* 
 
 O miNCETON, N. J. ^h 
 
 Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 BV 600 .A5 T46 1851 
 Thompson, Matthew La Rue 
 Perrine, b. 1809. 
 The church, its ministry and 
 
CyUrt .£,/- 
 
 
THE CHURCH, i' 
 
 MINISTEY AND WORSHIP; 
 
 A REPLY 
 
 TO THE RECENT WORK OF REV. MONTGOMERY SCHUYLER, A. M., 
 ON THE SAME SUBJECT. 
 
 BY M. LA RUE P.^THOMPSO^, 
 
 PASTOR OF THE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF BUFFALO, N. Y. 
 
 He that is finst in his own cause seemeth jiiRt; but his neighbor coineth and 
 searcheth him. — Prov. viii : 17. 
 
 BUFFALO 
 
 T. AND M. BUTLER, PUBLISHERS^ 
 
 No. 159 Main Street. 
 
 1851 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1851, by 
 
 T. & M. BUTLER, 
 
 In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Northern 
 
 District of New York. 
 
 STEAM PRESS OF JEWETT, THOMAS & CO. 
 COMMERCIAL ADVERTISER OFFICE, 
 BUFFALO, N. Y. 
 
To the members of the several Presbyterian chm-ches and 
 congregations in the city of Buffalo, and to all others who love 
 the primitive and apostolic simplicity of Christian order and 
 worship, the following pages are respectfully dedicated by 
 
 Their sincere friend, 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 Buffalo, May, 1851. 
 

 riii JCEITOIT 
 
 riECJUN 188 
 
 TIIEOLOGICi^ 
 
 
 THE CHURCH, 
 
 MINISTEY AND WORSHIP 
 
 The general character and design of this vokime may be 
 understood from the title page. It is necessary only to remark, 
 that by "the church" is not meant the Episcopal church, 
 nor the Presbyterian church, nor any church of a sect, but 
 the church of Christ. The term is used in its general and 
 catholic sense. 
 
 It has been the author's aim, in opposition to the erroneous 
 statements and incorrect reasonings of the book which he 
 reviews, to present and defend the true scripture doctrine con- 
 cerning " the church, its ministry and worship." He trusts that 
 nothing will be found upon his pages unbecoming the serious 
 and important theme which he has in hand. Toward the gen- 
 tleman who occupies the position of an opponent, he entertains 
 no other feelings than those of kindness, and would deeply 
 regret the cause, whatever it might be, that should serve to inter- 
 rupt the pleasant neighborly intercourse with him, which he 
 has hitherto enjoyed. He can truly say that no offense was 
 taken at the freedom of that gentleman's strictures on his ser- 
 mon, and he feels confident that none will be given by the 
 exercise of a similar freedom in return. 
 
 Some apology is due for the size of this book. Nothing of 
 the kind was intended by the author when he began to write. 
 
6 THE CHURCH, 
 
 The two most common excuses for all wrong doing may be 
 most truthfully urged by him. He did n't mean it, and could n't 
 help it. It can easily be understood how an error may be stated 
 in few words, which will require pages to be written for its 
 adequate refutation. Besides, to make a small book on a great 
 theme, demands an amount of leisure, which, those who are 
 familiar with the author's circumstances, well know he could 
 not command. 
 
 He offers his work to the public with diffidence, as the result 
 of hurried labor, under the pressure of many more important 
 duties, persuaded, nevertheless, that it will be found not wholly 
 unworthy of that careful perusal which he bespeaks for it. 
 
 It is proper to add, by way of explanation to those who 
 looked for the appearance of this volume at an earlier date, that 
 it was substantially written, and ready for the press, eight months 
 ago ; and would have been issued at that time but for the infirm 
 state of the author's health, which interrupted all his labors, and 
 for a large portion of the winter rendered it necessary for him 
 to seek recovery at a distance from his city and home. 
 
 AN UNJUST ACCUSATION. 
 
 Mr. Schuyler says, in his preface, that the lectures of which 
 his book is mainly composed, were called forth by my sermon 
 on the office of a bishop, " in which a most reckless attack was 
 made upon Episcopacy, with an abundance of bold assertions, 
 advanced with all the confidence of argument." In regard to 
 what is intimated in the latter part of this sentence, it is sup- 
 posed that the readers of the sermon are fully capable of form- 
 ing their own opinions. But I am charged with having made 
 "a most reckless attack upon Episcopacy." It seems to be 
 imphed by this, that the controversial aspect of my sermon was 
 unprovoked. An uninformed person would surely imagine 
 from the manner in which the charge is brought, that in the 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 7 
 
 midst of profound peace, witli nothing- going before to justify 
 me, I had suddenly broken forth in a violent assault upon the 
 Episcopal church. Was it really so ? Did my accuser quite 
 forget the book on " The Three Reformations," edited by the 
 Reverend Dr. Shelton, and published just previous to the de- 
 livery of my sermon, with a preface full of the worst kind of 
 Episcopal assumptions, and the most insulting insinuations 
 against all other bodies of professing christians ? 
 
 I have no fondness for controverey ; and never, I trust, shall 
 be found recklessly provoking it. I challenge all who know 
 me, to say if I am disposed to be quarrelsome. Nothing would 
 be so grateful to my feelings, as to be in actual and visible 
 fraternal concord with all good men. My soul longs for the 
 establishment of a true and loving brotherhood among all 
 those who, under different sectional names, profess the common 
 faith and common hope of the Gospel ; and in all the glorious 
 future revealed in the promises of God to his people, my eye 
 sees nothing that more affects and delights my heart 'No 
 prayer do I offer more fervently, than for the speedy coming of 
 that day, which is destined to witness, not the abolition of sects, 
 but of sectarian jealousies and strifes, and the honest, warai- 
 hearted, whole-hearted co-operation of all Christ's friends in 
 extending and establishing his kingdom. 
 
 "A most reckless attack upon Episcopacy!" Look at it. 
 Here is a sect styHng itself " the church,''^ arrogating all the 
 rights and prerogatives of the church of God on earth, with 
 the exception of that degree of participation vdth itself to 
 which it admits the Romish and Greek churches, denouncing 
 all besides as heretics and schism^atics, without church, minis- 
 try, or sacraments ; teaching this in its formularies, and proclaim- 
 ing it ceaselessly from its pulpits and its presses ; and when a 
 word is spoken by one of another sect against such assumptions, 
 it is " a most reckless attack upon Episcopacy ! " 
 
 A Presbyterian minister, at a Presbyterian ordination, in a 
 Presbyterian pulpit^ to a Presbyterian congregation, preaches a 
 
8 THE CHURCH, 
 
 sermon to sliow the true scriptural character of a Presbyterian 
 bishop, and lo ! it is "a most reckless attack upon Episcopacy !" 
 
 That sermon is printed, and the occasion is taken for review- 
 ing, in an appendix, a recent Episcopal pubhcation, in which 
 are exhibited all the conceit and arrogations of " the church^'' 
 so called, a publication edited and prefaced by his next door 
 Episcopal neighbor, and, horror of horrors I innocence is at the 
 stake again; it is "a most reckless attack upon Episcopacy!" 
 
 Will my friend gain sympathy for himself or for his cause, 
 by such an attempt to fasten an odious charge on me ? It 
 ill becomes our brethren of that denomination, in any circum- 
 stances, to talk of being attacked. In the present instance 
 the charge is especially unfortunate. 
 
 SOMETHING AMUSING. 
 
 It is amusing to observe the wondrous air of meekness, and 
 of inoffensive, child-like amiabihty, asvsumed by our Episcopal 
 friends, and the appearance of deep surprise which they occa- 
 sionally exhibit, that any one should feel himself injured or 
 aggrieved by what they say and do. See a beautiful example 
 of this at the opening of our author's introductory discourse, 
 on the seventh page. 
 
 " Surrounded as we are at the present day, with such a 
 variety of contending sects, all claiming to form part of Christ's 
 body, which is his church, and differing, as we know we do 
 from them, in many important particulars, it becomes us to see 
 to it that toe are built upon ' the foundation of the prophets 
 and apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner 
 stone.' As to the nature or validity of the claims which 
 others may present for such a foundation, we do not design to 
 speak ; ' to their own master they stand or fall.' We have not 
 undertaken this subject in a spirit of conti'oversy, and, in 
 dependence on divine grace, have determined, while we shall 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 9 
 
 fearlessly advocate wliat we hold to be divine truth, to say 
 nothing which, rightly understood and received, can give just 
 cause of offense to those who differ from us. At the same time, 
 I would take this occasion to remark, that I shall not hold 
 myself responsible for inferences, which others may be pleased 
 draw from the positions I shall attempt to establish." 
 
 " As to the nature and validity of the claims which others 
 may present for such a foundation we do not design to 
 spealcV Oh no, not a word ; but we intend to show that every 
 inch and hair's-breadth of that foundation is fully occupied by 
 ourselves ! We intend to make such an exhibition of our own 
 exclusive possession of that ground, as shall convince all who 
 attend to us, that whatever claims others may present to be 
 upon it, their feet are really dangling in the air ! We have 
 determined to say nothing disrespectful of them, or of their 
 pretensions. If they think they have a right to call themselves 
 churches of Christ, and their ministers, ministers of Christ, and 
 their sacraments, ordinances of Christ, we shall not say that 
 they are deceived, nor shall we say that they are impostors for 
 claiming such things before the world ; we shall barely show, in 
 the exercise of all christian kindness, that our church is the 
 only true church of Christ that there is in the world, and its 
 ministry the only ministry, and its sacraments the only sacra- 
 ments; and " WE SHALL not hold ourselves accountable 
 
 FOR THE INFERENCES WHICH OTHERS MAY BE PLEASED TO 
 
 DRAW 
 
 I!! " 
 
 " We have not undertaken this subject," says our author, " in 
 a spirit of controversy, and, in dependence on divine grace, 
 have determined to say nothing, which rightly understood and 
 received, can give just cause of offense to those who differ 
 from us." It is to be regretted that he did not tell us, how we 
 are to understand and receive these exclusive assumptions of 
 his church, so as not to find in them just cause of offense. 
 
 We are not offended with our Episcopal friends for differing 
 from us. We are not offended with them for being Episcopalians. 
 
10 THE CHURCH. 
 
 If it suits them, they may be in all respects precisely what 
 they are, abating the miserable folly and impertinence of 
 those pretensions, by which they seek to injure and degrade 
 others, and w^e will engage that their tender sensibilities shall 
 never be wounded again by " a reckless attack " from us. Let 
 them adopt the moderate views so ably stated and defended by 
 arclil)ishop Whately, in his " Kingdom of Christ " — let them 
 come down from their high stilts, and consent to tread the 
 common earth with their brethren, and we pledge ourselves 
 that they shall never be molested. We will say to them as 
 Abram said to Lot, "Let there be no strife I pray thee, 
 between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy 
 herdsmen, for we be brethren. Is not the whole land before 
 thee ? Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me ; if thou wilt 
 take the left hand, then I will go to the right ; or if thou depart 
 to the right hand, then I will go to the left." We will not 
 consent to be trod upon, nor to yield to them exclusive posses- 
 sion of God's footstool. So long as they attempt the former, 
 or claim the latter, we shall feel constrained to show them that 
 the attempt is disagreeable to us, and the claim fanatical and 
 foolish. Their innocence of any design to give offense will not 
 protect them. When we feel the sharp ends of their stilts 
 trampling us, or their elbows jostling us, we shall certainly 
 begin to draiv inferences unfavorable to the kindness of their 
 intentions, whethei- they say any thing or not ; and if they do 
 not " hold themselves accountable for the inferences which we 
 draw^'' we, at least, shall hold them so. They may rely upon 
 it, such treatment will not be so " understood and received,^^ as 
 not to be construed into ^^just cause of offense." 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 11 
 
 THE CHURCH — ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 
 
 This is the title upon the back of Mr. Schuyler's book, which, 
 when we examine farther, we find to be equivalent in his mind, 
 with the Protestant Episcopal church, its ministry and wor- 
 ship. Such is the doctrine. The Protestant Episcopal church 
 is THE CHURCH, at least, so far as all protestantdom is concerned. 
 
 Now the question arises, whether, in this, "just cause of 
 offense " is afforded to other protestant christians. Suppose 
 that a small body of citizens among us, associated for political 
 purposes, should put forth, in a book entitled " The State, its 
 OflScers and Institutions," a labored argument to show that theij 
 are the state, that they alone have the constitutional right to 
 rule in the state, and to administer its institutions. My mind 
 may be singularly obtuse, but it does seem to me, that other 
 citizens would find it extremely difficult to avoid drawing the 
 inference that something very like an assault was intended 
 upon certain rights and privileges of their own. I can not but 
 think, if the general exj^ression assumed any other form than 
 that of simple derision, that we should hear loud and earnest 
 voices of protestation ; nor should I be surprised, if some very 
 severe things w^ere said about the presumption and arrogance 
 of the men who were found setting uj) these haughty and 
 supercilious claims. 
 
 Such is precisely the attitude which our Episcopal friends 
 are taking in the midst of us, and for this, and this only, we 
 complain of them. We claim to have the same interest in the 
 churchy and the same rights in it, with themselves, and it 
 would be the merest pusillanimity in us, to sit still and allow 
 them to propagate their doctrine without impediment. 
 
 Let it not be said, when we oppose these exscinding and 
 arrogant pretensions of Episcopalians, that we are opposing the 
 Episcopal church. Let the Episcopal church five and flour- 
 ish. Our prayer to God is, that he will build it up in faith, 
 
12 THE CHURCH, 
 
 and love, and humility, and every grace, and preserve it a faith- 
 ful and holy church, to the honor of Christ as long as the 
 world stands ; for we believe that its idiosyncracies are suited to 
 the indiosyncracies of a great multitude of minds; and that 
 it is adapted to do much good which never could be done by 
 any other existing agency. But let not the Episcopal church 
 claim to be the churchy to the exclusion of other churches as 
 sound in the faith, as pure in practice, and as devoted to the 
 honor and glory of God as herself. This is false doctrine^ 
 which we feel impelled, not only by the instincts of self-preser- 
 vation, but by a high and solemn sense of duty, to resist. 
 
 MR. SCHUYLER'S POSITION. 
 
 For the exact position taken by our author, the reader may 
 be referred to a passage occurring on page eighth, in his intro- 
 ductory lecture. He says, 
 
 "We shall discuss our claim to be the church founded 
 by Christ and his apostles, as an independent question; 
 simply endeavoring to prove that the church, as episcopally 
 constituted, is after the apostolic model, and that thus consti- 
 tuted, we have received it, by a regular line of succession, from 
 the apostles themselves." 
 
 That which is here proposed for discussion is, " our claim to 
 be THE CHURCH," &c., &c. TMs looks like a very simple prop- 
 osition, and the ordinary reader would, of course, suppose that 
 an attempt is about to be made to prove that the Episcopal 
 church, as it exists in this country, and in Great Britain, and 
 wherever else it has been established, is " the church, founded 
 by Christ and his apostles," comprehensive of every thing that 
 belongs to the church of Christ on earth, and exclusive of 
 very thing besides which bears the name of a church. But 
 this, evidently, is not our author's meaning ; for when he comes 
 to his argument, on page thirty-five, the form of his statement 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 13 
 
 is changed, and his readers are invited to an examination of 
 '■^our own claims to be a true branch of the apostohc church." 
 It can not, therefore, be of the Episcopal church that he is 
 speaking on page eighth, for surely he would not be guilty of 
 so great a solecism as to call a branch of the church, the church. 
 A branch of the church, can no more be the church, than a 
 branch of a tree can be the tree, or a branch of a river, the 
 river. What then does he mean, when he proposes to discuss 
 " OUR claim to be the church ? " &c., &c. Whose claim will 
 he discuss ? Who are we ? He says, " we shall discuss our 
 claim to be the church founded by Christ and his apostles, as 
 an independent question, simply endeavoring to prove that the 
 church, as episcopally constituted, is after the apostolic model, 
 and that thus constituted, we have received it in a regular line 
 of succession from the apostles themselves." It is evident that 
 WE are all those who belong to churches episcopally constitu- 
 ted, and which claim to have the regular line of succession 
 from the apostles. Now the only churches episcopally consti- 
 tuted, and blessed, according to our author's view, with this regu- 
 lar line of succession, are, besides his own, the Roman Cathohc 
 and the Greek. I must give him credit for speaking intelli- 
 gently, and using language in accordance with liis own theory. 
 I am bound therefore to conclude, that when he announces for 
 his thesis, " Our claim to the church," &c., he means the 
 claim of us prelatists, of us Episcopalians, and Roman Catho- 
 lics, and Greek christians. I know, that in his book, he says 
 nothing directly of the other branches of the church; for, 
 although he promises to discuss " Our claim to be the 
 CHURCH," yet when he comes to his Avork, the proposition is 
 curtailed of its large dimensions, and we have simply, " our 
 OWN claims to be a true branch^'' &c. Instead of being a 
 defense of " the church," his book turns out to be a defense, 
 merely, of the Episcopal branch of it ; i. e. directly a defense 
 of the Episcopal branch; though, in fact, seeing that it is 
 an independent question in regard to churches episcopally 
 
14 THE CHURCH, 
 
 constituted, a defense of the whole ; because it is on the same 
 episcopal constitution, and regular apostolical succession, so 
 claimed, that the whole depends. 
 
 If Mr. S. should say that I misrepresent him, I would like 
 to have him inform us in what particular. If I do not under- 
 stand him, the fault is his own. He should have wiitten with 
 more perspicuity. But I do understand him, and I do not mis- 
 represent him. He means just what I say, that " the church" 
 is composed of all those particular churches which have the 
 episcopal constitution, and the so-called regular succession in 
 a line of bishops from the apostles, and that the Episcopal 
 church is a true branch, by virtue of its possessing these two 
 grand quahfications. " Ouk claim to be the church " which 
 he proposes to discuss, is not " our claim " as Episcopalians, but 
 "our claim," in common with Roman Catholics, and Greek 
 christians, as prelatists, having the true succession, as is main- 
 tained, from the apostles. Every thing in the question which 
 he raises, is made to turn upon the episcopal constitution, and 
 the so-called apostolical succession. Soundness in " the faith 
 once delivered to the saints," is nothing. Purity of christian 
 morals, whether in theory or in practice, is nothing. The 
 Greek church, with its downright heathenism, and the Roman 
 Catholic church, with its mere shade, perhaps, of superiority, 
 are veritable branches of the church of God ; while the Bap- 
 tist, and Methodist, and Presbyterian, and other non-prelatical 
 churches, with all their apostolic doctrine and spirit and labors, 
 are mere societies of misguided men, wholly unowned, and un- 
 authorized of Heaven. Mr. Schuyler believes this! Do you 
 believe it, my dear brother ? I can hardly persuade myself 
 that you are really in earnest. At least, I must think that 
 your honest, and I have no doubt, truly pious heart often whis- 
 pers its incredulity. To me, it is something strange and mon- 
 strous. — Mr. Schuyler, however, believes it. At any rate, it is 
 part of his high-church creed, which he feels bound to assert 
 and to maintain. If neither his reason, nor his piety revolts, I 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 15 
 
 wonder that his pride does not ; for he needs not me to tell him 
 that these pretensions of his church, are utterly repudiated by 
 those into whose society she is so anxious to insinuate herself. 
 Both these old harlots turn the back upon her. I can only say, 
 she is welcome to such company if she likes it ; and above all, 
 she is welcome to the deep disgrace of seeking to thrust herself 
 into company that does not like her, and that makes itself 
 merry at her ambitious aspirings. 
 
 Our author's actual proposition is two-fold, as follows : 
 
 The church is known by two grand and essential charac- 
 teristics, — an episcopal constitution, and a true succession^ in 
 a regular line of bishops^ from the apostles. 
 
 The Episcopal church is a true branch of the church, 
 because, in common ivith the Greek and Roman Catholic 
 churches, it bears these essential marks. 
 
 We intend, in due course, to examine the arguments with 
 which he seeks to establish this position. Something, however, 
 is first to be said on another subject. 
 
 THE INVISIBLE CHURCH. 
 
 Our author, in opening the way to his main siibject, makes a 
 bold push at the notion of an invisible church, and endeavors 
 to prove that the church can have no existence save a visible 
 one, with visible forms, and a visible organization ; and that no 
 one can be properly said to be of the church, or to have any 
 share in the blessings promised thereto, who is not found within 
 that visible pale. If it is his belief that all members of " the 
 church " will be finally saved, and that none else will be, then 
 I can see a reason for his zeal on this point, but not other- 
 wise ; for I am not aware that the idea of an invisible church 
 is in any way incompatible with that of a visible church, even 
 of a true visible church, as opposed to all other visible organi- 
 zations claiming to be churches, or branches of the church. 
 
16 THE CHURCH, 
 
 We do'" not deny that Christ and his apostles organized a visi- 
 ble church, as our author has very fairly and fully shown from 
 our standards. We do not deny that there is a ^dsible church 
 in existence at the present time, and a true \dsible church as 
 opposed to false ones. We only deny that the true visible 
 church exists under one name and without visible distinctions; 
 and in this does not he agree with us ? Does not the true visi- 
 ble church, according to himself, consist of three different 
 branches, so separate, that for the most part, they wholly dis- 
 own each other, with distinct names, and distmct organizations ? 
 In fact, the only difference between us on this subject, is, that 
 he makes the true visible church consist of those churches 
 which, whatever their moral condition, and the state of chris- 
 tian doctrine in them may be, have an episcopal constitution, 
 and the alledged apostolical succession in an unbroken line of 
 bishops; while toe make it consist of those churches which 
 maintain the essential features of apostolic faith and practice. 
 He pleads for a visible church perpetuated by succession from 
 the apostles, in an unbroken line of bishops; we for a Aisible 
 church, perpetuated by succession from the apostles in the 
 spirit and truth and power of the Gospel which they preached. 
 We yield to none, in respect and reverence for the external, 
 visible church of God. StiU, we believe with Paul, Rom. 
 ii: 28, 29, that " He is not a Jew which is one outwardly; nei- 
 ther is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he 
 is a Jew which is one inwardly ; and circumcision is that of the 
 heart, in the spirit and not in the letter, whose j)raise is not of 
 men, but of God." We beheve that the visible church has in 
 its bosom many who are really not Christ's disciples ; and that 
 there may be men, out of the bosom of the ^^sible church, who, 
 nevertheless, are truly and sincerely disciples of the Saviour, and 
 will be owned as such in the great day of account ; for we say 
 still with the apostle, Rom. ii: 26, 27, "If the uncircumcision 
 keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision 
 be counted for circumcision? and shall not uncircumcision, 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 17 
 
 which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the 
 letter and circumcision dost transgress the law ? " As it was not 
 circumcision of the flesh, but of the hearty that under a former 
 dispensation, made a man truly a member of the church, 
 so, upon the same principle, it is not the outward washing of 
 water now, but the inward renewing of the Holy Ghost, the 
 washing of regeneration, that makes a man a true member of 
 the church of God. Our idea, therefore, is, that the visible 
 church does not truly express the church which is Chrisfs 
 hody^ spoken of in Col. i: 18, "And he is the head of the 
 body, the church," We believe that the church represented 
 by outward organizations and forms, is only the a'pi:)arent^ and 
 not the real church spoken of where we read, Eph. v: 25-27, 
 that " Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it, 
 that he might sanctify and cleanse it, with the washing of water, 
 by the word ; that he might present it to himself a glorious 
 church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing : but 
 that it should be holy and without blemish." The chmch, as 
 we regard it, and we have never thought that we ht^ld novel or 
 pecuhar views, consists visibly of all those wno profess to be- 
 lieve in Christ, and conform outwardly to his requirements : 
 really it consists of all those who do beheve in Christ, and who 
 yield a true spiritual obedience to his commands. We are 
 compelled to believe in an iuA-isible church, because the marks 
 of the true " church which is Christ's body," which he loved, 
 and gave himself to redeem, and which his veracity is pledged 
 to glorify, are invisible marks. 
 
 These views Mr. Schuyler is pleased to stigmatize as new^ 
 and to represent as belonging exclusively to us. He says, page 
 twelve : " But with the great majority of those who differ from 
 us, at the present day, a new doctrine is in vogue, and we are 
 told of an 'invisible church' — 'that the true church does 
 only consist of such men as have a title to God's favor, by their 
 faith and other christian virtues,' " &c. If being found in the 
 New Testament makes this doctrine new, then it is so. That it 
 2 
 
18 THE CHURCH, 
 
 is exclusively ours, is certainly a new idea. I might quote any 
 number of Episcopal authors, and the very best of them, who 
 express exactly the views which we hold. A single quotation I 
 will indulge in, from an author, whose high-church episcopacy 
 will not be called in question; I mean archdeacon Maiming, 
 of Chichester, England. I have before me a volume of his 
 sermons, printed in London, in 1844, dedicated " To the Right 
 Reverend Father in God, George, Lord Bishop of New Jersey," 
 that is to say, to bishop Doane. In the sermon entitled, 
 « God's Kingdom invisible,'' page 182, he says, in connec- 
 tion with more to the same effect : " As we may partake of the 
 water of baptism, or the bread and wine of the holy eucharist, 
 and yet have no part in the saving grace they bear to man, so 
 may we partake of the holy catholic church, which to the 
 eyes of faith is visible in all lands under heaven, and yet have 
 no fellowship with the saints of Christ, seen or unseen — with 
 that mystical body of Christ, ivhich is the company of cdl 
 faithful people — loith the church of the first-born, whose 
 names are written in heaven."" Add to this another passage 
 found in the sermon, entitled, " The ivaiting of the invisible 
 church;"" on page 346 — "We must wait, and not be weary; 
 we must bear all the fretfulness and provocation of earthly 
 tempers and false tongues for a little season. Meanwhile, the 
 perpetual worship of our unseen Master, and the communion 
 of hidden saints, and the fellowship of the invisible church, 
 must be our strength and stay." This same archdeacon 
 Manning, according to recent intelligence from England, I 
 regret to say, is among the many who have recently renounced 
 the Episcopal church, and entered the Roman Catholic. 
 
 It simply amazes me, that any person who has a tolerable 
 knowledge of the scriptures, should not have discovered in 
 them the distinction which I have expressed. Pray, what is 
 that '•'• church of the first-born, which is written in heaven ^^ 
 mentioned in Heb. xi: 23. Is it the church visible, con- 
 sisting of all the baptized, and of none else ? Mr. Manning 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 19 
 
 says, it is *^the mystical body of Christ, the company of all 
 faithful peopled So we believe. In the places that have been 
 quoted from Colossi ans, and Ephesians, not to speak of others, 
 the term " church " can not be understood as referring to a 
 visible, organized body, but must of necessity stand for the 
 body of true spiritual believers, God's really redeemed and 
 sanctified and chosen people. 
 
 Mr. S. will admit that the visible church, truly and properly 
 speaking, consists of all its visible members. If he makes the 
 condition of actual membership to be sincerity of profession, 
 then, since sincerity is an in\dsible grace, he loses his point, 
 and the true church, according to himself, becomes invisible. 
 Now, will he maintain that every member of the Episcopal 
 church, to say nothing of the other branches of what he holds 
 to be the church, is a real part of Christ's body? If Mr. S. 
 believes this, then he believes that every member of the Epis- 
 copal church will be saved ; for so Paul teaches of all those 
 who belong to this church. — Read the whole of the first chap- 
 of Ephesians. — Does he believe it ? Then also, he believes 
 that none but members, of what he calls the church, i. e. the 
 church as a whole, consisting of its three branches, will be saved. 
 Does he believe this ? 
 
 " Christ loved the church and gave himself for it." Does 
 the church here mean the visible body of professing chris- 
 tians ; or does it mean the invisible company of true believers ? 
 — " that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not 
 having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing ; but that it should 
 be holy and without blemish." Is it the visible Church that 
 is to be presented thus, composed of all its visible members ; 
 or is it " the church, which is Christ's body," composed of 
 those, and only those who are joined to him by faith ? If my 
 brother is in doubt as to what " the church " in this place 
 means, let him ask himself, when, and where the presentation 
 of it by Christ unto himself, of which the text speaks, is to take 
 place. His own reply will undoubtedly be, in another life, 
 
20 THE CHURCH, 
 
 and in heaven. Then let him ask again, Who are the men 
 that shall share in the glories and blessedness of that pre- 
 sentation ? I am sure he will answer, — None hnt the true chil- 
 dren of God the Father; none hut those that shall be found 
 to " have washed their robes, and made them ivhite in the blood 
 of the Lamb'^ These then are the church; and is not the 
 church, so regarded, invisible? Can any human being tell 
 with certainty of whom it is composed ? 
 
 I have already written more on this point than it deserves 
 in this discussion. I have done so, out of deference to our 
 author's apparently high sense of its importance. In regard to 
 " the most harassing facts " of his " beloved Diocesan,"— see his 
 introductory lecture, page fifteen, — I have nothing to say. 
 Who is harassed by them, I can not imagine. They are good 
 facts to prove that our Saviour established a visible church, but 
 what bearing they have upon the question of the church invis- 
 ible, it surpasses my shrewdness to discover ; and, with all frank- 
 ness, I must say the same of my friend's reasonings on this 
 subject. Both he and his bishop seem entirely in the dark as 
 to what is meant by the invisible church, and to have aimed 
 their blows at something that was to them invisible indeed. 
 Fortunately, however we may differ in regard to this question 
 of the invisible church, we are perfectly agreed in believing 
 that there is a visible church, and it is with that that we are at 
 present concerned. 
 
 THE MAIN QUESTIONS CONSIDERED. 
 
 We could wish that our author had undertaken a logical 
 discussion of the propositions which, not formally, but substan- 
 tially as we have expressed them, he lays down at the outset. 
 As he has not done so, we must, per force, follow him in the 
 method which he has chosen. His argument is arranged under 
 three heads — the church; the ministry of the church; and 
 the apostolical succession of the church. 
 
ITS MIi;riSTRY AND WORSHIP. 2l 
 
 THE CHURCH. 
 
 Under this head we find almost nothing that seems to demand 
 attention. We see very Uttle toobject to, even in the definition, on 
 page thirty-six ; and if it might be so modified as to convey the 
 idea that the " visible society " which our author says the church 
 is, is not necessarily a simple unit, but may exist in several 
 separate and distinct branches, we would not hesitate to receive 
 it as it stands. Nor do we think that he himself would object 
 to such a modification, since he evidently regards the Episcopal 
 church as being only a branch of the true church. We think 
 he would hardly be willing to say that the Roman Catholic, and 
 Greek, and Episcopal churches compose literally one society; 
 though he certainly beheves that the church, as a whole, con- 
 sists of these three. If he will insist upon his definition unmo- 
 dified, then we have a question or two that we desire to propose 
 to him. He says : 
 
 " The Church is a visible society, founded by Christ and his 
 apostles, composed of an unhmited number of members, pro- 
 fessing allegiance to Christ as their invisible Head, acknowledg- 
 ing a common faith, set forth in God's holy word, endowed 
 with peculiar, covenanted privileges, and ruled by men deriv- 
 ing their authority from Christ, with power to transmit that 
 authority to others." 
 
 " The church is a visible society^ Does our author then 
 maintain that the Roman Catholic, and Greek, and Episcopal 
 churches constitute " a visible society ? " By a society, we 
 understand a union of any number of persons, having a com- 
 mon object in view, and animated in regard to that object, with 
 a common spirit. The ideas are involved, of partnership, and 
 fellowship, and fraternity. By a visible society, we understand 
 a society that has a visible bond of union, in which there is 
 visible partnership, and fellowship, and fraternity. Now, we 
 ask, what visible bond of union there is between the three 
 
22 THE CHURCH, 
 
 branches of Mr. Schuyler's church ? At what points do they 
 come together and cohere, so as to justify us in cahing them 
 one? Does not each of them stand as truly by itself as though 
 the others did not exist ? And where do we discover the visible 
 signs of partnership, of fellowship, of fraternity, among them ? 
 Are they mutually represented in each other's councils and 
 conventions ? Do they dismiss members from one to another ? 
 Do their ministers exchange pulpits ? Do they love one another, 
 and treat one another with affectionate civility and courtesy ? In 
 a word, do they stand up before the world as one great brother- 
 hood in Christ ? Every one knows how these questions are to 
 be answered. How then do they constitute a visible society ? 
 
 But if they do not, all together, constitute a visible society, 
 which is the church; if on the contrary, like Jews and 
 Samaritans, they " have no deahngs," but mutually despise and 
 anathematize each other, how then, upon Mr. Schuyler's prin- 
 ciples ? — is Christ divided ? Alas, alas ! into what a wretched 
 condition has his kingdom fallen, and how mournful are its 
 prospects ! Our Saviour himself has taught us that " every 
 kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and 
 every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." 
 Changing the figure, it may be said that the body of Christ 
 has fallen into hands more injurious than those of his mur- 
 derers, for they did show it some respect, and " not a bone of 
 him was broken ; " but now, we see it actually rent and torn 
 asunder by those who profess to be his worshipers ; worse than 
 wounded, literally severed into parts, in the house of his 
 pretended friends. 
 
 We also, describing the church, say, that it " is a visible 
 society," consisting of all those particular churches that hold 
 the head, which is Christy and the truth as it is in him. From 
 this visible society we believe the Romish and Greek churches 
 have separated themselves, by an open apostacy from " the faith 
 once delivered to the saints," and that they are no longer of 
 " the church," but are synagogues of Satan, antichrist, " that 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 23 
 
 wicked, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his 
 mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." 
 If Mr. Schuyler shall endeavor to retort upon me, by saying 
 that the evidences of union are not very apparent between the 
 different branches of the church, as I would compose it, I can 
 only admonish him that his endeavor must be a very strenuous 
 one to succeed in showing that there is not enough of real and 
 acknowledged partnership, and fellowship, and fraternity, among 
 the recognized evangelical denominations of christians, to meet 
 the requisite conditions of a visible society. I own that there 
 is less of true christian union among the churches than there 
 ought to be. The lack of it is a cause of sincere and profound 
 grief to all devout and Christ-loving men, but there is still 
 union and sympathy, and a conscious identification and oneness 
 pervading the entire body, however diversified may be its 
 branches, and the names by which they are called. They all 
 acknowledge a common end of toil and eftbrt. They all feel 
 and own that they have a common interest. They can, and do 
 often come together and mingle as churches, in the most 
 delightful fellowship, and they perform toward each other those 
 acts which indicate and imply, that though divided, they are 
 nevertheless one in Christ. If there is an exception to this, it 
 must be said, and we say it with unaffected sorrow, that excep- 
 tion is the Episcopal church. If there is the dreadful sin of 
 schism any where, I know not at whose door it lies, if not at 
 hers. I speak of the Episcopal church, as such. Very many 
 Episcopalians I know, are as untainted with the schismatic 
 spirit of exclusiveness and separatism, as I hope that I myself 
 am. Their hearts beat freely in unison with the heart of the 
 great christian world. They are glad to discover the image of 
 Christ any where, and to acknowledge it, wherever they find it. 
 Not as individual christians merely, but as churches, they are 
 willing to meet and own those whom they recognize as true 
 disciples of their Lord ; and they can and do rejoice in their 
 successes, and bid them God speed in their work of saving 
 
24 THE CHURCH, 
 
 souls and building up the kingdom. This however, can not be 
 said of the Episcopal church ; and we sincerely mourn that it 
 can not be. 
 
 The only further exception that I wish to take against Mr. 
 Schuyler's remarks on the general subject of the church, is 
 simply against the manner in which he has made them, — imply- 
 ing that he is giving expression to sentiments peculiarly Episco- 
 palian. He becomes quite excited, and displays an immense 
 amount of combativeness over points in regard to which I am 
 not aware that there has ever been any dispute between Prela- 
 tists and Presbyterians. He waxes exceedingly valiant for the 
 defense of positions, which no body dreams, or ever did dream, 
 of assailing. In his simplicity, did he really think that these 
 views are peculiar to EpiscopaHans; or did he wish to strengthen 
 his cause in the prejudices of his readers by imputing to us a 
 denial of them ? 
 
 Immediately after giving his definition of the church, Mr. 
 Schuyler says : " you will observe, my brethren, I have used 
 the term, ' the church,' instead of ' a church,' because it is the 
 only scriptural way of speaking." He then proceeds to show 
 that what he says is really so, and that to say " the church " 
 and not "a church," is the way to speak according to the 
 scriptures. It is imphed, of course, that Presbyterians do not 
 speak so, and people are left to draw their own inferences as to 
 how corrupt the Presbyterian theory, in regard to the church, 
 must have become, when they do not even speak the word in a 
 scriptural manner. But is it so ? Do not we Presbyterians say 
 " the church ? " We always do, except when the grammatical 
 construction of the sentence in which the word occurs, or some 
 other equally important consideration, requires a change in the 
 form of expression. Why Mr. S. should object to saying " a 
 church," when it is a church, and not the church, of which he is 
 speaking, I can not imagine, especially since he himself has 
 quoted a text in which the expression " a church" is used. That, 
 I should think, would settle forever the propriety of saying " a 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 25 
 
 churcli" as often as it is supposed the sense to be expressed 
 requires that mode of speech. We always say " the church " 
 when we have reference to the great univereal body of Christ's 
 beheving people. For example, we say " God loves the 
 church, and will defend it against all its adversaries." We 
 always use the same form of expression when we speak of the 
 enthe body of christians within any given limits; as in the 
 following cases : " The church of God in America," or « the 
 church in the Sandwich Islands," or " the church in Buffalo." 
 When I, in my own pulpit, in\dte a meeting of the members of 
 my own church at any particular time and place, I say, there 
 will be a meeting of " the church," &c., &c. 
 
 In such a case as the following, we say, a church: "It 
 is a question to be considered whether the Roman Catholics 
 can properly be regarded as constituting a church of 
 Christ." The propriety of this, I presume, will not be 
 objected to. 
 
 There is still another way of using the word " church." We 
 believe the church as a whole, consists of several distinct 
 bi-anches. When we speak of any particular branch of the 
 church, we deem it important to use a term that shall specify 
 which branch of the church we mean. If it is our own 
 branch that we refer to, we always say, "the Presbyterian 
 church," unless there is something in the immediate connection, 
 or in the circumstances of the time and the occasion, that makes 
 our meaning sufficiently obvious without the use of the specify- 
 ing adjective. So also, we say, " the Methodist church," " the 
 Baptist church," " the Episcopal church." We think it would 
 be positively incorrect in style, speaking in general terms, to call 
 the Presbyterian church, " the church," to say nothing of the 
 seeming arrogance of such a mode of speech. My brother 
 Schuyler in gi^^ng a general definition of the church, could 
 hardly have used a different form of expression from that which 
 he did use ; but I know not how he can justify the almost uni- 
 versal practice of himself and his brethren, of calling their own 
 3 
 
26 THE CHURCH, 
 
 little branch of the church, in a general term, " the church," as 
 though it were the whole church. 
 
 For an example, let me refer the reader to a passage in his 
 preface : " Under these circumstances, the author considered it 
 his duty to improve the opportunity, in using his poor abilities 
 in behalf of the church.^'' Now, if he claimed that the Eng- 
 lish Episcopal church is the only and the entire church, this 
 would certainly be, for him, a proper mode of speaking ; but all 
 that he claims for her is, that she is " a true branch of the apos- 
 tolical church." How, then, is it either correct in style, or 
 decent on other grounds, for him in such a case as this, to call 
 the English Episcopal church "the church?" But enough 
 of this. 
 
 Again, in this immediate connection, page thirty-seven, our 
 author says, — " That the church is a visible society, is plainly 
 recognized in the bible. Thus we find such expressions as 
 these," &c. He had pre\aously combatted our idea, as he 
 understands it, of the invisible church, and now he makes the 
 existence of a visible church a proposition, and enters zealously 
 upon the proof of it. Of course the idea is implied that we 
 Presbyterians do not believe in a visible church ! 
 
 Again, page thirty-eight, — " That the church is not a 
 voluntary society, we have met, in our definition, with the asser- 
 tion that it was founded by Christ and his apostles and endowed 
 with peculiar covenanted privileges." It is implied, of course, 
 that we Presbyterians do not beheve that Christ and his apos- 
 tles founded or instituted a church, but that we hold the 
 church to be a voluntary society, that is, a society constituted 
 by men, in such form as is pleasing to them, without any 
 special authority from the Saviour, or from those whom he 
 appointed to set in order the things of his kingdom ! 
 
 One of the most devout of my brother's parishioners, on 
 coming out of his church, at the close of the service at which 
 this lecture was delivered, was heard to say, — indeed, she said 
 it to a member of my own church, — " Only to think, that any 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 27 
 
 body should pretend that Christ and his apostles left the world 
 without ever forming a church ! Is n't it absurd ? I do not 
 know how some people read their bibles." She had evidently 
 received the impression from her rector's preaching, that Pres- 
 bjrterians do not believe that Christ and his apostles constituted 
 and left behind them a church ! — but, that they just instructed 
 men in the principles of the Gospel, and the general theory of 
 religion, and left them to form churches for thenaselves accord- 
 ing to their various fancies ! 
 
 - Need I say again, that we believe in the external, visible 
 church of God, the church of all ages ? Need I say that, as 
 Presbyterians, we believe in the visible church of the Redeemer, 
 the church of God reconstructed by Christ and his apostles, 
 destined to stand as long as the world stands ? We have jio 
 controversy with our Episcopal brethren on this point. Here, 
 as to the great fact involved, they and we are perfectly agreed. 
 Still, as I have akeady intimated, we do not believe that Christ 
 and his apostles instituted and organized the visible christian 
 church in such a manner as to impress upon it in all its extent, 
 and through all time, a visible external oneness. That is, they 
 did not so settle and define all the minutia and details of eccle- 
 siastical form and order, as to forbid the idea that the church 
 might exist in separated parts, separated by minor and unes- 
 sential differences of faith and practice, yet united in all main 
 respects, and one in spirit and in aims; separated in modes 
 of action, yet united in the " one hope of their calhng," having 
 " one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, 
 who is above all, and through all, and in all." For the proof 
 of this, it is quite enough to refer to the fact, apparent to every 
 reader of the bible, that there is no complete and finished order 
 of ecclesiastical form and government there prescribed. The 
 great and essential features of the christian church are clearly 
 and indubitably set forth, so that no man can mistake them, 
 but, farther than this, nothing is determined. Now, if it had 
 been our Lord's intention that his visible church should maintain 
 
§8 THE CHURCH, 
 
 througli all time, that absolute external oneness for which 
 Roman Catholics contend, and for which Episcopalians seem 
 sometimes to be equally earnest, but the principle of which they 
 clearly give up, when they call themselves " a branch of the 
 apostolical church," we maintain that his own instructions, 
 and those of his apostles on this subject, laid down in " the only 
 rule of faith and practice," would have been specific, and definite, 
 and full. We maintain, that the New Testament would have 
 contained as careful, and minute, and perfect a description of 
 the christian church, its ministry and worship, as is found in the 
 Old Testament, of the Jewish church, with its ministry and 
 worship. My readers all know how, under the former dispen- 
 sation, when it was the divine intention +hat the church should 
 exist with a visible external oneness, this subject was treated : 
 even to the hem of the priest's garments and the " pots in the 
 Lord's house," specific directions were afforded. "We say, that 
 if there had been a similar intention in regard to the christian 
 church, there would have been a similar minuteness of specifi- 
 cation concerning every thing that was to belong to it ; and 
 from the utter absence of any such minute specification, we 
 infer that there was no such intention. 
 
 I will conclude under this head, by quoting from our confes- 
 sion of faith, what expresses substantially the views of all 
 Presbyterians on this subject. 
 
 Chap. XXV : Sec. 1. The catholic or universal church, which 
 is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have 
 been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head 
 thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that 
 fiUeth all in all. 
 
 Sec. 2. The \dsible church, which is also catholic or uni- 
 versal under the Gospel, (not confined to one nation as before, 
 under the law,) consists of all those throughout the world that 
 profess the true religion, together with their children ; and is 
 the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of 
 God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 29 
 
 Sec. 4. This catholic church hath been sometimes more, 
 sometimes less \dsible; and particular churches, which are 
 members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doc- 
 trine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances admin- 
 istered, and public worship performed more or less purely in 
 them. 
 
 Sec. 5. The purest churches under heaven are subject both 
 to mixture and error ; and some have so degenerated as to 
 become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nev- 
 ertheless, there shall be always a chm-ch on earth to worship 
 God according to his will. 
 
 THE MINISTRY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 At the bottom of page thirty-eight, and the top of page 
 thirty-nine, our author says, ha\ang stated his views on the 
 general subject of the church, " In this church — or over this 
 society, thus visibly separated from the world, and blessed with 
 the promise of peculiar privileges, — the head of the church 
 placed certain officers, with authority to rule and govern it, and 
 with power also to transmit their authority to others." 
 
 The proposition thus laid down, he proceeds to argue at 
 considerable length, and tenaciously to defend, as though it 
 were a matter in dispute between us. He quotes from our 
 own church standards, and from our authors, passages which 
 contain his own doctrine, and glories over his quotations as if 
 he had obtained concessions from an enemy. In spite of aU 
 Presbyterian authorities, with which he seems not to be unfa- 
 miliar, he will have it, that as we do not beheve in a divinely 
 constituted church, so neither do we believe in a divinely 
 appointed ministry. 
 
 The Presbyterian behef on the subject now introduced, is 
 truly expressed by the quotation which Mr. Schuyler makes from 
 our confession of faith. I give the quotation with explanatory 
 
30 THE CHURCH, 
 
 parentheses: "The Lord Jesus Christ, as King and Head 
 of his church, hath therein appointed a government, in the 
 hands of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate. 
 To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven (that 
 is, of the church,) are committed, by virtue whereof, they 
 have power respectively to retain and remit sins, (that is, to 
 pronounce the unchangeable conditions on which God will 
 retain or remit sins,) to shut that kingdom (that is, the 
 church) against the impenitent, both by the word, and by 
 censures ; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry 
 of the Gospel, and by absolution from censures, as occasion 
 shall require." — Confession of Faith, chapter xxx. 
 
 I may also quote on the same point, from chapter xxv. of 
 the confession of faith, section 3 : " Unto this catholic visible 
 church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances 
 of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this 
 life, to the end of the world : and doth by his own presence 
 and spirit) according to his promise, make them eflfectual 
 thereunto." 
 
 We then do believe, just as really as Episcopalians, that " the 
 head of the church hath placed in the church certain officers 
 with authority to rule and govern it." This is no peculiar 
 doctrine of theirs, but is our doctrine also. 
 
 Neither is it a pecuhar doctrine of theirs, that the officers 
 whom Christ placed in the church, besides the authority which 
 they had to rule and govern it, had the " power also to transmit 
 their authority to others." 
 
 The Presbyterian belief in regard to the manner of succeed- 
 ing to the christian ministry, I can not better state than in the 
 words of Dr. McLeod and of Dr. Mason, as also quoted in 
 substance by our author. Dr. Mc Leod says : 
 
 "A person who is not ordained to office by a Presby- 
 tery, has no right to be received as a minister of Christ: 
 his administration of ordinances is invalid : no divine blessing is 
 promised upon his labors : it is rebellion against the head of the 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 31 
 
 cliurch to support him in his pretensions: Christ has excluded 
 him in his providence from admission through the ordinary- 
 door, and if he has no evidence of miraculous power to testify 
 his extraordinary mission, he is an impostor." 
 
 What vahie is to be attached to Mr. Schuyler's comparison 
 of this, with the Episcopal doctrine concerning the indispensa- 
 ble necessity of the imposition of a prelatic bishop's hands to 
 give validity to an ordination, as indicating «qual " iUiberality," 
 " bigotry," and " uncharitableness," may be easily ascertained by 
 inquiring what the word " presbytery " means. Mr. Schuyler 
 either ignorantly thinks, or else artfully designs, that his readers 
 shall think, that by " a presbytery " m the place quoted, is 
 meant the particular judicatory of the Presbyterian church 
 which bears that name, and to which, according to the consti- 
 tution of our church, the power of ordination among us belongs. 
 Thus he either thinks, or w^ould have others think, that Dr, 
 McLeod denied the validity of all ordinations out of the Presby- 
 terian church, whether occurring among Episcopalians or Bap- 
 tists, or Methodists, or whomsoever. Now the truth is, that by " a 
 presbytery " Dr. McLeod meant only a plurality of presbyters, 
 of duly ordained ministers, of whatever christian denomination ; 
 so that he neither denied, nor intended to deny, the validity of 
 ordinations in other churches, where two or more ministei-s con- 
 cur in the act. We certainly do allow the validity of episcopal 
 ordinations, not however, because of any authority in the bishop 
 as such, but because we recognize him as a presb}i;er, and as 
 constituting, with the presbyters who unite with him in lapng 
 on hands upon the candidate, a lawful presbytery. 
 
 We entirely approve of Dr. McLeod's statement, and I do 
 not know the Presb}i;erian who w^ould object to it. There is a 
 regular and orderly way appointed by the head of the church for 
 coming into the christian ministry — by presb}i;erial ordination, 
 i. e. by the ordaining act of two or more previously-ordained 
 christian ministers. This is the door, and " He that entereth 
 not by the door, but climbeth up some other way, the same is 
 
32 THE CHURCH, 
 
 a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door, is 
 the shepherd of the sheep." 
 
 The quotations from Dr. Mason, which we also give as 
 expressive of our own sentiments, and of the sentiments of 
 Presbyterians generally, are as follows: 
 
 " It is undeniable that from the time God set up his church 
 in her organized form, until the christian dispensation, there 
 was an order of men consecrated by his own appointment, to 
 the exclusive w^ork of directing her worship, and presiding over 
 her interests ; insomuch, that no one, but one of themselves, not 
 even a crowned head, might meddle with their functions, nor 
 imdertake in any way, to be a teacher of religion, without an 
 immediate call from heaven, atte«?ted by miraculous evidence.'^ 
 Again, "Our Lord Jesus dehvered their commission to his 
 apostles, in terms which necessarily implied a perpetual and 
 
 REGULARLY SUCCESSIVE MINISTRY." 
 
 Not regarding the danger of being charged with some degree 
 of egotism, I will even quote from myself, in a sermon which I 
 preached and published several years ago. Not having a printed 
 copy of that sermon at hand, J must be allowed to quote from 
 a manuscript, which I am quite sure differs in no important 
 respect from the printed copy. 
 
 The sermon was founded on 2 Oor. v : 20, and the points 
 discussed, were — the authority, the dignity, and the business of 
 the ministerial office. In regard to the authority of the minis- 
 terial office, I said, 
 
 " It rests on a divine commission. God ' hath committed 
 unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are embassa- 
 dors for Christ;' we, not you; not any and every man who 
 may choose to arrogate to himself the functions of this high 
 office, but we, to whom it has been committed of God. It may 
 be observed then, that there is a class of men in the world, 
 exclusively authorised to preach the gospel. It will not be 
 questioned that the text, in its connection, does teach, that this 
 exclusive authority was given to Paul and his associates. ' The 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 33 
 
 word of reconciliation' in the commencement of tlie new 
 dispensation, was committed to them, and not to others. They 
 were, in a pecuhar manner, called and consecrated thereto, so 
 that whether regarded as a privilege or a duty, the work of the 
 ministry appertained to them, in distinction from all others then 
 living in the world. 
 
 " But these fii-st ministei*s of Christ were to have successors in 
 the ministry. In their official character, they were never to die. 
 This sufficiently appears from the last charge, with the accom- 
 panying promise, which they received from the Saviour just 
 previous to his ascension : * Go ye therefore and teach all 
 nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and lo! I am with you always, 
 even unto the end of the world.' This charge and promise 
 could not have terminated on them personally. They wei-e 
 evidently addressed in their official character, as representing a 
 long line of successors in the same office, which was to be 
 perpetuated to the end of time. The language is not intelli- 
 gible on any other supposition. There is then, of course, now 
 in the world, a class of men holding the same exclusive commis- 
 sion which was given to the fii-st apostles." 
 
 In commenting on the last quotation from Dr. Mason, 
 Mr. Schuyler says, page forty-six, " No assertion can be more 
 clear or decisive as to the absolute necessity of the apostolic 
 succession to the valid exercise of ministerial authority." Let 
 our brother now lay it up in his memory, so that it shall never 
 slip, that we Presbyterians do believe in an apostohcal succes- 
 sion. We do not believe in the apostohcal succession of the 
 Episcopal, or Greek, or Romish churches, in an unbroken line 
 of prelatic bishops, but we believe in the true succession from 
 the apostles of all true minister of Christ. We believe in « a 
 perpetual and regularly successive ministry," the line of which, 
 in the christian church, began with the apostles. 
 
 " The question now comes up," says our author, and he states 
 it so fairly, that I am quite willing he should state it for us 
 3* 
 
34 THE CHURCH, 
 
 both — " The question now comes up, who are the successors of 
 the apostles ; and who, therefore, are duly empowered to confer 
 the ministerial commission ? The determination of tliis question 
 rests upon the decision of the issue between two systems, epis- 
 copacy, and parity, or the presbyterian ministry; and by 
 presbyterian, we mean all those who hold to but one order 
 in the ministry. 
 
 " The advocates of episcopacy declare that there are three 
 orders in the ministry, styled, since the days of the apostles, 
 bishops, priests, and deacons, of whom the highest grade, or 
 bishops alone, have the power to ordain. The advocates of parity, 
 or equality in the ministry, declare that there is but one order, 
 and that all in this order have equal rights. 
 
 " Let us then," proceeds our author, " bring the question of 
 parity or imparity, equality or inequality, in the orders of the 
 ministry, to the test of scripture." 
 
 It is to the test of scripture, that we Presbyterians delight, 
 above all things, to bring this debated question. We do not refuse 
 to discuss it before any other tribunal. V/hen our opponents 
 appeal from scripture to the fathers, we are most happy to go 
 with them to the fathers. When they appeal again to general 
 history, we are just as ready to meet them there. But 
 we have always felt that this is a question which the scrip- 
 tures, and the scriptures alone, are fully competent to decide. 
 We acknowledge no other "rule of faith and practice" but 
 them ; and, therefore, the word with us, always has been — " to 
 the law and to the testimony." Mr. Schuyler and myself are 
 now to meet each other in the court of scripture. Will he 
 abide the decision of the court ? 
 
 The determination, he says, of the question, " who are the 
 successors of the apostles ? rests upon the decision of the issue 
 between two systems, episcopacy and parity." 
 
 The question first to be considered, then, relates to the general 
 subject of the ministry. Does it consist, by divine appointment, 
 of three orders, called bishops, priests, and deacons, with the 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 35 
 
 authority to ordain ministers, vested solely in the first, or is it 
 of one order, commonly, in the scriptm^es, called presbyters, or 
 bishops, all of whom are equal in authority ? 
 
 FIRST SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT FOR EPISCOPACY 
 
 THREE ORDERS IN THE AARONIC PRIESTHOOD. 
 
 The argument is thus stated by our author, on page forty- 
 seven : " As the law given by Moses was a shadow of good things 
 to come, typifying the gospel dispensation, the constitution of the 
 Aaronic priesthood, would justify the presumption, at least, that 
 the christian ministry would be after this pattern. We find in the 
 Jewish church three distinct orders of ministers — the high priest, 
 the priest, and Levite. This fact, therefore, might reasonably 
 lead us to expect the like number of grades in the ministry of 
 the christian chm-ch." 
 
 The fact, of course, is admitted, that the Jewish priesthood 
 was of three orders. The question, therefore, is, whether this 
 fact furnishes, as our author supposes it does, any ground of 
 presumption in favor of a similar arrangement for the ministry 
 of the christian church. The ground of presumption, according 
 to his statement, and his statement is like that of all Episcopal 
 writers, lies in the typical character of the Mosaic system, and 
 the assumed conclusion that the Jewish priesthood was typical 
 of the christian ministry. 
 
 In regard to the typical character of the Jewish system there 
 is no dispute. We are expressly told, that " the law had a 
 shadow of good things to come." But the assumed conclusion 
 of Episcopalians, that the Jewish priesthood was typical of the 
 christian ministry, is without foundation, and contrary both to 
 the facts in the case, and to scripture. 
 
