between a.d. 440 and 590. — Romanism of Augustine. — Mr. Turner and Archdeacon Mason on. — Mr. C.'s admission, that the Anglo-Saxons were converted by Augustine. — 10,000 baptized in one day. — The present Cathedral of Canterbury identical with that erected for Augustine by his first royal convert, Ethelbert, King of Kent. — Hence the Romish origin and • descent of the English line of archbishops. — Proved from Mr. C.'s own book. — Vide his Catalogue of the Succession, divided into four parts ; for which, see next Section. The reader will now, doubtless, be not a little surprised, to find that Mr. Chapin himself recognizes a distinction, between the old * Bede, Book IL, c. 2. f lb., Book II., c. 2. I Early English Church, pp. 75, 76. 351 Britisli Churcli of "Wales, and the Anglo-Saxon, Of the former, he says, " We have shown conclusively, that the British Churoh was not originally a branch of the Eoraan Church."* Surely, Mr. 0. might well have spared himself the toil of compiling some fif- teen pages of matter, in proving what no one on earth denies. Of the latter, he says, " the Anglo-Saxon portion of it, though con- verted by missionaries froin Rome^ practically denied from the very outset, the supremacy of the Pope, as it is now claimed, "f etc. This, in every particular, we positively deny. First, Mr. C.'s assertion, " That there were at least one arch- bishop and seven bishops in England when Augustine landed there," as I have shown, is a sheer imposition upon those " un- learned in these matters." The paragraph, taken as a whole, is so framed, as to make " the Arch-Episcopate of Cacrleonl^'^X ^^ which, he says, these bishops belonged, identical with what he alleges to " be the Anglo-Saxon portion of it" in Kent, England, " when Augustine landed there." But we ask, what," portion" of the old " British Church" could that have been, when Mr. Churton tells us, that " the last British bishops, Theonas of London and Thadioc of York, retreated with the remnant of their flocks into Wales^^^ and that, according to Mr. Chapin's own showing, six years hefore the conference between Augustine and Dinooth, they having fixed their seat at "Kaerllion ar Wye — Caer-leon upon Wislcer\ But even granting that there was a "portion" of the old Brit ish Church in Kent " when Augustine landed there," Mr. C. tells us that they were " converted hy missionaries from Homers So then, after all, that " portion," whether large or small, became KOMAN. But, says Mr. C, they " practically denied from the very outset, the supremacy of the pope, as it is now claimed." The structure of this sentence is glaringly absurd and sophistical. Mr. C.'s ordi- nary sagacity, in giving it a place in his book, seems to have for- saken him. What, Anglo-Saxon converts to Romanism in the A.D. 596, protesting against the ministry, the doctrines, and the usages of that church hy which and to which they had been converted, " from the very outset "? Pray, what sort of conversion can that be, against which the mind rises \ip in revolt '•'■ fro^in the very out- set ".^ Then too, they " denied the supremacy of the pope, as it is NOW claAmed.^'' Now, had it not been more in accordance both with consistency aiid honesty, had Mr. C. informed those "un- learned in these matters," as to what "the supremacy of the pope" was, "when Augustine landed" in Kent? Also, if there were any essential difference between what popery was then and now^ to have pointed it out ? The sophistry of this sentence is seen, in Mr. C.'s attempt to palm upon his readers the idea of great zeal on * The Primitive Church, p. 371. f lb. X lb., p. 369. \ The Early English Church, p. 33. II The Primitive Church, p. 361, note. \ lb., p. 371. 852 the part of these converts to Romanism, by pointing them to their alleged " practical denial" of — what? We answer : — That very system of religion, which that very Augustine, whom Mr. Chapin styles " the first Saxon bishop, and the first archbishop of Canterbury," and who, having been " very providentially" con- secrated by the Bishops of Aries and of Lyons, was sent into En- gland to propagate, under the auspices of Pope Gregory I. ; and who, as such, forms the connecting link between the English Suc- cession through the See of Canterbury^ and the 8ee of EpJtesus^ as alleged to have been founded by St. John ; and all of which proves, " conclusively," that the English Succession is not de- rived from Rome. The reflecting and pious mind cannot but look with deep sor- row on a cause which cannot be sustained, except at the expense of so gross a dereliction from all scholarlike propriet}^ and historic fact. But to proceed. Mr. Chapin has devoted seventy-three ]3ages of his book (pp. 285-358) to prove, " that the Church of England did not descend from the Church of Rome ;" and, with these, one hundred and fifty additional pages, (pp. 358-508) to prove that her bishops "Aav '^ 409 CHAPTER X. OF THE FRATERNAL CHARACTER OR PERFECT EQUALITY OF THE OFFICE AND FUNCTIONS OF ELDERS OR PRESBYTERS, AND BISHOPS. SECTION I. Importance of a further exhibit of the subject of this Chapter, in contrast with the pre- latical theory. — Proofs of the parity or perfect equality of the ordinary ministry of divine appointment, as derived, 1st : From the interchangeable use of the titles, Elder and Bishop. — 2d : From the declarations of prelatists themselves. — Also from the writings of the purest ages of antiquity. — The terms Ordo, Gradus, Offici- um, defined. — Circumstances which originated a diversity in ecclesiastical func- tions,— Elfric, Ambrose, etc. The important bearing of the subject of this chapter on the general issue involved in these inquiries, demands for it a farther consider- ation at our hands. After what has been already offered in Parts II. and III. of this Treatise, demonstrative of the fallacy of the alleged "divers orders" of Prelatists, Romish, Tractarian, and High and Low Church ; all that is now designed, is, to show that, contrary to the prelatical dogma, namely, that bishops are now what the apostles were in their time (minus their extraordinary endowments as in- sisted on by some) ; they, that is, presbyters and bishops, in office and functions, are one and the same Order ; which order, with that of deacons, constitute the two, and these, the only divinely- appointed ordinary and standing orders of the Church of Christ, for all time. I. Our first evidence is derived from the interchanojeable use of the names or titles, elder^ TrQeajSvreQog, presbyter; and bishop, emoKOTTog, overseer ; in the New Testament, to denote the same offtce. In proof, to save space, Ave refer the reader to Part II. of this Treatise, p. 159 ; and Part III. pp. 274, 275. II. This is corroborated by the declarations of Prelatists themselves. These are collected from those passages in their Avritings in which they attempt to account for the substitution of the name bishop, in the place of apostle. Thus, Theodoret : — " The same persons were anciently called promiscuously both bishops and presbyters, whilst those who are noio called bishops, were" (then) "called apos- 410 ties. But shortly after, the name of apostles was appropriated to such only as Avere apostles indeed," etc.* " They who are now called bishops, were originally called apostles ; but the holy apos- tles being dead, they who were ordained after them, were in many respects inferior to them. Therefore they thought it not decent to assume to themselves the name of apostles," etc.f The learned Hammond says, " that in Scripture times the name of presbyter belonged principally, if not alone, to hishops,^^ etc.ij: Bishop Gris- wold, spcalving of the New Testament age, says, " the elders, pres- byters, or priests, . . . were tlie7i also styled hishops.^^^ And again : " The name of apostle was not long continued Alter their death, their successors in office modestly assumed the name of ,bishop."|| Here, then, in the first place, it is conceded that, during the apo.s'tles^s times, and also " after tJteir death^'' the titles Presbyter and Bishop were applied " promiscuously" to the smne jperson^ and denoted the sam.e offi.ce and functions. In the next place, we concede and contend for, Avhat prelatists affirm, namely, that the persons known by this double title of preshyter-hisJw]) during and "after" the apostolic age, filled an office, and exercised functions entirely different, both from the New Testament apostles, and from those whom Theodoret in his time, and they now, call bishops. But Theodoret affirms that the hisJiops of his time filled the office of, and performed the functions peculiar to, the apostles in their own times. It follows, that, as those who bore the title of hisJi op during, and for some time "after" the New Testament age, filled an office, and performed functions notoriously inferior to those of the apos- tles, the bishops contended for by prelatists must be an entieelt NEW OKDER in the Church of Christ. And we remark. Finally, of human origin, and that, according to their own showing. Thus St. Ambrose, as quoted by Amalarius. " The holy apostles being dead, they who were ordained after them to govern the churches," etc. Surely then, if these bishops apostolic were not " ordained" till " after" the death of " the holy apos- tles," they could not have been ordained hy apostolic hands. What now, we deferentially ask, becomes of Bishop Mcllvaine's apostolical chain, "preserved," as he alleges, "as inviolate as the line of the descent of Adam, and " fastened, at its beginning, upon the throne of God" ?^ * Theodoret, as quoted by Bingham. Antiquity of the Christian Church, Vol. I., p. 21, fol. London: 1726. t St. Ambrose, as quoted by Anialarius. Bingham, Vol. I., p. 21. % Bingham, lb § Bishop Griswold on the Apostolical Succession, p. 8. II lb., p. 7. 1[ Argument for the Apostolical Succession, p. 9. 411 m. The same fact is conjh'mcd hy tlie writings of tJis purest ages of antiquity. The extracts here given from the writings of " the early fathers," we would remind the reader, are, for the most part, the very passages on which prclatists mtist and do rely (so far as the testimony of tradition is concerned) for the support of their episcopacy of three orders. We shall content ourselves to present them almost without comment, leaving the reader to make his own inferences respecting them, only begging to premise by the way that, in order to a proper understanding of these ancient writers on the subjects quoted, it is necessary to fix the meaning of the terms or^o, gradus^ officium^ (order, degree, and office,) etc. These terms, we remark, were employed by them, not as imply- ing the origin of difterent ranks of officials, jure dlvino^ but sim- ply to denote distinct classes of persons, who, though they per- formed different acts, were, nevertheless, of the same order^ degree^ or ojjice. Hence, Bishop Taylor : " It is evident that in all antiquity, ordo and gradus (order and degree) were used promis- cuously." So Bingham : " St. Jerome, who by all will be allowed to speak the sense of the ancients, makes no difference in these words, ordo, gradus, offidum,'''' etc.* With this fact in view, we are furnished with 9, hey explanatory of those passages of the fathers which would seem, at first, to countenance the prelatical theory of the superiority of bishops, as an order, over that of presbyters. The circumstances which originated this diversity of ecclesiastical functions among those holding, de facto, the same scriptural office, may be gathered from the following, out of many similar passages which might be given. Elfric, who, according to Fox the martyrologist, was archbishop of Canterbury about a.d. 996, says: "There is no more difference between the mass-presbyter and the bishop than this, that the bishop is appointed to confer ordinations, etc., which, if every presbj^ter should do it, would be committed to too many. Both, indeed, are one and the same order, although the part of the bishop is the more honorable. Ambo siquidem unum eun- demque tenent ORDINEM quamvis sit dignitor ilia pars ep)i8copi.''''\ But long before this, as early as about a.d. 370, in Ambrose's Commentaries on Paul's Epistles, may be found the following : — " The apostles' s writings are not altogether agreeable to the order of things as nov) -practiced in the Church. For Timothy, who was ordained a presbyter by Paul [? see pages 149-151 of this Treatise, Part II..] he calls a bishop ; because, at the first, presbyters were called bishops ; and, as one departed, the next succeeded to the office. But because the next in succession were . found unworth}^ to hold the primacy, the custom was changed by the provision of a council, so that, not the next in order, but the next in merit, should be made bishop, and constituted such by the * Bingham's Christian Antiquity, Book II., c. 1, p. 17 t Canons, etc., a Laur. Howell, A.M., pp. 66, 67, folio. London : 1708. 412 judgment of a number of the priests" [presbyters], " lest an un- wortliy person should usurp, and become a general scandal."* It will be well for the reader to mark the two points here pre- sented. The first, that gospel truth and purity^ and not an un- broken genealogical succession, is the criterion of a true succes- sion. The second, that, as a prudential arrangement, — a matter of EXPKDiENOV,t — one presbyter was selected fi'om among the rest, and by them placed over the body as superintendent, called by Am- brose, " inter Presbjrteros primus," or " Primus Presbyter, ";}; and to whom was given the name of bishop. SECTION n. Extracts from the Fathers. — Clem. Romanus, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenseus, Tertul- lian, Origen, Cyprian, Firmilian, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome III. Now for our extracts from " the Fathers^ We shall be- gin with, 1. Clemens Romanus, a.d. 70.§ The earliest writer after the apostles. In his epistle to the Church of Corinth, the apostles, he says, " preaching through countries and cities, appointed the first fruits of tlieir conversions to be bishops and deacons over such as should afterwards believe, having first proved them by tlie spirit," And he adds : " Our apostles knew, bj^ our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be contention about the name of Episcopacy : and therefore, being endued with a perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid officers, namely, hishop)s and deacons^ and gave regulations|| for these offices separately and mutually, that so when they died, other proved men might succeed to their minis- try." " Bishops, Avith St. Clement," says Lord Barrington, " are always the same with elders or presbyters, as any one must see if they read the Epistle." Of presbyters, he speaks thus: "Ye walked according to the laws of God, being subject to those who had the rule over you, and giving the honor that was fitting to such as were presbyters among you."^" And again : " Only let * See our exhibit of the adverse views of modern prelatists, pp. 218, 219. t See Chap. VI., Sec. I. \ Ambrose's Com. 1 Tim. 3 5 and Eph. 4. \ Cave's Lives of the Fathers. II Prelatists make the " regulations" to refer to the succession: for example: Arch- bishop Usher has it, '^ ordincm prcescriptum;'" Dr Hammond, '' scricw succcssionis, cata- logum;'' Archbishop Wake's translation, ^' gave directions, how, when they [the apos- tles] should die, other chosen men should succeed in their ministry." But, if Clement had meant '■^ catalogus,'^ a catalogue, he would have written KuraXtyoi; i{ ^- series succes- stows," .'iii'I»Y'/ ) if ordo, rain. His expression, /it-,,'- trira/<;|, following immediately upon his mention of bishops and deacons, evidently implies, ''a law or regulation of these offices separately and mutually." Hence the above translation. 1 Epistles, sec. 1. 413 the flock of Christ be in peace with the ^?re5Jy^(er5 that are set over you."* 2. Ignatius, a.d. 101. + The writings of this father form the stronghold of prelacy. But the " weak silly rant and rhodo- montade'' with which they abound, together with the fact that some parts of his first reputed Epistles have been rejected as he- retical by some of the most learned of the English Church, render it impossible to resist the suspicion, if not the conviction, that they have been fabricated, at least for the most part, under the name of that valuable witness and eminent martyr, purely out of subserv- iency to a favorite theory. Let them, however, be taken as genu- ine. The strongest passages in favor of prelacy are the following : He says, the deacon " is subject to the presbyters, as to the law of Jesus Christ" — " the presbyters j9/'£'s*<:Z<3 in the jDlace of the councils of the apostles."^ " Be ye subject to your presbyters as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope :"§ " Let all reverence the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and college of apostles :"| "Being subject to your hisliop as to the command of God ; and so likewise to the presbytery."^ Again: "Let no man do any thing of what belongs to the Church, separately from the bishops. Let the Eucharist be looked upon as well established, which is either offered by the bishop, or by him to whom the bishop has given his consent. Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be also ; as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop, neither to baptize, nor to celebrate the holy communion ; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing unto God ; that so whatever is (done, ma}- be sure and well done." Now, after allowing the utmost that can be justly claimed in behalf of the sujyeriority of bishops over presbyters from these passages, there is no ground for the inference, that that superiority is founded in divine riglit. A^iewed as an ecclesiastical arrange- ment predicated of expediency, all that can be said of the above bishops of Ignatius is, that they exercised the functions of the " primus presbyter," or sujyerintendent of, Clemens Eomanus. (See 1, Clemens Eomanus, opposite.) 3. Justin Martye. About a.d. 155. In his Apology, from chapter 85 to 88 inclusive, he six times uses the title nQoeorcjg, to denote the p}v side }it of the Christian assembly. Neither the term bishop, nor presbyter, is used at all. Beeves (a prelatist), his trans- lator, allows the term to denote the same as the ^^prohati seni- ores''' of Tertullian;** the ma^oves natu of Cyrian ;f f and the ♦Epistles, sec. 54. ■{• Cave's Lives of the Fathers. X Epistle to the Magnesians. 4 Epistle to the Trallians. H Same Epistle. 1" Epistle to the Smymians. From Archbishop Wake's translation. ** Apol., c. 32. tt Epistles, 75. 414 ngoearuTeg ttq£oPvteqol, or presiding presbyters, of Paul (1 Tim, 4 : 17) ; that is, that they were all one and the smne. " Pres- byter," says Bishop Jewel, *' is expounded in Latin by natu ma- jor ;^^* proof, that Tcrtullian, Cyrian, and Paul, all mean presby- ters^ the Trpoearw^- of Justin, and to whom, as presiding, not over other ministers^ but over the people^ he assigns the ordinary func- tions of pastor of the flock. 4. Iren^eus. About A.D. 184. Claimed also by prelatists as another stronghold. Their quotations of him would make him the advocate of a succession, j/wr<3 divino^ by lishops alone. But, so tar from this, we shall show, that Irenteus not only iiscs the terms presbyter and bishop promiscuously, as constituting the same order^ but that the t7'ue apostolical succession is continued through them. We admit that in chapter third of Lib. *3, he speaks explicitly of a succession by bishops. But on the other hand, speaking of several of the bishops of Eome in a letter to Victor — namely, Anicetus, Puis, Ilyginus, Thelesphorus, and Sixtus — he calls them in three different places, presbyters^ and NOT bishops. Of the claim of prelatists, therefore, to impartiality and fairness in their dealings with this writer, we shall leave the reader to judge, when he shall have read the following. Alluding to some who had resorted to tradition in the place of Scripture to support their errors, he says : "But when we appeal to that tradi- tion which has been preserved to us, the successio7is of pkesby- TEKS in the churches — quae per successiones pkesbyterorum in ecclesiis custoditur — they presume they are Aviser, not only than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, and that they have found the truth in a purer form. "f Again: "Wherefore obedi- ence ought to be rendered to those who are presbyters in the Church, who have, as we have shown, successio7i from the apos- tles, and who, with the succession of their Eiyiscopacy^ have a sure deposit of the truth divinely granted to them according to the good pleasure of our heavenly Father.":}; Another : "Now those who are by many received as presbyters.^ yet serving their own lusts, etc., J3ut being puffed up with the chief seats {principalis concessio)^ use others v.dth contumely, and say to themselves, ' None see the evils we do in secret ;' these are reproved by the Lord, etc. From all such we ought to depart, and to cleave to those who preserve, as we have said, the DOCTRINE of the apostles, and, along with their order of presbyter, maintain sound words," etc.§ .Pretty fair Presbyterianism, this 1 5. Tertullian, A.D, 198. In his treatise, De Baptismo, he says : " The highest priest, who is the bishop, has the right of ad- ministering baptism. Then the presbyters and deacons, yet not * Defence of the Apology, Part 6, p. .527, folio edition, 1609. t Lib. 3. c. 2. t Lib. 4, c. 43. § Lib. 4, c. 44. 415 without the authority of the bishop, because of the lionor of the Church.-^ Decisive, say prelatists, for episcopacy, by Divine Eight. Not so. Tertullian, as we shall see, from the other part of the same passage, (and which these writers generally omit,) places the whole upon the ground of a mere ecclesiastical regula- tion. " Otherwise,^^ says he, " the r/^/<^ belongs even to layisien. — Alioquin etiam laicus jus est. — However the laiti/ ought especially to submit humbly and modestly to the discipline and ecclesiaatical regulations of the Church in these matters, and not assunae the office of the bishop," etc.* And again. In his Apology, whilst describing the order and government of the Church, he says, " Pra^sident probati quique seniores,"f etc. 'Approved elders or p-eshyters preside amongst us ; having received that honor, not by money, but by the suffrages of their brethren.":}; These passages of Tertullian, then, taken together, and what becomes of the theory of episcopacy by divine right, so confidently built upon them by prelatists ? 6. Origen. Between a.d. 204-250. The following passages will show, that presbyters and bishops, with Origen, were the same order ; that they ruled the Church in common, the presby- ters presiding toith the bishops, the latter, bearing that name, occu- pying the higher chair, only as an ecclesiastical arrangement. "Dost thou think," says he, " that they who are honored with the priesthood, and glory in their priestly order, walk according to that order ? In like manner, dost thou suppose the deacons also walk according to their order ? Whence then is it that we often hear reviling men exclaim, ' What a bishop !' ' What a presby- ter !' or ' What a deacon ! is this fellow.' Do not these things arise from hence, that the priest or the deacon,^^ [tiuo orders only,] " had, in something, gone contrary to his order, and had done something against the priestly, or the Levitical order ?" § Again. " Imagine the ecclesiastical order, sitting in the seats or chairs of bishops and presbyters. She [the Queen of Sheba] " saw also the array of servants standing to wait in their service. This (as it seems to me) speaks of the order of deacons standing to attend on divine service." || And again. " We of the clerical order, who preside over you."^ Origen was himself no more than a presbyter. Further comment would be superfluous. 7. Cyprian. About a.d. 248-258. A great and good man, and a martyr to the cause of Christ. But, though prelatists, from * De Baptism, c. 17. t '■' Seniores are, in the Greek language, called Presbyters.'" (Rom. Cabbassantius, Notitia Eceles. p. 53). UocaiivTipoi, senior; (Scapula). \lo:s, presbyfc-^ senior; (Schre villus) ; "rp'a/?ur;<);s, id est, semot- ; (Suicer) . And Reeves, a rigid Churchman, says : " The presiding elders here, are undoui)tedly the same with the npotcTun m Justin Martyr." (See 3, Justin Martyr.) t Apology, cap. 39. § Homily 2, in Numb. II Homily 2, in Cant. IT Homily 7, on Jer. 416 his somewliat inflated views of the dignity of a bishop, may quote him with additional confidence compared with the other fathers ; yet it should not be overlooked, that Tertullian was his master. Accordingly, writing to \i\s presbyters and deacons during his seclu- sion from the rage of his persecutors, he says : " I beseech you, ac- cording to your faith and religion, that you perform your own duties, and also those belonging to me, so that nothing be wanting either as to discipline or diligence."'^ Again, having mentioned matters of Church government : "I rely upon your love and your religion, which I well know, and by these letters I exhort and commit the charge to you, that you whose presence does not ex- pos^ you to such peril, would perform all those things which the administration of the Church requires,"f Besides, he speaks of *' the most illustrious clergy presiding with the bishop over the Church ;":|: and he denominates them "the sacred and venerable consistory of his clergy. "§ He also applies the term jorcepositus^ president, as well as pastor, to the presbyters and bishops ii. common. And, finally, in his epistle to Pupian, contending for the divine authority of his OFFICE in the Church, he places it upon this, that he Avas a priest, sacerdos, that is, a presbytek. 8. FiRMiLiAN. A famous bishop of Cossarea, and a contem- porary with Cyprian. Eusebius says : "He was very famous ; equal, if not superior authority to Cyprian himself" In a letter of his found in Cyprian's works, he says : " All power and grace is in the Church, in which jDresbyters preside, and have the power of baptizing, confirmation and ordination. Om7iis potestas et gratia in ecclesia constituta sit, ubi pk.esident majokes natu, qui et haptizandi, et manum iiwponendi.^ et ordinandi, possident potesta- temP 9. Ambrose. About a.d. 370. In addition to what we have already quoted from this father, we shall onlv add the following : " The presbyter and bishop had one and the same ordination. '''I 10. Chrysostom. Between 870-407. In his commentarj^ on 1 Timothy 3, he says : " Paul, speaking about bishops and their ordination, what they ought to possess, and from what they must abstain, having omitted (1 Timothy 3) the order of presby- ters, he passes on to that of deacons. Why so, I ask ? Because the difference between the bishop and the presbyter is almost nothing. For the care of the churches is committed to presby- ters, and the qualifications Avhicli the apostle requires in a bishop, he requires in a presbyter also, being above them solely in the performance of ordination; and this is the only thing they, the bishops, seem to have more than presbyters." A rather rickety * Epist. 5. t Epist. 6. \ Epist. 55. § Epist. 55, p. 107. 11 Conimentavy in Ephesiane, cap. 4. 417 foundation, this, for the support of Episcopacy as alleged to rest upon divine right. They, the bishops, "seem to have," etc. Chry- sostora says not one word respecting this ordaining power of the bishop as founded in divine riglit. He speaks of it simply as a fact, as it existed in his day, agreeably to that ecclesiastical arrangement which, to prevent divisions and discord in the Church, had been j^reviously introduced. We shall now introduce to the reader one other of these " early fathers." 11. Jerome, of Rome. He flourished between a.d. 363-420. He is acknowledsred to be " the most learned of the Latin fathers." St. Augustine says of him : '■'■JSfemo noimnmn sciv^t quod liter o- nynius ignoravit — Jerome knew every thing known by man." We introduce him into this 23lace, on account of his being held, in his writings, rightly to interjjret the sentiments of his more ancient predecessors. Bingham, a high authority with Churchmen, says : " St. Jerome will be allowed to speak the sense of the ancients." Let us then hear him. "Presbyters and bishops were formerly the same. And before the devil incited men to make divisions in reli- gion, and one was led to say, 'I am of Paul, and I of Apollos,' churches were governed by the common council of the pkesbytees. But afterivards^ when every one in baptizing rather made prose- lytes to himself than to Christ, it was every where decreed that one person^ elected from the rest of the presbyters in each church, should be placed over the others; that, the chief care of the church devolving upon him, the seeds of division might be taken away. Should au}^ one suppose this opinion, namely, that bishops and presbyters are the same^ and that one is the denomination of age, and tiie other of office., is not determined by the Scriptures, but is only a ijrirate opinion, let him read over again the apostle's words to the Philippians, saying : ' Paul, and Timotheus, the ser- vants of Jesus Christ which are at Philippi, with the hishops and deacons: grace be unto j^ou, and peace,' etc. Philippi is one of the cities of Macedonia ; and certainly, as to those who are now es- teemed bishops, not more than one at a time can be in one and cthe same city. But because bishops at that time were called the ^me as presbyters, therefore the apostle speaks of bishops indifferently, as being the same as presbyters. And here it should be carefully observed how the apostle, sending for the ^ p/resbyters' (in the plural) ' of the single city of Ephesus only, afterwards calls the same persons bishops. (Acts 20 : 17, 28.) Pie who receives the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews., there finds the care of the Church divided equally amongst many : ' Obey them which have the rxde over you," etc. And Peter, who received his name from the firmness of his faith, says in his Epistle : ' The presbyters, who are among you, I exhort, who am also a presbyter,' etc. ' Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof (1) Heb. 13 : 17. 27 418 {ismoKOTrovvTeg, that is, superintending it), not by constraint, but willingly." These passages we have brought forward to show, that, WITH TiiK ANCIENTS, PEESBYTERS WfiRE THE SAME AS BISIIOPS. But that the roots of dissension might be plucked .p, a usage yradually took place that the chief care should devolve .pon ONE. Therefore, as the presbyters know that it is by THE )[JSTOM of the Church {eoclesice consuetudine) that they are to •e subject to him who is placed oveV them ; so let the bishops :now that they are above presbyters rather by custom than by ',ivine appointment^ and that the Chui'ch ought to be ruled in ommon." As we have said, we leave the reader to draw his own inferences ^rom the preceding extracts, as derived from the writings of the " early fathers," in support of the proposition, that the office and functions of elders or presbyters and bishops, were, from the be- ginning, based on the fraternal platform of perfect equality. SECTION III. Subject continued. — IV. The same corroborated by the testimony of all the Christian Churches in the world. — The African, Greek, Western or Roman, Lutheran, Ger- man Reformed, French, Waldensian, Scotch, and Dissenting. We now proceed to show that the same doctrine is borne out, lY. — By the testimony of all tlie Christian Churches in the world. 1. The African Church. See Tertullian, as above, who was one of the most illustrious African fathers. Gregory iSTazianzen, speaking in his oration upon Athanasius, about the importance of the See of Alexandria, says, it is " as though you should say that its bishop is bishop of the whole worlds 2. The Greek Church. See Firmilian, as above. So, the Council of Ancyra, third century ; epistle of the Council of Nice ; and Theodoret, fifth century. 3. The Western Church, or Church of Eome. Mr. Johnson, the translator of the canons of the Greek and Latin Churches, and a learned prelatist, affirms that the Church of Rome never main- tained the order of bishops by divine right. He says : " That opinion, that the order of priests and bishops was the same, pre- vailed in the Church of Rome for four or five ages (centuries) be- fore the Reformation !"* The Council of Trent, though insisting on a distinction between presbyters and bishoj^s, yet strenuously opposed the doctrine of the divine right of bishops.f 4. The Lutheran Church. She never maintained the divine * Clergyman's Vade Mecum, Vol. II., Preface, 54. t See our remarks on this subject, in the Address to the Reader. 419 rigid of bishops over presbyters, but taught aud practiced the con- trary, Haynes quotes Luther as saying, in reference to the visita- tion of the churches" in Saxony, " We are visitors, that is, bishops." Now, Luther was no more than a. presbyter. Yet we have the fol- lowing account of his having ordained a bishop : — " About this time (a.d. ^5-12), the bishopric of Neoburg, by Sala, was void ; there iSTicholas Arasdorf, a divine, born of a noble family, was in- stalled by Luther," etc.* That is, he was " ordained bishop) by Luther : Nicholas Medler, the pastor of Neoburg, George Spalatinus, pastor of Aldenburg, and Wolfgang Steinius, another pastor, join- ing with Luther in the iryiposition of hands. ''''\ " The gosjjel," says one of the Lutheran articles, "gives to those that are set over the churches, a command to teach the gospel, to remit sins, to admin- ister the sacraments, and jurisdiction also, and by the confession of all, even our adversaries, 'tis manifest, that this power is, by divine right, common to all that are set over the churches, whether they be caWedi pastors^ or presbyters^ or bishojjs." 5. The German Eeformed Church. This Church adopted the Helvetic Confession of Faith. The 31st article contains this state- ment : — " As regards the ministers of the divine word, they have every where the sayne power and authority.''^ 6. The French Church. The pastors aud seniors of this church, in the national council of Yitry, a.d. 1682, adopted the same con- fession, and with it, of course, the 81st article, as above. 7. The Waldenses. Prior to the year 1467, the Waldenses, on the subject of the ministry, hold the following language : — " They who are pastors ought to preach to the people, and feed them often with divine doctrine, and chastise the sinners with discipline." Written a.d. 1100. " Feeding the flock of God not for filthy lucre's sake, nor as having superiority over the clergy." " As touching orders, we ought to hold that order is called the power which God gives to man, duly to administer and dispense unto the Church the word and sacraments. But we find nothing in the Scriptures touching such orders as they" (the papists) " pretend, but only the custom of the Church.";]: Speaking of " pastors" without any dis- tinction, in an ancient MS., they say : " TFe^jcwtors do meet together once every year, to determine our affairs in a general council. Amongst other powers and abilities which God hath given to his servants" [i.e., the pastors'], " he hath given authority to choose leaders to rule the peojjle, and to ordain elders (i^resbyters) in their charges," etc., agreeably to the direction to Titus, " For this cause left I thee in Crete," etc. The monk Eeinerus, who wrote of them a.d. 1250, says : " They considered prelates to be but scribes and pharisees; that the Pope and all the bishops were murderers, * Haynes's Transl. of Melchior Adam's Life of Luther, 4to., Lond. 1041, pp. 71, 83, 84, 102. t Melchior Adam's Life of Amsdorf. t Treatise on Antichrist, a.d. 1220. . ■ 420 because of the wars they waged; — that the}'' were not to obey the bishops, but God only ; — that in the Church no one was greater than another ; — that they hated the very name of prelate, as pope, BISHOP," etc. Stephen, through whom the Moravians allege to have derived their E])iscopacy, in the history of him as given by Perrin, is styled A simply " an elderly man,^^ who was burnt at the stake during a violent 'a. •.* perseculion of that people. Indeed, from their hatred of the very name of prelate, the title of hishoj) seems to have been entirely foreign to their ecclesiastical vocabulary. Evidently, it should have been translated, " one Stephen, a presbyter, or elder." The English Church, whom the Moravians are pleased to call " their only Epis- copal sister," does not acknowledge the relationship ! 8. Of the theories of the Scotch and Dissenting Churches on the subject of the equality of presbyters and bishops, being " known and read of all men," it is unnecessary to enlarge by a reference to proof SECTION IV. Subject continued. — V. Additional testimony from the greatest divines of nnodem tinnes, since the period of the Continental and Anglican Reformations. — Wickliffe, Erasmus, Cranmer, Calvin, Beza, Melancthon, Blondell, M. Flaccius Illyricus, Claude, Bochart, Grotius, Vitringa, Mosheim, Suicer, Schleusner, Archbishoj) Usher, etc. To- the preceding we now add, V. The testimony of the greatest divines of modern times, since the period of the Continental and Anglican Reformation. These will be found to bear a testimony to the fact for which we contend, equally emphatic with that of the early fathers, — Clemens Eoma- nus, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenasus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyrian, Firmilian, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Jerome, of whom the learned Stillingfleet says : " I believe, upon the strictest inquiry, Medina's judgment will prove true, that Hieron, Austin, Ambrose, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, were all of Atriush* judgment as to the identity of both name and order of bishops and presbyters, in the Primitive Church, but here lay the diiference : Aerius from thence proceeded to separation from the bishops and their churches because they loere (prelatical) bishopsy-\ Eight ! * Irenicum, p. 276, 2d ed., 16G2. + Aerius was a Presbyter (orthodox) under Eustathius, Bishop of Sebaste in Armenia, a.d. 3GS. He steinly opposed ''^ the pre-eminence'^ of bishops over presbyters, which had obtained in the Church in his time, contending that there was no distinction of rank or office between them. He also opposed the prevailing practices of fasting and praying f )r the dead. 421 1. WiCKLiFFE. Having already quoted Luther on this subject, we begin with Wickhlle, who says : " I boldly assert one thing, viz., that in the primitive Church, or in the time of Paul, two orders of the clergy were sufficient, that is, a ;priest and a deacon. - ^i^i In like manner, I affirm, that in the time of Paul, the presbyter *^^^' and bishop wci'c names of the same ajJiceP Jerome is quoted in proof* 2. Eras:\ius. " Anciently none Avere called priests but bishops and presbyters, who tvere the same^ but afterward presbyters were distinguished from the priest"f (or bishop). 