 The important facts in the case are two : First, The Jewish 
 priesthood did not resemble any existing ministry of any so-called 
 
36 THE CHURCH, 
 
 christian cliurcli. If it was a type, or foreshadowing, as is 
 claimed, of the christian ministry, it has failed. It will not of 
 course be pretended, that the ministry of the Romish church 
 with its grades many, consisting of I know not what all, sub- 
 deacons, deacons, priests, bishops, cardinals, and a pope, was 
 typified by the Jewish priesthood. For a similar reason, it will 
 not be pretended that the ministry of the Greek church was 
 typified by that of the Jewish. How stands the case with the 
 Episcopal church in England, with its earthly head seated upon 
 the throne, and its primate, its archbishops, its bishops, its 
 priests, its archdeacons, its deacons, etc., etc. ? It may be said, 
 however, that the actual grades of the ministry in the church 
 of England are only three, and that all above bishops, are still 
 mere bishops, appointed to the discharge, not of higher minis- 
 terial duties, but of higher governmental functions. Take, then, 
 the Episcopal church as it exists in this country, with its three 
 simple orders, of bishops, priests, and deacons. Now suppose 
 the shadow of this ministry to be cast back into the ancient 
 times of Jewry, and there let us search for it. We find the 
 clear shadows of many things that we recognise as actual sub- 
 stances of our own more happy dispensation, and at first, we 
 may almost imagine that we see the shadow of this threefold 
 ministry in the ministry of the Jewish church. The many 
 Levites may pass for the shadow of the many deacons; the 
 many Jewish priests may pass for the shadow of the many 
 episcopal priests ; but here the correspondence ceases ; the one 
 high-priest can not be the shadow of the many episcopal 
 bishops. A plurality of substances must have a plurality of 
 shadows. Our first impression, therefore, was not well founded ; 
 and the Jewish priesthood is not the shadow of the episcopal 
 christian ministry. I grant, that a shadow is a very different 
 thing from a substance ; and we are not to expect a perfect 
 correspondence in all things ; we are not to expect that it will be 
 ponderable, for examj^le ; but we are nevertheless to expect a 
 correspondence, such as that which shadows always bear to the 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 37 
 
 substances which cast them. It is claimed, in order to get the 
 ground of presumption of which our author speaks, that the 
 Jewish high priest was a type or shadow of the order of bishops 
 in the christian church. "We reply that the resemblance is not 
 adequate to sustain the claim. One could not be the type or 
 shadow of many. No, our opponents may say, we do not claim 
 that ; but simply that the tripartite form of the Jewish priest- 
 hood was a type or shadow of the tripartite form of the 
 christian ministry. That is, they claim, not that the one min- 
 istry was a type of the other, but that a mere accident, or 
 quality of the one, was the type of a mere accident or quality 
 of the other. This is absurd, for if the one ministry was not 
 itself the type of the other, by what right, or by what sugges- 
 tion even, do they look in it for typical accidents or quahties ? 
 They might as well, in such a case, infer the tripartite form of 
 the christian ministry from the triune existence of God, or from 
 the threefold nature of any subject whatever. 
 
 The second important fact to be considered, showing that the 
 Jewish priesthood could not have been a type of the christian 
 ministry, is the entire unlikeness of the business or work of one, 
 to that of the other. The Jewish priesthood ministered at the 
 altar of sacrifice ; their ministry consisted in offering sacrifices 
 and burnt offerings unto God, for themselves and for the people. 
 That they preached, we never read. Their whole work, in what 
 was properly the ministry of religion, had respect more or less 
 directly to the offering of sacrifices. The Levites were subor- 
 dinate assistants of the priests in this work ; and to the high 
 priest, who had the supreme administration of sacred things, 
 appertained the duty, above all, of entering once a year into 
 the most holy place " to make atonement for himself, and for 
 his household, and for all the congregation of Israel." 
 
 The business of the christian ministry is epitomized in the 
 command " Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to 
 every creature." And again ; " Go ye therefore, and teach all 
 nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the 
 
38 • THE CHURCH, 
 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe all . 
 things whatsoever I have commanded you." 
 
 Now it is quite enough to submit the question to any un- 
 biassed mind, whether such a ministry as that which existed in 
 the Jewish church, could be typical of that which exists in the 
 church of Christ ? To say nothing of the want of resemblance 
 in other respects, there is none whatever in the business of the 
 one to the business of the other. So far as this is concerned, it 
 might just as well be said, that the Jewish king, with his chief 
 ministers and next subordinate officers in the government, were 
 typical of the christian ministry. 
 
 But the scriptures settle this question, by distinctly apprising 
 us that the Jewish priesthood was t}^)ical of Christ, not as to its 
 grades and threefold character, but as to its work. This ques- 
 tion on scriptural grounds is settled definitely by the following 
 passage : Heb. x : 1 - V, " For the law having a shadoAv of 
 good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can 
 never with those sacrifices which they offered, year by year, 
 continually, make the comers thereunto perfect. For then 
 would they not have ceased to be offered ? because that the 
 worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of 
 sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again 
 made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood 
 of bulls and goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he, 
 {i. e. Christ,) cometh into the world, he saith, sacrifices and offer- 
 ings thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me. In 
 burnt offerings and sacrifices for sins thou hast had no pleasure. 
 Then said I, lo, I come (in the volume of the book, it is written 
 of me) to do thy will, God." 
 
 If it is said, that this teaches that the sacrifices offered under 
 the former dispensation were tj^^ical of Christ, I reply — no; 
 the sacrifices offered under the former dispensation were typi- 
 cal of Christ's bodi/. " When he, that is, Christ, cometh into 
 the world, he saith, sacrifices and oflTerings thou wouldest not, 
 but a bodi/ hast thou prepared me." The body of Christ which 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 39 
 
 he offered upon the cross was the antitype of bulls and goats 
 offered under the law, whose blood could never take away sins. 
 Christ himself was the priest, the offerer, and he was the anti- 
 type of the ancient offerer of bulls and goats. If it is insisted 
 that the ancient sacrifices were typical of Christ himself, the 
 third person in the Godhead, in his work of redemption, then 
 we still affirm that the offerers of those ancient sacrifices were 
 typical also of him ; for, if himself was the offering, himself also 
 was the priestly offerer. — See Heb. vii: 27 — "Who needeth 
 not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his 
 own sins, and then for the people's ; for this he did once, when 
 he offered up himself P 
 
 If it shall be said that only the high priest was a type of 
 Christ, then, in that case, we ask what becomes of the ancient 
 type of episcopal bishops ? It may possibly be said, with some 
 show of reason, that the high priest was the especial type of 
 Christ's person; but as to his ivork, it must still be admitted 
 that the whole Jewish priesthood, whose business it was to 
 offer sacrifices, was typical of him; and typical of none but 
 him, unless you adopt the absurdities of the Romish church 
 respecting the sacrifice of the mass. 
 
 Other scriptures, besides those which I have quoted, might 
 be adduced, equally in point, to show that in the person and 
 work of Jesus Christ, the whole antitype is found of the 
 priesthood in the Mosaic system, but it is needless. 
 
 Now what becomes of Mr. Schuyler's ground of presump- 
 tion ; — of his basis in the Jewish priesthood, of a reasonable 
 expectation that there should be three grades or ranks in the 
 ministry of the christian church ? The Jewish priesthood was 
 not t}^ical, or figurative, in any sense, of the christian ministry. 
 Nothing, therefore, respecting the latter, can be inferred from 
 the former. 
 
 With Jesus Christ, who hath obtained "an unchangeable 
 pi'iesthood," being " a priest forever after the order of Melchis- 
 edek," the entire order of an earthly priesthood has passed 
 
40 THE CHURCH, 
 
 away. Priests, the work of wliose office was to offer sacrifices, 
 there are no more ; — save him who with his " one sacrifice of 
 himself," " offered once for all," is " entered not into the holy- 
 places made with hands, which are the figures of the true ; but 
 into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." 
 The ministry in the church of God now, is another thing. In 
 this dispensation of the gospel, it is a ministry, not of blood, 
 but of "the word of reconciliation," — a ministry of grace and 
 salvation to dying men, by preaching^ by proclaiming to them 
 the glorious messages of divine love and mercy through the 
 cross. Wliat has this ministry to do with the ministry of the 
 law of Moses ? 
 
 I have deemed it necessary to be somewhat full in my reply 
 to this argument ; not because the argument is really important, 
 or because intelligent Episcopalians lay much stress upon it, 
 but because it is in a high degree sophistical and specious, and 
 has great weight with ordinary minds. 
 
 THE SECOND SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT FOR 
 EPISCOPACY. 
 
 THE CONSECRATION OF CHRIST, AND HIS ORDINATION OF THE 
 TWELVE AND OF THE SEVENTY. 
 
 Mr. Schuyler having stated his ground of presumption for 
 three orders in the christian ministry, which we have shown to 
 be no ground of presumption, thus proceeds, page forty-seven : 
 
 " This fact, therefore, might reasonably lead us to expect the 
 like number of grades in the ministry of the christian church. 
 Hence, we find, in looking into the gospel history, that such 
 was the case. After our Saviour had arrived at the proper age, 
 according to the Jewish law, to enter upon the duties of the 
 ministry, we have the record of his visible consecration to this 
 holy office. Immediately after his baptism, he is anointed by 
 the Holy Ghost; while the eternal father acknowledges his 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 41 
 
 authority, saying, " This is my beloved son, in whom I am well 
 pleased." 
 
 Passing by, for the present, a quotation here introduced 
 from archbishop Potter, I proceed, giving the words of our 
 author — 
 
 " Here then, we have the history of the inauguration of our 
 blessed Saviour into the office of his earthly ministry, by a 
 visible consecration, attested by a voice from heaven. In the 
 order of the narrative, after this solemn consecration, and after he 
 had been prepared, as man, by fasting, and by forty days of 
 temptation in the wilderness, to enter upon his ministry and to 
 lay the foundation of his spiritual kingdom, we are told, * He 
 chose twelve disciples,' and after a whole night spent upon the 
 mountain in prayer, ' He ordained twelve that they should be 
 with him, and that he might send them forth to preach.' And 
 here we would remark, that on two other distinct occasions, the 
 ministerial powers of the apostles were enlarged by the Saviour, 
 thus taking them up step by step. And sometime after this, we 
 read, our Lord appointed seventy disciples, and sent them forth 
 to preach and prepare the way for himself and the apostles. 
 
 " Here then we have, while our blessed Lord was upon earth, 
 three distinct orders in the ministry. The Great High Priest 
 of our profession, the twelve apostles, and the seventy disciples. 
 I know it is confidently asked in this stage of the church's 
 history," — Dr. Thompson's sermon, page sixteen — "*will you 
 find here any traces of a prelatic order exercising authority 
 over two other orders ? ' What — I would ask in return, — was 
 the office which our Lord himself held ? Was it not that of a 
 prelatic or preferred order, exercising authority over the twelve 
 apostles, and the seventy disciples ? Have we not, by the one 
 question, satisfactorily answered the other ? " 
 
 Perhaps, my dear brother, you have by the one question 
 answered the other, satisfactorily to your mind ; but to my 
 mind, and I will venture to say to the minds of your thoughtful 
 readers without an exception, you have not answered the other 
 
42 THE CHURCH, 
 
 question at all. To my question, "Will you find here any 
 trace of a prelatic order, exercising authority over two other 
 orders ? " you reply, " What, I would ask in return, was the office 
 which our Lord himself held ? was it not that of a prelatic, or 
 preferred order ? " &c., &c. You affirm, then, that Christ was 
 a minister, in that sense of the word which it bears in our 
 present discussion ! You affirm that Christ held " the office — 
 of a prelatic, or preferred order," in the ministry of his own 
 church ! What proof have you given of this ? None at all, 
 except your narration of his baptism, and the solemn testimony, 
 on that occasion, of the voice from heaven, saying, " This is my 
 beloved son, in whom I am well pleased," — which you call his 
 " inauguration into the office of his earthly ministry, by a 
 visible consecration." You assume that "the office of his 
 earthly ministry " was the ordinary office of a minister in his 
 own church. Let me refer you, for instruction, and I am 
 inclined to add, reproof, to your own quotation on this very 
 point, from archbishop Potter. The archbishop says, referring 
 to the same baptismal scene — " This was a solemn inaugura- 
 tion to his office; for the more full understanding whereof, it 
 may be remembered, that under the Jewish economy, the kings, 
 priests, and prophets were inaugurated to their several offices 
 by unction, and when the person appointed to succeed in any 
 of these offices, had no approved right to it by lineal descent, 
 or otherwise, his designation was commonly declared by some 
 of the prophets : as appears from the examples of Saul, David, 
 Jehu, Aaron, and Elisha. Answerable to this custom, our 
 blessed Saviour's designation to his mediatorial office, in which 
 all the three forementioned offices of king, priest, and prophet 
 are contained, was not only attested by John the Baptist, the 
 greatest of all the prophets, but by the voice of God himself, 
 speaking from heaven." 
 
 What, then, according to archbishop Potter, your own au- 
 thority, was the office to which Christ was consecrated by bap- 
 tism ? You say, it was to " the office of a prelatic order " in 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 43 
 
 the ministry of his owii church. The archbishop says, it was 
 " to his mediatorial office." Are the two offices identical ? Now 
 the archbishop was right. Christ was formally consecrated by 
 baptism and the voice from heaven to his great work as atoning 
 priest and saviour of his people. He was visibly assuming that 
 " unchangeable priesthood," which was shadowed forth in the 
 priesthood of the Jewish economy, and it became him for the 
 fulfillment of all righteousness to be set apart thereto by august 
 rites and ceremonies; therefore he came to John, who was 
 commissioned of God to bear witness of him, and was baptized. 
 
 That same office into which Christ was formally inaugurated 
 at his baptism, he sustains now. If it was " the office of a pre- 
 latic order " in the ministry of his own church, then he sustains 
 now " the office of a prelatic order " in the ministry of his own 
 church ; and he whom we are taught to regard as " head over 
 all things to the church," is a minister in it. Then, also, unless 
 bishops are Christ's equals, in the ministry of the church, — for 
 it is a doctrine of our opponents, that all bishops are equal in 
 the grade of their ministry, — there are four instead of three 
 orders of ministers in the church. 
 
 Sir, I must admonish you that in your zeal to find, at this 
 point of gospel history, "traces of a prelatic order," you are 
 taking fearful liberties with the character and official work of 
 him whom I know you venerate, not as a minister in the 
 church of which you also are a minister, but as its head and 
 Lord ; and that, instead of confirming your argument, you are 
 disturbing its very foundations. 
 
 My brother's argument, which I am now considering, pro- 
 ceeds upon the bare assumption of two other facts. First, he 
 assumes that the christian church had an existence at the time 
 when the events referred to in his argument transpired. Now, 
 if it could be proved that at this time the church of the new 
 dispensation had not yet begun to exist, then of course, not only 
 was Christ no minister in it, but neither were the twelve or the 
 seventy ministers in it, and there is no argument whatever, save 
 
44 THE CHURCH, 
 
 a mere presumptive one, of the same general character with that 
 which has aheady been disposed of, to be constructed from the 
 comparative dignity of the three parties referred to, be it what 
 it might be. Mr. Schuyler himself says in a note, in which, 
 indeed, he gives up the whole argument as worthless, — " we 
 conceive it, however, to be a matter of minor importance, whe- 
 ther the distinction of the three orders is as clearly marked here, 
 as in the subsequent history. The church was evidently/ (if 
 I may use the expression) in a transition state, and was not 
 fully organized until sometime after thisP The church in a 
 transition state ! What kind of a state was that ? In one sense 
 the church of God has always been in a transition state, and 
 will always be, until it shall become " a glorious church, not 
 having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing ; " but in no other 
 sense can I conceive of it as being in a transition state. The 
 christian church either existed, or it did not, at the time when 
 our Lord called and ordained the twelve and the seventy. If 
 it did not exist, then, in the state of things at that time, nothing 
 can be gathered to indicate what its character was to be ; much 
 less can the facts of that time be reasoned about as if they ap- 
 pertained to the very church itself and characterized it. The 
 new dispensation, it is supposed by some, began when the vail 
 of the temple was rent at the crucifixion of our Lord, when he 
 cried out " It is finished, and bowed his head and gave up the 
 ghost." Others suppose it began at his resurrection; and 
 others, at the giving of the spirit on the day of Pentecost. 
 Whenever the new dispensation began, then the Jewish church 
 ceased to be a church, and the church of the Redeemer com- 
 menced its existence. Now it was important, certainly, if Mr. 
 Schuyler would make use of facts existing at an earlier date 
 than either of the dates which I have mentioned, as character- 
 izing the christian church, that he should at least show us that 
 the christian church was in being at that time. 
 
 The other fact, essential to my brother's argument, (upon 
 which indeed, like that of Christ's being a minister, holding 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 45 
 
 " the office of a prelatic order," his argument is founded,) which 
 he has assumed without proof, is, that the seventy, in the office 
 which our Lord assigned to them preparatory to the introduc- 
 tion of his kingdom, and the setting up of his church, were 
 inferior to the twelve. That the twelve were designed, ultimately, 
 to occupy a peculiar and superior position; that the Saviour 
 intended to employ them, when his kingdom should be set up, in 
 an office of pecuhar and eminent importance and dignity, no one, 
 I presume, feels any inclination to deny. Hence, he appointed 
 them to be " with him," to be, as it were, members of his own 
 family, that he might instruct them, and in various ways train 
 them for that future service which they were destined to perform, 
 and that they might be witnesses to the world after his death, 
 of what he said, and did, and suffered. But, as to their grade of 
 office prior to the setting up of the kingdom, at the time when 
 in this argument^ Mr. Schuyler finds his three separate and 
 distinct orders, and subsequently, — what evidence is there, that 
 it was superior to that of the seventy ? The fact of their being 
 chosen first, proves nothing ; for that would go just as far to 
 prove graduation of rank among themselves, according to the 
 order, in time, of their several callings. The fact that they 
 were appointed to be, as a general thing, with Christy and 
 attendants on his person, proves nothing; for we see another 
 and a sufficient reason for that arrangement. 
 
 Mr. Schuyler seems to think, and this is his entire argument, 
 that the superiority of the twelve is indicated, first, by some 
 peculiar solemnity in our Lord's manner in connection with 
 their call and ordination ; and secondly, by the fact that he is 
 said to have ordained them, while it is only said that he 
 appointed the seventy. In regard to the first of these conside- 
 rations, it was not so unusual a thing for Christ to spend whole 
 nights in prayer, that we must necessarily conclude, when he 
 did so, that it was preparatory to some remarkable transaction 
 in which he was about to be engaged. If Christ did spend a 
 whole night in prayer just previous to ordaining the twelve, 
 
46 THE CHURCH, 
 
 who knows that his prayerfulness had special relation to that 
 event? Our author mentions in this same connection, the 
 " fasting, and forty days of temptation in the wilderness," as 
 though this had some preparatory reference to the call and 
 ordaining of the twelve. It had doubtless just the same pre- 
 paratory reference to these acts that it had to all the other acts 
 of his public ministry — not ministry in the church, in the office 
 of a prelatic order — no more and no less. 
 
 In regard to Mr. Schuyler's second argument, which with a 
 singular force of brevity, he expresses by capitalizing the word 
 "ordain," I have only to say, that if he will compare the 
 Greek word from which this word ordain is translated, with 
 that which is rendered " appointed " in the account of the 
 seventy, he will find that the argument amounts to nothing. 
 That word " ordain " is full of expression to my brother's 
 mind. The Greek word is epoiese, from poieo, which, according 
 to the best lexicographers, means " to make, to constitute, to 
 appoint, as to some office, to declare to be," etc., etc. The 
 Greek work rendered " appointed," is " anedeixen " from " ana- 
 deiJcnumi^'' which, the best lexicographers say, means "to 
 manifest, to show plainly or openly, to mark out, to constitute, 
 to appoint by some outward sign," etc., etc. 
 
 Neither of these words is the one commonly used to express 
 the act of ordination to the christian ministry. For examples : 
 Tit. i : 5 — " That thou shouldst ordain (katasteses) elders in 
 every city." Again ; Acts xiv : 23 — " When they had ordained 
 {cheirotones antes) them elders in every church," etc. 
 
 I will give now the positive proof that the twelve and the 
 seventy, in that peculiar ministry to which they were called and 
 ordained, (for the seventy were just as truly ordained as the 
 twelve,) were equal. The proof which I have to adduce, is of 
 no doubtful character ; it does not depend upon an imaginary 
 meaning of certain woxls, nor upon any fanciful construction 
 put upon portions of the gospel history ; but upon plain and 
 undeniable matters of fact, touching the very heart of the 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 47 
 
 question in debate. Every person can see tliat the proper and 
 only proper way to settle sucli a question as this, is to examine 
 the commissions of these two sets of ministers, if so they may 
 be called, to see what they were appointed to do, and with 
 what powers they were invested. If we find that their com- 
 missions were the same, their work the same, their authority 
 and power the same, then it is preposterous to say that they 
 were unequal in their offices. 
 
 In the first place, then, let it be remembered, that both the 
 twelve and the seventy were called and ordained to their work 
 by Christ himself. — Compare Mark iii: 14, "And he ordained 
 (i. e. appointed) twelve that they should be with him, and that 
 he might send them forth to preach," with Luke x: 1, "After 
 these things, the Lord appointed [i. e. ordained) other seventy 
 also." 
 
 Both the twelve and the seventy were sent forth to preach. — 
 Matt. X : 5, 7, " These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded 
 them, saying," * * * " as ye go, preach." Compare this 
 with the whole account in the first seventeen verses of the tenth 
 chapter of Luke. 
 
 Both the twelve and the seventy were sent forth two by two. — 
 Mark vi : 7, "And he called unto him the twelve, and began 
 to send them forth two by two." Luke x: 1, — "The Lord 
 appointed other seventy also, and sent them two by two before 
 his face." 
 
 They were sent into the same dangers. — Matt, x : 1 6, Christ 
 said to the twelve, " Behold I send you forth as sheep among 
 wolves : be ye therefore wise as serpents and harailess as doves." 
 To the seventy, Christ said, Luke x: 3, — "Go your ways; 
 behold I send you forth as lambs among wolves." 
 
 The twelve and the seventy were commissioned to preach the 
 same thing. To the former, the Lord said. Matt, x : V, "And as 
 ye go, preach, saying, the kingdom of heaven is at hand." To 
 the latter he said, — Luke x : 9, — "And say unto them, the 
 kingdom of heaven is come nigh unto you." 
 
48 THE CHURCH, 
 
 Both the twelve and the seventy were empowered to work 
 miracles. — Matt, x : 8. To the twelve Christ said, " Heal the 
 sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils : freely ye 
 have received, freely give." Compare Luke x: l7, 19, — "And 
 the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the 
 devils are subject unto us through thy name." " Behold I give 
 unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over 
 all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means 
 hurt you." 
 
 They were both sent fortji by the authority, and in the name 
 of Christ. — Matt, x : 40. To the twelve Christ said, " He that 
 receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me, receiveth 
 him that sent me." Compare Luke x: 16, — To the seventy 
 Christ said, "he that heareth you heareth me, and he that 
 despiseth you despiseth me : and he that despiseth me, despiseth 
 him that sent me." 
 
 Now in what respect do the seventy appear to have been 
 inferior to the twelve ? In not a solitary particular can a differ- 
 ence be shown. Their ministries were precisely identical. Says 
 Whitby, an eminent Episcopalian commentator, vol. i, page 
 334, " Some compare the bishops to the apostles, the seventy 
 to the presbyters of the church, and thence conclude, the divers 
 orders in the ministry were instituted by Christ himself. It 
 must be granted that some of the ancients chd believe these two 
 to be divers orders, and that those of the seventy were infei-ior 
 'to the order of the apostles, and sometimes they make the com- 
 parison here mentioned. But then it must be also granted, 
 that this comparison will not strictly hold; for the seventy 
 received not their commission, as presbyters do, from bishops, 
 but immediately from the Lord Christ, as well as the apostles, 
 and in their first mission were ijlainly sent on the same errand, 
 and with the same 'powerV 
 
 " The fact is," says Rev. W. D. Killen, in the ' Plea for Pres- 
 bytery,' " the commission given at this time both to the twelve 
 and the seventy, was temporary. They were sent out for a 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 49 
 
 limited time, and for the special purpose of preparing the way 
 for the personal ministry of our Lord. A new commission was 
 given to the twelve after Christ's resurrection from the dead — 
 more extensive powei« were bestowed, and a wider field of labor 
 was assigned to them. All the information we have regarding 
 the seventy, is contained in the tenth chapter of the gospel of 
 Luke. After they returned to their Lord on this occasion, we 
 do not read of them again in the New Testament, nor do we 
 hear that their temporary commission was ever reneAved," 
 
 Now I claim that this second argument from scripture in 
 favor of episcopacy, is refuted. There is no foundation for it. 
 It is a mere imagination of prelacy-hunters, that makes three 
 orders of the christian ministry out of our Lord, the twelve, and 
 the seventy. The christian ministry had as yet no existence, 
 for there was no christian church. If there had been, it is 
 absurd, and almost impious, to make Christ himself^ whose the 
 church is, and whose the ministry is, a minister in it ; to assign 
 to him " the office of a prelatic order." And there is no pretext 
 for the claim, whatever may have been the nature of their 
 offices, that the seventy were inferior to the twelve. 
 
 So far as there is any argument at all bearing on the general 
 subject we are now discussing, in the state of things which 
 existed previous to our Lord's death, it is in our favor, and 
 directly against our opponents. The Lord Jesus Christ was 
 here upon the earth preparing the way for the introduction of 
 his kingdom, the setting up of " his church." In this prepara- 
 tory work he employed a certain number of ministers, who, 
 upon the minutest inspection, appear to have been appointed 
 to identically the same work, and to have been clothed with 
 identically the same powers. They were therefore equal. 
 Among the ministers employed by our Lord in this preparatory 
 stage of his proceedings, the principle of 'parity obtained. We 
 may conclude, therefore, so far as Ave may conclude at all from 
 this, that it was his design, that in his kingdom, which is his 
 church, there should be but one grade of ministers. 
 4 
 
50 THE CHURCH, 
 
 THE THIRD SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT FOR 
 EPISCOPACY. 
 
 A SECOND ORDER IN THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY CONSTITUTED 
 BY THE APPOINTMENT OF DEACONS. 
 
 Our aiitlior states his argument, on page fifty, as follows: 
 " Let us now see, whether, after Christ's ascension to heaven, 
 and when the apostles were left, under the guidance of the 
 Holy Spirit, to carry out the instructions of their divine master 
 as to his earthly kingdom, they continued these three orders in 
 the church." — Let it be borne in mind by the reader, that no 
 christian church had been in existence until the time to which 
 this argument introduces us, and consequently, that there could 
 have been no orders in the christian ministry. Besides, we 
 have shown that the ministers whom Christ had employed in 
 the work preparatory to the setting up of his church were all 
 equal. Our author continues — " In the sixth chapter of the 
 Acts of the Apostles, after the day of Pentecost, and when the 
 number of believers had greatly increased, we have an account 
 of the first ordination which they held. Now, this is a transac- 
 tion which we would not have you carelessly to pass over. 
 After directing their brethren to choose seven men among them 
 of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, to serve 
 in the office of deacons in the church, the sacred historian de- 
 clares, ' They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the 
 Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and 
 Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch; 
 whom they set before the apostles : and when they had prayed, 
 they laid hands on them.' Now, in answer to the objection 
 that is sometimes made, that this was not an ordination to the 
 ministry^ these men having been simply chosen to serve tables, 
 we would ask, why the care to choose men full of the Holy 
 Ghost, and of wisdom, to act in the capacity of mere table 
 stewards? But the subsequent history proves, beyond all 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 51 
 
 controversy, that these men were ordained for a higher and 
 hoher pui*pose. Immediately after this account, we find 
 Stephen, one of the deacons, boldly preaching the faith, and 
 suffering martyrdom in this blessed work. And in the eighth 
 chapter of Acts, it is recorded, that Phihp, another of the dea- 
 cons, went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ 
 unto them ; and that ' when they believed Phihp, preaching the 
 things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus 
 Christ, they were baptized^ both men and women ; ' and also, 
 that having preached Jesus to the Ethiopean eunuch, he bap- 
 tized him. What better proof can we need, that these deacons 
 were ministers ? Are lajnoien authorized to baptize and preach ? 
 If so, what is the distinction between the minister and the lay- 
 man? — and what need is there of any ordination? Here, 
 then, we have two orders in the ministry; and this, of itself, 
 destroys the claims of parity ? " 
 
 So my brother leaps to his conclusion. Who constitute the 
 two orders in the ministry, which he has now so fortunately dis- 
 covered? Why, the apostles and the deacons. But has he 
 proved yet that the apostles, as such, constituted an order in the 
 permanent ministry of the christian church ? Has he not run 
 a long way before his story ? He should have remembered, 
 when he wrote this lecture, that he was not Avriting simply for 
 his own people, who would be likely to sympathize in his 
 enthusiasm, but for the worid, and for us Presbyterians particu- 
 lariy, who deny that , the apostles, as such, were, in any sense, 
 an order in that ministry which it was intended the church 
 should permanently enjoy. Whatever he may have proved, 
 therefore, for himself, and for Episcopahans, he must see, that 
 in a controversy with us, even though it were admitted that the 
 deacons were true ministers in the proper sense of that word, 
 he has utteriy lost his labor, and proved nothing. 
 
 But has he proved his point in regard to the deacons ? Has 
 he proved that they were ordained to the christian ministry ? 
 The question in regard to the apostles, belongs to another place. 
 
52 THE CHURCH, 
 
 and will be treated in its order. The question now relates to 
 tlie deacons solely. 
 
 Mr. Schuyler's arguments, for the ministerial character of the 
 deacons, are two. 
 
 First. The quahfications which were necessary for the office : 
 they were to be men full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom. He 
 puts the argument in this way — " Why the care to choose men 
 full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, to act in the capacity of 
 mere table stewards ? " It is necessary here to notice the occa- 
 sion on which the office of deacon, in the christian church, was 
 instituted, and the purpose for which it was designed. The 
 account is at the beginning of the sixth chapter of Acts, and is 
 as follows : " In those days when the number of the disciples 
 was multiphed, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against 
 the Hebrews^ because their widows were neglected in the daily 
 ministrations. Then the twelve called the multitude of the 
 disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should 
 leave the word of God, and serve tables, wherefore, brethren, 
 look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the 
 Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this 
 business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer and 
 to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the 
 whole multitude ; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith 
 and of the Holy Ghost, and Phihp, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, 
 and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch." 
 
 Now, to our brother's argument, in the first place, we reply, 
 that in the writings of the apostles, the expression, " a man full 
 of the Holy Ghost," means nothing more, or less, than a man 
 eminent for piety ; and it was necessary that men known to be 
 of eminent piety should be chosen for this work of presiding 
 over and distributing the charities of the church, in order that 
 there might be a security for their faithful discharge of the 
 duties entrusted to them ; and that the people, who had aheady 
 grown distrustful of the impartiality of the apostles themselves, 
 might repose confidence in them. 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 53 
 
 In the next place, it was necessary that they shoiikl be men 
 full of wisdom ; because the duties entrusted to them were, as 
 every one sees, extremely delicate in their nature, and difficult 
 to be properly performed. A murmuring had already arisen ; 
 difficulties and dissensions were already springing up in the 
 infant church, in consequence of a supposed unfairness in the 
 distribution of the alms. Owing to the peculiar circumstances of 
 the time, the poor were very numerous, and there were among 
 them all classes of persons, belonging to different nations, and 
 remarkably liable on that account to be jealous of each other, 
 and particularly, where such interests were concerned as those 
 over which the deacons were appointed to preside. What could 
 be more important, therefore, than that, besides being eminent 
 for piety, the deacons should be also men of great wisdom ? 
 
 Childish as this argument of my brother is, I have chosen to 
 treat it with respect, and to answer it fully. It is evident that 
 the qualifications of being full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, 
 were essential qualifications for the secular duties of the deacon- 
 ship. Mr. Schuyler aims at nndervaluing those duties, by 
 contemptuously italicising the phrase, " mere table stewards^ 
 This is a poor trick, and I do not fear that any will be imposed 
 upon by it. The business of the deacons is briefly called 
 ** serving tables," because their duties mainly consisted, after 
 determining who were the proper persons to share in the chari- 
 ties of the church, in making daily distribution of food for 
 their tables. 
 
 The second argument to show that the deacons, as such, 
 were invested with a true ministerial character, is the fact that 
 two of them, in the course of the gospel history, are afterward 
 found performing ministerial duties. Stephen is found preach- 
 ing, and suffering martyrdom for his fidelity as a preacher, and 
 Philip is found preaching and baptizing. 
 
 Now it is to be observed, that the mere circumstance of a 
 man's preaching, is no positive evidence that he had been 
 ordained to the christian ministry. — See Acts, xi: 19-21, 
 
54 THE CHURCH, 
 
 " Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution 
 that arose about Stephen, traveled as far as Phenice, and 
 Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto 
 Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus and 
 Cyrene, which when they were come to Antioch, spake unto 
 the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the 
 Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned 
 unto the Lord." Were all these, and those men of Cyprus 
 and Cyrene, ordained christian ministers ? The same thing is 
 mentioned also in Acts viii : 4, 5 — " Therefore they that were 
 scattered abroad, went everywhere preaching the w^ord. And 
 Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ 
 unto them ! " Were all these that were scattered abroad, 
 ordained ministers ? — I ask again. They all preached, they all 
 proclaimed, wherever they went, the doctrines of the gospel, 
 and called upon their fellow sinners to repent and believe in 
 Christ; but that they were all yninisters, in our sense of that 
 word, no reasonable man will suppose for a moment, much less 
 venture to affirm. 
 
 The argument, then, from the case of Stephen is disposed of. 
 Now for that from the case of Philip, who not only preached, 
 but baptized^ — which, we are \\illing to admit, was an act that 
 could not properly be performed by a layman. The question 
 which w^e raise here is this : May not Philip, subsequently to 
 his receiving the deaconship, and before the events recorded 
 in the eighth chapter of Acts incident upon his journey to 
 Samaria, have been specially ordained to the ministerial office ? 
 May he not have laid aside his diaconate for higher and holier 
 duties? That Phihp had ceased to be a deacon, and had 
 assumed another office at a later period, is actually upon record ; 
 for in Acts xxi : 8, he is distinctly mentioned as an evangelist. 
 Now, who will affirm that this change in his condition had not 
 taken place previously to his baptism of the eunuch ? Will it 
 be said, that if this had happened, there would have been some 
 notice of it ? I reply, the fact is undeniable, that he was at 
 
ITS MmiSTRY AND WORSHIP. 55 
 
 some time ordained to a higlier office than the deaconship ; but 
 where is any notice to be found of that event ? It had occurre .1 
 at some point of time during the course of twenty-six years, and 
 who can say that it was not during tht first two of those years ? 
 
 Now I take the ground absohitely, that Phihp had been 
 ordained to the office of the gospel ministry priorly to his visit 
 to Samaria. If he had not been, then we have a clear instance, 
 not only of lay-preaching, but of lay-baptism also; for it is 
 demonstrable, that his ordination to the deaconship left him 
 nothing hut a layman. 
 
 First. It can not be shown that there is any thing absurd or 
 improbable in the supposition which I make. It is clear that 
 at this early period Philip possessed the proper qualifications for 
 the ministerial office ; and, at a time when suitable persons to 
 become ministers were undoubtedly few, it is only reasonable to 
 suppose that such a man as he would early attract the attentic-n 
 of the apostles, and be chosen by them to a more dignified and 
 important office than that of serving tables. 
 
 Second. I ask attention to the simple facts in the case. 
 Let the reader recur again to the narrative of the ordination of 
 Philip and others to the deaconship, which has been quoted 
 already, from the beginning of the sixth chapter of Acts, and 
 see for himself, what the tnie nature and purpose of that ordi- 
 nation were. The facts are there all put before him, and they 
 are as plain and intelligible as any facts could be. The apostles 
 were pressed with the vast multitude of duties and avocations 
 which devolved upon them, and wdien " there arose a murmur- 
 ing of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widov.s 
 were neglected in the daily ministrations," they called the 
 multitude of the disciples together, and said, " It is not reas> 'U 
 that we should leave the word of God., to serve tables, wherefore, 
 brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest rej^rt, 
 full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appd^it 
 over this business P The seven men were found, and when 
 they were "set before the apostles," they, i. e., the apostles, 
 
5€ THE CHURCH, 
 
 "prayed," and "laid liands on them." So they were ordained 
 to the deaconship; or in other words, they were "appointed 
 over this business " of serving- tables, or of attending to the 
 wants and intei'ests of the- poor. Be- it observed, there is not 
 the most distant allusion to their being ordained to assist the 
 apostles in preaching, or in performing any whatever of the 
 functions of the ministerial office; but simply to their being set 
 over this business of sei'\dng' tables, that the apostles might not 
 be compelled to "leave the word of God," and that they 
 might give themselves " continually to prayer and to the ministry 
 of the word." 
 
 Now onr E])iscopal brethren say, that this was an ordination 
 to the christian ministry ! I feel nothing more strongly than 
 amazement, at such an unfounded and unpalliated pretension. 
 The duties of the deaconship were secular, and nothing but 
 secular, and the deacons, as such, were no more ministers, in the 
 sense of our present discussion, than the trustees of modern 
 congregations, to Avhom is intrusted the care of ordinary tempo- 
 ralities, are ministers. They were office-bearers in the church, 
 but not ministers of the gospel. 
 
 If it is asked, why then were the deacons ordained with so 
 much solemn formality ? I reply, — that the apostles saw fit to do 
 so, probably, to inspire them with a higher sense of the responsi- 
 bility of their office, and to inspire the people with higher 
 respect for them as office-bearers. After their example, it is the 
 practice in Presbyterian churches, to ordain deacons in the same 
 manner, to an office precisely similar. 
 
 Now then, if Philip's ordination to the deaconship was not 
 an ordination to the ministry, — and every one must own that 
 it was not, — and afterward we find him exercising the functions 
 of the ministry, we are bound to conclude tliat he ha<l received 
 in the mean time, another and a higher ordination, though no 
 account be given us of it. There is no other conclusion pos- 
 sible, unless it be that in some cases both lay-preaching jmd 
 lay-baptism were practised in the early church. 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP, 57 
 
 Mr. Schuyler's third sci'iptural argument for Ej^iscopacy tii«ii, 
 is set aside. I trust my readers are capable of seeing that it 
 has been set aside fairly and fully : first, by showing that so far 
 as the apostks are concerned, it proceeds upon a mere assump- 
 tion that they, as apostles, constituted an order in the permanent 
 christian ministry — a proposition which our author should have 
 known is utterly denied by us; and secondly, by showing that 
 the deaconship was not a ministerial, but purely a lay office. 
 
 On this subject of the deaconship it will he convenient to say 
 something under the next head. 
 
 THE FOURTH SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT FOR 
 EPISCOPACY. 
 
 THE THREE-FOLD MINISTRY COMPLETED, BY THE DISCOVERY OF 
 ANOTHER ORDER, CALLED PRESBYTERS. 
 
 No one can give Mr. Schuyler's arguments like himself; it is 
 due to him, therefore, that he should have the advantag-e of his 
 own statement. He says as follows, page fifty-two : 
 
 " The first mention we find of the order of elders or presby- 
 ters (as they mean the same thing, being derived from the same 
 Greek word,) is in the eleventh chapter of Acts, where the 
 brethren at Antioch, in sending relief to the people of Judea, 
 are spoken of as sending it by the hands of Barnabas and Said 
 to the elders. And in the fourteenth chapter it is mentioned 
 that St. Paul and Barnabas, revisiting the churches which they 
 had founded, ordained them elders in every church. Noav, 
 clearly, these elders were neither apostles nor deacons; but, thjit 
 these elders were ministers, is plainly shown in the charge of 
 St. Paul, at Miletus, to those whom he had called from Ephesus : 
 ' Take heed therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock over 
 which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the 
 church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.' 
 These, it is contended by the advocates of paiitv, or of but one 
 4* 
 
58 THE CHURCH, 
 
 order in the ministry, are the only bishops which the scriptures 
 recognize ; and that no higher authority was committed to any 
 other ofRce in the ministry than to them ? But this is a 
 strangely inconsistent assei-tion when we have one minister, St. 
 Paul, the apostle, calling them all together and instructing them, 
 and, as we shall shortly see, placing another over them — 
 Timothy — with a charge which clearly implies higher authority 
 in him, than any which he now recognizes in them. Here, 
 then, as we have shown, w^e have the three orders after Christ's 
 ascension, viz., apostles, presbyters^ and deaconsP 
 
 I confess that I find a difficulty in maintaining that degree 
 of gravity which should characterize so grave a discussion as the 
 present, when I am compelled to reply to such reasoning — if I 
 may call it reasoning — as the above ; but since I am committed 
 to it, I will even go through, and say what I have to say with 
 the seriousness to which my subject is entitled. I remember 
 tliat Mr. Schuyler's brethren in this city, whom I respect, as 
 I do indeed himself also, in any other position than the one 
 lie has been permitted to take in this discussion, have said 
 in their commendatory letter which accompanies his book, 
 that his "/rw^As," (I applaud their forbearance on other points,) 
 are " unansiverahleP I shall try, then, to get at Mr. Schuyler's 
 truths. 
 
 The truths contained in the above extract, which we acknow- 
 ledge, and do not wish to answer, are the following : 
 
 First. That we find no mention of elders in the New Testa- 
 ment, earlier than that made in Acts xi : 30, where it is said, 
 that Barnabas and Saul were commissioned by the christians in 
 Antioch, to convey their charities for the poor brethren in Judea, 
 to the hands of the elders there. 
 
 Second. That these elders were neither apostles nor deacons. 
 
 Third. That these elders were ministers. 
 
 These truths are of importance. This mission of Barnabas 
 and Saul to Judea, was not far from a year after the dispersion 
 that took place on account of the persecution that arose about 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 59 
 
 Stephen, at which time PhiHp went down to Samaria. These 
 elders, Mr. Schuyler owns, were ministers, and he owns too, that 
 we have no previous account of them. There had then, as a 
 clear matter of fact, at this early day, been ordinations to the 
 ministry, and very numerous ordinations, of which no mention 
 is made in the history. I bring out this fact for the obvious 
 pui-pose of showing more fully, that there is nothing unreason- 
 able in my supposition, that Philip had been ordained an elder. 
 There is, in truth, no avoiding the conclusion that he had been. 
 Put together the fact, that his deaconship, which is to be 
 judged of solely by the account given of it at the time that 
 office was instituted, was a purely secular office, not embracing 
 a solitary function of the ministry; that, at a subsequent time 
 he is found exercising another office, that of the ministry itself; 
 and that numerous ordinations to the ministry were constantly 
 taking place, of which no account whatever is furnished in the 
 sacred narrative, and you have proof, which any reasonable 
 mind must regard as amounting to demonstration, that Philip 
 was one of those, who, without record of the fact, had received 
 ministerial ordination. And here, though this point has been 
 sufficiently argued before, let me distinctly notify the reader, 
 that the entire whole of the Episcopal argument from scripture, 
 for the ministerial character of the deacons, rests on the facts 
 that, after their ordination to this office Stephen preached, and 
 Philip preached and baptized. If, in the unbiassed and sober 
 judgment of any man, their argument is not absolutely worthless, 
 I know not what an argument needs to be void of, to make it 
 worthless. If they say that additional argument is found in the 
 directions concerning deacons, that they should " 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 ; " 
 that they should be proved and found blameless before they are 
 put into office, and that they must " be the husbands of one 
 wife" — i. e. of but one — and rule " their children and their 
 own houses well " — if, I say, they claim that there is additional 
 
60 THE CHUliCH, 
 
 argument in all this, then I affirm that they alone have eyes to 
 discover it. These are all proper qualifications doubtless for the 
 ministry, but they are proper and important qualifications also 
 for the office of the deaconship, according to the view of that 
 office which is held by us. It is absurd to say, that from such 
 directions concerning deacons, their ministerial character may be 
 inferred. These very directions we Presbyterians have always 
 aimed to follow in our selection of men to fill the deacon's office 
 in our churches. 
 
 We see, then, the kind of evidence from the scriptures, on 
 which rests one entire order of the ministry in the Episcopal 
 system. To say that it is insufficient, that it is no evidence at 
 all, is a work of simple supererogation. 
 
 But now for the episcopal truth in this last passage from 
 Mr. Schuyler, which, it is said, is unanswerable. It is found in 
 the closing sentence, based upon a discovery that there was, at 
 the time to which our discussion now relates, a class of ministers 
 in the church comprehended under the general designation of 
 elders. — Says our author, " Here then, as we have shown, we 
 have the three orders after Christ's ascension, viz., apostles, 
 presbyters^ and deacons." 
 
 " As we have shown." — Where, my dear brother ? We have 
 been looking with all the intentness of which we are capable, to 
 see, if we could, something that you had made out, something 
 that you had established, and we have looked in vain. We 
 have had " abundance of bold assertion advanced with all the 
 confidence of argument," but as for proof, of any thing, we 
 have not yet been fortunate enough to find it. " As we have 
 shown! " What! do you pretend to say that you have shown 
 that there were at the time of which we are speaking, three 
 orders in the permanent ministry of the christian church ? — and 
 that these three orders were apostles, presbyters, and deacons ? 
 Why, sir, you have not yet touched the question respecting the 
 apostles; you have not glanced at it. In regard to deacons, if 
 you have shown any thing, I do not know it. As to elders, 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 61 
 
 you have shown by the quotation of a text of scripture that 
 such a class of ministers existed, and that is all that you have 
 shown; and yet, at this point you rest from your herculean 
 labor, and cry, Victory ! You have made out your case 1 you 
 have proved that Episcopacy is the doctrine of the bible ; having 
 found in actual existence after Christ's ascension, three dis- 
 tinct and separate orders in the ministry of the church — viz., 
 apostles, presbyters, and deacons ! 
 
 You said a little while ago, " Let us bring the question of 
 parity or imparity, equality or inequality, in the orders of the 
 ministry, to the test of scripture." "You had said before, " The 
 question now comes up. Who are successors of the apostles, and 
 who, therefore, are duly empowered to confer the ministerial 
 commission ? The determination of this question rests upon the 
 decision of the issue between two systems, episcopacy and parity." 
 You have now brought the question of parity or imparity, to 
 the test of scripture, you have tried this issue, and settled it. 
 That is, you claim now to have proved that the bible teaches 
 episcopacy! Well, I have nothing to say; our readers must 
 decide between us. You are prepared now for the main ques- 
 tion, and to this you proceed — Who are the successors of the 
 apostles, and who therefore have the power to confer the 
 ministerial commission? You have concluded your argument 
 for imparity in the ministerial office, for three orders, and now 
 you say the question returns, " To which of these three orders 
 was the ordaining power committed ? " I must be permitted to 
 say, that if the question which you are now about to answer, 
 does depend on a previous decision of the issue betv.een the 
 two systems of parity and imparity^ you are in a ^ cry sad 
 predicament. 
 
 I am not yet quite prepared to follow our author in his next 
 advance, having something more to say on the subject of elders. 
 
 " These," that is, elders, says Mr. S., page fifty-three, " it is 
 contended by the advocates for parity, or of but one order in 
 the ministry, are the only bishops the scriptures recognize, and 
 
62 THE CHURCH, 
 
 that no higher authority was committed to any other officer in 
 the ministry than to them. But this is a strangely inconsistent 
 assertion, when we have one minister^ St. Paul, the apostle, 
 calling them altogether, and instructing them." 
 
 See, here, my brother's inveterate habit of anticipating his 
 OAvn argument, and of taking for granted what he has not yet 
 proved. Does he not know that we Presbyterians utterly deny 
 that " St. Paul, the apostle," was a minister in the church, i. e., 
 using the word minister in the sense of the present discussion, 
 as the title of one holding an office that was designed to be 
 permanent? Paul, the elder, was such a minister in the 
 church, — but not Paul, the apostle. After he shall have 
 proved that the apostleship was intended to be a successive 
 and an abiding office, it will then amount to something to tell 
 us of the authority which apostles exercised over other minis- 
 ters. Until then, it is not only a waste of words, but it is mere 
 trifling and impertinence. 
 
 " It is contended by the advocates for parity, or of but one 
 order in the ministry, that the elders are the only bishops which 
 the scriptures recognize, and that no higher authority was com- 
 mitted to any otlier officer in the ministry than to them." As 
 to the latter part of this sentence, I have only to say, that it 
 expresses the truth, if our author refers to the permanent officers 
 in the ministry; otherwise, not a truth; for we admit, that 
 while the apostolic office continued in the churcli, the apostles 
 were superior to the elders. For the rest, do not Episcopalians 
 themselves admit that elders are the only bishops which the 
 scriptures recognize? What says our author himself on the 
 very next page, fifty-four — " We readily admit that the name 
 of ' bishop,' which we now appropriate to the highest grade, is 
 used in the bible as importing the same office with ' elder ' or 
 ' presb}i:er.' " He has his own explanation to give for this. 
 But here is the fact. In the New Testament the terms elder or 
 presb}i,er, and bishop, are used interchangeably to indicate one 
 and only one office; — see my sermon upon this point, — and 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 63 
 
 it may be added that to no other officers in the church what- 
 ever, not even to apostles, is the name " bishop " in a single 
 instance applied. We do indeed claim therefore, that the 
 scriptures recognize no bishops except presbyters; we claim it 
 without contradiction. If other bishops were recognized in the 
 church, in subsequent times, we say simply, it was an unauthor- 
 ized departure from scriptural usage and established scriptural 
 precedent. 
 
 The elders alone, according to the New Testament history, 
 had the immediate oversight and spiritual care of the churches. 
 Thus, in Paul's address to the elders of Ephesus, at Miletus, he 
 said, " Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock 
 over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, {episco- 
 pons, bishops,) to feed the church of God, which he hath 
 purchased with his own blood." Where is there the record of 
 such language used either to, or concerning any other order of 
 oflicers in the church ? Where is the place in which deacons 
 are so addressed, or even in connection with such duties, spoken 
 of? These are the men, the presbyters, to oversee, to look after, 
 to govern the flock, and to feed the church of God, and these 
 only. These are the bishops whom the Holy Ghost hath made, 
 the true bishops, the only bishops, in spite of all human inven- 
 tions, and devices and makings of men. 
 
 The dignity of the presbyterate, or the elder's office, may be 
 inferred from the fact, that the apostles themselves delighted to 
 assert their own right to it, and to be called by its name. If I 
 may for once assume a thing that I have not proved, I will 
 assume here that the apostleship was temporary, and not a per- 
 manent office in the christian ministry, and I will give this as a 
 reason why the apostles gloried in the name of elder; for in 
 respect of the permanent nature of the eldership and the tempo- 
 rary nature of the apostleship, the eldership was the nobler and 
 better office of the two. While the apostleship should forever 
 cease Avith the lives of the men who first held it, the eldership 
 was to be an office in the church till time should be no more, 
 
64 THE CHURCH, 
 
 under which the church should pass through all her vicissitudes, 
 and end at once her triumphs and her toils. Hence the 
 apostles may well have felt that it was an honor to be called 
 elders; and we need not wonder that Peter should say, — 
 1 Peter, v : 1, — " The elders I exhort, who am also an elder; " 
 and that John, in the salutation of two of his epistles, should 
 style himself " the elder." 
 
 Whoever reads attentively the scripture history, and particu- 
 lai'ly notices the manner in which elders are spoken of, will not 
 fail to notice, that of elders there are two classes, — ^ those who 
 rule^ and those who, in addition to the exercise of authority, 
 labor also in word and doctrine, familiarly cahed, in the Presby- 
 terian church, "ruling elders" and "teaching elders;" the 
 former of whom are not ministers in the proper sense of that 
 word, but assistants of the ministers in the spiritual oversight of 
 the churches, — as deacons are assistants of the ministers in 
 looking after the poor, and dispensing the public charities for 
 their relief. 
 
 A passage clearly bearing on this point, may be found in 
 1 Tim. v: 17, — "Let the elders that rule well be counted 
 worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in word and 
 doctrine." Here, beyond all reasonable question, are pointed 
 out two classes of office-bearers, exercising separate and distinct 
 functions. '^ 
 
 It is intimated in the clearest manner that there are elders 
 who rule, and who rule only ; i. e., who administer the laws and 
 discipline of Christ's house, for the maintenance of good order 
 and purity; and that there is another class of elders joined 
 with the fomier in the exercise of government, who, in addition 
 to this, preach the gospel and administer the sacraments. Vari- 
 ous methods have been attempted for evading the force of this 
 text ; but no one, rejecting our view of it, has ever been able 
 to afford a satisfactory answer to the question, Who are intended 
 by the eldei-s that rule well, as distinguished from those that 
 labor in word and doctrine ? They can not be ministers who 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 65 
 
 have ceased to exercise the functions of the ministry, for such 
 do not rule at all. They can not be diocesan bishops, in distinc- 
 tion from the preaching presbyters, — for, besides that there 
 were no such bishops in the apostolic church, this would be to 
 assign higher honor to the presbyters than to the bishops. 
 They can not be ordinary bishops or presb}i;ers, in distinction 
 from evangelists, — for no such diversity as that which the text 
 indicates existed, in the primitive church, between these tv/o 
 classes of ministers. They can not be the deacons, — for no rule 
 whatever in the church was assigned to these officers. If our 
 exposition of the text be not the true one, let another be sug- 
 gested, if another can be, which will bear the test of criticism. 
 
 With the text that has been cited^ compare 1 Cor. xii: 28 
 " God hath set some in the church, first, apostles ; secondarily 
 prophets; thirdly, teachers; after that, miracles; then gifts of 
 healing, helps, governments, diversities of tong-ues." Although 
 in this passage there is an enumeration of miraculous and extra- 
 ordinary ministrations in the early church, yet evidently, it must 
 also be considered as specifying, in part, ordinary and penna- 
 nent office-bearers. Dr. John Dick says, " There are no persons 
 who may be so reasonably supposed to be meant by ' helps ' as 
 deacons ; and thus the word has often been explained. They 
 were instituted for the express purpose of helping the apostles, 
 for the purpose of relie\dng them from the . care of the poor, 
 that they might devote themselves exclusively to the ministry 
 of the word. If helps signify helpers, governments must 
 signify governors, the abstract being put in both cases for the 
 concrete. The question then is, Who were the governors to 
 whom the apostles referred ? They were not the apostles, nor 
 the proj^hets, nor the teachers, because these are mentioned as 
 distinct classes. They were not helpers, because these are men- 
 tioned as a distinct class also; and besides, if deacons were 
 intended, they could with no propriety be called governors, for 
 deacons have no rule in the church. There is no other class of 
 persons to whom this title, used as it is in contradistinction to 
 
66 THE CHURCH, 
 
 other office-bearers, will apply, but the ruling elders of Presby- 
 terians ; and it is with obvious propriety that they are designated 
 as governors, since the sole business of their office is to govern 
 the congregation over which they are appointed. God has set 
 some governors in the church. He has not lodged the power in 
 the people at large, but has ordained that a few, appointed by 
 the whole, should be invested with authority to take order that 
 the members should walk in the ordinances and commandments 
 of God." 
 
 Compare, also, Rom. xii : 6-8, " Having then gifts differing 
 according to the grace that is given to us ; Avhether of prophecy, 
 let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith ; or ministry, 
 let us wait on our ministering ; or he that teacheth, on teach- 
 ing ; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation ; he that giveth, let 
 him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he 
 that showeth mercy, w4th cheerfulness." 
 
 I quote again from Dr. Dick. 
 
 " It is the opinion of many commentators, that prophesying, 
 which sometimes signifies public teaching by the assistance of 
 the Holy Spirit, and ministry, are general divisions under which 
 the different offices of the church ai-e arranged ; that prophesy- 
 ing comprehends teaching and exhorting ; and ministry, giving, 
 ruling, and showing mercy. At any rate, it is plain that ruling 
 is distinguished from teaching, exhorting, and giving, or from 
 the peculiar work of the pastor, the doctor, and the deacon. 
 The original term, 2^'^oistamenos, is properly translated, he that 
 ruleth, because it evidently denotes one who presides over othere 
 with authority. This presidency is attributed to one as his 
 proper business. It is his duty to preside, or to rule, as it is 
 of another to teach, or to give. The apostle is not enumerating 
 the various duties of one individual, but the different duties of 
 different individuals. Who, then, is he that ruleth ? He is not 
 the deacon, for the deacon does not mle, but gives to the poor ; 
 he is not the pastor, for, although the pastor rules, he is here 
 characterized by teaching, or exhorting, which is peculiar to him. 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 67 
 
 He that rules must, tlierefore, be a person whose whole duty- 
 consists in ruling ; or, in other words, an elder, according to the 
 views of Presbyterians. Some tell us, that his rule is over his 
 family; but this is nothing to the purpose, and is a shift to 
 get rid of a difficulty, because the apostle is obviously speaking 
 of the church. Others say, that he rules over the church stock ; 
 but they confound him with the deacon, who gives ; and besides, 
 in this sense, the expression would be indefinite and improper ; 
 there being nothing to determine the kind of rule to which the 
 apostle refers ; and surely, it will not be supposed that a deacon 
 was held in such estimation in primitive times as to be called 
 proistamenos — he that rules — by way of eminence. There is 
 another mode of evading the argument, by saying that the 
 apostle is not speaking of offices and office-bearers, but of gifts. 
 Some pains have been taken to obviate this objection, but with- 
 out necessity, because it is manifestly unfounded ; and, at any 
 rate, it does not answer the design of those who have adopted 
 it. Paul does indeed make mention of gifts; but he imme- 
 diately proceeds to consider them as bestowed upon particular 
 persons, and speaks of those persons as plainly as one man can 
 speak of another. Besides, although he were speaking of gifts, 
 the argument is of the same force as if he were speaking of 
 persons ; for gifts are bestowed upon persons for particular pur- 
 poses. And if there are gifts which qualify for ruling, as there 
 are gifts which qualify for teaching, it follows, that to rule or 
 govern is the exclusive duty of those upon whom the former 
 are conferred. Every unprejudiced man must perceive the 
 truth of this reasoning, and consequently must think that the 
 evasion mentioned above is not worthy of notice." 
 