3. CRAN.MER. " The bishops and priests (presbyters) were at one time, and Avere no two things, but both one in the beginning of Christ's religion,":}: 4. Calvix.§ "The reason why I have used the terms bishops, and presbyters, and pastors, and ministers, promiscuousl}^, is, be- cause the Scriptures do the same ; for they give the title of bishops to all persons whatsoever who were ministers of the Gospel. "| 5. Beza. " The authority of all pastors is equal amongst them- selves, so also their office is the same."^ 6. MELANCTHoisr. " They who taught in the Church, and bap- tized, and administered the Lord's Supper, were called bishops ov presbyters ; and those were called deacons y^ho distributed alms in the Church,"** etc. 7. Blonde r.L and Dalleus. "Episcopacy, as no ?y distinguished from presbyters, according to the custom of the Church fkom the THIRD CENTUKY, is uot of apostolical, but merely of human insti- tution."ff 8. M. Flaccius Illykicus. Treating of the time of the apostles, he says : " A presbyter was ilien the same as a bishop." Speaking of the primitive Church, he says : " The bishop was the first pres- byter among the presbyters of each church, and this was done for the sake of order, ":{::{: etc. 9. Claude. " As to those who were ordained by mere priests (presbj^ters), can the author of the Prejudices be ignorant that the distinction of a bishop and a priest, or minister, as if they had two different offices, is not only a thing that they cannot prove out of the Scriptures, but that even contradicts the express words of Scripture, where bishops and priests are the names of oyie and the same office^ from whence it follows that the priests have, by their * Vaughan's Life of WicklifFe, p. 100, Vol. II. t Scholia ill Epist. Hieron. ad Nepot, fol. 6, Vol. I., Ed. 151 X Burnet's History of the Reformation. § See Appendix. B. II Calv. Inst., Lib. IV., sec. 8, p. 8. ^ De Eccles., cap. 29. See also address To the Reader. ** Loc. Com. limo . Basil, 1521. tt Viil. Beverigii Code.x Can. Eccles. Prim. Vind. Proem. it Catalog. Test. Veritat. Vol. I., p. 84. 422 first institution, a right to confer ordination that cannot be taken from them by mere human rules."* 10. BociiART. " If the question be as to the antiquity, I am plainly of opinion, with Jerome, that in the apostles's age there was no difference between bishops and presbyters, and that the churches were governed by the common council of the presbyters. Therefore J9r6-6%ters are moke ancient than iis/io^s,"f etc. 11. Gkotius. " ETnoKOTTT], or the office of a bishop, signifies in- spection or oversight of any kind. The inspectors, or those who preside over the church, are presbyters. The chief of these presby- ters, AFTERWARDS, by way of excellence, began to be called lisliop^ as is evident from those canons which are termed apostolical canons in the epistles of Ignatius, .in Tertulliau, and others.":}: 12. YiTRiNGA. " All the rulers or governors of the Church of Ephesus were equally, and without the least difference, called bishops, presbyters and pastors." (Acts 20 : 17, etc.) These, he says, " according to the style of the sacred Scriptures, are names distinguishing one and the same order of men ; they are distinguished neither in the kind of their order, nor their office. This position will stand, I am persuaded, as long as the Acts of the Apostles and their Epistles shall be read without prejudice."§ 13. MosnEiM. " The rulers of the Church were called either presbyters or bishops, which two titles in the New Testament undoubtedly applied to the same order of ?/iew."|| 14. S DICER. " At the first, therefore, all presbyters were equally over the fliock, and had none over themselves, for they were called bishops, and had Episcopal power,"!" etc. 15. ScHLEDSNER. " FoT at length, after the apostolic age, that difference was introduced between bishops and presbyters, that the bishops should have the greater dignity, as Suicerus rightly states in his Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus."** 16. Archbishop Usher. "I asked him (Archbishop Usher) also his judgment about the validity of presbyters' s ordination, which he asserted, and told me that the king (Charles I.) asked him, at the Isle of Wight, wherever he found in antiquity, that presbyters alone ordained any ? And that he answered, I can show yoiir majesty more, even where presbyters alone successively ordained bishops ; and instanced in Hierome's words, — Epist. ad Evagrium, — of the presbyters of Alexandria choosing and making their own bishops, from the days of Mark till Ileraclas and Dionysius."-|'f * Defence of the Reformation, Part IV., p. 95. t Abridg. of Mr. James Owen's Plea, p. 39. j Annot. in I. Tim. 3 : 1. § De Synag. Vet. Lib. 2, c. 2, pp. 447 and 485. II Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I., p. lOL H Thesaur. Eccles. Tom. L, col. 1180. ** Lex. Gr in Nov. Test. Sub. Loc. voce sTriaKomg. ft Life of Baxter, by Sylvester. FoL, Lib. L, part 2, sec. G3, p. 206. 423 SECTION V. Subject continued. — VI. Testimony of the greatest divines of modern times, since the Continental and Anglican Reformations. — Do. of the Anglican Reformers them- selves.— Sanctioned by royal authority. — Bishop Burnet. — Rev. A. B. Chapin's attempt to escape therefrom. — Failure of. — Conclusion. We add, in conclusion, and as further confirmatory of the truth, of the principle here advocated, that it formed the basis of the theology, on this subject, VI. Of the Anglican Reformers themselves. 1. We here in the first place, refer the reader to the opinions, on this subject, as expressed by Wicklifie and Cranmer, the archbishops of Canterbury, as given on page 421. We refer him, 2. To " A Declaration made of the functions and Divine Institu- tion of bishops and priests, — an original" document. It says — " As touching the sacraments of the Holy Orders, we will that all bishops and preachers shall instruct and teach our people com- mitted by us unto their spiritual charge," First. How that Christ and his apostles instituted certain min- isters or oificers, with spiritual power to order and consecrate others to the same order, etc. " Itera^'^ which sets forth, that this office, ministration, power and authority, is " restrained unto those certain limits and ends for the which the same was appointed by Qod^s ordinance^'' etc. '''■Item, that this office, this power and authority, was committed and given hy Christ and his apostles unto certain persons only, that is to say, unto priests OR BISHOPS, whom they did elect, call, and admit thereunto, by their prayer and im- position of hands." And, having affirmed, that "the invisible gift or grace conferred" by that act " is nothing else but the power, the offices, and the authority before mentioned ;" and alluding to the introduction into the Church of many ceremonies and orders connected with " the Temple of the Jews," the above " Declara- tion" adds : " Yet the truth is, that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees of distinction in orders, but only of deacons or ministers, and of priests or bishops : nor is there any word spoken of any other ceremony used in the confirming of this sacrament, but only of prayer, and the imposition of the bishop's hands." Let it here be particularly noted, that this " Declaration" was set forth by " those who actually formed the Articles, the Book of Thomas, (Lord) Cromwell, {the King's Vicar General). T. (Craumer), Archbishop of Canterbury. of 424 Orders, and the plan of the Government of the Church of En- gland," A.I). 1587 or 1538; and as such, was signed by Geoffrey Downs. John Skip. Cuthbcrt Alarshall. Marmaduke Waldeby. Robert Oking. Nicholas Heyth. Kalph Bradford. Richard Smith. Simeon Matthew. John Prynn. Wm. Buckmaster. William Maj^e. Nicholas Wotton. Richard Cox. John Edmonds. Tho. Robertson. Thomas Baret. John Nase. John Barber. do. Bishop do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. do. York. London. Durham. Lincoln. Bath. Ely. Bangor. Salisbury. Hereford. Worcester. Rochester. Chichester. Edward, John, Cuthbert, John, John, Thomas, John, Nicholas, Edward, Hugo, John, Richard, Richard Wolman, John Bell. William Clyffe. Robert Aldridge. (Some other hands there are that cannot be read.) Doctors of LaAv and Doctors of Divinity.* 3. Another book was published, called a " Declaration of the Christian doctrine for necessar}^ erudition of a Christian man." It was published by Iktyal Authority^ and hence was usually called the King's Book. In the chapter on Orders, it expressly de- clares: " That 2>r/e.sfo and hishops^ BY GOD'S LAW, are one and THE. SAME ; and that the power of ordination, and excommunication, belongs equally to both." This book was issued a.d. 1543, Burnet derives his account of it from Fuller, who " assures the world that he copies out of the Records with his own hand what he published." With these facts, then, under our eye, what are we to think of those advocates of prelacy who deny that bishops and presbyters are, by divine right, according to the doctrine of the Church of England, ono and tJte same office j and who denythiii ordination by presbyters is, by divine institution, equally valid as that hy bishops? The mode adopted in the drawing up of these "Declarations," cannot but en- title them to our highest confidence. Not only was ample time given, but the most eminent learning of the age was engaged, in their production. Burnet tells us, that " the whole business they (that is, those named in the above catalogue) were to consider, was divided into so many heads, which were proposed as queries, and these were given out by the bishops and divines ; and at a ■fixed time, every one brought in his opinion in writing, on all the * Burnet's History of the Reformation. Collection of Records, B. 3. Add. No. 5. See also Applelon's Edition, 1843, Vol. I., p. 585. 425 questions,"* Several of tliese opinions arc now before us — Cran- mer, the bishop of London ; Dr, liobertson ; Dr. Cox ; and Dr. Redmajne ; of ■\vliich, that of Cranmer is a specimen. (See page The Rev. Mr. Chapin, however, felicitates himself in having dis- covered a mode of escape from the unpleasant dilemma in which his favorite theory of the so-called divine right of bishops is involved, by the facts here brought to light. Having alluded to the infer- ences drawn from, and the use made of, the above declarations by anti-prelatists, namely — " that the English Reformers believed, and the Church of England taught, (1.) that episcopacy did not exist by divine right, that is, they believed it to be a human insti- tution ; and (2.) that bishops and priests are not different orders of clergy; he says: "Now if these charges are true, tlie Emjlish Re- formers gave up one fundamental principle of primitive order, and loere, in fact, Pjbesbtteriaxs, And if the Church of England is Presbyterian, then there can be no doubt that others have a right to separate from her; for those who have themselves separated from apostolic order, cannot complain if others follow their ex- ample, "f Now, what, we ask, is Mr. Chapin's attempted method of escape from these results ? We answer. Speaking of " The Institution of a Christian Man," as compiled from the above " Declaration," and which, he says, was " signed by Cranmer and thirty of the most learned of the clergy," it established the Romish doctrine of '' Tran- substantiation, communion of one kind, celibacy of the clergy, auri- cular confession, seven sacraments, and purgatory." In all things they proved themselves stanch papists, save in the single article of the pope's supremacy, and perhaps the subject of monastic vows. " This, therefore," he adds, " was the opinion of these men as Romanists, not as Reformers, and the man who quotes them as such, is either too ignorant to write, or too dishonest to be trusted."^ To assert that for truth, which is not founded on known autho- rity, involves both ignorance and dishonesty. Which of the parties in these premises is justly liable to these imputations, we leave the reader to decide, when he shall have carefully and im- partially weighed the following : In the first place. Mr. C, in order to fasten upon anti-pre- latists the charge of ignorance and dishonesty, speaking of " The Necessary Erudition of a Christian man," in which is contained the chapter on orders in which it is declared, " ThoX piriests and bishops, BY God's law, are one and the same,^^ etc., and which was put forth A.D. 1543 ; he affirms, that " With this book, published five years before the death of Henry VIII., and seven years before the compilation of the Book of Common Prayer, ends the chain of * Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. I., p. 372. t The Primitive Church, p. 387. \ lb., — 426 authorities by wliich tlie reformers of the English Church are to be proved Presbyterian."* Then, iu proof of the divine institution of episcopacy of three orders, viz., bishops, priests, and deacons, as the doctrine of " the Church" ajfler that time, he refers us to the " Book of Common Prayer,"—" Art. 19, on the Church ;" *• Art. 23," on " the Ministry," and to sundry collects and prayers ; the litany, and the preface to the ordinal, etc., etc.f Now, in reply to the "above, we remark — 1. It is conceded by us, that the English Reformers did make a class of ministers called archbishops and bishops, as distinct from priests or presbyters. But the question is, did they do this on the principle of the divine eight of the order of bishops as distinct from, superior to, and incompatible with, presbyters as presbvters ; or did they do it as an ecclesiastical arrangement, for the honor of the bishops and the church? etc. Indeed,. so far as the question of divine right in the premises- is concerned, we have the admission of Mr. C. himself, that these Reformers, on the article of the perfect equality of presbyters and bishops, till within five years:}: before the death of Ileury VIII., were "Presbyterian." 2. The next important point to be determined is, whether " the chain of authorities^^ in support of this doctrine of the Reformers, as Mr. C. alleges, " ends" with the abov.e date ? So far from it, we affirm, that, so late as the time of the revision of the ordination service under Charles II., a.d. 1662, a period of one hundred and nineteen years after the date when Mr. C. affirms the above " au- thorities" ended, there was no difference in the words of ordaining a bishop, to distinguish his ofice from that of a presbyter. The old order, as it stands in the original book, remained unrepealed. Indeed, those passages of the New Testament that speak so ex- pressly of the duties of scriptural bishops, were made part of the office of ordaining a priest or presbj'ter, down to a.d. 1662. The whole process was founded on Acts 20 : 17-35, or in its place 1 Tim. 3, entire. The commission was based on Matt. 28 : 18, and other passages out of John, chaps. 10 and 20, all of which pas- sages they applied to presbyters in the solemn act of setting them apart to their office, clearly showing that the book of orders, up to 1662, bore solemn testimony to their being, by divine rigid, scrip- tural bishops. And the very commission (Matt. 28 : 18) about which prelatists make such a parade as belonging solel}' to bishops as a distinct order, superior to, and incompatible with, presbyters, simply as such, — this very commission is, in this solemn act, given to Presbyters. Bishop Burnet, speaking of this very period, says, " there was then no express mention made in the words of ordain- ing them, that it was for one or the other office." More than this. *The Primitive Church, p. 391. I- lb., pp. 391-394. j Not fo. From Mr. C.'s own Chronology, it is only four years. The "Necessary Erudition," he says, " bears date a.d. 1.')43." Henry VIlI.'s death occurred a.d. 1547. (The Prim. Church, p. 390. Riddle's Chron., p. 354.) 427 We challenge any advocate of prelacy to produce tlie documents published by the Church, met in solemn convocation, showing that she has repealed the above, and as plainly declaring the order of bishops to be by divine institution superior to, and incompatible with, the ollice of presbyters as such ; and that such bishops alone have power, authority, and commission, under Christ, to appoint that ministry in his Church, which alone is entitled to the claim of being a lawful and valid ministry. Will Mr. C. please accept at our hand, as a gratuity, this small item of an addition to his seven years " chain of authorities," oi one hundred and nineteen years, in proof that the English Chukch, on the subject in cjuestion, was PRESBYTERIAN ! More than this. Although, in the revision of 1662, these passages were omitted in the form of ordaining a presbyter, and were generally transferred to the form of consecrating a bishop, yet it is clear, that the Re- formers looked upon it only as a decent ceremon}^, but as having no scriptural authority, nor as conferring any additional divine authority.* To the above may be added the fact, that the English reformers also appointed presbyters to lay on hands, with the bishops, in ordaining pjresbyters. The ordinal directs, "when this prayer is done, the bishop, ivith the priests present, shall lay their hands se- verally upon the head of every one that receiveth the order of priesthood,"! etc. Will Mr. 0. adopt the hypothesis of Bishop Griswold . respecting the Ephesian " presbyters" who ordained Timoth}', that these " priests" are " a college of apostles" ?:{: Such, we have shown, was not the opinion of the English Reformers, who, holding " That priests and bishops, by God's law, are one and the same, and that the power of ordination and excommunication belongs equally to both ;" it follows, that Pkesbtters arc actually ordainers in all the scrijytural ordinations that have ever taken j>lace in the Anglican and American churches, and on which ground it is the happiness of all who are generically Presbyterian, to admit the validity of their ordination. Finally, on this subject. Several acts of parliament, viz. : the 13th Elizabeth, c. 12 ; and the 12th Carol, II., c. 17, have ratified the ordination of such as were ordained by jpreshyters only. Hun- drediJ of such were confirmed in their livings as true ministers in the Church of England. Archbishop Grindal gave a license, " ap- proving and ratifying the form of ordination by a Scotch presby- tery, of Mr. Morrison, a Scots divine, and gave him commission " throughout the whole diocese of Canterbury, to celebrate divine offices, to administer sacraments, etc."§ " No bishop in Scotland, during my stay in that kingdom" (says Burnet, bishop of Sarum), " ever did so much as desire any of the Presbyterians to be re- * Vide Burnet's Records, B. 3, No. 21. Qu's. 10-14; and Appleton's Ed., VoL I^ Addenda, p. SS-'i. t See Book of Common Prayer. Form of Ordaining Priests. % See pp. 274-276. \ Neale's History of the Puritans, Vol. I. 428 ordaiaedy* And, of those Preshyterkdly ordained ministers of the French churclies who sought admission into the English Church, and of whom, says Bishop Cosin, there were some both before, and many during his own time ; the English bishops, says he, " did not re-orditin^^ such, nor did the English " laws require more" of them than to declare "their ^uWtc consent to the reli- gion received by" that Church, "and to subscribe the articles established," etc.f In conclusion : Inasmuch as Mr. C. insists, that those with whom originated the two above-named "Declarations" in 1538 and 1543 " were then Romanists, and hence," that their " opinions are no evidence of what they thought as Reformers," we are to infer that the English Reformation as contradistinguished from Romanism, must have awaited the development of their thoughts as reformers at a subsequent period, not only, but, that there is a wide and impcissable gulf between the English Church, as reformed, and the Romish, And Mr. C. would make the incorporation, into the ordination ofl&ce, of the recognition of the diuine right of bishops as distinct from that of presbyters in the article of the or- daining power, etc., as the mark, the hinge, of their transit from Romanism to the character of Protestant Reformers. The only clew, however, which he condescends to fnrnish to the reader as to the date of said transit (and the very circumstance, too, on which depends the evidence that he is not " either too ignorant to write, or too dishonest to be trusted" on this subject), is, that " the chain of authorities by which the reformers of the English Epis- copal Church are to be proved Presbyterian," " ends" '■^ seven years before the compilation of the Book of Common Prayer," which places it a.d. 1543. In addition, therefore, to the evidence already offered, shoAving that the " English Reformers," long after this, still adhered to the great and fundamental principle of Presbj- terianism, we remark, that the most distinguished bishops who were concerned in the drawing up, etc., of the two declarations of 1538 and 1543, were also concerned in the compilation of the Book of Orders, is- sued under Edward VI. We further quote Bishop Burnet in proof. Speaking of a movement made by act of parliament for "anew office for ordinations," a.d. 1549,:}: "a bill," he tells us, " was brought into the House of Lords" the following year, 1550, " the substance of which was, that such forms of ordaining minis- ters as should be set forth hy the advice of six prelates and six divines, to be named by the king, and authorized by a warrant under the great seal, should be used after April next, and no * Bishop of Sariim 8 Vindication ; printed London, 1696, pp. 84,85, quoted by Owen, in his " Ordination by Presbyters." Introd. t Bishop Cosin's Letter to Cordel, inserted in the '' Two Treatises on the Church," published by Hooker, Philadelphia. 1844. I Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. IL, Part IL. B. I., p. 22.3. Appleton's ediiiou 429 other."^' "What was this '■'■ new office V He replies: " So they" (the above six prelates and six divines) " agreed on a form of ordaining deacons, priests, and bishops, which is the same we yet use, except in some few words that have been added since in the or- dination of a priest or a bishop. For," he adds, " there was THEN," that is, A.D. 1550, ^^7io express tnentioii made in the or- daining of them, that it was for the one or the other office ;" in BOTH it was said, " Receive thou the Hol}^ Ghost, in the name of the Father," etc.f When were the above additions made? Not in the Book of Common Prayer of Elizabeth, a.d. 1560. For, in speaking of it, Bishop Burnet says : " But for the book of ordination, it was not in express terms named in the act, which gave an occasion afterwards to question the lawfulness of the or- dinations made by that book. But ly this act, the book that was set out by King Edward, and confirmed by Parliament in the fifth year of his reign, was again authorized hy law, and the repeal of it in Qaeen Mary's time was made void. So the book of ordina- tion being iji that act added to the Booh of Common Prayer, it was NOW LEGALLY IN FORCE AGAIN, as was afterwafds declared in Parliament, upon a question that was raised about it by Bonner.":}: What now think you, reader, either of the accuracy or the honesty of Mr. C, as an historian ? No. As we have said, if, as Mr. C. afiirms, the Anglican Reformation is made to commence at that point of time when the English reformers effected their transit from Presbyterianism, as above, to the incorporating into the ordi- nation office of the Book of Common Prayer, what is now claimed to be the divine right of hishoj^s as an order superior to, and dis- tinct from, those of presbyters ; then, inasmuch as we have proved that that transit was not made till a.d. 1662, it follows, that the English Tteformation could not have commenced till that date ! A conclusion, we opine, which few prelatists will be prepared to admit. • As it regards the other point, — the d.ifference between the En- glish Church as reformed, and the Romish, it has been the design of this Treatise to demonstrate, on the combined authority of "IIol}' Scripture and ancient authors," in conjunction with the writings of the advocates of prelacy of modern times, that, inasmuch as, inherent in the very texture of prelatical Episcopacy is the germ of the Papac}- ; so, the early j^o^^apostolic so-called Episcopacy, having produced that " infinite superstition ;" modern Episcopacy, even in its mildest and most diluted form, preserving the elements of the original germ, — a love for "the pke-emi- nence," has the same tendenc}^ Romeward, as that of the magnetic needle to the body which attracts it. As the fountain, so the streams.' As the tree, so the fruit.^ That distinguished oracle of (1) James 3 : 11. (2) Matt 7 : 17, 18. * Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. IL, Part II., B. I., p. 22.5. ■f lb., p. 229. X I!)., p. 607. 430 prelacy, the Rev. Dr. Hook of Leeds, England, speaking of " the Protestant Church of England as by law Established," says : " The Chubcu remained the same after it was reformed as it WAS BEFORE." Truc, hc adds, "just as a man remains the same after he has washed his face as he was before."^' But we desire the reader liere to bear in mind what we have offered in proof of t?ie a7itichrutian cliaracter of the usurped lay headship, spirit- ual, temporal, and supreme, of the British monarch down to the present female incumbent of that tlirone, and then ask : Is "the Man of sin" less " the Man of sin," because, forsooth, he is "trans- formed" into a Protestant " angel of light" ? Does the " Harlot" become a pure virgin, simply by washing her fiice ? "^ little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." (Gal. 5 : 9.) Wherefore, "come ye out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." (Rev. 18 : 4.) * Sermon, " Hear the Church." Preached before the queen, June 17, 1838, p. 12. 431 CHAPTEE XI. ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF CHRIST. SECTION I. Introductory. — The prelatical theory, " nulla ecdesia sine cpiscopo.^^ — Marks or notes by which the Church Catholic is to be known : namely, Apostolicity, Catholicity, Unity, Sanctity, Discipline. — Prelatists not agreed as to what constitutes these notes, their differences varying from four to four hundred. — Valentia, Dreido, Sanders, Pisteria, Bellarmine, Bossius, etc. — So also in regard to authorities. — Canus, Bannes, Suares, Duvall, Conink, Arriaga, Usamburtius, Gillius, Amiens, Rhodius, etc., of the Romanists. — Palmer, Field, Bishop Jeremy Taylor, Dr. Sherlock, Dr. Freeman, Dr. Payne, the Homilies, etc., of the Protestants. — The two notes, apostolicity and catholicity, applied to the Roman, and the Anglican and American Episcopal Churches. A FEW remarks on the subject of this chapter will conclude what we have to offer regarding the constitution of the Church and ministry, discussed in the foregoing Treatise. As we have seen, the suhstratum of the prelatico-episcopal theory as put forth by its advocates, Eomish, Tractarian, and High. and Low Church, is, '•^ nulla ecdesia sine episcqpo / without a bishop, there is no Church," Now, in testing this, or any other principle connected with the questions. What is the Church? Which is the true Church? Where is it to be found ? we must rely upon certain infallible marks, or notes, by which it is to be known. Then, too, these marks or notes must possess the following attri- butes : First., they must be plain, or well defined. Second., they must always exist where the Church is. Third., they must apply to the Church in a sense in which they will aj^ply to no other body. In a word, they must be simple, inseparable, incommuni- cable. And, fourth^ they must be authenticated by an undoubted or certain standard of appeal. Any marks or signs which, upon examination, will be found to bear the test of these conditions, will enable us to determine with certainty what is the "essence" of the Church ; which is the true Church in contradistinction from the false ; and where that Church is to be found. What, then, are these marks or signs f For the purposes of force and perspicuity, let us adopt the following: first, Ajjostoli- city ; second, Catholicity ; third, Unity ; fourth, Sanctity ; fifth, Discipline. 432 The point to be decided, is, whether these marks or signs are true, according to the prelatico-episcopal, or the t^n-^e-prelatico- episcopal or Presbyterian theory, of what constitutes the Church. Our plan requires that we test them in their aj)plication to the claims, I. Of the Prelatico-Episcopal theory, as advocated both by Eo- manists and Protestants. Here, however, in the very outset, the pretensions to the exercise of " authority in controversies of faith" and to infallibility as a guide, of the "one holy Catholic and apostolic" Church to the contrary notwithstanding, neither class of the above writers are any more agreed among themselves as to what constitutes the true marks or notes of the Church, nor of the standard of appeal by which they are to be known, than they are on the subject of prelacy itself As it respects the Romanists^ in regard to " the notes of the Church," Valentia reckons four ; Dreido six ; Medina ten : Sanders and Pistorius twelve ; Bellar- mine fifteen ; and Bossius one hundred. The same diversity holds true of the " standard" by which they are to be known : Canus, Bannes, Suares, Duvall, Coniuk, Arriaga, Usambertus, Gillius, Amicus, and Rhodius, hold that they are to be determined "by the light of reason" alone. Dreido and Cardinal Richelieu contend that they are " marked out and taught in the Scripture;"* while, according to the Tridentine decrees, they are only to be deter- mined by " the unanimous consent of the fathers," alias Tradition. Nor will Pkotestant prelatists be found to exhibit any more of harmony in regard to either, than the Romanists. Palmer adopts the " notes" of " the Constantinopolitan Creed" after Valentia as above ; namely, that the Church is " one, holy, catholic and apos- tolic," On the other hand, " Dr. Field admits truth of doctrine, use of sacraments, and means instituted by Christ ; union under law- ful ministers ; antiquity without change of doctrine ; lawful suc- cession, that is, with true doctrine ; and universality in the suc- cessive sense — that is, the prevalence of the Church successively in all nations." And " Bishop Taylor admits as notes of the Church, antiquity, duration, succession of bishops, union of mem- bers among themselves with Christ, sanctity of doctrine," etc.f to which Mr. Palmer objects. Dr. Sherlock says : "To begin. Avith the Protestant Avay of finding out the Church by the essential pro- perties of a true Church ; such as the profession of the true Chris- tian faith, and the Christian sacraments rightly and duly adminis- tered,":}: etc. Dr. Freeman says ; "That the sincere preaching of the faith or doctrine of Christ, as it is laid down in the Scriptures, * See on this subject, article, " Tlie Church," Methodist Quarterly Review, by Rev. Georiie Peck, D.D., p. 216. t Palmer's Treatise on the Church of Christ, etc.. Vol. I., pp. 47, 48. X Cartiinal Bellarmine's Notes of the Church, examined and refuted in a series of Tracts, pp. 3, 4. 433 is the only sure, infallible mark of the Church of Christ/'* etc. Dr. Payne says : " We desire nothing more than to find out the true Church by the true faith,"f etc. And the homilies say, the Church " hath always three notes or marks whereby it is known : pure and sound doctrine, the sacraments ministered according to Christ's holy institution, and the right use of ecclesiastical disci- pline," etc.:}: Now, by a comparison of the above, it will be seen, that Mr. Palmer has " rejected every one of those drawn up by the reformers, and adopted by his own Church." So much for the "notes." And so, of the autliorities relied upon to determine them. Some rely on " Scripture" alone ; others, on " Scripture and tradition," " holy Scripture and ancient authors," etc.§ With these facts before us, let us proceed to apply the above marks or notes of the Church to the prelatico-episcopal theory. And, 1. AposTOLicrrT. It is scarcely necessary to say, that this mark or note of the Church, on the prelatico-episcopal hypothesis of " No bishop, no Church," involving, as it does, the dogma that prelacy is of the "essence" of the Church ; that is, that the Church cannot exist where there is no hisJiojj j with it also involves the dogma of a seminal or genealogical unbroken succession apos- tolical, from the New Testament age down to the present time. And having shown that, how much soever prelatists, Romish, Tractarian, and High and Low Church, may differ as to the pre- cise channel of its transmission, yet agreeing, as has been proved, in all that constitutes its essential elements as a Christian priest- hood, and also, that the Anglican and American successions are derived from that of Eome ; this " note" being alike claimed by all, may be considered as equally applicable to all, and hence re- lieves us from the necessity of applying it to them separately. For the proof the fallacy of this dogma as a " note" of the true Church, it must suffice that we refer the reader to what we have offered in Part II. of this Treatise, and also in Part III., par- ticularly the eleven arguments against the Romish succession, pages 285 and 802 inclusive ; and those against the Anglican suc- cession, page 832, et seq. But, should the Anglican and American successionists, per- chance, demur at this summary disposal of the above " note" as applicable to them, we are willing to allow them the full benefit of a further test on their own ground — that of antiquity or tradition, alias " apostolical documents," such as they, in common with Romanists, acknowledge to be authentic. Take, for example, the fourth and sixth canons of the Council of Nice, a.d. 325, wherein it is enacted, that no bishop should be constituted except by all * Bellarmine's Notes Examined, etc., p. 69. t fb., pp. ISO, 151. X Homily on Whitsunday. ' § See Part I. of this Treatise. 28 434 tlie bishops of the province, or by at least three bishops, the ab- sentees giving their suffrages, and the whole to be considered valid, only as confirmed by the metropolitan. Query. In how many instances have these conditions been verified in the consecra- tions of the Amenca7i bishops ? Again. The thirty-fifth of the " Apostolical Canons" is quoted to nullify the papal authority in England, upon the strength of its assertion of the independence of bishops. That canon enacts, that a bishop who dared to ordain beyond his own limits should be deposed. Now, Mr. Chapin affirms, that the Komish monk, Au- gustine, sent into England by Gregory I., a.d. 600, " owed sithnis- sion to the inetroj^olitan of Britain^^ But, we have proved (and that by the admission of Mr. C. himself), that the entire line of the Anglican succession commenced with and descended from this very Augustine, as " the first Saxon bishojD and the first arch- bishop of Canterbury."! Therefore, Augustine's consecrations, according to the above " Apostolical Canon," being void^ it nul- lifies, at a single stroke, defacto^ the consecrations of all the arch- bishops and bishops, and the ordinations of all the priests and deacons, that have ever held a name in the ENGLISH CIIURCH. Once more. The same authority throws another difficulty in the way of the English succession : " XXX. If any bishop obtain possession of a church by the aid of the temporal powtv, let him be deposed and excommunicated, and all who communicate with him." Now, recalling to mind the fact, that by ^'' act of jKtrlia- -ment^'' as already shown, the fountain or source of the English succession of bishops resides in the lay headship, supreme and absolute, spiritual and temporal, of the monarchs of the British throne as alleged to be founded in a " prescriptive" or " divine right," what archbishop, etc., can be named who has not thus ob- tained possession of his church ? How, we ask, came Cranmer under Henry VIII., Parker under Elizabeth, and Tillotson under William and Mary, to possess the See of Canterbury ? Was it not " by the aid of the temporal powers" ? The prelates of that hierarchy, we affirm, " are all, de facto, deposed by what they ge- nerally allow to be apostolical authority." So far, then, as a^ostolicity is a mark or note of the true Church, neither the Eomish nor the Anglican Churches possessing it, clearly they are not that true Church. We pass to the next "note." II. Catholicity. " I believe in tlie holy Catholic Church^'' as it stands in the so-called " Apostles's Creed," forms the united lan- guage of all who bear the Christian name. The word KadoXtnog^ Catholicos, which signifies general, universal, aptly designates what the true Church of Christ must be, that is, " Catholic." But it turns out that of those . who bear the Christian name, Christendom is divided into two great bodies, the Pajpal and the * The Primitive Church, p. 360. f lb., p. 291. 485 Protestant ; the former of whom, and a portion of the latter, each in turn appropriating to themselves the term as a mark or note by which theirs, respectively, is to be known as the only true Church. This circumstance, therefore, will require that we con- sider it in its application to the claims as well of the Romish as of the Anglican and non-prelatical Churches. 