 Coincident with all this, and confirmatory of it, is the fact 
 every^vhere apparent, that in all the churches of the apostolic 
 time there was a plurality of elders. Every church had its 
 bench, or college of officers, bearing this general appellation ; 
 for examples, see Acts xiv : 23 — " And when they had ordained 
 them elders in every church " — not an elder in every church, 
 
68 THE CHURCH, 
 
 but in every cliurcli elders. Also, James v: 14 — "Is any 
 sick among you ? let liira call for the elders of the church," &c. 
 There were, then, in the apostolic church two classes of elders, — 
 not two orders of ministers, but two classes of persons under 
 the general designation of elders — one class consisting of 
 persons who were fully endowed with all the ministerial func- 
 tions, to preach the word and administer the sacraments, and 
 to exercise authority in the church as spiritual rulers ; — the 
 other, of persons not invested with ministerial powers, but 
 appointed; in conjunction with the ministers, simply to rule. 
 
 Now, barely reminding the reader, that the apostles, besides 
 being apostles, were also elders^ (the proof has been pre\aously 
 quoted,) and that the question in regard to the permanency or 
 otherwise, of the apostleship, as a ministerial office in the church, 
 has not yet been settled, we call him to notice that we have 
 found thus far but one order of permanent christian ministers. 
 We have found, however, in addition to this one order of min- 
 isters, two other permanent offices: those of the deaconship 
 and the niling eldership, as they exist in the Presbyterian 
 church. 
 
 The question in regard to the permanency of the deacon's 
 office, is admitted on all hands. That in regard to the perma- 
 nency of the office of mling elder, is settled, by a consideration 
 of the permanence of the same necessity which first gave 
 occasion for its being .constituted. 
 
 If our \dews in regard to ruling elders shall be controverted, 
 we have only to admonish those concerned, that their office is 
 not an essential feature of Presbyterianism, or of that ecclesias- 
 tical system described by the term parity. 
 
 Our author now, page fifty-four, returns to the question. 
 Who are successors of the apostles, and who, therefore, are 
 empowered to confer the ministerial commission ? He says, — 
 assuming that he has established the/ac^ of three orders in the 
 christian ministry — " To which of these three ordei-s was the 
 ordaining power committed ? " This is literally a flight, or a 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 69 
 
 fall, for certainly there is nothing but thin air under him. " To 
 which of these three orders ! " What three orders, my dear 
 brother ? Surely something is wrong with your eyes, for you 
 see treble. Do you not know that you have shown, as yet, but 
 one order in the permanent chiistian ministry ? Why, then, do 
 you speak of three ? 
 
 As you seem resolved never to take up the case of the 
 apostles, and determine whether, as such, they were the holders 
 of a permanent christian ministry ; and as, in fact, you never 
 do take it up, but go through your entire book, assuming your 
 theory of their oflBce, and making it the very foundation of 
 your whole Episcopal system, I must here leave you for a while, 
 and attend to that question ; I can not get on farther, without 
 having it disposed of. 
 
 WAS THE APOSTLESHIP INTENDED TO BE A 
 SUCCESSIVE AND PERMANENT OFFICE? 
 
 We say it was not. In its very nature, as well as in the 
 intention of Christ, it was transient, and ceased forever with 
 the lives of those on whom it was first bestowed. Let me 
 be distinctly understood. I speak of the apostleship. That 
 the apostles were to have successors we do not deny, but on 
 the contrajy, affirm, — yet, not in the apostleship. They were 
 presbyters as well as apostles, and it was in the presbyterate 
 that they were to be succeeded by others, and in this only. 
 
 What was the real nature of the apostolical office ? We may 
 obtain a full answer to this question, by attending to the three 
 following inquiries: What were the necessary qualifications 
 for the apostolical office ? What were its peculiar functions ? 
 And, what were its credentials ? 
 
 First. Wliat were the necessary qualifications for the apos- 
 tolical office ? 
 
70 THE CHURCH, 
 
 In the first place, it was indispensable to the holding of this 
 office, that the person should have seen the Lord; at least, that 
 he should have seen him once, after his resurrection. The rea- 
 son for this will appear, w^hen we come to consider the peculiar 
 functions of the apostleship. 
 
 That having seen the Lord, was understood by the apostles 
 themselves to be a necessary qualification for entering into their 
 office, appears most conclusively from the account we have of 
 the election of Matthias to fill the place of Judas. Peter, in 
 proposing the designation of candidates, from whom the choice 
 should be made by lot, thus describes those from among whom 
 they might be selected: Acts i: 21, 22 — "Wherefore, of these 
 men which have companied with us, all the time that the Lord 
 Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism 
 of John, unto thai sa7ne day that he ivas taken up from us, 
 must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrec- 
 tion." Comment is needless. The apostles understood that the 
 selection must be made from a particular class of persons, 
 namely, those who had been with them, and who had a personal 
 acquaintance with Christ. 
 
 After our Lord's ascension, when it pleased him to call one 
 to the apostleship who had not seen him during his personal 
 ministry, or subsequently, during the forty days that he 
 remained on earth, he personally appeared to him, with the 
 very intent of obviating this difficulty, and said, — see Acts 
 xxvi : 1 6, — " I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to 
 make thee a minister and a witness, both of these things which 
 thou hast seen, and of the things wherein I will appear unto 
 thee." Compare this with what Ananias said to Saul, three 
 days afterward in the city of Damascus, — see Acts xxii: 14, 
 15, — "The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou 
 shouldest know his will, and see (hat Just One, and shouldest 
 hear the voice of his mouth, for thou shalt be his witness unto 
 all men of what thou hast seen and heard." To this fact, at a 
 subsequent time, when Paul felt it to be incumbent on him to 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 71 
 
 establish his title to the apostolical office, which had probably 
 been called in question on the very ground of his not having 
 had a personal acquaintance with Christ during his abode on 
 earth, he appealed for proof, — see 1 Cor. ix: 1, — "Am I not 
 an apostle? Am I not free? have I not seen the Lord?'''' 
 Read also in the same epistle, chapter xv : 5 - 9, — " And that 
 he w^as seen of Cephas, then of the twelve; after that he was 
 seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the 
 greater part remain at this present, but some are fallen asleep. 
 After that he was seen of James, then of all the apostles. And 
 last of all, he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due 
 time, for I am the least of all the apostles." What does he 
 mean by this ? What can he mean by it, in the connection in 
 which it stands, except that, by the miraculous vision of Christ, 
 with which he was favored, he had been, as it were, untimely 
 born, or brought into a condition of competency to receive the 
 office to which Christ had called him ? His seeing the Saviour 
 was in some sense a birth to him ; in some important respect, it 
 changed his condition, and gave him a standing which he had 
 not before. 
 
 Now, if it be said, that Paul has reference here solely to his 
 conversion, I reply — In what sense, then, does he use the 
 expression, " out of due time ? " The proper time, and the only 
 proper time for Paul to be converted, was the time when he 
 first received full and decisive evidence of the messiahship of 
 Jesus. His conversion then, was not out of, but in due time; 
 but his becoming eligible to the office of an apostle by a 
 personal interview with Christ, ivas " out of due time." All 
 the other apostles had seen and conversed with the Lord while 
 he was alive, and afterward, previous to his ascension ; but for 
 Paul alone was reserved this untimely and miraculous vision of 
 him. Beyond all dispute, the birth, the change of condition, 
 or of standing to which the apostle refers, as resulting from 
 Christ's appearance to him, was the change in his condition, or 
 standing in regard to the apostleship, whereby he became what 
 
72 THE CHURCH, 
 
 lie was not before, a suitable person to be admitted to that 
 office. Let any one consult the place, and see if it is not bis 
 apostolical, and not his chi'istian character, of which Paul is 
 speaking. He says — " As of one born out of due time, For 
 I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called 
 an apostle. * * * But by the grace of God I ain what 
 I am, and his grace was not bestowed on me in vain; but 
 I labored more abundantly than they all." 
 
 Other proof is not wanting, that to have seen Christ was an 
 indispensable qualification for the apostleship; but the proofs 
 that have been adduced, are amply sufficient. 
 
 In the second place ; it was equally indispensable that the 
 individual assuming the apostolical office should have received a 
 direct and personal call thereto, hy Christ. 
 
 That the apostles themselves so understood it, is evident from 
 the fact, that when they proceeded, whether properly or impro- 
 perly, to choose one to fill the vacant place of Judas, they did 
 not venture to designate the person, but having selected two as 
 candidates, they appealed to the Lord by a lot, to select between 
 them, or, if he should see fit, to reject them both. JSTo other 
 instance of the kind is recorded in all their acts. In no other 
 ordination of a minister, or of any so-called apostle, did they 
 ever proceed in any analogous manner. The case of Paul may 
 be referred to again with eminent propriety and force ; it was by 
 a direct and personal divine call, and by nothing short of this, 
 that he became an apostle; and distinctly on this ground, as well 
 as on the ground of having seen the Lord, he vindicated his 
 claim to the apostleship. Thus, Rom. i: 1, — "Paul a servant 
 of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle." That he means spe- 
 cially and divinely called, called by Christ himself, we know 
 from the fact. So, 2 Cor. i: 1, — "Paul, an apostle of Jesus 
 Christ, by the will of GodV Again, 1 Tim. i: 1, — "Paul, an 
 apostle of Jesus Christ, by the commandment of God our 
 Saviour;'''' and more emphatically still. Gal. i: 1, — "Paul, an 
 apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP, 73^ 
 
 God the Father, who raised him from the dead." Now, it is not 
 by a mere accident of style that Paul so often refers to the fact 
 of his being specially and personally called to the apostleship 
 by Christ, but there was a design in it. Paul knew that he 
 did not stand upon precisely the same footing with the eleven, 
 and he knew that on this account there were some, who would 
 be disposed to make light of his pretensions, and to judge that 
 if he were an apostle at all, he was at least not equal with 
 the rest. He felt called upon to meet this objection, and to 
 assert by arguments, not only his official character, but his 
 full equality in that character with others. Hence, he is in one 
 place at the pains to show, that he is " not a whit behind the 
 very chiefest of the apostles," and all along throughout all his 
 epistles, it is a marked peculiarity with him to vindicate his 
 authority by a continual reference to the two great facts of his 
 having seen the Lord, and of his having been called by him to 
 the apostleship. What conclusion is possible, but that Paul, 
 knowing his apostleship to be denied by some on the ground of 
 his lacking the necessary qualifications for it, understood that 
 these were the necessary qualifications for that office, and 
 therefore claimed to possess them ? 
 
 It may be mentioned, as a fact, that the official title of apos- 
 tle, is nowhere in the scriptures given to one whom Christ had 
 not personally called and appointed to that office. 
 
 With this notice of the qualifications for the apostolic office, 
 we may proceed. 
 
 Secondly. To consider its peculiar functions. 
 
 These may be all classed under one general head, — hearing 
 witness of Christ, of his doings and doctrines; and especially 
 of the great fact upon which the credibility of all the rest de- 
 pended, — his resurrection from the dead. This they 'were 
 to do from personal knowledge ; not as second-hand and hear- 
 say witnesses, but as eye-witnesses of the facts, and as actual 
 hearers of the words spoken by him. Thus Peter says, 2 epis- 
 tle, i: 16-18, "For we have not followed cunningly devised 
 
74 THE CHURCH^ 
 
 fables, when we made known nnto you the power and coming; 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, hut were eye-ivitnesses of his majesty. 
 For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when 
 there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This 
 is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. And thi& 
 voice which came from Heaven we heard, when we were with 
 him in the holy mount." So also, John, 1 Epistle, i : 1- 3^ 
 " That which was from the beginning which we have heard, 
 which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon,, 
 and our hands have handled, of the Word of life ; for the life 
 was manifested, and we have seen it and hear witness, and 
 show unto you that eternal life which was with the Father, 
 and was manifested unto us; that which we have seen and 
 heard declare we unto you." 
 
 It was especially that the twelve might be qualified to be 
 such witnesses of Christ, that he ordained or appointed them to 
 " be with him," during the time of his earthly ministry, — that 
 they might see and hear all that he did and said. To make 
 up to Paul what he lacked from having never been with him 
 or seen him, the risen and glorified Saviour appeared to him 
 on his way to Damascus; and not only thus prepared him to 
 be a competent witness of his resurrection, but promised him 
 other similar appearances and special revelations, that he might 
 in all respects be placed on an equality with the other apostles. 
 — "I have appeared unto thee," said Christ, " for this purpose, 
 to make thee a minister and a witness, both of these things which 
 thou hast seen and of those things in the which I will appear 
 unto thee." And Paul, in fact, was an original and independ- 
 ent witness — just such as the nature and conditions of the 
 apostleship required. As he had not been made an apostle " of 
 men, neither by man," so he did not obtain from men the gos- 
 pel which he preached. To the Galatians, he says — chapter 
 i: 11, 12 — "I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was 
 preached of me, is not after man ; for I neither received it of man, 
 neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 75 
 
 Now let the reader understand, that what we are looking 
 after, is that which was peculiar to the apostolic oflSce, and dis- 
 tinguished it from the ordinary office of the gospel ministry. 
 What we desire as the end of this inquiry is, to know whether 
 the apostolic office was intended to be a permanent and suc- 
 cessive office in the christian church. The question now is, 
 what were its peculiar and characteristic functions ? We have 
 already answered, by saying that all were comprehended in 
 this, — to bear witness from personal knowledge, of Christy 
 of his doings and doctrines, and especially of his resurrection 
 from the dead. We challenge the world to show any thing 
 besides this, appertaining to the apostolic office, that was 
 peculiar to it and distinguished it. 
 
 Accounts of the original appointment of the apostles may be 
 found in three places : Matt, x, Mark iii, and Luke vi. In the 
 tenth chapter of Matthew there is a minute and full statement 
 of the instructions, which, on that interesting and solemn occa- 
 sion, our Lord addressed to them. The reader may refer to it 
 and satisfy himself that there is nothing there contradictory to 
 my present statement in regard to the pecuharity of their office. 
 
 The final commission which our Lord gave to his apostles, 
 just before his ascension, ought to throw light upon this subject 
 For the reader's convenience I will quote the several passages 
 entire, from the different places in which the commission 
 is found : 
 
 Matt. XXVIII : 16-20. — "Then the eleven disciples went 
 away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus appointed 
 them. 
 
 " And when they saw him they worshiped him : but some 
 doubted. 
 
 " And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is 
 given unto me in heaven and in earth, 
 
 " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost ; 
 
76 THE CHURCH, 
 
 " Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have 
 commanded you : and, lo^ I am with you always, even unto 
 the end of the world. Amen." 
 
 Mark xvi: 14-16. — "Afterward he appeared unto the 
 eleven, as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their un- 
 belief, and hardness of heart, because they believed not them 
 which had seen him after he was risen. 
 
 "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach 
 the gospel to every creature. 
 
 " He that beHeveth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he 
 that believeth not shall be damned." 
 
 Luke xxiv : 46 - 49. — "And (he) said unto them. Thus it is 
 written, and thus it behooved Christ to suflfer, and to rise from 
 the dead the third day ; 
 
 " And that repentance and remission of sins should be 
 preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 
 
 " And ye are witnesses of these things. 
 
 " And behold, I send the promise of the Father upon you." 
 
 Acts i : 6-9. — " When therefore they were come together, 
 they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore 
 again the kingdom of Israel ? 
 
 " And he said unto them. It is not for you to know the times 
 or the seasons which the Father hath put in his own power. 
 
 " But 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 Samaria, and unto the uttermost part 
 of the earth. 
 
 " And w hen he had spoken these things, while they beheld, 
 he was taken up." 
 
 The reader discovers two things simply, in these records. 
 First, that the; apostles received an ordinay commission, as 
 ministers, or common preachers of the gospel, authorizing them 
 to do, what every ordained minister may do as well as they, to 
 preach and administer the sacraments. Read the records in 
 Matthew and Mark. And secondly, that they received an 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 77 
 
 extraordinary commission, appointing them to a work which 
 none but they were competent to perform, and in which they 
 could not have successors, for the reason that none after them 
 could be competent to perform it. — See the records in Luke 
 and Acts. Their extraordinary and peculiar work as apostles, 
 was, to hear witness of Christ. — Luke xxiv : 48 — " And ye 
 are witnesses of these things^ That is, of the things spoken 
 of in the forty-sixth verse — his sufferings, and death, and resur- 
 rection from the dead, according to the predictions of the Old 
 Testament concerning the true Messiah. They had been per- 
 sonally cognizant of the facts, and being able to testify from 
 their own knowledge, they were his chosen and authorized 
 witnesses of them to the world. 
 
 To the same effect, as indicating their extraordinary and pecu- 
 liar oflSce, according to the record in Acts, Christ said — " And ye 
 shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem and in all 
 Judea" &c. 
 
 Each version, therefore, that we have of the commission which 
 the apostles received from Christ after his resurrection, specifies 
 two classes of duties or acts which they were to perform ; one, 
 of duties or acts which were to be performed, in common with 
 them, by all christian ministers : and one, of a duty peculiar 
 to them, which none but they could perform. And that pecur- 
 liar service of the apostles neither includes the prerogatives of 
 government and ordination which, it is pretended, appertained 
 to them exclusively, nor has it any relation, near or remote, 
 to such prerogatives, except as it implied a knowledge of 
 the Saviour's will, which would specially qualify them for 
 assuming, during their Hfetime, the superior direction of all 
 church affairs. 
 
 Let us now take some other place, if we can find one, and 
 happily there are many, in which the peculiar business of an 
 apostle is distinctly stated. We refer the reader again, in Acts i, 
 to the place where we have the account of the selection of 
 Matthias to fill the vacancy occasioned by the apostacy of Judas. 
 
78 THE CHURCH, 
 
 The twenty-first and twenty-second verses contain the words to 
 be noticed : after Peter had explained the necessity which he 
 supposed existed for the appointment of another apostle, he thus 
 proceeded — " Wherefore, of these men which have companied 
 with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among 
 us, beginning at the baptism of John, unto that same day that 
 he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness 
 with us of the resurrection of Christ.''^ Observe, he must be 
 chosen from among them that were competent to be witnesses^ 
 having a personal knowledge of the matters in regard to which 
 the witnessing was to be done; and to be such a witness^ a 
 witness from personal hiowledge, was the special service for 
 which he was to he made an apostle. Could any thing be 
 plainer than this? And, let it be further noticed, that this was 
 specifically the view which the eleven took of the apostolic 
 office held by themselves — "Wherefore * * * must one 
 be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." 
 Their own work as apostles they understood to be, to bear 
 witness of Christ's resurrection. 
 
 Take again, the case of Paul, as bearing on the point now 
 under consideration. We have two separate accounts of his 
 appointment to the apostleship, in each of which there is a 
 distinct statement of the design of his appointment, and the 
 nature of the service which, in that character, he was to perform. 
 First, in Acts xxii: 14-15, we have the words of Ananias: 
 " The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest 
 know his will, and see that Just One, and hear the words of his 
 mouth, /or thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou 
 hast seen and heard^'' Again, in Acts xxvi : 1 6, we have the 
 words of our Lord himself : " I have appeared unto thee for 
 this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness^ both of 
 these things which thou hast seen^ and of those things in the 
 which 1 will appear unto theeP There is another text, in 
 Acts xxiii: 11, where the nature of Paul's apostolic work is 
 described in exact conformity with the style above employed : 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 79 
 
 ''^The Lord stood by Mm and said. Be of good cheer, Paul; 
 for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear 
 witness also at Rome," 
 
 Everywhere, in the sacred narrative of the labors of the 
 apostles, this bearing witness, from personal knowledge, of Christ, 
 and particularly, of Christ's resurrection from the dead, is kept 
 prominent, as the great thing. Peter, in his sermon on the day 
 of Pentecost, says, Acts ii : 32 — " This Jesus hath God raised 
 up, whereof we are toitnessesJ^ Peter and the other apostles, 
 before the council, said, Acts v: 29-32 — "We ought to obev 
 God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, 
 whom ye slew aiad hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted 
 with his own right hand, to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to 
 give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins, and we are 
 his witnesses of these things^ Again, Acts x: 39-41, Peter 
 at Cesarea declared — " And we are witnesses of all things 
 which he did, both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem ; 
 whom they slew and hanged on a tree. Him God raised up 
 the third day, and showed him openly ; and he commanded us 
 to preach unto the people, and to testify that it was he which 
 was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead^'' 
 And John tells us. Rev. i: 9, th&t he "was in the isle that is 
 called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of 
 Jesusr His banishment was for preaching the gospel, and for 
 hearing witness of Christ, 
 
 We have thus shown, as we think, by testimony which can not 
 fail to carry convietion to every unbiassed mind, what was the 
 peculiarity of the apostolic office. It was not to govern the 
 church, and U ordain ministers, but to bear witness^ from per- 
 sonal knowledge, of Christ, and particularly^ of his resurrec- 
 tion. In the performance of this general duty, they not only 
 testified orally to men, while they Hved, but they wrote down 
 their testimony for all succeeding generations — which we have 
 in the gospels and epistles, composed, as their oral testimony 
 lyas delivered, under a divine inspiration, preserving them from 
 
80 THE CHURCH, 
 
 errors, and according to the Saviour's promise ( Jolin xiv : 26) 
 teaching them all things, and bringing all things to their 
 remembrance, whatsoever Christ had spoken unto them. As 
 witnesses for Christ, they also presided over the formation and 
 establishment of the Christian church, directing and ordering 
 all things in accordance, undoubtedly, with instructions which 
 he had given them during his life time, and subsequently^ 
 previous to his ascension. 
 
 : Now^ Episcopalians tell us, that the peculiar functions of the 
 apostolic office were, to govern the church and ordain ministers. 
 Where do they get it ? Is it not very singular, if that were 
 the case, that neither in their commission, nor in one solitary 
 place where the design of their appointment is stated, is there 
 the faintest allusion to any such functions as these ? Why have 
 we no mention of them in the account that is given us of the 
 appointment of Matthias ? Why none, in the repeated accounts 
 by Paul of his own call and consecration to this work ? Why 
 is the work of an apostle ahvays that which we have described — 
 to hear ivitness, from personal knowledge^ of Christ — and 
 never that which our opponents pretend it was, to govern and 
 ordain? Must not this appear, to our Episcopal friends, a very 
 remarkable circumstance ? 
 
 • But Episcopalians say, " Look at the facts ; " and in opposi- 
 tion to our citation of plain and positive records, as to what 
 the great and essential peculiarity of the apostleship was, they 
 refer us to the facts that the apostles did govern the church and 
 ordain ministers. We do not deny that they did so. We only 
 deny that to do these things was properly and peculiarly apos- 
 tolical worJc. We deny that to govern and ordain were 
 properly and peculiarly apostolic functions. It must be 
 remembered that the apostles were preslijters also ; and we 
 maintain, that so far as they acted officially in the government 
 of the church, and in the ordination of ministers, they a<)ted 
 in their presbyterial, and not in their apostolical character. 
 This we confirm: firsts by the fact which has been made 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 81 
 
 already to appear — that to do these things was not included 
 in their ajDOstolical warrant ; and secondly, by the fact which 
 will be made equally apparent by and by — that to do these 
 things was proper presbyterial work. The apostles were 
 the men of course, and of necessity, to take the lead, and to 
 appear at the head of every thing while they lived. Their 
 knowledge, from having been with Christ and received his 
 personal instructions, and their inspiration, sufficiently indicated 
 them, so long as they continued in the church, as absolute and 
 authoritative directors in all matters ; and it is not to be for- 
 gotten, that at the beginning there were no ministers in the 
 church, of any kind, except themselves ; so that what was done, 
 was of necessity done by them. 
 
 The supremacy of the apostles, as such, in the church, resulted 
 from their peculiar character as witnesses of Christ. They, and 
 they only, knew his doctrines and his will. They, and they 
 only, were competent to say what directions the master had 
 left behind him, for the ordering of his kingdom. They had 
 been chosen and personally instructed by him for this especial 
 purpose ; and they had his spirit to assist and guide them in 
 their work. This, of itself, while they lived, made them rulers. 
 They had " the mind of Christ," so that in them Christ still 
 lived. They were in his stead, and their word was Christ's 
 word. During their life-time they were governors, not in officio, 
 but ex officio. Government was not their proper office, but in 
 the peculiar circumstances in which they were placed, it was an 
 unavoidable contingent of their proper office as witnesses. We 
 are prepared now to consider 
 
 Thirdly. The credentials of the apostleship. What were 
 the marks of a true apostle ? I begin here by referring to the 
 words cf Paul, in 2 Cor. vii: 12 — "Truly the signs of an 
 apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and 
 wonders, and mighty deeds,^'' ISTow it is to be remembered, 
 that Paul had been called to the apostleship in a miraculous 
 way, and that for the actuality of his call, he was himself^ 
 5* 
 
82 THE CHURCH, 
 
 almost, if not quite, the only witness. They that journeyed with 
 him, at the time when the Lord appeared to him on his way to 
 Damascus, could, if summoned to give their testimony, confirm 
 some of the circumstances in his most wonderful narration ; for 
 they saw the light, and all fell to the earth, overwhelmed by the 
 awful glories of the vision ; but they did not hear the voice that 
 conversed with Saul ; and of that, which was the main thing, 
 they could say nothing. It was necessary, therefore, that Paul 
 should be able to establish his claims to the apostleship by some- 
 thing: more than a mere verbal declaration of what he had 
 seen and heard. If there w^ere " signs of an apostle^^^ whereby 
 one called of God to the performance of that high mission, 
 might be certainly accredited and known, it was indispensable 
 that he should be able to produce them. From the text that 
 has been quoted we learn, — First, the fact, that there ivere such 
 ^^ signs of an ajcfostle " as those of which I have just spoken; 
 and secondly, we learn what the " signs of an apostle " w^ere. 
 To establish their credit among men as his ivitnesses, Christ 
 had endowed his apostles with the power of working miracles, 
 of doing the same things in his name, which he himself had 
 been wont to da in confirmation of his own claims to be the 
 messiah. I am well aware that it may be said, that in the 
 early days of the church the power of working miracles was 
 not confined to the apostles, and therefore could not be regarded 
 as especially a badge or credential of apostleship ; but I reply, 
 that this is a mere evasion : the power of working miracles was 
 the proof of whatever was sought to be proved by such means. 
 Christ's miracles were wrought in attestation of his mossiah- 
 ship ; and they proved his messiahship. The miracles of the 
 apostles were wrought in attestation of their apostleship ; and 
 they proved their apostleship. If it can be shown that others 
 in the early church ever performed miraculous works to prove 
 that theg were apostles, then something will be made out against 
 the position I have taken. My position simply is, that the power 
 of working miracles was an essential testimony of apostleship 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 83 
 
 to them who claimed to be apostles; and that none were 
 received as apostles, who did not show this sign. Paul said to 
 the Corinthians, " And truly the signs of an ajoostle were 
 wrought among you," &c. Those "signs, and wonders, and 
 mighty deeds," therefore, which he had wrought, were under- 
 stood to be proofs of his apostolical authority, and not only 
 so, but they were understood to be the signs always, in every 
 instance, by which one claiming to be an apostle verified his 
 commission. 
 
 Besides working miracles, in the proper sense of such lan- 
 guage, the apostles had the peculiar and exclusive power of 
 imparting miraculous gifts of the spirit, by the imposition of 
 hands ; and to aid them in the important and most responsible 
 work which devolved on them, not as apostles merely, but as 
 ordinary ministers, in the original founding and establishing of 
 the christian church, and in the selection of persons to take part 
 with them in their ministry, they seem to have enjoyed, to a 
 very great extent, the peculiar prerogative of discerning spirits, 
 of knowing the inmost thoughts and real characters of men. 
 It is needless to furnish proof on these points. 
 
 Having now shown what were the essential qualifications of 
 the apostleship, what were its peculiar functions, and what were 
 its credentials, we are ready for the main question : Was the 
 apostleship designed to he a permanent and successive office in 
 the church? There is no presumption, certainly, in sapng that 
 this question is already answered. If it has been estabhshed 
 that none could be apostles who had not seen the Lord, and 
 who were not directly and personally called by him — that the 
 peculiar and proper functions of the apostolic office were all 
 comprehended under the general description of hearing luitness, 
 from personal knowledge, of Christ; and that the requisite 
 " signs of an apostle " were miracles, then the question now 
 before us, is effectually and finally disposed of. The apostles, as 
 such, were to have no successors. They could have none. As 
 such, they are still present in the church, witnessing to us by 
 
84 THE CHURCH, 
 
 their writings. They were the apostles while they hved. 
 They are the apostles now ; and to the end of time, they will 
 continue to be the apostles — unsucceeded, for the simple and 
 sufficient reasons, that in the nature of things, without a succes- 
 sion of such miracles as were wrought in the case of Paul, no 
 succession could take place; and that the great head of the 
 church has never seen fit to perpetuate the succession by such 
 miraculous means. 
 
 At this point I desire to introduce certain testimonies, which 
 can not fail to have weight with the reader. And first, though 
 an anonymous helper of Mr. Schuyler has endeavored — see 
 Mr. Schuyler's book, page 219 — to show, that in quoting this 
 author in my sermon, I perverted his meaning, I ofier again 
 the testimony of Dr. Barrow. The reader will be able to judge 
 whether it is in point. I shall quote this time, I trust, more to 
 the satisfaction of my reviewers. — See Barrow on the Supre- 
 macy of the Pope, pp. 122, 123, 124. 
 
 " The apostohcal office, as mch, was personal and temporary ; 
 and therefore, according to its nature and design, not successive, 
 or communicable to others, in perpetual descendence 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 special privileges, as was needful for 
 the propagation of Christianity and founding of churches. 
 
 " To that office it was requisite, that the person should have 
 an immediate designation and commission from God; such as 
 St. Paul doth so often insist upon for asserting his title to the 
 office: Paul, an apostle, not from men, or hy man. — Gal. i: 1. 
 ' Not by men^ saith St. Chrysostom , * this is a property of the 
 
 " It was requisite that an apostle should be able to attest 
 concerning our Lord's resurrection or ascension, either immedi- 
 ately, as the twelve, or by evident consequence, as St. Paul ; 
 thus St. Peter implied, at the choice of Matthias, Acts i : 21, 22 : 
 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us * * 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 85 
 
 must one be ordained to be a witness with us of the resur- 
 rection; and, 1 Cor. ix: 1, xv: 8, Am I not, saith St. Paul, 
 an apostle? have I not seen the Lord? according to that 
 of Ananias, Acts xxii: 14, 15, The God of our Fathers hath 
 chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that 
 Just One, and shotddest hear the voice of his mouth; for thou 
 shall bear witness, unto all men of what thou hast seen and 
 heard, 
 
 " It was needful, also, that an apostle should be endowed with 
 miraculous gifts and graces, enabling him, both to assure his 
 authority and to execute his office; wherefore St. Paul calleth 
 these, 2 Cor. xii: 12, Rom. xv: 18, the marks of an apostle, 
 the which were lurought by him among the Corinthians 
 in all patience, or perseveringly, in signs, and wonders, and 
 mighty deeds. 
 
 " It was also, in St. Chrysostom's opinion, proper to an 
 apostle, that he should be able, according to his discretion, in a 
 certain and conspicuous manner to impart spiritual gifts ; as St. 
 Peter and St. John did at Samaria ; which to do, according to 
 that father, was the peculiar gift and privilege of the apostles. 
 Chrys. in Acts riii: 18. 
 
 " It was also a privilege of an apostle, by virtue of his com- 
 mission from Christ, to instruct all nations in the doctrine and 
 law of Christ; he had right and warrant to exercise his func- 
 tion everywhere; his charge was universal and indefinite; the 
 whole world ivas his province. — Chrys. in John xxi. He was 
 not affixed to any one place, nor could be excluded from any ; 
 he was, as St. Cyril calleth him, — Cyril, in Gen. vii, — an oecu- 
 menical judge, and an instructor of all the sub-celestial world. 
 
 "Apostles also did govern in an absolute manner, according 
 to discretion, as being guided by infallible assistance, to the 
 which they might upon occasion appeal and affirm. — Acts xv : 
 28, It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and its. Whence 
 their writings have passed for inspired, and therefore canonical, 
 or certain rules of faith and practice. 
 
86 THE CHURCH, 
 
 " It did belong to them to found churclies, to constitute pas- 
 tors, to settle orders, to correct offenses, to perform all such acts 
 of sovereign spiritual power, in virtue of the same divine assist- 
 ance, according to the authority which the Lord had given 
 them for edification; as we see practised by St. Paul. 
 
 " In fine, the the apostleship was, as St. Chrysostom telleth 
 us, — Chrys. in Rom. i, — a business fraught with ten thou- 
 sand good, things; both greater than all 2^rivileges of grace, and 
 comprehensive of them. 
 
 "Now such an ofiice, consisting of so many extraordinary 
 privileges and miraculous powers, which were requisite for the 
 foundation of the church, and the diffusion of Christianity 
 against the manifold difficulties and disadvantages which it 
 then needs must encounter, was not designed to continue by 
 derivation; for it containeth in it, divers things, which appa- 
 rently, (i. e., evidently) were not communicated, and which no 
 man without gross imposture and hypocrisy could challenge to 
 himself. 
 
 " Neither 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, i. e. Augustin, (Aug. de Bap. 
 Cont. Don. ii: 1,) — Who knoweth not that principate of apos- 
 tleship to be preferred before any episcopacy ? And saith Be- 
 larmine, — Bel. iv: 25, — The bishops have no part of the 
 true apostolical authority. 
 
 " Wherefore St. Peter, who had no other office mentioned in 
 scripture, or known to antiquity, beside that of an apostle, 
 could not have, properly and adequately, any successor to his 
 office ; but it naturally did expire with his person, as did that 
 of the other apostles. 
 
 "Accordingly, whereas the other apostles, as such, had no 
 successors, the apostolical office not being propagated, the 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 87 
 
 primacy of St. Peter, whatever it were, whether of order or 
 jurisdiction, in regard to his brethren, did cease with him ; for 
 when there were no apostles extant^ there could be no head or 
 prince of the apostles in any sense." 
 
 ] trust I shall not be accused again of garbling the words of 
 Dr. Barrow. Mr. Schuyler and his anonymous assistant may 
 perhaps regret that I have not garbled. I have culled nothing, 
 but have giren the entire section on the point under considera- 
 tion, as Dr. Barrow left it. Whether Dr. Barrow's views of the 
 apostleship are different from mine, the reader will judge. 
 Indeed, while transcribing, I have felt almost afraid that I 
 should be suspected of having borrowed my entire argument 
 from him, so exactly do my reasonings coincide with his. 
 
 My reviewer, — see Mr. Schuyler's book, page 220, — says, 
 that " the particular subject on which Dr. Barrow is treating, is 
 that there is no succession, as Romanists alledge, to the primacy 
 of St. PeterT This is indeed the point which Dr. Barrow is 
 aiming to establish; but in what way does he establish it? 
 Simply by proving that Peter's primacy among the apostles 
 was not communicable ? No, but by proving that the apostle- 
 ship itself was not communicable. See the summing up of 
 his argument in the last paragraph of my quotation from him. 
 Peter's primacy ceased with him : because, " whereas the other 
 apostles, as such, had no successors, the apostolical office was 
 not propagated;'* consequently, ^^tvhen there were no apostles 
 extant, there cmdd he no head or prince of the apostles.'' 
 
 On the same page, the reviewer says, " It is only the apos- 
 tolical office, as characterized by the inspiration, and miraculous 
 powers of its first incumbents, which he (Dr. Barrow) asserts 
 can have no succession " The reader can not be deceived by 
 such a representation as this, with Dr. Barrow's OAvn words 
 before him. What does he say? That the apostles did not 
 transmit their miraculous powers? No; that they did not 
 transmit their ofice. " The apostles, as such, had no succes- 
 sors." After their death, " there were no apostles extant.'* 
 
88 THE CHURCH, 
 
 *'Suck an office, consisting of so many extraordinary privileges, 
 &c., was 7iot desigrud to continue hy derivation'^ ^'The apos- 
 tolical office, as such, was personal and temporary, and 
 therefore according to its nature and design, not successive." 
 But my reviewer says that Dr. Barrow did not mean the apos- 
 tolical office, as suck, but only " the apostoUcal office as 
 characterized by inspiration and miraculous powers /^^ If 
 this were so, what would become of his argument against the 
 pope ? The very gist of that argument is, that as the apos- 
 tleship was not successive, Peter's primacy, of whatever it 
 consisted, could not be; that, as after the death of the first 
 apostles, there were no more apostles extant, there could be no 
 head or prince of the apostles," If he simply meant, that after 
 the first apostles, their successors ceased to be endowed with 
 inspiration and miraculous powers^ how would this prove that 
 there might not be a head or a prince among their successors, 
 as well as among themselves ? It might serve to show that the 
 pope's pretensions to inspiration and miraculous powers are 
 unfounded, if he is fool enough to claim such things ; but it 
 could not in the least affect his claims to the succession of 
 Peter's primacy. 
 
 Dr. Barrow, if he were alive, I am sure, would protest 
 against such an interpreter of his writings, as Mr. Schuyler's 
 friend. He was an Episcopalian, but very far from being a 
 believer in that kind of apostolical succession, which has become, 
 of late, the popular and prevailing dogma of modern Episcopal 
 divines. 
 
 My next testimony is from the " Synopsis Papismi," of Dr. 
 Willet, published in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and dedi- 
 cated to her; the author professes to give not only his own 
 opinion, but that of the English church. The quotations are 
 made by Rev. Wra. C. Wianer, in his book entitled " Prelacy 
 and Parity," Dr, Willet says, "Every godly and faithful 
 bishop is a successor of the apostles. We deny it not ; and so 
 are all faithful and godly pastors and ministers. For in respect 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 89 
 
 of their extraordinary calling, miraculous gifts, and apostleship, 
 the apostles have properly no successors ; as Mr. Bembridge, 
 the martyr, saith, that he believed not bishops to be the succes- 
 sors of the apostles, for that they he not called as they were, 
 nor have that grace. That, therefore, which the apostles were 
 especially appointed unto, is the thing wherein the apostles 
 were properly succeeded ; but that was the preaching of the 
 gospel : as St. Paul saith, he was sent to preach, not to baptize. 
 The promise of succession, we see, is in the preaching of the 
 word, which appertaineth as well to other pastors and ministers, 
 as to bishops." " This," — says Mr. Wisner, and I perfectly 
 agree with him, — " is just as we believe : the apostles, as such, 
 have no successors ; but as presbyters, or simple preachers of 
 the gospel, they are succeeded ; and every faithful minister is, 
 in this sense, a successor of the apostlesJ^ Again, from Dr. 
 Willet : " Seeing, in the apostles' time, a bishop and a priest 
 were, neither in name, nor in oflBce distinguished, it followeth, 
 then, that either the apostles assigned no succession while they 
 hved, neither appointed their successors; or that, indifferently, 
 all faithful pastors and preachers of the apostolic faith, are the 
 apostles' successors^ 
 
 Archbishop Whately, in his "Kingdom of Christ," page 109, 
 says — "The apostle Paul, in speaking of miracles as 'the 
 signs of an apostle,' evidently implies, that no one, not pos- 
 sessing such miraculous gifts as his, much less without possessing 
 any at all, could be entitled to be regarded as on a level with 
 the apostles." Of course the apostles, having no successors in 
 the gift of miracles, have none in the apostleship. 
 
 Similar testimonies, from Episcopal writers of the highest 
 authority, might be quoted indefinitely. 
 
 I beg my readers not to forget the testimonies from ancient 
 authors, quoted by Dr. Barrow ; and that they may have their 
 full weight, I shall extricate them, and place them here in a 
 more conspicuous light. 
 
90 THE CHURCH, 
 
 >S^^. Chrysostom^ on Galatians i : 1, where Paul declares himself 
 " an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ," 
 says — '^not by men; this is a property of the apostles.'' That 
 is, to be directly and immediately called by Christ himself, 
 is a property, or peculiarity, of the apostles ; this distinguishes 
 them. 
 
 The same father, on Actsviii: 18, declares, that to communi- 
 cate the Holy Ghost, by the imposition of their hands, was the 
 peculiar gift and privilege of the apostles; by which Barrow 
 understands him to mean, that that power appertained to the 
 apostolic office, as a mark or function of it, so that its discontin- 
 uance proves the discontinuance of the office itself. 
 
 Again, on John xxi : — " His charge, i. e., an apostle's, was 
 universal and indefinite; the whole world was his province.'* 
 
 Barrow understands St. Chrysostom as meaning, by this, 
 that in this respect, of the extent of his charge, an apostle held 
 an office marked by a peculiarity which rendered it incommun- 
 icable to others in succession. The fact that no living bishop, 
 save the pope of Rome, lays claim to any such extent of diocese, 
 is well known. According to Chrysostom, each modern bishop 
 should claim the world for a diocese, or not claim to be a 
 successor of the apostles. 
 
 To the same effect, St. Cyril, on Genesis vii, says, an apostle 
 " was an oecumenical judge, and an instructor of all the sub- 
 celestial world;" that is, he was so by the very essential nature 
 of his apostolic office. Every modern bishop, therefore, like 
 the pope, should claim the same thing, or according to St. 
 Cyril, abandon at once all pretensions to be in the apostolic 
 succession. 
 
 St. Augustine, — De Bapt Cont. Don. ii: 1, — says, "Who 
 knoweth not that princi2^ate of apostleship to be preferred 
 before any episcopacy.^" That is, who does not know that no 
 bishop whatever can lay claim to the apostolic dignity, as having 
 succeeded thereto ? So Barrow understands it, and so evidently 
 Augustine meant 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 91 
 
 Bellarmine, — Bell, iv: 25, says — "TAe bishops have no part 
 of the true apostolical authority.'* On Epli. iv: 11, and 1 Cor. 
 xii: 28, he says, according to a not6 of Dr. Barrow, on page 
 124, — " The apostles themselves do make the apostolate a 
 distinct office from pastors and teachers, which are the stand- 
 ing (^. e., the permanent) offices in the church.''' What he 
 means. By saying that the apostles themselves make the apos- 
 tolate a distinct office from that of pastors and teachers, 
 is explained by the manner in which he qualifies the latter 
 oflfices. They are the standing or permanent offices in the 
 church ; the former were not understood to be so by the apostles 
 themselves. 
 
 These ancient fathers, let it be observed, speak with the 
 utmost distinctness, and they do not express their opinions 
 doubtfully or hesitatingly, as if they were on debatable ground. 
 
 There is a great variety of argument for the temporary and 
 purely extraordinary character of the apostolical office, which 
 has not been glanced at, and which can not be without swelling 
 this volume to most unjustifiable dimensions. There is one 
 consideration, however, which, in concluding, I can not forbear 
 to introduce, and I am mainly influenced in singling it out 
 from the rest, because I do not recollect to have seen it any- 
 where made as prominent as I think it deserves to be. 
 
 There is abundant evidence that the number twelve^ corres- 
 ponding with the number of the tribes of Israel, was designed 
 to be the unchangeable number of the apostles ; and that the 
 TWELVE were to be honored in the church in all ages, as a 
 goodly, and glorious, and exclusive fellowship, — standing alone, 
 unequaled, unapproached, unresembled. 
 
 Let it be remembered, that twelve is eminently a sacred 
 number, distinguished in the entire history of the church of 
 God from the beginning, in a manner which sufficiently indi- 
 cates a special and peculiar purpose respecting it. To refer to 
 a few of the instances in which it occurs, commencing with the 
 twelve sons whom God gave to Jacob, and the twelve tribes of 
 
92 THE CHURCH, 
 
 Israel his people, we have twelve precious stones in the breast- 
 plate of judgment worn by Aaron and his successors in the high 
 priesthood ; twelve loaves of the shew-bread on the pure table 
 before the Lord in the sanctuary ; twelve princes, heads of the 
 families of Israel ; twelve chargers of silver, twelve silver bowls, 
 and twelve spoons of gold, " in the dedication of the altar in 
 the day when it was anointed by the princes of Israel." The 
 oxen for the burnt offering were twelve bullocks, the rams twelve, 
 the lambs of the first year twelve, with their meat-offering, and 
 the kids of goats for a sin-offering twelve. When the Israelites 
 in their journeying drew near to the promised land, twelve men 
 were sent to search it. Twelve stones were directed to be 
 taken up out of Jordan, as they passed over, to be placed in a 
 heap at their first lodging-place, for a memorial of that day* 
 Solomon had twelve oJEcers over all Israel, and twelve images 
 of Hons surrounded his throne. The brazen sea in the temple 
 was supported by twelve brazen bulls. In his great trial with 
 the priests of Baal, Elijah built his altar of twelve stones. 
 Ezekiel, in his vision of the return of God's glory, and the 
 spiritual house that was to be built for him to dwell in, received 
 directions for the altar — that it should be twelve cubits long, 
 and twelve cubits broad. After our Lord's miracle of feeding 
 the five thousand, besides women and children, they took up 
 of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full. Jesus was 
 twelve years old when he first went up to Jerusalem and dis- 
 puted with the doctors in the temple. The woman seen in the 
 Revelation, whom the dragon persecuted, had upon her head a 
 crown of twelve stars. The city. New Jerusalem, which John 
 saw coming down from God out of heaven, had twelve gates, 
 and at the gates twelve angels. The wall of the city had t^velve 
 foundations, and the twelve gates were twelve pearls. And 
 finally, on either side of the river of the water of life, which 
 John saw proceeding out of the throne of God and of the 
 Lamb, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of 
 fruits, and yielded her fruit twelve times every year. 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 93 
 
 From this recapitulation it appears, as I have said, that 
 twelve is a sacred number. The whole analogy of this might 
 seem to be answered in the fact that our Lord, in his original 
 appointment of apostles, limited the number to twelve, yet 
 designing that that number should be increased ; that it should 
 grow from twelve in the beginning to twelve thousand, or, if 
 need be, to twelve hundred thousand, in the course of time. 
 I am satisfied, however, from other considerations, that his 
 intention was, that there should be no more apostles, and that 
 twelve should be the total count of them to the end of time 
 and forever. 
 
 First. There seems to be no room for doubt, that such was 
 the impression of Peter, when he interested himself in the 
 election of Matthias, to fill up the duodecimate broken by the 
 fall of Judas. He evidently regarded the place of the apostate 
 in the light of a vacancy. But how or why a vacancy^ except 
 on the supposition that twelve was known to be the fixed and 
 definite number of the apostohc college? Why should the 
 place be filled at all ? Why should not the number be left as 
 it was — eleven ? Or, if Peter felt that eleven were not suffi- 
 cient, why, while the business of electing was in hand, should 
 he limit the election to one^ and not choose two, or three, or 
 four, or any number of additional apostles that he might judge 
 to be expedient for the great work that was just coming upon 
 them ? Why was it, that in his opinion, the apostles must be 
 just twelve^ no more and no less ? I am aware that it may be 
 replied, that Peter acted upon his exposition of certain sayings 
 of David, which he supposed to have reference to this matter, 
 and which are quoted in the twentieth verse. Granting that 
 those expressions of David had reference to this case, according 
 to Peter's application of them, then the questions that I have 
 asked above, in regard to the principles on which this apostle 
 acted, become even more pertinent and forcible in regard to 
 the principles on which the Spirit of prophecy proceeded, in 
 regarding the place of Judas as a vacancy. — " His bishopric 
 
94 THE CHURCH, 
 
 (according to the original, his charge^ his office) let another take." 
 There was, then, according to the Holy Spirit, a twelfth place 
 in the college of apostles; and as the prophetic spirit inti- 
 mated nothing more in the way of increase, there was no place 
 counting above the twelfth. Twelve was the fixed and definite 
 number of the apostles, not to be changed by diminution or 
 by increase. 
 
 Secondly, I refer the reader to Matt, xxix : 28 — " And Jesus 
 said unto them, Verily, I say unto you, that ye which have 
 followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall 
 sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve 
 thrones, judging the twelve tribes of JsraeV^ What I have to 
 say upon this is, that it is certain that the twelve apostles^ as 
 such, as the twelve, were to be advanced to eminent and pecu- 
 liar dignity in the eternal world. What is particularly promised 
 here, may indeed be figurative, yet it can not be denied or 
 doubted that something particular and peculiar is promised^ 
 and that it is promised to the twelve. But did not our Lord 
 know that there were to be more apostles than twelve ? th at 
 there were to be thirteen almost immediately after his ascension, 
 by the election by lot of Matthias, and his own miraculous call 
 and consecration of Saul ? and that the number was to be 
 speedily swelled yet more by the appointment of Barnabas, and 
 Timothy, and Titus ? and that ere long the world was to be 
 full of apostles? If our Lord knew this, why but twelve 
 thrones? Why but twelve of all the innumerable multitude 
 of apostles to be thus exalted and distinguished ? If it shall 
 be said, that this was promised to the^r*^ twelve because of a 
 certain precedence to which they were entitled on account of 
 their priority in point of time, and also of the pecuhar hardships 
 and dangers to which they were exposed as the founders of his 
 church, then I reply, that although this promise was made when 
 Judas was yet in good standing, he of couree is not to be re- 
 garded as an inheritor of one of those thrones, and there arises 
 a serious competition between Matthias and Paul. There is a 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 95 
 
 vacant throne for one of them, and for but one. Which shall 
 have it? Matthias — as having been an ai^ostle Jirst^ Then 
 what becomes of Paul, who claimed to be " not a whit behind 
 the very chiefest of the apostles," and " in labors more abundant 
 than they all ? " Is he to share the common lot of such second- 
 rate apostles as Timothy, and Titus, and Barnabas, and in 
 modern times, Ives, and Delancy, and Doane ? Rejecting such 
 a thought as wholly inadmissible, shall the throne be assigned 
 to Paul on the score of his eminent services ? Then equally 
 sad seems to be the case of Matthias, who, it is claimed, was 
 an apostle while Paul was a persecutor; and who was one of 
 those that companied with Jesus from the time of his baptism, 
 to the time of his ascension. 
 
 The supposition that the apostles were to have successors in 
 the apostleship, and that the twelve thrones were promised to 
 the first twelve by reason of priority in point of time and 
 labors, meets with an insuperable difficulty in the conflicting 
 claims of Paul and Matthias. We deny, for reasons that will 
 be shown hereafter, that Matthias was an apostle, and affirm, 
 on the basis of the text now under consideration, that in the 
 purpose of Christ, the number of apostles was limited to twelve. 
 We affirm, that to all eternity the apostles are to be twelve^ 
 among all the redeemed, a conspicuous, glorious, unassociated 
 duodecimate. 
 
 Again: we invite attention to the fourteenth verse of the 
 twenty-first chapter of Revelation, where occurs a description 
 of " the holy city, new Jerusalem," — "And the wall of the city 
 had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve 
 apostles of the Lamh." The question is, why " of the twelve 
 apostles of the Lamb," if there were thirteen^ and even more? 
 Why of the twelve, if there were thousands and tens of thou- 
 sands of real apostles in the church? Will any one give a 
 satisfactory reply ? If the same reply shall be attempted as in 
 the case of the thrones, then we press the same difficulty, — 
 Whose is the twelfth name ? Surely not the traitor's. Then 
 
96 THE CHURCH, 
 
 whose ? There is a twelfth apostle, whose name is in the foun- 
 dation of the holy city, new Jerusalem, — Who is that twelfth 
 apostle? I propose the problem for Mr. Schuyler's solution in 
 his next book, or in the appendix to his next edition of the 
 last. I affirm, and I do it with the utmost confidence, that he 
 who gave this revelation to John, knew of but twelve apostles 
 then being or to be, while the world should stand. The num- 
 ber of them in his mind was fixed, unchangeable as his own 
 nature or name. 
 
 We infer the same thing also from a text much used by 
 Episcopalians in this controversy: it is in Eph. ii: 20, — "And 
 are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, 
 Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." That Paul 
 here had reference to the twelve apostles who testified from 
 personal knowledge of Christ, will hardly be denied. If this 
 shall be denied, my argument, in the main purpose of it, will 
 not be affected. I affirm, that he spoke of the twelve, and the 
 whole current usage of the sacred writers when they speak of 
 " the apostles," as such, sustains my affirmation. In every case 
 the reference is to the original company of our Lord's apostles, 
 authorized and appointed by him. In the text, the apostles 
 are associated with the prophets, whose number was completed 
 by Malachi, whom the Jews called the seal of prophecy, 
 because with him the succession of prophets ended ; and with 
 Christ, the one and only Saviour. The prophets witnessed, 
 by inspiration, of Christ as a Saviour to come ; and the apostles, 
 by inspiration and personal knowledge, witnessed of him as a 
 Saviour who had come, and finished his work. Christ, there- 
 fore, is appropriately, and with great force, called the corner 
 stone of the spiritual house into which his people are built; 
 while the apostles and the prophets, not as persons, of course, 
 but by their testimony of him, by the truth which they 
 promulgated, are represented as constituting the residue of the 
 foundation. There can be no more prophets ; there can be no 
 other Saviour ; there can be no more apostles. The prophets 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP, 97 
 
 finished their work, and received their reward. Christ finished 
 his work, and entered into the joy that was set before him. 
 So the apostles finished their woi'k, and went to heaven. Pro- 
 phets, apostles, and Christ himself, as a suffering redeemer, had 
 each their place and their time in the work assigned to them. 
 They stood in their several places, filled up their several times, 
 and inherited their several rewards. Still they all live, in the 
 living foundation of the living temple. Prophets and apostles, 
 by their recorded testimonies in the living word, and Christ, by 
 his own testimony, and by his omnipotent power and grace 
 filling and pervading the whole habitation of his earthly 
 glory. 
 
 When we read of the foundation of the spiritual house as 
 composed of " apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being 
 the chief corner stone," we are directed backward to the past. 
 We do not look for the foundation in the upper parts of a 
 building, but at the bottom ; so, for the foundation of Christ's 
 spiritual house, or for those who laid it by their testimony, and 
 toil, and tears, and blood, we look down, through the successive 
 ages of its erection, to the foundation's place and time. There 
 we find prophets ; there we find apostles ; there we find the 
 suflfering, dying Christ, and none of them succeeded, but all 
 personally immortal in their incommunicable offices, and in the 
 endless eflScacy of their several finished works. 
 
 If it shall be said, counting Judas as one of the original 
 apostles, that we ourselves make thirteen, by admitting the 
 apostfeship of Paul ; we reply, that if it is proper, which we do 
 not at all believe, to consider Judas as ever having been an 
 apostle in the strict sense of the word, who was dead and 
 damned before the new dispensation was introduced, and be- 
 fore the true apostolic commission was conferred; still, at the 
 time of Paul's enrollment in this honored company, his name 
 was utterly stricken from the catalogue, and was regarded as 
 though it never had been there. He had fallen as a star from 
 heaven, and his place had become a blank. Certain it is, that 
 6 
 
98 THE CHURCH, 
 
 he was no apostle in the christian church. Paul, therefore, 
 was not the thirteenth apostle, but the twelfth. 
 
 I am not alone in supposing that the apostolic office, strictly 
 speaking, was not conferred until the time of our Lord's 
 ascension, and that it never, therefore, in any proper sense, 
 appertained to Judas. 
 
 Bloomfield, in his Digest, on John xx: 22, has the following 
 passage, in which his own opinion is most clearly expressed : 
 " Having thus manifested himself to his disciples, confirmed 
 their faith, and filled their hearts with joy, our Lord prepares 
 to depart^ by bidding them an affectionate eirene umin; but he 
 previously, in a very remarkable manner, instructs them on the 
 nature of their future office. (Tittman.) These words were 
 addressed to the disciples as future apostles, and therefore, are 
 to them only to be referred, and not to all teachers of the 
 gospel." Bloomfield is such excellent authority with all Epis- 
 copalians, that no other can be desired, though other and equally 
 good authorities might be cited. 
 