1. Of the Romish Church. Of the word itself, we remark, (1.) That whatever may be claimed in its behalf on the score of antiquittj^ yet, as it is not found connected with the Church in the New Testament, it is not authoritative. Though it appears in the titles of several of the Epistles^James 1st, and 2d Peter, those of John, and that of Jude — yet it is not in the original. It was first employed to distinguish the aggregate body from the several branches of the church which composed it. Then, as a line of demarkation between orthodox and heretical churches. At length, however, it came to be adopted by Papists, etc., in an exclusive sense, they claiming under the appellation of " The Ro- man Catholic Church," to constitute the Jirst^ not only, but the only true Church of Christ on earth to the exclusion of all others. In evidence of the fallacy, to say nothing of the arrogance of this unchurching dogma, we remark, (2.) That the ver}^ title above assumed is a sopMsm,. We would here remind the reader of the saying of Pacian, " Christian is my name and Catholic my surname." And the learned Du Pin in- forms us, "that at the present time, the /jame of the Church of Rome is given to the Catholic Church, and that these two terms" — that is, Roman and Catholic — " pass for synonymous." But by what logic, pray, can they be made synonymous ? The name Roman indicates that which is limited and local, as the Church in the city of Rome. The word Catholic means universal. The above title, therefore (designed, we know, to impress upon the too credulous masses the idea of the primitive origin and universal extension over all nations of the Romish, as " the mother and mis- tress of all churches"), if there is any meaning in language, in- volves the absurdity of 2^ particular universal church. Proceed we now to the proof, that so far from the term Catholic being applicable to the Church of Rome, (3.) It is a misnomer^ she being, de facto, no more than a sect, unknown in history, as she is now constituted, until about the middle of the eleventh century. • Look at the Church of Rome, with her popes, cardinals, patriarchs, primates, metropolitans, arch- bishops, archdeacons, monks, friars, and nuns, etc., inculcating the worship of images and relics, penances, prayers to and for the dead, mariolatry, etc., and the doctrine of priestly absolution, au- ricular confession, purgatory, transubstantiation, extreme unction, 436 etc. ; and then ask, Can this be the primitive, Catholic Church, as instituted by Christ and his apostles more than 1800 years ago ? The learned Da Pin, an authentic historian of that Church, proves the spuriousness of certain decrees and writings of the so-called first popes, claimed by Romanists as genuine in the ninth century, by exhibiting the absence, in them, of any reference to the exist- ence, at the times spoken of, of the offices and customs which now prevail.* For example. He says, " We find several passages in the letter attributed to Anicetus," (a.d. 155, Chapin's Chronicles,) "which do not agree with the time of that pope ; as, for instance, what is there laid down concerning the ordinations of bishops, sacerdotal tonsure, archbishops, and primates, which were not in- stituted till long after ; besides many things of the same na- ture."t Again. No command can be put in language more explicit than that of Christ, " Call no man your Father upon the earth ;'" Gr. pappas; Lat. papa,— /ai!A<3/" 4 in other words, "call no man POPE." Yet, this very name is applied to the Bishop of Rome, who arrogates to himself the title of Catholic, or " universal fath- er ;" and that, in the very face of the above prohibition, which was designed to effect the double work of reproof to the proud and self-righteous Rabbis of Jerusalem, and of warning to his own disciples against similar aspirations, and of whom the first were called, not pope, but " apostle.'" Indeed, the title of "pope" was unknown and unthought of in the Church, until towards the close of the sixth century. Du Pin, speaking of the 6th canon of the Council of Nice, held a.d. 325, says, that it " does not establish the supremacy of the Church of Rorae."^ The same is true of the Council of Chalcedon, held a.d. 451, the 28th canon of which places the metropolitan of Constantinople on a footing of equality with the bishop of Rome. The fact is, the title of " pope" as now used, was a novelt}^ even at Rome, as late as a.d. 588. Gregory I. remonstrated against it when assumed by John, the patriarch of Constantinople, calling it "a singular name," and declaring that " the bishop of Rome neither ought, nor can assume it."| And Du Pin, in his life of Gregory, says, " He did often rigorously oppose the title of universal patriarch, which the patri- archs of Constantinople assumed to themselves," calling it " proud, blasphemous, antichristian, diabolical," and says, the bishops of Rome rcfased to take this title upon them, " lest they should seem to encroach upon the rights of other bishops."!" (4.) Then, in addition to the above may be named the fact, that (1) Matt. 23 : 9. (2) 1 Cor. 12 : 28 ; Eph. 4 : 11. * Du Pin's Ecclesiastical History, Vol. I., pp. 173-178. t lb., Vol. I., p. 177. X See pp. 285, 286. § Du Pin's Ecclesiastical History, Vol. II , p. 252. 11 Gre^. Epi.stles. B. IV., Epi-st. .32 and 36. i Du Pin's Life ol" Gregory I., Chap. I. 437 the Greek CHURcn, which also claims to be " the only true, Cath- olic, and apostolic Church," has superior claims over that of Rome. Take the following in proof. The Greek language has the same priority over the Latin, as the Hebrew has over it ; which circum- stance furnishes the evidence, that, " all the leading ecclesiastical terms in the lloman Church, — for example : '•'■ jpope^^ ^'' patriarch^'' '"'■ synocl^'' '•'•ecclesiastic^'' '■'■ scJiism,^'' ^'- heresy^'' '•'■catechumen^'' '■'■hierarchy^'' '•''church^'' '•'•chrism^'' '■'■ exorcism,^'' '•'• diocese^'' '•'• pres- hytery^'' '•'• trinity i^'' '•'•mystery^'' '•'•catholic^'' '•'• canon ^'^ etc., being derived from the Greek, the Roman Church came out of the hosom. of the GreeJc. All the ancient ecclesiastical historians were Greek, such as Eusebius, Socrates Scholasticus, Evagrius Scho- lasticus, Sozoraon, Theodoret. The most ancient and primitive fathers were also Greek. They were models to the Latins, and imitated in their writings. And, the first seven general councils were all Greek. The followina; table will show this : Whole 1 No. Name. Year. Place. No. of Bps. Gr. Ro- man 1. (1.) Nice, A.D.325 Nice, the Metrop. of Bithynia, 318 315 3 2. (1.) Constantinople, " 381 Constantinople, 150 149 1 3. Ephesus, " 431 Ephesus, (^Q 67 1 4. Chalcedon, " 451 Chalcedon, 353 350 3 5. (2.) Constantinople, " 553 Constantinople, 164 156 8 6. rs.) do. " 680 do. 56 51 5 7. (2.) Nice, " 787 Nice, Total, 377 370 7 1486 1458 28 Now, these councils were all convened, not by the Pope of Eome, but by eastern emperors. They met in Greek cities, were composed, with the few above named exceptions, of Greek bishops, and were employed about Greek questions. It follows, that if there be any virtue in councils to establish doctrines and the p7'i- ority of churches, the Greek Church must be considered the MOTHER of the Roman, rather than her daughter. We have neither time nor space now to canvass the question, as, to the precise date when the bishop of Rome was first constitut- ed the Catholic or universal head of that Church ; whether it was by the edict of Justinian, a.d. 533, or by that of Phocas, a.d. 606. Nor is it important. Sufl&ce it to say, that at the time of the great schism between the Eastern and Western Churches, the former, or the Greek half, did first anathematize the latter, or Roisian half; from which period, — a.d. July 16, 1054, the Romish Church formed a separate communion, as a religious sect. And if a sect, then she is not Catholic. So much then for the Catholicity of tlie Roman Church. 438 But, on the above hypothesis, does it not follow that the Greek being prior to the Komish, is the only true and uncorrupted Church of Christ ? To this we reply, that such would not neces- sarily follow, even were the question one of separation from^ in- stead of a scJiism in, the body. The circumstance of the priority of the Greek over the Koman branch in the order of time, would seem to have entitled her patriarch to a precedence over the bish- op of Komc, in the article of Catholic supremacy. And, the cir- cumstance on which hinged said schism, was the refusal of the Greek branch to yield that claim in favor of the Komish. But, minus the repudiation, by the Greek branch, of the Romish Papal claim to infallibility, both, at least in all the essentials of faith, ceremonials, etc., are identically the same. We hold, therefore, that both are equally corrupt. And hence, that, to neither branch will apply the " note" of true Catholicity. Nor, on the other hand, does the mere act of separation from either the one branch or the other, necessarily entitle the seceding body to the claim of true Catholicity. Let us proceed to test this principle in its appli- cation to the claims in these premises, 2. Of the Anglican Church. This Church, under the title of "the Protestant Church of England as by law established," assumes the position, that, having separated from the Church of Rome, she is, by " prescriptive" or divine right, par excellence, the true " Ca- tholic Church." Now, a reformation, in the sense of which we here speak, involv- ing separation from another body, implies a cause. Even under Henry VIII., as we have seen, the English reformation was al- leged to have been produced by the antichristian character of the popedom and of the papal system. The same holds true of the subsequent reformers of that Church. Consistency, therefore, re- quires that she, as a church, in order to sustain her claim to true Catholicity, should hold the Church of Rome to form no part of the true Church Catholic. But, the same Protean character marks the nomenclature of " Churchmen" on this subject, as that which we have shown to characterize the theory of prelacy, as advocated by them. Indeed, the prevailing doctrine in the Church Episcopal is, that both the Greek and Roman branches form constituent j^arts of the true Catholic Church. While, in the days of Cranmer, and Field, and Taylor, etc., the Enghsh divines considered the Church of Rome an cipostate church ; Dr. Jackson, of High Church repute, quoting from the Romish author of a work entitled " Guide of Faith," as follows : — " Now I come to the great character of our glory, and renowned title of our profession, the name Catholic," etc. answers : " For this very reason, we Protestants of reform- ed churches, who are, if not the only true Christians on earth, yet the truest Christians, and the most conspicuous members of the 'loly Catholic Church, as militant here on earth, dare not vouch- 439 safe to bestow the name of Catliolic upon any papist, but with such an addition or item, as we give the name of angels to infernal fieiuh^ which we term Satan's angels, or collapsed angels," etc.* Dr. Sherlock, in commenting upon Bcllarmine's Notes of the Church, says : " His first note concerning the name Catholic, I observe, makes every church a Catholic Church which will call itself so." Again : Bellarmiae says, " It is not without something of God, that she keeps the name still." To this the learned Churchman replies : " But how does she keep it ? She will call herself Catho- lic when nobody else will allow her to be so" [which, as we have said, was true of the Churchmen of his day] ; " and thus any Church may keep this name, which did originally helong to all true orthodox Churches,^'' etc.f And Dr. Freeman afiirms, that " no argument can be drawn from the hare name of Catholic, to prove a Church to be Catholic.":J: In conclusion on this subject, it must suffice that we add, that the theology of the Churchmen of this age, in the use and applica- tion of this " note" to their Church as evidence of its Catholicity, stands diametrically opposed to that of their own most eminent reformers ; who maintained, that the reformed churches of the Con- tinent, though under Presbyterian government, were true Churches of Christ, and consequently true branches of the Catholic Church. It will avail nothing to urge in reply, that Romanists assume and use the name " Catholic" exclusively, while Churchmen only claim a common title to it with other apostolical, that is, prelatical churches. Admitting this difference, to what does it amount? It still re- stricts the Catholic Church to the prelatical Churches" — Romish^ Tractarian, and High and Low Church — " and so excludes the Reformed Churches of the Continent of Europe" (to the learning, piety, and wisdom of several of whose most eminent divines, the English Church will he forever principally indebted for what of Protestantism she can boast of\ " and the Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed, Congregational, Methodist, and Baptist Churches of all parts of the world, from any share in the Catholic Church;" and, in the exuberance of her Christian charity, consigns them over to the " uncovenanted mercies of God .^" We affirm, then, that in the article of exclusiveness, if we except a difference of form, it is identical with that of the Romish Church. " And forsooth, be- cause our Churchmen assume to be true Catholics, such they must be conceded to be ! For it would seem that in these days, what- ever was the case in the days of the old English fathers, the me^'e assumjjtion of the name Catholic is a veritable note of " tke Church !" But it will be found, after all the bluster which is raised in these days over this venerable word, that it has no talis- manic power to raise from the dead, and to adorn with apostolical * See his Treatise, Of the Holy Catholic Church and Faith, Chap. XX. Ed. 1627. t Romish Notes of the Church Examined, p. 56. t lb., pp. 72-76. 440 simplicity and beauty, a trio of fallen churches^'' — Greek, Ro- man, and Anglican, "among whom scarcely a vestige of the ori- ginal signs of a true Church of Christ remains."* Pass we now to the third " note." SECTION II. Subject continued,— The three " notes," namely, Unity, Sanctity, and Discipline, ap plied to the Roman, the Anglican, and the American Episcopal Churches. — Fal- lacy of. — On the last note, Ellcsby's caution, Bingham's Origines Ecclesiastica and Bishop Burgess, of Maine, compared with Dr. Aydelott and Dr. F. L. Hawks, etc. III. Unity. Eegarding this " note" we observe that, as all Catho- lics, Greek, Eoman, Anglican, and American, tell us there can be but one Catholic Church ; so that Church must be in visible unity with itself; and that, in respect both oifaitli^ or doctrine^ 201^ fellow- ship. Also that, voluntary separation, or excommunication, from said Catholic Church, excludes from the kingdom of Christ, etc.f Now, the incessant boast of Catholic unity, as the inheritance of each and all those herein named, and which they are particularly careful to place in contrast with what they are pleased to term the endless diversities and divisions of discordant and self-constituted sects ; and which, like the evanescent smoke, are passing away : this constant boast of unity, with them, we repeat, is as familiar as household words. Aye, as in the poetic effusions of Byron, while they contemplate with self-complacent and admiring gaze, the mighty structure, they are wont to exclaim — " But thou of temples old, or altars new. Stand alone — with nothing like to thee — Worthiest of God, the holy and the true ! * «■ * * -;«• Power, glory, strength, and beauty, all are aisl'd In this eternal ark of worshij) undefil'd."' So 1 But, — This boasted unity to the contrary notwithstanding, the reader perceives, on the very article indispensable to a deter- mination of what constitutes true Catholic unity, a diversity and discordancy of views among these writers, totally incompatible with, and destructive of, their own theory : their " marks or notes" of " the Church," varying, as we have said, horn, four to one hun- dred ! Again. These advocates of Church Catholicity, in their appli- cation of this " note," Unity, proceed on the hypothesis, as re- marked above, that the Greek, the Eoman, and the Anglican and American churches are true branches of the Catholic Church, and * Methodist Quarterly Review, April, 1S44, pp. 237, 238. t Palmer's Treatise on the Church, Vol. (., p. 63. 441 that this Church is " one." The following exhibit will furnish to the reader somewhat of an idea of the quadruple cord of unity which binds them. " The Greek and Roman Churches mutually excommunicated and anathematized each other more than a thou- sand years since, and still persist in mutual charges of heresy and schism. In 1569, by a bull of Pope Pius V,, "the supreme Head on earth" of the English Church, with all who adhered to her, were excommunicated and anathematized : since j\'hich the whole English Church" (and with her, her American daughter), " has been considered by the Church of Rome as involved in damnable heresy and schism ; and the Church of Rome stands to this day charged with the same offenses in the authorized documents and formularies of the Church of England. Nor is there a whit more unity between the English and Greek churches, than between the English and Roman. The Greek Church annually, on " the festi- val of orthodoxy," " anathematizes those who refuse adoration to the saints, or obeisance to their pictures, with all who pay them merely feigned homage, and all who regard the Lord's Supper as merely figurative and sjanbolical, and all who deny subjection to the first seven general councils,"* etc. 1. Then of the Church of Rome separately. What a united body ! When, in addition to the numerous schisms in the popedom and breaks in the chain of her alleged uninterrupted succession,! she has no less than seven different modes of electing her popes ; so, on the subject of the supremacy^ she is " divided into four par- ties— one affirming that the pope is the fountain of all power politi- cal and religious — another teaching that he has only ecclesiastic supremacy — a third party affirming that this ecclesiastic dominion is over all councils, persons, and things spiritual — and a fourth party limiting his jurisdiction to a sort of executive presidency." And, "history deposes that she has changed, in whole, or in part, her tenets and her discipline, no less than eighteen times in all — that is, once, at least, for every general council :" While, in the very article of that infallibility on which she alleges to build her faith, etc., four classes of opinions have obtained. The first party affirms that it resides in the head of the Church, that is, the pope ; the second places it in a general council, in which the Church is represented, albeit such a general council has never yet been held ; the third insists that it is to be found in the pope and the general council united ; and the fourth say, that it is to be sought in neither of these, but in the whole Church responding to any question, etc. Thus much for Romish Catholic unity. But, perhaps we may be more successful in our search for it within the pale of 2. The Anglican and American " Protestant Episcopal," «/m.?, " Catholic Church." And here, let it be noted, first, their position * Methodist Quarterly Review, April 1844, pp. 229, 230, t See Catalogues of the Popes, etc. 442 in regard to the very title of their Church. A portion of " the Church," — but, as we shall see, an inconsiderable portion — ex- hibit a zealous adhesion to the name, " Protest ant," knowing that that name erased from their escutcheon, the appellation of " Evan- GKLicAL," of which they hold it to be the index, would pass from their midst as "the morning cloud and the early dew." By far the larger portion, however, either directly or by implication, look upon its occupaiicy " in the title page of the Book of Common- Prayer, as prima facie evidence of schism !" Wherefore ? Oh, it denies^ by implication, on the one hand, that the Greek and Romish are true branches of the one Catholic Church, hol}^ and apostolic ; and on the other, it admits as such, those «7i^i-prelatical sects, on the continent of Europe, in England, and in America, who bear the same title! And, that "the British Critic," that heau ideal of High Churchism, is not alone in this matter, in the " Protestant Churchman^'' bearing date Sept. 14, 1850, page 26, a correspondent, over the signature of " An Old Churchman," in an article entitled " Catholic and Evangelical," complains to the "editor," that the "junior clergy" in the Church are "so tenacious of the word '■Catholic^ " and at the same time seem almost to shudder at the word " Evangelical^'''' and calls upon him for a "rational account" — "if, in his ample means of knowledge, he can find, and present his many readers with any" — " of this strange anomaly." Now, if the reader, and " an old Churchman," will tolerate this single digression, we would offer what we consider to furnish the only "rational account" of said "strange anomaly," and in doing so, we would first make use of his (the old Churchman's) own lan- guage : " For my part, I must say, as a Christian and a Protestant, I know no standard of Catholicity but the Bible." And again. " The word evangelical I find to be of Bible origin in the original tongue, while the other, namely, Catholic, " is an exotic^ But the "junior clergy" and Co. as above, uniting with "an old Church- man" in using the words " Evangelical" and " Protestant" as con- vertible terms, cannot reconcile them with the hasis of their Babel- theory of Catholicity, namely : " Nulla ecclesia sine Episcopo — No Bishop, No Church." In other words, as the consistent advo- cates of the prelatical dogma of an unbroken apostolic succession, they can find no Churchy except as acknowledgedly derived from and dependent on it, for its very Being. They, therefore, insist, that, as the , logical sequence of their hypothesis, as consistent pre- latists, the charge, " strange anomaly," must exchange hands : that it belongs to the theory of those in "the Church," who, on the principle of the absurd attempt to unite " oil and water," fling out to the breeze their banner, bearing the imprint of the illogical and sophistical motto bequeathed to " the Church" by the illustri- ous Hobart on his death bed, " Evangelical truth, apostolic ORDER." We must hence contend that, until those in " the Church" 443 who hold that the Evangdico-Protestant principle constitutes a " note" of tnie Catholicitj^, — and which they admit encircles within its ample embrace, those sects whom the "junior clergy" and Co. are pleased to style " wZ^ra-Protestants," as welj as themselves — can re- concile it with the dogma of an alleged unbroken apostolicity, which affirms that there can be no true Church, no true ministry, no true sacraments without it ; in other words, that, independent of a de- rivation fron, througk, and hy IT, we have no evidence that " the Church" "is " fastened to the throne of God :" (Bishop Mcllvaine !): We repeat : Until these two palpably contradictory hypotheses be reconciled, we must contend that the "junior clergy" and Co. have the decided vantage-ground of their adversaries. But, to return. This diversity, commencing with the title inscribed over the portal of " the Church," albeit her boasted unity and concord, is carried into the inner temple, and per- vades the entire camp. Indeed, Ave affirm, without the fear of successful contradiction, that there are at this very moment within the pale of the Anglican and American Episcopal Churches, no less than four separate and distinct parties, each naturally charging the other with having embraced "another gospel."* Our space of course will not here allow of a detailed exhibit of their diffisrences. Tractarians denounce all who refuse to come up to their standard, as recreant to the cause they profess to love. High Churchmen (Hobartists) refuse the appellation, Pu- seyite or Tractarian, on the ground that theirs was and is the only true theor\\ Low Churchmen hold that High Churchism is the sluice, through which Tractarian " novelties" and " heresies" have flooded " the Church," to the interruption, if not the destruction, of her peace. While a fourth party, lower than the lowest^ scouting the dogma of an unbroken apostolicity as the only " note" or as any " note," of the true Church ; complain that all who occupy higher places on the ladder of Catholicity, are so blinded by igno- rance and stultified by prejudice, as to refuse to descend to their Evangelico-Protestant level. The war and the strife of words which have thus been carried on among themselves, especially for the last ten or twelve years, for severity of invective, personal abuse, and mutual denunciation, through the mediums both of the press and the pulpit, stands without a rival in the annals of the past ! Not to tax the reader with a tedious thumbing over of the various weekly issues of their periodical literature for that space, we ven- ture our reputation on a verification, to him, of the above, by the perusal of any forth-coming single sheet, ujjon which he may please to lay his hand. The next note. IV. Sanctity. In the application of this note, ♦ See the Introduction to this Treatise, pp. 31-34. 444 1. To the Church of Rome^ in addition to wliat has been al- ready offered on the morals of the popedom and of the papal Church (see pages 297-300), and to which we refer the reader, we add the following,, as a few of the specimens of doctrines taught by their standards for the spiritual benefit of " the faithful." On the subject of the second commandment, which prohibits image worship, it is omitted by the Church of Home, she dividing the tenth into two parts, to keep up the complement. On Auricular Confession^ the catechism of the Council of Trent teaches, that " according to the Council of Lateran, which begins : Omnes^ utriusque sexus^ it commands all the faithful to confess their sins at least once a year,"* which confession she makes "ne- cessary for the remission of sins." On Priestly Ahsolution. " The voice of the priest is to be heard as that of Christ himself, who said to the lame man, " Son, be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee."f " The form of the absolution or pardon granted by the priest is this : I absolve thee.^''X " Humbled in spirit, the sincere penitent cfists himself down at the feet of the priest," in whom, as "the minister of God, who sits in the tribunal of penance as his legitimate judge, he venerates the power and person of our Lord Jesus Christ ; for in the administra- tion of this, as in that of the other sacraments, the priest repre- sents the character, and discharges the functions of Jesus Christ."§ On Penance. Its efficacy, etc. " Penance is the channel through which the blood of Christ flows into the soul, and washes away the stains contracted after baptism." " There is no sin, how- ever grievous, no crime, however erroneous, or however frequently repeated, which penance does not remit."|| Leaving the Tridentine Catechism, we pass to another standard authority, the authentic works of the Saint Ligori, who was canon- ized by Pope Pius VII. Let us hear him on the subject, Of Common Cursing or Damning. " To curse insensible crea- tures, such as the wind, rain, etc., is no blasphemy, unless the one who curses expressly connects them in relation to God," etc.^" " To curse the living," without " reflecting about his soul, in cursing him he does not commit a grievous sin."** " To swear with equivocation, where there is a good reason, and equivocation itself is lawful, is not wrong," etc.ff Of Gambling^ as consecrated for priests and people by the law of custom. " The canons," says Ligori, " which forbid games of hazard, do not appear to be received, except inasmuch as the gam- bling is carried on with the danger of scandal. Be it known, that the above mentioned canonical law is so much nullified by the contrary custom, that not only laymen, but even the clergy, do not * Catechism Council of Trent, p. 193. t lb., p. 180. t lb., p. 181. § lb., p. 182. II Catechism Council of Trent, pp. 180, 183. IT Ligor. Practical Confessions, N. 30. ** lb., p. 29. tt lb.. Lib. III., N. 151, Synopsis, 159. 445 sin, if tliey play cards principally for the sake of recreation, and for a moderate sum of money." Again: " lie who makes use of knavery and cunning Avhich is usually practiced in gambling, and which has the sanction of custom, is not bound to restore what he wins," etc.* Of the SahbafJi. "Poverty can excuse from sin in working on the Sabbath."f " Merchandizing, and the selling of goods at auc- tion on Sundays, is, on account of its being a general custom, alto- gether lawful.":}: " Bull lights and plays allowed." " On the en- trance of a prince or nobleman in a city, it is lawful on a Sunday to prepare the drapery, arrange the theater, etc., and to act a comedy ; also to exhibit the bull- fights ; the reason is, because such marks of joy are morally necessary for the public weal."§ The Commission of Sin made Laivful. " It is lawful to induce a person to commit a smaller sin, in order to avoid one that is greater."! This law licenses drunkenness. " It is no sin to get drunk by the advice of a physician," etc.^ And admits them to the communion. " It is lawful to administer the sacrament to drunkards, if they are in the probable danger of death, and had previously the intention of receiving them."*" Finally, this Saint Ligori has told us, speaking of the Romish clergy, " That, among the priests Avho live in the world, it is rare, and very rare, to find any that are good."f f We shall offer no comment on the above, but leave the reader to his own inferences as to the alleged immaculate sanctity of the Romi-jh Church, and pass on to apply this note, Sanctity : 2. To the Protestant E^nsco-pal Churcli^ Anglican and Ameri- can. Mr. Palmer, in his "Treatise on the Church of Christ, de- signed chiefly for the use of students in theology," defines the above " note," Sanctity, to consist in, " first, the sanctity of its Head, and of those who founded it ; secondly, the holiness of its doctrine ; thirdly, the means of holiness which it has in the sacra- ments : fourthly, the actual holiness of its members ; and fifthly, the divine attestations of holiness in miracles.":}::}: Now, of these several particulars, w^e remark : First, that of the actual sanctity of Christ and his apostles^ there is no room for remark. Second, " Holiness of doctrine." This claim, as put forth by "the Church," Protestant Episcopal, if views the most incon- gruous and conflicting, — Evangelical and Romanistic, Calvinistic, semi-Calvinistic, Arminian, and Pelagian and Universalist, — are to be taken in evidence, then, we confess she is entitled to it. To a careful observer, all these differences may be seen to float on the surface of those troubled waters of controversy which for years * lb., n. 882, 883, Synopsis, p. 235. t Vo., n. 32, 33, Synopsis, pp. 52, 53. X lb., n. 293, Synopsis, p. 192. § lb., n. 304, Synopsis, p. 193. II lb., n. 77, Synopsis, p. 255. ^ lb., n. 76, Synopsis, p. 254. ** Ligori, 6. n. 81, Synopsis, 260. ft lb., Synopsis, p. 180. XX Treatise, etc., Vol. I., p. 137. 446 past have shaken, and which still continue to shake, that Church to its very center. But here again, for want of space, we cannot enter into detail. It must suflice that we single out two articles of difference, by way of illustration. These are, "the religion of Baptismal regeneration, and the religion of A§j?V/ifua^ regeneration." Now, speaking of these, the Eev. Dr. Aydelott, a distinguished presbyter of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Cincinnati, Ohio, in a work published by him in 1844 on " The Condition and Pros- pects" of his Church, quotes from an article which apj^eared in " The Churchman^^ of April 10th, 1847, under the caption of " Bishop IVIeade and Baptism," and bearing the signature of " Occidentalis," in which Bishop Meade, having written in opposi- tion to the "baptismal regeneration" theory, said "Occidentalis" demands to know hoAV "a Christian bishop dares openly, through- out the Church, to impugn the Church's teaching upon baptism," etc., to which he adds, "one or the other of us must he wrong, and why not have it declared at once which of us it is ? The Christianity of him who holds the principle of baptism con- sistently, is, throughout, a different religion from that of such men as Bishop Meade. There is no reconciling them, they cannot live together, except in the end, the house that holds them fall," etc. " Yea," says Dr. Aydelott, " most true, this, Occidentalis ; and most manly spoken." But the learned doctor goes on to concede, in the view of these differences, the existence of " Two entirely different gospels and kinds of religion'''' in " THE Church," and says that " The church that is made up of such heterogeneous materials must GET RID of one or the other or come to naught. There is no possibility," he adds, " of two such sj^stems always living together. They are mutually destructive. Just as the one flourishes, must the other go down. The church that attempts to comprehend both, instead of being a garden of the Lord, exhibiting throughout fruits fair to the eye and good for food, must, sooner or later, be- come little else than a vast moral desert, fall of noxious beasts and all unclean things — a hideous spiritual aceldama."* Third. " The means of holiness lohich it has in the sacraments^ The doctrine of the opus operatum of the sacraments, or sacra- mental grace, is here intended. " The Church" divided on, the same as above. Fourth. " The actual holiness of its members.'''' Of course, these comprehend the members clerical, as bishops, etc., and lay. See on pages 218, 219, the evidence that according to the theory of all classes of prelatists, no amount of ignorance, heresy, or moral tur- pitude of character of any of the links can, by any possibility, vitiate, nullify, or destroy, the succession apostolical ! Then turn to Mr. Palmer, who, on the subject of Church-membership, so zealously advocates the necessity of their actual holiness," tells us as follows: — * See above work, pp. 121-129, New York, Mark H. Newman. 447 " Those who arc sinners, and devoid of lively faith, are some- times externally members of the Church. Manifest sinners are sometimes external members of the Church, and exercise the pri- vileges of its members. Visible sanctity of life is not requisite for ad- mission to the Church of Christ.''^ No. Not on the part of parents who present their children for incorporation into the Church by baptism. For, " visible sanctit}'-," as a qualitication for such presentment, can be dispensed Avith in virtue of their alleged regeneration " with" God's "Holy Spirit" at the baptismal Ibnt, and their consequent " adoption" as a " child" of God, and incorporation into his " holy Church," when infants.* No want of " visible sanctity" on the part of parents or sponsors after baptism can forfeit or alienate their claims to bap- tism for their children. That this leaven leavens the whole lump, in other words, that it is a principle of common operation in the whole Church, we quote in evidence from an Episcopal charge de- livered by Bishop Burgess before his Convention in Maine, July 10th, 1850, on " Great Principles." In alluding to the subject of present remark, he speaks of " the rejection of infant baptism by many," — the Baptists, of course, — and of " its limitation by others,"f that is Presbyterians. Presbyterians plead guilty to the charge. Yes. They do insist on a reasonable amount of evidence of their possession of internal grace by " their visible sanctity," as a qualification to assume the solemn vows and perform the momen- tous obligations devolving on parents, etc., in behalf of their bap- tized children. Their language to all others is : " But unto the wicked, God saith, what hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?"' To this " limitation" of the right of baptism to the children of parents furnishing the evidence of " visible sanctity," however, the bishop objects that it " severs the ties which ought to bind the rising ge- neration to the Christian name and covenant." It is a species of " exclusiveness" of which the Protestant Episcopal Church may proudly boast that she is " not guilty." She has seen her account in it. She has made broad capital out of it. Bishop Burgess's objection to the Presbyterian " limitation" in these premises, we repeat, in- volves the hypothesis of the hirth-rifjlit baptism of all within the pale of " THE Church," not only, but, founded as it is on the P.aseyite canon of Mr. Palmer, that " visible' sanctity of life is not requisite for admission to the Church of Christ b}'" baptism; hundreds, yea, thousands, have been seduced within her pale, to escape the application in the so-called " wZim-Protestant" Churches in which they were the baptized members, of the above scriptural " limitation" of their baptismal rights.* (1) Psalm 50 : 16. * Book of Common Prayer. Office for Public Baptism of Infants, t Proleslant Churchman, Au^. 17, 18.50. See also the Introduction to this Treatise, t See Introduction to this Treatise. 