 Having thus considered, and as we think established by 
 irrefragible arguments, the incommunicableness of the apostolic 
 office, and that it w^as not intended that the first apostles, as 
 such, should have successors in the church, we proceed now to 
 notice, as briefly as may be, the arguments by which Episco- 
 palians of a certain order seek to maintain the contrary. 
 
ITS MINISTRY A]N"D WORSHIP. 99 
 
 EPISCOPAL ARGUMENTS 
 
 FOR THE PERMANENCE AND SUCCESSIVENESS OF THE APOSTOLIC 
 OFFICE. 
 
 All that class of arguments which Episcopalians derive from 
 the apostles' commission, and from the promises which they 
 received of perpetual grace, and from the fact that, at the time 
 of our Lord's ascension, the whole ministry of the church was 
 in their hands, we have sufficiently considered already. That 
 the twelve were appointed to an ordinary, as w^ell as to an 
 extraordinary ministry; or, if the terms are better liked, to a 
 presbyterial as well as to an apostolic charge, can not be 
 denied. Let any view whatever be taken of what was strictly 
 and peculiarly the nature of the apostolic office, still, it must 
 be admitted, that the apostles were appointed to preach and 
 administer the sacraments, i e., to do the work of simple and 
 ordinary ministers. In fact, they held two offices. They were 
 apostles, and they were ministers in the ordinary sense of the 
 latter word. Mr. Schuyler himself admits this. See his 
 book, page seventy-two — speaking of the presbytery that 
 ordained Timothy, he asks " Who composed this presbytery ? " 
 and replies — " It may have been composed only of apostles, for 
 we know that both Peter and John style themselves * elders ' or 
 i presbyters. ' " He means, that since the apostles were also 
 presbyters, there is no objection to the idea that they alone 
 composed that presbytery. They were, then, ^:>res5y^ers, or 
 simple ministers of the gospel like Mr. Schuyler and myself. 
 Now, it is needless to say, that it can be proved, from the terms 
 of their commission, or from the promises which they received 
 of perpetual grace, or from the fact of their holding, at the 
 time of Christ's ascension, the whole ministry of the church 
 in their hands, which they were to perpetuate by succession, 
 that the apostleship was to be so perpetuated. Indeed, Epis- 
 copalians do not rely upon these arguments. The inteUigent 
 
100 THE CHURCH, 
 
 amono- them admit that the decisive question relates to a matter 
 of simple fact — Was the apostleship communicated? Did 
 the apostles, as a matter of fact, transfer their apostolical 
 authority to others? Did they make other apostles? This 
 is the great question, and we accept of it as decisive. If it 
 can be shown that the apostleship was actually transferred, we 
 yield the controversy, and own that episcopacy has won the 
 field ; if it can not be, our opponents are in that predicament 
 themselves, and the field is ours. 
 
 THE CASE OF MATTHIAS. 
 
 The case first cited, to prove that the apostleship was com- 
 municable, and to establish the fact of a succession, is that of 
 Matthias. I meet this with a direct denial that Matthias ever 
 received the apostolical oflace ; maintaining that the action of 
 Peter and the other disciples in his case, recorded in the first 
 chapter of Acts, was irregular, and wholly without effect. I 
 wish it to be distinctly understood, that I assume ground here 
 not ordinarily taken by Presbyterian writers, and not at all 
 essential in this controversy. For, let it be admitted that 
 Matthias was an apostle, and what then ? — it does not follow 
 that the apostleship was communicable in any such sense as is 
 claimed by Episcopalians. The admission overthrows a single 
 argument which I have employed — that based upon the 
 unchangeableness of the apostolic number; but it does not 
 establish the fact of a succession, such as is contended for by 
 our opponents. The case of Matthias is entirely without 
 value to them, however it it be considered ; for — 
 
 First. Matthias was chosen, not to increase the number of 
 the apostolic college, but to fill a vacancy. He was chosen to 
 take the place which should have been occupied by Judas. 
 The utmost that any one can think of arguing from this, is 
 that the original number of apostles was to be kept good in 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 101 
 
 tlie cliurch on earth, by regularly supplying the places of such 
 as should apostatize or die. Peter judged that it was right 
 and expedient for him and those that were with him, to fill the 
 existing vacancy. Where is the intimation in all that he said 
 or did, that he would have felt at liberty, in any case, to go 
 farther, and choose more apostles ? His whole conduct and 
 manner show that he was perfectly conscious of having no 
 right to do more than he proposed, ^. e., to fill the vacant place 
 of Judas, and so make good the broken number, twelve. And 
 let it be remembered, that even this he did not venture upon, 
 without being able, as he supposed, to quote specific prophecies 
 bearing directly upon that particular case. 
 
 What authority is here, for the practice of Episcopalians 
 who make apostles, so called by them, in any number, and just 
 when they please ? 
 
 Again ; Matthias was not understood to receive a human, but 
 a divine appointment. Peter, and the disciples who were with 
 him, did not pretend to designate him to the apostleship, but 
 they selected two whom they judged to be suitable persons, and 
 then, in the faith that " the whole disposing of the lot is of the 
 Lord," proceeded to determine 6y lot, whether of the two God 
 had chosen. They understood, what we affirm and maintain, 
 that to be an apostle, it was necessary that a man should receive 
 a special call thereto from God himself^ and accordingly, to God 
 they made their appeal. 
 
 Finally. The apostleship of Matthias was understood by 
 Peter and the disciples, to be derived solely from the divine 
 choice, and not by communication or transfer from any human 
 being; for, when "the lot fell upon Matthias," immediately, 
 vnthout the imposition of hands, which was the sign of transfer, 
 or any form of ordination whatever, " he was numbered with 
 the apostles." He was understood not to receive a communi- 
 cated or transferred office, but to be directly called and conse- 
 crated by the head of the church himself, just as the other 
 apostles had been before him. 
 
102 THE CHURCH, 
 
 Wliat authority is liere, I ask again, for such making of 
 apostles as is contended for by our Episcopal friends, among 
 whom, whenever it is resolved to have a new one, the clergy 
 and the people elect him by their votes, and the bishops, ahas, 
 ai^ostles, themselves having been made in the same manner, 
 consecrate him to his office, by the laying on of their hands ! 
 
 It is evident that this case of Matthias, even admitting that 
 he was an apostle, does not affect the main question involved 
 in the present discussion. By no ingenuity can it be made to 
 serve as an example for such a succession of apostles as is 
 claimed by our Episcopal brethren. 
 
 But, as I have said, I deny that Matthias was an apostle. 
 In my sermon on the office of a bishop, page twenty-nine, I 
 said, — " Matthias, who, through the hasty zeal of Peter, was 
 chosen by lot, to fill the place of Judas, we have no reason to 
 suppose was ever recognized by God, or known in the church 
 as an apostle; and that he never was, is a fair presumption, 
 from the fact, that the broken number Christ himself supplied, 
 by the miraculous conversion and consecration of St. Paul." 
 Upon this, Mr. Schuyler remarks as follows, — see his book, 
 page 132 : — " What, my brethren, is the purport and tendency 
 of an assertion like this ? An infidel reads it, and what is his 
 conclusion ? Why, he replies, / will acknowledge the bible, if 
 you will allow me to receive only as much as I conceive to be 
 worthy of inspiration, and reject what seems trifling, or posi- 
 tively erroneous. If I can attribute to hasty zeal what I think 
 so, without being obliged," &c., &c. My good brother can not 
 see the difference between denying that a transaction recorded 
 in the bible Avas a proper and authorized transaction, and deny- 
 ing the truth of the record. Does he suppose that every act 
 of man, of which an account is given in the scriptures, unac- 
 companied with a specific declaration of the divine disapproval, 
 was therefore in accordance with the divine will ? Does he not 
 know that the narrative portions of the bible profess to be 
 nothing more than truthful narrations? When the infidel 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 103 
 
 sliall believe with me, tliat the bible, in its preceptive commu- 
 nications is holy and just, in its doctrinal communications true, 
 and in its narrative parts represents every fact exactly as it 
 occurred, then, I think, he will no longer be an infidel. This, 
 howe^'er, would not satisfy Mr. Schuyler. He would have 
 the infidel believe, not only that the bible narratives are 
 true, but that where there is not a special sentence of divine 
 disapproval expressed, they invariably narrate things that God 
 approved of. If my very sagacious review^er would be dis- 
 tressed, as I doubt not he would be, at the thought of making 
 infidels, I advise him to be cautious how he recommends such 
 a rule as this, to be applied in judging of the scripture narra- 
 tives. The scriptures narrate things as they occurred, leaving 
 us, in general, to form our opinions of the propriety or impro- 
 priety, the right or wrong of the doings which they record, 
 just as we judge of the propriety or impropriety, the right or 
 wrong of those doings of men, of which w^e are personally 
 observant in the intercourse of life. The transaction of Mat- 
 thias' ordination, therefore, unless there is some specific divine 
 declaration to show on its behalf, or some tacit and clearly 
 implied acknowledgment of it, is fairly and legitimately a 
 subject of inquiry, for the purpose of ascertaining whether 
 it was a proper and authorized transaction or not. Now 
 I defy Mr. S., or any other person, to show either a specific 
 divine declaration in favor of what Peter and the other disci- 
 ples did in this case, or any tacit and implied acknowledgment 
 of Matthias as an apostle. His name does not occur again in 
 the whole New Testament, nor is there, in any place, the 
 slightest allusion to his person, or to the subject of his appoint- 
 ment to the apostolical ofiice. The apostles, I am well aware, 
 are spoken of as twelve, previcjus to the conversion of Paul, as 
 in Acts vi : 2 — " Then the tiuelve called the multitude of the 
 disciples unto them," &c. ; and this might seem to make it clear, 
 that Matthias must have been there, not only numbered with 
 the apostles, but acting with them, and taking part fully in their 
 
104 THE CHURCH, 
 
 counsels. But, unfortunately for those who would be pleased 
 with this view of the subject, the apostles are also spoken of as 
 twelve., after the fall of Judas, and before the ordination of 
 Matthias. See. Jobn xx: 24 — "But Thomas, one of the 
 twelve, called Didymus, w^as not wath them." See also 1 Cor. 
 XV : 5 — "And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve J* 
 How is this ? The ttvelve, if I may so express myself, was the 
 corporate title of the apostolic college, and the mere use of the 
 term does not necessarily imply that there w^ere actually, at any 
 given time, twelve persons known and acting as apostles. 
 
 There is a place in the second chapter of Acts, in the account 
 given of the transactions of the day of Pentecost, wdiich some 
 and among them Mr. Barnes, suppose, does imply that twelve 
 persons were then recognized as apostles, and of course that 
 Matthias was one of them. At the fourteenth verse, we read — 
 " But Peter standing up ivith the eleven, lifted up his voice," 
 etc. But let any one ask himself whether, if no mention had 
 previously been made of Matthias, and the entire record, in the 
 former chapter, of his ordination were wanting, there would 
 seem to be any impropriety of expression in the place we are 
 now looking at. May not the passage be read — But Peter 
 standing up with the rest of the eleven, or with all the eleven^ 
 just as easy and as naturally as in any other way ? On what 
 principle can it be assumed, that the necessary reading is — But 
 Peter standing up with the eleven other apostles? If the record 
 in the first chapter of Acts were wanting, would the language 
 here suggest a difficulty to any mind ? Most assuredly it would 
 not. It is just as fair, therefore, for me to say that my reading 
 of this text is right, and to claim it as proof, that after the 
 descent of the Holy Ghost, Matthias was wholly set aside, and 
 was no more " numbered with the apostles," as it is for those who 
 differ in opinion to insist that the other reading is right, and 
 that the text proves, that after the descent of the Holy Ghost, 
 the apostleship of Matthias was recognized. The amount is? 
 that the place can not be used for proof, either way. On the 
 
ITS MINISTRY. AND WORSHIP. 105 
 
 point under discussion it establishes nothing. I say again, 
 therefore, that the case of Matthias is fairly open to examinationj 
 and Mr. Schuyler's horror at my bold treatment of this so-called 
 apostle, is a mere waste of sensibility. 
 
 The facts upon which a judgment, in this case of Matthias, 
 is to be formed, are the following : 
 
 First. The transaction of his appointment is unsupported 
 hy any shadow of approving testimony, Mr. Schuyler him- 
 self acknowledges, page 135, that it was a transaction of the 
 utmost importance, insomuch that, it "would forever give 
 character to the christian church." Again he says, page 137, — 
 " We conceive this transaction itself had the gospel history here 
 closed, would have sufficiently indicated the purpose of the 
 great head of the church, as to the perpetuation of the apos- 
 tolic office." Now we say that a transaction which was intended 
 to hold so high a place of authority as an example, and to have 
 such a far reaching influence, would not have been left without 
 some clear and unequivocal testimony in its favor. We attach 
 no such importance to it as Mr. Schuyler does, yet we attach 
 importance to it, and can not believe, that if God approved of 
 it, he would have left it without some special evidence of his 
 approbation. Mr. Schuyler claims, that the bare record of it 
 by Luke, without a special sentence of condemnation, is such 
 evidence. I say it is not. This is precisely in accordance with 
 the general narrative style of the scriptures. If what he claims 
 in this case must be admitted, we should be compelled on the 
 same principle to admit as right, every other act recorded in the 
 bible which is not specifically pronounced to be wrong. The 
 burden of proof evidently lies with those who claim that the 
 appointment of Matthias was proper. It devolves upon them 
 to show a specific declaration, — or at least, a clear implication, 
 out of the narrative itself, in favor of it ; and not upon us to 
 show specific declarations or implications against it. 
 
 Second. Peter in proposing the appointment of an apostle to 
 supply the place of Judas, did not act under the inspiration 
 6* 
 
106 THE CHURCH, 
 
 of the Holy Ohoat^ or upon instructions which he had received 
 from Christ. This may appear to be a bold affirmation ; but 
 it is susceptible of tlie amplest and clearest proof. In the 
 address which he made to the disciples, he professed to give his 
 authority for the measure which he recommended. If he had 
 had a command from Christ, or if he had been acting under 
 the instant dictation of the Holy Ghost, would he not have said 
 so? Is it credible that he would have passed over, in utter 
 silence, the very authority, upon which his proposal was based, 
 and contented liimself with simply quoting certain passages from 
 the Psalms ? Read his speech. — " Men and brethren, this scrip- 
 ture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by 
 the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was 
 guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, 
 and had obtained part of this ministry. Now this man pur- 
 chased a field with the reward of iniquity ; and falling head- 
 long, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed 
 out; and it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; 
 insomuch as that field is called in their proper tong-ue, Acel- 
 dama, that is to say. The field of blood ; for it is written in the 
 book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man 
 dwell therein; and, his bishopric [L e. charge or office) let 
 another take. Wherefore, of these men, which have companied 
 with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out 
 among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto that same 
 day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be 
 a witness with us of his resurrection." Now I do not ask. 
 Where is the proof that the measure proposed was by command 
 of Christ, or by the instant dictation of the spirit ? but I say — 
 See the proof that it was not by either of these authorities. 
 Remember, Peter was professedly giving his authority^ and with 
 no intimation of a command from Christ, or of any special direc- 
 tion from the Holy Spirit, he simply quoted two texts out of 
 the Pealms. No proof could be more conclusive that he 
 was following his own judgment merely, in the exposition of 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 107 
 
 scripture texts which he supposed had reference to the case 
 before him, and authorized the action which he contemplated. 
 Yet Mr. Schuyler, and all other writers of his school, insist 
 upon it, that Peter acted both by command of Christ and 
 by inspiration. 
 
 Third. Admitting that the texts quoted by Peter from the 
 Psalms, had a special reference to the case of Judas, and the 
 filling of his place by another, — although we confess we see no 
 special reference, particularly in the first of them — it cannot 
 be made out from them that the business of filing that place 
 by the appointment of another^ was committed to the apostles. 
 The fact to be considered is, that David merely aflfirms that the 
 apostate should be destroyed, and that another should take his 
 place, without saying a word to authorize any human beings to 
 interest themselves in selecting the person by whom his office 
 should be taken. Let it not be supposed that we undervalue 
 the authority of scripture texts, or that we suppose there can be 
 any higher authority than a plain Thus saith the Lord, found 
 in the written volume of the scriptures. What we afiirm, is, that 
 the texts quoted by Peter, whatever they may have meant in 
 regard to Judas and his place in the apostolic college, did not 
 authorize him, i. e. Peter, and his fellow disciples, to do what 
 they did in the premises. It is a mere assumption that Peter 
 was right in his action merely because he was able to quote 
 those passages from David. In connection with all the evi- 
 dence there is that the number of apostles was not to exceed 
 tivelve, let the fact be borne in mind here, that Christ himself 
 soon answered all that was contained in those proj)hetic decla- 
 rations of the Psalmist, by the undoubted appointment, to the 
 apostleship, of Saul. Let the difliculties also be considered, in 
 which the admission of Matthias' true apostleship involves the 
 matter of the twelve thrones, and the twelve names in the 
 foundations of the holy city. 
 
 Fourth. This transaction of the appointment of Matthias 
 was previous to the descent of the Holy Ghost, with ivhich the 
 
108 THE CHURCH, 
 
 apostles were to receive power to engage in their peculiar 
 work. This is the great fact upon which we rely for the 
 settlement of the present question. Other considerations which 
 have been referred to, have weight, and go far to decide a moral 
 certainty, that the act of Peter in this case was ill-advised and 
 unauthorized, but the one now presented we hold to be final 
 and conclusive. Mr. Schuyler has some inklings of the trouble 
 to be apprehended from this quarter, and endeavors, on page 
 138 of his book, to show that the Holy Ghost had been re- 
 ceived^ quoting John xx : 22 — " And he breathed on them and 
 said, receive ye the Holy Ghost." Is my brother quite sure 
 that his interpretation of this text is right ? Bloomfield, whose 
 authority as a commentator, is of the highest kind among Epis- 
 copalians, says, on this passage, in his Digest, " When he is said 
 to have breathed on them, (enephusese,) we are to understand 
 it as a symbolical action, by which he was pleased to introduce 
 and illustrate the promise before made: for labete pneuma 
 agion, (receive ye the Holy Ghost,) can only be understood as 
 ?!, present promise of 2^ future benefit which should very shortly 
 be communicated : namely, on the day of Pentecost. In con- 
 sidering this as no other than a symbolical action, all the best 
 commentators are agreed^'' Rosenmueller says, — " Labete, — 
 Imperativus pro Futuro ; significanter, ut solent prophetae, cer- 
 tissimum et tamquam praesentem praedictorum eventum pro- 
 mittentes. Itaque illis verbis indicatur, hunc afflatum ipsis pro 
 symbolo esse, unde omen capere debeant de conferendis in ipsos 
 propediem Spiritus S. dotibus, quas morti proximus iis promi- 
 serat, ch. xvi." This is precisely the idea of Bloomfield. Mr. 
 Barnes, on the same passage, says, ^'■'' Receive ye the Holy 
 Ghosts This was given them as a certain sign, or pledge, 
 that they should be endowed with the influences of the Holy 
 Spirit, — Comp. Acts i : 4, ch. ii." I might quote any number 
 of commentators of the first class, who all give the same expo- 
 sition. We say, therefore, on tlie best human authority, that 
 the Holy Ghost was not given to the disciples at this time, but 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND V/ORSHIP. 109 
 
 a significant symbol was afforded them of tlie future fulfillment 
 of the promise which they had before received. What was the 
 promise which they had before received ? See John xvi : 7 — 
 " Nevertheless, I tell you the truth : it is expedient for you that 
 I go away: for, if I go not away, the Comforter will not come 
 unto you." The promise was, that the Holy Ghost should come 
 to be with them, after he, L e, Christ was gone away from* 
 earth to heaven, and they were distinctly assured that this pro- 
 mise could not be fulfilled sooner. — '"'' If I go not away, the 
 Comforter loill not come unto youV If Mr. Schuyler is dis- 
 posed to set his opinion against that of Bloomfield and "all the 
 best commentators," I trust, that he will at least be satisfied 
 with the authority of Christ. I am persuaded he never exam- 
 ined this text critically. I doubt if his attention was ever, in 
 any measure, directed to it. Still, even if we were inclined to 
 indulge him in the use which he makes of it, and to admit 
 (which we by no means do) that the apostles had received a 
 measure of the Holy Ghost, we aflSrm, nevertheless, that they 
 had not received the special promise of the Holy Ghost with 
 POWER to enter on the worTc of their ministry ; for which^ when 
 our Lord ascended^ he commanded them to wait. See Luke 
 xxiv: 49 — "And behold I send the promise of my Father 
 upon you ; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be 
 endued with power from on high." See also Acts i : 4, 5 — 
 " And being assembled with them, commanded them that they 
 should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of 
 the Father, which, saitli he, ye have heard of me. For John 
 truly baptized with water ; but ye shall be baptized with the 
 Holy Ghost, not many days hence." Also, the 8th Aerse — 
 " But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come 
 upon you ; and ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusa- 
 lem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost 
 part of the earth." Will any one say, in the face of these texts, 
 that at the time of the transaction now being considered, the 
 apostles had received that ^^ promise of the Holy Ghost^'' which 
 
110 THE CHURCH, 
 
 was to quality them for their ministry ? What authority had 
 they then, to engage in the highest of all ministerial acts, — 
 the appointment of a minister ? The apostles understood that 
 the command to tarry in Jerusalem until they should receive 
 the promise of the Holy Ghost, was a command not to enter 
 upon the active labors of their ministry until then ; for it was 
 with the promise of the Holy Ghost, and not without it, that 
 they were to receive i^ower^ by which we must understand 
 either authoritij to discharge the functions of their office, or the 
 grace by which they were to be qualified for the discharge of 
 them. That they so understood it is evident, from the fact, 
 that with the solitary exception of the transaction now being 
 considered, they did abstain from all ministerial acts, until the 
 Spirit was poured out. When our Lord, having given them 
 the charge recited above, had been " taken up," it is said, " Then 
 returned they unto Jerusalem from the Mount called Oh vet;" 
 and from this time up to the very day of Pentecost when the 
 Spirit came, " They continued with one accord in prayer and 
 supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, 
 and with his brethren," and they did nothing else, save this one 
 act respecting Matthias. 
 
 Now, what' was that ^^poiver " which the apostles were to 
 receive from -on high, with the " promise of the Holy Ghost ? " 
 I have suggested above, the two only answers which the 
 question admits of. It was either, first, authority to enter on 
 their ministerial work, under which supposition they had no 
 right to do what they did ; or, secondly, it was grace to qualify 
 them for their ministerial work, under which supposition they 
 were iiicomi^etent to engage in it aright. One or the other of 
 these answers must be the right one, and either of them is fatal 
 to the apostleship of Matthias. 
 
 It will avail nothing, to say that the apostles had fully 
 received their commission, previous to Christ's ascension. It 
 is not an unheard of or strange thing, for a commission to be 
 fully issued, and put into the hands of the commissioned 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. Ill 
 
 person, days and weeks before it is to take effect, or before the 
 person so commissioned is to enter upon the duties to which he 
 is appointed ; and precisely so it was in the case of the apostles. 
 Christ commissioned them, and specified the future time at 
 which they were to begin their work ; or rather, he indicated to 
 them a sign by which they should know when the time was 
 come. Read the account of their commission in Luke xxiv, 
 ending with the words already quoted — " and behold I send 
 the promise of my father upon you ; hut tarry ye in Jerusalem 
 until ye he endued with power from on highr 
 
 The apostles either engaged in the transaction of Matthias' 
 ordination by virtue of authority which they supposed was 
 conferred on them by the commission which they had received 
 from Christ, or they engaged in it as private individuals. If 
 they did it as private individuals, no one will pretend that their 
 action in the premises was justifiable or valid. If they did it 
 under their commission, acting as ministers in the church, 
 it is evident that their action was unauthorized and disor- 
 derly, and therefore, of no eftect; for the time had not yet 
 come for which they had been commanded to wait^ and they 
 were without the power which it had been promised they 
 should receive. 
 
 Did not Luke mean to intimate the impropriety of this 
 transaction, when he said, in proceeding to gwQ his account of 
 it, — " In those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disci- 
 ples," &c., &c. ? In what days ? Why, in those days which 
 intervened between the ascension of Christ, and the bestow- 
 ment on the apostles of the Father's promise, with poiver to 
 engage in their ministry : in those days during which they had 
 heen expressly commanded to wait, and to perform no minis- 
 terial acts. I can not avoid thinking that there is force in 
 the expression of Luke — ''In those days;'' and that he 
 intended by it far more than is commonly supposed. 
 
 Finally. It is to be observed that nothing is expressed con- 
 trary to our argument, in the words with which Luke ends his 
 
112 THE CHURCH, 
 
 account — " And the lot fell upon Matthias ; and he was num- 
 bered with the eleven apostles^ This is nothing more than 
 the natural continuation and ending of the narrative. Of 
 course, Peter and the rest supposed, when this transaction was 
 concluded, that Matthias was a true apostle, and they counted 
 him accordingly. By no rules of interpretation can this be 
 considered as an affirmation that Matthias ivas an apostle, or 
 that he was permanently regarded as one. He was " numbered 
 with the eleven" then^ at that time, when the unauthorized 
 transaction was finished, which, to those who took part in it, 
 seemed to invest him with apostolic grace. 
 
 We simply maintain that Peter, and those who acted with 
 him in the case of Matthias, misjudged; and that, intending to 
 do a right and proper thing, they did a wrong thing, and a 
 very foolish thing. We say this, not having the fear of Mr. 
 Schuyler, or of Dr. Shelton, before our eyes, and utterly regard- 
 less of the blasts of pious indignation that will probably blow 
 upon us from that quarter for our infidelity. The question is, 
 When did Peter and the rest receive that inspiration and power 
 of the Holy Ghost which were intended to qualify them for 
 their work, by giving them clear and correct views of the 
 gospel, and of the nature, objects, and duties of their own 
 mission ? From what point of time are we to regard them as 
 the accredited ministers of Christ, the authoritative agents of 
 his will, and expounders of his religion ? That they were not 
 so pre\dous to Christ's death, is evident from the fact that they 
 were continually, during all that period, falling into the grossest 
 mistakes, both of opinion and conduct, in relation to all sorts 
 of subjects. And after our Lord's crucifixion and resurrection, 
 when they acknowledged their disappointment, having supposed 
 that it was he that should ha^^e restored the kingdom to Israel, 
 and some of them even could not easily be persuaded that he 
 was risen, according to his word ; so late as this, it is undeniable 
 that they were without any of those qualifications which were 
 necessary to give them authority, or to exalt them in any respect 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 113 
 
 above other good and honest men, if such might have been, 
 who had enjoyed similar advantages. Would there be impiety 
 in saying, that the conduct of Peter and his companions was 
 improper and foolish, at any time previous to their Lord's death, 
 or at the time of it, or during the days which immediately 
 followed ? Would there be impiety in expressing the opinion 
 that they sometimes acted wickedly? Now, as I have said, the 
 question is. When did they acquire that authority, which event- 
 ually they had, as ministers and ambassadors for Christ ? After 
 what point of time do their acts and sayings become authori- 
 tative and binding on the church ? I answer, and who will 
 venture to dispute me, Their authority began when they received 
 " the promise of the father ivith power," on the day of Pente- 
 cost. They were " endued with power from on high^'' then ; 
 and just as really as we are bound by their teachings and 
 doings at any subsequent time, just so really may we, if we 
 choose, question and deny the propriety of what they said and 
 did at any time before. 
 
 We have attributed Peter's conduct in the case of Matthias 
 to " hasty zeal." — We do so still. It was just like him to tire 
 of the inaction of those days which preceded the day of Pen- 
 tecost, and to bethink himself of something by which he might 
 anticipate events, and hurry forward the great enterprise with 
 which his soul was beginning to be fired. The mistake which 
 he made in this instance was characteristic of the man. 
 
 We here dismiss the case of Matthias, reminding the reader 
 again, that whatever he may think of the question of this per- 
 son's apostleship, it is a case which can have no bearing on the 
 present main controversy. It is simply ridiculous for Mr. 
 Schuyler to represent his assumed appointment to the apostolic 
 office as a transaction " that would forever give character to the 
 christian church," and to say, " We conceive this transaction 
 itself, had the gospel history here closed, would have suflBciently 
 indicated the purpose of the great head of the church, as to 
 the perpetuation of the apostolic office." Admitting, what we 
 
114 THE CHURCH, 
 
 have shown was not true, that he was a genuine apostle, there 
 is no ground whatever, on which his apjDointment can be made 
 to appear in the light of a precedent; for he was appointed to 
 fill a vacancy in the duodecimate, and he did not receive the 
 office by transfer, or communication, but by an immediate 
 divine designation. We ourselves will cheeerfully acknowledge 
 the authority of all apostles, we care not wdiat the number of 
 them may be, who can be shown to have received their office in 
 the way that it is pretended Matthias received his. Episcopa- 
 lians gain nothing, not even for their principle of succession, 
 until they can show that an apostle was appointed, not to fill a 
 place in the original duodecimate, but to fill a new place^ and 
 that he received his authority from those ivho were already 
 apostles, by virtue of authority vested in them. 
 
 THE TERM "APOSTLE" APPLIED IN THE NEW 
 
 TESTAMENT TO OTHERS BESIDES 
 
 THE TWELVE. 
 
 An argument to show that the apostleship was actually 
 transferred, is sometimes sought to be made out of the fact> 
 that in the New Testament, the term " apostle," is actually 
 applied to others, besides the twelve wdiom all unite in recogniz- 
 ing as invested truly with that office. Thus, Acts xiv: 14, 
 Barnabas is classed with Paul under the same general designa- 
 tion — " Which, when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul heard of," 
 &c., &c. The first epistle to the Thessalonians, which is called 
 " the epistle of Paul," is, in reality, as the salutation shows, the 
 epistle of Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, who, in chapter 
 ii: 6, style themselves in common, "the apostles of Christ." 
 In Phihppians ii : 25, Paul says, — " Yet I supposed it necessary 
 to send unto you Epaphroditus, my brother and companion in 
 labor, and fellow-soldier, but your messenger, («'. e. apostle, for 
 so the Greek reads,) and he that ministered to my wants." So 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 115 
 
 also, in 2 Cor. viii: 23, lie writes, — "Whether any do inquire 
 of Titus, he is my partner and fellow-helper, concerning you ; 
 or our brethren be inquired of, they are the messengers {apos- 
 tles) of the churches, and the glory of Christ." And again, 
 Rom. xvi : 7, — " Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, 
 and my fellow piisoners, who are of note among the apostles." 
 
 The argument, or rather ap'peal^ for it is not an argument, 
 founded upon this occasional use of the term "apostle," has 
 great weight with a certain class of minds. It looks amazingly 
 like a settlement of the question in debate, to find Barnabas, 
 and Silvanus, and Timotheus, and Epaphroditus, and Androni- 
 cus, and Junia actually called apostles, in the inspired record. 
 When an Episcopal minister, discussing this subject before his 
 congregation, says, — "And now brethren, what more can we 
 desire, when we find it here especially recorded, that Barnabas, 
 and Silvanus, and Timotheus, and Epaphroditus, and others 
 were " apostles ? " there is no doubt that nine-tenths of those 
 who hear him are ready to say, — " Sure enough ; what more 
 can we desire ? That settles it." But all who understand this 
 subject, know that it does not settle it ; and that so far from 
 settling it, it has nothing to do with it. 
 
 The term " apostle,^'' from the Greek word apostolos^ prima- 
 rily signifies one sent, a messenger, and this is always its signi- 
 fication, except in those instances where it is specifically used as 
 the name of an oflfice ; and even in those instances, it retains jts 
 primary sense, as descriptive of the nature of the oflice which 
 it names. In the case of the twelve apostles of our Lord, it is 
 the name of their oflSce, descriptive of its general nature ; as 
 they were officially, and in distinction from all others, his mes- 
 sengers, sent by him, as he himself was sent of God. Now, 
 it is evidently leaping far to a conclusion, to set it down as a 
 determined fact, that every person to whom the term "apostle" 
 is applied in the New Testament, was therefore, as a matter of 
 course, one of our Lord's apostles, in the high and official 
 sense of that word. We nuist always look, where this term 
 
116 THE CHURCH, 
 
 occurs, to see if there was not some special reason for its being 
 applied as we find it, in some special mission upon whicli the 
 person to whom the title is given was employed. We must 
 inquire whether he was not, or had not been in connection with 
 the application of this term to him, a special messenger of 
 some body, or sent upon some specific errand, or mission, in 
 virtue of which the term " apostolos," is applied to him. 
 
 The principle in regard to the use of the name " apostle," 
 for which I am contending, is distinctly stated by Dr. Onder- 
 donk, in his tract, "Episcopacy tested by Scripture," page 
 fourteen: "Another irregularity of the same kind occurs in 
 regard to the word ' elder.' It is sometimes used for a minister 
 or clergyman of any grade, higher, middle, or lower : but it 
 more strictly signifies a presbyter. Many words have both a 
 loose and a specific meaning. The word ' angel ' is often loosely 
 applied ; but distinctively it means certain created spirits. The 
 word ' God ' is applied to angels, and idols, and human person- 
 ages or magistrates; but distinctively it means the Supreme 
 Being. The word 'deacon' means an ordinary servant, a 
 servant of God in secular affairs, and any minister of Christ; 
 but a christian minister of the lower grade is its specific mean- 
 ing. So, w^ith the word 'elder;' it is sometimes applied to the 
 clergy of any gi-ade, or gi-ades ; but its appropriate application 
 is to ministers of the second or middle order." Dr. 0. might 
 have gone on to say. So also, the word " apostle " is applied 
 loosely to messengers of any kind, to persons sent upon any 
 particular mission ; but distinctively it belongs to the twelve 
 whom our Saviour commissioned to complete what he had left 
 unfinished of the work of founding and settling his church. 
 
 Let us now apply the rule here stated, to the cases that have 
 been cited, in which the term " apostle " is applied to others 
 besides the twelve acknowledged apostles of our Lord. 
 
 First. Take the case in Acts xiv : 14, — " Which when the 
 apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of," <fec. The question is, 
 were Barnabas and Paul employed at this time on any special 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 117 
 
 mission, which may account for this manner of speaking of 
 them, independently of supposing that Barnabas was an apostle 
 in the high and official sense of that word ? The question is 
 answered by referring back to the first four verses of the thir- 
 teenth chapter — " Now there were in the church that was at 
 Antioch certain prophets and teachers ; as Barnabas, and Simeon, 
 that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, 
 which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 
 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost 
 said. Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto 
 1 have called them. And when they had fasted, and prayed, 
 and laid hands on them, they sent them away. So they, being 
 sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed into Seleucia ; and they 
 sailed to Cyprus." 
 
 Barnabas and Paul, therefore, at the time when they are thus 
 called apostles^ were engaged together in a special missionary 
 service. They had been sent together to do a special work. 
 One was an apostle in the high and distinctive sense of that 
 word, but in this service both of them were apostoloi, that is, 
 messengers or missionaries. The case of Barnabas, therefore, 
 is clearly disposed of. 
 
 The next case, is that in the first epistle to the Thessalonians, 
 addressed by Paul and Silvanus, and Timotheus, who, in the 
 sixth verse of the second chapter, are styled in common, 
 " apostles of Christ." It is a peculiarity of this case that ihe 
 three together are not only styled apostles, but, as if to make 
 it stronger, " apostles of ChristP Now, was there any reason 
 for this, if we reject the idea that Silvanus and Timotheus were 
 really apostles in the high and official sense ? When they went 
 to Thessalonica, were they in any special and pecuhar manner 
 employed upon an errand for Christ, as his missionaries or 
 messengers ? The following quotation from Macknight's pre- 
 face to this epistle, affords a sufficient answer: "From the 
 history of the acts of the apostles it appears, that St. Paul 
 first passed into Europe to preach the gospel, after he had 
 
118 THE CHURCH, 
 
 delivered the decrees of the council of Jerusalem (Acts xvi : 4) 
 to the churches in the lesser Asia, whereby the Gentiles were 
 declared free from obeying the law of Moses, as a term of 
 salvation. In the course of that journey, Paul having come 
 to Troas, there appeared to him, in the night, a vision of a man 
 in the habit of a Macedonian, praying them to come over into 
 Macedonia, and help them. In obedience to that call, which 
 they hiew to he from Christy the apostle, with his assistants, 
 Silas (which is the same as Silvanus) and Timothy, went first 
 to Philippi, and laid the foundation of a very flourishing 
 church there ; after that, they went to Thessalonica, a great sea- 
 port town of Macedonia," &c. This is enough. Paul, and 
 Silvanus, and Timotheus, were sent by Christ into Macedonia, 
 on a special mission. One was an apostle in the high official 
 and distinctive sense of the word ; all were Christ's apostoloi, 
 that is, messengers or missionaries. 
 
 It is contended by some that, in the place referred to, the 
 expression " apostles of Christ " is not used with reference to 
 Silas and Timothy ; but that Paul, who evidently was the sole 
 author of the epistle, employed the plural form, according to a 
 common practice with him, in speaking simply of himself. 
 The criticism is not necessary, nor do I think it can be sus- 
 tained. Paul might speak of himself in the plural, as " we " 
 and "W5," but I do not think he would call himself "the 
 apostles of Christ." 
 
 Let the instance in 1 Tliess. ii : 6, where the term ," apostle " 
 is so manifestly used in the sense of messenger, or missionary 
 be compared with Col. i: 1, where it is as manifestly used with 
 its specific meaning, as the name of an office, — '-'■Paul an 
 apostle of Jesus Christy hy the loill of God,, and Timotheus 
 our brother r Timothy is here very carefully set aside, and 
 the term " apostle " is taken by Paul exclusively to himself. 
 Precisely the same thing may be seen again in 2 Cor. i : 1. 
 
 The third case is in Philippians ii: 25 — "Yet I supposed 
 it necessary to send unto you Epaphroditus, my brother and 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 119 
 
 companion in labor, and fellow-soldier, but your messenger 
 (i. e., apostle), and he that ministered to my wants." In what 
 sense was Epaphroditus the apostle of the Philippians ? 
 Episcopalians say, that he was their bishop ; that is, that he was 
 over them in the true office of an apostle. So Blaekwall, an 
 eminent Episcopal writer, affirms, in commenting on this pas- 
 sage ! The whole secret is disclosed in the fourth chapter : Paul 
 tells the Philippians, that they alone of all the churches, since 
 the time of his leaving Macedonia, had contributed to his support. 
 At the sixteeeth verse, and onward, he writes as follows : " For 
 even in Thessalonica, ye sent once and again unto my necessity. 
 Not because I desire a gift ; but I desire fruit that may abound 
 to your account. But I have all things, and abound ; I am 
 full, having received of Epaphroditus the things ivhich were 
 sent from your Epaphroditus, then, had been sent to Paul 
 by the Philippians with gifts for his support. He was their 
 messenger^ by whom they communicated with their absent 
 friend. So slight a circumstance does it take to make a succes- 
 sor to the apostles. Macknight says — preface to Philip- 
 pians, section 11 — " The brethren at Philippi having heard of 
 their spiritual father's imprisonment at Rome, sent Epaph- 
 roditus, one of their most esteemed pastors, to that city, to 
 comfort him by making known to him their love, and by 
 supplying him with money, that he might want nothing 
 necessary to render his confinement easy." For proof, he 
 refers to chapter iv: 18. 
 
 Take again, the case in 2 Cor. viii : 23 — " Whether they do 
 inquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellow-helper concerning 
 you : or our brethren be inquired of, they are the messengers 
 (apostles) of the churches, and the glory of Christ." Titus is 
 not one of those who are here called apostles. The term is 
 applied exclusively to certain other persons, whom Paul styles 
 " our brethren." As the shortest method of disposing of this, 
 I give Macknight's paraphrase of the latter portion of the 
 text: " Or if they inquire concerning our brethren who 
 
120 THE CHURCH, 
 
 accompany Titus, tliey are persons se^it by the churches to 
 go with me to Jerusalem, (verse nineteen,) and by that servi.ee 
 they bring glory to Christ." 
 
 The last case to be noticed, is that in Rom. x\i : V, w^here 
 Andronicus and Junia are said to be "o/ note among the 
 ajpostlesr This, I have only to say, is wholly perverted, if it 
 is supposed to mean that Andronicus and Junia were noted 
 or distinguished apostles. It means simply that they were 
 persons in high esteem with the apostles, or well known to them. 
 Koppe renders the place — "Magna eorum fama est apud 
 apostolos " — great is their reputation with the apostles. So 
 Flatt, and Bloomfield, and Rosenmueller, and indeed, with one 
 or two exceptions, every commentator that I have consulted. 
 
 There is nothing, therefore, to be made for episcopacy* from 
 this fact, respecting the use of the term "apostle," in its 
 application to others besides the twelve. 
 
 WERE BARNABAS, SILAS, TIMOTHY, TITUS, AN- 
 DRONICUS, JUNIA, AND EPAPHRODITUS 
 APOSTLES ? 
 
 These are chiefly the persons, who, it is pretended were first 
 appointed in the apostolic succesion. Now, the question is, 
 Were they aiiostles? It is claimed that they were. We ask 
 for the evidences of it. The burden of proof rests of course, 
 with those who maintain the affirmative, and we ask for the 
 proof. Is there any record of their call and ordination as 
 apostles ? Nothing of the kind. Is the term " apostle," in its 
 high official and distinctive sense, in one solitary instance applied 
 to either of them ? Not once. Are they all, or any of them, 
 ever classed with the apostles, as such, in distinction from others 
 in such a way as to imply sameness of official dignity and 
 station ? Never. Is it in proof that they ever pretended to be 
 apostles ? Not at all. It is needless of course to ask, whether 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 121 
 
 they were competent to do the work, which we have shown to 
 be the proper and pecuHar work of apostles, as also, whether 
 in any other respect they answer the description necessary to 
 establish their claims to the high dignity which is asserted for 
 them ? Not a particle of that proof is furnished, which every 
 reasonable mind must" feel to be indispensable in such a case. 
 The fact, which is the very fact to be proved, — and to be proved 
 by such evidence as shall set it upon high and undisputed 
 ground, — of a communication or transfer of the apostolic 
 grace, is not even attempted to be estabhshed ; but we are asked 
 to believe that these persons were apostles, on the simple ground 
 that they exercised a certain degree of authority in the church, 
 and particularly that they ordained ministers. In regard to all 
 of them, not even this degree of proof is furnished. What, for 
 example, are the claims of Epaphroditus ? We have examined 
 already the whole scripture proof in his case. The Philippians 
 had sent him to Paul, at Rome, with money for his support, and 
 Paul in writing back his thanks, calls him " your apostle," i. e. 
 your messenger. And Theodoret who lived not far from four 
 hundred years later, when episcopal sentiments had begun exten- 
 sively to prevail in the church, falling into the same error with 
 modern episcopalians, says, " Epaphroditus was the apostle of 
 the Philippians, because he was entrusted with the episcopal 
 government, as being their bishop. Now we know why Epaph- 
 roditus was called the apostle of the Philippians, and we can 
 Smile at poor Theodoret's blunder. What are the grounds of 
 claim for Andronicus and Junia ? We have seen already the 
 only mention of these persons that is contained in the New 
 Testament. They were of note among the apostles. That is, 
 they were well known and highly esteemed by the apostles. As 
 for Barnabas and Silas, the whole pretension of their apostleship 
 rests upon the simple fact that they traveled with Paul, and 
 assisted him in his missionary labors. 
 
 Our episcopal friends make their stand upon the names of 
 Timothy and Titus. These are their strong cases, upon which, 
 7 
 
122 THE CHURCH, 
 
 no doubt, they are willing to rest the whole issue of the present 
 controversy. But upon what is the argument for them founded ? 
 On the powers of government and ordination with which it is 
 said they were invested. But to govern and ordain were not 
 the pecuhar prerogatives of the apostleship. We have shown 
 that the work of an apostle, so far as it was peculiar, and dis- 
 tinguished from the work of an ordinary christian minister, was 
 to hear witness^ from personal knowledge^ of Christ, his doings-, 
 and doctrines, and resurrection from the dead; and that there 
 is not a shadow of evidence that, to govern the church and 
 ordain ministers, were powers especially, of the apostolic office. 
 We have admitted that these prerogatives did devolve at first, 
 upon those who were apostles, partly from the necessity of the 
 case, because there were none besides to exercise them, and 
 partly from the propriety of the case, because they knew the 
 will of Christ. They were governors, not in officio, but ex 
 officio; because while they lived they had Christ's mind, having 
 been formerly instructed by him, and being then inspired by his 
 spirit. But we utterly deny that their apostolic office essentially 
 included the governorship of the churches, and the power of 
 ordination, and we think we have sustained our denial by proofs 
 that can not be set aside. What is it then to us, in an argument 
 on the question, whether Timothy and Titus were apostles, to 
 be told that they were vested with the powers of government 
 and ordination ? 
 
 The question concerning a transfer of the apostleship, we 
 consider as settled. It is simply ridiculous to prolong the debate 
 on that point. The only form under which it seems to me 
 possible to continue our discussion, is the following : 
 
 Did the apostles set in the churches a class of ministers, 
 superior to presbyters, who, without inheriting what was prop- 
 erly the apostleship, were nevertheless to be, peculiarly and 
 exclusively, their successors in the business of governing? In 
 other words, Did they appoint such a class of ministers as the 
 diocesan bishops of the Episcopal church ? 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 123 
 
 The question is not, Did they ordain other apostles ? — we 
 are done with that inquiry. Did they set prelatic bishops over 
 the churches ? 
 
 I am now brought again upon the track of Mr. Schuyler, 
 and I return with pleasure to take up the thread of his argu- 
 mentation, where I left it. I recall the reader's attention to 
 page fifty-four of his book, where he says — " Here, then, as 
 we have shown, we have the three orders after Christ's ascen- 
 sion, viz., apostles, presbyters, and deacons." He proceeds, 
 
 " The question now presents itself, to which, of these three 
 orders, was the ordaining power committed? That the dea- 
 cons were not thus empowered is universally admitted. It 
 rests, therefore, between the order indifferently styled in scrip- 
 ture * elders,' ' presbyters, ' or ' bishops,' and another order, 
 distinguished as a higher grade, by the exclusive exercise of 
 this and other powers." 
 
 Now it must be borne in mind, in order to appreciate Mr. 
 Schuyler's beauties to the full, that he has not even attempted 
 to show that the apostles, as such, were an order in the perma- 
 nent ministry, and, that we have demonstrated that they were 
 not. 
 
 " We readily admit," he goes on to say, " that the name of 
 ' bishop,' which we now appropriate to the highest grade, is 
 used in the bible, as importing the same office with 'elder' or 
 ' presbyter ; ' but the name is of no moment — we are seeking 
 for the FACT, whether there is more than one grade of officers 
 in the christian ministry ; I care not by what name you may 
 call them." 
 
 We will not dispute with our author here. We are quite 
 wilfing that he should look for the fact that he is in search of, 
 being perfectly certain that his search will be fruitless. And 
 yet this matter of names does not seem to us to be so entirely 
 a matter of indifference. It is, at least, of importance in aiding 
 us to understand the apostolic fathers when they write about 
 " bishops : " because nothing is more natural than to suppose, 
 
124 THE CHURCH, 
 
 seeing that tlie term " bishop" had a fixed meaning with the 
 writers of the New Testament, that the writers, in the times 
 immediately following, would use it in the same sense. What 
 we object to, on the part of our Episcopal friends, is, that they 
 should so curl their lips, (I had almost used a less decorous 
 figure, borrowed from the next superior organ,) at the name, 
 " bishop," occurring in the writings of the apostles, and attach 
 such measureless importance to it in the writings of the early 
 fathers, some of whom were on the stage, before the last of the 
 apostles had disappeared. Theodoret's assertion, quoted by our 
 author on page fifty-six, we take for what it is worth, judging 
 of him, by his belief in the apostleship of Epaphroditus. Theo- 
 doret was evidently a believer in some kind of a prelatic suc- 
 cession from the apostles, having caught the infection which, 
 in his time, had spread itself so widely in the churches. — But 
 after all, what is the amount of his testimony ? Simply this : 
 that " in process of time," the name apostle was dropped, and 
 the name bishop substituted for it, as the name of those, who, 
 it is pretended, received the apostles' office. This we know as 
 well without Theodoret's testimony as with it ; and as his testi- 
 mony was not recorded until that had taken place which we 
 know of from other sources, it is just as good as n'o authority at 
 all, on wliich to claim, that while the word " bishop" in the 
 New Testament always means pastor or presbyter^ it means 
 prelate the very moment we find it used in other and later 
 writings. 
 
 On this subject of names, our author furnishes, on page fifty- 
 five, a very striking and apposite witticism, from " that distin- 
 guished writer and masterly controversialist, Charles Leslie," 
 which I could have no object in disturbing. The same may 
 be said, also, of another very stale jest, apparently supposed to 
 be original, on the analogy of the words presbyter and alder- 
 man. Before leaving this subject of names, I would ask our 
 author, what advantage he hopes to derive from the bald quo- 
 tation, commencing at the bottom of page fifty-six, from 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 125 
 
 Isadore, a cotemporary of Theocloret? — "The bishops suc- 
 ceeded the apostles. They were constituted through the whole 
 world, in place of the apostles." Does he not know that this 
 is precisely the Presbyterian doctrine ? I have no means of 
 consulting Isadore, and can not tell whether he used the word 
 " bishops," in the scriptural sense or not. If he used it in the 
 prelatic sense, which it gradually acquired as Episcopal cor- 
 ruption spread itself, according to Theodoret, " in the process 
 of time," why then Isadore was a prelatist, and spoke as a pre- 
 latist ; but if he used it in the scriptural sense, then he but 
 affirmed what we maintain to be the scriptural doctrine, and 
 what all Presbyterians believe : that the bishops, or elders, or 
 presbyters, succeeded to the apostles, and were constituted 
 through the whole world in their place. We believe that the 
 apostles constituted pastors in all the churches, and, that when 
 they died and went to heaven, they left the churches wholly in 
 their care. Whatever Isadore meant, which I am not able to 
 determine, he wrote, in this instance, like a man well versed in 
 the -scriptures. 
 
 Mr. Schuyler is now approaching the present essential point 
 in debate between us. He says, page fifty-seven : 
 
 "And that these apostles and their successors, who were 
 afterward called bishops, were the only persons empowered to 
 govern the church and ordain, can be clearly shown from the 
 epistles to Timothy and Titus." 
 
 WAS TIMOTHY PRELATIC BISHOP OF EPHESUS? 
 
 Our author may state his argument. He says, page fifty- 
 seven, and onward, 
 
 " It must be evident to any diligent reader of the epistle to 
 Timothy, that one leading design was, to instruct him in the 
 proper discharge of his episcopal duties : hence in the very 
 opening of the epistle we find these words : ' I besought thee to 
 
126 THE CHURCH, 
 
 remain still at Ephesus, tliat thou mightest charge some that 
 they teach no other doctrine.' Here, then, is an express decla- 
 ration, that Timothy was to exercise discipline over those in the 
 church of Ephesus who were appointed to minister and to 
 teach. He then proceeds to enumerate the necessary qualifica- 
 tions of bishops or elders, and deacons in the church, and in the 
 same connection, adds — 'These things write I unto thee, 
 hoping to come unto thee shortly ; hut if I tarry too long, that 
 thou mayest know how to behave thyself in the church of God' 
 — an expression which surely can not be construed of personal 
 deportment in the public worship of the sanctuary ; for no one 
 can doubt that Timothy had piety and intelligence enough to 
 teach him to conduct properly there. It must, therefore, refer 
 to the proper discharge of those episcopal duties which St. 
 Paul had just enumerated in the preceding verses, viz., his care 
 in the choice of proper persons for the ofiices of presbyters and 
 deacons : and this clearly indicates that he was invested with 
 episcopal authority. Toward the close of this epistle we find 
 more specific directions : ' Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him 
 as a father.' ' Against an elder receive not an accusation, but 
 before two or three witnesses ' — thus showing, that to Timothy 
 was committed the power of judging and pronouncing sentence 
 upon the elders. Well might his compeers, (the elders,) if they 
 were his compeers, and ministers with like authority, indig- 
 nantly rebuke his presumption, saying, ' Man, who made thee a 
 judge over us.' But we hear of no such rebellion. 
 
 " And in the second epistle, which was written only a short 
 time before St. Paul's death, and while a prisoner at Rome, 
 bequeathing it as a dying legacy to his son Timothy, he does 
 not neglect to instruct him as to the government of the church. 
 From this epistle it appears clearly, that the power to ordain 
 was committed singly to Timothy. He expressly charges him, 
 * lay hands suddenly on no man.' — And again, ' The things 
 that thou hast heard of me, among many witnesses, the same 
 commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 127 
 
 also.' These epistles were botli written after St. Paul had 
 called the elders of Ephesus together at Miletus, and given 
 them instructions as to the proper discharge of their ministerial 
 duties. I wish you to examine these instructions at your 
 leisure, brethren, and to see if you can find any authority given 
 to owe, or any of these elders, such as we have shown given to 
 Timothy, to exercise discipline over the clergy^ or to ordain. 
 The passage to which I refer, will be found in Acts xx, begin- 
 ning at the eighteenth verse. 
 
 " But — as we have clearly shown — the right to exercise 
 discipline and to ordain was given to Timothy^ and as we have 
 stated, after St. Paul's instructions to the elders at Miletus; 
 Timothy was sent to them to exercise this authority over them. 
 Here^ then., we have the diocese of Ephesus, ivith many 2^cls- 
 tors over their respective churches, and an apostolic bishop 
 entrusted toith the general supervision, and alone authorized to 
 exercise discipline and ordainP 
 
 It is gratifying to have the Episcopal claim for Timothy set 
 out in a clear ^nd unambiguous light. Our author is aware, I 
 presume, that some very distinguished writers of his church, in 
 England, have maintained that Timothy was archbishop of 
 Ephesus, and some, that he was even primate of all pro-consular 
 Asia. But as Episcopalians in this country have nothing to do 
 with archbishoprics and primacies, it could hardly be expected 
 that an American writer's fancy would soar to such lofty things. 
 The simple question for this longitude is, "Was Timothy 
 prelatic bishop) of Ephesus ? 
 
 Mr. Schuyler seems very confident that he has established 
 the affirmative. It is really refreshing to contemplate the 
 huge satisfaction with which he announces his conclusion — 
 " Here, then, we have the diocese of Ephesus^'' (fee. (fee. ! 
 
 Let us briefly examine the premises from which his conclu- 
 sion is derived. His points, as nearly as I can arrive at them 
 by a careful analysis, are the following : 
 
128 THE CHURCH, 
 
 First. " Timothy was to exercise discipline over those in the 
 cliurch of Ephesus, who were appointed to minister and teach." 
 He was "to exercise discipline over the clergy." 
 
 Second. Timothy was to attend to the " choice of proper per- 
 sons for the offices of presbyters and deacons," which " clearly 
 indicates that he was in\'ested with episcopal authority." 
 
 Third. " The power to ordain was committed singly to 
 Timothy." 
 
 Fourth. "The right to exercise discipline and ordain was 
 given to Timothy — after St. Paul's instructions to the elders 
 at Miletus, Timothy was sent to them to exercise this authority 
 over themr 
 
 First. " Timothy was to exercise discipline over those hi the 
 church of Ephesus who were appointed to i7iinister and teachV 
 He was " to exercise discipline over the clergy P The proof of 
 this proposition our author finds in the first epistle i : 3 — "As 
 I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus when I went into 
 Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no 
 other doctrine^ " Here, then," he says, commenting on this 
 text, "es an express declaration, that Timothy vjcis to exercise 
 discipline over those in the church of Ephesus who were 
 appointed^^ &c. &c. Now where does he learn that the exercise 
 of discipline was involved in the duty enjoined in this place, 
 on Timothy? And where does he learn, that those whom 
 Timothy was to charge not to teach any other doctrine, were 
 persons who had been appointed to minister and teach ^" 
 Where does he learn, that they were " the clergy ? " All is 
 assumption — without reason or authority. It is not known, 
 and can not be, who those false teachers were. Macknight and 
 others say merely, that they were probably Judaizers, i. e., 
 persons who insisted that the Gentile converts should be cir- 
 cumcised, &c. &c., in conformity with the Jewish law. — These, 
 Timothy was to charge. The word in the original, par aggeiles, 
 Mr. Barnes says, "seems to mean more than is commonly 
 implied by the word as used by us. If it had been a single 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 129 
 
 direction or command, it might have been given by Paul him- 
 self before he left, but it seems rather to refer to that continu- 
 ous instruction which would convince those various errorists, 
 and lead them to inculcate only the true doctrine." Does Mr. 
 Schuyler suppose that false doctrine can be taught only by 
 " the clergy ? " or, that a charge given to errorists to abstain 
 from inculcating their false doctrines, must- of necessity be 
 an episcopal charge? 
 