448 Thus much, then, of one of the "Gi'cat Principles" of this very learned, pious, amiable, and zealous LOW OHUKCH prelate of the diocese of Maine. Let us, however, advance another step. Is " visible sanctity of life" esteemed to be requisite "for admission" to confinnatimi f Answer. — " The Church hath thought good to order that none shall be confirmed but such as can say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments ; and can answer to such other questions as in the short catechism are contained,"* etc. The same qualifications are specified in the closing address to sponsors in the baptismal service. What, then, is the practice ? The Eev. Dr. Aydelott already quoted, furnishes us with the fol- lowing as a specimen: "The Eev. Mr. ■ had notice of an Episcopal visitation in his parish. The bishop arrived, and when the list of candidates was handed to him, aj)peared much cha- grined that the number was so small. He added, however, ' Never mind, never mind ; I recollect that in the diocese of , the bishop, in the course of his visitation, once came to a church, where he found to his great disappointment very few to be con- firmed. He appointed another day, a few weeks after, to hold a second confirmation, and upon returning he had the satisfaction of confirming over a hundred Tnore. And as I intend to stay here another Sunday, then we can have a larger confirmation.' "f Now, true. Some few of the clergy, like the above, wall present none for confirmation but on the ground of their personal Christian ex- perience. This circumstance accounts for the "chagrin" of the bishop, as above, in finding so few to be confirmed. And the pastor, having complained to the bishop that " the thoughtless, the worldly, and the self-deceived have been pressed forward in throngs to the altar!" said to him, "I can see no reason to expect that the catalogue will be much, if at all, increased by next Sunday.":}; Li the next place. Is " visible sanctity" required as a condition of admission to the Lord''s Su2y£)er ? The common sentiment is, that no other qualifi- cations are required as a passport to the Holy Communion, than those required for confirmation. Dr. Aydelott informs us, that " he himself was admitted to the communion by one of the most distinguished ministers of the Church without the slightest ex- amination, either as it respected his views of the gospel, or his ex- perience of its power. He might have been not only spiritually dead, but utterly ignorant of the truth as it is in Jesus, and even an infidel, for aught his pastor knew." It is in this way he ac- counts for the fact, that " very many unconverted men" having " found their way into the churches, — some thoughtless, some self-deceived, and others still worse, but all worldly, worldly ;" the " religious world about them verj^ generally suppose that the * Book of Common Prayer, Order of Confirmation. t Aydelott's Cond and Pros, of the Protestant Episcopal Church, pp. 47, A8. X lb"., p. 48. 449 standard of piety is lower in their Clmrcli than in the other ortho- dox denominations." And, it should be particularly noted in this connection, that he affirms " his sense of the evil" to have been enlarged to a sad extent," over a period of " thirty years"! "The influence of such communicants," says he, "is peculiarly disastrous." And he adds: — " Better, we have often thought, better to go out into the highways and hedges and preach the gospel, than minis- ter in a Church where a large majority of its community are of such a character.''''^ Finally, we ask, Is " visible sanctity of life" required as a condition of admitting candidates to the ministry ? Here again we quote Dr. Aydelott. Speaking of " the spiritual character and call of the candidate," he asks : " Have we been sufficiently careful to ascertain, so far as man in the light of God's word can judge, whether those who ap- ply to be admitted to the ministry are really regenerated men, and called by the Holy Ghost to preach the gospel?" etc. And he re- plies : " Would that we could say, we had ! But," he adds, " mul- titudes of facts at this moment crowd upon the mind of the writer, all bearing alarming testimony to past unfaithfulness. But one will he here state. He has been somewhat conversant with ex- aminations for the ministry in various parts of our Church, cmd Tievcr^ except on a single occasion^ has he known a question put to a candidate, the object of which was, to ascertain whether he had proper views of the sacred office and of a call to it, or had been himself the subject of that spiritual, holy change which is essential to Christian character:" and "he cannot but fear that many un- converted men,— men who know nothing spiritually of the truth and grace of the Lord Jesus, have been admitted to the ministry of our Church." We here again make no comment, further than to remind the reader, that the author from whom we quote, as above — the _Kev. B. P. Aydelott, D.D. — ^lias long been known as a distinguished presbyter in the Protestant Episcopal Church, and was for years rector of one of the principal churches of that denomination in the city of Cincinnati, Ohio.f Pass Ave now to the last " note" of true Catholicity. Y. DlSCIPUNE. 1. Of the existence and application of Discipline in the Gliurch, of Rome, no one in the least acquainted with her history and the practical workings of her system, can be ignorant. The fear and dread of " the faithful, lest, at the confessional, the acknowledg- ments of sins of omission and of commission should subject them to the priestly power of " the keys," evidence that its administra- tion keeps pace with every pulsation of her heart. It is the very * Aydelott's Condition and Prospects, etc., pp. 48. . t He has since seceded, and united himself to the New School Presbyterian Church. 21) 450 life of that " spiritual despotism" which for so many centuries has exercised an unlimited dominion over the consciences of her mil- lions of enslaved subjects. Protestants, however, holding that discipline consists in, (not that those " who rule," have dominion over the faith," but) that they " are helpers of the joy,"' of the members of Christ's nock, by admonition, and the exscinding of the heretical and immoral ; ' view the discipline of the Church of Eome as defective, not only, but that it is for the most part wholly un- scriptural. But, next — 2. Of the Discipline of the Protestant episcopal Church. And, First. The Anglican branch. True. The homily for Whit- sunday makes " the right use of discipline," a note of the true Church. But we now affirm that the English Church, as a Cliurch, is totally destitute of all scriptural discipline. Yea, " the keys of discipline" have long since by her been given, or rather sold, to the State ! The entire administration of what they have of dis- cipline in that Church, is vested in the chancellor, a layman, and in the Court of Arches, whose judicial powers extend not only over the clergy and laity, but even over bishops themselves. Proof: Bishop Croft, in a work entitled, " The Naked Truth," etc., speaking of " the authorit}^ of bishops to govern as well as to or- d!ain," in virtue of Christ's commission to them, ' whose soever sins ye remit,' etc., says, "yet this is in a manner quite relinquished unto their chancellors, laymen," etc. And he exclaims : " Good God ! what a horrible abuse is this of the divine authority ! — When was it ever heard of since the beginning of the world, that laymen should judge of sjnrituals .'" — And he says : " By this au- thority the chancellor." — whose " pretended power is sometimes purchased with a sum of money" — " takes upon him to sentence not only laymen, but clergymen also, brought into his court for any delinquency, and in the court of arches there they sentence even bishops themselves." Bishop Croft narrates the following in- cident in illustration. " I remember," says he, " when the Bishop of Wells, hearing a cause corruptly managed, and coming into the court to rectify it, the chancellor, Dr. Duke, fairly and man- nerly bid him begone, for he had no power there to act any thing, and therewithal pulls out his patent sealed by the bishop's prede- cessor, which, like Perseus's shield with the Gorgon's head, fright- ened the poor bishop out of the court."* The recent cases of the Rev. Mr. Sales vs. the Bishop of Exeter, and who, it will be recol- lected was imjmsoned by said court ; and of the Rev. Mr. Gor- ham V8. the Bishop of Exeter, may also be quoted to the same end. But, in addition to the above, as decisive of what is here alleged in reference to the absence of all scriptural discipline in the English Church as such, is her own acknowledgment of ike total loss., to her., (1) 2 Cor. 1 : 24. (2) Col. 2 : 21. * The Naked Truth, etc., Collection of Tracts (scarce) , pp. 381-383. 451 of all " godly discipline!'^ In the " communication," it is said, that " in the primitive church there was a godly discipline, that at the beginning of Lent, such persons as stood convicted of notori- ous sins were put to open penance," etc. " Instead whereof, (until the said discipline may be restored again, which is much to be wished,) it is thought good," — What? Why, "that provision is made for a confession, and praj^er for its restoration, in the begin- ning of Lent, once a year "/ Why, then, we ask, has not this " godly discipline" of the " primitive church" long since been re- stored? Take the following, which we quote from the best Church authorities : — " It ought surely to be taken into consideration, whether those who are intrusted on behalf of the Church," [namely, the two houses of convocation,] " do enough towards the discharge of a good conscience, in wishing, once a year, at reading the office" [of commination] " on Ash- Wednesday, that the discipline of the Church Avas restored. Or whether it lie not upon them to do something toward regaining it, that the Church may be restored to the power it hath from Christ," etc. — "Wishes are indeed marks of a good intention, and an acceptable zeal, where no more is possible to be done ; but ever to wish and make no attempt to- ward the thing wished for, if it be zeal, is such as is a reproach to itself"- Again. " The restoring of the ancient discipline is earnestly desired by the Church of England in her office of coinmination / the performance of which pious wish, or the endeavoring it at least, is a duty incumbent on our governors," etc. — " But, wi^h due submission be it spoken, methinks it looks too much like dis- sembling with God, and imposing on the people, to have this pas- sage stand in our public liturgy, and read solemnly in our congre- gations once a year, — and yet no attempt made toward the restor- ing of this godly and much wished for, but still neglected disci- pline."! Finally, says the learned Bingham, " The Church of England has for tvio hundred years wished for the restoration of discipline, and yet it is but an ineffective Avish. For nothing is done toward introducing it, but rather things are gone backward, and there is less of discipline for these last sixty years^ since the times of the unhappy confusions, than there was before. ":j: Turn we now, Second, to the American branch of the Protestant Episcopal Church. " She is wholly unconnected with the State. She has no difficulty in the way of enacting and executing such canons of discipline as would preserve her purity." But, let us see. This Church claims to have such " godly discipline." Bishop Burgess of Maine, in the "charge" already alluded to, speaks "of * Church of England, Wish, (1703,) pp. 4, 5, etc. t Ellesby's Caution against III Company, (1705,) Preface, pp. 2, 3. { Bingham's Origines Ecclesiaslica, Book XV., Chapter IX., Section 8. 452 the cautious rules of our discipline,"* etc. Let us now see what Dr. vVydelott has to ofier on this subject.f He is treating of the spiritual character required by Scripture, of those " who under- take to manage the affairs of the Church." " Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God," etc. ; and hence argues that, " to spiritual men belong spiritual things." He then applies this principle to their ecclesiastical arrangements, and in- quires,— " Have we, as a Church, kept this plain Bible principle ever in view, and been duly careful to carry it out in all our ar- rangements?" And then asks : "How is it with our vestries ? To these, he says, belongs the management not only of the " temporal," but much also of the spiritual " affairs of the Church ;" for exam- ple, chosing the minister, electing delegates to the convention, tak- ing one of the first steps towards the admission of candidates to the holy office, etc. "Now," asks he, " are we careful to provide that none but pious men should be chosen to so important an ofiice ?" And he answers : " Scarcely ever is this done. The writer knows of not a single diocese in which, if his recollections are correct, the vestry must be chosen from among the communi- cants of the Church." Again, he asks : " And what is the constitutional safeguard of our diocesan conventions? These elect the bishop, present him for trial, and appoint the standing committees, and delegates to the general convention," etc. "Surely," says he, " such a body ought to be composed of wise and good men, in the highest, the Christian, sense of these terms. And yet," he adds, " the writer, after many years acquaintance with most parts of our Church, can find but two dioceses in which members of the convention are required to be communicants. He is confident indeed of only one / it is to be hoped, however, there may be others." Again. " How is it with our standing committees ? Their duties are almost entirely spiritual. — And yet," he asks, " are there more than two or three dioceses whose legislation requires the members of this body to be professors of religion ? The writer knows not of so many," but speaks of " signs" and indulges hopes of improvement, etc. Then, of " the General Convention. '''' " This," says he, " is the grand council of our Church. It is our supreme legislative body. — Its decisions are final and universally binding." " Here," he adds, " will it not naturally be expected by every intelligent, pious per- son, that we shall find in our Constitution, the most clear, careful and strong provisions made to guard against the admission of any into this body, but men of eminent religious character — men full of faith and of the Holy Ghost? Would," he exclaims, " that it were so ! But let one closely examine the last edition of the Con- stitution and Canons of the General Convention, as published in Swords's Almanac for 1845, and he will discover not a single line, * See " Charge" etc., published in the Protestant Chii.rchmnv, Ang:i)st 17, 1850. t See his Work, Stale and Prospects of the I'roteslant Epis-i^pa! Church. 453 not a ward, reqtdHng even a prqfessimi of religion as necessary to mcmbersMp in that body. So that a layman, without even the form of godliness, a perfectly worldly man, even an infidel, may take his seat in this our grand council, and thus exercise a con- trolling influence in the most vital matters affecting our whole Church " ! Finally, Dr. Aydelott throws into contrast with this organiza- tion of their " ecclesiastical fabric" " from the Vestry upward to the General Convention," and the " evils" thence resulting, those of other " ecclesiastical bodies," namely : " sessions, associations, presbyteries, councils, synods, conferences, consociations," etc. : and says, " It ought to be to us all, and certainly to every en- lightened, pious member of our Church it will be, a matter — not of envious reflection but — of sincere thanksgiving to the Great Head of the Church, that scarcely any, if any, of the various other evangelical denominations have been betrayed into our organic error." Let us then, in conclusion on this subject, look in the face the practical workings of the ecclesiastical organization of the P. E. Church in the article of " Disciplines^'' on the testimou}' of that emi- nently distinguished preacher, divine, ecclesiastical historian and canonist, the Kev. Francis L. Hawks, D.D., now Rector of Cal- var}- Church in the city of New York. The learned doctor, in his " Ecclesiastical Contributions," speaking of " Article YI," of " the Constitution," etc., on *' the mode of trying clergymen^'' — " whether bishop, or presbyter, or deacon," says : " In fact, the weakest and most defective part of our whole eccle- siastical system, is the department of the judiciary.'''''* And, on the subject of the general discipline of the Church, under " Canon XLIL," which treats " Of crimes and scandals to he censured^'' the doctor says : — " It is true the power of excommunication does be- long to the Church, it does, too, deprive of all privileges of Church membership, and it is the most awful power ever confided by Heaven to man ; rightfully exercised, its consequences (though the world may scorn them) are of the most terrific character, if Scrip- ture be true: but," he demands, ^'"who ever Jteard of the excommu- . nication of a layman in our branch of the apostolic Church f The LAW IS A DEAD LKTTEE. Neither the General Convention, nor any State Convention, have ever provided any " rules or process" for excommunication. There is not a clergyman in the Church, who, if he were desirous to excommunicate an offender, would know how to take the very first step in the process. It certainly is not to be done according to his mere whim, and if it were so done, it is as certainly invalid. Shall, then, the presbyter alone do it, or shall it be done by his bishop, or by a conclave of bishops, or by bishops and presbyters, or by a State Convention including the laity, or by the General Convention including the laity again ? *" Ecclesiastical Contributions." Swords and Stanford, New York, IS 11 ; pp. 33. "- 45^ No man can answer, for there is no rtjle on the sub-iect, AND WE ARE GLAD THAT IT IS SO : for our excommunication bringing with it no penalty which would be felt :" — no, Rev. Sir, even though it were to " deprive of all privileges of Church mem- bership"— " depriving a man of no civil rights, would be laughed at as a mere brutum fulmen.''^* AVhat now think you, reader, " of the cautious rules of disci- pline" of the P. E. Church, of which Bishop Burgess speaks? Surely upon us devolves not the task of an attempt to reconcile the claim of the learned bishop in these premises, with the con-' flicting statement of facts of the Rev. Dr. Aydelott, and the expo- sition of the canons by the Rev. Dr. Hawks. "We, therefore, sub- mit the subject to the decision of the candid, without further comment. SECTION ni. Conclusion. — " The Holy Catholic Church" — How known 1 Where found ? Scrip- turally defined. — Line of designation between the True and the False Church. — Adopted by Luther.— The Continental Reformers.— The XlXth of the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England. — Cranmer, Hooker, Bishops Sanderson and Cosin, " Statement of the Distinctive Principles of the Protestant Episcopal Society for the Promotion of Evangelical Knowledge," Bishops Meade, Mcllvaine, Lee, Bur- gess, etc.. Dr. Stone, etc, etc. — Incongruity of their statements with the admitted theory of Prelacy, etc. — Application of the above marks or notes of "' the Holy Catholic Church," to the Anti-Prelatical theory of — I. Aposlolicity — In the sense of an U.NBROKEN Succession — Not, however, in a Genealogical line of Persons, but of the perpetuity of the Apostolic Doctrine, etc. — Irenasus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Gre- gory Nazian., Ambrose, etc., on. — II. Catholicity. — Preliminaries. — Novatians — Waddington on. — Donatists — Waddington on. — Pauliceans — Gibbon on. — Waldeiisex. — Reinerius Sacchoon. — Inference. — III. Unity. — The Harmony in Doctrine, Polity, etc., of Anti-Prelatists, contrasted with the discordant systems of Prelacy. — IV. Sanctity. — See Standards of all Evangelical Churches. — V. Discipline. — See Standards of all Evangelical Churches. We are, then, in conclusion, brought at length to the all-impor- tant inquiry in reference to the subject of this chapter, namely : do the marks or notes of that "Holy Catholic Church" in which we all profess our " belief," — Apostolicity, Catholicity, Unity, Sanc- tity, and Disciphne, — in their application to the claims of the Greek, the Roman, and the prelatical Anglican and American portions of Christendom, prove that they, either sej)arately or to- gether, constitute that Church ? As we have seen : Romanists and Churchmen, generally holding that the promises of the gospel are made to the visible Church, and that the visible Church is a united corporate body, affirm that * Ecclesiastical Contributions, etc., pp. 359, 360. 4So their church is that body. And yet each claims to be, par excel- lence, "the Church, independently of the other! In other words, each, with hearty good- will, excommunicates the other as heretical and schismatical ! How, then, is it attempted to dis- pose of this dilemma ? " The difficulty, it seems, is fully met," at least, in the estimation of these redoubtable champions of Catho- licity, '* by providing for an ' interruption of urdty^ " For though " the external communion of the Catholic Church" is essential to its being, and unity with each other is a "note" of all its true members, yet this unity may " be interrupted." Yes. Catholic Unity " interrupted" — the Church of Christ, rent asunder by the direst heresies, the most revolting moral corruption, the most deeply-seated enmities, followed by the heaviest anathemas each against the other, and yet that Church, " one " ! Where tlien, it will be demanded, are we to look for " the Holy Catholic Church ?" Prelatists of all grades and sects, with an air of the most triumphant self-complacency and confidence, demand, — ' Where was your Peotestant Church before the time of Luther f Where was the true Church, prior to the period of the Greek and Eoman schism ?' Now, to all such and similar interrogatories, it might be suffi- cient to return the " retort courteous,'''' and demand,— Where waa Prelatical Episcopacy before the substitution of the name bishop (a title which, on the authority of the New Testament, and the testimony of the " early fathers," we have shown to have been used interchangeably with that of presbyter, to denote one and the same person and office) for that of ajyostle, an innovation unknown to the earlier and purest ^05^apostolic age? Where was pre- latical Catholicity prior to the alliance of the Church with the State under Constantine ? Where was the first pope before a.d. 533, or 606 ? And, finall}^, where was Protestant prelacy anterior to the time of Henry Yl'lL, or, if it be preferred, of Edward VI. ? But not to fight, as those who beat the air, on the points in- volved in these interrogatories pro and con, we shall proceed at once to assume and defend the following, as constituting the true scriptural idea of " the Church of God," " ffoly'' and " Catholic:' "The Holy Catholic Church" is constituted of "them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord."' The " Eock" on which it rests, and against which " the gates of hell shall not prevail," is that confession of Christ as " the chief corner-stone," made by " the twelve apostles of the Lamb," in conjunction with the "prophets."" Its visible bond of union is, "steadfast continuance in the apos- tles's doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."' (1) 1 Cor. 1 : 2. (2) Compare Matt. 16 : 13-18 ; Eph. 2 : 20 ; with Isa. 28 : 16 ; 1 Pet. a : 0. (3) Acts 2 : 41, 42. 456 Briefly, then, the true Church of God, though visible, is made up of such congregations of Christians throughout all nations and in every place, as have received and retain purity of doctrine and holiness of life ; while the false Church is composed of all who are irreguhir in their lives, and who are promoters of "error, heresy and schism." In correspondence with this representation, holy Scripture de- clares, " that all are not Israel who are of Israel.'" " Circumcision availeth nothing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."'" The only index to our knowledge of the existence and strength of the true Catholic, is, external conformity to and with a professed pos- session of the internal grace. " By their friiits ye shall Jc7iow them."' Still, man can only "judge according to the outward ap- pearance."* " We cannot fathom the depths of the human heart, nor are our decisions in relation to external developments infallible. The garb of hypocrisy may long cover a corrupt heart, and our most honest judgments may be prejudiced." There ever have been and still are those in the Church who " have the form of godliness,"' and make "a fair show openly in the flesh."' But towards " all those who attach themselves to a Christian Church, whose profession of faith and course of life harmonize with the great moral precepts of the Gospel, we are bound by the laws of Christian charity to presume they are genuine Christians." It is in this asptect of the embodiment, with the true Israel of God as known to Him alone, of the self-deceived and the deceivers of others, and whose external conformity places beyond the reach of discipline, that we are to apply the two parables of the net cast into the sea,'' and of the wheat and the tares. ° The Church is to *' let both grow together until the harvest." But of those of the false Church, w^hose viciousness of life, and the prornoters of " error, heresy, and schism," or, to use the lan- guage of Mr. Palmer, "manifest sinners," the command of holy Scripture is, '■'■from such withdraw thyself."' In opposition to the canon of Mr. Palmer, that " visible sanctity of life is not re- quisite for admission to the Church of Christ ;"* holy Scripture teaches, tliat just in proportion as the absence of that " visible sanctity" is discovered, it is the duty of all "that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ," either to " put away" from them such "wicked persons,"'" — "manifest sinners,"— or if, per- chance, apostasy from the faith and corruption in practice pervade the aggregate body, then, and in such case, to " come out of her."" It was on this great scriptural principle of true Church Cathol- icity, that the Reformation on the Continent of Europe was con- ducted. "Luther," for example, "denied that the Romish Church (1) ];om. !) : (i. (2) Gal. 0 : 15. (3) Matt. 7 : in. (4) Jolin 7 : 24. (:,) 2 Tim. 3 : 5. (6) Gal. 6 : 12. (7) Matt. 13:47. (6) Matt. 13 : 25-29. (9) 2 Tliess. 3 : 6; 1 Tim. 6:5. (10) 1 Cor. 5:13 (H) Rev. 18 : 4. * Treatise on the Church, etc., Vol. I., pp. 139, 141, 144. .f 457 was the true Churcli of Christ, The Eomish doctors then de- manded, Where was the true Church before the Reformation f To this he answered, that it was invisible. By this he meant that the true Church, during the reign of superstition and corruption which he was laboring to reform, had been confined to those Chris- tians who had " worshiped God in spirit and in truth," but had been under the necessity, from the pressure of circumstances, of seeking retirement, as in the days of EHjah, amidst the general prevalence of corruption, there were "seven thousand" true ser- vants of God who were not even known to the prophet." Nor is this view of what constitutes the true Church peculiar to Luther and the Continental Reformers. The XlXth Article of the Church of England stands thus:— "The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly administered in all things that of necessity are requisite to the same." Now, what- ever may be urged by prelatists in regard to the "all things" in- dispensable to a due administration of the sacraments, etc., the above article in Latin, compiled and published simultaneously with the English by the same authority, has it, " ' Cwtus creden- tium^ a congregation of believers, plainly showing that by faith- ful men the compilers meant men endued with living faith."* So Cranmer. " This holy Church is so unknown to the world that no man can discern it, but God alone, who only searcheth the hearts of all men, and knoweth his true children from others that be but bastards, etc. For if the Church make any new articles of faith, besides the Scripture, or contrary to the Scripture, or direct not the form of life according to the same, then it is not the pillar of truth, nor the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Satan, and the temple of Antichrist, which both erreth itself, and bringeth into error as many as do follow it." And he condemns the " Papists" for their " arrogant boldness," in " that they are bold to affirm no Church to be the true Church of God, but that which standeth by ordinary succession of bishops, in such pomp and glorious sort as now is seen."f So the judicious Hooker. " That Church of Christ, wliich we properly term his body mystical, can be but one / neither can that one be sensibly discerned by any man, inasmuch as the parts thereof are some in heaven already with Christ, and the rest that are on earth (albeit their natural per- sons be visible), we do not discern under this property whereby they are truly and infallibly of that body. Only our minds, by intellectual conceit are able to apprehend that such a body there is, a body collective^ because it containeth a large multitude ; a * Sermon on the Church, by Wesley. Works, Vol. II., p. 157, (as quoted in Method- ist Quarterly Review, April, 1S-J4, p. '209.) t See Cranmer's Works, Oxford edition. Vol. HI., pp. 18, 19, 20 ; and Vol. IV., pp. 154, 155. (Methodist Quarterly Review, pp. 213, 214.) 458 body mystical^ because the mystery of their conj unction is removed altogether from sense," etc.* We might quote to the same effect from Bishops Sanderson and Cosin, and from the learned Dr. Jackson, whom Dr. Pusey com- mends as "one of the best and greatest minds the Church has ever produced. "f But passing these, we shall simply add, on this subject, the following, contained in a recent " Statement of the Distinctive Principles of the Protestant Episcopal Society for the Promotion of Evangelical Knovvledgo." Speaking of " the Church," the Society says : it holds that the Church is " the blessed company of all faithful people," or of all true believers in Jesus, abiding in communion with Christ by a living faith. Of all, and ooily sueh^ does the Church, as " the body of Christ," consist. This Church is made visible to man under the form .of " sacraments duly ad- ministered," etc. " This we hold, in distinction from those who teach that the Church, as " the body of Christ," is composed of all professing Christians, Avho are united together under a particu- lar external ministry, to which exclusively is committed and con- fined the power of making and ministering the sacraments," etc. And, after quoting Drs. Barrow and Jackson in support of the above, the Society adds : — " Indeed, it would be necessary to re- write the whole Bible, as well as the most important parts of En- glish ecclesiastical literature, before that restricted view of the Church could be maintained, which limits this body of Christ to those who hold communion with one form only of an external ministry.":]: This same view of what constitutes the true Church of Christ, in one form or another, has been advocated by several of the most distinguished members of said " Society" — Bishops Meade, Mc- Ilvaine, Lee, Burgess, etc. ; and Drs. Stone, Tyng, Bedell, etc., etc. We come then to ask with all deference : — Will the said " Pro- testant Episcopal Society for the Promotion of Evangelical Knowl- edge" (as the organ of the doctrinal views of the Low Church portion of their communion), in the light of their Teimdiation of that view of the Church " which limits it to those who hold com- munion with one fonn only of an external ministry," (which sen- timent we understand to be borrowed from that of Cranmer.) tho.t the true Church does not stand "Jy ordinary succession of bish- ops in such pomp and glorious sort as now is seen" ? Will that So- ciety allow us to consider them as admitting the validity of other forms of an external ministry in that Church which they contend is composed of " the blessed company of all faithful ppjople" ? If not^ then we ask : In what consists the difference between THEIR " exclusiveness^''^ in its bearings on other forms of ministry ; for example, Presbyterian^ Methodist^ etc., and that of their High ♦ Hookers Eccles. Pol., Vol. I., pp. 2S.5, 2SG, Oxford edition. t See Two Treatises on the Church. Hooker. Philadelphia: 1844. t See Protestant Cliurchman^ Septennber 21, 1S50. 459 Chiircli. and Tractorian brethren, which they so zealously con- demn ? If they do intend to be understood as admitting the va- lidity of other forms of ministry equally with their own^ then we ask, 1. How is that admission to be reconciled with the continued advocacy, by their own Low Chukch party, of the necessity of ordination by the laj'ing on of hands as involving the gift of " the Holy Ghost," through an uninterrupted succession of bishops from Peter, Paul, John, James, etc., in order to the jpe'r2?etuity of a VALID MINISTRY ? 2. How will said " Society" reconcile the above admission with the invidious reflections, imperious tone, and spirit of exclusive- ness and denunciation against other churches and forms of minis- try, which mark the columns of their numerous publications? Why, from the pages of their principal organ — the " Protestant Churchman" alone — might be culled " muck and mire," thus con- descendingly thrown at those y^rj neighbors whom they admit to belong to the same " Catholic" " household of faith" with them- selves, sufficient to fill a volume ! 3. How is this admission by said " Society" to be reconciled with their refusal to recognize other forms of an external ministry as valid, hy closing their jptdjnts against them? Is not this schis- » MATiCAL ? Finally, 4. Will said " Society," organized "for the Promotion of Evan- gelical Knowledge," within the communion of "the Protestant Episcopal Church," prepare and publish, for the benefit of the Christian world, a work in which it shall be plainly shown, whether, in the " external ministry" of the Church, there is any other via media between the substratum of prelacy — ^'■JSfulla eccle- sia sine ejjiscopo — without a bishop there is no Church ;" and its' opposite — " Ecclesia, sine episco2:)o — a Church without a bishop," than that form denominated PEESBYTERIAN ? And if so, to point out in what said form consists ? Until this be done — as it has been the entire design of this Trea- tise, in its three parts, to demonstrate — it is in vain to attempt to occupy any otlier ground in the defense of the prelatical theor}-, than that contained in the motto^ " No Bishop, no Church." This theo- ry, depending, as it does, on an xiribroken aposlol/ical succession for its support, constitutes the bulwark of prelatical catholicity. Be- tween it, and the theory of the true catholicity of the Church as advocated by us, and which is acknowledged to be the only Scriptural them^y \>y Cranmer, the judicious Hooker, Jackson, Bishops Sanderson, Casin, Meade, Mcllvaine, Lee, Burgess, and others, and by " the Protestant Episcopal Society for the Promo- tion of Evangelical Knowledge," as shown above, the distimce is wide as the poles. There is no aflinity between them. They are totally, and must remain forever, irreconcilable, Prelatical catho- 460 licity is human ! Originating, as we have seen, at an earl}'^ period of the ^>c>.>?^ apostolic age, in an innovation upon the scripturally appointed ordinary and standing orders of presbyter-bishops and deacons, by the erection, in its place, of an episcopacy on the ground of expediency ', the door thus opened to ecclesiastical aspirants, that ground of expediency was soon exchanged for the higher, because more dignified claim, of EpiscorACY by divine right. Thenceforward, " by little and little," its assumptions of power continued to increase, until it attained to its fall iiiaturity, in the erection of the Popedom. And in its nature and ten- dency, it is ever the same. Modify or dilute it — talk, write, preach, and wrangle about it as you may, its fermentation in the lump, wherever, and under what circumstances soever found, is but the result of the ecclesiastico-chemical process of cause and effect^ the which remarks, taken in connection with what immediately precedes, we design as preliminary to what we have to offer, by way of an application of the five marks or notes, as above, To our theory regarding the true Church, which we claim, in its origin, to be, divine. I, First, then,— Apostolicity. Yes, apostolicity, and that in the sense of an uninterrupted suc- cession from the New Testament times down to the present day, we claim to constitute a cardinal " note" of the true Church. But this uninterrupted succession, we affirm, consists not in an un- broken transmission of the office and functions apostolical from them to others by manual impositions ; thereby making the " esse^^ — the Being of the Church, etc., to depend on a seminal or genea- logical succession of persons : but in the continued preservation of the " truth" — " the faith once delivered to the saints" — in other words, " The apostles's doctrine and fellowship, and in the breaking of bread and in prayers," by such " a ministry generally^'''' as, deriv- ing their appointment from, and according to, the divinely-pre- scribed model apostolic, have been perpetuated along with that truth. In a word, what we affirm is, that the true apostolical suc- cession depends, not on any order of men, as ministers of reli- gion, but on the preservation of "religion, pure and undefiled before God."' A religion, doctrinally, experimentally, and ecclesi- astically " built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets," and of which " Jesus Christ" is " the chief corner-stone." " Against" Q.2je7'sonal succession., " the gates of hell" not only 7nay^ but as has been abundantly demonstrated in these pages, they have " prevail- ed." This, as "we have shown, has been the result of the trial of mere creaturehood under every dispensation. It was so with " the angels in heaven, who kept not their first estate." It was so (1) James 1 : 27. * See Chapter VII., Section I. 461 witli Adam in Eden. It was so with the Cainite race. It was so Avith Israel under the Theocracy. And it was, and is, and ever will be, so, with all who, lusting after " the pre-eminence, "and who seek to " magnify their office" beyond the divinely-prescribed mode], set up the claim that they " are apostles," when they " are not." Not so with the apostolical succession of truth, of doctrine, and purity of life. No. Against this succession, the machinations and opposition of men and the malice of devils have proved alike un- availing. We challenge, on this point, the production of evidence from " Holy Scripture," that it ever, under any dispensation, form- ed any part of the divine plan, that the preservation of the truth of God in the Church of God, was made to " stand in the wisdom of men," linked together in an unbroken genealogical descent, ra- ther than " in the power of God." ' The truth of God, or in other words, true religion, was preserved between the Fall and the De- luge. Not, however, by an uninterrupted succession of men^ divinely appointed to that end. And yet Scripture informs us that there were thex preachers of righteousness. " The same holds true of the period from the Flood to Moses. And, though, in the institution of the Aaronic priesthood, a personal succession was appointed, still that priesthood, as we have shown at length,* being exclusively designed as a type of the priesthood of Christ, was, in itself temporary, not only, but was sometimes changed by divine direction, and, what is more, was broken and interrupted by men. Of this fact, so frequently adverted to by the Jewish historian Josephus, no scholar can be ignorant.f And yet, as though to admonish the Church in all ages, that it formed no part of our Lord's design, — as we have proved it formed no part of the design of his apostles, — rthat the perpetuity of his gospel in its truth, and purit}", and power, should depend on an unbroken succession of men, it is notorious that, during his public ministry, he did not repudiate the ministry of those who performed the functions of the Aaronic order, though not of the succession. And now, to vindicate ourselves against the charge of " novelty^'' " heresy^'' and the like, in the advocacy of the sense which we here attach to this iirst " note," Apostolicit}^, in its application to the true Church ; we shall proceed without further delay, to in- troduce to the reader's notice, the views on this subject, of some of the " early fathers ;" and, first, luEx.Bus. " We cannot know the plan of salvation any otherwise than by those persons :{: through whom the Gospel has come down to us. This they first preached by their personal ministry. After- wards they delivered the will of God to us in their divinely -in- (I) 1 Cor. 2 : 6. (2) 2 Pet. 2:5. * See Index on the word Priesthood. t See Josephus's Antiq., book 27. c. 6 ; book 17, c. 8j book 18, c. 1 ; book 19, c. 5 ; book 19, c. 7 ; book 20, c. 1 ; book 20, c. 3. X To wit, " The twelve Apostles." 