 Second. Timothy was to attend to the " choice of proper per- 
 sons for the offices of presbyters and deacons" which " clearly 
 indicates that he was invested with episcopal authority.''* 
 Has Mr. Schuyler proved, or attempted to prove, that Timothy 
 was invested with any exclusive powers relating to the choice 
 of persons for the presbyterial and diaconal offices ? He has 
 not. In regard to the question of exclusive authority, we shall 
 speak in another place. We do not deny that Timothy had 
 committed to him, for the time being, the general direction and 
 supervision of the church at Ephesus, or that Paul in the third 
 chapter of the first epistle, is giving him instructions for the 
 proper arranging and settling of its affairs. We simply deny 
 here, the soundness of Mr. Schuyler's conclusion, — that Tim- 
 othy must therefore have been ^^ invested ivith episcopal 
 authority ^^' — i. e. that he must have been prelatic bishop of 
 Ephesus. 
 
 The apostle having stated the proper qualifications of bishops 
 and deacons, says, — " These things I write unto thee, hoping 
 to come unto thee shortly ; but if I tarry long, that thou may- 
 est know how to behave thyself in the house of God." Our 
 author miglit have saved the labor of his very profound criti- 
 cism on the words " that thou mightest know how to behave 
 thyself in the house of God." His own people may have 
 been edified — I know not who else could be — by being told 
 that Timothy was not written to now as a child, to instruct him 
 how he should behave in meeting; undoubtedly, Paul was 
 giving him directions for the management of ecclesiastical 
 
130 THE CHURCH, 
 
 affairs, — Who ever supposed otherwise? What then? Does 
 it follow that Timothy was an Episcopal bishop ? The only 
 explanation which the words just quoted admit of, is the follow- 
 ing : Paul tells Timothy that he writes him these instructions, 
 not supposing that it was absolutely necessary for him to do so, 
 because he hoped shortly to return to Ephesus, and take charge 
 of things himself, personally ; yet he writes them to make sure 
 that if, contrary to his expectations, his return should be long 
 delayed, he, i. e. Timothy would know how to demean himself, 
 and to do in a proper manner the things which the welfare of 
 the church required to be done. Nothing could be plainer 
 than it is from this, that Timothy's superintendence at Ephe- 
 sus was to cease whenever Paul should return there. The 
 responsibility at present devolving upon him was temporary 
 and accidental, owing to the apostle's sudden and premature 
 departure. On the passage now under consideration, Mr. 
 Barnes says, in his notes, — ^^ These things T write unto thee, 
 hoping to come unto thee shortly T " That is, he hoped to 
 come there to give instructions personally, or to finish, himself, 
 the work which he had commenced in Ephesus, and which had 
 been interrupted by his being driven away so unexpectedly. 
 This verse proves that the apostle Paul did not regard Timo- 
 thy as the permanent diocesan bishop of Ej^hesus. Would 
 any Episcopal bishop Avrite this to another bishop ? If Timothy 
 had been the permanent prelate of Ephesus, would Paul have 
 intimated that he expected soon to come and take the work of 
 completing the arrangements there into his own hands ? " 
 
 Let the reader look at other evidence, that Timothy's charge 
 at Ephesus was temporary and accidental. Be it remembered, 
 the claim is, that he was properly and specifically bishop of 
 Ephesus. Ephesus, therefore, was his field. He was not 
 simply a casual and occasional laborer there, but that was his 
 appropriate and peculiar charge. There were his duties and 
 responsibilities, and there he was bound by his office to be, and 
 to abide. See how this view of the subject corresponds with 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 131 
 
 what Paul says to him, in the opening of the first epistle, — 
 "Unto Timothy my son, * * * as / besought thee to 
 abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou 
 mightest charge some," &c. Now, how came Timothy to be 
 at Ephesus at all, when this epistle was written? Was it 
 because that was his home? Was it because his special and 
 appropriate duties were there ? Was it because he was bishop 
 of Ephesus, and therefore under ofiicial obhgations to be there ? 
 Not in the least. He w^as in Ephesus at the earnest solicitation 
 of Paul. He and the apostle had been there in company ; 
 and, when a difficulty arose, which made it necessary for the 
 apostle to leave, Timothy would have left also, — as little bound 
 to the place as Paul himself. He desired and proposed to 
 leave. If not, why did Paul beseech him to remain ? And 
 he remained simply and only to gratify Paul's ^^^shes. Does 
 this look as though Timothy was bishop of Ephesus? What! 
 must the bishop of Ephesus be induced to remain in his own 
 diocese only by earnest entreaties, and this, too, at a time when 
 his presence there Avas most especially needful, on account of 
 the prevalence of dangerous heresies, and the busy efforts of 
 false teachers ? Incredible ! We can not think so ill of Timo- 
 thy. And for what purpose was Timothy besought by Paul 
 to remain at Ephesus ? Was it not for a specific service, to 
 repress heresy, and to prosecute the apostle's own unfinished 
 work ? — " I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I 
 went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they 
 teach no other doctrine." If Timothy was bishop of Ephesus, 
 why did not Paul say that he besought him to remain there, 
 because it was right and proper that he should do so, to per- 
 form the duties of his episcopal office ? There was a special 
 work to be done ; a special exigency required the presence in 
 that city of some one, who would be likely to command respect, 
 and whose name would carry the weight of authority with it. 
 Those false teachers particularly were to be silenced ; and Tim- 
 othy, as one who had enjoyed singular advantages, having 
 
132 THE CHURCH, 
 
 associated much with the apostles, and whose reputation for 
 piety and wisdom was well established, was besought by Paul 
 to remain, and do what he could, to settle and harmonize the 
 disturbed affairs of the church. 
 
 It is plain, furthermore, that neither Paul nor Timothy him- 
 self had any idea that this was to be the permanent residence 
 of the latter. " I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus." 
 That is simply, and upon no possible construction can it be 
 made to mean more, not to leave with me, hut to remain 
 longer — leaving the expression of the time indefinite, yet 
 implying, as clearly as it could be implied, that it was to be 
 only for a season. That^ as a fact^ Timothy did not remain 
 permanently at Ephesus, will be noticed hereafter. 
 
 Third. " The power to ordain ivas committed singly to 
 Timothy r What are our author's proofs of this ? He says, — 
 "From this epistle {the second) it appears clearly, that the 
 power to ordain was committed singly to Timothy. He (Paul) 
 expressly charges him — " lay hands suddenly on no man." 
 And again — " The things that thou hast heard of me among 
 many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall 
 be able to teach others also." These texts barely quoted, compose 
 the sum total of his argument. It may seem to be a matter of 
 small moment, whether the charge to " lay hands suddenly on 
 no man," is found in the first epistle or the second ; yet, for the 
 truth's sake, and for another important reason that will be seen 
 hereafter, I choose to inform the reader, if indeed he needs to 
 be informed, that it is in the first epistle, at the twenty-second 
 verse of the fifth chapter. The second epistle does not contain 
 a syllable on the subject of ordination, or of any other of the 
 so-called episcopal powers. There is not a word in it, which 
 Mr. Schuyler himself could possibly regard as inappropriate to 
 be addressed to any minister of the gospel. — ^'•The things that 
 thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same com- 
 mit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others alsoJ'' 
 Can it be possible that my brother regards this passage as 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 133 
 
 relating to the ordination of ministers ? I think he may easily 
 be satisfied that it has no such reference. In what manner had 
 Timothy received the things spoken of, which he was to commit 
 to faithful (?'. e. pious or believing) men ? Had he received 
 them by his ordination? No; by hearing them of Paul. 
 ''''The things which thou hast heard of me, the same commit 
 thou," &c., &c. In what manner were those to whom Timothy 
 should commit them, to hand them down to their successors ? 
 By ordaining their successors? No; by teaching them, as 
 Paul had taught Timothy, — "The same commit thou unto 
 faithful men, who shall be able to teach others alsoP Now 
 what was it to commit? Was it to ordain to the ministry? 
 He is but a poor expositor of the bible who thinks so. The 
 subject of the text under consideration is teaching, and not 
 ordination; teaching, I suppose, with special reference to quali- 
 fying for the gospel ministry, which I believe is not regarded 
 as one of the peculiar functions of prelates. The best com- 
 mentators sustain this exposition. In so plain a case, time need 
 not be consumed with quotations. Mr. Schuyler's argument 
 from the second epistle must, I think, be admitted to be a 
 failure. 
 
 Fourth. " The right to exercise discipline and to ordain^ 
 was given to Timothy after St. PauVs instructions to the 
 elders at Miletus; Timothy was sent to them to exercise this 
 authority over themP 
 
 This our author affirms, on the ground of his assertion that 
 " These epistles {i. e. the two to Timothy) were both written 
 after St. Paul had called the elders of Ephesus together at 
 Miletus, and had given them instructions," &c., (fee. He is mis- 
 taken. T\\Q first epistle, which alone contains any thing on the 
 subjects of disciphne and ordination, was written before the 
 interview of Paul with the elders, at Miletus. Townsend, in 
 his chronological arrangement of the bible, assigns this epistle 
 to the year A. D. 56-Y, and the interview with the elders, to 
 A. D. 58. Lardner — Works, voh 6, page 21, -Lond. — says, 
 
134 THE CHURCH, 
 
 " The first epistle to Timotliy was written in the year A. D. 56, 
 and probably some good while before the end of it." The 
 reasons for this opinion he gives at length, assigning the inter- 
 view at Miletus to the year fifty-eight. Respecting the date of 
 the latter event, all chronologists are agreed. In regard to the 
 relative dates of this epistle and the interview at Miletus, Light- 
 foot takes the same view. So also Hale^ — see Hale's Chronology, 
 vol. 5, p. 429, Lond. So also Michaelis and Dr. Benson, — see 
 Michaelis' Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 4, p. 75, Lond. 
 
 Hug says, see his Introduction to the New Testament, And- 
 over edition, p. 534 — "Paul went from Ephesus to Macedonia, 
 leaving Timothy behind him, (1 Tim. i: 3,) and soon after 
 wrote this epistle. The apostle was at Ephesus twice; on 
 which occasion did this occur ? 
 
 "After his first visit to this city, — Acts xviii: 19-23, — 
 he went to Jerusalem ; and the departure to Macedonia, men- 
 tioned in this epistle, could not have taken place then. The 
 other visit to Ephesus is related in Acts xix: 1-41. After a 
 long residence here, he was obliged to leave the city, on account 
 of an uproar; and then dei^arted to go into Macedonia. — Acts 
 XX : 1, seq. The epistle was written on this occasion, between 
 the first and the second to the Corinthians. 
 
 " To suppose, for the purpose of this epistle, a later visit of 
 the apostle to Ephesus, in addition to the two mentioned in the 
 Acts, — one undertaken, perhaps, after his imprisonment at 
 Rome, — is forbidden by the circumstances. Among other 
 things lying at the foundation of this epistle, is the fact, that 
 the teachers and elders of the church, who should coiiduct its 
 affairs, had not yet been appointed. Now, a few months after, 
 when Paul returned to Asia from his Macedonian journey, this 
 had been done; as he sent for the elders from Ephesus to 
 Miletus, that he might see them in their new calling, and repre- 
 sent and enforce the duties of the ofiice they had assumed. — 
 Acts XX : 17-28 seq. The einstle must, therefore, have 
 preceded this occurrencer 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 135 
 
 Authorities of a similar character might be quoted to almost 
 any extent. Dr. John Mason, in his book on Episcopacy, says, 
 page 199 — " This first epistle was written when Paul was at 
 Macedonia, as the learned.^ both new and old, Papists and Pro- 
 testants, agree. And it was after this, when Paul came to 
 Miletum, accompanied with Timothy, and sends for the elders 
 of the church of Ephesus." 
 
 I know that Pearson, and Whitby, and Mill, have taken a 
 different view of this subject, but their authority is nothing in 
 opposition to that which I have given. If any minor fact in 
 scripture chronology may be regarded as settled, this fact may 
 be ; and yet our learned and most candid author says, without 
 qualification, and without a word of comment, that " both these 
 epistles were written after St. Paul had called the elders of 
 Ephesus together at Miletus ! " and upon this fact rests one of 
 his main arguments for the episcopate of Timothy ! He says, 
 " Timothy was sent to them, {i. e. the elders,) to exercise this 
 authority (or discipline) over themT Now the truth is, as Hug 
 affirms in the above extract, that, when the first epistle was 
 written to Timothy, " the teachers and elders of the church at 
 Ephesus, who should conduct its affairs, had not yet been ap- 
 pointedr Let it be observed, in connection with this, that the 
 second epistle, which was written after teachers and elders 
 had been appointed at Ephesus, contains not one word on the 
 subject of disciphne, or of any, so-called, episcopal power, and 
 the worth of our author's statement appears in a proper and 
 conspicuous light. Says Dr. Mason : 
 
 " If Timothy was bishop of Ephesus, it must have been when 
 the first epistle was written. For it is that epistle, in which he 
 is said to receive his pretended charge, of exercising his episco- 
 pal power in ordination and jurisdiction. But now, this first 
 epistle was written when Paul was at Macedonia; as the 
 learned, both new and old. Papists and Protestants, agree. 
 And it was after this, when Paul came to Miletum, accompa- 
 nied with Timothy, and sends for the elders of the church of 
 
136 THE CHURCH, 
 
 Ephesus unto him, and commends tlie government of the 
 church unto these elders — whom he calls bishops. Now 
 surely, if Timothy had been constituted their bishop, (in the 
 sense of our adversaries,) the apostle would not have called the 
 elders, bishops, before their bishop's face ; and, instead of giving 
 a charge to the elders, to feed the flock of Christ, he would 
 have given that charge to Timothy, and not to them ; and, no 
 doubt, he would have given some directions to the elders how 
 to carry themselves toward their bishop. And, because none of 
 these things were done, it is a clear demonstration, to us, that 
 Timothy was not, at that time, bishop of Ephesus." 
 
 Suppose we were to admit that the fii*st epistle to Timothy 
 was written after the interview of Paul with the elders at Mi- 
 letus, and that the Ephesian church was fully supplied with 
 elders and teachers at the very time that Timothy received all 
 these directions concerning the exercise of discipline and ordi- 
 nation — what then ? would it follow that all this authority, 
 appertained to him singly? On this false assumption, which 
 now for argument's sake, we are willing to allow, connected 
 with the fact that Paul's epistle was addressed to Timothy, and 
 not to the elders, and that whatever he says, he says to Am, 
 and not to them, using the pronouns thee and thou, our author 
 constructs his entire argument for Timothy's exclusive juris- 
 diction and power. Timothy alone is addressed by name ; 
 therefore, he concludes, Timothy alone was to do the things 
 concerning which the apostle wrote. On the broad ground of 
 such a demonstration as this, he claims, according to an amus- 
 ing habit in which he constantly indulges, to " have clearly 
 shown " that Timothy possessed all the powers of a true episco- 
 pacy, or, in his own words, with his own italics, that " The right 
 to exercise discipline and ordain was given to Timothy — after 
 St. Paul's instructions to the elders at Miletus," and that " Tim- 
 othy was sent to them, to exercise this authority over themV 
 
 The force and pertinency of the argument may be illustrated 
 in a very simple manner. Suppose that bishop Delancy were 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 137 
 
 to wiite a letter to Mr. Schuyler, and among other things, to 
 say — "I charge thee, my dear son, to be very zealous in thy 
 work of preaching the gospel and administering the sacraments 
 in Buffalo. Remember that thou art not to give the sacred 
 memorials of thy Lord to any that walk disorderly," (fee. On 
 the principle of our author's reasoning, might it not be main- 
 tained from this letter, that he alone has the right to preach 
 and administer the sacraments in Buffalo? Does not the 
 bishop expressly charge him ? Does he not say thee, and thou, 
 to the heart's content of any one most ambitious for my friend's 
 elevation ? Dr. Shelton and Mr. Ingersoll, in such a case as this, 
 would surely find it necessary to look after their commissions. 
 
 Admitting every thing that our author desires, in regard to 
 the date of this epistle, it would be simply absurd to say, that 
 the style of it, as addressed personally to Timothy, proves that 
 he alone possessed the powers, in regard to the exercise of which 
 the epistle gives directions. We do not in the least doubt, that 
 while Timothy remained at Ephesus, whether before or after 
 the ordination of elders, he was the head man, and exercised, 
 in relation to all ecclesiastical affairs, a controlling influence. 
 His experience and wisdom, to say nothing of the authority he 
 derived from being especially employed as an assistant of the 
 apostles, is sufficient to account for this, without supposing any 
 thing more. It was eminently proper, therefore, that he should 
 be particularly instructed in regard to all matters relating to 
 the welfare of the church; and the fact of his being so 
 instructed does not conflict in the slightest degree with the 
 idea, that, in all authoritative transactions, others participated 
 with him, as officially his equals. 
 
 But our author lays great stress upon vfhat he calls " the 
 instructions to the elders." He says — "I wish you to examine 
 these instructions at your leisure, brethren, and see if you can 
 find any authority given to one or any of these elders, such as 
 we have shown given to Timothy, to exercise discipline over 
 the clergy, and to ordain^ 
 
138 THE CHURCH, 
 
 Now, of course, whatever importance this argument derives 
 from the sujoposition that Paul's interview with the elders took 
 place before the first epistle to Timothy was written, is gone — 
 for the supposition is false. But even allowing the supposition 
 to be true, what ground does our author find here for denying 
 that the elders participated in all the duties and powers which 
 are claimed for Timothy ? The argument is, that no mention 
 is made of any such matters in the address which Paul deliv- 
 ered to them on that occasion. But what was the nature of 
 that address ? We afiSrm that it was in no respect whatever 
 such as Mr. Schuyler seems resolved upon regarding it. He 
 calls it, " St. PauVs instructions to the elders " — as though it 
 were professedly a programme of their powers and duties. 
 Let any one turn to the place, in Acts xx, which is too long to 
 be quoted, and read from the eighteenth verse, and then decide 
 for himself whether it was intended as an instructive discourse 
 to the elders on the powers and duties of their oflice, or as a 
 mere farewell, and parting exhortation. Almost the whole of 
 it is taken up with the apostle's account of his own labors and 
 trials, of what he had already suffered, and what he expected 
 yet to suffer, in the service of his di\dne Master, with affec- 
 tionate assurances of his love, and commendations of them and 
 their cause to God. Of the eighteen verses in which the whole 
 speech is found, only one lias any thing — and that of the most 
 general character — on the subject of their duties, save a single 
 exhortation afterward to watch, and a passing allusion to the 
 matter of making suitable provision for the poor. Yet these 
 are the instructions to the elders! and my brother Schuyler, 
 and all Episcopal writers, insist that we shall look to this place 
 for a complete list of all the functions of the presbyterial office ! 
 It is just such an absurdity as we are having specimens of, ad 
 nauseam, in all our controversy with this school of theologians. 
 The famous instructions of St. Paul to the Ephesian elders, of 
 which we hear so much, turn out, on the slightest examination, 
 to be no instructions at all, in any proper sense of that word. 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 139 
 
 What, in any case, therefore, is gained toward determining that 
 the whole right to exercise discipliiie and to ordain at Ephesiis, 
 was committed to Timothy, by comparing the epistles that were 
 written to him with this address of Paul to the elders ? 
 
 If, however, we should consent to take our author's view of 
 what he calls the instructions^ let a fair exposition be made of 
 Paul's words in the twenty-eighth verse, and what do our Epis- 
 copal brethren gain ? — " Take heed therefore unto yourselves, 
 and to all the flocTc, over which the Holy Ghost hath made 
 you overseers, {episcopous, bishops,) to feed the church of Ood, 
 which he hath purchased with his own bloods If they had 
 been made overseers, bishops of the flock or church of God, 
 by the Holy Ghost, we should like to know who, except God 
 himself, was really above them ? Let the place be pointed out, 
 in the epistles to Timothy, in which a term of higher dignity, 
 or one implying superior jurisdiction, is applied to him. 
 
 In every point, Mr. Schuyler's argument is a failure. I am 
 sure I do not speak extravagantly, when I say, that he has 
 made out absolutely nothing. He does not present a single 
 plea for Timothy's episcopate, which can bear examination for 
 a moment. 
 
 He talks of powers given to Timothy to exercise discipline 
 and to ordain, at Ephesus, after the interview of Paul with the 
 elders at Miletus — it is simply ridiculous. Timothy exercised 
 at Ephesus no powers, which he might not have exercised just 
 as freely at Corinth, or at Rome. Let the reader consider for 
 himself, the words with which Paul's first epistle to him begins : 
 " Paul — unto Timothy, my son in the faith — as I besought 
 thee to abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, 
 that thou mightest charge some, that they teach no other doc- 
 trine, neither give heed to fables,^'' &c., &c. Now, did the 
 apostle ordain Timothy to a new office there, or did he leave 
 him to exercise an office which he already had ? What allusion 
 is there to the subject of new powers ? If Paul had made 
 Timothy bishop, for the permanent government of the Ephesian 
 
140 THE CHURCH, 
 
 churcli, wliy does lie not say so ? or, at least, wliy does he 
 not say something from which that fact might be inferred ? 
 Why does he content himself with saying merely — "I 
 besought thee to aUde still at Ephesus ? " The inference is 
 irresistible, that Timothy remained at Ephesus with no change 
 in his official character, simply to exercise an office which he 
 previously had, and to perform duties, to which, by virtue of 
 that office, he was perfectly competent, and which he might 
 have performed in any other place just as well as there. 
 
 What was Timothy ? He was an evangelist. See second 
 epistle iv : 5, — " But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, 
 do the work of an evangelist; make full proof of thy ministry." 
 What were evangelists ? They were a class of extraordinary 
 ministers in the early church, who seem to have been employed 
 chiefly as aids or assistants of the apostles in their missionary 
 labors, — who were sent here and there to transact important 
 business, which the apostles, being so few in number, were 
 unable to attend to in person. They are mentioned by Paul, 
 Eph. iv: 11, in a distinct enumeration which he makes of 
 the different classes of persons then employed in the ministry 
 of the church — " And he gave some, apostles ; and some, pro- 
 phets; and some, evangelists; and some pastors and teachers." 
 I suppose that they were elders, whom the apostles had called 
 in the exigency of the times, to a more general and responsible 
 work than that of permanently superintending single congrega- 
 tions. They were companions of the apostles in their travels, — 
 as it is well known that Timothy and Silas were of Paul for a 
 great length of time. Sometimes they were sent or went alone 
 into unevangelized regions, to pi-each the gospel and lay the 
 foundations of churches. — Thus Philip went down to Samaria. 
 Sometimes they went before, as in this case of Philip, and were 
 succeeded by the apostles. At other times they came after, 
 entering into the apostles' labors, — as in the case of Apollos, 
 of whom Paul says, in one place, " I have planted, Apollos 
 watered." It often happened, that an apostle, traveling with 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 141 
 
 an evangelist, would leave liim behind for a season, more per- 
 fectly to organize and settle the churches in a particular region 
 or city, while he himself passed on to other fields. Thus, when 
 Paul could no longer remain at Ephesus, he besought Timothy 
 to abide there still; and when he departed from Crete, — 
 Tit. i : 5, — he left Titus in that island to set in order the things 
 that were wanting, and to ordain elders in every city. Evange- 
 lists, thus employed by the apostles as their special assistants, 
 seem to have been regarded as very nearly equal to the apostles 
 in authority. Apostles they were not ; but in very many respects 
 they acted in the place of apostles, and performed what was 
 considered apostolic work. " Hence," says Dr. John Brown, of 
 Edinburgh, "while they are described by TertulHan as 'apos- 
 tolic men,' — Lib. 4, Advers. Mar. — and by Jerome, as ' the sons 
 of the apostles,' — Comment, in Isa. ch. 65, — Augustine desig- 
 nates them very happily, by a most expressive name, signifying 
 literally, ' The substitutes of the apostles who were almost equal 
 to them,' — Sermon 46, de tempore." " Sometimes," says Dr. 
 B., " as in the case of Timothy, they appear to have received 
 an immediate and supernatural call; for Paul refers to 'pro- 
 phecies which went before respecting him ; ' intimating, probably, 
 that it was the specially revealed will of God, that he should be 
 appointed to this office, as the Holy Ghost said to the prophets 
 and teachers at Antioch, ' Separate me Barnabas and Paul for 
 the work whereunto I have called them ! ' We know, too, that 
 they were endowed with the power of working miracles, — Acts 
 viii : 6,- 8, — and it is probable also, according to the admission 
 of Bilson, a famous advocate of the episcopates of Titus and 
 Timothy, that they had these two (other) gifts, the revealing of 
 secrets, and discerning of spirits, (though in lesser measure 
 than the apostles,) which served chiefly to distinguish who were 
 fit or unfit for the service of Christ's church." 
 
 Eusehius says, respecting evangelists, — book iii: chap, 37, — 
 that they were disciples of the apostles, " Who everywhere built 
 upon the foundations which the apostles had laid ; preaching 
 
142 THE CHURCH, 
 
 the gospel, and scattering the salutary seeds of the kingdom of 
 heaven over the face of the earth. And moreover, very many 
 of the disciples of that day traveled abroad, and performed the 
 work of evangelists; ardently desirous of preaching Christ to 
 those who were yet wholly unacquainted with the doctrine of 
 faith, and to deliver to them the scripture of the divine gospels. 
 These having merely laid the foundations of the faith^ and 
 ordained other pastors, committed to them the cultivation of 
 the churches newly planted, while they themselves, supported 
 hy the grace and co-operation of God, proceeded to other 
 covMtries and nations r 
 
 Let it be observed, that Eusebius says distinctly, that evan- 
 gelists founded churches, and ordained pastors over them; — 
 which is precisely the work that we say evangehsts might do, 
 and did do, by virtue of their evangelistic office. 
 
 Now, that Timothy labored at Ephesus as an evangehst, and 
 not as episcopal bishop, is perfectly evident: First, from the 
 fact that Paul especially charges him, " to do the ivork of an 
 evangelist " there. Second, from the fact, already noticed, that 
 he was only induced to remain there by the earnest entreaties 
 of Paul, — which is entirely consistent with the idea of his 
 being an evangelist, whose field was the world : but wholly at 
 variance with that of his being a bishop in the episcopal sense, — 
 whose field is his own diocese. It is evident, thirdly, from the 
 similar fact, that Paul afterward directed him to leave Ephesus 
 and come to Rome, — 2 Tim. iv : 9, — to be his companion and 
 assistant in that city, in the place of some who had forsaken 
 him. Would Paul, in such a case as this, send for an installed 
 bishop of a large and important diocese, and call him away 
 from his own special charge ? If Timothy was an evangelist, 
 there is nothing strange in this ; but regarding him in the other 
 character, Paul's conduct is certainly most inexplicable. These 
 facts of the case are perfectly conclusive against the pretended 
 Ephesian episcopate. 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 143 
 
 I may add, it is extremely unfortunate for tlie claim of our 
 Episcopal friends, tliat Paul should so distinctly have recog- 
 nized the true episcopal jurisdiction of the elders in his address 
 to them at Miletus. We care not much, so far as our main 
 argument is concerned, whether the first epistle to Timothy was 
 w^ritten before or after that interview with the elders. If after ^ 
 then the church at Ephesus was well supplied with bishops, 
 and could hardly need another so very soon, the time being 
 probably less than one year. If hefore^ it w^as, to say the least, 
 not very respectful to Timothy to apply his title to all the 
 inferior clergy. 
 
 I have something more to say in regard to Timothy, which, 
 as it is equally applicable to the case of Titus, may be reserved, 
 and said of both at once. 
 
 WAS TITUS PRELATIC BISHOP OF CRETE? 
 
 Mr. Schuyler says, on page sixty, — " The epistle to Titus is 
 alike clear and explicit on this point. The care of all the 
 churches in the island of Crete, was committed by St. Paul to 
 Titus. It is a well known historical fact, that at this time there 
 ■ were an hundred cities in this island ; truly an extensive dio- 
 cese, demanding apostolic energy and zeal. But to Titus alone 
 w^as the power to govern the church there, and ordain elders 
 committed. In the opening of this epistle, St. Paul writes, — 
 ' 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.' Upon this verse it has been 
 asked, — Dr. Thompson's sermon, page thirty, — ' If Titus was 
 an apostle, how did it happen that he appears in this place so 
 entirely subject to Paul, w^hose equal in that case he must have 
 been ? ' We say in answer, that it is evident from the passage 
 itself, that Titus was St. Paul's equal, inasmuch as he was to 
 ■perfect the work St. Paul had commenced^ and to ordain elders 
 
144 THE CHURCH, 
 
 where they were wanting. St. Paul could have done no more. 
 He had, it is true, been set apart to that particular field by St. 
 Paul ; but he went there with all the powers of an apostle. 
 St. Paul, further on in the epistle, proceeds to instruct him as 
 to the qualifications of those to be ordained, with a particular 
 charge to banish heresy, — ' a man that is an heretic after the 
 first and second admonition, reject.' " 
 
 When Mr. Schuyler presents this as an argument to show 
 that Titus was prelatic bishop of Crete, if I did not know the 
 contrary, I should certainly suppose him to be indulging in 
 mere drollery. 
 
 The first plea here for the Cretian episcopate of Titus, is the 
 extent and populousness of the island. We reply, that the 
 labors of evangelists were never confined to particular congre- 
 gations, but always extended over entire regions and countries. 
 
 The second is founded on the words of Paul, — " 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." 
 
 We reply, that the words, "for this cause left I thee in 
 Crete," even though the word " thee " had been put in capitals 
 by Paul himself, would not upon any fair construction, be 
 equivalent to, — for this cause I ordained thee bishop of Crete;* 
 or, for this cause I installed thee into the Cretian episcopate. 
 It is very similar to Paul's beseeching Timothy to " abide still 
 at Ephesus." It seems to me to be the common sense view of 
 this, to suppose that when Paul could no longer remain in Crete, 
 having performed his apostoHc work there, by tvitnessi7ig from, 
 personal knowledge of Christy he left Titus temporarily, to 
 complete his unfinished labors, in the organization of churches, 
 and supplying them with pastors, a work which, according to 
 Eusebius, evangelists were competent to perform. 
 
 But Paul says, — " for this cause left I thee in Crete." We 
 reply, that probably Paul had no one else to leave there, or 
 knew of no more suitable person. No ; but " for this cause left 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 145 
 
 1 tliee in Crete," to do a 'particular kind of worh, to do my 
 work, to set in order things that are wanting^ and to ordain 
 elder^r Well, we reply, it was necessary that somebody should 
 do this work, and if Paul could not remain to do it himself, 
 w^hy should he not avail himself of the presence of Titus there, 
 who was every way a suitable person to complete what the 
 apostle had begun. But how, Mr. Schuyler asks, could Titus, 
 if he was not an apostle, do an apostle's work ? We reply, he 
 could not. He could not testify, from personal knowledge, of 
 Christ. He could not speak authoritatively, as one inspired ; 
 and we do not read that he attempted to do either one of these 
 things. Might he not, however, do an evangelist's work? 
 Founding churches and ordaining pastors over them, were di- 
 rectly in his line. " Titus was St. Paul's equal," we are told, 
 " inasmuch as he was to 'perfect the work which St. Paul com- 
 menced ! " Admirable ! Apostles, then, ne^^er performed any 
 work which could be done by any that were not apostles! 
 And if any person followed in an apostle's track, and entered 
 into his labors, he was himself, of necessity, an apostle! Has 
 Mr. Schuyler anywhere proved, that to found churches and 
 ordain pastors were functions peculiar to the apostolic office ? 
 Have not we proved that they were not ? 
 
 Because Titus was left in Crete, to " set in order the things 
 that remained, and to ordain elders, it follows, therefore," says 
 Mr. S., " that he went there with all the powers of an apostle." 
 If he went there with all the powers of an apostle, then how 
 did Paul's leaving him there to do the work described, malce 
 him bishop of Crete ? But will our author pretend that he 
 had, either before or after he went to Crete, all the powers of 
 an apostle ? Had he the power to testify of Christ from per- 
 sonal knowledge, and to speak authoritatively, the mind of 
 Christ, as one inspired ? It will not, at least, be denied that 
 these were powers of an apostle. Did Titus possess them ? 
 
 Mr. Schuyler finds a third ai-gument for the episcopate of 
 Titus in Crete, in the assumed fact, that "to him alone was the 
 8 
 
146 THE CHURCH, 
 
 power to govern the cliurcli there, and ordain elders committed." 
 I know of no evidence that this was a real fact, except that 
 Episcopahans affirm it. Does the epistle contain any evidence 
 of it ? The epistle informs us that Titus was to ordain elders. 
 Does it say that no one was to participate with him in this 
 work ? 
 
 For a fuller reply to this argument, the reader may turn hack 
 to what was said in the case of Timothy. 
 
 But, fourth. Titus received a particular charge to banish 
 heresy. Paul said to him, "A man that is an heretic, after 
 the first and second admonition, reject." Therefore Titus was 
 episcopal bishop of Crete. To whom was the first epistle to 
 the Corinthians written? — To a company of episcopal bishops? 
 It is commonly supposed, that it was written to the Corinthian 
 church with its elders. In the fifth chapter, a much severer 
 kind of discipline is mentioned than this rejection of a heretic, 
 and by whom was it to be administered ? At the fourth verse 
 we read, " In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are 
 gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan, for the destruc- 
 tion of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day 
 of the Lord Jesus." — When who should be gathered together ? 
 It is enough to have alluded to this. Titus' commission 
 against heretics, though it were proved, which it can not be, 
 that he had charge of this matter alone^ would not prove 
 him to have been prelatic bishop. 
 
 Whether any thing is made out for the Cretian episcopate, I 
 leave the reader to decide. 
 
 What is the testimony of the fiithers, in regard to Timothy 
 and Titus? Not a single authority can be found in all the 
 writings of the first three centuries, to sustain the episcopal 
 claim. So Dr. Whitby confesses, in his preface to the epistle 
 to Titus. Chrysostom, who flourished in the fourth century, 
 in a passage quoted from him by Mocket, chaplain to arch- 
 bishop Abbot, says, that the}^ were evangelists. — Tractat. de 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 147 
 
 Politia Anglicana. Later patristic authorities are of no avail. 
 When episcopal usurpations had become the order of the day, 
 it is not remarkable if there were found some to make prelates 
 of Timothy and Titus, especially when Theodoret could make 
 one of Epaphroditus, on the bare ground of his being sent to 
 Paul, by the Phihppians, with a contribution of money. 
 
 Admissions of Episcopal writers are not wanting in any 
 number. 
 
 Bishop Stilling Jleet says, — Irenicum, page 340, — "They 
 were very few, and those probably not the ablest, who were left 
 at home to take care of the spoil ; the strongest and ablest, like 
 commanders in an army, were not settled in any troop, but 
 went up and down, from this company to that, to order them 
 and draw them forth ; and while they w^ere, they had the chief 
 authority among them, but as commanders of the army, and 
 not as officers of the troop. Such were evangelists, — who 
 were sent sometimes into this country to put the churches in 
 order there, sometimes into another; but wherever they were, 
 they acted as evangelists, and not as fixed ojfficers. And such 
 were Timothy and Titus, notwithstanding all the opposition 
 made to it, as will appear to any that will take an impartial 
 survey of the arguments on both sides." 
 
 Bishop Bridges, whom no one w^ill suspect of leaning to 
 Presbyterianism, in his defense of the government of the 
 church of England, book i, page 68, says, — "The same 
 Philip is called an evangelist; so was Timothie, 2 Tim. iv: 5. 
 Such was Titus, Silas, and manie other. This office also, with 
 the order of the apostles, is expired, and hath no place. Like- 
 wise, as wee doo plainlie see, that the gifts of healing, of 
 powers or miracles, and of diverse toongs, have long since 
 ceased in the church; so the offices of them which were 
 grounded upon these gifts must also cease and be determined." 
 
 Dodwell — Paroenes, sec. x, page 404, says, — " But truly, 
 that the office (of Timothy) was not fixed, but itinerary, many 
 arguments do evince. It was required of him to abide at 
 
148 THE CHURCH, 
 
 Ephesus, as is testified by the apostle — 1 Tim. i : 3. He was 
 therefore, when thus demanded, an itinerary. The work of an 
 evangehst, 2 Tim. iv : 5, so many jom-neyings with St. Paul, 
 and his name being joined in common with the apostle, in the 
 inscriptions of the epistles to the Thessalonians, are all of them 
 arguments for this. Moreover, the apostle commands Titus 
 only to ordain, in Crete, presbyters in every city — Titus i : 5. 
 He says, he was left there, that he might set in order the 
 things that were wanting, and he was a companion of the 
 apostle when he was left there. And truly, other places make 
 it appear, that he was a companion of St. Paul, and therefore 
 was no more restricted to any particular place than the apostle 
 himself." 
 
 Willet^ in the Synopsis Papismi, controversy 5, quest. 3, 
 says — " Neither can it be granted by the words of the apostle, 
 Lay hands suddenly on no man, that Timothy had this sole 
 power in himself; for the apostle would not give that to him, 
 which he did not take to himself, who associated to him the 
 rest of the presbyters in ordaining Timothy." In the appendix 
 to the fifth general controversy, question third, he says — " It is 
 most like that Timothie had the place and calling of an evan- 
 gelist, whose ofiace was to second the apostles in their minis- 
 terie, and to water that which the ap>ostles had planted.'''' 
 
 If any one is inchned to suppose that Timothy and Titus 
 were bishops, one of Ephesus, and the other of Crete, because 
 it is so stated in the postscripts of the epistles which were 
 addressed to them, it is enough to say, what no one will venture 
 to deny, that these postscripts form no part of the epistles 
 themselves, but Avere added near the middle of the fifth century, 
 as notes, by one Eustathius, bishop of Suica, in Egypt. So 
 says Dr. Mill ; and bishop Home declares, that whoever was 
 the author, he was either grossly ignorant or grossly inattentive. 
 
 On the whole, the reader must, I think, be satisfied that the 
 Episcopal pretension respecting Timothy and Titus, is a pre- 
 tension merely, unsupported by a shadow of sufiicient evidence. 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 149 
 
 Every argument that is advanced in either case, is a bare 
 assumption, met by us, not with assumptions, but with undeni- 
 able facts, and a construction of scripture texts which can not 
 fail to commend itself to every unprejudiced mind. 
 
 Mr. Schuyler, on page sixty-one, makes a quotation from 
 bishop Hall, which 1 desire to notice briefly. Bishop Hall, by 
 the way, was a most enthusiastic defender of the Ephesian and 
 Cretian episcopates. In his work on " Episcopacy by Divine 
 Right," book ii, page 26, he says — "I demand, what is it that 
 is stood upon, but these two particulars, the especial power of 
 ordination, and power of the ruling and censuring of presby- 
 ters ; and if these two be not clear in the charge of the apostle 
 to these two bishoj^s, one of Crete, the other of Ephesus, I 
 shall yield the cause, and confess to want my senses." So 
 confident was he, and so much importance did he attach to the 
 demonstrableness of these two episcopates. He sympathized, 
 I have no doubt, with Bilson, who says, — Perpetual Govern- 
 ment, ch. xiv, page 300 — "This indeed, is the main erection 
 of the episcopal power and function, if our proofes drawn from 
 these ministers stand ; or subversion, if your answere be good ; 
 for if this faile, well may bishops claime their authoritie by the 
 custome of the church; hy any divine precept expressed in the 
 scriptures., they can notP But let us hear Bishop Hall : 
 
 " It is a poor shift of some, that Timothy and Titus were 
 evangelists, and therefore persons extraordinary, and not, in 
 this behalf, capable of succession. Whatever they were in their 
 personal qualifications, here they stood for bishops, and they 
 received, as church governors, those charges which were to be 
 ordinary and perpetual to all who should succeed in ecclesiasti- 
 cal administration. As to the title, how will it appear that they 
 were evangehsts ? For Titus there is no color ; he is nowhere 
 called an evangelist. For Timothy, it is true, St. Paul charges 
 him to do the work of an evangehst. What of that ? What 
 is it to do the work of an evangelist, but to preach the gospel 
 of peace ? This he might do, and must do, as a bishop. And 
 
150 THE CHURCH, 
 
 what propriety is there of these enjoined works to an evangehst, 
 as he was an evangehst ? What ! Can they show it was the 
 office of an evangehst to ordain and censure? Nay, rather, 
 how should those works which are constant and ordinary, and 
 so consequently desirable to all successions, to the end of the 
 world, be imposed upon a mere extraordinary agent?" "as," 
 Mr. Schuyler adds, " it is admitted the evangelists were ? " 
 
 " As to the title^ how will it appear that they were evange- 
 lists ? " It appears, we reply, from the fact that they were never 
 permanently located, but through the entire course of their 
 ministry, so far as we can trace them, were employed in evan- 
 gelistic labors, going from place to place, and doing the very 
 work, which, according to all competent authorities, was the 
 proper work of evangelists. 
 
 Dr. John Brown quotes Barrow as saying — " Episcopacy is 
 an ordinary standing charge, affixed to one place, and requiring 
 especial attendance there ;" and adds — " But evangelists, as is 
 stated by Eusebius, after having founded or organized churches 
 in one place, hastened to another. It is impossible, accordingly, 
 to read what is said of Timothy and Titus, in the New Testa- 
 ment, without perceiving that they were evangelists ; for they 
 had no more any fixed charge than the apostles themselves, but 
 were constantly moving from place to place. Thus, it is men- 
 tioned respecting Timothy, that as soon as he was ordained to 
 the ministry, Acts xvi, he traveled with Paul through Phrygia, 
 Galatia, Asia, and Mysia, from whence he came to Philippi, and 
 after remaining there for a time, he was sent to Corinth, where 
 he preached to that church, — 2 Cor. i : 1 9, — and then returned 
 to the apostle. They went together from Phijippi to Thessa- 
 lonica and Berea ; and Paul having proceeded to Athens, Tim- 
 othy soon followed him, and was, by and by, dispatched again 
 to Thessalonica, to confirm and water the church in that city. 
 Michaelis thinks, that the apostle wrote his first epistle to him 
 when he left him at Ephesus, after he himself was obliged to 
 leave it, Acts xix, 'to re-establish order in that church, — to 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 151 
 
 fill the ecclesiastical offices, and to oppose the false teachers ;' 
 and he considers it as evident, from what is mentioned in the 
 third chapter, that 'no bishops had been appointed among 
 them.' This took place when Timothy was very young, 1 Tim. 
 iv: 12, — or, according to the opinion of the most eminent 
 critics, when he was about twenty-six, or twenty-seven years 
 of age, and several years before the last interview of the apostle 
 with the presbyters of Ephesus, Acts xx, whom he addresses 
 as bishops, verse twenty-eight, without representing them as 
 under the episcopate of Timothy. And as nothing is said of 
 his being the bishop of Ephesus, or of his being bound to reside 
 there, so his stay there was short ; for he accompanied Paul to 
 Jerusalem, followed him to Rome, — Col. i: 1, — was imprisoned 
 there, and liberated shortly before the apostle was liberated* 
 Heb. iii: 23, — from whence he proceeded very probably to 
 Philippi. And the same observation applies to Titus, whose 
 residence in Crete appears to have "been short ; for Paul tells 
 him, ch. iii : 12, that when he sent Tychicus or Artemas to him, 
 he wished him to come to him at Nicopolis ;' — and he labored 
 also among the churches in Macedonia and Dalmatia, as well as 
 at Rome and Corinth." 
 
 Macknight says — preface to 2 Tim. sec. iii — " After the 
 apostle left Timothy at Ephesus, he went into Macedonia to 
 visit the churches there, according to his promise — Phil, ii : 24 ; 
 then went to Nicopolis in Epirus, with an intention to spend 
 the winter — Tit. iii: 12 — and to return to Ephesus in the 
 spring — 1 Tim. iii: 14. But having ordered Titus to come 
 to him from Crete to Nicopolis, — Tit. iii : 12, — on his arrival 
 he gave him such an account of the state of the churches in 
 Crete, as determined him to go with Titus, a second time, into 
 that island. While in Crete, hearing of the cruel persecution 
 which the emperor Nero was carr3dng on against the christians, 
 the apostle speedily finished his business, and sailed with Titus 
 to Italy, in the end of the autumn 65." This, according to 
 what Macknight says, in the preface to the epistle to Titus^ was 
 
152 THE CHURCH, 
 
 only about three ye^'s after Titus was first left at Crete, as 
 Episcopalians tell us, the Episcopal bishop of that island. 
 During- a part of these three years, he was absent, as we knoAv, 
 at Nicopolis ; and it is nowhere recorded in the sacred narra- 
 tive, that he ever returned there after going with Paul to 
 Rome. 
 
 Now, when bishop Hall asks, How it appears that Timothy 
 and Titus were evangelists ? — we reply, among other things, 
 by referring to their history, and showing that their whole lives, 
 so far as they can be traced in the sacred narrative, were spent 
 in evangelistic labors ! It can not be shown, that Titus, in his 
 entire lifetime, spent three whole years on the island of Crete? 
 or that Timothy was even for so long a time at Ephesus. If 
 the scene of their labors was constantly changing, if they were 
 always passing from region to region, how were they any thing 
 else than evangehsts ? To represent them as Episcopal bishops, 
 one of Ephesus and the other of Crete, is utterly contradicted 
 by the facts of their history. 
 
 Bishop Hall thinks, that the exhortation to Timothy, to do 
 the ivork of an evangelist^ implies nothing. " Wliat of that ? " 
 he says ; " What is it to do the work of an evangelist, but to 
 preach the gospel of peace ? " We reply, considerably more. 
 The work of an evangelist was to found churches and to ordain 
 pastors, as Eusebius informs us, as well as to preach the gospel. 
 Suppose Paul had said, " do the work of an apostle, or of a dio- 
 cesan bishop,''^ would not bishop Hall have thought that meant 
 something ? He asks, " Can they show it was the office of an 
 evangelist to ordain and censure ? " We reply, can bishop 
 Hall, or any other bishop, show that Timothy and Titus had 
 the powers of ordination and of censure vested in themselves 
 alone? Or, if they had, is it strange that such powers should 
 have appertained to an office which was really higher than that 
 of any Episcopal bishop, and which had associated with it such 
 eminent qualifications of grace, as no prelate in the church, 
 from that day to this, has evei-, without the grossest hypocrisy, 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 153 
 
 been able to boast of? He thinks it incredible that "those 
 works which are constant and ordinary^ and so consequently 
 desii-able to all successions, to the end of the world, should be 
 iiuposed on a mere extraordinary agent." He can not under- 
 stand, that the extraordinary exigency of those times, when 
 suitable agents of any kind were few, and the church was to 
 be i»lanted throughout the world, created a necessity for extra- 
 ordinary agents. Is it not a perfectly unreasonable claim on 
 his part, that the entire system of ecclesiastical machinery 
 should have begun to move from the very first, as it was 
 intended that it should move afterward, when the church was 
 fully established ? There was a clear necessity, at the begin- 
 ning, for extraordinary agents to do work which was to be 
 ordinary and perpetual in the hands of ordinary ministers after 
 things should resolve themselves into their settled and perma- 
 nent state. An illustration might be borrowed from almost 
 any of our successful modern missions among the heathen. 
 But enough is said, and I must dismiss this subject. I leave it, 
 feeling that not a tithe has been said of what might be, with 
 pertinency and power, against the Episcopal pretension; yet 
 assured that enough has been said to satisfy every impartial 
 and honest mind, that no evidence is found, either in the case 
 of Timothy or Titus, that the apostles aj^pointed prelatic 
 bishops over the churches. 
 
 WERE THE ANGELS OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES 
 OF ASIA, PRELATIC BISHOPS? 
 
 " We come now," says Mr. Schuyler, page seventy-six, " to 
 notice briefly, the case of the angels over the seven churches, 
 mentioned in the book of Revelations, as confirming our position, 
 that the apostolic office, ivith its peculiar power s<, was continued 
 in the church, 
 8* 
 
154 THE CHURCH, 
 
 " And here I would mention, that the book of K.evelations is 
 supposed to have been written about A. D. 96. St. John was 
 the only one of the apostles then living. It must have been 
 about thirty years after Timothy was appointed bishop of Ephe- 
 sus. In this book, Christ, through his servant John, addresses 
 the angel of the church at Ephesus. Of the word ' angel,' we 
 would here remark, that its literal meaning is a messenger, and 
 as sanctioned by general use, a chief messenger. So with the 
 word ' apostle,' and though the words are different, yet having 
 the same meaning, how natural the inference, that in the pre- 
 sent case they imply the same office. But the meaning of the 
 word is evident from the context. Each of these angels is 
 addressed as an officer of the church, and is commanded or 
 censured, singly, for the condition of the particular cliurch over 
 which each individual presides. As in the epistle to the angel 
 of the church at Pergamos, Christ declares — ' I have a few 
 things against thee, because thou hast them there that hold the 
 doctrine of Balaam,' <fec. Here, then, we have an individual 
 officer publicly censured, and that, too, by the great head of 
 the church, for permitting heretical teaching, as though he 
 alone was responsible for this sin. Now, why is this, unless 
 this officer had the supreme authority entrusted to him ? Had 
 there been at this time, presbyters, ruling in the churclies, 
 would not the address have been made to them, m their associ- 
 ate capacity ? "When administering his censure for suffering 
 heretics to remain in the church, as in the epistle to the church 
 at Pergamos, would not the address have been to the body of 
 the elders, by their official name ? But as we have seen, this is 
 not the case. There is but one person addressed : ' I have a 
 few things against thee^ &c. Again ; ' So hast thou also them 
 that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes ; ' and the same mode 
 of address is preserved throughout all the epistles. But let me 
 call your attention particularly to what is said to the angel of 
 Ephesus. In our last discourse, we proved (!) to you that 
 Timothy was placed over this church with authority superior to 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 155 
 
 that of presbyters — that he was to rule and govern the church, 
 and administer disciphne as well upon elders as private mem- 
 bers. At that time, there were many elders at Ephesus, as is 
 evident from the gospel history ; and as Christianity spread with 
 astonisliing rapidity, in the early ages of the church, there must 
 have been a great multitude of behevers in the large city of 
 Ephesus, and many churches, with their respective ministers, 
 after the lapse of thirty years. Yet we find the epistle directed 
 to the angel of the church at Ephesus, just as St. Paul ad- 
 dressed his epistle to Timothy. And with what powers. do we 
 find this officer or angel, invested? with the same powers 
 entrusted tD Timothy. Christ especially commends him, for 
 having enforced his authority in exercising discipline upon 
 those, who, it would seem, had claimed to be apostles, without 
 any proper warrant; thus clearly proving, that he^ i. e. the 
 angel at Ephesus, was an apostle, and that there were still true 
 apostles in the church ; for had not he been an apostle, he 
 would have had no authority to try their claims; and had 
 there not been true apostles, there would have been no necessity 
 for instituting proceedings to detect the false. These are the 
 words of the address to the angel at Ephesus : ' I know thy 
 works and labor, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear 
 them which are evil, and thou hast tried them which say they 
 are apostles and are not, and hast found them hars.' Here, 
 then, is an officer above all other ministers, occupying the po- 
 sition, and exerting the same authority over the churches in 
 Ephesus, which the bishops of the Episcopal church do in their 
 respective dioceses. Who, then, can doubt, that the angel here 
 addressed, was the bishop of the church ? And in confirmation 
 of this position, we quote the learned ecclesiastical historian, 
 Mosheim, and who, we would remark, is not an Episcopalian. 
 He says, (Vidal's Translation, Com. on first three centuries, pp. 
 227, 228,) — 'In support of this opinion, that episcopacy was 
 established during the lifetime of the apostles, and with their 
 approbation, we are supplied with an aigument of such strength, 
 
156 THE CHURCH, 
 
 in those angels to whom St. John addressed the epistles, which, 
 by the command of our Saviour himself, he sent to the seven 
 churches in Asia, as the Presbyterians, as they are termed, let 
 them labor and strive as they may, will never be able to overcome. 
 It must be evident to every one, even on a cursory perusal of the 
 epistles to which we refer, that those who are therein termed 
 angels, were persons possessing such a degree of authority in 
 their respective churches, as enabled them to mark with merited 
 disgrace, whatever might appear to be deserving of reprehen- 
 sion; and also to give due countenance and encouragement to 
 every thing that was virtuous and commendable.' In addition 
 to this, we have the testimony of Ignatius, who was conversant 
 with the apostles, and ordained by one of them, bishop of An- 
 tioch, that after Timothy, Onesimus Avas bishop of Ephesus, 
 and was probably the angel to whom the epistle was addressed." 
 
 Before replying to Mr. Schuyler's reasoning in this passage, 
 I have something to say in regard to the two authorities with 
 which he closes it. The testimony of Ignatius amounts to 
 nothing ; for the only rational supposition is, that he uses the 
 term " bishop " in the sense in which it is admitted the apostles 
 used it. Theodoret, in the fourth century, speaks of a change 
 in the manner of employing this word, which had been grad- 
 ually introduced after the days of the apostles. He says, " in 
 process of time, the name ' apostle ' was left to those who were 
 truly apostles ; and the name of bishop restrained to those who 
 were anciently called apostles." It is evident, therefore, that 
 Ignatius, who, our author says, was " conversant with the apos- 
 tles, and ordained by one of them, bishop of Antioch," employed 
 the term " bishop," not in its modern, but in its primitive and 
 scriptural sense. We may judge, also, what kind of a bishop 
 he himself was made at Antioch — not a diocesan prelate, but 
 a simple pastor. 
 
 The testimony from Mosheim, quoted by bishop Ravenscroft, 
 from Vidal's Translation, is something new. I own that I 
 have never read Mosheim in the original Latin, but I am 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 157 
 
 familiar with the two best, and I believe only English transla- 
 tions that have ever been made, — Maclaine's and Murdock's, — ■ 
 and the passage cited is as strange to me as though it had been 
 quoted from a work written yesterday. Neither Murdoch nor 
 Maclaine have any thing to which it bears even a resemblance ; 
 and I have no sort of hesitation in pronouncing it a forgery. 
 That Mosheim could not have been the author of it, I will 
 prove by quotations from Murdock, showing that he did not 
 believe what is here ascribed to him. 
 
 Book I, Century 1, Part 2, chap, ii, sec. 2, — "In this 
 manner, christians managed ecclesiastical affairs so long as their 
 congregations were small, or not very numerous. Three or 
 four presbyters, men of gravity and holiness, placed over those 
 little- societies, could easily proceed with harmony, and needed 
 no head or president. But when the churches became larger, 
 and the number of presbyters and deacons, as well as the 
 amount of duties to be performed, was increased, it became 
 necessary that the council of presbyters should have a president^ 
 a man of distinguished gravity and prudence, who should dis- 
 tribute among his colleagues their several tasks, and be as it 
 were the central point of the whole society. He was, at first, 
 denominated the angel^ (Rev. ii and iii,); but afterward the 
 bishop — a title of Grecian derivation, and indicative of his 
 principal business. It would seem that the church of Jerusa- 
 lem^ when grown very numerous, after the dispersion of the 
 apostles among foreign nations, was the first to elect such a 
 president^ and that other churches in process of time followed 
 the example." 
 
 Sec. 12. — "But whoever supposes that the bishops of this 
 first and golden age of the church, corresponded with the 
 bishops of the following centuries, must blend and confound 
 characters that are very difterent. For in this century and the 
 next, a bishop had charge of a single church, which might 
 ordinarily be contained in a private house ; nor was he its lord^ 
 but was in reality its minister or servant; he instructed the 
 
158 THE CHURCH, 
 
 people, conducted all parts of public worship, attended on the 
 sick and necessitous in person, and what he was unable thus to 
 perform, he committed to the care of . the presbyters ; but was 
 without power to ordain, or to determine any thing, except 
 with the concurrence of the presbyters and the brotherhood." 
 
 If Mosheim wrote this, will the reader believe that he ever 
 ^vi'ote the passage quoted upon the authority of bishop Ravens- 
 croft, from Vidal ? 
 
 What does he say in the two sections which I have just 
 given from him ? The following things : 
 
 First. That in the beginning, the ministry of each church 
 was committed exclusively to three or four presbyters. 
 
 Second. That in process of time, as the churches grew, it 
 became necessary that one should assume a presideyicy over the 
 rest, and have the sole charge of public worship, &c., & c. ; — 
 precisely as is now the case in every Presbyterian church, where 
 the pastor is president of a board of elders. 
 
 Third. That this president of the board of elders was at first 
 called the angel of the church, (as in Rev. ii and iii), and 
 afterward bishop. 
 
 Fourth. That during the first two centuries a bishop had 
 charge only of a single church, which might ordinarily be con- 
 tained in a private house. And 
 
 Fifth. That he was nothing more than a presbyterian pastor, 
 with no power to ordain, or to determine any thing without the 
 concurrence of the presbyters and the brotherhood. 
 
 In regard to the angels of the churches, Mosheim aflSmis 
 precisely what we believe : that they were the presiding oflScers, 
 or pastors, as unlike a modern diocesan bishop as they were 
 unlike a Romish cardinal or a pope. Mosheim continues. 
 
 Sec. 13. — "It was not long, however, (that is, after the first 
 two centuries,) before the extent of episcopal jurisdiction and 
 power was enlarged, for the bishops who lived in the cities, 
 either by their own labors, or by those of their presbyters, 
 gathered new churches in the neighboring villages and hamlets : 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 159 
 
 aucl these churches continuing under the protection and care of 
 the bishops, (i'. e. pastors,) by whose ministry or procurement, 
 they had received Christianity, ecclesiastical provinces were 
 gradually formed, v^diich the Greeks afterward denominated 
 dioceses. The persons to whom the city bishops (or pastors) 
 committed the government and instruction of these village and 
 rural churches, were called rural bishojJS or chorepiscopi^ that 
 is, bishops of the suburbs and fields, They were an interme- 
 diate class between the bishops (or pastors) and the presbyters ; 
 being inferior to the former, because subject to them, and supe- 
 rior to the latter, because intrusted with discretionary and 
 permanent power, and performing nearly all the functions of 
 bishops." 
 
 The reader will perceive that the term presbyter or elder is 
 applied here by Mosheim, to those associated with the pastor, 
 not in the performance of ministerial functions, but in the 
 government of the church merely. 
 
 The fact which this historian states, in regard to tlie first 
 insidious advances toward diocesan episcopacy, which began 
 after the close of the second century, is in precise accordance 
 with our own imderstanding of this subject. It was most 
 natural that things should take that course, and most natural, 
 also, that the influence and power thus acquired by the city 
 pastors should lead as they did eventually, to farther results in 
 the same direction. 
 
 Mosheim, on Century II, Part 2, chapter ii, sec. 1, says as 
 follows : 
 
 " The form of church government which began to exist in 
 the preceding century was more industriously established and 
 confirmed in all its parts. One president or bishop {i. e. pastor) 
 presided over each church. He was created by the common 
 suffrage of the whole people. With the presbyters {i. e. the 
 ruling elders) for his council, whose number was not fixed ; it 
 was his business to watch over the interests of the whole church, 
 and to assign to each presbyter his station. (Let it be observed, 
 
160 THE CHtTRCH, 
 
 this was in a single church, or congregation.) Subject to the 
 bishop (or pastor) and also to the presbyters, were the servants 
 or deaconsy 
 
 A more exact account of the organization of a presbyterian 
 church could not be written. 
 
 Section 2. — " During a great part of this century, all the 
 churches continued to be, as at first, independent of each other ; 
 or were connected by no consociations or confederations. Each 
 church was a kind of small, independent republic, governing 
 itself by its own laws, enacted, or at least sanctioned by the 
 people. But, in process of time, it became customary for all 
 the christian churches within the same pro^^nce, to unite and 
 form a sort of larger society or commonwealth ; and in the 
 manner of confederated republics, to hold conventions at stated 
 times, and there deliberate for the common advantage of the 
 whole confederation." 
 
 Let Mosheim speak again on century iii, — Part 2, ch. ii, sec. 
 3, — "Yet, while the ancient mode of church government 
 seemed in general to remain unaltered, there was a gi-adual 
 deflection from its rules, and an approximation toward the form 
 of a monarchy. For the bishop claimed much higher authority 
 and power than before, and encroached more and more upon 
 the rights, not only of the brotherhood, but also of the presby- 
 ters, and to give plausibility to these usurpations, they advanced 
 new doctrines concerning the church and the episcopal ofiice ; 
 which, however, were so obscure for the most paii, that it 
 would seem they did not themselves understand them. The 
 principal author of these innovations was Cyprian, the most 
 bold and strenuous defender of Episcopal power that had then 
 arisen in the church. Yet he was not uniform and consistent ; 
 for in times of difficulty, when urged by necessity, he could 
 give up his pretensions, and submit every thing to the judgment 
 and authority of the church." 
 
 Sec. 4. — " This change in the form of ecclesiastical govern- 
 ment, was followed by a coiTupt state of the clergy; for 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 161 
 
 although examples of primitive piety and virtue were not 
 wanting, yet many were addicted to dissipation, arrogance, 
 voluptuousness, contention, and other vices," &c. &c. 
 
 There is not the shadow of a doubt, that during the first 
 two centuries, the term " bishop " was used in the scriptural 
 sense exactly, and that bishops were simply pastors of single 
 churches. They were presbyter pastors, chosen by the people? 
 having the exclusive power and right to conduct public wor- 
 ship, and administer the sacraments, but associated, in the 
 government of the churches, with a board of presbyters. 
 
 If Mr. Schuyler had ever read Mosheim, I think he could 
 not have so imposed upon himself as to offer us this passage, 
 quoted by bishop Ravenscroft from Vidal, for a veritable pas- 
 sage from that author. Why does he make a second-hand 
 quotation from an obscure and inaccessible writer, probably a 
 French Papist, when he might so easily quote, for himself, 
 from Murdock, or Maclaine, either of whom is well accredited 
 as a reliable translator ? 
 
 But now for the main subject under present debate. We 
 affirm, that the angels of the churches were simply, according 
 to Mosheim's statement of the use of the term " angel," pastors, 
 and nothing Hnore ; bishops in the scriptural sense, of single 
 congregations ; as unlike modern diocesan bishops as they well 
 could be. 
 
 Our arguments, direct and negative, are the following: 
 
 First. We reason from the source from whence the term 
 " angel " was derived. Let Dr. Lightfoot, an Episcopalian, and 
 a man who, it will be confessed, had few equals in scrij^tural 
 knowledge and Jewish learning, speak for us, on this point. I 
 quote from volume ii, of his works, page 133, — " Besides these 
 (the three rulers of the synagogue) there was the public minis- 
 ter of the synagogue, Avho prayed publicly, and took care about 
 the reading of the law, and sometimes preached, if there were 
 not others to discharge that office. This person was called 
 Sheliach Zibbor, the angel of the churchy and the (Jhazav or 
 
162 THE CHURCH, 
 
 bishop of tlie congregation. Certainly the signification of tlie 
 word bishop, or angel of the church, had been determined with 
 less noise, if recourse had been made to the proper fountains, 
 and men had not vainly disputed about the meaning of words, 
 taken I know not whence. The service and worship of the 
 temple being abolished, as being ceremonial, God transplanted 
 the worship and public adoration of God used in the synagogues, 
 which was moral, into the christian church ; to wit, the pubhc 
 ministry, public prayers, reading of God's word, and preach- 
 ing, &c. Hence the names of the ministers of the gospel were 
 the very same^ the angel of the churchy and the bishop^ which 
 belonged to the ministers in the synagogues^ 
 
 Be it observed, the Sheliach Zibbor, angel, or bishop of the 
 synagogue, was simply the president of the synagogue to which 
 he was attached, having no authority beyond its particular 
 limits, associated, in the general government of that synagogue, 
 with three other rulers. Not only, therefore, is no proof 
 obtained, that the term a,ngel was applied in the christian 
 church to an officer having authority over many congregations 
 and their ministers ; but the whole proof from the origin of 
 the title is, that it was applied to the pastor of a single con- 
 gregation, associated in the government of the same with 
 others. Says Dr. John Dick, vol. ii, page 471 — "It (angel) 
 is a name not of order, but of office, which w^as given by 
 the Jews to the president of their synagogues, and chiefly 
 for this reason, that he offered up prayers to God in the name 
 of the assembly. This being known to be the sense in which 
 the word was understood by the Jews, John, who was himself 
 a Jew, naturally apphed it to the president of a christian 
 church, or the minister who officiated in holy things, and acted 
 as intercessor with God for the people. The utmost which can 
 be fairly inferred is, that in each of the Asiatic churches there 
 was a person who held the first place. But Episcopahans can 
 derive no advantage from this circumstance, because Presby- 
 terians hold, that in every congregation there is, or ought to be, 
 
ITS MmiSTRY AND WORSHIP. 163 
 
 one person at least who is superior to the rest, and to whom it 
 pertains to conduct the pubhc offices of rehgion." 
 
 The learned Origen, A. D. 230, — De Orat., sec. 34 — 
 affirms, that the angels of the churches were the presiding 
 presbyters [proestotes) and the same opinion, according to 
 Coleman — see Apostolical and Primitive Church, page 159 — 
 was expressed before him, by Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and 
 Clemens Alexandrinus. 
 
 What Mr. Schuyler says of the primary sense of the word 
 " angel " is true enough. But why did he not tell us how it 
 came to be applied as it is in the epistles on which his present 
 argument is founded ? Did he not know that the true way to 
 ascertain its meaning in these places, is to inquire what import 
 the word had as a title, or name of office among the Jews ? 
 If he knew how the word came to be used by John, was it 
 honest in him to withhold the facts, and content himself with 
 the bald statement, that " its literal meaning is messenger, and, 
 as sanctioned by general use, a chief messenger ? " 
 
 Second. It can not be shown that the churches to which these 
 angels ministered were not single believing congregations. 
 
 Our author, having nothing in view but the making out of a 
 case, displays a boldness of assumption to which few men 
 would be equal. He says — " At that time, (that is, when 
 Timothy was left at Ephesus) there were many elders at 
 Ephesus, as is e\ddent from the gospel history ; and as Chris- 
 tianity spread with astonishing rapidity, in the early ages of 
 the church, there must have been a great multitude of believers 
 in the large city of Ephesus, and many churches, with their 
 respective ministers, after the lapse of thirty years." 
 
 The reader perceives that this is a mere fancy. — " There 
 must have heenf'* Is our author to build an argument, and 
 prove his case, on a mere supposition? What is the/ac^.^ Is 
 it known that there were " many churches, with their respective 
 ministers," at Ephesus, at the time these messages were sent ? 
 We do not want guesses, but proof. That there were many 
 
164 THE CHURCH, 
 
 elders there, is not such proof as we requii'e. This does not 
 estabhsh the fact that there were many churches; for accord- 
 ing to the testimony of Mosheim, there was always an indefinite 
 plurality of elders in one church ; and at first, until the necessity 
 arose, on account of the growing number of believers, they per- 
 formed the whole work of the ministry in common. I do not 
 myself suppose, that the distinction of teaching and ruling elders 
 existed at the very first establishment of that order in the 
 church, but the evidence is irresistible, that it grew up under 
 the eye of the apostles, and was approved of, and confirmed by 
 them. The term hkliop was originally apphed to all elders; 
 but in the very time of the apostles it came to be applied, in 
 each church, to that elder who was chosen by the people to act 
 as 'president^ and to perform, in a special manner, the duties of 
 the pastoral oflSce. It is true, indeed, that there were many 
 elders in the church of Ephesus long after the first epistle to 
 Timothy was written ; and Paul, in addressing them, calls them 
 all bishops; but this is as far from proving that there were 
 many churches, or that these elders were ministers of dififerent 
 congregations, as it is from proving that there were many dio- 
 ceses and many prelates. It is not to be supposed that in the 
 very first instance each church was organized and furnished 
 with a ministry, precisely as it was intended it should be after- 
 ward. Qualified persons, to assume the presidency or pastoral 
 charge of the churches, at the first, were not always to be found, 
 and it was, therefore, in this respect, a matter of necessity that 
 this perfection of order should be waited for, until such time as 
 it could be supplied. 
 
 Dr. Snodgrass, in his work on "Apostolical Succession," page 
 166, says, "Erroneous opinions, in regard to the extent of these 
 ancient churches, lies at the foundation of much of the false 
 reasoning which occurs in support of prelacy. And for the 
 purpose of setting this matter before you in its true light, I ask 
 your attention to the testimony of one, who was qualified to 
 judge, and who will not be suspected of a disposition to crowd 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 165 
 
 Episcopacy out of its proper place. I refer to sir Peter King, 
 nephew of the celebrated. Mr. Locke, and lord high chancellor 
 of England. As the result of his careful inquiry into the con- 
 stitution, &c., of the church for the first three hundred years, 
 he confesses there was, then, 'but ore bishop to a church,' and 
 ' but one church to a bishop ; ' and that * the bishop's cure was 
 never called a diocese ; but was usually a parish no larger than 
 our parishes.' In regard to Ephesus, in particular, he says, — 
 ' as for the diocese of Ephesus, there was but one altar, or cc m- 
 munion table, in its whole territory, at which they all commu- 
 nicated together ; whence they are said to break one bread.' — 
 ' The members of this church could also meet together in one 
 place, to send up their joint prayers to God in Christ: and 
 therefore Ignatius condemns all those of that diocese, who did 
 not assemble together in that one place with the rest of the 
 members thereof; to send up their prayers to God.' ' So that, 
 if to communicate together, and to pray together, be the marks 
 of a particular church, then this bishopric was one.' He takes 
 the same ground in regard to the churches at Smyrna, at 
 Philadelphia, &c. ; and his opinion is corroborated by other 
 respectable authorities, which we might adduce." 
 
 If Mr. Schuyler desires to prove that the " angel of the 
 church at Ephesus," was a prelatic bishop, it is indispensable 
 that he should prove^ and not suppose, that the church at 
 Ephesus was composed of many distinct congregations with 
 their several ministers. He can neither prove it, nor show 
 such evidence as may serve for the ground of a rational 
 presumption. 
 
 It may be observed that it is only in the case of the Ephe- 
 sian church that there is even a pretext for setting up this 
 claim ; and the pretext in this instance is palpably insufficient. 
 
 Third. Suppose it should be conceded that there were 
 many churches in Ephesus, with their several pastors, and that 
 the same was true of Loadicea, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, 
 Philadelphia, and Smyrna, — what then ? Does it foUow, that 
 
166 THE CHURCH, 
 
 the angel addressed, was bishop over them all ? or, may we 
 conclude, that under the general denomination of " the angel," 
 each pastor was addressed alike ? Are we, of necessity, to sup- 
 pose that " the angel " represents, absolutely, one person^ and 
 no more ? Then I reply, it becomes impossible to concede that 
 there was in each city a plurality of congregations, — for the 
 necessity is just the same of supposing that each candlestick is 
 one church, as of supposing that each star^ or angel, is one 
 person. Ch. i: 20, — "The mystery of the seven stars which 
 thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candle- 
 sticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, 
 and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest, are the seven 
 churches," Now we insist, and we have a manifest right to 
 insist, that if each star, or angel was one person, each candle- 
 stick was one church. If all the congregations in any city, 
 supposing that there were more than one, might be represented 
 by a single candlestick, who can show a reason why all the 
 pastors might not be represented by a single star, and why they 
 might not be addressed collectively, under one symbohc term ? 
 We need not be told, that by our own admission, the term 
 " angel " was in common use, as applicable to a single person ; 
 that does not, in the least, forbid the idea that it might be used 
 symbolically, to represent any number of persons holding the 
 office which the term, in its ordinary use, indicates. In the 
 fourteenth chapter of Revelations, at the sixth verse, John 
 says, — " And I saw another angel flying in the midst of 
 heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that 
 dwell on the earth," &c. Here the word " angel " is evidently 
 used symbolically, and not to represent a few, but all Christ's 
 ministers throughout the whole world. 
 
 That the term " angel " in the messages to the seven churches 
 is used symbolically, to represent a plurality of persons, is the 
 opinion of some of the ablest and most learned men that have 
 ever written. Among Episcopalians themselves, there may be 
 given the names of such men as Dr. Henry More, Joseph Mede, 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 167 
 
 Dr. Fulk, and bisliop Stillinglieet. The latter author, in his 
 Irenicum, is quoted by Dr. Mason, as saying, — If, in the pro- 
 phetic style, any unity may be set down by way of representa- 
 tion of a multitude, what evidence can be brought from the 
 name^ that by it some one particular person must be under- 
 stood ? " A Httle further on, he says, " If many things in the 
 epistles be direct to the angels, but yet so as to concern the 
 whole body, then of necessity, the angel must be taken as a 
 representative of the whole body ; and then, why may not the 
 word ' angel ' be taken by way of representation of the body 
 itself, either of the whole church, or, which is far more pro- 
 bable, of the concessus, or order of presbyters in that church ? 
 We see what miserable, unaccountable arguments those are, 
 which are brought for any kind of government from meta- 
 phorical or ambiguous expressions, or names promiscuously 
 used." 
 
 Fourth. The terms in which the angels are addressed, instead 
 of proving that they were prelatic bishops, are in perfect ac- 
 cordance with the view of theii: office held by us. If the term 
 "• angels," in the messages, is used symbolically for many pastors, 
 then of course, according to the rules of symbolization, they are 
 all addressed as one, and we are to look for nothing in the 
 terms employed that shall violate the conditions of the symbolic 
 unity ; so that whether we adopt the idea, that in each of the 
 seven cities, there was but one church, with its president, who 
 was addressed literally, or that in each city there were many 
 churches with their several presidents, who were all addressed 
 under the form of a symbolic one, the case, so far as the pre- 
 sent inquiry is concerned, remains the same; and the simple 
 question that presents itself is this, — Is there any thing in 
 either of the messages to the angels that necessarily implies 
 diocesan and prelatic authority, in the person addressed ? Or, 
 to adopt another form of the inquiry, — Is there any thing in 
 either of these messages that would be inappropriate, if addressed 
 to the pastor of a single congregation ? 
 
168 THE CHURCH, 
 
 Let those things be fixed upon for the test of this matter, 
 which Mr. Schuyler has chosen, as clearly sustaining his side of 
 the question. To the angel of the church at Pergamos, Christ 
 ■says, — " I have a few things against thee, because thou hast 
 them there that hold the doctrine of Balaam," &c. On this, our 
 author remarks, — " Here then we have an individual officer pub- 
 licly censured, and that, too, by the great head of the church, 
 for permitting heretical teaching, as though he alone were 
 responsible for that sin. Now why is this, unless this officer 
 had the supreme authority entrusted to him ? Had there been 
 at this time presbyters, ruling in the churches, would not the 
 address have been made to them, in their associate capacity ? " 
 
 In the first place, it is to be remarked, that our author 
 assumes that the persons in the chm-ch at Pergamos holding 
 the doctrine of Balaam, are ministers, preaching that doctrine. 
 The text says " holding " the doctrine of Balaam. Might I not 
 be personally reproved, as president of my church, for allowing 
 persons to remain in it, who should be found holding pernicious 
 doctrines ? What is there in this message to the angel of the 
 church at Pergamos that indicates any higher j^ower or respon- 
 sibility attaching to his office, than attaches to the office of 
 every Presbyterian pastor ? "/So hast thou also them that hold 
 the doctrine of the Nicolaitanesr — The reader will observe, 
 that in every instance, in which the angel is reproved for not 
 excluding heretics, the language employed, is such as to suggest 
 the idea, not of heretical ministers, but of heretical church- 
 members. 
 
 Our author's next example, of what he supposes indicates 
 prelatic power in these angels, is taken from the message to the 
 angel of the church at Ephesus. He says, " Christ specially 
 commends him for having enforced his authority in exercising 
 discipline upon those, who, it would seem, had claimed to be 
 apostles, without any proper warrant ; thus clearly proving that 
 he, that is the angel at Ephesus, was an apostle, and that there 
 were still true apostles in the church, for had he not been an 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 169 
 
 apostle, lie would have had no authority to try their claims ; 
 and had there not been true apostles, there would have been no 
 necessity for instituting proceedings to detect the, false. These 
 are the words of the address to the angel of Ephesus — ' I 
 know thy works and labor, and thy patience, and how thou 
 canst not bear them which are evil, and thou hast tried them 
 which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them 
 liars.' Here, then, is an officer above all other ministers, occu- 
 pying the position, and exerting the same authority over the 
 churches in Ephesus, which the bishops of the Episcopal church 
 do in their respective dioceses." 
 
 As a specimen of our author's reasoning, this can not fail to 
 afford amusement. 
 
 Let us examine it part by part. " Christ especially com- 
 mends him for having enforced his authority in the exercise of 
 discipline.''^ What had the angel done ? He had tried them 
 which said they were apostles and were not. Our author's 
 idea is, that he had " instituted proceedings" against them, i. e. 
 he had arraigned them before a bishop's court, and read an 
 indictment, and called witnesses, and proceeded regularly, ac- 
 cording to law, to convict and sentence them. All this, out of 
 that httle word " tried.''^ Now there are a great many ways of 
 frying men who set up high pretensions, some of which with- 
 out the formality of a bishop's court, one would suppose might 
 have been used some years ago in this city, in the case of the 
 famous tractarian and canon of Oxford University, who, after 
 being feasted and lionized for several days by all the Episcopal 
 clergy, was finally claimed in the street, by a forsaken wife, who 
 desired him to return to Ohio, and look after his children. It 
 is evident that quite too much is claimed for that word " tried." 
 When men come to me claiming to be ministers, if I am doubt- 
 ful of their character, I always try them. I ask for their 
 credentials, and in various ways subject them to such tests as I 
 deem requisite for affording me full satisfaction, and if I find 
 them to be impostors, I send them away and warn the churches 
 9 
 
170 THE CHURCH, 
 
 against them. But I am nothing more than a plain scriptural 
 bishop, and no prelate at all. 
 
 ^^For having enforced his authority in the exercise of disci- 
 pline upon those, tvho, it would seem, had claimed to he apostles 
 without any proper yjarrant; thus clearly proving that he, 
 that is, the angel at Ephesus, was an apostle^ 
 
 The word " apostle " is used in the New Testament, as the 
 reader has seen, and as our author may be . presumed to know, 
 sometimes to express one of the twelve high functionaries 
 appointed by Christ to preside over the founding and establish- 
 ing of his church, and sometimes to express an ordinary chris- 
 tian minister, sent abroad as a missionary. Our author has an 
 intuitive knowledge of the sense in which it is used here. He 
 knows by an instinct of his genius, — for he could not know in 
 any other way, — that those persons whom the angel at Ephesus 
 tried, claimed to be apostles in the highest and most dignified 
 sense of the word. I submit to the reader, if it is not alto- 
 gether more probable that they pretended to be missionaries, 
 duly authorized to preach the gospel? Our author has 
 obtained a foundation, however, broad enough to serve him for 
 a conclusion. — " Thus clearly proving that he, that is, the angel 
 at Ephesus was an ap)ostler Suppose it were certain that 
 those imposters claimed to be apostles in the highest sense, how 
 would it then be " clearly proved " that the angel was such an 
 apostle, by his detecting them in their falsehood ? The old 
 saying, that " it takes a rogue to catch a rogue," may possibly 
 have some degree of truth in it, but I can not see why it should 
 take an apostle to know an apostle. " The signs of an apostle," 
 which Paul tells us were " signs, and wonders, and mighty 
 deeds," were certainly not so obscure that a plain pastor of a 
 church could not discern them. How then would it follow that 
 the angel at Ephesus was an apostle, or a prelatic bishop, from 
 his detecting the falsehood of those that " said they were apos- 
 tles and were not ? " Could not a Presbyterian pastor say to 
 one coming to him with such high claims, — " Sir, you say that 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 171 
 
 you are an apostle ; now show tlie proof, and I will believe you. 
 Do a manifest miracle, and you shall be received and hon- 
 ored, according to your desire ? " And would not this be trying 
 him ? This is the very way in which w^e do try those who in these 
 times " say they are apostles and ai-e not, and find them liars." 
 " Thus clearly proving that he, that is, the angel at Ephesus, 
 was an apostle, and that there were still true apostles in the 
 church, for had he not been an apostle he would have had no 
 authority to try their claims^'' Our author's head is full of his 
 idea of a bishop's court. I grant that none . but a bona-fide 
 bishop, according to the Ej^iscopal sense of the word, would 
 have had authority to hold a bishop's court, but to insist that 
 the false apostles were tried in a bishop's court, such as our 
 author is thinking of, is asking a little too much. They were 
 put to the test of their apostleship. This is the reasonable con- 
 struction of the language used, and if any thing else is contended 
 for, it must be proved. They may have been put to the test 
 of their apostleship before a presbyter bishop's court, that is, 
 before the pastor and his session, or board of elders; this is 
 possible ; and such a court any pastor would have authority to 
 hold, to try a pretended apostle. Let me ask Mr. Schuyler if 
 he does not regard himself as having the authority which he 
 thinks was exercised by the angel at Ephesus ? If a person 
 should come to him, claiming to be the bishop of some distant 
 and obscure diocese of the church of England, a person of 
 whom he had no knowledge, and had never before heard, would 
 he not feel it to be his duty as well as right^ to try him, to put 
 him to the test in some way, before receiving him in the char- 
 acter which he professed ? Would he not feel authorized to 
 demand the gentleman's testimonials, and if he found them to 
 be forgeries, to reject and denounce him ? I do not know how 
 my brother would be affected by the bare presumption of 
 having an apostle to deal with, but I think he would claim the 
 right which I have supposed, and exercise it. What a sudden 
 leap he would make among the stars! According to his own 
 
172 THE CHURCH, 
 
 reasoning, it would " clearly prove " that he, that is, Mr. Schuy- 
 ler, " is an apostle — for had he not been an apostle, he would 
 have had no authority to try " this pretender's " claims." 
 
 Not only was the angel at Ephesus clearly proved to be an 
 apostle, by his trying those that " said they were apostles, and 
 were not," but it was clearly proved also, as a larger proposi- 
 tion, " that there tvere still true apostles in the church; for had 
 there not been true apostles, there would have been no necessity/ 
 for instituting 2^roceedings to detect the falseP 
 
 This would be very good logic, if our author had only 
 proved that these imposters claimed to be apostles in the high 
 and distinctive sense of the word. But if what they claimed 
 was, merely to be missionaries, and this is by far the most 
 natural supposition, then it is only proved that missionaries 
 were still employed in the church, which we fully beheve. I 
 say the most natural supposition is, that they claimed to be mis- 
 sionaries ; for missionaries, we know, were going to every part 
 of the world, but apostles, according to the Episcopal theory, 
 had at this time become almost universally fixed stars, like the 
 angel or star at Ephesus. If there were any true apostles still 
 acting as missionaries, they must have been few in number and 
 well known ; and as for the rest, it was in itself a suspicious 
 circumstance, that they should be wandering about away from 
 their dioceses. It would evidently be a poor business for 
 impostors to set up as apostles ; but to set up as missionaries, 
 as evangelists, as travehng preachers of the gospel, would be 
 less unpromising. All the probabilities of the case are adverse 
 to our author's assumption. 
 
 But let us take his conclusion, — " Here, then, is an officer 
 above all other ministers, occupying the position, and exerting 
 the same authority over the churches hi Ephesus, which the 
 bishops of the Episcopal church do in their respective dioceses. 
 Who can doubt itP'' &c., &c. ! 
 
 The reader is free to his own opinion -as to what this brave 
 conclusion rests upon. What one thing has our author pointed 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 173 
 
 out to us, appertaining to the " angels of the churches," which 
 Episcopal bishops only can do ? What one thing, which the 
 pastor of the smallest congregation in the world may not do, 
 just as well as the archbishop of Canterbury, or all the prelates 
 in Christendom put together. 
 
 We might, if it were necessary, meet our author's argument, 
 and, though poorly constructed and feebly stated, it is the argu- 
 ment substantially of all his school of writers, on entirely 
 different ground from any which has yet been assumed. 
 Though these messages of Christ were formally sent to the 
 angels of the churches, and are, for the most part, addressed 
 by the designative terms, thee and thou, yet nothing is more 
 evident than that they were really sent to the churches, as 
 such, and to the angels only as presidents of the churches 
 and representing them ; so, that whatever powers and prero- 
 gatives seem to be attributed to the angels, are really not 
 the angels' alone, but belong to the churches, with their minis- 
 ters at their head. Let the messages themselves be considered, 
 and the least discriminating reader can not fail to perceive that 
 it is a perfect absurdity to regard them as being addressed to 
 the angels as such, and t<S them solely. In the message to the 
 angel at Ephesus, Christ says, — " Nevertheless, I have some- 
 what against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remem- 
 ber, therefore, from whence thou art fallen ; and repent, and do 
 thy first works ; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will 
 remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent." — 
 Was this said to the angel alone, or to the church also ? Was 
 the church to be visited with divine judgment, even to removal 
 or extermination, for the sin of the angel, and not for its own 
 sins ? Look everywhere in these messages, and it seems to me 
 the man is beside himself, who can not see that it is the 
 churches as entire wholes, — presidents, associate elders, and 
 people, — that ai-e addressed. And, to put the matter to rest 
 effectually, let the brief but solemn caution with which each 
 
174 THE CHURCH, 
 
 message closes, be considered — " He that hath an ear, let him 
 hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches^ 
 
 The exercise of authority, therofore, in the enforcement of 
 discipline, and the trying of false apostles, &c., which, Mr. 
 Schuyler thinks, prove so clearly that the angels were apostles 
 or prelatic bishops, were things done, according to the record, 
 not by the angels, as such, at all, but by the churches in 
 connection with their angels or ministers. 
 
 In every view which can be taken of this subject, the argu- 
 ment for diocesan episcopacy fails — as it has failed in every 
 other instance — and the whole weight of evidence is found to 
 be on the side of parity. 
 
 I have now passed over the entire ground upon which a 
 scriptural defense of prelacy is attempted ; I will not presume 
 that what I have written will convert Episcopalians, for I doubt 
 if many will read it ; but I am satisfied, without taking much 
 credit to myself, that no honest and imj^artial reader will rise 
 from the perusal of these pages and not be convinced that the 
 whole episcopal theory is a baseless fabric of the most indefen- 
 sible assumptions. There is really nothing in the bible which, 
 when it is sifted, seems to favor that system, but every thing is 
 in direct hostility against it. When I say this, I am sure I do 
 not speak under the heat of a controversial excitement, but 
 express the deliberate conviction in which my mind has rested, 
 ever since I first examined this subject, sixteen years ago, for 
 the determination of my own course, when I proposed entering 
 the christian ministry. 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 175 
 
 IS THERE AUTHORITY FOR PRESBYTERIAL 
 ORDINATION? 
 
 Our author says on page sixty-eiglit, — " We have endeavored 
 to show, and we think, established conclusively the fact, that 
 there are three orders of ministers recognized in the holy scrip- 
 tures ; that this was the case while Christ was upon earth, Christ 
 himself having been consecrated to the ministry, and occupy in^^ 
 the highest, the apostles in the second grade, and the seventy 
 disciples in the lowest. We noticed, also, that after Christ's 
 ascension, the apostles continued the like number of orders; 
 viz., apostles, elders or presbyters, and deacons. We showed 
 that Timothy and Titus succeeded to the apostolical office, and 
 that to them was committed the charge of the presbyters and 
 deacons in Ephesus and Crete : that, as the successors of the 
 apostles, they were constituted supreme rulei-s in these churches, 
 with exclusive authority in their respective dioceses over both 
 presbyters and deacons, to exercise discipline, correct abuses, and 
 ordain." 
 
 I am sure, that the reader, who has carefully followed me 
 through the topics thus recapitulated, must smile at our author's 
 complacent remembrance of his labors. He proceeds : 
 
 " Thus we clearly traced the three orders in the ministry, and 
 proved from apostolic practice and sanction, that the right to 
 govern the church and ordain to the ministry was vested in the 
 highest gi-ade alone. It is true, w^e did not cite any passage of 
 scripture expressly limiting such power to them. This was 
 unnecessary. We showed, clearly, that such power was posi- 
 tively given to the apostles ; it was not given to the presbyters 
 or deacons, and not being given, the conclusion is irresistible, 
 that they did not possess it; and therefore an express limitation 
 or a positive declaration of holy scripture, that no othei-s but 
 the apostles were authorized to exercise these powders, was 
 
176 THE CHURCH, 
 
 entirely unnecessary. Could wc be furnished with a single 
 instance in the New Testament, of presbyters or deacons exer- 
 cising the right to ordain, though no apostolic injunction could 
 be shown, as in the case of Timothy and Titus, we would yet 
 consider it as endorsed with apostolic sanction, and yield the 
 point in dispute at once; but "sve find no evidence of such 
 example or sanction for presbyterian ordination, and therefore 
 we are compelled to reject it." 
 
 Qur author says, — " Wc have shoion dearly that such 'power 
 {i. e. power to ordain) ivas positively given to the a^yostlesr 
 
 He has shown that this power w\as given to the 2^^'^'sons who 
 held the apostolic ofiice, but has he shown that it was given to 
 them as apostles^ Does not the reader perceive that he 
 entirely assumes the very question in debate, without even an 
 attempt to prove it ? 
 
 The apostles were ^^rfsSy^ers, as well as apostles. — See 1 
 Peter v: 1, 2 John i, 3 John i. Now it is indispensable to 
 our author's argument, to show that it was as apostles, 
 and not as presbyters, that they received and exercised the 
 ordaining power. We think we ha^ e made it clear to every 
 candid reader, that what was peculiar and distingiiishing 
 to the apostles, as such, was the power of witnessing from 
 personal knowledge of Christ, and that nothing else of a 
 functional nature was peculiar to them, or distinguished them. 
 If this is so, then the power to ordain was vested in them, not 
 as apostles, but as presbyters. 
 
 The power to ordain must have been left by Christ, when he 
 ascended, in some hands ; and the men wdiom he had chosen 
 to be his apostles were the only persons whom he had endowed 
 with any ministerial authority whatever. They, of course, 
 were the persons to provide a ministry for the church. Whether 
 the power to ordain appertained to their apostolical, or presby- 
 terial office, is a question not to be disposed of so easily as Mr. 
 Schuyler seems to imagine. We have attempted to settle it, 
 by showing that this powder of ordination was not comprehended 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 177 
 
 in what was peculiar to tlie apostleship. Let it be made to 
 appear, if it can be, that our argument on that head is unsound. 
 It may be objected to the texts which we have cited to 
 prove that the apostles were also presbytei-s, that John does cot 
 apply that term to himself as a term of office, but as indicative 
 of his advanced age. Commentators are divided on this point; 
 but I confess, I am unable to see why they should be. " The 
 elder unto the elect ladyV — " The elder unto the weU-heloved 
 GaiusP — This seems a most singular manner of speaking, if 
 John merely intended to describe himself as a person of great 
 age. Besides, if that were his purpose, why did he use the 
 term " o presbuteros,^^ the term invariably used as the name of 
 the elder's office, and not, as Paul, when he would represent 
 himself as an old man, (see Philem. 9,) the term ^^ presbutes,'^ 
 
 — the proper, and the only proper term to express his mean- 
 ing, if any derivative of presbus, was to be employed ? Why 
 should he call himself the elder 7nan, and not the old man? 
 
 But this objection does not lie against the text from 1 Pet^r. 
 
 — " The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also 
 an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ." There can 
 be no question of Peter's applying the term " elder" to himself 
 as a title of office. He positively affirms, that he is an elder 
 like the elders whom he exhorts, that he is one of them, hold- 
 ing the same office which they hold, and so far on a level with 
 them. The reader will perceive how, while he acknowledges 
 himself to be an elder, and thus the equal only of the elders 
 whom he exhorts, he claims, at the same time, superiority, and 
 a right to be attended to, on the ground of being something 
 more than an elder, — even " a witness of the sufferings of 
 Christ,'" — that is, an apostle. What a proof is here that we 
 were right in our argument respecting the apostleship, — that 
 its essential peculiarity was the power of witnessing for Cluist! 
 
 The oi-iginal Greek is stronger for Peter's eldership than 
 our translation. Peter calls himself "o suinpresbuteros,'' fellow- 
 elder, expressing more strongly the absolute sameness of the 
 9* 
 
178 THE CHURCH, 
 
 presbyterial office held by him, with that which was held by 
 those whom he was addressing. 
 
 I see no w^ay by which the force of this text may be evaded, 
 but by admitting that Peter was a presbyter, and denying that 
 any other apostle was so ; that is, by claiming that Peter was a 
 singular exception, and that, for some unexplained reason, the 
 presbyterial office had been conferred on him alone. This may 
 be affirmed^ but it wih hardly be believed, even by the affirm- 
 ants. On the contrary, we refer to the text, and show that Peter 
 does not claim to be an elder at all, as though it constituted for 
 him a distinction among the apostles ; and besides, we appeal 
 to the commission given by our Lord to all the apostles, to do 
 the very work which presbyters were appointed to perform, — 
 to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments. 
 
 Mr. S. admits that the apostles were elders. On page 
 seventy-two of his book, he says, the presbytery which ordained 
 Timothy " may have been com'po^ed only of apostles, for we 
 hioiv that both Peter and John style themselves elders or 
 presbytersT 
 
 With this important fact proved and admitted, see how the 
 whole argument of our author falls to the ground. " We 
 showed clearly that such p)oiver (i. e. power to ordain) was 
 positively given to the apostles^ That is to say, he has shown 
 that such power was positively given to presbyters — for the 
 apostles were presbyters; and we have shown that as apostles, 
 their sole duty was to be witnesses of Christ. 
 
 " It was not given^'' says our author, " to the presbyters or 
 deacons^ and not being given to them the conclusion is irresisti- 
 ble, that they did not possess it; and therefore an express 
 limitation or a positive declaration of holy scripture, that no 
 other's but apostles were authorized to exercise this power, was 
 entirely unnecessary." We very cheerfully concede the fact, 
 that it was not given to the deacons, and for the very best of 
 reasons ; but it was given to presbyters, and, if we may steal 
 the thunder of our author's most astonishing logic, being given 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 179 
 
 to them, the conckision is irresistible, that they did possess it, 
 " and therefore an express hmitation, or a positive declaration 
 of holy scripture, that no others but" elders "were authoiized 
 to exercise this power was entirely unnecessary." 
 
 The presbyterial office was the only permanent ministerial 
 office held by the apostles, and consequently the only one 
 which they had the power to impart. They could not impart 
 the apostleship ; for, as we have shown, and as Dr. Barrow main- 
 tains, with such resistless force of argument, "the ajDostolical 
 office, as such, was personal and temporary; and therefore, 
 according to its nature and design^ not successive, or communi- 
 cable to others." Now, in imparting the presbyterial office, in 
 what character did they act ? When, in token of communica- 
 tion, they laid their hands upon a man and ordained him to 
 the pregbyterate, did they act as apostles, or as presbyters ? as 
 presbyters, certainly, seeing that it was the presbyterial office 
 which they were communicating. 
 
 The act of imposition of hands, when it was any thing more 
 than a gesture of designation, as in the bestowment of a bless- 
 ing, was the outward and visible sign of impartation. Thus 
 the apostles laid hands on those to whom they imparted the 
 Holy Ghost, or any spiritual gift; not as though the Holy 
 Ghost, or the spiritual gift were actually communicated by 
 contact, but, as a significant sign of what they did ; — a prac- 
 tice, by the way, most absurdly retained by Episcopal bishops 
 in the rite of confirmation. I say absurdly retained, for have 
 they any idea that they bestow the Holy Ghost, or that they 
 impart any spiritual gift whatever? Do they suppose, while 
 they can not lay claim to any other one of the miraculous 
 powers of the apostles, that they have this power, — which was 
 as truly miraculous as any other by which the apostles attested 
 their divine mission ? Who has ever seen the evidence in those 
 confirmed by them, that by that act they had received the 
 Holy Ghost, or any other miraculous gifts of grace? The 
 apostles also laid hands on those to whom they imparted office ; 
 
180 THE CHURCH, 
 
 whom they ordained, not as though the official character were 
 actually communicated by touch, but for a sign. They gave 
 the office, and signified it by laying their hands on the head 
 of the person who received the gift. In either case, whether 
 they were communicating grace or office, the imposition of 
 their hands was the sign of impartation. Now what I desire 
 to have especially considered is, that in making this sign, they 
 themselves acted in the character of holders of that which they 
 communicated. If they imparted spiritual gifts, they did it as 
 possessors of spiritual gifts. If they imparted office, they did 
 it as possessors of the office which they imparted. This was 
 the very thing in which lay the significancy of the manual 
 imposition. It was as if the office or the gifts passed from one 
 to the other through the connecting medium thus established. 
 We say, therefore, that in ordaining presbyters, the apostles 
 acted as presbyters. Let it be shown that they ever ordained 
 other apostles, and we will own that in doing this they acted 
 as ajoostles. But we call in vain for such a showing. If we 
 are reminded of the ordination of the seven deacons as an 
 apparent objection to the statement that has just been made, 
 we would say, that the imposition of the apostles' hands in that 
 case, may have been nothing more than a sign of the 
 communication of spiritual gifts; or, it may be considered, 
 that, as the deacon's office had, until that time, been exercised 
 by the apostles themselves, they, in ordaining the deacons, 
 acted as deacons, giving up, or transferring that particular 
 charge to them. 
 
 Says our author, — '^CovM we be furnished with a single 
 instance in the New Testament^ of presbyters or deacons exer- 
 cising the right to ordain, though no apostolic injunction could 
 he shown, as in the case of Timothy and Titus, we would yet 
 consider it as endorsed with apostolic sanction, and yield the 
 point in dispute at once; but we can find no evidence of such 
 example or sanction for presbyterian ordination, and there- 
 fore loe are compelled to reject it^ 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 181 
 
 We refer him then to every particular instance of ordination 
 of which a record is made in the New Testament, as just such 
 an instance as he is inquiring after. There is no instance 
 recorded of the apostles ordaining an apostle. They ordained 
 elders, and this they did as elders, furnishing at once both the 
 example and the sanction on which rests the right of presbyte- 
 rian ordination; not only did they themselves ordain elders, 
 but they appointed other elders to do the same, " as in the case 
 of Timothy and Titus." This satisfies us, and it ought to satisfy 
 our author. 
 
 For positive proof that the power of ordination was exercised 
 by presbyters, we refer to 1 Timothy iv: 14, " Neglect not the 
 gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, ivilk the 
 laying on of the hands of the presbytery." Our author lays 
 himself out with unusual spirit to do away with the killing 
 force of this passage. His struggles however, only make the 
 matter worse for him. The passage remains, a clear and unde- 
 niable record of just such an ordination, as he says he requires 
 but one instance of, to be persuaded to " yield the point in 
 dispute at once." 
 
 He begins with a frank admission that the text " refers to an 
 ordination" though he says, " this has been ably disputed by 
 some of our most learned men ; and among them, by the able 
 author of the tract, episcoj^ac?/ tested hy scripture^ The reason 
 why some Episcopalians have denied that the passage before us 
 refers to an ordination, is very obvious. Some, and amono- 
 them, the truly able author of the tract, " Episcopacy tested by 
 Sci'ipture," have had the sagacity to perceive, that oji this 
 denial rests the only hope of successfully resisting the Presbyte- 
 rian argument. If the passage presents a case of ordination, 
 the debate is essentially ended, for that it was a presbyterial 
 ordination is manifest. 
 
 We do not require the reader to assume this important point, 
 but we ask him to look at the connection in which the text 
 
182 THE CHURCH, 
 
 stands, and see if the " gift " spoken of, can possibly mean any- 
 thing else than the ministerial office which Timothy had. 
 
 Says Paul, in the sixth verse, — " If thou put the brethren in 
 remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of 
 Jesus Christ, nourished up in the word of faith and of good 
 doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. But refuse profane, 
 and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself unto godliness." In 
 the eleventh verse he proceeds, — " These things command and 
 teach ; — Let no man despise thy youth ; but be thou an 
 example of believers," &c. " Till I come, give attendance to 
 reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. Neglect not the gift that is 
 in thee, ivhich ivas given thee by prophecy, with the laying on 
 of the hands of the presbytery. Meditate upon these things : 
 give thyself wholly to them, that thy profiting may appear to 
 all. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue 
 in them; for in doing this, thou shalt both save thyself and 
 them that hear thee." Now, what is the subject of the apostle's 
 discourse to Timothy in this place ? His ministry^ evidently. 
 This, then, beyond the possibility of reasonable contradiction, 
 was the gift which he is exhorted not to neglect. The author 
 of the tract, " Episcopacy tested by Scripture," has no way of 
 evading this conclusion, but by supposing that the gift which 
 was in Timothy, "by the laying on of the hands of the 
 presbytery," was his designation, subsequently to his minis- 
 terial ordination, to the particular field of labor he then occu- 
 pied ; as Barnabas and Saul were designated at Antioch — see 
 Acts xiii : 3 — to a particular work. The fallacy of such a 
 supposition, however, may be easily exposed. Could the gift 
 of the ministry that was in Barnabas and Saul, when they 
 went forth on that special mission, be spoken of as being 
 derived from the solemn form of separation by which they had 
 been set apart to that special work ? Did they by that act of 
 consecration to a special work, receive the ministerial office? 
 Yet in the present case, the case of Timothy, it was the very 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. i83 
 
 gift of the ministry itself that lie is represented as having 
 received by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. 
 
 It is to be observed, that Dr. Onderdonk, in the tract, '• Epis- 
 copacy tested by Scripture," does not deny that the text before 
 us relates to Timothy's ordination. He merely ventures an 
 opinion, that it is susceptible of a different construction. He 
 says — " Was the laying on of hands, on Timothy, here men- 
 tioned, an ordination ? It can not, at least, be proved. And 
 comparing scripture with scripture, are we not justified in 
 regarding it as a transaction similar to the one in the case 
 of Barnabas and Saul ? " 
 
 Beyond all doubt, our author is correct in his admission, that 
 the text w^e are now considering, describes an ordination to the 
 ministry. 
 
 The next inquiry relates to the meaning of the word '' pres- 
 bytery T " Does it refer," our author asks, " to the body of 
 ordainers, or does it refer to the office to which Timothy was 
 ordained ? " He proceeds to say — " Many learned men have 
 inclined to the opinion, that it refers to the office," and then 
 cites the names of Calvin and Grotius; the former of whom, in 
 fact, expresses just the contrary opinion, while the latter only 
 refrains from insisting o\\ the usual interpretation, out of defer- 
 ence to the opinions of Ambrose and Jerome, and from a mis- 
 take which he also seems to have fallen into in regard to the 
 opinion of Calvin. Calvin says, that he thinks the text might 
 bear such an interpretation as that put upon it by Ambrose and 
 Jerome, yet, " they who think that presbytery here is a collec- 
 tive name put for the assembly of presbyters, in my opinion 
 judge rightly r 
 
 " Admitting this interpretation," says our author, " we would 
 have the account, simply, of the ordination of Timothy as a 
 presbyter, without any intimation from the passage itself, of the 
 character and office of the person, or persons by whom the act 
 was performed." This, he says, is " one mode of interpreting 
 the passage — which divests it of the least color of proof in 
 
184 THE CHURCH, 
 
 favor of Timothy's ordination by presbyters." Has lie not 
 rushed from Scyha into Charybdis? 
 
 " Me miserable ! which way I fly is," 
 
 He had probably forgotten that the office to which Timothy 
 was ordained by the presbytery, was at any rate the office 
 which he exercised at Ephesus I If he very much desires it, 
 perhaps we might be induced to consent to this interpretation, 
 and instead of using the text as a proof for presbyterial ordina- 
 tion, take it as proving that Timothy was only a presbyter, and 
 not apostolic bishop in the Ephesian church. 
 
 We do not deny that Timothy was ordained a presbyter. 
 On the contrary, we affirm it, and we affirm that this tiaxt 
 teaches it, inasmuch as it teaches that he was ordained by pres- 
 byters, as such, acting together in the capacity of a presbytery. 
 But we think it very absurd to say that the primary and spe- 
 cific meaning of the text is, that Timothy was ordained to the 
 presbyterate, and not by the presbytery. 
 
 Goode, in his " Divine Rule," vol. ii, page sixty-four, refer- 
 ring to a passage in the commentaries on St. Paul's epistles, 
 commonly attributed to Hilary, though by some to Ambrose, 
 says — " Timothy is here said, we may obser\'e, to have been 
 ordained a presbyter, and I can not but think that the passage, 
 1 Tim. iv: 14, is favorable to this view, for without adopting 
 the translation which some have given of this passage, Aaz., 
 * with the laying on of hands for the office of a presbyter,^ if 
 we retain our own version, which appears to me more natural, 
 — who, or v/hat is the presbytery? Certainly not consisting 
 altogether of the apostles, though, it appears, — 2 Tim. i : 6, — that 
 ordination was received by Timothy partly from St. Paul. But 
 if presbyters joined in that ordination, it could not be to a higher 
 sacerdotal grade, or order, than that of the presbyterhood. Nor 
 is this inconsistent with his being called elsewhere an apostle, 
 which name might be given him as one appointed to be 
 superintendent of a church." 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 185 
 
 Goode thinks that the text teaches, that Timothy was ordained 
 a presbyter, because he was ordained by the preHhytery^ which 
 he is sure must have been composed, in part, at least, of j^resby- 
 ters. He is undoubtedly right, in every thing except in sup- 
 posing that the presbytery was not composed altogether of 
 elders, whatever offices besides may have been held by those 
 who acted as members of it. 
 
 The word " presbytery," 2^'f'esbuterion, is never used in the 
 New Testament for the name of an office. It occurs only in 
 two other places — Luke xxii : 66, where it is rendered " elders," 
 and Acts xxii : 5, where it is rendered " estate of the elders." 
 In each of these places it refers to the council or assembly of 
 the elders of the Jews. In the passage now under considera- 
 tion, it can not refer to that body, for no one will suppose that 
 they ordained men to the office of the christian ministiy. As, 
 however, in both of those instances it signifies a body of per- 
 sons known as elders, so here it signifies some council, or 
 assembly, or body of persons, known by the name of elders in 
 the christian church. It is enough to say a ijlurality^ or a col- 
 lection of elders. This, at least, it does mean to a perfect cer- 
 tainty, and the attempt to make any thing else of it is the 
 merest folly. 
 
 Third. How was this presbytery, which ordained Timothy, 
 constituted? Says our author, after having sacrificed the 
 Ephesian episcopate, in his effort to evade the force of the text 
 in its bearings on the question now pressing him, — " But let 
 us take another view of the passage. Let us admit that the 
 passage in question does refer to the assembly of ordainers — 
 the question then arises, who composed this presbytery? It 
 may have been composed only of apostles ; for we know that 
 both Peter and John style themselves elders or presbyters^ and 
 we will presently show beyond a doubt, that St. Paul was a 
 member of the ordaining body, and the principal actor." 
 
 Let the reader observe that Mr. Schuyler acknowledges here, 
 that the apostles were presbyters^ and that he does this for the 
 
186 THE CHURCH, 
 
 very purpose of showing that the presbytery which ordained 
 Timothy may have been made up wholly of them. That is, 
 he admits that none but presbytei-s could have been members 
 of the presbytery. Of coui-se he admits this, when he finds it 
 necessary to state the fact that the apostles were presbyters, in 
 order to sustain liis supposition that the presbytery " may have 
 been composed only of apostles." Now, it is a matter of the 
 utmost indiiierence to us, whether all who composed that pres- 
 bytery were apostles, or whether not one was an apostle. Let 
 it go at that, that every man of them was an apostle. What 
 then ? Were they members of the presbytery as apostles^ or 
 as presbyters? Was the presbytery, strictly speaking, a body 
 of apostles, r was it a body of presbyters? — We care not 
 what other offices the persons composing this presbyter}^ may 
 have held. It was as presbyters that they constituted a pres- 
 bytery, and what they did as a presbytery they did in their 
 presbyterial capacity, and in no other. Timothy, therefore, was 
 ordained by presbyters. 
 
 If Timothy had been ordained by the apostles, as such, why 
 does not Paul say, "The gift that is in thee, which was given 
 thee by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the a2)os- 
 tlcs.^" Why does he say, "With the laying on of the hands 
 of the presbytery,''^ unless those who participated in this trans- 
 action did so in the character of presbyters ? Mr. Barnes, in 
 his notes on this passage, has the following pertinent remarks : 
 " The statement here is just such a one as would now be made 
 respecting a Presbyterian ordination. It is 7iot one which 
 would be made of an Episcopal ordination. A Presbyterian 
 would choose these very words, in giving an account of an 
 ordination to the work of the ministry ; an Episcopalian would 
 not. The former speaks of an ordination by a presbytery ; 
 the latter of an ordination by a bishop. The former can use 
 the account of the apostle Paul here as applicable to an ordi- 
 nation, without explanations, comments, new versions, or criti- 
 cisms; the latter can not. The passage, therefore, is full of 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 187 
 
 proof that, in one of the most important ordinations mentioned 
 in the New Testament, it was performed by an association of 
 men, and not by a prelate, and therefore^ that this was the 
 primitive mode of ordination." The passage, I may add, is 
 full of proof that it was perforiied by an association of men 
 acting- as presbyters, whatever o'.her ofiices they may have held, 
 and not acting in any other capacity ; and therefore, that the 
 primitive mode of ordination was strictly presbyterial, and 
 not episcopal. 
 
 Our author says, " Great diversity of opinion prevails among 
 the advocates of parity, as to the persons who composed this 
 presbytery." I would Hke to "mow if any less diversity of 
 opinion prevails among the advocates of imparity. No one 
 knows who the persons were, except that Paul was one of 
 them. If we are ignorant as to who the persons were, we are 
 not ignorant as to what they were. We know that they were 
 all presbyters, from the fact that "uhey were constituent members 
 of a presbytery. He proposes an appeal to the fathers, and 
 quotes Ignatius as using the fohowing language : " Fleeing to 
 the apostles as the presbytery of the church." Ignatius here 
 represents the apostles as exercising the chief authority in the 
 church, which, while they lived, xhey unquestionably did. But 
 in what character did they exercise this chief authority ? As a 
 college of apostles ? No ; as a presbytery. It was as presbyters 
 that they ruled, and were thus a refuge for the distressed and the 
 perplexed, and not as apostles. We thank our author for 
 helping us to this authority. It is important, as going to 
 show, that not in ordination merely, but in government also, 
 the apostles always acted as a presbytery. As apostles they 
 were witnesses of Christ, but it was as presbyters that they 
 ordained ministers and governed the churches. Our author 
 infers from the words of Ignatius, that in his day the word 
 presbytery " might refer to a body of apostles alone." We 
 quite agree with him. It is a fair inference. The apostles, 
 therefore, were presbyters as well as apostles. He (quotes St. 
 
188 THE CHURCH, 
 
 Cliiysostom, as saying on this passage — " By eldership, (pres- 
 bytery,) he means, not presbyters but bishops, for presbyters 
 did not ordain bishops." But he has himself acknowledged 
 that one way of disposing of tte text, is to regard it as teach- 
 ing that Timothy was ordained to the presbyterate. Will he 
 now stultify himself by proving that he was ordained a bishop ? 
 If we had been told where this saying of Chrysostom is found, 
 we might then look for it, and see whether this father ever used 
 such words. All I have to say is, that if he did use such 
 words, he was mistaken ; for it is absurd to say, that by " elder- 
 shij) " Paul did not mean elders. We might as well be told, 
 that by the membership of a cliurch is not meant its members. 
 With ail due respect for his saintship, Chrysostom should not 
 have written nonsense, if he expected his words to have 
 authority in the nineteenth centiuy. Theodoret says, — we are 
 not informed where, — " that tlie ministers who, with St. Paul, 
 consecrated Timothy, were those who were vouchsafed the 
 favor to be apostles." We hav3 said already, that we are quite 
 willing to have it so. If Theodoret had said, that it was as 
 apostles and not as presbyters^ that they consecrated Timothy, 
 the testimony would have been worth contradicting ; but as it 
 stands, we are quite willing that it should stand. 
 
 " V/e think then," says our author, " we may safely conclude 
 that the probabilities are, that apostles composed this presby- 
 tery ; and at any rate, that there is so much doubt about the 
 meaning of the term, that Presbyterians build upon a very frail 
 foundation, when they alledge this passage as the basis on 
 which they lay their claim for the right of ordination by mere 
 presbyters." 
 
 Instead of laboring to show that apostles composed this 
 presbytery, the true point for him to elucidate Avas, that they 
 comjjosed it as apostles, and not as presbyters. He owns that 
 they were j:>resbyters ; why will he not allow them ever to act 
 as presbyters ? AVhy, when they are especially said by inspira- 
 tion itself,, to have done a thing as a presb}i:ery, that is, as an 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 189 
 
 assembly of presbyters, will he and all other Episcopalians 
 insist ujjon it^ that tliey did it as apostles ? We say again, we 
 care not by whom Timothy was ordained, so long as he was 
 ordained by the loreshytery. A frail foundation, is it, on which 
 to lay our claim for the right of ordination by mere presbyters ? 
 Pray tell us what kind of a foundation it is then, on which to 
 lay a claim for the right of ordination by those who are not 
 presbyters ? — or by a mere diocesan bishop ? Let the instance 
 be shown in the New Tescament, where the act of ordination 
 was ever performed by a single individual, or by any number 
 of individuals, who were not elders ? The instance can not be 
 produced. Did Timothy ordain alone at Ephesus ? Prove it. 
 Or Titus in Crete ? Prove it. Were they any thing more than 
 elders in the character of tlieir permanent ministry ? Prove it. 
 These assumptions, we thiak, have been sufficiently disposed of 
 on a former occasion. 
 