462 spired writings, the sacred Scriptures, which were henceforward to be the foundation and pillar of our faith." We place this passage fron;i Irenasus first in order, because it gives to " the sacred Scriptures" a supremacy over that of tradition, as the standard of our faith, against the pretensions of those heretics in his day (and the same is applicable to those of our times) who "accused the Scriptures as not having the right doc- trine, neither as sufficient authority ; that they contained views so diverse that they cannot be understood by those who are ignorant of tradition."* " Such," says he, " are the persons against whom we contend. Wherefore we must use every mode of arguing against them, that, being confounded with the discovery of their errors, we may, if possible, convert them to the truth. "f This fa- ther then proceeds : " We shall declare that which was delivered from the apostles, which the Church of Eome possesses, the faith they preached to mankind ; and which [faith] has come down to us through a succession of bishops, reaching to the present time.":}: To the same effect speaks TicETULLiAN : " But if any of the heretics dare to connect them- selves with the apostolic age that they may seem to be derived fi'om the apostles, as existing under them ; we may say, ' Let them therefore declare the origin of their churches; let them exhibit the series of their bishops, as coming down by a continued succes- sion from the beginning, as to show their first bishop to have had some apostle or apostolic man as his predecessor or ordainer, and who continued in the same faith with the apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolical churches calculate the series of their bishops."§ Yes, thanks to Irenjeus and Tertullian. Allowing both the above passages their fall weight, we deny that either of the above fathers intended them to inculcate the prelatical theory of a suc- cession of persons^ as absolutely neckssary to the existence of Christianity and its ordinances. We have shown from both these fathers, that they applied the titles presbyter and bishop promiscuously to the same person and the same office. Admit- ting, then, that they affirm the existence of a ministry in the Church by a personal succession, the validity of that succession depends on their " continuance in the same faith with the apos- tles." The former is but auxiliary to the latter. That this is the sense in which they are to be understood, Irengeus, speaking of this succession, says : Thus " the preaching of the truth has come down to us. And thus it is evident that one and the same living faith was delivered to the Church by the apostles, and has been preserved and trans- mitted down uncorrupted to the present time."|| But again : * Irenjeus, Lib. 3, c. 1. t lb-, — c. 2. % lb., — c. 3. § Tertullian, De Praescript., C. 32. II IreiiEcus, Lib. 3, c. 2. 463 TEBtuLLiAN is still more explicit. " But if tlie heretics feign or fabricate such a (personal) succession, this will not help them. For their doctrine itself, compared with the doctrine of the apos- tles, will, by its own diversity and contrariety, pronounce against them. To this form of trial will appeal be made by those churches henceforwaid (i^\\y establishing, wliicli [churches], though they have neither any of the ajpostles^ nor a])Ostolical men for their founders, YET ALL AGREEING- IN THE SAME FAITH, are from this consanguinity of doctrine to be esteemed not the less apostoli- cal than the former,"* So CvPKiAN. " Eeferring to Stephen, Bishop of Rome, plead- ing tradition for what Cyprian believed to be a great error, an- swers: What does he mean by tradition? Does he mean the authority of Christ in the Gospels, and of the apostles and their Epistles? Let this tradition be sacred. For," says he, "custom "wrriiouT TEUTH IS only antiquated error. Therefore, forsaking error, let us follow the truth, knowing that, as in Esdras's opinion, truth is victorious ; so it is written, ' Truth remains^ and pre- vails forever^ it lives and reigns through endless ages. Neither is there with truth any distinction or respect of persons, but only that which is just it ratifies ; neither is there in the jurisdiction of truth any antiquity but the strength, and dominion, and the ma- jesty and power of all generations. Blessed be the God of truth ! This truth Christ shows in the Gospel, saying, ' I am the truth.' Therefore, if we be in Christ, and Christ in us ; if we remain in the truth, and the truth abide in us, let us hold those things which are of the truih."f Gregory Nazianzen, in his oration in praise of Athanasius, speaking of his election as bishop of Alexandria to the chair of St. Mark, says : " If you consider Athanasius only as one in the number of bishops of Alexandria, he was the most remote from St. Mark: but if you regard his^iV^y, you find him the very next to him." And he adds : " This succession of piety ought to be esteemed the true successions''^ etc.:}: St. Ambrose. "They have not the inheritance, are not the successors of Peter, who have not Peter's faith. "§ It is needless to add similar quotations from more modern writers. It is quite sufficient to our purpose, that the "early fathers" so abundantly insist on the perpetuity of " the apostles' s doctrine and fellowship^'' rather than on a personal succession, as the characteristic " note" of apostolicity of the true Church, " the blessed company of all faithful people." Let us apply to this Church, the next " note." 2. Catholicity. The criterion here is, that, wherever, and * De Prapscript., c. 32. t Epistle 74, Ed Panul. 1589. t Athanasii, 0pp.. Vol. 3, Appendix. Ed. Paris: 1627. § De Penitentia, Lib. 1, c. 6. 464 among whomsoever, the true faith is found, there we are to look for the true Church Catholic. The question then is. Has this true faith ever failed ? If so, then the Church has become defunct. Christ's promise to her has failed. " The gates of hell have prevailed against itP But, thank Heaven, the truth has not failed. " The faith once delivered to the saints" bj " the apostles and prophets," has been preserved uncorrupt. In a word, the Church of God has heen perpetuated INDEPENDENTLY of prelacy, whether of the Greek, the Roman, or the Anglican and American so-called " Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." That the Church, in her doctrines, morals, discipline and polity, as constituted by the apostles, though opposed by carnal Jews and philosophizing Greeks, disturbed by nominal professors — as the Galatian legalists ; and by aspirants after apostolical honors — as Biotrephes and the false apostles of the churches of Corinth and Ephesus ; was, nevertheless, preserved " uncorrupt" during the New Testament age, needs no proof The interval between the death of the last apostle — the venerable John, and the time of Cornelius and Novatian, a.d. 250, is marked, for the most part, by the prevalence in the Church, of her primi- tive characteristics in doctrine and in practice. We say, for the most part ; for, though we appropriate to this period of the Church the emphatic appellation of " the Golden Age,^^ yet it is by no means to be inferred that the times were not marked, yea, that they were not rife, wath nominal disturbers of the peace of the Church. Waddington, a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Prebendary of Ferring, in the cathedral Church of Chichester, and in the highest repute among Episcopalians, in his Church His- tory, speaking of this period, says : — " In the midst of perpetual dissent and occasional controversy, a steady and distinguishable line, both in doctrine and practice^ was maintained by the early Church, and its efforts against those whom it called heretics, were zealous and persevering, and for the most part consistent. Its contests were fought with the ' sword of the Spirit,' with the arms of reason and eloquence ; and as they were always unat- tended by personal oppression, so were they most effectually suc- cessful— successful, not in establishing a nominal unity, nor si- lencino' the expression of private opinion, hut in maintaining the. puritij of the f'lifh^ in preserving the attachment of the great majority of the believers, and in consigning, either to immediate disrepute, or early neglect, all the unscriptural doctrines which were successively arrayed against it."* But in A.D. 250, an event transpired which, viewed in its then present and future results, marks an important era in the history of the Church. Gradually, and for some time, a degeneracy of manners had found its way within her pale, and of which the * Waddington's History of the Church, p. 79. 465 ChuTch of Rome was the principal seat. To this circumstance may be traced the controversy which at this time occurred between Cornelius and Novatian ; which controversy, though it involved a dispute about the bishopric of Eome, yet merged, as its principal issue, a contest for the purity of the cormnunion and discipline of the Church. It iiltimated in the separation of the true Church from the false. Novatus and his followers were excommunicated &om the so-called Church " Catholic," and were known, as Euse- bius informs us, by the title of Cathari or Puritans. But, (what in this place is worthy of particular note,) even this oldest of eccle- siastical historians, with all his hostility to Novatus and those who adhered to him, pretends to prefer no other charge against them " except their ' uncharitableness, in refusing to commune with those of immoral and doubtful character." Now, in these ISTovatians — Cathari or Puritans — of the third cen- tury, we shall claim, merged the true Church. At least, of such, we think it will be admitted, the true Church in any and every age should be composed, if that be true which is said of them by the learned Waddington, from whom we take the following. He says: " We may conclude with some notice of the sect of the Nova- tians who were stigmatized at the time both as schismatics and heretics ; hut who may perhaps he more properly considered as the EAKLIEST BODY OF ECCLESIASTICAL EEFORMEKS. They arOSC at Eome about the year 250 A.D., and subsisted until the fifth cen- tury throughout every part of Christendom. Novatian, a Presby- ter of Eome, was a man of great talents and learning, and of character so austere, that he was unwilling, under any circumstan- ces of contrition, to re-admit those who had been once separated from the communion of the Church. And this severity he would have extended not only to those who had fallen by deliberate transgression, but even to such as had made a false compromise of their faith under the terrors of persecution. He considered the Christian Church as a society, where virtue and innocence reigned universally, and refused any longer to acknowledge as members of it, those who had once degenerated into unrighteousness. This endeavor to revive the spotless moral purity of the faith., was found inconsistent with the corruptions even of that early age / it was regarded with suspicion hy the leading prelates^ as a vain and visiona/ry scheme / and those rigid principles which had char- acterized and sanctified the Church in the first century, were abandoned to the profession of schismatic sectaries in the third." And yet, some would have us believe, that Protestantism., as antagonistic to the abominations of Eome, was wholly unknown in the Christian world, until, under Henry YIII. and Edward VI., the so-called Independent Anglican Church assumed the title of " the Protkstant Church of England as hy law estahlishedJ'' We refer the reader, in illustration, to a work entitled, " Puritan- 30 466 ism not genuine Protestantism, etc., by the Eev. A. B. Chapin," published by Stanford and Swords, 1846. This, however by the way. We leave the candid reader to decide, whether the above description of this " earliest body of ecclesiastical reformers" as given by Waddington of the Novatians, does not savor somewhat of the true Protestant principle. Well. " These Puritans or Reformers spread all over the world, and continued to oppose the pretensions of those who, from being the major party, claimed to be the Catholic or only Church. They continued under the name of Novatians for more than two centuries ; but finally merged in The DoNATiSTS, who, indeed, are the same people under another name. These Donatists were a very large and prosperous com- munity. We read of 279 Donatist bishops in one African council. Of these Donatists the same historian (Waddington) deposes : " The Donatists have never been charged with the slightest show of truth with any error of doctrine, or any defect in church government or discipline, or any depravity of moral practice; they agreed in every respect with their adversaries, except one — they did not acknowledge as legitimate the ministry of the Afri- can Church, but considered their own body to be the true, uncor- rupted, universal Church." Mark it. The Donatists considered their own body to be the true, uncorrupted, universal Church ! " It is quite clear," our author proceeds : " It is quite clear, that they pushed their schism to very great extremities, even to that of rejecting the communion of all, who M'^ere in communion with the Church which they called FALSE ; hut this was the extent of their spiritual offense, even from the assertions of their enemies."* The Donatists, in some two centuries, were amalgamated with The Pauliceans, also called Puritans. Regarding this body of Christians, we might quote testimony in reference to them simi- lar to that given in behalf of their Protestant predecessors from Waddington, Jones, and even Du Pin. We shall however content ourselves with the following extract from Gibbon, as quoted by Jones. *' The Paulicean teachers," says Gibbon, " were distinguished only by their scriptural names, by the modest title of their fellow- pilgrims, by the austerity of their lives, their zeal and knowledge, and the credit of some extraordinary gift of the Holy Spirit. But they were incapable of desiring, or at least of obtaining, the wealth and honors of the Catholic prelacy. Such antiohristian pride they strongly censured^'' " Until the appearance of the Waldenses and Albigenses, these Protestants continued to oppose the Church of Nations in the East and in the West, until at one time they claimed the title of CatholiGr Of the character of the Waldenses, (sometimes * Waddington's Church History, p. 154. 467 called Leonites,) take the following from one of their most implaca- ble enemies, — the Eomish Inquisitor, Reinerius Saccho. He says : " Among all the sects which still are, or have been, there is not one more pernicious to the Church than that of the Leonites ; and that for three reasons. The first is, because it is the oldest, for some say it existed from the time of Pope Sylvester, others /"rom the time of the apostles. The second; because it is more general, for there is scarce any country where this sect is not. The third, because when all other sects beget horror by their blasphemies against God, this of the Leonites hath a greater show of piety, be- cause they live justly before men, and believe all things rightly concerning God, and all the articles contained in the creed. Only they blasphemed the Church of Rome.''* We refer the reader to what we have already offered on the sub- ject of the claim of the Waldensian Protestants to a remote origin ;f of the barbarous persecutions for conscience sake to which they have been subjected at the hands of their Roman enemies; of their existence at the time of, and their agency under God in pro- moting, the Continental and Anglican Reformations, and of their continued preservation in the mountain-bound fastnesses of Pied- moni, down to this hour. We leave the reader to infer from the above. Where was the true Church before the time of Luther. In them I behold the un- interrupted " Holy Catholic Church," in which I profess to " be- lieve." " This people is my people ! Their God is my God !" The next " note." 3. Unity. In the application of this *' note" to Protestant anti- prelatists, and which their opponents are pleased to designate " The Sects,''' and to represent as divided and subdivided into a thousand discordant parties, while we would concede that differences exist among the various branches bearing that appellation ; yet, we sub- mit, that they exist in the form of a division without schism. To explain. The bonds of Protestant anti-prelatical union, hke all other societies, are of two kinds, general and special. The first consists of their acknowledgment of tlie Bible and the Bible alone, as the only sufficient rule of faith and practice, and the only infallible standard of appeal. The second consists in their unanimous and uncom- promising renunciation of what they believe to be the antichris- tianism of the Popedom and of the Papal system in all their diver- sified forms. As it regards their views of what constitutes the nature, orders, and functions or powers of the Christian ministry, while the advocates of Protestant prelacy, so to speak, have "written and published enough to drain an ocean and cover a con- tinent, by way of explaining the difference between a Loiv and a High Church and Fuseyite bishop, etc., etc., we challenge the pro- duction of evidence, from a source entitled to respect, which shall * Reinerius Saccho. Ed. Gritzcr. O. S. T. Cap. 4, p. 54. t See Appendix D. 468 exhibit any the leaM difference in the writers who range under that category, as to what constitutes that ministry denominated Pres- byterian. So, of the nature, design, and efficacy of the sacra- ments^— Baptism and the Lord's Supper. They agree also in all the great essentials of Christian doctrine^ discipline and worship. And, in the exercise of that charity, each toward the other, which "beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, and endureth all things ;" though they may differ in matters of form — in non-essentials — yet, recognizing all who "hold the Head," Christ, as the mystical members of His Body, the Church, and each acknowledging the validity of the ordinances a^ administered by the other, and holding friendly and Christian correspondence, — a practice prevalent among the different Evangelical denominations throughout our country, — if our Protestant Episcopal, Anglican and American brethren, with all the existing divisions and schisms which are now rending their body, and the Eomanists, — differing as they do in four respects regarding the great orthodox point of Catholicism, — who or what constitutes the supreme head ; and in another four in regard to the residence of infallibility ; and in the existence, in her very bosom, of the following five distinct and separate sects, viz, : The Augustinians, Dominicans, Franciscans, Jansenists, and Jesuits, etc. ; if, we repeat, these will allow, we shall, though with deference, claim this " note," Unity, as the rightful property of " the blessed company of all faithful people" of " every name" and in " every place." 4. Sanctity. On the subject of this "note," and its applica- tion to the anti-prelatical Catholic Church of Christ, while it might venture upon a fair comparison, at least, Avith others ; yet, God forbid that, in a spirit of Pharisaic self-righteousness, any of its members should say, " Stand by, I am holier than thou." Rather it becomes the Church collectively, and her members indi- vidually, to unite in the confession, " 0 Lord^ righteousness he- longeth unto thee, hut unto us confusion of faces, as it is this day, — BECAUSE we have SINNED AGAINST THEE." That all Evangclical de- nominations of Christians, however, require " Visible Sanctity" as a condition of admittance to the communion, etc., of the Church, is too notoriously " read and known of all men to require proof." And so, that they also require " visible sanctity" as the condition of continuance in the communion of the Church, is evident from the existence among them of known, fixed, and definite rules, 5. Of Discipline. For proof of which see their respectiA^e standards, and mark their practical exercise in the salutary ad- ministration of reproof, admonition, suspension, excision, etc., towards all within her pale, both clerical and lay, for error in doctrine or viciousness of life. 469 APPENDIX A. ANTICHRISTIANISM, AS SCKITTURALLY VIEWED IN THE ASPECT OF ITS RISE, FORMS OF DEVELOPMENT, CHARACTER AND RESULTS. According to my view — and I think, on this subject, I have the mind of Christ — the idea, as subhraely grand as it is appalling, of the for-reaching extent and true character of Antichristianism, has become almost extinct in the Church. The current view on this subject, having lost sight of the plan of God's moral government over all orders of created inteUigences as a whole, has broken it up into detached fragments, and hence can dis- cern no feature of antichristianism except as they can trace it in the rise and career, etc., of Romanism proper. Not so the teachings of Holy Writ. Therein we are taught, that that supremacy, or " pre-eminence" which the rebel-leader of the angelic revolt against Christ, as tlie divinely- consiituted " Heir of all things" (Heb. 1 : 2) failed to establish in heaven, he resolved, upon the creation of man, to secure to himself on earth, and in the Church. Hence, speaking of Satan as " the father of lies from the beginning,'" the words of Christ, he " abode not in the truth,'" carry our thoughts back to a period anterior to the creation of man, when, opposinor God's eternal purpose of self-manifestation through the incarnation of his Son Jesus, instead of that of angels, it is recorded of him that he " fell like lightning from heaven."'' And this act, and that of his angelic com- peers, promoted by pride or a love of " the pre-eminence," was an act, and the first act, of schism and heresy against CnRrsT ; the first to inter- rupt the pre-existing harmony of God's moral universe. To Christ, as " created by Him and for Him," and of whom the Eternal Father had de- creed, that " He," as his co-eternal and co-equal Son, should " have the pre-eminence,"^ they were subordinate, and in and by whom alone they could stand, as have stood those "elect angels" " who have kept their first estate."* Now, this system of Antichristianism, thus commenced in heaven, has been continued on earth. Man, created by " The Truth," and upon whom was impressed his ineffable image and likeness, through the instiga- tion of " the father of lies," from a love of " the pre-eminence," resolved to " be as Gods." Hence his abjuration, in Eden, of his allegiance to the divine government. So, of the antichristianism of the commonwealth of Israel, as exhibited in the choice of an earthborn monarchy in the place of the divinely-appointed theocracy, and which, ultimating in the exclamation (IJ John 8 : 44. {'2) Luke 10 : 13. (3) See Col. 1 : 9-20. (4) 1 Tim. 6 : 21 ; and Jude, v 6 470 against the person oi the Incarnate " Word," " not this king, but Caesar," finally nailed Him to the cross ! And so the Antichristianism of all subsequent time. Changed, indeed, in /or?«, but the same in spirit and design — tlie dethronement of Christ as the divinely-constituted Heir of all worlds, and " the Head over all things to the Church." As in Eden, and during the patriarchal antediluvian and postdiluvian ages, together with the Mosaic and Levitical dispensations, God could be known and worshiped only as He was pleased to reveal Him- self to the Church, through " the promised seed," Christ, as " the angel of the Covenant," so, under and during the Christian Era. All along, it is the Deity in self-manifestation, in the person of Christ. The sin of the first human pair consisted of their schism and heresy against " the voice" of the Christ of God who in Paradise talked with them. That of the post-patri- archal age against the same Christ of God in visible angelic, manifestations to Abraham, Lot and Jacob. That of the Israelites in the wilderness, against the same, as enveloped in the pillar of cloud and of fire. That of the rebels, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and their company, and of the commonwealth of Israel, against the same, as the Shechinah, curtained beneath the cherubina over the mercy-seat in " the Holy of Holies," both in the tabernacle and temple, called by the Apostle Paul, " the glory." That of the Jews after the Nativity, against the same, as " God manifested in the flesh." And, since the Ascension, against the same, as revealed through " the Spirit, who taketh of the things that are Christ's, and showeth them unto us." One difi'erence, however, be it observed, marks the antichristianism of the present compared with the former dispensations, the "sorer punish- ment" of which those shall "be counted worthy," who, under this Chris- tian age of hght, and love, and truth, " tread under foot the Son of God," by " counting the blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing," thereby " doing despite unto the Spirit of grace." And such are all they who, in this age of abounding wickedness and waxing coldness, cling to " the form of godliness," by a schismatical and heretical denial of its " power." .This is a reaching forth of the hand to dethrone the Christ of God as the " One mediator between God and man." It is, I contend, the same principle which actuated the rebel-leader of apostasy from God in heaven and on earth ; a schismatical and heretical rejection of the Christ of God (whether as shrouded in visible symbolic form, or as actually incarnate among men, or as presented to the eye of faith by the Spirit of all grace through the medium of the written word, and the ministry and ordinances of divine appointment in the Church) in His prophetical office as the great " Teacher sent from God ;" in His priestly office as the one only expiatory Sacrifice for sin, the " Lamb," " set up from everlasting or ever the earth was," " slain from before the foundation of the world ;" and in His regal authority, as the only rightful King of nations and of saints. In the Christian Church, the system of Antichristianism peculiar to the present economy (as we have shown in the preceding pages), was gradual in its development. The grain of mustard seed, which is the least of all seeds, sown during apostolic times and in the Church, passing through its period of gestation at the commencement of the third century, laid ihe corner-stone in that foundation upon which was subsequently erected that tupendous system of spiritual despotism, of which the Papacy is the 471 grand embodiment. The doctrines, ecclesiastical orders, ordinances and rites of New Testament Cliristianity, by the arch devices of this Papal headship, were, one and all, moulded into such forms as its developments rendered indispensable to the support of its high claims of primacy, infal- libility, and ecclesiastical and political supremacy. And, if the evidence of lust for " the pre-eminence," exhibited in the conduct of John the rival of Gregory, in assuming the title of "universal bishop" led the latter to con- temn such an assumption as a mark of the "Antichrist" that was to come, wliat marvel that there were, of both the Anghcan and Continental Re- formers, those who denounced the popedom as the antichrist, and the system of popery as antiohristian ? And thus it was. The Pauline prediction of that apostasy from " the faith" first " delivered to the saints" by Christ and his apostles, as the precursor of the advent of the Antichrist, attracted to it the eye of evan- gelic faith, as to a " light which shineth in a dark place." " That day," he had said, " shall not come^ except there come a falling away Jirst, and that Man of sin be revealed, the So7i of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things. And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work ; only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way, and then shall that wicked b.e re- vealed,'''" etc. Then, in addition to this. The same " more sure word of prophecy" bad furnished them with unmistakable indices of the mode of development of this anticliristian power. The apostle, having previously argued, that if " Satan himself," the arch leader of the revolt against Christ in heaven, and the instigator of the apostasy in Eden, in order to the carrying out his continued malice against Christ and his followers, " is transformed into aa angel of light," that " therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness,"- "false apostles, deceit- ful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ ;" he proceeds to tell them that their " coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish, because they received not the love of the truth, tliat they might be saved. And for this cause God should send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie,"^ etc. Dread power ! The " let" or hindrance to his earlier advent being re- moved, how rapid his ascent to that seat " in the temple of God," whence he spake great words against the Most High," and has issued his mandates for the " wearino; out the saints of the Most Hiofh," chaneintr " times and laws, * " forbidding to marry, enjoining " abstinence from meats," and flooding Christendom with " damnable heresies," by " teaching for doc- trines the commandments of men," for now these more than fifteen centu- ries last past ! Concerning it, we remark very briefly, First. The advent of " the Man of sin" had been long preceded by the decree of God : " My Spirit shall not always strive with man."'' We sub- mit, therefore, that the great apostasy of Christendom predicted by Paul, has its exact analogy to that of the antediluvian world ; of tlie inhabitants (1) 1 Thesa. 2 : 3-8. (2) 2 Cor. 11 : 13-15. (3) a Thess. 2 : 9-11. (4) Dan. 7 : 25. (5) Gee. 6 : 3. 472 of the cities of the plain ; and of the Jewish commonwealth. As in each instance of the type, the full development of apostasy from God awaited the final toithdrawal of his Holy Spirit ; so (this being the relation in which we view them), the antitype. The same analogy also holds true of the respective remnants under each, whom God has preserved as " a seed to serve him." From the very nature of tilings, we cannot discern how pagan Rome could have constituted the " let" or hindrance to his assumption, by " the Man of sin," of his " power, and seat, and great authority" " in the temple of God." So far from it, we deferentially ask, in what consists that " infinite superstition, the papacy," but Rome Pagan assimilated to, merged in, and baptized by, a Christian name ? " The power, and seat, and great authority" of the seven-headed and ten-horned red dragon,' together with the beast with the same appendages,' both from the sea,^ and the beast with two horns like a lamb, from the earth* were identical. For, while the dragon transferred his power, and his seat, and great authority to the beast from the sea,'' the beast from the earth, with the two lamb-like horns, " spake as a dragon,'* "and exercised all the power of the first beast before him," etc." Yes: the same animus pervaded and actuated all, the evidence of which may be found in the fact, that all their separate powers are comprehended in the ONE NONDESCRIPT BEAST of the propliet Daniel,' their diversified forms synchronizing with, and being designed by the Holy Spirit but as a more elaborate exhibit of, his varied powers as Antichrist. It follows, there- fore, that the sovereign power which controlled these transformations, having removed out of the way the " let" or hindrance thereto, at the ap- pointed time, the crowns from the head of the seven-headed and ten- horned dragon, or pagan imperial Rome, were transferred to the ten horns^ of the beast from the sea, whose seat of power and authority was still the seven-hilled city of Rome ; and, consequent of the removal of this same " let" or hindrance, this power, etc., being merged into those of the two lamb-horned beast from the earth, constituted the ecclesiastico-po- litical power of papal Christian Rome. In other words, we mean to say that, the evidence of the very early gestation of that spirit of credulity and superstition in the primitive Church, which, keeping pace with the waxing weakness of pagan imperial Rome, prepared her for a wilHng exchange of the martyr's stake for courtly favor, state alliance, and worldly prosperity, superinduced that very " falling away" of which the presence of the Holy Spirit had been the preventive of a more rapid maturity. Hence, the long- sufi'ering patience of God having now at length reached its limit, the time arrives for another development of the fearful connection between willful apostasy and its punishment by judicial blindness. The nominal Church, " because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved," " God," who had decreed, " My Spirit shall not always strive with man," " sent them strong delusion" (by taking " out of the way," or withdrawing the presence and agency of, that Divine Person who alone can guide and kee}) us in the truth), "that they should believe a lie," by " giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils," " whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying won- (1) Rev. 12 : 3. (2) Ih. 1,3 : 1. (3) Compare Dan. 7 : 2, 3. 7 ; Rev. 12 : 1 ; 13 : 1, 2. (4) Rev. 13 : 11. (5) lb. 12 : 2. (6) lb. 13 : 11, 12. (7) Dan. 7 : 7, 11, 19-21, 23-25. (8) Compare Rev. 12 : 3, With 13 : 1. 473 ders," etc. " Wliat withholdeth," therefore, being thus " taken out of the waj'," the advent of " the Man of sin" was, Second, " after the ivorking of Satan," "the father of lias," "a liar from tlie beginning." By a subtle blending of truth with lies, these se- duce the unwary into idolatry. St. Paul says : that the heathen " became fools," when they " changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,"^ etc. And the second commandment in the Decalogue enjoins : " Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven image, noi the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, nor in ^ the earth beneath. Thou shalt not bow to them, nor serve them,"* etc. Now, in three different Romish Catechisms, this second commandment is expunged, and to make out the tenth, the ninth is divided into two ! These we shall place side by side. Butler's Catechism.* Doyleh CalechismA Q. Say the commandments of God. Q. Say the ten commandments of God. A. 1. I am the Lord thy God; thou A. 1. The same. — But adds: Thou shalt have no strange Gods before me. shalt not make to thyself neither an idol or any figure to adore it. 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the 2. The same. Lord thy God in vain. 9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's 9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife. wife. UT. < 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neigh- f9vf''' goods. Exodus xx. bor's goods. The third is an American edition of " An Abridgment of Christian Doctrine, in questions and answers, by Rev. Henry Taberville, D.D., of the English College of Doua}^" etc. J Q. What is the second commandment ? A. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." In a previous edition of this same catechism, published in Dublin,§ the question is asked : " How do you prove it laivful to paint God the Father like an old man V And in a book entitled : " A Net for the Fishers of Men," the following proposition and arguments occur, in support of " the, worshiping of angels and holy images bg the most solid texts of Scrip>ture." At page 59, the question is asked : " Why did the great precursi^r of- Christ, St. John the Baptist, toorship the latchet of our Sa- vior's shoes ?" But the Baptist merely said : " There shall come one mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to loose"' — not one word about " worshiping ;" nor was the Savior present when the words were spoken ; but had he been present, the Baptist would have worshiped THE Savior, and not, as a heathen, worshiped his shoe latchets. So also we are referred to Rev. 22 : 8. But, had John, after receiving the com- mand, " See thou do it not," attempted to worship the angel, who was a (1) Rom. 1 : 23. (2) Exod. 20. (3) Luke 3 : 16. Illicmish translation. * The most Rev. James Butler's Catechi.sm for the Kingdom of Ireland. Twelfth Edition. R. Coyne, Maynooth, Ireland. 1826. t The Right Rev. James Doyle's Catechism. Revised for the Dmrese of Kildare and Lerghlin. R. Coyne. 18-27. t Recommended by the Right Rev. Bi.shop Benedict, of Boston. Published by John Doyle, 12 Libertv street, Xew York. 1833. § R. Coyne, Maynooth. 1828. Page 52. 474 mere creature, as in tlie case of the Baptist had he worshiped the latchets of the Savior's slioes, both had been " after the loorkinrf of Satan" — Which we affirm, marked tlie manner of the introduction of Christianity among ihe Anglo-Enolish by Gregory I., and his missionary Augustine. Bedo informs us thai, in his letter to Mellitus, wlien going into Britain, Gregory advises him, in imitation of the sacrifices which the Saxons had been accustomed to offer to devils, to " kill cattle to tlie praise of God, in their eating, ... to the end that they [the Saxons] may morceanily consent to the inward consolations of the grace of God."* And Augustine introduces hiin.sclf to their king, Etlielbert, " bearing a silver cross for a banner, and the imar/e of our Lord and Savior painted on a board. "f The setjucl of Home's history of imagre worship shows, that Antichrist's " C0)tli7u/' was " AFTER THE WORKING OF SaTAN." TiuiiD. " With all power." We refer the reader to tlie pope's arro- gant and blasphemous assumptions as the alleged representatives of Him who " had ntjt where to lay his head," to pages 220-223, in regard both to their character as supreme legislators in the Church, and lords of the uni- vei'se ; to support which powers, the establishment, a.d. 1300, of the ju- bilee by Boniface VIII. may be taken in illustration. On that occasion, "two priests stood, day and night, with rakes in their hands, to coUect, without counting, the heaps of gold and silver that were poured on the altar of St. Paul.";}; Tims they made merchandise of the souls of men ! FouKTH. "And siffns" {arjueloig), tokens. Take, for example, the kiss with which Judas betrayed Jesus. Kissing pervades every ceremony of Romanism. The pope's toe is kissed, or, by an act of special clemency, his hand. And the priest kisses the altar ; while the people are taught to kiss crosses, images, relics, etc. Fifth. " Lying wonders," or miracles to prove lies. Let it here be borne in mind, that the pope will not canonize any saint until " the con- gregation proceeds to examine the virtues and miracles in detail. "§ It is on miracles that she rests her claims to be the only true Church. Bede claims " the signs of an apostle" in behalf of Augustine, and records his epitaph : Who, it says, " by God's assistance, supported xoith miracles, re- duced King Eihelbert and his nation from the worship of idols to the faith of Christ. "II Pass from this to the Breviary (or book of devotion for the Roman cleigy), as restored by the decree of the Council of Trent. It abounds wiih alleged miracles of the saints, e. g. : the conveying of St. Raymond from Majorca to Barcelona, over 160 miles, in six hours, in no othei' vessel than his cloak spread upon the waters.^ A prayer to be de- hveied from the buining flames of hell, througli the merits of the count- less miracles of the blessed Pontiff Nicholas.** St. Francis Xavier is alleged to have been endowed with the miraculous gift of tongues, to have restored sight to the blind, healed the sick, and even raised the dead Iff St. Scholastica detained the venerable Father Benedict, her brother, one whole night from his monastic cell, by creating, through her tears and the nod of her head, a teriific thunder storm.JJ St. Peter of Alcantara, * Bede'.s Ecclesiastical History, Book 1, c. 30. t Tb , opening of c. '2^i. t Muralori's Collection, quoted by Gibbon. 4 Introduction to Lives of Saints Canonized. May 2G 1839. p. 10 I! Bede, B. 2. c. 3. i Breviary, Jan. 23. =** lb., Dec. G tt lb., Ben. .!. \\ lb., Feb. 10. 475 having planted his staff in the ground, it at once sprung into a sappy fig-tree, with which he fed the hungry.* In the book of the Lives of the Saints, it is recorded that he produced peaches from the boughs of a chest- nut tree when the season had passed foi them, to satisfy the cravings of the wife of St. Joseph of the Cross, f besides many similar miracles.^ St. Aiphonsus Ligori is alleged to be omnipresent, preaching in one place and hearing confessions in another at the same instant.J The same of St. Francis di Girolamo, who also cured a woman of convulsions by hor kiss- ing the relic of St. Cyr.§ St. Pacificus miraculoushj supplied both mortar and other materials with which to finish the new rooms added to the convent.! But enough of this disgusting picture. Even the Romish controvertist, Milner, says, " I admit that a vast number of incredible nnA false miracles, as well as other fables, have been forged by some, and believed by other Catholics, in every age of the Church."^ Sixth. Deceivableness of "unrighteousness. No. This " falling away" was not to be brought about by an opert- denial o^ God and of religion. The unwary, who were but little familiar with " the depths of Satan," were to be seduced by a concealment of the teeth of iron and nails of brass, etc., of the beast " dreadful, and terrible, and stronj; exceedinfflv,"' under the covert of " a form of godliness." And so he was Seve.nth. To " sit in the temple of God" — the Church, Christian — " whose temple are ye," built up a " spiritual house," a " holy temple."* Paul had predicted, " For I know this, that after my departing, shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of youb OWN SELVES shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away dis- ciples after them."' He " sitteth" in a quiet, easy posture in the chair of St. Peter, a posture in which the apostate tyrant glories. Thence he issues his " ex cathedra" mandates, wliich have hurled kings from their thrones, shook kingdoms, raised crusades, kindled martyr-fires, etc. And in which temple, Eighth. He " opjjoseth and exalteth himself above all that is called God., or that is worshiped.'"* Now, of those " that are called gods," take the three following orders, viz. : 1. Bishops and priests. The Tridentine Catechism says of these, " Justly, therefore, are they called not only angels but gods, holding as they do the place, and power, and authority of God on earth."** But, says the same catechism, " siqyerior to all these (seven orders of clergy, see p. 199) is the sovereign pontiff. . . As the successor of St. Peter, and the true and legitimate vicar of Jesus Christ."\\ 2. Princes and Judges are " called gods." Exod. 12:12; 22 : 9 ; Ps. 82. See John 10 : 34. Of the tiiles under which they claim supremacy over these, see p. 221. 3. ']i\\Q consecrated host is "called God," and receives the worship due unto God. In the Roman Prayer- Book J]; there are the following direc- tions : " When the priest gives the benediction with the blessed sacrament, (1) Dan. 7 : 7-19. (i) 1 Cor. 3 : 16, 17 ; 6 : 10 : 2 Cor. 6:16; 1 Tim. 3 : 15 ; lleb. 3:6; 10:21; I Pet. 2 : 5. (3) Acts 20 : 29, 30. (4) See Dan. II : 36. ♦ lb.. Oct. 10. t Lives of the Saints, p. 44-4. J lb., p. 26. § lb., p. 104. || lb., p. 190. "IT End of Controv., Letter 24. *♦ Eng. Trans, by Rev. J. Donovan. Rom. Priest. De Orel. Sac. pars 2, c. 7. ft lb. tt Garden of the Soul, Preston ed., 1835. 476 bow down and profoundly adore your Savior there present. ... or you may say thus : I devoutly adore thee, 0 hidden Deity." But the installa- tion of his holiness in the chair of St. Peter exalts him above the host. When he is placed on the altar of the Sixtine Chapel, though it is deno- minated " the altar of the beauty of holiness, the throne of the victim Lamb, the mercy-seat of the temple of Christianity," etc., yet it is made the pope's ^'footstool." 4. Nor tills only. But "as God, he sitteth in the temple of Ood, show- ing HIMSELF TfiAT HE IS GoD." He exalteth himself above all that is called Ood, not only, but above all that is worshiped." But of Christ, it is wiitton, " And let all the angels of God worship him." And that on the ground that He is co-eternal, co-equal, co-essential with the Father, and hence. One with Him. " I and my Father," saith He, " are one," one in nature or essence ; one in heart and love ; one in mind and will. The self-manifested Deity ! in which capacity He holds the relation of MEDrATOR between God and an apostate world, under the three-fold offices of Prophet^ Priest and King. It will be well also in this connection to recur to that passage in which the name is given of this predicted " Man of sin." " Little children," says St. John, " it is the last time : and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists ; whereby we know that it is the last time."^ Now, take in connection with this passage, and as expository of it, our Lord's prediction of the destruction of the Jewish Church state, and of the appeal ance of those false Christs and false prophets who were to precede and indicate its approach.* The phrase, " the last time," in the above pas- sage, pointed to the destruction of Jerusalem as then at hand, and of which the " many Antichrists" in St. John's time Avas a prelude. That event oc- curred soon after the penning of this epistle. The " many Antichrists" that then were, however, though appearing in the spirit, yet were but " the types and forerunners of a still more dreadful power, which should be fully revealed in the latter times, in a future period, when that calamity was past."* Bishop Hurd gives the following definition " of the word Antichrist." It " stands for a person or power actuated with a spirit opposite to that of Christ." ... "It may either signify one who assumes the place and OFFICE of Christ, or one who maintains a direct enmity and opposition to him."f It follows that, as such, the assumptions of Antichrist must cover all tiie official prerogatives which belong to Christ, as prophet, priest, and king. They are verified in the alleged functions — infallible, sacerdotal, and 'political, of the pontificate of Rome. Then, too, the name of "the Man of sin ;" it cannot signify any one particular man, but a hu- man power, actually exerted by a succession of different men. As man of God evidently means not any particular man, but is to be understood of all such in every age and among all nations ; so the man of sin un- doubtedly signifies not any one man alone, but any man, or number of men in all ages and places, whose peculiar station and circumstances shall be found to correspond to the prophetic description here given of him. In conclusion, then, on this subject, we remark, that the term " Avrt" (1) 1 John 2 : 18. (2) Matt. 24 : 24 ; Mark 13 : 21. * Bishop Hiird on the Prophecies, p. 121. London. 1839. f lb., p. 122. 477 (anti), in composition, frequently means " against ;" but when joined to a noun of person or office (as in the name KvTLXQtOTog, Antichrist), it al- most invariably means " instead of" and gives the substantive a vicakfous position. ' O avr dXXov expresses a vicar, generally ; AvTif3aai/(.Evg (Anti-Basileus), a vicar-king. . . . Avdvnarog (anth-upatos), a vicar-con- sul. It is written (Matt. 2 : 22), " that Archelaus did reign {Avn HptjcJov Anti-Herodou) i?i room of Herod." And Chrysostom, in his discourse on " The Man of Sin," says : " He will cause himself to be worsiiipkd (AvtI TOV Qeov, Anti tou Theou) as vicar of Ood." AvrixQiorog, Antichrist, then, beyond a hesitant thought, means a VICAR-CHRIST. Now, both the titles, Vicar of God, and Vicar of Christ, have been assumed by the popes of Rome ! (" Confidens itaque per Domini ac Dei nostri misericor- diam, providamque ipsius Dei in tcrris vicarii" etc.* " Christique Domini verus et legitimus vicarius praesidet."f Tliese titles, worn by a mortal man, seem enough to abound in pride and blasphemy, and should make all men suspect that the pope of Rome is not truly " his Holiness." But when it appears that "Vicarius Christi," VICAR OF C HRIST, is the legitimate and veritable translation of the Church-corrupter's name, Avrt;^pi(Tro^, Antichrist ; and, when we take into the account, in this connection, the fact that, on the Romish hypothesis of transubstantia- TiON ; namely, " that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, together with his soul and divinity, and consequently wfiole AND ENTIRE, . . . as soou as the consecration is performed ;"J and then bear in mind that the pope, when inaugurated into office, being placed on the altar of the Sixtine Chapel makes it his footstool, thereby exalting himself above the consecrated host or " hidden Deity" which the people are required to "adore ;" can common sense refuse to say : " Thou," O pope, " art the man" — " of sin ? Can common prudence venture to abide in the Popish Church ? * Con. Trid., session 6. De Reformation, c. 1. t Catechism Council of Trent, part 2, cap. 7, L. \ Council of Trent, session 13 ciiapter 8, canons 1 and 4, Brownley's edition, pp. 45, 46. New York. 1842. 478 APPENDIX B. On the Charge brought by Prelatists against Calvin, that he preferred Episcopal ordination, and sought after it, but could not obtain it, etc. [I shall, on this subject, content myself to transcribe in this place the following, from the Rev. Dr. Duffield's Letters to Bishop McCoskrey. Having refuted the charge preferred by prelatists against Calvin and others, that they "concede" that "the word Presbytery," in 1 Tim. 4 : 14, means " the cleiical office," he says : — ] Still more unfortunate are you, in your notice of Calvin's reason for not receiving the apostolic ministry. It is not the first time, however, that pre- laticul writers have found they had better let Calvin alone. The insinuation you make, that he preferred Episcopal ordination, meaning of course pre- latical, and would have received it, if he could have procured it, is, indeed, obscurely made. But I certainly cannot be mistaken in thinking you de- signed to make it. If this be not what you meant, I must be excused for misapprehending your language ; for I confess myself unable to see what else can be your meaning. Perhaps I should not have been able thus to understand it, if I had not recently read the late controversy between Dr. Miller, of Princeton, New Jersey, and Bishop Ives, of North Carolina, on this subject. The latter gentleman has said that Calvin avowed a belief in the divine institution of Episcopacy, and had requested to receive Episcopal ordination from the bishops of England. I refer you to Dr. Miller's review of, and reply to. Bishop Ives's attempt to prove his allegations, published in the Presbyterian on the 5th and 12th of February last. It seems the doctor was not allowed to vindicate Calvin, through the same channel, in which he had been aspersed ; and, Clierefore, instead of his letter being published in the " Lincoln Republican," where Bishop Ives's had been, it had, after several weeks delay, to be published in Phila- delphia. Probably you never saw the reply. Had you seen it, you would not have renewed an allegation, which, in the most triumphant manner, has been refuted by Dr. Miller. I have examined the quotations, as made by both gentlemen, and find that Bishop Ives omicted some very important qualifications, and makes use of Calvin's concession on an hypothesis which he, in common with all opposed to popery, deemed improbable, and impossible ever to be realized, as proof of a belief in the divine institution of Episcopacy I Calvin had said, after ridiculing the claims of an uninter- rupted succession, " if the Papists would exhibit to us such an hierarchy, as that the bishops .should be so distinguished as not to refuse to be subject to Christ ; to rely on Him as their only head, to cherish fraternal union 479 among Lhemsolves, and to be bound together by no other tie than his trutli, then I should confess there is no anathema of wliich they are not worthy, ■who should not regard suck an hierarchy with reverence and obedience. But what likeness to such an one, is borne by that spurious hierarchy in Avhich they boast?" Be it remembered that the word hierarchy does'not always apply to prelatical bishops. He afterwards condemns its arroirance and tyranny, and shows its utter dissimilarity to that which Christ nnd his apostles sanctioned. Calvin's bishops were parochial bishops, or pastors of single churches, just such as we Presbyterians, in our form of government, denominate bishops. The propriety of having a moderator in the college of pastors or presbyters, he also maintained, just as we have moderators of presbyteries. Because he deemed such Episcopacy a divine institution, and consented if Rome would produce a specimen of it, to condemn those that would not yield reverence and obedience to such an hierarchy, therefore, lie believed in the divine right of prelacy, or of your " Episcopal bishops," is a non- SEQUiTUR by no means becoming a mitered or any other head. Yet Bishop Ives gives the extract from Calvin, above quoted, in the followini-- terms ; "If they will give us such an hierarchy in which the bishops have sucli a pre-eminence, as that they do not refuse to be subject to Christ, then I will confess that they are worthy of all anathemas, if any such shall be found, who will not reverence it, and submit themselves to it with the utmost obedience." The most superficial reader can discern the difference between the bishop's version of Calvin's hypothesis, and Calvin's own statement of it. I give you this as a specimen of the accuracy of Bishop Ives, if you have made the allegations on liis authority, and deem it unnecessary to adduce further examples, of which Dr. Miller has furnished so many and so : 1. t See pages, t Blair's Hi.story of the Waldenses, Vol. I., pp. .'j:^ 1-530, and -540, \ Noelli Catech., contained in the Enchiridion Theologium of Bishop Randolph. li Loci Communes, class, quar. cap. 1, p. 74G. London, 15S3. "485 a pastor's office, as woU as an elder's, yet the elder is more especially said to rule, because he is wholly set apart to it,' " etc.* " Tlie Rev. Thomas Hooker, a celebrated Independent pastor of New- England, in his ' Survey of Church Discipline,' resolutely defends ' the ruling- elder's place.' He declares that Rom. 12 : 7 'gives in witness to this truth, where all these officers are numbered and named expressly.' "f " The Independents of Em/land witnessed in times past to tlie same principle." The historian, Neale, quoting from Bradshaw's Treatise, en- titled, " English Puritanism," under chapter 4, which treats concernintr the elders, says : " 1. They hold that, by God's ordinance, tlie congreg^ation should choose other officers, as assistants to the ministers in the govern- ment of the Church, who are, jointly with the ministers, to be overseers of the manners and conversation of all the congregation. 2. That these are to be cliosen out of the gravest and most discreet members, who are also of some note in the world, and able (if possible) to maintain themselves.''^ Dr. Doddridge, another eminent Congregationalist, says, in commentinj^ on 1 Timothy, 5 : lY (especially they who labor) : " This seems to insinu- ate that there v/ere some who, though they presided in the Church, were not employed in preaching." Dr. Dwight, late President of Yale College, New Haven, Connecticut, thus writes in his "System of Theology," (Vol. 5, p. 17I): " Preachino- is every where in the Scriptures exhibited as an employment suj)erior to that of ruling. In the passage quoted from 1 Timothy 5 : 17, this truth is decidedly exhibited. Here St. Paul directs that preaching elders should be accounted worthy of more honor than ruling elders." "The celebrated Dr. Oiocn, one of the brightest ornaments of Inde- pendencg," in his Treatise on the " True Nature of a Gospel Church," chapter V, warmly advocates the above distinction between the preaching and ruling elder at considerable length. We have only room, however, for the following : He says : " The pattern of the first churches constituted by the apostles, which it is our duty to imitate and follow as our rule, con- stantly expresseth and declares that many elders were appointed by them in every Church. There is no mention in the Scripture, no mention in an- tiquity, of any Church wherein there were not more elders than one, nor doth that Church answer the original pattern where it is otherwise." Then, in another Treatise, on " Worsliip and Discipline," by way of question and answer, speaking of these " many elders," he says — Question 31 : "Are there any appointed elders in the Church, whose office and duty consist in rule and government o)dg ? Answer : Elders not called to teach ordinarily, or administer the sacraments, but to assist and help in the rule and government of the Church, are mentioned in Scripture (Rom. 12 : 8, 1 Cor. 12 : 28, 1 Tim. 5, 17). Explication: This office of ruling elders in the Church is much opposed by some, and in especial by tlu-ra who have least reason so to do. The qualifications of these elders, with the way of their call and setting apart unto their office, being tlie same with those of the teaching elders before insisted on, need not be here again repeated. Their authority, also, in the whole rule of the Church, is every way the same with that of the other sort of elders, and they are to act in the exe- *The Government of the Church, book 0, c. S. t Quoted by Dr. Millur— Ofiice of Ruling Elder, ch 7. j History of the Puritans, Part ;2, chapter 1, p. 1 10, 1th edition. 486 cution of it with equal respect and regard from the Church. Yea, the business of rule being peculiarly committed unto them, and they required to attend thereunto with diligence, in an especial manner, the work thereof is principally theirs, as that of laboring in the word and doctrine doth es- pecially belong unto the pastors and teachers of the churches." Finally, Archbishop Whately says : — " The plan pursued by the apos- tles seems to have been to establish a great number of small (in compari- son with most modern churches), distinct, and independent communities, each governed by its own single bishop, consulting, no doubt, with his own presbyters, and accustomed to act in concurrence with them," etc.* I close these remarks with a few words to the " multiplied denomina- tions" outside of " the Church." To my mind, at least, 1. There is a distinction to be observed between what constitutes the elements of a scriptural ministry, and those which appertain to matters of government and discipline. Both classes of elements are deducible from the Scriptures, and tlie functions of the former have to do more or less with the exercise of the latter. But I submit whether, in regard to the former, there is not a clearness if not an explicitness in the instructions given, which will not apply to the latter. This may be illustrated by reference to the variations, in the matter of government and discipline, wiiich have ob- tained among the several branches of the Church of Christ since the period of the Reformation ; while they have, nevertheless, by a coincidence as undesigned as it is extraordinary, adopted the same divinely-appointed order of the ministry. This clearly shows that they were guided by the principle, that while the instructions of the New Testament in reference to that ministry which was designed for the ordinary and permanent service of the Church for all coming time was clear and definite ; those which re- lated to the plan of church government were too indefinite, not in its principles but in their adjustment, to lead to a claim for any ecclesiastical system, in exact accordance with the scriptural model. "f Hence, what I contend for as essential is, the theory of ministerial parity in its generic presbytcrial sense. And while, for myself, I prefer that form of government and dis- cipline in the Church as constituted of the " representatives of the people, ■with their pastors," as, in my judgment most in accordance with the New Testament " model ;" and which, with some diversity in names, and in the minuter details of their ecclesiastical proceedings, has been adopted by " the Reformed Churches in France, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Scotland," and the United States ; it is enough for me that God has stamped with the seal of His approbation other ecclesiastical forms, where •' the ministers of the word and sacraments" are recognized as " officialli/ equal." This is true of the Congregational platform. So also of Episco- pacy, as founded on the basis of expediency, and of which the Methodist Episcopal Church may be taken in illustration. These several bodies " differ mainly only in relation to points not essential to salvation." " Unit- ing, as they do, in a recognition of the doctrine of Justification by faith in Christ as a cardinal truth," their diff'erence of views on the subject of gov- ernment and discipline forms the principal barrier to their external union. On the other hand, prelacy, being constituted of an alleged Christianized priesthood of " divers orders," claims the possession of functions or * Kingdom of Christ, p. 165. t Dr. Dickinson's Discourse on the Church of Christ, p. 19. 487 powers, sacerdotal or vicarial, governmental and disciplinary, as inherent rights, within itself. While, then, on this latter hypothesis — an hypothesis which, carried out in loijfical sequence, not only raises non-essentials to a level with, but elevates them above, those that are fundamental — I can discover nothing but tlie most radical elements of disunion ; in regard to the other, to use the language of the distinguished Chalmers in his speech at the first " General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland," May 18, 1845, "I trust that you will not charge me with over-liberality, if I say, as I do from my conscience, that among the great majority of Evangelical Dissent- ers in this country, I am not aware of any topics of difference which I do not regard as so many men of straw ;" and I hope j^et to see the day when the hearts of the various denominations " Evangelical, will meet together, and consult to make a bonfire of them." " Yes, while I de- precate the latitudinarianism that would lay too little stress on what is important, I feel as if I could not sufficiently deprecate and denounce the evil of that ultra and exclusive sectarianism which lays too great stress upon what is insignificant, and the suppression of which would remove a mighty obstacle which at present lies in the way of a visible union of Christians."* APPENDIX D. WALDENSES. The circumstances of time, etc., of the origin of this singularly pious, interesting, and simple-minded people, and of the appellation by "which they are distinguished, is involved in some degree of uncertainty. Yet, from the fact that they claim a descent from those followers of Christ ■who, in the second and third centuries, to escape from the hands of the Roman emperors, took refuge in the deep, secluded, and almost unknown valleys which begirt the lofty Alps ; and also, that even their bitterest enemies in the Romish ranks who have written against them, — Reinerius, Peter de Pillichdorf, Rorenco and Cassini, confess that their Churches are of much more ancient date than the time of Peter Waldo, a.d. 1170 ; we are warranted in placing them in the ranks of those witnesses for the truth •whom God has preserved as the immutable pledge of His faithfulness to the Church, that against her the gates of hell never should prevail.' Some derive the name Waldenses from " Wald," a German appellation for a wood. The name in Latin is " Vallenses, which signifies the men of (1> Matt. 16 : 18. * D'Aubigne's Germany, England and Scotland, p. 139. New York : Carter, 1848. 488 the valleys." Occupying also the ancient province of Upper Languedoc in France, they were called Alhigknsks, from Albi, one of its cities. From this province, however, they were expelled in the twelfth century. They still occupy "n small country on the Italian side of the Alps," and are therefore Italians ; and as such, being denominated Vaudois by the French, tliey should be distinguished from " the inhabitants of tlie Canton de Vaud, in Switzerland, who are also called Vaudois in French, but who oc- cupy a country that is at least 150 miles distant" from them.* It is also of importance to remark in this place, that some remains of thie M.anicheans, and Arians, who found shelter among the Albigenses, r/- ceived the same name, which circumstances, together with the fact of their being sometimes confounded with the followers of Peter Waldo, called the Poor Men of Lyons, Humihati, Sabbatali, etc., but who advocated a com- rannit)^ of goods, and who continued to fraternize with Rome in the articles of celibacy and. other monkish austerities ; and also with the Lombards,! another fraternity of monks, but who, though they assumed the appear- ance of deep humility, yet adopted the Arian creed, and were great ene- mies to the Waldenses, have subjected them to the imputation of having taught the vilest heresies and practiced the grossest enormities. That these accusations, however, are without the least foundation in truth, we have only to refer to the fact, that Reinerius, the Romish inquisitor, in the preface of his report of the heresy of the Waldenses, comprehends their faults under the following particulars : " That they reviled the Roman Church, and the clergy, and condemned the sacraments, the saints, and the approved customs of the Church ; but that they were of a composed and modest demeanor, chaste, frugal, hating pride, lying, swearing, fraud." APPENDIX E. POPE JOAN. [Having inserted the above name in our Catalogues of the Popes, in ad- dition to my own remarks on the subject as an historical fact, I herewith transcribe the following from the pen of the Rev. George Peck, D.D., in his review of the controvei-sy between the Rev. Drs. Potts and Wain- wright, and inserted in the Methodist Quarterly Review for January, 1845, pp.*149-153. The writer, having argued " that the Romish Catalogues are not all reli- * Amer. and For. Christ. Union, Vol. I., Nos. 3, 4, et seq. See also Spanheim's Eccles. Hist., pp. 400, 401. t The Loinli,ircls, a.d. 568, under Albion, invaded Italy, and erected a new kingdom al Ticiniim (Pavia^ Waged war wilh yno Creek?, a n. 5SG. Attacked Ravenna, and became masters of the Exarchate and Pentapoli.f, a.d. 751. But, under Desiderius their king, Charlemagne j)nt an end to their idngdoai in Italy, a.d. 774. 489 able," and that " they are often fictitious, absurd, and self-contradictory, on the subject of the above named Pope, he says :] " We may piove this position from what we find in Romish writers in relation to the famous Joan, the female pope. As to name and date, there is no pope for several centuries more clearly identified by Romish writers. In an old Latin copy of the Lives of the Popes, by Platina — himself a faithful servant of tiio pope — and dedicating his work to Sixtws IV., ' A.D. 1681,' we have the Life of Pope ' loannes VIII' (a.d. 854), between Leo IV. and Benedict III. ' This story,' he says, ' I have related barely and in short, lest I should seem obstinate and pertinacious if I had omitted what is so generally talked : I had better mistake with the rest of the world ; though it be certain, that what I have related may be thoufht not altogether incredible.'* " Omqihrius, the commentator and continuator of Platina, tries various expedients to get rid of this story. His first objection is substantially re- peated by Harding in opposition to Bishop Jewel, thus : " Thouo-h men had at that time been so far bewitched and distracted of their wits as they could not have known a woman from a man (which no wise man, I mean, believeth), yet it is not to be thought that God himself, who appointed and ordained the See of Peter, whereof he would the whole Church to be di- rected, would depart so far from his merciful providence toward the Church, as to sufixjr the same to be polluted by a woman, which is not of capacity for holy orders.' " To this Bishop Jewel replies in this straight-forward old-fashioned style : ' This guess, M. Harding, presumeth over far of God's providence. And therefore Antoninus, the Archbishop of Florence, when he had opened * We here give, for the benefit of the scholar, the whole story, which he will agree with us would scarcely be suitable for the public eye in a literal translation. . " lOANNES VIII. " Joannes Anglicus, ex Maguntiaco oriundus, malis artibus (ut aiunt) pontificatum adeptus est. Mentitus enim sexum, cum fcemina esset, adolescens admodum Athenas cum amatore viro docto proficiscitur : ibique prfcceptores bonarum artium audiendo la- tum proJecit, ut Roraain veiiiens, paucos admodum etiam in sacris litteris pares haberet, ne dum superiores. Legendo autem et dispiitando docte et acute, tantum benevolentiac et auctoritatis sibi comparavit, ut mortuo Leone in ejus locum (ut Martinus ait) omnium consensu poutifex crearetur. Verum postea a servo compressa, cum aliquamdiu occulte ventrem tulisset, tandem, dum ad Lalheranensem basilicam proficisceretur. inter tbea- trum (quod Colossenum vocant a Neronis colosso) et sanctum Clementem, doloribus circunnenta peperit : eoque loci mortua, pontificatiis sui anno secundo, mense uno, die- busquattuor, sine uUo honore sepelitur. Sunt qui ob haec scribant, pontificem ipsum, qnaiido ad Lateranensem basilicam proficiscitur, detestandi facinoris causa, et viam illam consulto declinare, et ejusdem vitandi erroris causa, dum primo in sede Petri col- locatur, ad eam rem perforata, genitalia ab ultimo diacono attrectari. De primo non abnuerim de secundo ita sentio, sedem iliam ob id paratam esse, ut qui in tanto magus- tatu constituitur, sciat se non Deum, sed hominem esse ; et necessitatibus naturre. ut pote egerandi subjectom esse, unde merito stercoraria sedes vocatur. Hkc. qu-e di.xi, vulgo feruntur, incertistamen et obscuris auctoribus : qurc ideo ponere breviter et nude institui, ne obstinate nimium et pertinaciter omisisse videar, quod fere omnes affirmant : erremus etiam nos hac in re cum vulgo, quaquam appareal, ea quae dixi, ex his esse, quoe fieri posse creduntnr. Sunt qui dicant. hnjus temporibus beati Vincentii corpus e Valentia citerioris Hispaninc civitate, a quodam monacho in pagum Albiensem ulterioris Gallirp deportatum. Dirunt pra?terea. Lotharium jam grandem natu. sumpto monacho- rum habitu, filium Ludovicum imperatorem reliquisse, qui statim in Germaniam proitin- ciam rediens, omnes ad arma spectantes sua pr.T.seutia in ollicio conlinuit.' "' — Hhtoria B. FlatiruE de vilis pontificiun liomanoruni, pp. 13;j, 134. 490 this whole story of Pope Joan, being offended with the strangeness and admiration of the matter, could not refrain himself from crying out, ' O the depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God ! how inscrutable are his judgments.' And wliy might not Pope Joan have as good right and in- terest unto the See of Rome as afterward had Pope John XIII., who, be- ing pope, had wicked company with two of his own sisters ; or others, whom for their horrible vices and wickedness Platina calls momlerH against kind, and ill-shapen creatures? Luitprandus saith, as it is before re- ported, ' The PoiKs imlace of Lateran in Rome is noio become a steiv of harlots.' Now, how much more injury could be inflicted upon ' the seat of Peter' by Pojie Joan than by many male popes who have occupied it, is certainly worthy of inquiry, before we yield to the objection. Onuphritis also objects that Anastasius, who lived at this time, and gives an account of the death of Leo, and the elevation of Benedict, is silent about Pope Joan. " Painulphus, in his Polychronican^i gives us the reasons why the histori- ans of the time omitted it : 'jjrojjter turpitudinem rei — the vileness of the thing.' Be this as it may, we have strong Roman Catholic authority for this piece of history. Martinus Palonus, who was penitentiaiy to Nicholas III., and afterward Archbishop of Casensa — Marianus Scotus, a.d. 1080, a monk and a chronicler upon whom the Romanists have placed much de- pendence in dating their councils — Sighert, abbot of Gerablaus, who lived A.D. 1100 — Petrarch, who lived in the fourteenth century, and many oth- ers, give the account as veritable history. After an examination of the whole matter, Bishop Jewel makes up the account thus : — " ' But let truth be falsehood, and let stories be fable. Yet M. Harding, it may please you to remember, that the same fable was raised in Rome, and from thence only, and from no place else, was published abroad into the world. But let the pope's own secretaries and all the people there be deceived ; and, to shadow the shame of that See, let Rome itself be the mother of lies. Let no man know the certain truth of matters, but only Onuphrius, the pope's parasite, and M. Harding. Yet neither would so many chronicles have recorded, nor would the whole world so universally have believed, these things of the popes, more than of any other bishops, had there not been wonderful corruption of manners, and dissolution of life, and open horror, and filthiness in that only See, above all others. " ' Howbeit, good Christian reader, that thou mayst well and clearly understand that our dealing herein is plain and simple, and that we have not imagined these matters, or any parcel thereof ourselves, may it please thee to read Platina in lohanne VIII. ; SabelUcus, Enneadis 9, lib. 1 ; Leonicus Chalcocondyla, a Greek wiiter, lib. 6 ; Marianus Scotus, that lived about the year of our Lord 1028 ; Sigibertus Gemblacensis, that lived about the year of our Lord 1100 ; Martinus Polonus, the pope's peniten- tiary, whom M. Harding so much defaceth, that lived about the year of our Lord 1320 ; Ravisius Texton in Officina, Ca. F(xmina: habitum verilem mentilce ; Antoninus, the archbishop of Florence, part 2, tit. 16 ; Volater- ranus ; Nauclerus ; Car ion ; Constaniius Phrygio ; Christianus Mo.ssceus ; Matthoeus Palmerius Florentinus ; Ansdmus Rid ; Johannes Parisicnsis, cap. 20; Sup)p)lemcuta Chronica r a 7n ; Chronica Ckronicarum ; Fasciculus temporum, and others more. Of these some lived four hundred, some five hundred years ago ; and have ever been counted worthy of some authority. Notwithstanding, for your dame Joan's sake, you, M. Harding, begin now 491 to clip their credit. Howbeit, whatsoever they were, certain it is they were no Lutherans. All these with one consent agree together, that dame Joan was Pope of Rome.' — Defense, p. 352. " Here is a strong array of Roman Catholic authorities in favor of the fact of a female pope. We do not pretend to say that the evidence is conclu- sive, indeed we doubt whether it is sufficiently sustained. Blondcl and Bower, two great Protestant writers, have investigated the matter more fully than others, and come to the conclusion that the story is fabulous. Their conclusions are based upon the want of cotemporaneous history, the first notice taken of it being by an author who lived some two hundred years after the event is said to have transpired. Bower, however, says what no one denies, that ' the female pope owes her existence and her promotion to the Roman Catholics themselves ; for by them the fable was invented, was published to the world by their priests and monks before the Refor- mation, and was credited, upon their authority, even by those who were most zealously attached to the holy See, and among the rest by St. Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence, nor did they begin to confute it till Protestants reproached them with it, as reflecting great dishonor upon the See of St. Peter.' — History of the Popes. " The case then is this. There is given in the chronicles to which recourse is had for the Romish succession, written by the ' priests and monks' of the Church of Rome — credited and related by the high functionaries of that church, archbishojys and jjenitentiaries, and universalhj believed for the space of five hundred years — the name of a female pope — fictitious, if you please — who is said to have reigned about two years and a half and or- dained bishops ! Thus we have the ' quod ab omnibus' evidence for five centuries to a female link in the succession which Catholics — Roman and Anglican — now laugh at as a fable of the monks. Now let the reader not forget that it is to these very chroniclers that our successionists go to identify each link of the Romish succession for at least the space of eight centuries! Doubtless all their 'records' — excepting that of 'dame Joan — 'are as susceptible of proof as the genuineness and authenticity of the books of the New Testament !' Dr. Wainwright being the judge. " We will close what we have to say upon this matter with a brief notice of the explanation of the origin of the story given by Onujihrius. He thinks the tale arose from the fact that Pope John the Twelfth had many concubines, and among them Joan. He was made pope at the age of twelve years, and was so governed in all he did by ' dame Joan, that perhaps in derision the name of this woman was given to her obsequious paramour. And hence, says the learned apologist for the pope, ' some idle head or other invented 'this tale of her.' This, then, is the version of a learned Romish historian. A licentious boy of twelve years old, who has ' many concu- bines,' is so entirely under the dictation of one of them in particular, as that he is called by her name ! All that he did being known to be done by the dictation of ' a concubine' named ' Joan,' he is called ' Pope Joan!' A vast improvement this! No doubt Dr. Wainwright and his note-writer will think that the succession is quite safe coming through ' John the Twelfth,' though it would be somewhat doubtful had it really come through ' Joan,' though, for our part, if the history of Joan were well authenticated, we should think her ftir the more competent of the two. " We have had two objects in view in this discussion. The first is that we may show how little authority is due to the Romish chronicles for several 492 centurios ; and the second, to put the case of tlie ' ft-ii'sale pope' upon its true basis before our readers. Having said all that is necessary for the ac- complishment of these purposes, we now leave the subject." APPENDIX F. The Petition of the Protestant Parliament of Enpland on the drath of £Jiiiuard VI. to Queen Mary.^ for the recaiiciliation of the kinydom to the See of Rome ; and the counter petition of the same Parliament to Elizabeth., on the death of Mary, for the restoration of Protestantism. [The following acts of the English Parliament, under Mary and Elizabeth, are taken from " Cobbett's Legacy to Parsons," etc., in " Six Letters, ad- dressed to the Church-parsons in general, including the Cathedral and College Clergy and the Bishops, with a dedication to Blomfield, Bishop of London." Having spoken of the affairs of the Church, under Henry and Edw'^ard, he proceeds : — ] This church-making king died at the end of about seven years, and was succeeded on the throne by his sister Mary, who was a Catliolic ; and who, proceeding upon the settled constitution and laws of the country, resolved upon restoring the Catholic religion. The Common Prayei--Book aristoc- racy, exceedingly alarmed at this prospect; not so much alarmed, however, for the almost certain loss of the Common Prayer-Book and the new Church, as for the poysible, and even probable, loss of that immense mass of pro- perty of the Church and the poor, which they had got into their possession, by the means before mentioned, entered into a negotiation Avtth the queen, agreeing to give up their Common Prayer-Booh and their Protestant reli- gion ; agreeing to bring back the Catholic religion into the country, and to punish parsons for not being Catholics, as they had punished them before for not being Protestants : aifreeino- to confess themselves to have been schismatics ; agreeing to receive absolution from -the Pope, for having re- belled against his authority ; agreeing to reinstate him in all his power in England, which they before designated as abominable usurpations; agreeing, above all things, to abrogate as schismatical that very Common Prayer- Book which they had before declared, in the preamble to an Act of Parlia- ment, to have been composed by the " aid of the Holy Gfiost," and which was, they said, made " to the Iwnor of God ;" agreeing to all this, if the queen would obtain the consent of the Pope, and give her own con- sent, to suffer them to keep the immense masses of property in land and in tithes, which, during the two preceding reigns, they had grasped from the Church and the poor ! This is something so monstrous, that I would ven- 498 ture to state it upon no authority short of that of an Act of Parliament ; and yet it is by no means tlie worst that we have to behold on tin; part of these men who called themselves noblemen and gentlemen, and whose de- scendants coolly assume the same appellations ! As a sort of prelude to the monstrous acts which they were about to perform, they passed, almost as soon as Mary was upon the throne, an Act to repeal the lohole of the famous Act, making the Common Prager-Bnok ; and that too upon the ground that it was conti-ary to tlie ti-iie i-elioion ; though they alleged that they had been assisted by the Holy Ghoxt, in the making of that Book of Common Prayer ! Tiiey abolished all the penil- ties for persons acting plays, singing songs, ridiculing the new religion; tlxn'' repealed the law for preventing images being put up in churches ; they re- pealed the law permitting priests to* marry ; they swept away, by this .Act of Parliament, every vestige of the Protestant Church service, and rein- stated the service of the Catholic religion ; brought in again the singing of the mass in all the churches and chapels; and this too upon the express ground that they had been for years wandering in error and in schism ; though, never forget, that the Holy Ghost had assisted them in makinrf their Common Prayer-Book ! This, however, was only a beginning. Having made their bargain to keep the lands and the tithes, which they had taken from tlie Church and the poor, they petitioned the queen to intercede with the pope to forgive them for all the sins which they had committed against him and against the Catholic faith ; to " assoil, discharge, and deliver them from all ecclesiastical excommuni- cations, interdictions, and censures, hanging over their heads, for their faults during the schism : and to take them again into the bosom of holy Church." The queen, detesting the monsters in her heart, no doubt, con^^ented, and obtained the pope's consent to let them keep the lands and the tithes ; not because it was right, but because it was thought to be an evil less than that of a civil war, which might have been produced by a rejection of the terms of this agreement. Having obtained the security. Cardinal Pole was sent over by the pope, as his legate, authorized to give them pardon and abso- lution. To work they went, instantly, to repeal every act made after Henrv the Eighth began his rebellion against the pope ; every act at all trenchincr on the Papal authority ; but taking special care in the same act to secure to themselves the safe possession of all the property of the Church and the poor, which they had grasped, during the reigns of Henry and of Edward. Though I say I am referring to acts of Parliament, and though the reader will, upon reflection, know that I should not dare to state the substance of those acts untruly, still I cannot give an adequate idea of the character of these Protestant church-makers, without taking their own words, as I find them in the preamble to this act, 1st and 2d Mary, chapter 8 ; and when I read it, I always wonder that some scheme or other has not been invented for the obliterating, for the erasing from the statute-book words so dishonor- able, so indelibly infamous. " Whereas, since the twentieth year of King Henry the Eighth of famous memory, father unto your majesty our most natural sovereign, and gia- cious lady and queen, much false and erroneous doctrine hath been taught, preached and written, partly by divers the natural born subjects of this realm, and partly being brought in hither from sundry other foreign countiies, hath been sown and spread abroad within the same : By reason whereof, as well ^ ' 494 the spirituality as the temporality of your highnesses realms and dominions have swerved from the obedience of the see apostolic, and declined from the unity of Christ's Church, and so have continued, until such time as your majesty being first raised up by God, and set in the seat royal over us, and then by his divine and gracious Providence knit in marriage with the most noble and virtuous prince the king our sovereign lord your hus- band, the pope's holiness and the see apostolic sent hither unto your majes- ties (as unto persons undefiled, and b}'' God's goodness preserved from the common infection aforesaid) and to the whole realm, the most reverend father in God the Lord Cardinal Pole, Legate de latere, to call us home again into the right way from whence we have all this long while wandered and strayed abroad ; and we, after sundry long and grievous plagues and calamities, seeing by the goodness of God our own errors, have acknowl- edged the same unto the said most reverend father, and by him have been and are the rather at the contemplation of your majesties, received and em- braced unto the unity and bosom of Christ's Church, and upon our hum- ble submission and promise made for a declaration of our repentance, to repeal and abrogate such acts and statutes as had been made in parliament since the said twentieth year of the said King Henry the Eighth, against the supremacy of the see apostolic, as in our submission exhibited to the said most reverend father in God by your majesties appeareth : The tenor whereof ensueth. " We the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons, assembled in this present Parliament, representing the whole body of the realm of £/n- gland, and the dominions of the same, in the name of ourselves particularly, and also of the said body universally, in this our supplication directed to your majesties, with most humble suit, that it may by your graces inter- cession and mean be exhibited to the most reverend father in God, the Lord Cardinal Pole, Legate, sent specially hither from our most Holy Father Pope Julian the Third and the See Apostolic of Rome, do declare our- selves very sorry and repentant of the schism and disobedience committed in this realm and dominions aforesaid against the see apostolic, either by making, agreeing, or executing any laws, ordinances or commandments, against the supremacy of the said see, or otherwise doing or speaking, that might impugn the same : OfFering ourselves and promising by this our sup- plication, that for a token and knowledge of our said repentance, we be and shall be always ready, under and with the authorities of your majesties, to the uttermost of our powers, to do that shall lie in us for the abrogation and repealing of the said laws and ordinances, in his present parliament, as well for ourselves as for the whole body whom we represent : Where- upon we most humbly desire your majesties, as personages undefiled in the offense of this body towards the said see, which nevertheless God by his Providence hath made subject to you, so to set forth this our humble suit, that we may obtain from the see apostolic, by the said most reverend father, as well particularly and generally, absolution, release and discharge from all danger of such censures and sentences, as by the laws of the Church we be fallen into ; and that we may as children repentant be received into the bosom and unity of Christ's Church, so as this noble realm, with all the members thereof, may in this unity and perfect obedience to the see apostolic, and popes for the time being, serve God and your majesties, to the furtherance and advancement of his honor and glory. We are, at the •rf?* * 495 intercession of your majesties, by the authority of our holy father Pope Julian the Third and of the see apostolic, assoiled, discharged and delivered from the excommunications, interdictions, and other censures ecclesiastical, which hath hani^ed over our heads, for our said defaults, since the time of the said schism mentioned in our supplication : It may now like your ma- jesties, that for the accomplishment of our promise made in the said sup- plication, that is, to repeal all the laws and statutes made contrary to the said supremacy and see apostolic, during the said schism, the which is to be understood since the twentieth year of the reign of the said late King Henry the Eighth, and so the said lord legate doth accept and recognize the same." After this most solemn recantation ; after this appeal to God for the sincerity of iheir repentance, they proceeded to enact the repeal of every act that had ever been passed to infringe upon the supremacy or authority of the pope ; they, in the most express and solemn manner, enacted that no king or queen of England was ever, or ever co?tld be the head of the Church ; or had, or ever could have, any pretension to a right of supre- macy in regard to the Church. But, in the same Act of Pailiament, every sentence of which makes one shudder as one reads it, they took spe- cial care, while they acknowledge the act of plunder, to secure to them- selves, bv clause upon clause, the uninterrupted possession of that third part of the property of the kingdom, which they had grasped from the Church and the poor ! But, at any rate, they were now Catholics again ; they were once more Roman Catholics. They had been born and bred Roman Catholics. They had apostatized, and protested against the faith of their fathers, for the purpose of getting possession of a large part of the property of the king- dom ; but having now made safe the possession of this enormous mass of plunder ; and having, nevertheless, been absolved of their sins, and taken back into the bosora of the Church, they, surely, now remained Roman Catholics to the end of their days ? Not they, indeed ; for the moment the death of Mary took place, which was in 1558, that is to say, at the end of 6ve years, they undid all that they had done in the time of Mary ; apostatized again, and declared their abhorrence of that Church, into the bosom of Avhich they had so recently thanked the queen for having inter- ceded with the pope to receive them ! This would not, and could not, be believed, if it were not upon record in the statute-book, which cannot lie, in this case : and which contains in this case, too, the laiu as we have now to obey it. Elizabeth, the immediate successor of Mary, was a Catholic herself, by profession and public wor- ship ; she was crowned by a Catholic bishop ; her manifest intention, at first, was to maintain the Catholic religion ; but she was a bastard, ac- cording to the law, she having been born of another woman, while her father's first wife was still alive ; besides which, an act had been passed in her father's lifetime, declaring her to be a bastard. All this would not have signi6ed much ; but the pope would not recognize her legitimacy ; and of course would not acknowledge her right to reign as Queen of En- gland. Finding this, she resolved to be Protestant; and resolved that her people should be Protestant, too. The very first act of Parliament of her reign, therefore, swept away the whole that had been done during the reign of Mary; and the act (1st of Ehzabeth, chapter 1) repealed the 496 whole of the act of which I liave just quoted the memorable preamble, ex- cept only those parts of it which secured the plunder of the Church and the poor to those who had got possession of it ; and .those same men, wlio had so recently received absolution from the pope for having acknowledged the ecclesiastical supremacy to be in the king, now enacted, that that su- premacy had always belonged to the king; that it never had belonged to the pope ; that the pope had usurped it ; and they even went so far now as to exact an oath from every Englishman, if the Queen chose to require it, declaring a firm belief in this supremacy of the queen ! The oath (in u.se to this day) begins thus, " I, A. B., do utterly declare and testify in my con- science, that the queen's highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, as well in all spiritual and ecclesiastical things, or causes, as tem- poral !" An oath was now to come to re-assert that which these very men had supplicated pardon and absolution from the pope, aud prayed for for- giveness to God, for having asserted before ! 497 INDEX OF GREEK TEXTS, WORDS, Etc. BaTTTi^ovreg, Koi didaoKOVrsg (Matt. 28 : 19, 20), ... 92 "EdoKEv KXiJQovg avrojv, ....... (note) 162 "Elg dvdpa reXeiov (Eph. 4 : 11, 12), ...... 140 "Ew^- TTjg avvreXeidg rov dcCJvog (Matt. 28 : 20), . . . 140 'E7na7]iJ.oL ev rolg aTTOOToXoig (Rora. 16:7),. . , . 127 E()_^fra< ovv 6 'h](7ovg Kal Xan(3dvei rov dprov, koI diduacv avrolg, Kol TO dxjjaQtov dfioicdg (John 21:13), . . . . 12I MdXLara oi KoniojVTeg, ■•■•... (note) 161 MadrjTEvaa-e Tcdvra rd edvi] (Matt. 28 : 19, 20), ... 92 'O dvr'' dXXov, ..••••'... 477 'Oi jxdXiora KOTTioyvreg, •••.... (note) 161 XeiQOTOveidelg vtto tcov eKKXrjOtoJv (2 Cor. 8 : 19, 23), . . 162 lificov 'Iwm, dya-rrdg jite -nXeiov tovtuv ; (John 21 : 15-17,) . 121 Iv el Ue-Qog, kol em ravrTj Txerga (Matt. 17 : 18, 19), . . 118 AyyeAo^, 126, 130. Ar/yeXog eKKXrjoiag, 130. AvdvTTarog, 477. AvTi, 476. Avri(3aaiXevg, 477. AvTi Hpcodov, 477. AvTi;^piCTTO^, 477. Atto ttoAAwv, 163. ATiOa-oXoi, 99, 107, 128, 129,- 131, 132. AnooToXog, 100, 107, 125, 126, 127, 130, 131, 132, 139, 173. Am, 276-278. AtdKOVov, 100. Aidiiovoi, 102. AidKOVog, 126. Aiaraaaonai, 279. AiddoKaXoL, 155. AiddaKaXog^ 126. ALera^afiev, 279. Aiera^aro, 279. "EfiaXov, 162 [note). E~iaK07T7j, 422. EmoKOTTOi, 102, 107, 281, 324. EmoKOTTog, 125, 151, 159, 166, . 275, 409. 'E'maKOTTOVvreg, 418. 'E.vayyeXiarov, 99, 152. 'iUuKiag, 140. 'legevg, 275. 32 'legog, 275. KadoXiKog, 434. KXrjQog, 121 [note), 122. Aoyog yvdjaeoog, 109. Aoyog ao(j)i.ag, 109. M£t', 276-278. Mexpi, 140, 187. JTopadocreif, 62. Uerpa, 118, 119. nerpo^-, 116, 118. Ilo(.fj,rjv, 126. TloLfXEvag, 155. II()e(7/3i;^, 275. np£(T/3t;Tepo(, 99, 102, 122, 151, 159, 162, 163, 277, 281, 324. Jlp^ofivTepcov, 275. Upeal3vTepog, 122, 125, 126, 159, 166, 275, 409, 413. UQoeoTOJTeg TTQeofSyrepoi, 413. 'n.po(f>TjTag, 154. Upoipfjrrjg, 126. Tovro)v, 121. 'TTTorvrroiGLV, 64. Xetporovetr', 163 {note). XeiQOTOvetado), 163. XeiQOTOvTjaai, 163. XeiQorovyaavreg (Acts 14 : 21, 23), 163. XeiqoTOVTjeeig (2 Cor. 8 : 23), 163. ■^rj(l>og, 162 [note). 498 SCRIPTURAL INDEX. Genesis 1 : 26, 27 174 3:5 171 3: 15 174 6:3 471 12 : 3 257,385 14 : 18 143 28 : 6 143 48 : 13-20 143 Exodus 11:13 254 18 : 1 254 18 : 14 165 19:5 90 20 : — 473 Lev. 16:8 135 16 : 20 144 26:28 385 Numb. 12 : 23 143 23 : 9 254 27 : 18-23 143 33 : 47 143 Deut. 3 : 27 143 27 : 13 385 32: 49 143 34 : 1 143 Joshua 18 : 10 135 1 Samuel 12 : 12 174 12: 12-19 385 14 : 41, 42 135 2 Samuel 1 : 20. 23 : 5.. 363 174 1 Kings 16 : 25 174 20 : 11 XXX 1 Chron. 23 21 24 254 254 135 Ezra 2: 61, 62 408 Psalm 12 : 6 18: 2, 31 117 Psalm 19:7 73 19:8 88 25 : 14 91 31 : 11 161 50 : 16 447 50:16,17 42 110 . 3 xxvii 122 : 3 2.5S Prov. 8 : 23 91, 174 16 : 33 135 Eccles. 8:11.., xxx Isaiah 8 : 20 73 11 : 11, 12 260 28 : 16 455 53 : 10 119 Jer. 7 : 26 174 14: 14 103 23 : 21, 32 103 27 : 15 103 Ezek. 20 : 6 254 Daniel 7 : 1-7 385 7 : 2, 3, 7 472 7 : 7-19 339,475 7 : 7. 11, 19, 21, 23-25 472 7 : 2i, 25 376 7 : 25 104,471 7:27 260 11 : 36 475 Hosea 3:4 386 13 : 11 385 Jonah 1:7 135 Matt. 1 : 20 126 1 : 22 126 4: 18, 19 : 118 7:16 4.56 7 : 17, 18 429 8:4 275 8: 14 72,287 9: 11 126 9:38 103 499 Matt. 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 12 13 13 13 13 13 15 15 16 IG 16 16 16 16 16 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 21 23 23 23 24 25 26 26 26 26 26 28 28 28 .98, : 2 . . : 2-4 : 6 .. : 17 . 29,30 4, 5 . . 24-30 38 ... 25-29 47 ... 47-52 3 9 13-18 13-19 15 — 15-19 17, 18 18 ..., 18. 19 17'... 20 ... 6 13 ... .72, 28 ■ 20-23 . . . 26 23 8, 9 9 12 24 32 1-3 20 31 31-35, 51 69-75 17 18 19, 20 . . . ,137, 173, .141,487 117 56 95 261 .... 144 261 103 126 125 285 43G 104 .xxix, 104, 476 126 195 94 126 134 134 58 215 195 .116, 115, .187, ..92, Mark 14 14, 15 . 15 16-19. 7 7-13 . . 8 13 2 34 38,40. 16.... 42-45. 21 1 109, .98,203, 15 17 17, 18 17, 18, 20. 18 19 110 251 110 109 110 98, 110,205 72 72 115 n:^ 98 l-M 103 476 125 , 25s 76 76 113 145 76 .88. 110 Luke 1:5 275 109 2:1 339 109 . 2 : 8, 15 126 110 2 : 19, 20 126 194 3 : 16 473 1261 3 :46 126 260 4 : 18 217 275 4 : 40 144 91 6 : 13 109, 126. 251 258 6 : 13-16 109 456 7:3 125 456 9:1 110 103 9:1-6 205 72 9:2 110 104 9:49,50 98 455 9 : 52 120 115 9 : 59, 60 98 103 10: 1. 2 98 112 10: 18 469 112 12:57 75 15 : 25 125 16 :.29 73 18 : 18 126 18 : 20 90 19 : 22 79 20 : 40 162 21 : 24 261 22: 3 Ill 22 : 26-30 124 22: 30 136 24: 49 112 24 : 50 144 John 1:3 289 1 : 13 268 1 :42 116 2 : 5, 9 126 2: 19 lis 3 : 2 126, 195 3 : .34 108,215 3 : 34, 35 102 4: 1, 2 110 5 : 30 114, 1S7 5: 31 58, 80, 205 5:39,56 73 5:41-44 103 6 : 32, 33 94 6:63 90 7; 24 456 8:9 125 8 : 14 469 8: 39 131 8:44 174 8:47 88 10 : 1. 2 103 10 : 2,' 11, 12, 14, 16 126 10 : 5 105 11 :42 339 12:48 ^8 13 : 16 126 13 : 26 )11 14 : 1-4 94 14 : 10 94 15: 16 102,251 16:1-7 94 500 John ] 6 : 17 : 17 : 19: 20: 20: ?0: 20: 20: 21 : 21 : 21 : 21 : 21 : 21 : 21 : 21 : 21 : 21 : 94 .xxvii, 91 93 .... 171 .... 171 187 21,24 ISf) 22 102 23 136 1-3 115 2 86 3 134 7 171 7, 20 116 l.-j-n 115, 117 19-23 112 21 86 22 86,287 23 86, 98 Acts 1-3 1-6 3-8 98,109, 4,5 136, 4-8 6 7-11 13, 16. 15, 16, 15-26. 22 ... . 23, 24. : 24 . . . . .136, .136, 26 133, 137,. 162, 28, and vv. 15, 16 1-4 5, 9-11 11 14 14-36.. 30 33 41,42 43 1-11, 12-16 6 17 21 .89, 16... 30... 36... 1-11. 12... 15... 24... 1-6.. 3 6 14-17. .114, 122, 145, 113 99 139 205 112 110 136 136 272 272 99 251 272 137 272 162 102 136 113 136 135 63 174 385 136 455 113 113 145 76 138 173 125 113 145 100 114 145 145 275 162 135 102 182 205 Acts 8:18,19 177 9 : 1-9, and 15, 16 138 9 : 1-M, 15, 16 149 9: 1-18 131 9 : 10 137 9 : 12 137 9 : 12, 17, 18 137 9 : 17 144 9:18 98 9 : 20. 22 131 9 : 27', 29 131 9 : 27, and vv. 13, 26 127 10: 32 120 10 : 34, 39, 42, 44-48 120 10:34-43 63 10:34,35 120 10 : 44 114 10:47 92 11 : 1-18 134 11 :5 113 11 : 14 120 11:22 99 12 : 1-18. 12-3 12 : 12-25 100 12 : 25 100 13 : 1 126, 138 13 : 1-3, 99, 131, 133. 138, 149, 154, 273 13 : 1-5 .' 100 13 : 11 114 13 : 13 100 13 : 19 135 13:39 91 14: 1-26 133 14: 13 275 14: 14 99, 131 14 : 21-23 151, 103 14: 16 385 14 : 23 and 21 99, 251, 279 14: 26 138, 149 15 : 1 201 15 : 1-5 19 15: 1-21 123 15: 1,24 179 15 : 2 125 15 : 10 105 15: 22 162 15: 30-32 100 15 : 37-39 100 15 : 37-40 128 16: 1-3 99, 149, 150 16 : 2, 3 162 16 : 9-12 166 16: J6 155 17 : 11 56 18 : 24 127 IS : 24-28 100 19: 1-5 and 5-7 99 19 : 1-7 205 19 : 0 114 19 : 0. 7 145 19 : 12 145 19 : 29 100 20:4 1 00 20 : 17 125, 15] 20 : 17-28 04, 125, 154 601 Acts 20 : 23 ISS 1 20 : 28 122, 126 20 : 29, 30 101, 175, 475 20 : 30 176 21:8 99 24 : 23 279 25 : 26 161 26 : 3 161 27 : 2 100 28 : 18 102 Romans 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 13 13 14 14 14 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 : 23 473 : 20 126 : 25-29 xxxiv : 28, 29 179 -.20 91 : 16 90 : 1 xxxiv : 17 90 : 19 90 :1 91 : 16 •.. 91 : 6 91,456 :4 91, 169 : 17 79 : 18 141, 187 :8 17 :11, 21 90 : 13 98, 126 : 25 168 : 28 :4 : 22 : 5 23. 260 ■'. 126 91 56 126 90 IS, 19 114 1 100 3 100 4 127 5, 7, 9 100 6, 15 101 7 127 8, 9 101 10 100 10, 11 101 12 101 13 101 14, 15 101 18 104, 239 21 162 1 Corinth. ] : l . . , 1:2... 1:6... 1 : 11.. 1 : 29 . . 2:6... 2 : 13. . 2 : 14. . 3:—.. 3: 1-4. 3:3... . . 130 . . 455 , . 127 , . 194 . 97 . 461 . 73 . 56 .xxvii . 127 . 194 3:4 xxxi 3 : 5, 9 1281 Corinth. .1:10 98 3:16 95 3 : 16, 17 475 4:6 128 4 : 6, 7, 9 128 4 : 15 287 5 :4, 5 114 5 : 13 456 5 : 26 155 5:40 155 6:1 56 6: 10 475 7 : 15 xxxi 7 : 17 279 9:2 147 10:4 91 10 : 12 XXX 10:16,17 94 11:2 62 11:29 95 12:— xxvii, 108, 109 12 : 4-25 103 12 : 4, 6, 28 79 12: 7 408 12 : 12-27 • 108 12: 17, 18,25 xxxii 12: 19 xxxi 12:28 96,436 12: 28. 29 126 14:3 154 14 : 27, 28 155 14: 29, 32, 37 126 14 : 32 155 15 : 1-11 63 15:5 135 15:8 98, 109, 137 15: 10 109, 287 15 : 18 140 15 : 20, 23 91 15 : 38 376 15 : 41 96 16 : 15, 16 162 Corinth. 1 : 12 .52 1 : 24 56, 172,450 2 : 17 52 3 ; — xxxiii 3: 6 96, 126 3 : 6, 16, 17 133 3:7-9 90 3 : 10 91 4:7 xxxiii, 97 5:5 80 5:7 91 5 : 19 97 5:21 91 6: 16 475 7 : 1, 7 287 8: 19, 23 162 8: 23 100, 129, 162 11 : 5 287 11 : 10 176 11 : 13 104, 127, 176 11 : 13-15 xxviii, 471 11 : 14, 15 176 502 P.Corinth. 11 : 15 126 11 : IS 176 11 : 23 104, 126 11 :28 287 12:4-11 96 12:7 126 12: 12 113 13 :5. 75 Galat. — 123 1 181 1,2 129 1, 11, 12, 17 137 1, 12 98, 109 14 74 9 272 11-14 123 11-15 134 16 17 5, 6,19. 10. 12. 13. 16. 24. 4.. 10. 19 126 285 90 90 91 257 91 89 87 24 xxxiv, 174, 260 1 xxxiv 6 19 11, 12 181 22 102 22, 23 102 12 4.56 15 19, 95, 456 6 : 15, V. 6 179 6: 10 161 Ephes. 1:9 88 1:5,13 94 1 : 22 XXX, 91 1:22,23 55 2 : 19, 20 2.59 2:19-21 56 2 : 20 72, SO, 98, 117, 260, 455 3:4 88 3:7 126 4: 3 93,166, 175 4:4, 13 xxvii 4 : 5 xxvii 4: 8-11 55, 96 4:8-13 79 4: 11 126,436 4: 11, 12 187 4:11-13 98 4:12 79 4: 12, 13 93, 96, 152 4: 13 187 4: 14 103 4: 15 91 4:30 94 5: 30 92, 95 5:32 55 Ephes. 6:18 171 6:21 126 Philipp. 1:1 126, 151 1 : 5 167 1 : 15-19 xlviii 1 : 16 167 2: 25 100, 133 4 : 3 162, 260 Coloss. 1 : 7 101, 162 1 : 7, 23, 25 126 1 : 9-20 469 1 : 12 121 1 : 16 174 1:18 91 1:24 91 2 : 10 xxvii 2 : 19 55 2 : 21 450 3:3 91 4:7 126 4: 7-9 101 4 : 10 100, 162 4: 11 101 4: 12 101 4 : 14 101 4 : 17 101 4:29 xxvii 1 Thess. 1:1 162 2:18 21 3:2 126 5:3 XXX 5 : 13 J 28 5 : 21 75 2 Thess. 2 : 3, 4 175 2:3-8 -171 2:4 173 2:7 173 2 : 9, 10 176 2 : 9-11 471 2 : 15 62 3 : 6 10.5, 456 1 Tim. 1:1 287 1:3 152. 153 1 : 13, 14 ■ 63 1 :20 114 2:5 226 2:7 126. 251 3 : 1,2, 3, 7 ■ 102 3 : 1-7 102 3:2 103, 126, 1-57 3:6 lO.j 3 :8, 9 1.57 3 : 8, 12 126 3 : 8-13 102 3 : 15 475 3 : 16 173 4:1-3 176 4:2 88 4:6 126 503 1 Tim. 4 : 10 161 4 : 11 152 4: 12 150 4 : 14 99, 149, 150, 152, 277 4 : 16 103 5:1 125 5: S IGl 5 : 17 151,282 5 : 19 125, 152 5 : 20 152 5: 21 4G9 6 : 1 XXX, 103 6:3 105 6:5 45C 6: 20 62, 63 2 Tim. 1 : 6 146.277 1 : 6, 7 114, 149 1:7 277 1 : 11 126 2:1 287 2:2 152 2: 15 103 3.1 xxviii 3 : 1-13 104 3:2 151 3 : 5 236,456 3:15 3:15-17 73 3 : 16 88, 134 3 : 16, 17 83 3:17 79 4:2 152 4: 3 xxviii, 126 4:5 99, 152 4: 6, 7, 8 154 4: 10 101 4: 11 100 4 : 12 100 4: 13 161, 171 4: 19 100 4: 19-21 101 4: 20 100 5:1 484 5: 3-5 105 5:7 146 Titus 1:4 287 1:4-9 102 1 :5 125, 152, 153,251 1: 5. 7 125 1 -.i. 126, 151 1:5-9 102 1:6-9 157 Heb. 2 : 7... 12.. 15.. 6... 14.. 1... 1-3. .251. 1 : 12, 2:1. 2 : 15 3 : 10. 3 : 12 3: 13. 126 103 152 56 100 100 4 251,254, 4,5 6, 10 12 1,2 .142, 6, 14 . 11-21. 14 15, V. 3 16 17 21 ... 24.... 24-26. 25 .196, 3.. 8: 4.. 8 : 13. 9 : 24. .06, 195, 9 : 10 : 10 : 10: 12: 13: 13: 13 : 13 : James 1 : 1 : 1 : 3 : 3: 5: 1 Peter 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 26.... 11-14. 18.... 21 24 12.... .200, 17 20 7, 17, 24 175 174 127 196 171 174 475 196 275 196 257 200 200 126 243 275 257 257 200 200 200 200 200 275 200 196 257 196 196 260 196 196 200 201 475 89 196 417 126 165 5 56 21 96 27 460 1 xxxi, 126 11 429 14 12.') : 1 .. : 10 . :25 . :5.. :25.. : 6 .. : 21 . : 1 .. : 1-4 12.-? 56 .164, 171.201,275, 126, 5:3 5: 13 475 151 455 93 287 172 151 ...105. 121, 162, 172 125 102 .123. 166. 122. Philem. v. 1 287! 23 101 24 100, 101 2 Peter 1 1 1 . 15 12.'i 123 i* 504 2 Peter 1:16 364 1 : 18-21 83 1 : 21 87 2: 1 104, 176 2:5 80,461 3:2 123 1 John 2 : 18 476 4 : 6 xxvii 2 John, V. 1 101 3 John, vv 1,8 101 " 1, 9 101 " 5 177 " 5,8 177 " 9 xxxii, 104, 162, 173, 328 " 9, 10 101 " 10 xxxii " 12 101 Jude, V. 3 56, 79, 376 " 6 469 " 16 xxxii "20 102 "24 53 Rev. 1:6 164 Rev. 1 : 6-10 275 1 : n 144 1 : 20 126, 130 2 : 1,8, 12, 18 126 2 : 2 176 2 : 3 101 2 : 8-10 130, 281 2 : 14 261 2:17 91 3 : 1, 5,7, 14 126 5:6 91 7 : 14 377 12 : 1 472 12 : 2 472 12: 3 472 13 : 1 472 13:1,2 472 13 : 11 472 13 : 11, 12 472 14:4 91 16: 6 130 17 : 2 376 17:5 75 18 :4 51,456 19 : 19 377 20 : 6 275 21 : 14 125 22 : 18, 19 78 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. A Abbott against Church Forsakers, 400. Adrian. Vit. Rom. Pont. Bulla Adriani, 222. Alexander III. Spons et Mat. c. non est, 222. Alexander III. De Decimus C. Exparte, etc., 222. Alexander IV. Sixt. Decret. c. 4, Glossa, 223. Alexander's Anglo-Catholicism, quoted, 64, 72. Amer. and For. Christian Union, 488. An Address, by Rev. S. F. Jarvis, D.D., LL.D., etc., 237, 238. An Abridg. of Chris. Doc, 473. Antoninus, Sutnma Majoris, pars 3, 220. Archbishop Potter, on Church Government. 2.'')2, 272. Archbishop Stiliingfleet's Origines Brit., 339 ; Irenicum', 420. Archbishop Usher, 4:22. Archbishop Whately's Kingdom of Christ, 263, 328, 330, 4S6. Archbishop Wake's Apost. Fathers, quoted, 69. Articles, XXIst of the XXXIX, Church of England, 50. B Barronius's Annals, 296. 297, 298. Barrow's Pope's Supremacy, 109, 206. Bede, (the Venerable.) 340, 342, 343, 346, 348, 350, 364, 308, 369, 474. Bellarmine, Lib. II. c. 1, 269, 284, 291. Bellarmine's Notes on the Church, 432, 433, 439. Beza, De Eccles., etc., 421. Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, 126. Bingham's Antiquities, 249, 327, 330, 410, 411. Bingham's Orlg. Ecclesiasticus, 451. Blair's Hist, of the Waldenses, 484. Blondell and Dalliiis, vide Beveregii Codex Can. Eccles. Prim. Vind. Procur., 421. Bochart. Abridg. of Owen's Plea, 422. 505 Boniface, Extravag. de Majorit. et Obed. C. Unam, 223. Boniface Prohem. c. Sacrosancta, 223. Boniface Sixt. Decret. de Const, c. Licet, 223. Boniface IV. Sixt. Decret. De Punit. et Rennis. c. 5. Glossa. 223. Boniface VIII. Extravag. de Majorit. et Obed. c. Unam Sanctum, 222. Boniface VIII. Sixt. Decret. c. Uibi, 223. " Book of Common Prayer," quoted, 48, 266, 427, 447, 448. British Critic, No. XLVIII., 87, No. LIX., 224. Burnet's, Bp., History of his own times, 28. Burnet's History of the Reformation, 29, 230. 231. 234, 304, 383, 384, 387, 392, 39.5; 397; 401, 403, 421, 424, 425, 427, 428, 429. Butlers Catechism, 473. Bishop Beveridge's Sermons on the Church, 242, 247. Bishop Beveridge on Excellency of Com. Pr., 400. Bishop Burgess of Maine — " The Stranger in the Church." 247. Bishop Croft's—'' The Naked Truth," 4.50. Bishop Griswold, on the Apostolic Office: etc., 70, 191, 193, 194, 197, 198. 204 207; 210, 211, 214, 2] 6, 226, 227, 228, 242, 247, 249, 250, 274, 275, 278, 279, 410. Bishop Hick's Treatise on " Episcopal Or- dination," 190. Bishop Ives's Sermon, etc., 225. Bishop Hobart's High Churchman Vindi- cated, 242, 247. Apol. for the Apost Succes., 191, 275, 276. Compan. to the Altar, 228, 238, 239, 278, 279.. Bishop Home's Diocesan (Charge, 190. Bishop Hurd on the Prophecies, 476. Bishop Jewel's Defence of the Apology, 299, 414. Bishop 3IcCoskrey on Episcopal Bishops, the Successors of the Apostles, etc., 70, 133, 134, 185, 186, 191, 197, 198, 214, 215, 216, 223, 224, 225. 226, 227, 266 267, 269, 270, 272, 274, 282, 339, 408. Bishop Mcllvaine's Arg. for the Apostolic Succession, 204,211,212, 213, 217, 219, 220, 243, 248, 262, 2G5, 271, 273, 281, 329, 330, 408, 410. Bishop of Sarum's Vindication, 428. Bishop Smith, of Kentucky, on the Position of Episcopalians, etc., 24. Bishop Taylor's (Jeremy) Vindication of Episcopacy, 97, 204, 207, 242. Bishop White's Memoirs of the Church, 208. Bishop Wilson's Private Thoughts, 190. Calvin's Treatise on the Lord's Supper, 381. Calvin's Institutes, 421. Canon Law, 116. Carey's, Rev. H., Apost. Succession of the Church of England, 339. Catechism Council of Trent, 444. Cans. 2, Qu. 7, c. Beati, 223. Chillingworth's works, 97. Christian Magazine, 198. Churton's, Mr. E., Early English Church, 339, .341, 345, 349, 350, 351. Claude, Def. of the Ref., 422. Clement V., C. Romani, Glos.sa, 223. Cobbett's Legacy to Parsons, 383, 384, 388, 390, 391, 392, 395, 396, 398, 399, 404, 405, 406. Codex Ecclesia Africanne, 163. Coleman's Apostol. and Primitive Church, 164, 396, 397. Cone. Antioch, c. 19, 163. Cone. Trid. Sess., 75, 85, 227, 242, 244, Catechism of, 477. " Confession of Faith," quoted, 42. Convention, the General, of the P. E. Church, 1850, 16. C. Significasti ; Glossa. Bap. de Sumcas, 222. Cox, Rev. S. H., D.D., quoted, 106. Council of Hispana, etc. xxxix. Cyprian, Epist. 68, 41.5, and 5, 6, 5-5, 416, 417 ; Epist. 74, 463 ; Epist. 29, 483. D Decret. de Translat. Epist. C. Quanto, 222. Demosthenes' Oration, 163. Distinct. 12. C. Decretis, 220. Distinct. 21. C. In novo, 220. Distinct. 19. C. Ita Dominus, Nicholas, 220. Distinct. 22. C. In Tantum, 220. Distinct. 21. C. Decretis, Leo, 220. Distinct. 21. Pdagius, 221. Distinct. 40. C. Si papa. Thomas, etc., 221. Distinct. 40. C. Non nos ; etc. Hugo. 221. Distinct. 24. Qu. 1. C. Enim rero. Lucius, 221. Distinct. 21. C Quamvis. Pelagius, 221. Distinct. 14. Lector. Martin, 222.' Distinct. 32. Qu. 7. Quod proposuisti, Gregory, 222. Distinct. 19. C. Si Romanorum, Gab. Biel. Lib. 4., 222. Distinct. 19. Pet de Palude, — 222. Distinct. 19. Imperator, 222. Distinct. 11. Caus. 11, Qu. 3, Si inimicus, Glossa, 223. Distinct. 90. Bulla Donationis, C. Constaa- tine, 223. Distinct. 63. C. Ego. Paschalis, 223. Distinct. 22. C. Sacrosancta. Anacletus, 223. Distinct. 25. Qu. 1. Nulli— Sixt. Decret. C. ad Arbitris. Glossa, 223. Distinct. 22. C. Omnes — Sixt. Decret. Sen- ten, et Rerum C. ad Apostoli, a Glossa, 223. Distinct. 24. Qu. 1. C. Recta.— Xucms, 223. Distinct. 12. C. Non decet. — Calixlus, 223. Distinct. 11. C. Quis. Imwcent, 223 506 Distinct. 22. C. Omnes. Nicholas, 223. Distinct. 22. C. Sacrosancta. Jlnacldus, 223. Distinct. 21. C. Quannvis. Pdagius. 223. Distinct. 21. C. Denique. Nicholas, 223. Distinct. 19. C. Enim Vero. Stephen, 223. D'Aubigne's Ger. Eng. Scot., 487. Doctor Addison Ale.tander's '■, Essays on the Primitive Church Offices,"' 264. Doctor Aydelott's Condition and Prospects of the P. E. Church, 43, 44, 46, 51, 446, 448, 449, 452. Doctor Cave's Gov. of the Ancient Church, 304. Doctor Cave's Lives of the Fathers, 412, 413. Doctor Chapman's Sermons on the Church, 246, 249, 256, 267. Doctor Comber, on Roman Forgeries in Councils, 305. Doctor Cook, M.D., on -the Invalidity of Presbyterian Ordination, 337. Doctor Dickinson's Discourse on the Church of Christ, 4S6. Doctor Duffield, on the Apost. Succession, 199, 263, 282. Doctor Field on Episcopacy, 249, 274. Doctor Hawks'si^ccles. Contributions, 453, 4.')4. Doctor Hook, of Leeds, England, Two Ser- mons on the Church and the Establish- ment, 229, 242, 248, 249, 256, 265, 270. Doctor Hook's " Hear the Church," 430. Doctor Jackson's Guide of Faith, 438, 439. Doctor Mason, John M., Essay on Episco- pacy, 198. 239, 240, 279. Doctor Mora's Exposition of the Seven Churches. 280. Doctor Peck, George, on Methodist Episco- pacy, 26, (note.) Doctor Snodgrass, on the Apost. Succession. 199, 281. Doctor Spanheim's Eccles. Hist, 322, 333, 337. Dr. Stone, on the Church Universal, 34, 270, 273. 274. Dod worth's Lectures on the Apost. Succ, 220, 227. Donovan's English Trans., 475. Douay Version, 68. T)oyle's Catechism, 473. Dreido de Dogmat., etc., 227. Du Pin's Eccles. Hist., quoted, 61, 85, 249, 294, 29.5, 436. Du Pin, on the Apostolical Canons, 250. Du Pin, on the Romish Mutilations, Cor- ruptions, and Forgeries of Ancient Records, etc., 61. Echard's General Eccles. History, 337. End of Controversy, 475. Episcopacy Asserted, by Bishop Jeremy Taylor, 204, 208, 242, 244. Episcopacy Examined, by Chor Episcopi, 229. Episcopal Charge, by the Bishop of Exeter, 207. Epist. 