 Our author's argument to show that Paul took part in 
 Timothy's ordination migKt have been spared. We cheerfully 
 admit it. But we utterly deny that Paul was, in any peculiar 
 sense, the ordainer. In ^the second epistle to Timothy, he 
 says — " That thou stir up the gift of God that is in thee, by 
 the laying on of my hands." Mr. S. prints the word " my " in 
 capitals, and then adds, — "Here, then, St. Paul expressly 
 reminds Timothy of the fact that he had been ordained by 
 lihn^ without the least intimation that his commission had been 
 conferred by any other." ' Does he, then, give up the idea that 
 the presbytery may have been composed only of apostles ? 
 
 We affirm that Paul, as a presbyter, acted with the other 
 presbyters who composed the presbytery. Except as a presby- 
 ter, he could not have been a constituent member of that body ; 
 for a presbytery, in the nature of the case, is not made up of 
 presbyters and others, — but of presbyters alone. It is a body 
 of presbyters merely. And the text in 2 Timothy is in per- 
 fect consistency with, this view of the subject. Says Mr. 
 Barnes, in commenting on this place, — " The language here 
 
190 THE CH'JRCH, 
 
 used, 'by the putting on of my Lands,' is just such as Paul, or 
 any other one of the presbyters, would use in referring to the 
 ordination of Timothy, though tley were all regarded as on a 
 level. It is such an expression as an aged Presbyterian, or 
 Congregational, or Baptist minister would address to a son 
 whom he had assisted to ordair. Nothing would be more 
 natural than to remind him that iis own hands had been laid 
 on him when he was set apart to the work of the ministry. It 
 would be in the nature of a tender, pathetic, and solemn 
 appeal, bringing all that there was in his own character, age, 
 and relation to the other, to bear on him, in order to induce 
 him to be faithful to his trust. Oa other occasions he would 
 naturally remind him that others lad united with him in the 
 act, and that he had derived his authority through the presby- 
 tery, just as Paul appeals to Timothy — 1 Tim. iv: 14. But 
 no one would now think of inferring from this, that he meant 
 to be understood as saying, that he done had ordained him, or, 
 that all the authority for preaching the gospel had been 
 imparted through his hands, and ihat those who were asso- 
 ciated with him only expressed concirrence ; that is, that their 
 presence there was only an unmeaning ceremony. 
 
 It is sometimes pretended, that tliere is a certain peculiarity 
 in the different forms of expressior. in 1 Tim. iv: 14, where 
 the presbytery is spoken of, and in 2 Tim. i : 6, where Paul 
 speaks of himself alone as acting in this ordination. In the 
 former case, it is " meto," with the la}^ng on, &;c. In the latter, 
 it is " c//a," by the putting on, &c. This is a very poor refuge ; 
 for, without going into a very critical examination of these 
 Greek prepositions, "me^a" and "c?«t/.," I am persuaded that 
 no scholar will insist upon a distinction between them, that can 
 be made to avail any thing in help of the Episcopal argument. 
 They are undoubtedly prepositions, which, in cases like the 
 present might be used interchangeably, as conveying precisely 
 the same idea. But a Greek scholar, in looking: at 1 Tim. iv : 
 1 4, will readily see why the apostle chose " meta " there, rather 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 191 
 
 tlian " diaT The latter preposition had been used the instant 
 before with propheteias, (dia propheteias, hy prophecy^ and 
 it was partly to avoid repetition that meta was used, though 
 not for this purpose alone. Timothy received the gift by pro- 
 phecy. Tliere had been, as we see from 1 Tim. i: 18, certain 
 predictions going before respecting him, of which, particularly, 
 we are not informed. But he was regarded as a person 
 specially designated, by the prophetic spirit, to the work of the 
 ministry. He was looked upon, I suppose on account of his 
 peculiar early promise, as one raised up and especially qualified 
 of God to be a minister of the gospel, and prophets in the 
 early church had foretold his future usefulness. Now, the prep- 
 osition "me^a" was chosen as better than "c?m" for repre- 
 senting the concurrence of the presbytery in his ordination 
 with the prophecies that had gone before respecting him. 
 " The gift that is in thee hy prophecy with the laying on," &c. 
 The " c?m, " that precedes propheteias, truly governs all that 
 follows, and meta^ strictly speaking, is not a governing, but 
 connecting particle, so that, in point of fact, the texts in 
 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy are not different, — " dia " being 
 the governing preposition in both cases. 
 
 The text in 1 Timothy declares, that he was ordained by the 
 la}^ng on of the hands of the presbytery. In 2 Timothy, Paul 
 says, " By the putting of my hands." — Now, how is the appa- 
 rent contradiction to be reconciled? Can it be done by 
 considering the literal fact as expressed in the second epistle ? 
 No ; for that would make the assertion in the first epistle false. 
 If the ordination was really effected by the laying on of Paul's 
 hands, then the presbytery, as such, had nothing to do with it. 
 May the apparent contradiction be reconciled by supposing that 
 the literal fact is expressed in the first epistle ? Yes ; for we 
 have seen already, that in that case there would be no impro- 
 priety whatever in Paul's saying, " By the putting on of my 
 hands." It would be a natural way of speaking, and just such 
 as any other member of the presbytery might, with entire 
 
192 THE CHURCH, 
 
 propriety, have used. Timothy was ordained by the putting on 
 of Paul's hands, though not by the putting on of Paul's 
 hands alone. 
 
 We desire our author carefully to read what we have now 
 written, and then to say frankly whether he still thinks he has 
 so " satisfactorily disposed of this strong passaged It seems 
 to us, that so far from having disposed of it, as he imagines he 
 has done, his attempt to do so, has pretty effectually disposed 
 of him and of his cause. 
 
 We propose now, to inquire how the testimony of the early 
 fathers bears upon this question respecting the right to ordain. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS ON THIS SUBJECT. 
 
 Presuming that it will not be denied that bishops were 
 invested with the power of ordination, it is directly in point to 
 show, that during the two first centuries there was no distinction, 
 as to their grade of office, between bishops and presbyters. If 
 this can be made satisfactorily to appear, the conclusion will be 
 inevitable that, during the first two centuries, presbyters ordained. 
 
 The reader is already aware, that by the admission of Epis- 
 copalians themselves, bishops and presbyters are the same in 
 the New Testament. Thus, Paul having assembled the pres- 
 byters of Ephesus at Miletus, — Acts xx: 28, — addressed 
 them all as bishops, and exhorted them to perform with 
 fidelity the duties of the episcopal office. It is affirmed, how- 
 ever, that immediately after the New Testament times the 
 mode of expression was changed, and that wherever the word 
 bishop occurs in the writings of the early fathers, it has a 
 meaning essentially different from that which it has in the 
 writings of the apostles, — standing for a minister, Hke the 
 modern diocesan prelate, distinct from presbyters in the grade 
 of his office, and superior to them. Apart from the e\'idence 
 of the writings themselves, the only ancient authority adduced 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 193 
 
 for such a change is Theodoret, who flourished in the latter part 
 of the fourth century, the inadequacy of whose testimony must 
 be apparent to every one, because he does not specify the period 
 at which the change took place, but only says, that it was 
 introduced after the days of the apostles, " in process of time." 
 Theodoret testifies to nothing which we do not know from other 
 sources. No one can read the fathers in succession down to his 
 time, and not discover for himself, how, with "the process of 
 time," after the year 200, the system of prelacy gradually 
 developed itself, and the term bishop acquired, by usage, its new 
 and unscriptural meaning. Now, I desire to show, by numerous 
 quotations, that this change was not introduced until after the 
 close of the second century, and that up to that time, pres- 
 byters and bishops were, as in the times of the apostles 
 themselves, of one grade, and had the same powers. 
 
 I may state here, that for my quotations from the ancient 
 fathers, I am mainly indebted to Coleman's " Christian Anti- 
 quities" and "Apostolical and Primitive Church," to Eusebius, 
 and to the ecclesiastical histories of Neander and Gieseler. 
 
 I cite first, the testimony of Clement, who wrote about A. D. 
 96. His epistle, written in the name of the church at Rome to 
 the church at Corinth, is the earliest and most authentic of all 
 the writings of the apostolical fathers, and was held in such 
 high esteem by the early christians, that it was publicly read 
 for the common benefit in their assembhes, in the same manner 
 as the sacred scriptures, — See Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. 3, c. 16. 
 No ancient writing of its class is of comparable authority with 
 historians. This father, in his entire epistle, mentions but two 
 grades of officers in the church, bishops and deacons; his style 
 being precisely similar to that of the New Testament writers. 
 No intimation can be gathered from him of the existence of 
 such a person at Corinth as a prelate; but he invariably speaks 
 of the presbyters who had been rejected by that church, as 
 persons holding the highest ministerial rank. He says, — Epist. 
 sec. 42, p. 57, — " Preaching therefore in countries and cities, 
 10 
 
194 THE CHURCH, 
 
 they, i. e. the apostles, appointed the first fruits of their labors, 
 having, by the spirit, judged them worthy, bishops and deacons 
 of them that should believe." These, according to Clement, 
 are the two offices in the church, as it was originally consti- 
 tuted by the apostles. 
 
 " It were a great sin in us," he says, — Sec. 44, p. 58, " if we 
 should reject those who have blamelessly and piously discharged 
 the functions of the episcopal ofiice ; " and immediately adds, 
 " blessed are those presbyters, who, having finished their course, 
 have obtained their final deliverance and reward." Will it be 
 denied that he here identifies, as one and the same class of per- 
 sons, presbyters and those who discharged the functions of the 
 episcopal office? 
 
 Says Riddle, — Christ. Antiq. page 5, comp. Waddington's 
 Church Hist, page 35, and Campbell's Lectures, page 72, — 
 " Clement, himself, was not even aware of the distinction be- 
 tween presbyters and bishops, — terms which, in fact, he used 
 as synonymous." 
 
 The next witness is Polycarp, who, we are informed, was 
 familiar with those who had seen the Lord, and is commonly 
 supposed to have been the angel of the church at Smyrna, Rev. 
 ii: 8. His testimony agrees exactly with Clement's. He 
 knows of but two gi'ades of officers in the church, presbyters 
 and deacons. In his whole epistle he does not once use the 
 word " bishop," but represents the presbyters as exercising all 
 authority in the church, and discharging all ministerial func- 
 tions, without affording the least intimation of any one being 
 placed over them, or having authority superior to theirs. 
 
 The salutation of his epistle is as follows : " Polycarp and the 
 presbyters with him, to the church of God, dwelling at Philippi, 
 mercy to you," &c. He was undoubtedly the president of the 
 church at Smyrna, i. e. the elder whom the church had chosen 
 to occupy the first place, and to conduct public worship ; in 
 other words, their pastor, or if you please, in the scriptural sense, 
 their bishop. 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 195 
 
 He exhorts the Pliilippians to " he subject to their presbyters 
 and deacons; " an exhortation singularly inappropriate, if the 
 government of their church had been committed to a bishop. 
 In the fifth and sixth chapters he describes the qualifications 
 necessary for presbyters and deacons, without any allusion to 
 any higher office. 
 
 The epistle of Paul to the Philippians is addressed " to all 
 the saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi, with the 
 bishops and deacons" He recognizes two grades of officers 
 there, and only two, — bishops, universally conceded to have been 
 simple presbyters, and deacons. Polycarp, like Clement, recog- 
 nizes the same, showing that in his time, about the middle of 
 the second century, there had been no change. Things re- 
 mained precisely as they were, at the time when Episcopalians 
 themselves confess that bishop and presbyter were convertible 
 terms. 
 
 Justin Martyr, who was cotemporary with Polycarp, gires 
 testimony to the same effect. He describes — Apol. i, c. 65, p. 
 82, also, c. 67, p. 83 — the mode of conducting public worship 
 and of administering the Lord's supper in his time. In these 
 accounts, no officers appear but the " president of the brethren," 
 officiating as minister, and the deacons, who distribute the ele- 
 ments of bread and wine to the communicants. This president 
 i^proestos,) is the person claimed by Episcopalians, if any one 
 can be, as the prelatic bishop. But there is no gi-ound, what- 
 ever, for such an opinion. His duties are those of a mere 
 pastor, and Justin says not one word which can possibly be so 
 construed, as to make any tiling more of him than the officiat- 
 ing presbyter. He is distinguished from the deacons, but from 
 no other class of officers in the church. Says Milton, — prose 
 works, Griswold's edition, vol. 1, p. 37 — "But that place of 
 Justin Martyr, serves rather to convince the author, than to 
 make for him, where the name '■ 2^'t^oestos ton adelphon^ the 
 president or pastor of the brethren, (for to what end is he their 
 president but to teach them ?) can not be limited to signify a 
 
196 THE CHURCH, 
 
 prelatical bishop, but ratber communicates tbat Greek appella- 
 tion to every ordinary presbyter ; for there he tells what the 
 christians had wont to do in their several congregations, — ^to read 
 and expound, to pray and administer ; all which, he says, the 
 jproestos, or antistes, did. Are these the offices only of a 
 bishop, or shall we think that every congregation, where these 
 things were done, which he attributes to this antistes, had a 
 bishop present among them ? — unless they had as many an- 
 tistites as presbyters, which this place rather seems to imply ; 
 and so we may infer, even from their own alledged authority, 
 * that antistes was nothing else than presbyter.' 
 
 Ireneus, who died soon after the commencement of the third 
 century, uses the terms " bishop " and " presbyter " interchange- 
 abl , , as ha\dng the same meaning. Speaking of Marcion, 
 Valentinus, Cerinthus, and other heretics, he says — Adv. Haer. 
 L. 3, c. 2, sec. 2 — " When we refer them to that apostolic 
 tradition, which is preserved in the churches, through the suc- 
 cession of their presbyters^ these men oppose the tradition; 
 pretending that, being more wise than not only the presbyters 
 but the apostles themselves, they have found the uncorrupted 
 truth." Let it be observed, that here the tradition from the 
 apostles is spoken of as preserved through the succession of 
 presbyters. In the very next section, pursuing the same sub- 
 ject, he styles these same presbyters bishops. He says — " We 
 can enumerate those who were constituted by the apostles 
 bishops in the churches, and their successors, even down to our 
 time. But because it would be tedious, in such a volume as 
 this, to enumerate the successions in all the churches, showing 
 you the tradition and declared faith," &c. It is thus evident 
 that Ireneus still used the term "bishop" in the scriptural 
 sense, and that so late as his time presbyter and bishop were 
 synonymous words. 
 
 Again, — Eusebius, book 5, ch. 20 — Ireneus calls Polycarp 
 bishop, and yet uses concerning him the following language : 
 " And I can bear witness in the sight of God, that if that 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 197 
 
 blessed and apostolic presbyter had heard any such thing as 
 this," &c. 
 
 Again. Irenens says, — L. 4, c. 26, pp. 262, 263 — "We 
 ought to obey those preshyters in the church, who have succes- 
 sion, as we have shown, from the apostles; who, with the 
 succession of the episcopate, received the certain gift of truth, 
 according to the good pleasure of the father. 
 
 " And truly, they who by many are regarded as preshyters, 
 but serve their own pleasures, and not having the fear of God 
 in their hearts, but elated with the pride of their exaltation to 
 the chief seat, commit wickedness in secret, saying, no one 
 seeth us — they shall be convicted. From all such we ought 
 to withdraw, and as we have said, to adhere to those who 
 maintain the doctrine of the apostles, and who, with the 
 order of the preshytership preserve sound doctrine, and a 
 blameless conversation for the confirmation and reproof of 
 others." 
 
 Again — L. 4, c. 26, sec. 1 — he says, that "they who 
 cease to serve the church in the ministry, ai*e a reproach to the 
 sacred order of the presbyters."* The same persons in the 
 immediate context are called " hishopsP 
 
 In his letter to Victor, at Rome, — Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Lib. 5) 
 c. 20 — he speaks of the preshyters who had presided over 
 the church in that city before that bishop, and of one particu- 
 larly, Anicetus, whom Polycarp had urged in vain to " retain 
 the usage of the presbyters who had preceded him." 
 
 These quotations from Ireneus do not require to be com- 
 mented upon. Their testimony is plain and directly to the 
 point. They definitely settle the question that, in his time, 
 nothing was known of an episcopal order in the ministry, dis- 
 tinct from presbyters and above them. The presbyters them- 
 selves, according to New Testament usage, are represented as 
 bishops, having, as Presbyterians maintain, the true " succession 
 from the a; ostles, who with the succession of the episcopate. 
 have receive I the certain gift of truth." Our adversaries may 
 
198 THE CHURCH, 
 
 attempt, with tlieir glosses, to avert the force of this witness 
 against them, but they cannot explain away the fact which he 
 asserts in so many ways, that, in his day, there was no distinction 
 between the episcojDal and the presbyterial order. 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, A. D. 194, illustrating another sub- 
 ject by the ministry of the christian church, says — Paedag., 
 Lib., 3, p. 264 — "Just so in the church, the presbyters are 
 entrusted with the dignified ministry; the deacons, with the 
 subordinate." Does he know of any other order of officers 
 than those which he here names ? How singular would be his 
 manner of speaking, if there were an episcopal order above, 
 and distinct from, those whom he describes as " entrusted with 
 the dignified ministry." 
 
 This father, in his treatise — " What rich man can be saved ? " 
 chapter 42, pp. 667-669, relates — that the apostle John, being 
 deeply interested in the singular beauty of a young man, whom 
 he on one occasion observed in a christian assembly, turned in 
 the presence of the church and commended him " to the bishop 
 who presided over all^^ with strict charge that he should 
 watch over him, and be responsible for his safety. The narra- 
 tive then informs us that ^''this presbyter'''' took the young 
 man to his own house, and endeavored to discharge the duty 
 which the apostle had enjoined upon him. The young man 
 afterward was seduced from his protector, and lost. John, on 
 his return, addressed this presbyter as a bishop^ saying, "0 
 bishop, restore to us your charge." Here again, the terms 
 bishop and presbyter are used interchangeably. 
 
 Tertullian, cotemporary with the last witness, both having 
 died the same year, A. D. 220, describes the worship of chris- 
 tian assemblies in terms very similar to those employed by 
 Justin. He says — ApoL, c. 59 — "Certain approved elders 
 preside, who have obtained that honor, not by price, but by 
 the e\idence of their fitness." He says — De Corona., c. 3, 
 p. 102 — 'We never take from the hands of others than 
 presidents, prcesidentium, the sacrament of the eucharist." 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 199 
 
 This president is beyond dispute identical with Justin Martyr's 
 2'>roestos; and we are thus informed distinctly, that the proestos 
 was an approved elder^ chosen by the people, for his fitness^ 
 to be their minister. 
 
 Can any candid person examine these testimonies, and have 
 a doubt remaining, that for the first two centuries, at least, the 
 term " bishop " retained in the church its scriptural meaning, 
 and that bishops and presbyters were the same ? I see no way 
 for an honest denial of these facts. If then, during these two 
 centuries, bishops ordained, it is but another form of saying that 
 presbyters did so. 
 
 Jerome^ who flourished in the fifth century, asserts what I 
 have now established, by cotemporary authorities, as an histo- 
 rical fact, which in his time could not be disputed. In his 
 commentary on Titus i : 5, he sets forth, in the most forcible 
 manner, the scripture doctrine on this subject of the equality of 
 presbyters with bishops, and adds, " Our intention in these 
 remarks is to show, that among the ancients, presbyters and 
 bishops were the very same, but that by little and little, i^pau- 
 latim) that the plants of dissensions might be plucked up, 
 the whole concern was devolved upon an individual. As the 
 presbyters therefore hiow that they are subjected by the custom 
 of the church, to him who is set over them, so let the bishops 
 know that they ai-e greater than presbyters, more by custom 
 than by any real appointment of ChristP 
 
 Mr. Schuyler has endeavored — pp. 95, 96, 97, — to do away 
 with this testimony, by affirming, that the change of which 
 Jerome speaks, took place in the apostles' time, and must there- 
 fore have been approved of by them. But how utterly inconsis- 
 tent is this with the fact, that it is on the very authority of the 
 apostles themselves, in their writings, that Jerome grounds his 
 argument for the original equality of bishops and presbyters. 
 Let it be proved from the writings of the apostles, that the 
 change of which Jerome testifies, was introduced in their 
 day. I know that the phrase, " little by littUj^ (paulatim,) is 
 
200 THE CHURCH, 
 
 indefinite as to time^ but it is not indefinite as to the fact, 
 which alone is important, that the change was not brought about 
 by authority^ but that it came in gradually^ as all new customs do. 
 The testimony of this father is clear and explicit in regard to 
 the main thing, that, according to the original constitution of 
 the church, bishops and presbyters were the same, and that the 
 distinction between them, which prevailed in his age, was not 
 by divine appointment, but a human invention for the cure of 
 schism. 
 
 Admissions from distinguished Episcopalians on this point 
 might be furnished to almost any extent, but it is not necessary. 
 
 It may be expected that I shall ofier some positive and direct 
 testimony in favor of the practice of ordination by presbyters 
 in the early church. 
 
 Says Dr. Miller, — see his letters, page 108, — "The friends of 
 prelacy have often, and with much apparent confidence, chal- 
 lenged us to produce out of all the early fathers, a single 
 instance of an ordinatio7i performed by presbyters. Those who 
 give this challenge might surely be expected in all decency and 
 justice, to have a case of Episcopal ordination ready to be 
 brought forward from the same venerable records. But have 
 they ever produced such a case ? They have not. Nor can 
 they produce it. As there is unquestionably no instance men- 
 tioned in scripture, of any person with the title of bishop 
 performing an ordination ; so it is equally certain that no such 
 instance has been found in any christian writer within the first 
 two centunes. Nor can a single instance be produced of a 
 person, already ordained as a presbyter, receiving a new and 
 second ordination as a bishop. To find a precedent favorable 
 to their doctrine, the advocates of episcopacy have been under 
 the necessity, of wandering into periods, when the simplicity of 
 the gospel, had, in a considerable degree, given place to the 
 devices of men ; and when the man of sin had commenced 
 that system of unhallowed usurpation, which for so many 
 centuries corrupted and degraded the church of God." 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 201 
 
 What Episcopalians can not produce for their system, we 
 can for ours. 
 
 Fermilian^ writing from Asia Minor to Cyprian in Car- 
 thage, A. D. 256, in exj^Ianation of the ecclesiastical polity of the 
 churches there, says — Cyp. Epist. 75, p. 145, — "All power 
 and grace is vested in the church, where the presbyters preside, 
 who have authority to baptize, to impose hands, (in the recon- 
 ciling of penitents) and to ordain^ On this, Coleman remarks, 
 " The episcopal hierarchy was not fully established in these 
 eastern churches, so early as in the western. Accordingly we 
 find the presbyters here, in the full enjoyment of their original 
 right to ordain. The general tenor of the letter, in connection 
 with this passage, exhibits the popular government of the apos- 
 tolical churches, as yet continuing among the churches in Asia. 
 The highest authority is vested in the members of the church, 
 who still administer their own government. No restrictions 
 have yet been laid upon the presbyters in the administration of 
 ordinances. Whatever clerical grace is essential for the right 
 administration of baptism, of consecration, and of ordination, is 
 still retained by the presbyters." 
 
 The author of the commentaries of the epistles of St. Paul, 
 either Ambrose or Hilary, more probably the latter, says — on 
 Eph. iv: 11, 12, — " The apostle calls Timothy, created by him 
 a presbyter, a bishop, for the first presbyters were called bishops, 
 that when he departed, the one that came next might succeed 
 him. Moreover, in Egypt the presbyters confirm, if a bishop 
 be not present. But because the presbyters that followed 
 began to be found unworthy to hold the primacy, the custom 
 was altered ; the council foreseeing that not order but merit, 
 ought to make a bishop ; and that he should be appointed by 
 the judgment of many priests, lest an unworthy person should 
 rashly usurp the office, and be a scandal to many." 
 
 It must be admitted, that according to the understanding of 
 this author, one made a presbyter, by the apostolical rule, 
 needed no other ordination in order to assume the functions of 
 10* 
 
202 THE CHURCH, 
 
 tlie episcopal office, and that the highest presbyter in any 
 church, was ipso facto, its bishop, until in later times a different 
 custom was introduced. 
 
 The same author says again, — on 1 Tim. iii : 8, — " After 
 the bishop, the apostle has subjoined the ordination (order) of 
 the deaconship. Why, but that the ordination (order) of a 
 bishop and presbyter, is one and the same ? for each is a priest, 
 but the bishop is chief, so that every bishop is a presbyter, but 
 not every presbyter a bishop. For he is bishop who is chief 
 among the presbyters. Moreover, he notices that Timothy was 
 ordained a presbyter, but inasmuch as he had no other above 
 him, he was a bishop."*^ Hence he shows that Thnothy, a pres- 
 byter, might ordain a bishop, because of his equality with him. 
 " For it was neither lawful nor right for an inferior to ordain 
 a superior, inasmuch as one can not confer what he has not 
 received. 
 
 On this, and other similar authorities, Coleman remarks, — 
 Apost. and Prim. Church, p. 182, — "The full sacerdotal power 
 is possessed by every presbyter, according to the authority of 
 the earliest fathers. The apostolical fathers know no distinction 
 between bishops and presbyters; and later ones make no differ- 
 ence in their order or grade of rank. The distinction of bishop 
 is only a conventional arrangement, made for mutual conve- 
 nience, but in no wise incapacitating the presbyter for the per- 
 formance of any of his sacerdotal offices. The right to ordain 
 still belongs to him ; and the bishop, when selected to preside 
 over his fellow-presbyters, receives no new consecration or 
 ordination, but continues himself to ordain as a presbyter. 
 
 " Such is a plain statement of this controverted point, and 
 such the exposition which many Episcopal writers, even at the 
 present day, give of this subject. But if the delusive doctrine 
 of divine right and apostolical succession be given up, the valid- 
 ity of presbyterian ordination is conceded. Such Episcopalians, 
 therefore, themselves, afford us the fullest refutation of the 
 absurd and arrogant pretensions of high church episcopacy." 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 203 
 
 Jerome^ in his famous epistle to Evagriiis, or Evangeliis, 
 rebukes with great severity those who had preferred deacons in 
 honor, " above presbyters^ i. e. bishops^ Having thus asserted 
 the identity of presbyters and bishops, he goes on to prove his 
 position by Phil, i: 1, Acts xx: 17, 28, Titus i: 5, 1 Tim. iv: 
 14, and 1 Pet. v: 1. He says, — "Does the testimony of these 
 men seem of small account to you ? Then clangs the gospel 
 trumpet, — that son of thunder whom Jesus so much loved, and 
 who drank at the fountain of truth from the Saviour's breast. 
 ' The presbyter to the elect lady and her children,' — 2 John 
 i : 1 ; and in another epistle, ' The Presbyter to the well-beloved 
 Gains,' — 3 John i: 1. 
 
 " As to the fact, that afterward, one was elected to preside 
 over the rest, this was done as a remedy against schism ; lest 
 every one drawing his proselytes to himself, should rend the 
 church of Christ; for even at Alexandria, from the evangehst 
 Mark to the bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, the presbyters 
 always chose one of their number, placed him in a superior 
 station, and called him bisho]), in the same manner as if an 
 army should make an emperor, or the deacons should choose 
 one of their number, whom they knew to be particularly 
 active, and should call him archdeacon; for, excepting ordina- 
 tion, what is done by a bishop, that may not be done by a 
 presbyter ? " 
 
 The bishop, then, received his authority from the presbyters. 
 They made him. All the ordination that he had from any 
 source, he had from them, and such, Jerome tells us, was the 
 usage "m every country T 
 
 As to the question, — " For excepting ordination, what is 
 done by a bishop that may not be done by a presbyter ? " The 
 reader will perceive that he is referring to a distinction of 
 official powers that had obtained in his time, and arguing 
 from the fact that no other distinction was then recognized, 
 for the original identity of the episcopal and presbyterial 
 offices. It is equivalent therefore, to the strongest kind of an 
 
204 THE CHURCH, 
 
 affirmation, that originally, ordination was one of the functions 
 of presbyters. 
 
 It will be remembered that Jerome flourished near the latter 
 end of the fourth century, at which time, it is well known that 
 Episcopal usurpations had almost universally crowded out tho 
 primitive order of church polity. He wrote against the very 
 same prelatical assumptions that we complain of and protest 
 against. Bishops had begun to assume exclusive rights as a 
 distinct and higher order of the christian ministry, to claim 
 that the apostolical succession was with them alone, and to 
 assert authority, as if they themselves were apostles, over other 
 ministers. Against these claims, utterly without foundation in 
 the scriptures, or in the history of the church, this learned 
 father, second to none of that age, hurls his indignant rebukes, 
 and teaches the bishops that their order, as distinct from pres- 
 byters, was of recent date, founded on no divine appointment, 
 but merely on a custom of the church; and that, in point of 
 fact, they were nothing more or better, in the actual grade of 
 their ministry than presbyters, having no right whatever which 
 the presbyters had not conceded to them. 
 
 Coleman says truly, — Apost. and Prim. Church, p. 189, — 
 " The rights of presbyters to ordain, and the validity of pres- 
 byterian ordination were never called in question, until the 
 bishops began, about the middle of the third century, to assert 
 the doctrine of the apostolical succession." 
 
 We ask from our Episcopal brethren, clear evidence from the 
 first two centuries, that there was any recognized distinction 
 between bishops and presbyters, as to the grade of their min- 
 istry. A mere blazoning of the name " bishop," they must see, 
 can be of no avail in this argument. We know well enough 
 that there Avere those who were called bishops, but what is 
 that to us, or what weight can it have in this dispute. Let 
 them prove that these bishops were any thing more than the 
 pastors of the churches, the presiding presbyters. Let them 
 prove that they belonged to a distinct and pecuhar order; that 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 205 
 
 being presbyters, they were made bishops by a new ordina- 
 tion. They know that they can not prove this. It is all in 
 vain to challenge them to the proof of it. All that they can 
 give us, is the testimony of hierarchists like themselves, who 
 lived in those later times, when episcopacy had become gene- 
 rally prevalent ; testimony which we value no more than we 
 do that of hierarchists living now. If they can not give the 
 proof for which we ask, it is absurd for them, in the face of 
 proof which we bring, to deny, that in the times referred to, 
 presbyters ordained, and that by the original constitution of the 
 church, they were the sole ordainers. 
 
 Among the fathers of the first two centuries, our opponents 
 rely almost exclusively on Ignatius. That the real value of this 
 father's testimony may be understood, I refer the reader to the 
 article headed " The Ignatian Epistles," in my notice of Mr. 
 Schuyler's appendix. Among all the early christian writers, 
 no one is so little to be relied upon as a witness. I do not 
 mean to speak disrespectfully of Ignatius, but it is notorious 
 that forgeries innumerable have been committed upon his 
 name, and that his genuine works have been so obscured by 
 interpolations, that it is hardly possible to know what was 
 written by him, and what was not. Of the seven epistles now 
 ascribed to him, four are certainly doubtful^ and recent evidence 
 has been discovered which seems likely to divest them even of 
 the little authority which they have hitherto had. Neverthe- 
 less, let us examine our author's authorities from this father, and 
 see what, even admitting their genuineness, is their real value 
 to his cause. 
 
 First, he quotes from the epistles to the Magnesians : 
 " Seeing then that I have been judged worthy to see you, by 
 Damas, your most excellent bishop, and by your very worthy 
 presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius, and by my fellow-servant 
 Sotio, the deacon, in whom I rejoice, forasmuch as he is subject 
 unto his bishop, as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery 
 as to the law of Jesus Christ ; I determined to write unto you." 
 
206 THE CHURCH, 
 
 Now, will my brother so impose upon himself and his readers, 
 as to maintain that because, in the church of the Magnesians 
 there was a person whom they styled " bishop" with others 
 whom they called ^'presbyters''' and a deacon^ that therefore 
 the Magnesians had the episcopal government, as he under- 
 stands it! Was that bishop a prelate? was he of an order 
 distinct from the presbyters ? This is just the way in which 
 our brethren of the episcopal faith are ever reasoning. When 
 the writings of the apostles in the New Testament are con- 
 sidered, they have a boundless contempt for names. Then 
 they look at things and at nothing but things ; but the very mo- 
 ment they come to the fathei's, names become all-important^ 
 and for things they care nothing at all. There is absolutely 
 nothing in this passage from Ignatius, which can be tortured 
 into a significancy adverse to our doctrine, that, in the time of 
 this father, one elder, chosen by the people, was the minister of 
 the church under the name of president^ or bishop^ with no 
 distinction in his grade of office, from the other presbyters. 
 
 In my sermon, I quoted Ignatius as commending subjection 
 " to the presbytery as to the law of Christ,''^ in proof that pres- 
 byters, in his day, held the supreme authority in the church. 
 I refer the reader again to those very words in the passage 
 above cited by Mr. Schuyler, as proving what I affirmed in my 
 sermon that they proved. Who composed the presbytery ? 
 All the presbytei-s, undoubtedly, including him — who, as the 
 minister or presiding elder, was called bishop. Will our author 
 deny that the supreme authority was vested in that body ? 
 
 Ignatius commends Sotio, the deacon, for being " subject unto 
 his bishop, as to the grace of God." The bishop, as such, is 
 here spoken of as the pastor or spiritual teacher, and not as 
 the ruler. The words can not bear any other interpretation. 
 Sotio was subject to his bishop as a spiritual teacher, but " to 
 the presbytery " (not presbyters, as Mr. Schuyler has printed 
 it, through mistake, I suppose,) " as to the law of Jesus Christ. 
 Where did Ignatius understand the government to be ? Not 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 207 
 
 in the bishop, but in the 'presbytery. This is so plain, that it 
 can not be reasonably disputed. For an illustration of the 
 sense in which " subjection to the bishop as to the grace of 
 God " is to be understood, the reader may be referred to the 
 latter part of the fifth, and the first part of the sixth chapters 
 of 2 Corinthians. The apostle having described himself and 
 his fellow-apostles as entrusted with the ministry of reconcilia- 
 tion, and as being, in this respect, " embassadors for Christ," 
 says, " We then, as workers together with him, beseech you 
 also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain." As minis- 
 ters of the gospel, not as governors, they brought the grace of 
 God to men. It was committed to them for dispensation, as 
 preachers of it.' Subjection to them, or to any ministers, there- 
 fore, as to the grace of God, was subjection to them as God's 
 messengers, by believing and obeying the truth which they 
 preached. Very different is the idea conveyed, when we read 
 of subjection " to the presbytery^ as to the Jaw of Jesus ChristP 
 In the other case, it is subjection to a religious teacher; here 
 it is subjection to ecclesiastical governors. 
 
 Our author's next quotation is from the epistle of Ignatius 
 to the Trallians, — "He that is within the altar is pure, but he 
 that is without, i. e. that does any thing without the bishop, 
 and presbyters, and deacons, is not pure in his conscience." 
 Not to say any thing of the christian doctrine expressed in 
 this quotation, which, so far as it is plain, is very absurd, what 
 is gained for episcopacy by the mere occurrence of the terms 
 " bishop, and presbyters, and deacons ? " Every well organized 
 Presbyterian church, at the present day, has a "bishop, and 
 presbyters, and deacons." Was the bishop of whom Ignatius 
 speaks, a diocesan bishop or prelate ? What kind of a bishop 
 was he ? That is the question. We have heaped proof upon 
 proof that the bishops of those days were mere presbyters^ 
 chosen from among their fellow-presbyters to occupy the chief 
 place, to conduct public worship, and administer the sacraments, 
 and that they were not reordained. It is positively sickening 
 
208 THE CHURCH, 
 
 to have such testimonies as these forever crowded before us, 
 when our opponents, must know that they determine nothing. 
 
 This is the character of all the testimony from Ignatius. He 
 speaks often of bishops, and very extravagantly of the dignity 
 of their office, and often speaks of them in connection with 
 presbyters and deacons, but never once affirms any thing from 
 which it can be inferred that bishops belonged to a higher and 
 distinct order in the ministry. His language is always such as 
 a very high-church Presbyterian, filled with extravagant and 
 absurd notions respecting ministerial authority, would be likely 
 to use. 
 
 Mr. Schuyler says, in support of the authority of Ignatius, 
 that " Poly carp, in his letter to the Philippians, indorses all 
 that Ignatius wrote." He can not mean to say that Polycarp 
 endorses the seven epistles. Does Polycarp endorse the epistle 
 to the Magnesians ? or the epistle to the Trallians ? or the epis- 
 tles to the Smyrnaeans, and the Philadelphians ? He endorses 
 three; one to the Romans, one to the Ephesians, and one to 
 himself, but no more; and there is no evidence in all his 
 writings that he ever knew of another. It is therefore, 
 extremely unfair, to say the least of it, in our author, having, 
 with a single exception, made all his quotations from the 
 epistles which Polycarp never once alludes to, to sustain them 
 by Polycarp's testimony respecting only the three. 
 
 Ireneus is quoted by Mr. S., as sa}4ng, — " We can reckon up 
 those whom the apostles ordained to be bishops in the several 
 churches, and who they were that succeeded them, down to our 
 time. And had the apostles known any hidden mysteries, 
 which they imparted to none but the perfect, as the heretics 
 pretend, they would have committed them to those men to 
 whom they committed the churches themselves; for they 
 desired to have those in all things perfect and unreprovable, 
 whom they left to be their successors, and to whom they com- 
 mitted the apostolic authority." " What proof," says Mr. S., 
 "can we desire more positive than this, that the bishops 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 209 
 
 were successors of the apostles, and invested with apostoHc 
 authority ? " 
 
 Better proof, we say, could not be desired. Our author is 
 quite right; but then that troublesome question ccmes up 
 again, — " What does Ireneus mean by bishops ? Does he mean 
 an order of ministers distinct from presbyters, and above them? 
 What kind of bishops did the apostles place in the churches ? 
 If we will allow them to testify for themselves, the question is 
 easily settled. In their time it is confessed that the bishops 
 were simple presbyters. Ireneus explains his own meaning in 
 the section just preceding the one from which our author's 
 extract is taken. The passage has been quoted once, but I will 
 quote it again here. Speaking of certain heretics, he says, — 
 " When we refer them to that apostolic tradition, which is 
 preserved in the churches, through the succession of their 
 PRESBYTERS, tliesc uicu oppose the tradition; pretending that, 
 being more wise than not only the presbyters, but the 
 apostles themselves, they have found the uncorrupted truth." 
 The Sz'sA ops, therefore, whom the apostles ordained over the 
 churches, and whom they invested with their authority, were 
 mere presbyters, according to the understanding of Ireneus 
 himself. 
 
 " To the same efiect," Mr. S. continues to say, " speaks Ter- 
 tullian, who clearly recognizes the three orders." To the same 
 effect also, is our reply. Tertullian certainly speaks of bishops 
 who were placed over the churches by the apostles, or by apos- 
 tolic men, {i. e. those evangelists who acted as assistants of the 
 apostles,) and he speaks of a succession of these bishops, but 
 does he tell us that they were a distinct order in the ministry ? 
 Not at all. He tells us plainly that they were not a distinct 
 order in the ministry. He says, — De Bapt. c. 1 7, — "The 
 highest priest^ who is the bishop, has the right of granting 
 baptism; afterwaid, the presbyter and deacons; not, however, 
 without the authority of the bishop, for the honor of the 
 church." He is speaking here of the rules, or customs of 
 
210 THE CHURCH, 
 
 religious service in a single congregation. His expression, 
 " the highest priest," implies the existence of inferiors of the 
 same order ; and comparing his language with other testimo- 
 nies of that time, it is perfectly undeniable that the bishop^ of 
 whom he speaks, is only a presbyter raised to the office of 
 president, or pastor. 
 
 " Tertullian^'' says Coleman, "represents the African division 
 of the church, in which the episcopal government was earliest 
 developed; but even in these churches, the apostolical order 
 had not yet been fully superseded by the hierarchy. The sum 
 of his testimony, as well as of that of all who had gone before 
 him, (he flourished A. D. 200,) is, that there was but one order 
 in the church superior to that of the deacons. The gov- 
 ernment of the church was, in his time, in a transition state. 
 He stands, as has been justly observed, ' on the boundary be- 
 tween two different epochs in the development of the church.' 
 Henceforth, the bishop assumes more prominence, but as yet he 
 has not begun to be acknowledged as one of an order superior 
 to the presbyters." 
 
 Tertullian, our author says, "recognizes the three orders." 
 What is the proof that Tertullian recognizes the three orders ? 
 Simply this, that he speaks of bishops, presbyters, and deacons. 
 If the mere use of these different names of office, proves that 
 there were three orders of the ministry in the ancient church, 
 then might it not be proved in the same way, that there are 
 three orders of the ministry in the Presbyterian church now ? 
 for we also have bishops, presbyters, and deacons. In the 
 English church, there are archbishops, bishops, presbyters, arch- 
 deacons, and deacons. Might it not, on the same principle, be 
 argued that there are five orders of the ministry in that church ? 
 The reasoning would be false, for it is known that diflferent 
 titles of office are given to persons belonging to the same order. 
 Precisely so, we affirm, that different titles of office are given 
 by Tertullian and other ancient writers to persons belonging to 
 the same ministerial order. Tertullian and others may speak 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 211 
 
 of bishops, presbyters, and deacons,, but this proves nothing. 
 We want specific evidence, which can not be furnished, that 
 bishops and presbyters were distinct in the grade of their min- 
 istry. While no evidence is produced that they were so, we 
 are able to produce it, in a perfect abundance, that they were 
 not. What our author cites as proof, therefore, is no proof at 
 all. His conclusion is the merest possible assumption. 
 
 His next witness is Cyprian, who flourished in Africa, about 
 the middle of the third century. We do not deny that at this 
 time, and especially in Africa, the original and apostolical order 
 of church government, was, to a very considerable extent, dis- 
 placed. Cyprian was himself the most violent advocate of 
 episcopal authority in his time ; and, more than any one else, is 
 chargeable w4th the innovations which were then introduced. 
 But he was not unresisted in his usurpations. The passage 
 quoted by Mr. Schuyler, shows how he was opposed, and how 
 the presbyters, even so late as the middle of the third century, 
 and in Africa^ contended for their rights. He complains that 
 " the presbyters," " in disdain of the bishop's rule," " assumed 
 to themselves unlimited power," and seems to be filled with 
 indignation against them for their presumption. The passage 
 which our author has cited, instead of making for his cause, is 
 directly against it ; inasmuch as it proves most conclusively that 
 our representation ^f the state of things in Cyprian's time is 
 just: that episcopacy, instead of being established, was only 
 struggling for an estabhshment ; that the bishops and presby- 
 ters were at strife, — the latter to preserve their ancient privi- 
 leges, and the former to secure a monarchical ascendency. 
 
 With all Cyprian's high claims for bishops, and arrogation 
 of exclusive authority for them, it is a fact well attested that, 
 in times of serious difficulty, he did often come down from his 
 elevation, and condescend to admit them to a participation in 
 the exercise of governmental powers. Under the pressure of a 
 necessity, he could give up his unwarrantable pretensions, and 
 
212 THE CHURCH, 
 
 consent to act with presbyters, as one of them. The proof of 
 this has been elsewhere aftbrded. 
 
 Our author concludes his notice of ancient authorities with 
 an attemj)t to explain away the testimony of Jerome. He says, 
 page 95 — "The passage on which they (Presbyterians) place 
 the most stress, is simply an expression of opinion on the part of 
 St. Jerome. It is not his testimony as to the fact whether, in 
 his day, bishops were an order superior to the presbyters, but 
 the expression of his belief that very early in the church it 
 became necessary, to prevent schisms, to place one^ chosen from 
 among the presbyters, over the rest ; that the whole care of the 
 church should be committed to him." To prove this, Mr. S. 
 quotes a passage which, as he quotes it, is not the strong pas- 
 sage on which we chiefly rely. What says Jerome ? Having 
 stated the fact that originally presbyters and bishops were one 
 and the same, he adds, " Should any one think that this is my 
 'private opinion^ and not the doctrine of the scriptures, let him 
 read the words of the apostle," &c. Further on, he says — 
 " Our intention in these remarks is to show, that, among the 
 ancients, presbyters and bishops were the very same ; but 
 that, by little and little^ that the plants of dissensions might be 
 plucked up, the whole concern was devolved upon an individual. 
 As the presbyters, therefore, know (a mere opinion, was it ?) 
 that they are subjected, by the custom op t5e church, to him 
 that is set over them, so let the bishops know that they are 
 greater than the presbyters more by custom than by any real 
 
 APPOINTMENT OF ChRIST." 
 
 We admit that in Jerome's time, A. D. 377, bishops were 
 superior to presbyters. The very passage which we quote 
 proves it. It is to no purpose, therefore, that Mr. S. quotes 
 other passages from this father, to establish that point. Jerome, 
 testifying as to the primitive constitution of the church, and 
 the historical fact of the orginal equality of bishops and presby- 
 ters, is one thing ; and Jerome, testifying of the state of things 
 in the church, at his time^ is another. Jerome, testifying of the 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 213 
 
 superiority of bisliops over presbyters, at the end of the fourth 
 century, is a very different affair from Jerome testifying of the 
 manner in which that superiority had been obtained, by the 
 
 CUSTOM OF THE CHURCH, and NOT BY ANY REAL APPOINTMENT 
 
 OF Christ ! We do not cite this father as a witness of the 
 form of church polity in his own day, but as a witness of what 
 in his day was known in regard to the early polity of 
 the church, and the manner in which the polity then 
 EXISTING had been INTRODUCED. He is the witness of what, 
 in his day, were well understood historical facts. 
 
 Not one of the authorities which our author has furnished, 
 helps his cause in the least. He has produced absolutely noth- 
 ing which goes to show that, during the first two centuries, 
 bishops were regarded as composing a distinct order in the 
 ministry, — and no evidence of this has ever been furnished by 
 any writer. The whole amount of the proof consists of the 
 mere fact, that some of the writers of that age use the name 
 " bishop," and that they speak of " bishops, presbyters, and dea- 
 cons," without affording a hint, even, that there was any 
 inequality of rank, as ministers, between the two first-named 
 classes of persons. Of prelacy and diocesanship they find no 
 signs, till they come down to a period in which we have never 
 denied that the primitive and apostolical order of church gov- 
 ernment had begun to be crowded out by episcopal usurpations. 
 
 In reference to what we alledge and prove of the change 
 which took place in the polity of the christian church after 
 the close of the second century, Mr, S. observes, page 102, — 
 " Surely the Presbyterian form of government must have been 
 essentially defective, which could admit of an entire change in 
 the organization of the church, in so short a time." A little 
 further on, he adds, " But the strangest of all, my brethren, is, 
 that so great a change could have been made ; a change affect- 
 ing the essential constitution of the church, and within the 
 short space of forty years, and not a record of this astonishing 
 
214 THE CHURCH, 
 
 revolution be found upon a single page of our ecclesiastical 
 history." 
 
 What does he mean by " our ecclesiastical history ? " Does 
 he mean the ecclesiastical histories written by prelatists ? We 
 should hardly expect to find the record of which he speaks on 
 their pages. There are ecclesiastical histories, however, in 
 abundance, on whose pages the record may be found. Mo- 
 sheim, beyond all comparison, until recently, the ablest and 
 most learned historian of the church that ever wrote, traces 
 that revolution with the utmost minuteness in all its successive 
 steps. Gieseler does the same ; and Neander, now the acknow- 
 ledged prince in this department of literature, throws such a 
 flood of light upon this subject, that whoever reads him must 
 be blind to doubt. Where do Mosheim and Gieseler and 
 Neander obtain their information ? From the sources of all 
 church history, — the New Testament and the authentic writings 
 of each succeeding age. How do we know that such a revolu- 
 tion did actually occur ? By comparing the form of church 
 government, as it appears in the writings of the apostles and 
 the fathers of the first two centuries, with the form of church 
 government as it appears in the writings of the ages following. 
 Could there be a more direct and reliable method of getting at 
 the truth ? 
 
 Says Dr. Mason, in his book on Episcopacy, page 220, — 
 " The United States are a republic, with a single executive, 
 periodically chosen. Suppose that three hundred years hence, 
 they should be under the reign of a hereditary monarch, and 
 the question should then be started whether this was the origi- 
 nal order or not? Those who favor the negative, go back to 
 the written constitution, framed in 1787, and show that a 
 hereditary monarchy was never contemplated in that instrument. 
 Others contend that, " The expressions of the constitution are 
 indefinite; there are some things, indeed, which look a little 
 republican-like, and might be accommodated to the infant state 
 of the nation ; but whoever shall consider the purposes of the 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 215 
 
 order tlierein prescribed, and the nature of the powers therein 
 gi-anted, will clearly perceive that the one can not be at- 
 tained, nor the other exercised, but in a hereditary monarchy." 
 Well, the constitution is produced ; it is examined again and 
 again, but no hereditary monarchy is recognized there; it 
 breathes republicanism throughout. What, now, would be 
 thought of a man who should gravely answer, — " The concur- 
 rent testimony of all the historians of those times is, that at, or 
 very shortly after the death of the members of the convention 
 of 1787, monarchy prevailed throughout the United States; 
 and this is proof positive that it was established by the 
 convention ? " 
 
 " Nay," the first would rejoin, " your facts are of no avail. 
 The question is not, what prevailed after the constitution was 
 adopted, but what is the constitution itself? There it is; let 
 it argue its own cause." 
 
 " But," says the other, " how could so great a change, as that 
 from a republic to a monarchy, happen in so short a time ? and 
 without resistance ; or, what is still more astonishing, without 
 notice ? " 
 
 " You may settle that," retorts the first, " at your leisure. 
 That there has been a material change, I see as clearly as the 
 light; how that change was effected is none of my concern. 
 It is enough for me that the constitution, fairly interpreted, 
 knows nothing of the existing monarchy." 
 
 "Every child can perceive who would have the best of the 
 argument, and it is just such an argument that we are man- 
 aging with the Episcopalians." 
 
 Again. Dr. Mason says, page 240 — " Nothing can be more 
 pointless and pithless than the declamation * * * on the 
 change which took place in the original order of the church. 
 They assume a false fact, to wit, that the change must have 
 happened, if it happened at all, instantaneously: and then 
 they expatiate with great vehemence on the impossibility of 
 such an event. This is mere noise. The change was not 
 
216 THE CHURCH, 
 
 instantaneous, nor sudden. The testimony of Jerome, which 
 declares that it was gradual, has sprung a mine under the very- 
 foundation of their edifice, and blown it into the air. Were we 
 inclined to take up more of the reader's time on this topic, we 
 might turn their own Aveapon, such as it is, against themselves. 
 They do not pretend that archbishops, patriarchs, and primates 
 are of apostolical institution. They will not so insult the 
 understandings and the senses of men, as to maintain that these 
 officers have no more power than simple bishops. Where, 
 then, were all the principles of adherence to apostolic order, 
 when these creatures of human policy made their entrance into 
 the church ? Among whom were the daring innovators to be 
 found ? Where was the learning of the age ? Where its spirit 
 of piety, and its zeal of martyrdom ? Where were the presby- 
 ters? Where the bishops? What! all, all turned traitors at 
 once? All, all conspire to abridge their own rights, and sub- 
 mit their necks to the new-made superiors ? What ! none to 
 reclaim or remonstrate ? Absurd ! Incredible ! Impossible ! 
 These questions, and a thousand like them, might be asked by 
 an advocate for the divdne right of patriarchs, with as much 
 propriety and force as they are asked by the advocates of the 
 simpler episcopacy. And so, by vociferating on abstract prin- 
 ciples, the evidence of men's eyes and ears is to be overturned, 
 and they are to believe that there are not now, and never have 
 been such things as archbishops, patriarchs, or primates, in the 
 christianized world ; seeing that by the assumption of the argu- 
 ment, they have no divine original ; and by its terms they could 
 not have been introduced by mere human contrivance. 
 
 " To return to Jerome. The prelatists being unable to evade 
 his testimony concerning the change which was effected in the 
 original order of the church, would persuade us that he means 
 a change brought about by the authority of the apostles them- 
 selves P (See Mr. Schuyler, j^p. 96, 97.) " But the subterfuge 
 is unavailing. 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 217 
 
 " (1.) It alledges a conjectural tradition against the authority 
 of the written scriptures, for no trace of a change can be seen 
 there. 
 
 " (2.) It overthrows completely all the proof drawn for the 
 hierarchy from the apostolic records. For if this change was 
 introduced by the apostles after their canonical writings were 
 closed, then it is vain to seek for it in their writings. The 
 consequence is, that the hierarchists must either retreat from the 
 New Testament, or abandon Jerome. 
 
 " (3.) It makes this intelligent father a downright fool — to 
 plead apostolic authority for the original equality of ministers ; 
 and, in the same breath, to produce that same authority for the 
 inequality which he was resisting ! 
 
 " (4.) To crown the whole, it tells us that the apostles having 
 fixed, under the influence of divine inspiration, an order for the 
 church, found, upon a few years trial, that it would not do, and 
 were obliged to mend it; only they forgot to apprise the 
 churches of the alteration ; and so left the exploded order in 
 the rule of faith, and the new order out of it ; depositing the 
 commission of the prelates with that kind foster-mother of the 
 hierarchy, tradition/ '''' 
 
 Mr. Schuyler speaks of this change as taking place " in the 
 short space of forty yearsP This is to make it appear the 
 more incredible. The truth is, that we discover no traces of 
 the change until after the first two hundred years, a century at 
 least after the death of the last apostle ;* and during the whole 
 of the next century we do not find the change " perfected." 
 The entire period of the third and fourth centuries even, may 
 be described as a period of conflict between the primitive 
 and the prelatic forms of church polity, in which the latter 
 gained more and more the ascendency. It was a very long 
 time, before the church fully succumbed under episcopal usur- 
 pation. Many presbyters, like Cyprian's in Carthage, continued 
 to struggle for their ancient rights ; and many an honest voice 
 like St. Jerome's was raised, for many a year, in defense of the 
 11 
 
218 THE CHURCH, 
 
 ancient order ; but the power of the bishops, sustained by their 
 influence over the uneducated masses, and at length by civil 
 rulers, finally prevailed, and the hierarchy stretched its arms 
 over the christian world, coercing every thing into a tame sub- 
 mission to its will. Then, as the crowning scene of the same 
 revolution, appeared the papacy ; and then, denser and darker, 
 and more intolerable, grew that dreadful night, already begun, 
 which for twelve hundred years hung over the church and 
 the world. 
 
 As to the idea that " the Presbyterian form of church gov- 
 ernment must have been essentially defective, to admit of an 
 entire change in so short a space of time," it is to be remarked, 
 that our author assumes for us a claim which we do not make. 
 We do not affirm that the primitive and apostolical order of 
 the church was Presbyterian, in the present denominational 
 sense of that term, as he seems inclined to intimate, but simply 
 that it was presbyterial, i. e. established, so far as the ministry 
 was concerned, upon the great principle oi parity. For what is 
 properly the presbyterian form of church government, we sim- 
 ply maintain, that while in some respects it exists now under 
 modifications, adapted, as we think wisely, to the present state 
 of the church and of the world, it holds incorporated in itself 
 all the great and essential features of the apostolical institution. 
 
 If, in the wisdom of the men of the third and fourth centu- 
 ries, the presbyterial order was judged to be defective, in not 
 presenting sufficient barriers against the inroads of heresy and 
 schism, it needs only to be remembered how sad a remedy 
 that proved to be, which their wisdom, setting itself above the 
 wisdom of God, devised. Whether the remedy proved not 
 worse than the disease, let the long ages of darkness, and of 
 hierarchical despotism, and depravity that ensued, bear witness. 
 
 Whether I have succeeded in establishing my point, the right 
 of presbyters, according to the original constitution of the 
 church, to ordain, I am willing to submit to the candid and 
 intelligent reader. 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 219 
 
 I shall conclude this part of my subject with remarking, that 
 until very recently, the divine right of episcopacy was a pre- 
 tension almost unheard of among Protestant Episcopalians. The 
 view which we have given of its origin, was the view almost 
 universally entertained in England, by intelhgent men at the 
 time of the reformation, and has been from that day down to 
 the present time, until the comparatively recent revival of the 
 Romish spirit in the English church. All the prdminent Eng- 
 lish reformers agreed with Cranmer, in his opinion formally 
 expressed in writing, that " the bishops and priests were at one 
 time 07ie, and were no two things, but both one office in the 
 beginning of Christ's religion." Later, when Charles First con- 
 sulted with Lords Jermyn and Culpepper, and Mr. Ashburn- 
 ham, all three Episcopalians, on the subject of the proposed act 
 of parhament for abolishing episcopacy, and signified that he 
 had conscientious scruples against giving it his assent, they re- 
 plied, " If by conscie7ice^ your meaning is that you are obliged 
 to do all in your power to support and maintain the functions 
 of the bishops, as that which is the most ancient, reverend, and 
 pious government of the church, we fully and heartily concur 
 with you therein. But if by conscience, it is intended to assert 
 that episcopacy, is jure divino exclusive, whereby no protestant 
 (or rather christian) church can be acknowledged for such with- 
 out a bishop, we must therein crave leave wholly to differ. 
 And if We be not in error, we are in good company ; there not 
 being (as we have cause to believe) six^ persons of the protes- 
 tant religion of the other opinion. Thus much we can add, 
 that, at the treaty of Uxbridge, none of your divines then pre- 
 sent, though much provoked thereunto, would maintain that 
 (we might say uncharitable) opinion ; no, not privately among 
 your commissioners." 
 