148 — Ad Fortunatianum, Aug. Op., 74. Erasmus's Scholio in Epist., etc., 421. Essays on Episcopacy, (a collection of pa- pers,) 276, 280. Eusebius's Eccles. Hist., 290. 303, 337, 416. Fowler's Catechism, 229. Fox's Acts and Monuments, 357, 358. Fry's Church History, 353. G Garden of the Soul, 475. Gelasius. Caus. 9. Qu. 3, C. Cuncta, 221. Gibbon's Decline and Fall, 342. Gildas, de Excid. Gent. Brittania, 340. Greg. Epistles, 436. Gregory Nazianzen, Athanasia 0pp., 463. Grotius. Annot. on 1 Tim. 3 : 1, 422. Grounds of Catholic Doctrine, quoted, 246. " Guide from the Church of Rome," 85. H Hallam, quoted, 26, 353. Hayne's translation of Melchior Adams' Life of Luther, 419. Hefele, Patrum Apost. Opera, quoted, 73. History of Councils, 199. History of England, by Macaulay, xli. History of the Puritans, 485. Homilies, 97, 162, 433. Hooker's Eccles. Polity, 458. Hopkins, Bishop of "Vermont, quoted, 33, Horas Biblicae, SO, 81. Home's Introduction, 84. Hostiensis, C. Quanto de translat. preb. — Baptist Summa Casnum, 222. Howell's Pontificate, 299. Howell's Canons, etc., 411. I Ignatius ad Phil., 133. Ignatius ad Smyrn., 163. Innocent, Caus. 6, Qu. 3, C. Nemo, 221. Innocent, Elect C. Venerabilem, 221. Innocent. Elect C. Venerabilem, 222. Innocent III. De trans. C. Quanto. Prohem. Clement Glossa, 223. Innocent III. Sac. Unci. C. Qui Venisset, 222. Innocent IV. De Elect. C. Venerabilem, Extravag. de Jurejurando, C. Venien- tis, 222. Innocent IV. Sixt. Dec. de Sentent. Ex. Com. C. Dilecto, 222. 507 Introduction to Lives of Saints canonized, 474, 473. Irenaeus Adv. Haeres, 73, 291, 462. Johnson on Unbloody Sacrifice, 190. Johnson's Vade Mecum, 358, 369, 418. Jones of Nayland's Lectures on the He- brews, 190. Joseph Mede. In Apocalypse, Book III.. etc., 280. Josephus's Antiquities, 461. K Keble's Sermon on Primitive Tradition, quoted, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69. Law's Second Letter to the Bishop of Ban- gor, 190. Letter of John Dobree Dalgairus, Esq., alias Rev. G. Spencer, of Oxford, to the editor of the Univers, 236. Ligori. Practical Confessions, 444. 445. Literary History of the N. T., 110, 273. Loci Communes, 484. M Mason's Vindiciae Ecclesiast. Anglican, etc., 354, 375. M. Flaccius Illyricus, Catalog. Test. Veri- tat., 421. Martin V. Extravag. C. Regimini Univers Eccles., 222. Maurice's Kingdom of Christ, 218.- Melancthon, Loc. Com., 421. Melchior Adams's Life of Amsdorf, 419. Melville's Sermons, 243. Methodist Quarterly Review, 432, 440, 441, 457. Mosheim, Eccles. History, 162, 422. Muratori's Collection, 474. N Nicholas, Caus. 15, Qu. 6, C. Auctorit., 222. Noelli Catech., 484. Norris's Sermon before the Oxford Univer- sity, 400. O Old MS. of Sir H. Spelman, (concilia,) 336. '■ Old Truths and New Errors," quoted, 23. Origen, 415, 475. Palgrave's History of the Anglo-Saxons, 354, 373, 374. Palmer's Treatise on the Church, 228, 432, 440, 44.5, 456. Perceval's Coll. of Papers, 242, 246. Peck, Rev. George, D.D., quoted, 26, 55. Plautina, Life of Stephen VI., 297. Plautina Nauclerus — Polydore Virg., 222. '' Plea for Union," by Rev. S. H. Tyng, D.D., xxxvi xliii, 228, 247. Powell's Apost. Succession, 304, 305, 327. Private letter of the Archbishop of Canter- bury, etc., x.xxvi. " Protestant Churchman," quoted, xxxvi, xxxvii, xxxviii, xliii. xliv, xlv, xlvi, 16, 23, 24, 25, 29, 208, 219, 400, 447, 452, 458, 459. R Rees' Encyclopedia, 348. Reinerius Saccho, 467. Riddle's Eccles. Chronicles, 295. Rights of the Church, 163. Romish Breviary, 342, 474. " Roman Catholic Debate," quoted, 38, 77, 78, 84, 119, 122, 300, 301, 302, 323. Rev. Palmer Dver's Work on Episcopacy, 227. Roman Pontifical, 189. Schleusner, 422. Sewell's Christian Morals, quoted, 71. Sixt. Decret. C. Felicis, Glossa, 222. Spanheim's Eccles. History, quoted, 64. Speech of General Shields, before the Senate of the U. S., xxxv. Spiritual Despotism, by Isaac Taylor, 231. St. Ambrose, De Penitentia, 463 ; Com- ment., 2 Tim. 5 : 1, 484. S. Hieron, in Tit. c. 3, xxxi. xxxiv, in Tit. c. 1, 330. Stratten's Arg. for the Apost. Succession, 157, 259, 262, 203, 266, 268, 301. Suicer, Thesan. Eccles., 422. Sum. Mag. Pars. 3, Antonini, 222. Survey of Church Discipline, quoted by Millar, 485. Synwiaclnis, Caus. 9, Qu. 3, C. Aliorum, 221. Tertullian's Adv. Jud., 340 ; De Baptisma, 415 ; De Praescript., 462, 463. " The Bible True," 84. " The Church of Christ," etc., Rev. R. W. Dickinson, D.D., xxviii. The Church of England and America com- pared, 234. " The Church of England 'Wish," etc., 451. The Presbyterian of Feb. 12, 1842, 480,482. The Primitive Church, etc., by Rev. A. B. Chapin. 270, 321, 323, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 344, 345, 346, 347, 508 348, 349, 351, 3/32, 354, 357, 363, 3G4, :,, 3G5, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 374. 390, •: 391,407, 425, 426, 434 The Witness, Edinburgh, 249. Theophilus Anglicaiius, Woalsworth, xxxi, xxxiv, XXXV. Towers' Illustration of Prophecy, 388. Tracts for the Tinnes, No. 77, quoted, 65. Tracts for the Times, No. 90, 65, 67. Tracts for the Times, No. 1, 207. Tracts for the Times, No. 5, 219. Tracts for the Times. No. 4, 229. Tracts for the Times^ Vol. II., 229. Tracts for the Tiroes, No. 7, 242, 246. Tracts for the Times, No. 5, 243. Tracts for the Times, No. 1, 246. Treatise on Antichrist, 419. Treatise on " The Man of Sin," 353. True Churchmanship Vindicated, etc., xxxvii, xxxviii, xxxix, xlii, 331. Turner's History of the Anglo-Saxons, 354. Two Treatises on the Church, 458. Urban^ Caus. 15, Qu. 6, C. Juratos, 222. Urban II., Caus.' 23, Qu. 3, Excom., 222. Vaughan's Life of Wickliffe, 421. Vitringa, De Synagogue, 422. W Waddington's History of the Church, 464, 466. Waterland on the Trinity, 69. " What is the Church of Christ ?" quoted, 37. Zachary, Caus. 15, Qu. 6, C. Alius, 221, 222 GENERAL INDEX Aaron, Priesthood of, 96. Absolution, Episcopo-Priestly, 225. Act of Conformity, etc., 405. Uniformity, etc., 28. Acts and names, official, 211-213. Aidan, 348, 349. Anglican Reformation. (See on Reforma- tion.) and American P. E. Church on the powers of the priesthood. (See on Prie.sthood, Christian.) Albigenses, 456. Alpheus, James, not Bishop of Jerus, 365, 366. Altar, 491. Amalarius, 327. Andronicus and Junia's, not apostles, 127. Angel, Apocalyptic, 130. The name, 213, 281, 282 The Ephesian, 282. Anglican Reformers, the first, Romanism of, xli, xliii, xliv. Antichrist, 37G-379, 380. Antichristianism, see Appendix A. Anti-prelatists. Advocate and possess a true succession, 263, 264-268, (note) 264, 265. Anti-prelatists. Error of, regarding the theory of prelacy, xxxvi, corrected by Dr. Tyng, ib., present duty of, xlix. Antioch, Council of, on popular election, 163. Apollos, not an apostle, 127. Apostasy, predicted by Paul, 376. (See also Appendix A.) Apostle, the 7iame assumed by the agents of the Church's apostasy, 176. The title used in a double sense, 131. Apostles. The twelve, their vocation, 107 ; signs of, 108; applied, 108-114, 186; their number, twelve only, 124-137 ; their superiority, 108; their apostolical equal- ity, 115-123; their functions not divisible, nor communicable, 139 ; and hence tem porary, 139 ; not bishops, 206. • False, 176. Apostolical Tradition, 62. Canons. 250. Apocrypha, uncanonical, 82. Aries, (see on Augustine) 341. Arrogance, (see on Episcopacy) . " As my Father hath sent me," etc. position of, 187. Angustine, 335, 344, 345, 346, 354, 35.5, 356, 363, 364, 368, 374, Ex 336, 338, 341, 343. 349, 351, 352, 353, 357, 358, 350, 362, 369, 371, 372, 373, 509 B Bancroft, Archbishop, 28. Baptism. Infants, 92 ; limited by Presby- terians, 40; unlimited by the P. E Church, 41; this, a potent engine of proselytism, ib. ; involves the opus oper- atum "dogma of Romanists, 42 ; denied by Low-churchmen, ib. ; fallacy of, from a view of the three theories of, 42-45 ; birth-right, 448. , ,. . , t. Baptismal regeneration, the basis ol iTo- testant Episcopacy, 48 ; office of, 45 ; can a change be effected in 1 45-48. (See on '• Occidentalis," etc.) Barnabas, not an apostle in the strict sense, 131, 273. Barron ius, 291. Barrow, Dr., 206, 207, 211, 216. Barzillai, 254. Becket 222. Bede. ' (See Index to Authorities.) Bellarmine. (See Index to Authorities.) Benedictine Monks, 333, 334, 336, 337. Beveridge, Bishop, 242, 247. Beza. Mr. Gallagher's error in regard to, xviii. True position of Beza, xl, xli. Bible. Protestants have an authentic copy of, 80, §1 ; not dependent on Rome for, 84. • , .. Romanists have neither an authentic copy of, 80, 81 ; nor commentary on, 83. '■ prior to the Church, 78-80. to Low- Birth-right baptism, 44S. " Blasphemous,"' what, accordin churchmen, 23. Bishop. Import of the title, 1-59; how used in the time of Ignatius, 213 ; used interchangeably with that of elder, 125, 159 ; qualifications of, 157. and Presbyter. Their identity and equality, etc., 409-412- further proofs of FiVsi, from the Early lathers, Clemens Romanus, a.d. 70, 412 ; 2d, Ignatius, a.d. 101, 413; 3d, Justin Martyr, a.d. 1^5.5, 413 ■ 4th, Irenaeus, a.d. 184, 414 ; 5th. TertuUian, a.d. 198, 414; 6th, Origen, A.D. 204-2-50, 415; 7th, Cyprian, ad. 248-258. 415 ; 8th, Firmilian, his cotem- porary, 416 ; 9thi Ambrose, a.d. 370, 416 ; 10th, Chrysostom, between 370 and 407,'416; Hth, Jerome, of Rome, a.d. 363' 420. Second, General testimony of the' Christian Church. 1st, African Church, 418; 2d, Greek, ib. ; 3d, West- ern or Roman, ib. ; 4th, Lutheran, ib. ; ! 5th, German Reformed, 419 ; 6th, French. ib • Waldensian, ib. ; 7th, Scotch and Dissenting Churches, 420. Third, of the greatest divines since the Reformation. Wickliffe, 421 ; Erasmus, ib. ; Cranmer, ib • Calvin, ib. ; Beza, Melancthon, ib. : Blo'ndell and Dalleus, ib. ; M. Flaccius Illyricus, ib. j Claude, ib. ; Bochart, 422 ; Grotius, ib. ; Vitringa, ib. ; Mosheim, ib. ;'Suicer, ib. ; Schleusner, ib. ; Arch- bishop Usher, ib. Fourth, of the Angli- can Reformers themselves, backed by royal authority, 423-i:i0; a dilemma, 425 ; Mr. Chapin's att.-.npt to escape therefrom, 425, 426 ; failure of, 426. Boadicea, Queen, 340. Bohemians, 378. Bonner. The king's bishop, 234. Book of Common Prayer on priestly abso- lution, 225. Book of Common Prayer. ProtestatU 1 Churchman opposed to a revision of, xliii, ' xliv (note) . Boundary-line of modern schism, etc. Lau- dcan High-churchism, xlii. Briton, Old. Its relation to Rome at the time of Augustine's mission, a.d. .595, 339 ; subject to the Ca?sars, a.d. 70 ; dis- enthralled, a.d. 410; Christianity early introduced, 340; Bede, Gildas, Churton, ib. ; invaded by the Saxons, a.d. 449 ; Churches destroyed, and the bishops with their flocks, flee, some to France, some to Wales, 341, Churton ; arrival of Augustine, a.d. 395, 341 ; his mission Romish, 341 ; conversion of Etlielbert, Augustine made bishop, settles at Canter- bury, 341-343 ; his authority over the Anglican bishops, 342-345 ; no connec- tion at this time between these and the old British bishops of Wales, Churton and Bede on, 344-351 ; retained their independence of Rome till a.d. 731, 358; identical with the old Cymri, the only protestors against the Romish Augustine, 368, 369, 372, 373; South Britons of Loegria, converted by Augustine, and formed the basis of the Anglo-Saxou Hierarchy, 373-375; the Anglican Church at this period subject to Rome, 371-375. Bucer, xli. Burgess, Bishop, 23, 35, 36. Caius, 290, 303. Calvin, John, 33, 381. (See Appendix B.) Calvinism of the XXXIX Articles, and of the Anglican clergy and Church to the time of Laud, etc , 28 ; repudiated by the so-called Low-church party of the pre- sent day, 29. Caractatus, 340. Cardinal Pole, ejected from the Anglican Succession by Chapin, 338, 339 ; absur- dities of, 35.5-362, 363, 401, 403. Carev, Rev. Arthur, 237. "— Rev. Henry, 3.39. Catalogues. (See on Tabular views of the Succession^, etc.) 510 Cathari, or Puritans. 46/5. Catholic Church. The Holy. (See on Church, the Holy Catholic.) Communion, Bishop Burgess on, 2.1. Tradition, 13C> large folio vols., G5; Book of Common Prayer on. 66. Catholicity. Bishop Burgess on the name, 35 ; prelatical pretense to, fallacious, 20. Celibacy, clerical, 223. Chapin, Rev. A. B., on the Anglican Suc- cession, etc., 28, 270, 306—320 3.33, 344, 351, 358, 368, 332, 339, 350, 357, 366, 334, 345, 352, 359, 369, 335, 346, 353, 362, 370, 321, 336. 347, 354, 363, 373, 322, 323, 337, 338, 348, 349, 355, 356, 364, 365, 374. Childeric, 222. Chillingvvorth, 97. Church, The. Her transit from Judaism to Christianity, 89, 169; reconstruction under Christ and his apostles, 171 : visible and invisible, 91 ; a baptized and united body, 92, 93 ; her unity and peace, the design of this Treatise, xxvii. The, held to be, not a class, but a society, Hill on, 37 ; the Episcopal, claimed to be the parent of all religion. etc., Bishop Burgess on, 36. The, of Philippi, its ministry the model for all time, 166; compared by Paul with Rome, 166, 167. ■ The Holy Catholic. Marks or notes of, 431, applied to I. The Prei.atico-Episcopal theory, Rom- ish and Protestant, 432: disagreement of,ib. First note, Apostolicity, applied to both, 433, 434. Second note. Catholicity, 434 ; applied, 1st, to the Romish Church, 434- 438 ; 2d, to the Anglican Church, 438. Third note, Unity, 440 ; applied 1st, to the Romish Church, 441 ; 2d, to the Anglican and American P. E. Church, 441-443. Fourth note. Sanctity, applied 1st, to the Romish Church, 443-445; 2d, to the Anglican and American Episcopal Church, 445-449. Fifth note. Discipline, applied 1st, to the Romish Church, 449 ; 2d, to the Anglican and American Episcopal Church, 449-454. II. The Anti-prklatical theory, preli- minary. Prelatical incongruities, 4.54 ; true Catholicity deJined, 455 ; the " notes" applied, 1st, Apostolicity, 460-463; 2d, Catholicity, 463-467 ; 3d, Unity, 467, 468 ; 4th, Sanctity, 468; 5th, Discipline, ib. Church, the Roman Catholic. Eprscopacy of, 198; her orders, 199; their alleged - vicarial powers, 199, 189 ; summary of; their alleged aggregate powers, 220-224 ;[ her claim to dispense the Holy Ghost, | 207. The Anglican. Episcopacy of, 197. | Her Orders, ib. Their alleged vicarial pow- 1 ers, 197, 198. Her claim to dispense the Holy Ghost, 207-209. Her Ecclesiastico- political powers, 229. Henry VHI. — Writes against Luther. — Queen Catha- rine.— Created a Lay-Pontiff by acts of Parliament — transmission of, to his suc- cessors, etc., 229-231. Her alleged Independence of the See of Rome, between Augustine's mis- sion to Kent, AD. 595, and Henry VIII. Fallacy of, 342-345. The Anglican bishops and the Old British bishops of Wales not identical, 344-351. (See on, Briton, Old.) Proof of the Romanism of Augustine as "the first Saxon bishop and the first Archbishop of Canterbury," 342-345, and 353, 354. Also of the Anglican Succes- sion from him, 357-362. The Old Bri- tish Church and the Anglo-English dis- tinct, 350, 351. Sophistry of Mr. Chapin on, 351, 352. Further proof of the above, 352. Augustine, 350. Gregory's reply to him, 353. Leo I., ib. Justinian 111., ib. Anglo-Saxons converted by Augus- tine, 354-356. Romish Origin of the present Cathedral of Canterbury, ib. The Pall, 357. Still retained by the Arch- bishops of Canterbury, 358. Distinction between the Old Cymri and the South Britons of Loegria — the former, Protes- tants; the latter, Romanists, 372, 373- 375. Hence the fallacy of the above plea of Anglican Church Independence of Rome, 358, 365-370. Anglican Church remained subject to Rome to the time of Henry VIII., 371-375. Her separation from Rome an act of schism and rapacity, 388-391. Hence, a new Church, 391, 392. Under Edward VI., Protestant principles still subordinate, 393-396. Li- turgy— Romish character of, 396, 397. Use of Coercion, etc., 397-399. Reca- pitulation, 399. Her high Protestant pre- tensionis, 399, 400. But, under 3Iari/, Ro- manism again restored by act of Parlia- ment, 400-403. (See Appendix F.) Another change under Elizabeth by act of the same Parliament, when all again become Protestant, 403. Coercion agam employed, 404-406. Church, Anglican and American, identical, 228. Derivation of the American, from the J^ay-headship of the Anglo-English crown, 232-234, 407. Their united arro- gant claims, 228, 229. Their alleged un- broken succession suspended on four con- ditions, 407, 408. The American Protestant Episco- pal. Her ecclesiastico-political approx- imations to her Anglican ancestor and ally, 234. 235. Unprotestantizing influ- ences at work, 235-238. Difiiculties of reform, 50. Divisions in, 31. Four sects, 21. 511 •— ^^ Presbyterian, in the generic sense, comprehends all Evangelical anti-prc- latical bodies. The marks or notes of, 1st, Apostolicity, 460-103 ; 2d, Catho- licity, 403-167 ; 3d, Unity, 407, 46S ; 4th, Sanctity ; 5lh, Discipline. Analo- gous to the Ephesian, 281. Its Effi- ciency, 325. Of Geneva. (See on Gallagher, Rev. Mason.) Church, Methodist Episcopal, 26, 27. Chrysostom, 162, 416. Churton. Mr. E., 339, 340, 341, 345, 348, 350, 35 1. Claude, Bishop of Turin, 377. Clemens Romanus, 32-3, 412. Circle, the Vicious, 77. Cisternian Abbots, 377. Clergy, the Episcopal, 45. Columba, St., 347, 348, 349. Commission of •' the twelve apostles" — What constitutes, 217. Confessional, the, 223. Controversy, aversion to, 16. The prelati- cal, not a war of words, 18. Consistency, duty of Low Churchmen in regard to, 34. Continental Reformation, (see on Reforma- tion ) Council of Trent, .: 99. On the Church's power to dispense the Holy Ghost, 207. Conventions, Diocesan, of New York, in 1839 and 1843. Aim to un protestantize the Protestant Episcopal Church, 136, 137. Covenant, Abrahamic, 90. Cranmer, Thomas. " The king's Bishop," 234. His character and end, 338, 357, 362. Creaturehood, angelic and human.- — Apos- tasy of, 90. Their integrity to God tested under every dispensation, 173. Creed, Oral, 62. Apostles's, none such, 63, 64. Culdees, who were they ? 347. Cymri, the Old, 372. Cyprian, 213, 224. Cyril, 199. D Deacons. Origin of, 166; their qualifica- tions, 1.57 ; their functions, 106-168. " Defender of the Faith,"' the title assumed by Henry VIH., and continued to his successors, 230,231. Delinquency, moral, alleged not to invali- date the Episcopal succession, 218, 219. Demosthenes, on popular election, 163. Development, the doctrine of, as involved in the prelatical theory of succession, 182. Dilemmas, prelatical, high and low Church, 194, 202, 204, 209, 217, 269, 425, 429, 434, 455. Diocesan Bishops, Timothy, Titus, and the seven apocalyptic angels, not such, 280- 282. Diocesan Episcopacy, 320. Uionysius of Corinth, 290, 303. Distinction, an important, 334. Discretionary form, Liturgical, of the Pro- testant Episcopal Church, (see on Holy Ghost.) Divine rij;ht of Kings, (see on Henry VHL) Dodwell,'Dr., 227. Donatists, 466. Documents, traditionary, to be authorita- tive, must be infallible, 266, 207. "Declaration, a, made of the functions and Divine Institution of bishops and priests, an original," etc., by the first English Reformers, 423. " a, of the Christian doctrine for necessary erudition of a Christian man," 424. Dual Orders of the Church. — Presbyter- ter-bishops and Deacons, 159, 166. E Ecclesiastico-political character of the An- glo-English Hierarchy, 229. Tendency of the American Protestant Episcopal Church to approximate to, 234. Echard, Lawrence, 337. Elder. Import of, as a title, 159. Elder and Bishop. Their titles inter- changeable, 125, 159, 166. Elders. Those appointed by Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14 : 21-23), neither an ordination or a consecration, 163; a plu- rality of, in each Church, 159; Pastoral and Ruling, 138; a distinction in their respective functions, 159, 100 ; consist- ency of, 106. Elders (teaching, preaching and pastoral), with Ruling Eiders and Deacons, the Dual Orders which form the boundary- line that separates the extraordinary and temporary, from the ordinary and permanent, ministers of the Church, 156, (see Appendix C.) Eleven Arguments, in proof of the fallacy of the Romish dogma of succession, 284- 302, (see on Succession.) Emperor. Of Rome, displaced by the Bishop of, 340. England, placed under interdict, 222. English Church. Summary of her original principles, etc., xxvii, 28. Epaphroditus, not an apostle in the strict sense, 132— but an evangelist, 152. Ephesian Presbytery, not a college of pre- latical bishops, etc., 274-276. Epiphanias, 290. Episcopacy, alias Prelacy. The Romish Church on, 227 ; Protestant prelatists on, 227 ; no " via media" between it and Parity, 34 ; prelatists ignorant of their own system, 1S8; discordant views of, 214-219 ; must be exhibited as it is, 188 : fallacy of its claim to Catholicity and 512 Unity, 20, 258, 259, 434-43S, 4-10-443 ; essential neither to the existence nor per- fection of the Church, 31, 32 ; the sys- tem examined, as founded in expedi- ency ; its primitive origin, see Part III., Chapter VI., of this Treatise. Its Angli- can, xxxviii-xlv. 26. Declared immacula- cy of, 224. Infallible, 224, 225. Ubiquity of, 224. Its exclusiveness, arrogance, etc., 227-229. Alleged powers of, spiritual and ecclesiastico-political, 229-231. Alleged miraculous powers of, 217. Low- Churchmen in a dilemma on, 202. Their system of, the only prop of support to, 21. 23, ISS. An alternative left to, 335 This Treatise a warning against, 16. Episcopalians, boast of their success in the work of prosclytism, 39. Episcopate, criterion of, alleged to be, not names, but acts, 210, 211. Fallacy of, 211- 213. Episcopo-Presbyterians,or the tables turned, 271.^ Equality, or parity, of the N. T. Ministr}^, 161. Error and Heresy. Insidious and dangerous nature of, 22. Eusebius, 290, 303, 337. Evangelists. The office of Varied, 152. Their functions, 152. Evangelical. The really such, excommu- nicated by the Low Church Sect, 50. " Evangelical Knowledge Society of the P. E. Church." Their repudiation of Cal- vinism, 30. Extraordinary and ordinary powers apos- tolic, severed by prelatists, 203. Who claim the latter only, 204. Fallacy of, 205,206, and 217-219. Expediency, Episcopacy as founded on. Differs from Prelacy, jure divino, 324. Based on the plea of necessity, ib. Re- cognized ministerial parity, ib. Jerome on, 324, 325. An innovation on the N. T. and early post-apostolic ministry, Je- rome on, 325, 326. Originated the distinc- tion in ministerial titles — Amalarius,The- odoret, Bingham on. 327. Formed the germ of the Papacy, 327, 328. Bp. M'- Ilvaine's denial of primitive parity — An- swer— Jerome, Bingham — Diocesan Epis- copacy— Archbp. Whately on, 328-330. Bp. M'llvaine's alleged non-existence of Parity till the fifteenth century, 330. Answer — Proof of its prevalence in N.T. and early primitive times — adopted by the first Anglican Reformers, 330, 331. An alternative to Low- Churchmen, 331, 332. The points at issue i* this work not based on this theory, 15. Exclusive. Proof that Low-Church Pre- lacy is, 33, 35 — (See on Episcopacy alias Prelacy.) Express command. Evidence of an, for the baptism of children, 93, 94. Fathers, the early, unanimous consent, etc 85, 86. Fletcher, Col. Benj., 234. Frederick, the Emperor, 222. Fulke, Dr., 280. G Gallagher, Rev. Mason, on " True Church- manship." etc., in five particulars, xxxvii. Endorsed by the Prot. Church- man, ib. His unfounded aspersion of "the Presbyterian Church of Geneva," xxxviii. — His self-contradiction, xxxi.x. " Public acts" referred to by, ib. His theory of Low - Churchism without a foundation, xi. Gallia Christiana, 334, 336. Genealogy, etc. (See on Succession.) Gibbon. 342. Gilda.s, 341. Gregory the Great. Resolves to make Ro7ne the center of a Universal Spiritual Kingdom, 341, 342. The Saxons, 342. Sends Augustine to convert, 342. Who lands at Kent, on the Island of Thanet, England, 343. Its metropolis, Canter- bury, 344. Denounces John, Patriarch of Constantinople, 342, 352. Gross impostors. Bp. McCoskrey on, 185, 227. H Hallam, Origin of High and Low Church, 26. " Headship of Christ," alleged to be trans- ferred to " the twelve" and their succes- sors, 214-216. Attempted evasion of, 216. Fallacy of, 217. '• Hear the Church." In what sense, 56. Hebaiah, 254. Helps, Governments, etc., 154, 155. Henry II., 222. IV., ib. v., ib. Henry VIII. ascends the British throne, a.d, 1509, 230. England now subject to Rome, 332. Throws off the Papal yoke, ib. Assumes supreme lay-headship in Church and State, ib. An act of schism against the See of Rome, compare pp. 221-223, with 371-375. Based on the alleged Divine right of Kings, 382, 383. Fallacy of, 383-387. Identical with the popedom of Rome, and hence, antichristian, 387. Heresy and schism, xxx-xxxv, 22. Holy Ghost. The apostles only, could dis- pense it, 113, 114, 145, 146-148. Simon Magus's attempt to purchase the pov/er to bestow, 182. The power to bestow, never transferred by the apostles to others, 207. Yet claimed by Prelatists of all grades, to 513 be conferred in the act of consecration and ordination, 191, 207-200, 217, 211-245. Prelatical dilemma — attempted evasion of. by the use of the di.scrutionary form, 20S. Fallacy of, ib. Proof, that the Anglican Church borrowed the practice from Rome, 215. High Priesthood. (Se^; on Priesthood, Christian.) Hobart, Bp. compared with himself, on the article of charity, etc., 2;iS, 239. and Dr. J.M. Mason, on the words A.-, and Mer', 27C-278. Hooker, 213. Homilies. Book of, 97. H ughes, Cardinal Archbishop of New York, 3(33. Hugo, 222. Huss. 378. Hussites, ib. I John Calvin, (Sec Appendix B.) Johnson, on Unbloody Siurifi.t", 1.'9. JOAN, Pope, a woman, lO'Hli in Gavin's line, 1 13. (See also pp. 313, 322, and Ap- pendix E.) John, Patriarch of Constaulinople. 312. Judaico-Christianized Prieslliood. opposed to the religion ot faitli, 109. I Justification by Faith, 91, HM. 'Justin Martyr, 7'1, 413. j Justinian III., 353. K Keys, the Exposition of, 117. 119. 120. Kings, alleged divine right of. 3\l. Fallacy of, 384-387. Koz, 254. Kyle, VI., 22. Ignatius, 163, 213. 224, 413. Image Worship, 223. Impostors, gross. Anti-Prelatists alleged to be such, 216, 227, 250, 266. Independence, alleged, of the Anglican Church, etc. (,See on Church, Anglican.) Inductive, the plan of argumentation of this work, 89 Infallible, the Twelve Apostles were, 110. _, Ground of, as a Traditionary Stand- ard, 58. Infallibility, Romish, 8 1 , 82. Infants. Their right to Church member- ship by baptism, 92. Inquisition, 223. Inspiration, the twelve apostles endowed with, 109. ' Interchangeable use of the titles Presbyter and Bishop, 159, 274, 27-5, 409. Interpretation, Private — Protestant defense of, 75-77. Interpreters of Scripture, not infallible, 57, 74. Irenffius, 73, 290, 291, 303, 364. Irenicum, Stillingtleet's, 280. Irvingites, 217. Itineracy, the lunctions of limothy and li- tus an, 152. Ives, Bishop of North Carolina, 225. James, the apostle, has superior claims ofi primacy over the See of Rome to those of| Peter, 286. Was not Bishop of Jerasa-i lem, 365, 306. (Note.) 1 Jerome, 324, 32-5, 329, 330. Jesuitism of Protestant Episcopacy, 199. John, the apostle, has superior claims to pri- macy over the See of Rome to tho- j of Peter, 287. This apostle, on the hypo- thesis of suceessionists. inferior to Linus, 301. Did not ordain Polycarp, 336-3.38. Laity, of the Episcopal ChuTch, 46. Lay-baptism, the validity of, denied by Dr Tyng, 36. " Laying on of hands," distinction between, in bestowing spiritual gitts, and ordaining to office, 145, 146, 149-151. Laud, Archbishop, the father of exclusive High-Churchism, xli, 28. Legislation, Miscellaneous Church — Defects of, 164, 165. Leo I., 353. Leonites, 467. Leyden Jar, alias the virus of Episcopal Consecration, 250. Limitation, the principle of, in baptism de- fended, 40. 41. LlandaflT and iMcneva. Archbishoprics of,. 305-308. "Lo, I am with you always," etc., exposi^ tion of, 76, 180. Lord's Supper, the bond of union to the visi- ble Church,' 94. Lot, the, its use in the case of Matthias, 13.5, 137, 272. Low-Churchism, the writer not hostile to the /»•«" theory of. xlviii. (See on Gal- I lagher, Rev. Mason.) Presbyterian-^ ! mistaken as to its true character, 20. i Proof of its departure from the original platform of the Anglican Church under I Edward YI., xxx, 29, .331. Its desi-n. 24, 32, 39. DiffereiH-e between the pre- sent, and that of the Reformed Anglican Church, xliii. Low Churchmen charged with inconsistency. 2(1!. Imongruity ot their theory of prelacy, with their deniiil of being exclusive, •.i< Low Churchmen and Dr. Tyng at variance, xxxvi, xxxviii. Fallacy of Mr. Gallagher's theory of, xi. (See on Gallagher. Rev. Mason.) P.. practical workiunsa proof of its Romaii- izin" tendencies.^21.31. Concession ui. 514 xHv. Proof, that it forms themoi:t pow- comitant of the Vi.-ible Church State, 89. eriul agent in promotinif the Romish de- Di\ ersities of, I OS. hision, ',iQ, 'J.'JS. Affirms that '■//«: I. Orisrin of. Appointments to, 1st. by Chiin-h"' has power to confer the Holy Christ himselt, 1)8; iJil, by the Holy Ghost, SOS. Spirit of inquiry among, xliv (ihost. f>y ; 3il, by the Apostles. 99 ; 4!h, -xlvi. A Dilemma, xlvi, xlvii. An by the Apostles with others. 99 ; -Oth, by Alternative, xlvii, xlviii. : oihers williont ihe Aposlirs, 09: 6tli, I.iiidhard, Bishop of, accompanies Beriha, Uncertain, 99-101 ; 7lh, by Special Provi the Queen of Ethclbert, to Kent, in F.n- dence, lOJ. gland. The only Bishop there, on the ar- II. Xature of, 102. 1st, ^Toral fitness, 102: rival of Au;;u£iine, a.u. 595, and he, a 2d, a divine call, 103; 3d. Intelleclual tit- Romanist, 3A(). I ness, 10"}; 4th, Sound doctrine. 103 ; Sth, Luther, 379. Henry VII I. writes against,] Fraternal, 103; 6ih, Spiritual and holy, 230. j 104; 7th, the unfaithful and unsound to be avoided. 104. M jIII. Their Orders o/— number of, 10-5. Classilitd. 1st, by their titles, 105-107 ; llan. Change of his moral relation to God' 2d, by their titles and functions, 107, 108, under the Christian economy, 1C8-170. | 109. " Man of Sin,'" 376. IV. Powers or Fmiclions of. The extra- Mason, Dr.. and Bishop Hobart, on the; ordinary and temporary, as distinguished Greek words Ai'j and AIet', 27G-27S. ■ from the ordinary and permanent, 138. Mason, Archdeacon, 3-54. i 3Iode of designation thereto, 157. JMaiirice. Alleges the continuance of mira- V. Both ditler trom the Jewish, 95 (see on culoiis powers alt he hands of modern pre-' Priesthood, Christian) . Divine appoint- ialical bishops. 2 J 7. His ditficulties, ib. ment of, 171. Eminently simple and Relieved by the Tractarians, Bishop ^I'- fraternal, 172. lis admirable arrange- llvaine, Melville, 217-219. ments, 172. Its adequacy, 172. Pro- ^rCoskre}', Bishop of Michigan, on the In- motive of union. 173. lallibilily of Bishops, as the successors of VI. Those whom Timolhy and Titus were the apostles, 69. coinmissioned to appoint, were to consti- M' 11 vaine. Bishop. On the discretionary tute the ordinary and permanent ministry form in the ordering of Bishops, etc., 208. i of, 1.5S-168. See also 15G-1.)S. Usurp- Examined, 209. See also the following: ers of, how known, 173. 204, 207, 20S. 211, 212. 213, 217, 226, VII. Its ;>e/r«-stort, through an innate love 227. 242, 213^ 247, 249, 252. 256, 274J: o{ " tlie prc-eTiiinntre,'' 96, 174, 175. To 2S1, 293, 328, .329, 330! ' ' 'j be the center-point of a further trial of ]\!atthias. The first alleged link in the pre- j the Church's integrity — Pauline predic- latical succession, 271, 272. Proof that he tion of, 175. Scriptural account of its was not the successor of Judas Is>?ariot, origin, xxxviii-xliv. Mode of its mani- 133-137. Objections answered — 1st. It' festation. 176. Success of. in Paul's time, invalidates the inspired narrative, 133,j 1-76. Gradually developed, 177. Its 134. 2d. Peter could not have erred, fruit, the Papacy, 177. That power de- 134. 3d. His election decided by lot, scribed, 177. 135. 4lh. The number twelve is applied of the Church, whether of the cs- to the apostles between said appointment scnre or of the order of. 33. and the vocation of Paul, 135. Direct ar- Dual Orders of. Presbyter-bishops gnments — Is*. Peter's act premature, 135. and Deacons, 159. [Jnauthorized, 136. Not sanctioned by the VII 1. Mi acufni'S ■ povrers. The twelve prediction, Ps. 109 : 8, 136. Not dictated Apostles endowed with, 110. Gradually by the Holy Ghost, 136. The apostles developed, 110-114. Inherent in. ar.d a themselves claimed no right to (ill said component part of, their functioi.s as a vacancy, 130- Conclusion, 137. (See on' whole, 201-206. To be dislinguished Paul, the successor of Judas.) See also from the other Orders of the N. T. min- pp. 181, fi*25, 262. >''5ry, 205. Prelatical distinction of, 204. Mede, Joseph, 280. Fallacious, 20-5. Alleged by 3Iaurice to -Meiliatorship, Episcopo-priestly. 226. be continued in the church to this day, iMelchTscdec, 106, 215, 220, 201, 223, 257, 217. 27-'). ?*Iithridates, a comparison, 15. ."Melville, Rev. .Mr., 209, 210. Monasticism, 223. Meneva anJ Llandaff, Archbishoprics of. More, Dr., 2S0. Chapin on, 365-368. j N Methodist Episcopacy. 26. 27. .Milicz, John, of Prague. 378. Name. That of " Apostle" as given to the Ministry, the New" Testament. A con- twelve, never transferred to others, 515 Names and Acts. (Sec on Acts and Names) How applied to the N. T. ministry, 107. Both necessarv to determine official powers, 21 1--J 13. \ '' No man taketh this honor,'' etc. E-v- position of, 187. Novaiiaiis, AGo. "Nuila Ecctesia Sine Ejnucopo,''' the basis of the dogma of an unoroken Apostolical Succession, 32, 1S4, 210, 218, 228, 431, - 442, 4J9. ° 1 Oblation. 192. . ' Occidentaiis and Bp. Meade on baptismal regeneration. 446. i- Office. Known only by names and acts, 211-213.217. I Office-bearers, mode of their appointment, 162. I Official functions of Timothy and of the Ephesiau Presbytery, not identical, 151- 153. j Onderdonk. Bp H. U.. etc., 213 | Opus Opcraliim, 32, 42, 43, 44, 45, 202. I Oral Creed, 62. | Orders, of the N. T. ministry. Reduced, scale of the aggregate appointments, 13S.| The ordinary and permanent orders re-; duced to two only — Presbyter- bishojisl and Deacons, 156-1 58, 158-168. Proof, i that the N. T. Orders of Apostles, J Prophets, Evangelists, and Pastors 01^ Teachers, as originally constituted, were, one and all extraordinary and temporary,; 13S-141. I Ordinary powers, of the Christian ministry (see on Miraculous Powers, etc.) . j OrdinatioS-, or "Laying on of hands," j Two extremes regarding it, 142; A cere- monial action— Delined, ib. ; Unlike other! Rites, it has been continued under every. Dispensation, ib. ; Its u.se, I. During the Patriarchal Age, 143; II. The Jewish; do.,ib. ; III. Tne Christian do., 144 ; Wasj among the tii-st. and was the last, ofj Cheists official Acts, 144: Continued in heaven, ib. Its use during the Apos-I tolical Age. The Apostles employed it! on various occasions — Isl. In healing the Sick, 145: 2d. In bestowing Spiritual; Gilts, ib.; bd In setting apart a person to; some work or office, special or ordinary, 145,140, Must distinguish between the conferment of spiritual gifts, and that of betting apart to any work or office, 146; The lormer act e.vdu&ively the work of the Apostles, 140, 147 ; Others besides tbe .Apostles ordained, etc., 147, 14S; Dis- tinction between setting apart to a specii-1 work and an ordinary office — the former, temporary. lhe\AUer. permanent, 148; Ex- amples — (1 ) The Seven Deacons, by the Ki)oslles, 14S. (2.) Saul and Barnabas, by the Prophets and Teachers of Antioove acts were not identical, and that Paul was not connected with tlie latter, 149, 151; " Laying on ol hands" a Standing Rule, 15S. Prool, thai the wonders performed by Cniiisr under this Act. proceeded from no inJicrint i-irtiic of his human hand, 145; Proof, that the jlpo^Ues dis- claimed, most enipiialically. l/ic jiot^^ession of any inheroU virtue in iheir manual im- posiliotis, 14;j — Prelatical and Anti-Prelatical Theories of, compared, 244; Proof, that all orders of Prelatical theorists claim an inherent power in the EPISCOP.VIE •' o/" iru'tH^y the Holy Ghost ih the collation of Holy Orders.' as absolutely indis(>eiisdblc to a valid ministry — Romanitts, Bc>ok of Common Pray:jr, Dr. Hook, and Bps. Jer. Taylor, Beveridge, Hobart, Gris- wold, M'llvaine, etc ,' on. 191, 207- 209, 217, 241-245— Proof, that the Prol. Episc. theory of, is derived (rom the Church of Rome, 245. Conditions of a Valid Ordination or Consecration — Three Canons on, — requiring Episco}«l Baptism. Ordination as Deacons and Piicsts. and THREE CONSECRATORS~Dr Field, Bingham, etc., on, 245-250. 272. 27-'!, 277, 295, 302. On this last, ProleUant Pre- latists are more tenacious tLan Roman- ists themselves — absurdity^ of, 250. The Holy Ghost claimed to bo imparteiles," no authority in the New Te.*tament lor, 133-137. Timothy, designated to his office by pro- phecy. 151 ; circumcised, 119,151; but not ordained by Paul, 145. 146. 1 19. 150; nor coiLsecrated by a college of bishops in the prelatical sense, 274-276: his of- ficial functions and those of Ephesian Presbytery lut identiial, 151 ; never called an Apostle, 129; his functions and those of Titus, show them to have been itinerating evangelists, 152-154 ; their office, as such, not perp^'tual. 154. Timothy and Titus. The ministerial ordcm t he appointed by them, ].')S-16.S. Title.s, Elders, Presbyters, and 1 riests, not identical. 275, 276. Titus not an Apostle, 129 ; but an Evange- list. 15-2. 520 Tractafors, '229. Tkadition, written and unwritten, 6fi. If authoritative, must be ituhpendcnt ot Scripture, .OS, 59 ; must be supported by miracle, .VJ ; the Romish, Traclarian, Book of Common Prayer, and High and Low-Church theories of, essentially iden- tical, () 5-70, 2-i:i, 225 ; the basis of, 57- 59; alleged apostolical, what' o2 ; al- leged Catholic or Ecclesiastical, what? 65; alleged infallibility of, 08,09; Scrip- ture and Tradition, the alleged joint rule of faith, 65; passages quoted in support of, examined. 02, 63, 74, 76, 79 ; involves the hypothesis of development, 69; im- plicit faith in, demanded, 69 ; dangerous consequences of, 87 ; oral tradition, un- certainty of. 80. The Rule of Vincent of Lirens ex amined — " Quod ttbi(/uc, quod semper.