 Bishop White, whom all good men revered, in a pamphlet 
 entitled " The Case of the Episcopal Church in the United 
 States, Considered," has the following language, which I quote 
 in this connection, on the authority of Rev. Wm. C. Wisner: 
 
220 THE CHURCH, 
 
 " Now, if even those who hold episcopacy to be of divine right, 
 conceive the obligation to it not to be binding, when that idea 
 would be destructive of public worship, much more must they 
 think so, who indeed venerate and prefer that form as the most 
 ancient and eligible, hut ivithout any idea of divine right in the 
 case. This, the author beheves to be the sentiment of the great 
 body of Episcopahans in America ; in which respect they have 
 in their favor, unquestionably^ the sense of the church of Eng- 
 land, and, as he believes, the opinions of her most distinguished 
 prelates for piety and abilitiesr 
 
 The recent changes of sentiment among Episcopalians, and 
 especially among the Episcopal clergy in this country and in 
 E no-land, are ominous. The tendency toward Rome, evinced, 
 not only by the growing popularity of Romish opinions, but by 
 the matured result of innumerable perversions to the Romish 
 faith, becoming every year more frequent, is well calculated to 
 awaken the most alarming apprehensions. Romanists are in 
 raptures, and begin to congratulate themselves that the day is 
 now near at hand, when the Episcopal section of Protestantdom 
 at least, shall be brought back to the bosom of their church. 
 Very recently, the Roman Catholic bishop of Buffalo, passing 
 by the new and elegant church edifice now in process of erec- 
 tion for the parish of St. Paul's, in this city, is reported to have 
 said to a gentleman who was with him, — " That is well. They 
 are building churches for us. We shall have them all in a few 
 years." I do not believe that the bishop's expectations will be 
 fully realized. God forbid that they should be. Yet if this 
 calamity is to be avoided, there must be a speedy arrest of the 
 refluent tide of opinions and sympathies in the Episcopal church. 
 Let come a few more years, with the unchecked growth of 
 such influences as have prevailed for twenty years past, and the 
 work will be done. The bishop's prediction will come to pass, 
 and Rome will have the churches. It is notorious, that senti- 
 ments are boldly avowed, and usages practised, by vast numbers 
 of the Episcopal clergy, without exciting any more than a 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 221 
 
 passing remark, which, a few years ago, would have been met 
 with indignant frowns, and the severest ecclesiastical censure. 
 It is perfectly amazing to see with what celerity and force the 
 Oxford leaven has diffused itself. It is one of the most signifi- 
 cant tokens of these times, and we wait with the profoundest 
 interest to know what the result shall be. 
 
 THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 
 
 In all essential respects, the question concerning the apostol- 
 ical succession has been disposed of already. If it has been 
 made evident, that the apostles, as such, were not to be suc- 
 ceeded, that their office was personal and temporary, in its very 
 nature, and by design of Christ, then the fact of a succession 
 must fall, of course, with the doctrine. 
 
 Says our author, page 1 1 3, — "We think we have established, 
 in our preceding discourses, upon the authority of scripture and 
 the ancient fathers, that there were three orders of ministers in 
 the church, distinguished by a gradation of rights and powers ; 
 that these were known immediately after the apostolic age, by 
 their respective names of bishops, priests or presbyters, and 
 deacons; and that the bishops alone succeeded to the apostolic 
 office, being alone empowered, as were Timothy and Titus, to 
 perpetuate the ministry and to govern the church. It follows, 
 therefore, that all who claim to act as the ministers of Jesus 
 Christ in his church, either as bishops, presbyters, or dea- 
 cons, must have a verifiable commission from those who were 
 empowered to bestow it ; that is, must he episcopally ordained. 
 
 The error of this statement, so far as relates to the point in 
 hand, lies in the assumption of what never has been, and never 
 can be proved, but has been disproved a thousand times : that 
 bishops are a distinct order in the ministry of the christian 
 churchy and that they have succeeded to the apostolic office. 
 
222 THE CHURCH, 
 
 A false doctrine is assumed, and an inference of falsehood is 
 derived from it. 
 
 Having stated his doctrine as above, our author goes on 
 to say: 
 
 " There is no escaping from such a requisition," (^. e. of pre- 
 latical ordination,) " unless we deny the divine authority of the 
 ministry altogether, and assume the position that Christ left the 
 church without any authorized rulers, to be moulded and 
 governed by the caprice of men." 
 
 We can not see that such a consequence would be the result. 
 It seems to us, and we think it will seem to any one who is 
 capable of looking at more than one side of this subject, that 
 all the conditions of a divine right in the christian ministry, are 
 as well secured by our doctrine of a presbyterial succession 
 from the apostles, regarding them as the first presbyters, as by 
 the doctrine of our opponents. 
 
 Does it follow, from our denying that the apostles ordained 
 other apostles, that we must also deny that they ordained other 
 ministers? And if they ordained other ministers to take their 
 places, in the ordinary and permanent ministry of the church, 
 with authority to ordain others in perpetual succession, did 
 they not then provide an apostolical ministry for all ages, just 
 as really, and a thousand times more effectually and certainly, 
 than they would have done on the different supposition of pre- 
 latists ? The alternative, which we are told is alone left to us, 
 if we reject the episcopal theory, is a mere fancy of our author, 
 betraying how little study or thought he has ever bestowed 
 upon this subject. When, on a former occasion, puzzled with 
 the ordination of Timothy by the presbytery, he deemed it 
 important to recognize the fact, that the apostles were also 
 presbyters, then that fact appeared to be one of the mere com- 
 mon-places of his varied understanding; but now, with the 
 turning up of another difficulty, the circumstances are changed, 
 and it seems to have entirely passed from his recollection. 
 Now, the apostles were apostles merely, and if they did not 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 223 
 
 perpetuate their, apostlesliip they did not perpetuate any thing ; 
 so that the succession of the ministry which Christ appointed for 
 his church, terminated with them, and the church was left with 
 out any authorized rulers, to be moulded and governed by the 
 caprice of men ! " 
 
 Under the hallucination of this capital mistake, our author 
 has constructed his entire argument, if argument it may be 
 called, on this subject. 
 
 If by " the apostolical succession," is meant a succession of 
 the christian ministry from the apostles, or from those first 
 ministers of our Lord who were also apostles, we believe in it 
 with our whole heart. If, however, a succession of apostles is 
 meant, we laugh at it as most absurd and impossible, and can 
 only wonder at the infatuation of those who do not join with 
 us in our merriment. 
 
 No argument for an uninterrupted presbyterial succession, or 
 what is equivalent to it, from the apostles, that is, from the men 
 who were the first presbyters, and who received their presby- 
 terial authority in the church from Christ himself, can be 
 required of us. It might be necessary, if we w^ere arguing with 
 infidels, but can not be in an argument with Episcopalians ; for, 
 on only the same principles which they employ in demonstrating 
 the fact of their succession, ours is a thousand fold more 
 demonstrable than theirs. We recognize principles, however? 
 applicable to this subject, growing out of our different ^iews of 
 the nature of ordination, by which the difiiculties that must 
 forever embarrass any succession, as a fact to be historically 
 proved, extending through so long a period of time, are all fully 
 relieved. Belie\dng, as they do, in the actual, and not the sym- 
 bolic impartation of grace by ordination; believing, that the 
 bishop's hands do really communicate it, and that this grace, as 
 a substantial holy ichor, first imparted by Christ to his apostles, 
 has flowed down from them through a series of manual impo- 
 sitions, in such a sense, that from one break in the channel 
 it would be irrecoverably lost, unless restored by a miracle; 
 
224 THE CHURCH, 
 
 believing so, their succession is certainly one of tlie most aston- 
 ishing chimeras that tl»e human mind ever conceived of as a 
 reality. I do not wonder that every argumentation on its behalf 
 should end as these argumentations invariably do, with an 
 appeal from the reader's power of understanding to his power 
 of believing, and that we should be required, on the assumption 
 of the doctrine, to credit the fact as a prodigy referable to the 
 almighty power and faithfulness of God. 
 
 That I do not mis-state or over-state the Episcopal doctrine 
 on this subject, the reader may be satisfied by a few extracts 
 from their approved authors. 
 
 Bisho}^ Beveridge says, — see his works, vol. 2, Serm. on 
 Christ's presence with his ministry, — " The apostolical line hath, 
 through all ages, been preserved entire, there having been a 
 constant succession of such bishops in it, as were truly and prop- 
 erly successors to the apostles, by virtue of the imposition 
 of hands, which being begun by the apostles, hath been con- 
 tinued from one to another, ever since their time down to ours. 
 By which means, the same spirit which was breathed by our 
 Lord into his apostles, is, together with their office transmitted 
 to their lawful successors, the pastors and governors of our 
 church at this time ; and acts, moves, and assists, at the 
 administration of the apostolic office, in our days, as much 
 
 AS EVER." 
 
 The mysterious sacramental virtue of ordination, as a means 
 of communicating grace, and the miraculous presence of the 
 Holy Ghost with the bishops of the Episcopal church now, as 
 really as with the apostles of old, are here stated in tei-ms too 
 plain to be misunderstood. One can not forbear expressing a 
 regret, that so little practical evidence has ever been afforded of 
 the justice of these pretensions. 
 
 Says Dr. Chandler, — See " Appeal on Behalf of the Church 
 of England in America," — "If the succession be once lost, 
 not all the men on earth, not all the angels in heaven, without 
 an immediate commission from Christ, can restore it." 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 225 
 
 The same view is impliedly expressed by Chapin^ as quoted 
 in appendix D, page 209, of Mr. Schuyler's book. 
 
 By the Episcopal doctrine of apostolical succession, the whole 
 grace of God to men is deposited with the bishops, so that if 
 the line of bishops should fail, the church would be destroyed, 
 and the entire work of human salvation would cease. See 
 Chapin, as referred to above. They constitute the sole channel 
 through which the divine mercy flows to the successive genera- 
 tions of earth ; and that, not as mere agents, by whom the 
 word of hfe is dispensed, for this would put them on a level 
 with ordinary ministers ; but the very life is with them. They 
 are dispensers, not especially of the message of grace, but of 
 grace itself. Christ lives in the church in their persons, and 
 acts solely with, and through them, and with and through those 
 to whom they impart the heavenly gift. 
 
 Bishop B. T. OnderdonTe, himself a striking commentary on 
 the doctrine, says, — see his "Address on Unity," — " None but 
 the bishops can unite us to the Father, in the way of Christ's 
 appointment ; and these bishops must be such as receive their 
 commissions from the first commissioned apostles. Wherever 
 such bishops are found dispensing the faith and sacraments of 
 Christ, there is a true church; unsound, it may be, like the 
 church of Rome, but still, a real and true church; as a sick or 
 diseased man, though unsound, is still a real and true man." 
 
 Dr. Hook, author of " The Three Reformations," is quoted by 
 Smyth, in his " Lectures on the Apostolical Succession," page 
 105, as saying, — "Unless Christ be spiritually present with the 
 ministers of religion in their services, those services will be vain. 
 But the only ministrations to which he has promised his pres- 
 ence^ are those of bishops, who are successors to the first 
 commissioned apostles, and to the other clergy acting under 
 THEIR saiiction, and by their authority^ 
 
 Dr. Dodwell is quoted in the same place, by Smyth, from 
 the " New York Churchman," as using this language, — " None 
 but the BISHOPS can unite us to the Father and the Son. 
 11* 
 
226 THE CHURCH, 
 
 Whence it will follow, that whoever is disunited from the visible 
 communion of the church on earthy and particularly /rom 
 the visible communion of the bishops, must consequently be 
 disunited from the whole visible catholic church on earth, and 
 not only so, but from the in^dsible communion of the holy 
 angels and saints in heaven, and, what is yet more, from Christ 
 and 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, and from the glory of his power. 
 The SAME is their condition, also, who are disunited from Christ 
 By being disunited from his visible representative^ 
 
 These are but specimens, selected pretty much at random, 
 from a great variety of similar representations, that I have 
 before me. They serve sufficiently to exhibit the doctrine. 
 
 Can any man have doubts respecting the origin of this 
 doctrine of apostolical succession? Who does not instantly 
 recognize it as a part of that system of cunningly devised 
 priest-craft and imposture, by which the hierarchy has ever 
 sought to enslave the human mind, and to establish the iron 
 yoke of its desp'otism on the necks of all people ? I do not 
 charge our Episcopal brethren with any such designs; but I do 
 charge them with seeking, conscientiously it may be, to per- 
 petuate a doctrine begun in fraud, and used in all ages since, 
 for the most oppressive and man-debasing purposes. Whence 
 did the church of Rome derive her monstrous power to tyran- 
 nize over the world, and to hold men's very souls in subjection 
 to her will, but from this same dogma of the apostolical suc- 
 cession ? The BISHOPS ALONE can unite us to the Father ! To 
 be disunited from the bishops, is to be disunited from God 
 and Christ, and this is to be damned ! The way to God is 
 by Christ, and the way to Christ is by the bishops, or by the 
 other clergy acting under their sanction, and by their author- 
 ity ! It is not by believing and obeying the truth, as it is re- 
 vealed in the glorious gospel of the blessed God, that we are to 
 escape the most dreadful aggravations of the condition 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 227 
 
 OF THE DAMNED ; but it is by submitting to tlie bishop, or to 
 his authorized representative, the priest ! This is the doctrine. 
 God approaches us only through these agents. The divine 
 fountain of hfe is utterly and forever inaccessible to us. The 
 bishops and their subordinate ministers, the priests, must 
 convey to us those living waters, or we can never drink them ! 
 They are the medium of all gracious communication with us 
 poor sinners; the sole conduits through which the streams of 
 salvation must flow to us, or never flow to us at all ! The 
 bishops, in long lines of unbroken succession, each line begin- 
 ning at Christ, and receiving from him the true vital element, 
 convey it down from hand to hand by an endless series of 
 mystical manipulations, and we, to receive it, must go to them, or 
 go without for ever ! They, at the farther extremities of their 
 several lines, lay hold on God ; upon whom, if we would lay 
 hold also, we must lay hold on them ! Where are we then ? 
 Good Lord dehver us ! We are in the power of the bishops, 
 sure enough, and there is nothing left for us but to bow or 
 burn. Voluntary separation from the bishops is voluntary 
 exclusion from all good ! The bishop's anathema is the curse 
 of God ! The bishop's sentence of excommunication damns 
 the soul! 
 
 The Episcopal doctrine of the apostolical succession amounts 
 to this, and there is no help for it. It is the very kernel of the 
 whole system of popish abominations. Can it be that such a 
 doctrine is maintained in this enlightened and free country, in 
 the nineteenth century, and by Protestants ? Must it be argued 
 against, to prevent it from spreading among men who have 
 bibles ? I can not think that, of the Episcopal laity, one in a 
 hundred really believes it. Why do they bear with such folly ? 
 Why do they lend their influence, even indirectly, to the sup- 
 port of that, which, folly though it be, and now little else than 
 a harmless theory of their clergy, may one day become a most 
 powerful engine of spiritual oppression, under which their de- 
 scendants, if not themselves, shall groan in a miserable and 
 
228 THE CHURCH, 
 
 hopeless bondage? Such wretched, yet dangerous nonsense 
 ought to meet with strenuous rebukers among EpiscopaUans 
 themselves. Intelligent laymen should let their bishops and 
 rectors know, that it is altogether too late for priests even to 
 assert such pretensions, and that they will not be tolerated. I 
 wonder at their forbearance. 
 
 THE WORSHIP OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 Mr. Schuyler's fifth lecture is devoted to a discussion of " the 
 authority and expediency of forms of prayer for public wor- 
 ship." He regards the subject as one of great importance, and 
 thinks that Episcopalians ought " to settle the question, whether 
 the church has any scriptural basis on which to build her time- 
 honored usage in this respect." I heartily concur with him in 
 this view. 
 
 I said in the appendix to my sermon, page fifty, — " There is 
 not a word of authority in the scriptures for the use of pre- 
 composed forms of prayer. There is not the shadow of an 
 evidence that the church, in the days of the apostles, used 
 forms of prayer, or that a question was ever raised in regard 
 to th^e propriety of using them." Our author calls this a 
 "bold assertion," and manfully declares that he enters upon 
 this discussion with " full knowledge of my having made it. 
 I may be permitted to say, that if the assertion was bold, it was 
 at least well considered. Of this I hope to be able to satisfy 
 my readers. Passing by some rhetorical flourishes with which 
 his lecture opens, we shall proceed at once to an examination 
 of its more serious matter. 
 
 He commences with quoting what he regards as authorita- 
 tive examples from the Old Testament, in favor of liturgies. 
 It should be remarked here, that my assertion was made with 
 simple reference to the christian church, and that nothing more 
 was intended than that there is no scriptural authority for the 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 229 
 
 use of precomposed forms of prayer now. I do not see, there- 
 fore, what would be gained by him, should he prove in the 
 clearest manner, that forms were prescribed for the Jewish wor- 
 shipers. The Old Testament scriptures we truly regard as of 
 divine authority, equally binding upon christians, so far as they 
 inculcate truth and moral duty, with any other part of the 
 sacred canon; but no one will pretend that the ordinances 
 which were given to the Jews for the regulation of their public 
 worship, impose the least degree of obligation upon us, or are 
 to be regarded, in any sense, even as examples for our imita- 
 tion. Still, I am not unwilling to allow to Mr. S. all the 
 advantage which he can derive from this species of argument. 
 He has utterly failed to prove, that the ancient Jewish church 
 used a liturgy ; and if he had no other evidences than those 
 which he has adduced, I can not but feel amazed that he should 
 have ventured to make the attempt. 
 
 The reader is requested to bear in mind, what is the real 
 point in debate between us : whether there is, or is not, scrip- 
 tural authority for the u^e of liturgies, precomposed fortns 
 of prayer, in the public worship of God in the church. 
 
 For his first proof of the afiirmative, our author reminds us 
 that " Moses composed a sublime song of thanksgiving, which 
 was sung responsively in praising God, when the Israelites 
 celebrated their deliverance from Egyptian bondage." This is 
 to show that the Jewish church worshiped God by a liturgy ! 
 Does our author not know that we Presbyterians have sublime 
 songs precomposed, and printed in books too, which we habit- 
 ually sing in our churches to the praise of God? Is our 
 worship, therefore, liturgical? Songs, which are to be sung by 
 the united voices of a congregation, must of necessity be pre- 
 composed ; but the case is very different of prayers, which are 
 to be offered up by a single voice, and joined in mentally and 
 spiritually by other worshipers. 
 
 We are told next, that " as the Israelites journeyed, whenever 
 the ark moved forward or rested, there was a special prayer 
 
230 THE CHURCH, 
 
 to be said." Now, the simple fact is, that we are informed in 
 the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh verses of the tenth chapter 
 of Numbers, what the prayer was, which, in one instance, 
 Moses offered at the setting forward of the ark, and again, at 
 the resting of it. Does any one know that these same prayers, 
 without variation, w^ere said on every similar occasion ? And 
 if they were, what then? Does it follow that the Jews, 
 in their public church service, used a liturgy? We shall be 
 very far from admitting that the Jewish worship was liturgical^ 
 simply because on certain great and extraordinary occasions, a 
 form of words was used. 
 
 Again, w^e are told that " after a form, the priests of Israel 
 were required to bless the people." This was undoubtedly so, 
 but what does it prove ? Have we ever questioned the propri- 
 ety of a form of words in pronouncing a benediction ? Is it 
 not our own invariable practice to use a form ? We use, it is 
 true, not always the same form. After apostolical precedent 
 we allow ourselves liberty in this respect, yet a form we always 
 employ. What then ? Are we also liturgists ? 
 
 Our author cites the foregoing authorities hastily, as though 
 he himself did not think much of them. Who can wonder ? 
 " But in the book of Psalms," he continues with evidently-rising 
 courage, " we have an inspired 2^^'^!/^^-^<>o^j and one which 
 was composed expressly for public worship." Dear Mr. Schuy- 
 ler ! was the book of Psalms used in the public worship of the 
 Jews, as a prayer-hook, or as a psalm-hook? Think hard 
 now, and give us your deliberate opinion. Were the sublime 
 effusions contained in this book said as prayers, or were they 
 sung as songs ? What would you say, if you were testifying 
 according to the best of your knowledge and belief, in a court 
 of justice ? I can not but remind my friend again, that the 
 course of his argument is making liturgists of us Presbyterians 
 also : for these same psalms, expressed in English verse, not near 
 so literally as we could desire, we also sing every sabbath day 
 in our churches. Mr. S. says — " Hezekiah enjoined the use of 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 231 
 
 these yery forms in the service of the temple," and adds, — 
 "We are told, 2 Chron. xxix: 30 — 'Hezekiah the king, and 
 the princes, commanded the Levites to sing praises unto the 
 Lord, ivith the words of David and of Asaph the seer; and 
 they sang j^raises with gladness, and bowed their heads and 
 worshiped. So the ser\4ce of the house of the Lord was set 
 in order." 
 
 What more proper thing, we reply, could they do ? If sing- 
 ing was to be a part of the temple service, where could they 
 have found words more appropriate for that purpose, than " the 
 words of David and of Asaph the seer ? " Where could they 
 have found subhmer poetry, or purer, and more devout, and 
 soul-inspiring sentiment ? The people of God in all branches of 
 the church, still regard the psalms as pre-eminently suited for 
 the purpose of devotion ; and still God is praised, as nearly as 
 can be in other tongues, all the world over, " in the words of 
 David and of Asaph the seer." " Upon the erection of the 
 second temple," our author goes on to say, " a similar service 
 was prescribed." That is to say, the Jews still continued, by 
 direction, to sing the psahns. Wonderful, indeed ! But what 
 has all this to do with the question under discussion, in regard 
 to precomposed forms of prayer? We want proof that the 
 temple servdce of the Jews was liturgical, and our author gravely 
 informs us that they had an authorized psalm-book I 
 
 The psalms were metrical compositions, set to musical notes, 
 to be sung, with an instrumental accompaniment, by the people. 
 We know that many of these psalms are really prayers, but this 
 does not effect the question of the purpose for which they were 
 composed, or of the manner in M^hich they were actually em- 
 ployed. They were written to be sung, because that which is 
 to be sung by a concert of voices, must, of necessity be written ; 
 and they were sung by the congregation, not said, as prayers, 
 by the conductor of public worship. 
 
 The last authority from the Old Testament, with which our 
 author has favored us, is taken from Hosea xiv : 2, — " Take 
 
232 THE CHURCH, 
 
 with you words, and turn unto the Lord. Say unto him, Take 
 away all our iniquity, and receive us graciously," &c. This, 
 Mr. S. calls " an express command to the people to come with 
 words prepared when they would address the Most High." 
 We are forcibly reminded here of the Shaking Quaker's proof 
 text for dancing in pubhc worship, and for his peculiar manner 
 of performing that rite. What does the reader imagine it to 
 be ? — " Turn ye, turn ye, for why will ye die ? " — We think 
 our author not one whit behind the Shaker in his shrewd 
 insight into scripture meanings. To whose mind but an Epis- 
 copalian's searching for liturgical precedents, would this text ever 
 have suggested the idea that he seems to have gathered from 
 it ? Who denies that prayer is to be offered to God in words ? 
 Who denies that when we are about to draw near to God in 
 prayer, we ought to premeditate what we design to say, and to 
 come with " words prepared ? " The very nature of prayer im- 
 plies the necessity of this. To pray, is to ask God for things 
 that we need, and that we desire to receive. How can we pray 
 until we have first ascertained our wants, and formed in our 
 minds the petitions that we desire to make ? Now what was 
 the real purport of the prophet's exhortation ? Urging the rebel- 
 lious people of Israel to return penitently to God, whom their 
 sins had offended and provoked, he directs them to return with 
 prayer, and very properly suggests to them various petitions 
 and confessions, suitable in such a case as theii"s to be made. 
 This is the whole of it ; and yet our ingenious author finds in 
 this text the syllabus of a complete discourse on the subject of 
 liturgies. What was designed as a simple advice, or direction 
 to the Israelites in their then existing circumstances, is made by 
 him a general positive precept on the subject of prayer, and we 
 are told to regard it as " an express command to the people to 
 come with zvords prepared, when (/. e. lohenever) they would 
 address the Most High." "Take with you wordsP — By 
 "words," he can understand nothing short of ^^ words pre- 
 pared^' that is, according to his own understanding of the 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP, 233 
 
 matter, written down. ^'- Say unto him," &c. — This means, 
 read from a hook. Oh, excellent ! Thus we hve and learn. 
 
 We have now seen the whole of our author's argument from 
 the Old Testament. He undertakes to prove from this source, 
 that the ancient Jews, in their pubhc and ordinary worship of 
 God, prayed by prescribed forms, that is, that they had and 
 used a liturgy — a fact by the way, which if it were ever so 
 well established, would have no bearing on the real question in 
 debate, — and what are his proofs ? "What does he show us to 
 relieve our doubts on this point ? Why, that Moses composed 
 a song to the praise of God, which, on stated occasions, the peo- 
 ple sang; that he offered a prayer once when the ark moved, 
 and another when it rested, the words of both which prayers 
 are preserved; that the priests had a/orm of benediction which 
 they were required to pronounce upon the people ; that in the 
 temple service, the singing was directed to be performed " in 
 the words of David and of Asaph, the seer ; " and that the 
 prophet Hosea, on one occasion, exhorting the people to repent- 
 ance, suggested to them the substance of a prayer and confession 
 which would be suitable for them to offer ! 
 
 Now, 1 ask, if our author does not seem to have been sadly 
 pressed for the materials of a demonstration ? If this was all 
 that he could find, he must have felt that there was something 
 very like a scarcity in the land. Let no one blame him, how- 
 ever, except for his attempt. He has done his best, and no one 
 could do more. 
 
 So far, at least, as the Old Testament is concerned, my " bold 
 assertion " may be repeated. There is not the shadow of an 
 evidence there, that among the ancient Jews, a liturgy was ever 
 known or heard of. 
 
 The best example of a public prayer, offered in the presence 
 of the congregation of Israel, and the one which, of all others, 
 should be quoted, as furnishing testimony on the point now 
 before us, is the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the 
 temple, which we have at large in the eighth chapter of first 
 
234 THE CHURCH, 
 
 Kings. Why did Mr. Schuyler fail to notice this prayer ? For 
 the reason, undoubtedly, that he could make nothing of it, but 
 confusion to his cause. He hioivs that it was not read from a 
 book, nor read at all, but uttered as it was conceived in the 
 heart of that pious king. If any one is not satisfied on this 
 head, it is sufiicient barely to notice the account that we have 
 of it in the place where the prayer is found : — " And Solomon 
 stood before the altar of the Lord, in the presence of all th^ 
 congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward 
 heaven: and he said. Lord God of Israel, there is no God 
 like thee," &c., &c. Again, at the end, we read, — " And it was 
 so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying all this 
 prayer and supplication unto the Lord, he arose from before the 
 altar of the Lord, from kneeling on his knees, v)ith his hands 
 spread up to heaven^ The mere attitude of the king in this 
 semce, " with his hands spread up to heaven," shows in the 
 clearest manner that he was not reading from a book, but 
 simply pouiing out the free desires of his own soul to God. I f 
 our author, in the agony of his fruitless search after liturgical 
 precedents in the Old Testament, had not known that this was 
 so, or if he could have furnished any plausible pretext for a 
 different construction of the record, would he have passed by 
 this prayer of Solomon with such profound silence ? Who will 
 believe it ? 
 
 " It will not be denied," so he proceeds, passing on now to 
 another field of evidence, " that in the time of our Saviour the 
 Jews used forms of prayer in their synagogues." Then follows 
 a quotation from Hooker, which, it is presumed, if any one were 
 disposed to deny it, would effectually deter him. He might 
 have quoted Lightfoot, Hall, Prideaux, and Usher, with even 
 better effect ; but as he seems fully to believe that his proposi- 
 tion will not be denied, he doubtless thought that the name of 
 Hooker would be sufficient. Great men, and even bishops, 
 however, have sometimes been mistaken ; and he must not be 
 surprised, if after all, some one should be found to deny " that 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 235 
 
 in the time of our Saviour the Jews used forms of prayer in 
 their synagogues." Still, for the present, let it be admitted. 
 We know that there were, in our Saviour's time, many observ- 
 ances and practices among the Jews, founded solely upon the 
 traditions of the elders, whereby the commandments of God 
 were made of none effect. Our Saviour distinctly told them 
 so. Now it devolves upon our opponents in this discussion, to 
 show that these liturgies were introduced by di\dne authority, 
 and that they were not the corrupt devices of men. We have 
 followed our author in his search through the Old Testament 
 scriptures for prescription and precedent^ and he finds neither 
 one, nor the other. No trace of a divine warrant for precom- 
 posed forms of prayer, or of usage to justify the presumption 
 that such a warrant was ever afforded, is any where discover- 
 able. If then, it can be proved, that liturgies were in use 
 among the Jews in our Saviour's time, we say again, — and we 
 hope our author will bear it in mind, if ever he sees fit to recur 
 to this subject, — that it devolves upon him to show that they 
 were not part and parcel of the corruptions, which it is well 
 known had for two or three centuries been creeping into the 
 Jewish church. Admitting the existence of these pretended 
 liturgies in the time of Christ, what then ? Our author says, 
 page 162, — "We are told by the evangelists, that our Saviour 
 was in the habit of attending upon the worship of the syna- 
 jTogue. We can not believe that he sat there as an idle 
 spectator, while the true Israel were thus worshiping the God 
 of their fathers. Nor can we believe that he would have 
 sanctioned by liis presence, a mode of worship, in itself^ unfit- 
 ting the service of the sanctuary, or unauthorized by divine 
 prescription. Here then, in the fact that he attended the syna- 
 gogue, that he went there himself as a worshiper, and that he 
 united in the ser\dce, we have the highest of all sanctions, even 
 that of his own blessed example, to prescribed forms for 
 public worship." 
 
236 THE CHURCH, 
 
 This is certainly a very pious view of the subject, but it is 
 nevertheless a very poor specimen of reasoning. Has not 
 Mr. Schuyler himself, sometimes attended public worship in a 
 Presbyterian meeting-house? Very likely he has not done so 
 since his conversion to Episcopacy, but possibly he has. At 
 least I may suppose a case. If he should do such a thing, 
 does he imagine that by engaging reverently in the services, he 
 would be fairly chargeable with sanctioning the use, in public 
 worship, of extempore prayers ? Were I to attend his church, 
 and, as devoutly as possible, follow him in the prayers which 
 should be read, could he infer from my so doing, that I approve 
 of liturgies? 
 
 But to the case before us. Does our author not believe that 
 there were many things both in the manner and matter of the 
 synagogue worship, in the time of our Saviour, which were 
 really offensive to him, or which, at least, he would have 
 wished to be different ? How, then, does his attendance on 
 that worship, and his participation in it, prove that he sanc- 
 tioned the use of written forms of prayer ? Our author must 
 remember, that we do not charge upon a liturgical service, that 
 it is positively sinful, but only that it is not of divine appoint- 
 ment, and that it is inexpedient. Of course, the Saviour would 
 not have engaged with the Jewish worshipers in the practice 
 of sin; but might he not have tolerated some things which he 
 did not wholly approve ? Is it not certain, from his attend- 
 ance on the Jewish worship, which, whatever may be said of 
 the prayers, every one knows to have been infected with many 
 novelties, through their traditions, that he actually did so ? 
 
 But, now for the main question. Was the worship of the 
 Jews, in our Lord's time, liturgical? Mr. Schuyler, after 
 quoting from Hooker, to show that liturgies were then in 
 use, says, page 161, — "Many of these liturgies are still 
 extant, and we may have .access to them in the very forms 
 then in use." Will he pretend to say that this is a set- 
 tled, absolute fact? I must remind him that many ancient 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 237 
 
 documents which are now on all hands admitted to be spurious, 
 have been vouched for as authentic, by men as learned and 
 every way worthy of confidence as "the learned and pious 
 Hooker" himself, (whose learning- and piety I do not at all 
 question,) or any others that have sought to verify these pre- 
 tended Jewish liturgies. Who has not heard of liturgies in 
 the church, composed by St. Peter, and St. James, and St. 
 Mark ? and that there are now extant, canons and constitutions 
 asserted to have been drawn up by the whole college of the 
 apostles? Even these have not wanted learned and pious 
 defenders ; but what scholar now regards them as genuine, or 
 does not smile at the credulity that ever trusted them for a 
 moment ? Nothing could be more uncertain than the kind of 
 evidence on which the credit of these ancient liturgies depends. 
 If Mr. S. is satisfied with it, I am not. The sole authority for 
 them is the Mishna. And what is this ? Bishop Home says — 
 vol. ii, pages 295-296 — "The Mishna is a collection of vari- 
 ous traditions of the Jews, and of expositions of scripture texts ; 
 which, they pretend^ were delivered to Moses during his abode 
 on the mount, and transmitted from him, through Aaron, Ele- 
 azar, and Joshua, to the prophets, and by those to the men of 
 the great Sanhedrim, from whom they passed in succession to 
 Simeon, (who took our Saviour in his arms,) Gamaliel, and 
 ultimately to Rabbi Jehudah, surnamed Hakkadosh the Holy. 
 By him this digest of oral law and traditions was completed, 
 toward the close of the second century, after the labor of forty 
 years." Prideaux — vol. ii, page ninety-three, and onward — 
 gives a detailed account of this book, according to representa- 
 tions of the Jewish Rabbis : " They tell us,''^ he says, page 
 ninety-five, "that at the same time when God gave unto 
 Moses the law on Mount Sinai, he gave unto him, also, the 
 interpretation of it^ commanding him to commit the former to 
 writing, but to deliver the other only by word of mouth, to be 
 preserved in the memories of men, and to be transmitted down 
 by them, from generation to generation, by tradition only ; and 
 
238 THE CHURCH, 
 
 from hence, the former is called the written, and the other the 
 oral law." He then proceeds to describe the Jewish account of 
 the manner in which this oral law was preserved, and the suc- 
 cession of men through whose memories it was perpetuated. 
 Moses gave it to Joshua, and he to the elders, and they to the 
 prophets " till " — pages ninety-seven and ninety-eight — " it 
 came to Jeremiah, who delivered it to Baruch, and Baruch to 
 Ezra, by whom it was delivered to the men of the great syna- 
 gogue, the last of whom was Simon the Just. Finally, it 
 came into the hands of Rabbali Judah Hakkadosh, who wrote 
 it into the book which they call the Mishna. But all this," 
 adds this author, " is mere fiction, spun out of the fertile inven- 
 tion of the Talmudists, without the least foundation either in 
 scripture or in authentic history. * * * But the truth 
 of the whole matter is this : after the death of Simon the Just, 
 (B. C. 299,) there arose a sort of men whom they call the 
 Tanaim, or the Mishnical doctoi*s, that made it their business 
 to study and descant upon those traditions which had been 
 received and allowed by Ezra and the men of the great syna- 
 gogue, and to draw inferences and consequences from them, all 
 of which they ingrafted in the body of these ancient traditions, 
 as if they had been as authentic as the other ; which example 
 being followed by those who succeeded them in this profession, 
 they continually added their own imaginations to what they 
 had received from those that went before them, whereby these 
 traditions becoming as a snow-ball, the farther they rolled 
 down, from one generation to another, the more they gathered, 
 and the greater the bulk of them grew. And thus it went on 
 till the middle of the second century after Christ, when Anto- 
 nius Pius governed the Roman empire; by which time they 
 found it necessary to put all these traditions into writing ; for 
 they were then grown to so great a number, and enlarged to so 
 huge a heap, as to exceed the possibility of being any longer 
 preserved by the memory of men." He proceeds to say, that 
 Rabbi Judah, at this time, undertook the work of compiling 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 239 
 
 this crude and heterogeneous mass of matter, and finally pro- 
 duced the book which is called the Mishna ; " which book was 
 forthwith received by the Jews with great veneration, through- 
 out all their dispersions, and hath ever since been held in high 
 esteem among them: for their opinion of it is, that all the 
 particulars therein recorded were dictated by God himself 
 to Moses," &c. &c. 
 
 This, let it be observed, accounts sufficiently for the use of 
 the Mishnical prayers, by Jews of the present day, w ithout at 
 all supposing, necessarily, that any such forms were actually 
 employed in the synagogue worship at the time of Christ. 
 
 On page 413, of Prideaux, vol. ii, there occurs another pas- 
 sage worthy of notice. — " After this, (i. e. after the death of 
 Simon the Just,) follow^ed the Mishnical times, that is, the times 
 of traditions. Hitherto, the scriptures were the only rule of 
 faith and manners which God's people studied ; but hence- 
 forth, traditions began to be regarded, till at length they over- 
 bore the w^ord of God itself, as we find in our Saviour's time." 
 
 Now, let it even be granted that the testimony of the Mishna 
 proves sufficiently the existence and use of liturgies among the 
 Jews, in the time of our Saviour, is it not a reasonable conclu- 
 sion from the silence of the scriptures on this subject, that 
 these liturgies w^ere Mishnical inventions, and nothing more? 
 But let the history of this famous book be impartially con- 
 sidered, and I ask if it can fairly be regarded as proving any 
 thing ? Is it a reliable source of testimony on any subject 
 whatever? Prideaux says, that the Mishna was composed 
 about A. D. 150. Dr. Lightfoot says, about A. D. 190, in the 
 latter end of the reign of Commodus; or, as some compute, in 
 the year of Christ, 220. Dr. Lardner fixes the date about the 
 same as Dr. Lightfoot, at 190. Now, giving to the Mishna all 
 possible credit to which, in the judgment of any rational mind, 
 it can be regarded as having a title, the value of its testimony 
 in regard to the point to be proved, is that of a mere oral 
 tradition running through a space of about two hundred years, 
 
240 THE CHURCH, 
 
 mixed up and confounded with a perfect infinitude of other 
 traditions. I am not very soHcitous to disprove the assump- 
 tion that the Jews, in our Lord's time, used a Hturgy in their 
 pubHc worship ; for if they did so, the argument is irresistible, 
 that it was a corruption of their primitive mode ; and our 
 Lord's attendance upon that Hturgical worship proves nothing 
 in its favor. Still, I claim, and the facts show, that there is no 
 reliable evidence that they did so. Mr. Schuyler, in his vene- 
 ration for antiquity, may set a high value on the Mishna, but 
 save as an interesting literary curiosity, containing illustrations 
 of ancient manners, and occasionally, perhaps, throwing some 
 light upon a text of scripture, I do not value it a pin. As a 
 book to be appealed to for the settlement of great questions of 
 christian faith and practice, it is utterly contemptible. 
 
 The reliability of the Mishna is as impeachable for the lack 
 of internal as of external evidence. There is really nothing 
 appertaining to it, either in its history, or in the character of 
 its records, to render it a credible witness of any disputed fact ; 
 and yet, as I have said already, it contains all the evidence there 
 is, that the Jewish worship in the time of our Saviour was 
 liturgical ; all the evidence there is, of a fact which Mr. Schuy- 
 ler assumes without a word of exj^lanation, and passes lightly 
 over, as though it were some notorious thing of yesterday, with 
 saying that " it will be denied." It may answer in his own 
 pulpit, and before his own people, to dispose of things in this 
 way, but it will not do for him to print his sermons. We do 
 deny that the Jewish worship in the time of our Saviour was 
 liturgical. We deny it on the simple ground that there is no 
 sort of reliable evidence that it was so. 
 
 Proceeding with his argument, our author says, page 162, — 
 " But we have precept as well as example." His example, be 
 it remembered, is in the fact that our Lord was in the habit of 
 attending the synagogue worship of the Jews, which on all 
 accounts was not an example, because, first, there is no evidence 
 that that worship was liturgical ; and because, secondly, if it 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 241 
 
 was, our Lord's attendance upon it did not at all imply that he 
 approved of its liturgical character. Now for the precept. 
 " We are told by St. Luke, that as our Saviour was praying, 
 when he had ceased, one of the disciples said unto him, ' Lord, 
 teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.' 'And he 
 said unto them, when ye pray, say Our Father which art in 
 heaven,' " &c. " Now in these words," says our author, " v,^e 
 think we have the plainest and fullest authority for a form of 
 prayer." I am infinitely amused with the reasoning that fol- 
 lows, not to mention the grammar. — " In the first place, it 
 proves that John the Baptist had given his disciples a form, 
 and this farther proves that such had been the usage of the 
 Jewish church." How so ? I can not see it at all. The words 
 which have just been quoted, prove that John the Baptist had 
 taught his disciples to 2^?-«y, but how do they prove that he 
 had given them a form, in our author's sense of that word ? 
 And how does the fact that John the Baptist had taught his 
 disciples to pray, prove that forms of prayer had been used in 
 the Jewish church ? I suspect my brother has in some way 
 got possession of Peter Schlemihl's seven league boots. How 
 else he could leap through such immense distances to his con- 
 clusions, I am utterly unable to conceive. He goes on to say : 
 
 " Being the herald," that is, John the Baptist, " being the 
 herald of a new dispensation, and preaching repentance, warn- 
 ing and exhorting the people to prepare for the approach of 
 their deliverer, it was necessary that they (that is, I suppose, 
 John the Baptist's disciples,) should have forms of devotion 
 adapted to their pecuhar errand." 
 
 It was necessary that John's disciples should know how to 
 prarj, undoubtedly ; but how was it necessary that they should 
 have forms of devotion ? Those boots ! I verily believe Mr. 
 Schuyler thinks that John gave his disciples a liturgy. He 
 proceeds — 
 
 " But had John been in the habit of trusting to the inspira- 
 tion of the moment, and to have invited his disciples to join 
 12 
 
242 THE CHURCH, 
 
 with him in offering their extempore effusions, we should never 
 have heard of his having taught them to pray. The teach- 
 ing NECESSARILY impHes the providing them with a new form, 
 as our Saviour clearly understood the apostles to mean. They 
 wished a new form, suited to their circumstances, as John had 
 provided one, suited to that of himself and his disciples." 
 
 It is plain that Mr. Schuyler has no idea of teaching on the 
 suhject of prayer, which does not consist in the communication 
 of 2^ form of words. Is that, I would ask, the beginning and 
 the end of the instructions on this subject, which he feels it his 
 duty to give to his parishioners ? Has he nothing to say in 
 regard to the proper subjects of prayer, or the spirit with which 
 it is to be offered, or other similar matters, commonly regarded 
 as important? His task then is a very easy one. It is all done 
 up to his hands. When one of his people comes to him, ask- 
 ing to be taught to pray, he has nothing in the world to do but 
 just turn down the leaves of the book at the right places, and 
 tell him. There sir, say that, and that, and that. His work is 
 finished when he has provided his inquirer with the proper 
 forms. It seems to me that my friend's mind must be mysti- 
 fied by recollections of his early discipline in the nursery — 
 early, yet I am inchned to think recent — where he was proba- 
 bly taught to pray by being required to say after his mamma, 
 " Our Father," and " Now I lay me." 
 
 Did our Saviour intend this prayer, which he gave to his 
 disciples, as a form, in our author's sense of that word ? He 
 says, page 164 — 
 
 " That he did not give it merely as a model after which to 
 form their prayers, is evident from the mode of expression, — 
 * When ye pray, say.' Here it is clear that the use of the very 
 words is enjoined upon them." 
 
 Now I reply, it is perfectly evident that the use of the very 
 words is not enjoined upon them, but this prayer was intended 
 to serve merely as a model after which their prayers should be 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 243 
 
 formed, and that not a perfect one, if all future time is 
 considered. Our reasons are the following : 
 
 First. The mode of expression, "when ye pray, say," does 
 not convey the idea that the very words were to be used, but 
 is clearly an ellipsis, hke that in Matt, x : V, where our Lord, 
 sending forth the twelve as preachers, says, — "As ye go, preach, 
 saying the kingdom of heaven is at hand." No one, I believe, 
 supposes that this was a form of preaching, which they were 
 to follow in the very words. Our Saviour simply indicated to 
 them what the general tenor and substance of their preaching 
 must be. So, most manifestly, we are to understand him in the 
 instance we are considering. 
 
 Second. The same prayer, given on another occasion, as re- 
 corded by Matthew, was introduced by Christ in terms which 
 directly express our idea concerning it. — "After this manner, 
 therefore, pray ye." Mr. Schuyler says, that it was " designed 
 both as a form and as a model^'' and that as given in Luke it 
 is the former, in Matthew the latter. That is to say, at one 
 time our Lord meant that the prayer which he taught his dis- 
 ciples, should be regarded as a form, to be used in the very 
 words in which he gave it, and at another time he meant that 
 it should not be a form at all, but simply a general j^attern or 
 outline of prayer. In other words, he had no settled purpose 
 in regard to it ! 
 
 Is our author not capable of perceiving that the Lord's 
 prayer must be either a model or a form? That w^e may use 
 it as a form, no one denies, for if it is a good model, it must be 
 a good form, when we choose to employ it as such. But we 
 are looking now at the use of it as authoritative and obligatory 
 in one character or the other. If it is imposed by Chrisfs 
 command as a form, then it can not be a model, but must be 
 a form always, at all times and in all places. To say that the 
 same authority has given it to us as a mere model also, is to 
 say that the command, imposing it on us as a form, is revoked, 
 or nullified. 
 
244 THE CHURCH, 
 
 Now in Matthew, chapter sixth, we have this prayer, given 
 by Christ, according to our author's own admission as a simple 
 model. We say, therefore, so far as an obhgatory use of it is 
 concerned, it is always a model and nothing else. 
 
 Third. The Lord's prayer, in the different places in which it 
 occurs, is expressed in different words. If it had been intended 
 as a form., we maintain that it would have been expressed 
 always in the same identical terms. Calvin, in commenting on 
 this subject, says, — " The Son of God did not determine the 
 exact words that were to be used, so that from that form which 
 he dictated, it w^ould be unlawful to depart ; but he rather 
 wished to direct and regulate our desires, that they should not 
 wander beyond these boundaries; whence we infer that the 
 rule of praying rightly, which he has given to us, consists not 
 in words, but in things. 
 
 Fourth. We never find the Lord's prayer used as a form by 
 any of the apostles. We have the record of prayers offered 
 by them, but never this prayer, or any portion of it. This 
 is very singular. How will Mr. S. account for it ? Grotius 
 says, — " Christ did not command the ivords to be recited, but 
 that we should take the inaterials of our prayers thence," and 
 " that though it may be used with great profit as a form, yet we 
 do not read that ever the apostles used it so." Maldonatus, in 
 commenting on this prayer, as found in Matthew, says, — " Not 
 necessarily with these words are we to pray, but with this or 
 similar meaning; for we never read that the apostles were 
 in the habit of praying in these exact words." 'And Rev. 
 Thomas Scott, in his commentary on the same place, thus 
 speaks, — " It may often be proper to use the very words, but 
 it is not always necessary, for we do not find that the apostles 
 thus used it ; but we ought always to pray after the manner of 
 it." Now, I suppose, the apostles must have known just in 
 what sense, and for what purpose this prayer was given to 
 them, and that we may take their usage as tolerably decisive 
 authority in regard to it. 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 24^ 
 
 Fifth. We say, that as a form of prayer, designed for all 
 time, the Lord's prayer is defective, — and that, in an essential 
 point. It might do for Unitarians, but not for us. We believe 
 that since the death and glorification of Christ, no prayer is 
 complete or can be acceptable, v/hich is not offered in his name. 
 We must come to God by, and in the name of our high priest. 
 Now, the utter absence of any mention of. Christ, or allusion 
 to his person or work in the prayer under consideration, we 
 maintain, is perfectly conclusive against the idea of its having 
 been intended as a form for christians. 
 
 Sixth. There are innumerable special benefits which every 
 soul needs to receive from God, and that daily, which are not 
 named in this prayer. This, however, I do not deem impor- 
 tant. I think I have furnished argument enough on this point. 
 If Episcopahans believe that the Saviour meant to have his 
 very luords in Luke used, by christians, as a form, I would 
 like to know why they vary from it in their own prayer-book ? 
 I have had the curiosity to look into their book of common 
 prayer, and not an instance do I find, where the words, either 
 of Matthew or of Luke, are precisely followed. The words 
 of Luke, which it is pretended were especially given as a 
 form, are hardly followed at all. How is this, Mr. Schuyler ? 
 How dare you to deviate ? 
 
 Suppose we should grant that the Lord's prayer was intended 
 as a form, to be used as such, by christians in all ages of the 
 world ? What then ? Would our author have the proof that 
 he is seeking after ? Would it follow that the New Testament 
 enjoins or countenances a complete liturgical service for the 
 worship of God in the church ? 
 
 There is a gem, in the way of style and argument, on page 
 166, thrown in, in the form of a note, over the signature of 
 W. S. In style it is ornamental, — in argument, it is what is 
 sometimes called a clincher. Its piquancy and pertinency are 
 truly remarkable. I quote it here as an act of justice to the 
 amiable author. 
 
946 THE CHURCH, 
 
 "If it had been tlie desire of our Saviour," — so W. S. 
 writes, " to have recommended to his disciples, and through 
 them to us, that they should conduct pubHc worship by an 
 extemporaneous method, what may we expect would have been 
 his reply to those who asked him that he should teach them 
 to pray ? May we not conclude that he would have met their 
 request with some such response as the following : ' Go your 
 way, and make your own prayers ; use such prayers as shall 
 come into your minds when required. Are ye spiritual^ and 
 yet desire to be taught the method of prayer? Can you 
 expect from me a form of prayer ? Rather rely U23on your 
 gifts, and pray extemporaneously. 
 
 " But very different was the instruction he gave them ; for 
 he furnished them at once with both a form and a model. He 
 recited a prayer which they were to use. They used it, and 
 the church has used it in every age. It has been ever since, 
 and will always be a form and a model, and is a standing 
 monument of a precomposed method of worship." 
 
 So far as Mr. Schuyler is concerned, I think I may say that 
 he gains no assistance in his argument from the Lord's prayer. 
 What next ? Oh, read, and admire ! — page 166, — " That the 
 apostles worshiped after a form, is e-sddent from the fact that 
 Christ prescribed one for them ; ( ! ) and this fact furnishes us 
 with strong presumptive proof, that when they came to form 
 and regulate the services of the christian church, they would be 
 guided in this respect by the will of their master, thus clearly 
 expressed." Excellent! how the tide of my brother's argu- 
 ment bears him on ! He certainly has the most astonishing 
 facility in proving things, that ever it has been my lot to meet 
 with. He continues: 
 
 " Wherever they (i. e. the apostles,) went, they sought the 
 Jews, and taught them in their synagogues ; hence, in their 
 early ministry, the worship which preceded their preaching 
 was that of the Jewish church, which we have shown to have 
 been after a prescribed form : and we can not therefore doubt, 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 247 
 
 but when they came to set in order the things that were want- 
 ing in the church, the putting forth of a Hturgy would be 
 among their first duties ; and that it was so, is evident from 
 the fact that we have no record of extempore prayer in church 
 worship, in any part of Christendom, from the apostle's days to 
 the time of the reformation." The argument here, derived 
 from the fact that the apostles took part in the synagogue wor- 
 ship of the Jews, and preached in the synagogues, is precisely 
 like that which has been already answered, derived from the 
 similar practice of our Lord. If a liturgical service was used 
 in the synagogues, the practice of the apostles does not show 
 that they approved of it. They preached the gospel wherever 
 they could find hearers, whether in the synagogue, or in the 
 street, or in the market place, and they did not make difiiculties 
 of things which they could not help. Does Mr. Schuyler 
 think, that if he were to invite me to preach in his church, in 
 connection with his reading of the prayers, I would not do it ? 
 I certainly would not refuse to engage in such an act of good 
 christian fellowship ; and am very far from thinking that I 
 should thereby compromise my principles on the subject of 
 liturgies. — Very possibly I should preach him a sermon on the 
 superior advantages of free prayer. But we have seen that 
 there is no evidence that the Jewish synagogue worship at the 
 time referred to, was liturgical. Mr. Schuyler says, that he 
 has " shown it to have been after a prescribed form ; " but 
 where, or when, or how ? I remember he has said that no 
 one will deny that it w^as so; but is this showing that it was 
 so ? He has neither shown it, nor attempted to show it. From 
 this utterly unfounded assumption in regard to the apostles, he 
 infers, " that when they came to put in order the things that 
 were wanting in the church, the putting forth of a liturgy 
 would be among their first duties." This is mere babyism. 
 The apostles put forth a liturgy! Where is it? Does Mr. 
 Schuyler suppose, that if the apostles had given the church a 
 liturgy, it would not have been preserved ? Does he suppose, 
 
248 THE CHURCH, 
 
 that so far from not being preserved, there would not be even 
 any trace or record of it ? If the apostles gave the church a 
 liturgy, it was inspired. Why was it not enrolled with the 
 sacred canon, and preserved by the same watchful care of 
 Divine Providence which has kept the other scriptures ? My 
 brother imposes on his own credulity. No such liturgy, as he 
 speaks of, was ever in existence. It is simply absurd to claim 
 the contrary. That the apostles, among their first acts, gave 
 the church a liturgy, we are told, " is e\ddent, from the fact 
 that we have no record of extempore prayer in church worship 
 in any pai't of Christendom, from their days to the time of the 
 reformation." Have we not? Is Mr. Schuyler ignorant, or 
 does he mean to deceive and impose upon his readers ? We 
 shall see shortly what the fact on this subject is. We shall 
 see indeed, whether we have any record of preGomi^osed forms, 
 until long after the days of the apostles, when they came in 
 with other corruptions of the pure and primitive simplicity of 
 christian worship. 
 
 My brother's scriptural argument is ended, and if he himself 
 has not fully vindicated my " bold assertion," then I know not 
 what vindication could be desired. I said the scriptures con- 
 tained no authority for the use of precomposed forms of prayer. 
 Has he shown the contraiy ? Has not his utter failure to refute 
 my assertion, proved most conclusively that it is true ? I said, 
 there is not a shadow of evidence in the scriptures that the 
 churches in the days of the apostles used forms of prayer, or 
 that a question was ever raised in regard to the propriety of 
 using them. Has he succeeded in producing the shadow of an 
 evidence ? 
 
 Since Mr. S. has been unable to find any authority for forms, 
 let us see how the matter stands in regard to free prayer; and 
 I say truly, the scriptures contain all kinds of testimony against 
 forms, and in favor of free prayer. 
 
 First. They teach by their silence. Free prayer is nahiral; 
 forms are artificial. If it was the divine intention, therefore, 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 249 
 
 that the former and not the latter should be used, nothing wax 
 necessary beyond the mere injunction of the duty of prayer. 
 If, however, it was the divine intention that the latter and not 
 the former should be used, it was necessary, besides the injuno 
 tion of prayer, that there should be a special injunction of the 
 use of forms. For example : if I, as a parent, am willing to 
 attend to the merely verbal requests of my child, it is needless 
 for me to say any thing to him on the subject ; for, as that is 
 the natural manner of a child's preferring his requests to a 
 father, he will adopt it of course. But if I wish him to prefer 
 his requests in writing, I must tell him so distinctly; this is 
 artificial, and a positive injunction is indispensable. Now the 
 fact that in the scriptures we are simply enjoined to pray, to 
 make our requests known unto God, to call upon his name, 
 while not a word is said about writing our prayers down and 
 reading them, is proof, of the most conclusive kind, that it was 
 intended they should be the free expressions of our desires, and 
 not read from precomposed forms. 
 
 The scriptures teach by their silence, in another way. There 
 is no mention in a single place of prayers being read, or of the 
 use of a booh. We have innumerable instances of prayer, but 
 never one of a read prayer, or of a prayer repeated memoriter. 
 They record the instructions of our Lord, but never a word that 
 he uttered on the subject of a liturgy. They record the acts 
 of the apostles in regulating the church and setting in order the 
 things that remained after Christ's ascension, but never once 
 breathe a syllable on the subject of their composing a book of 
 prayer. They tell us of the apostles' preaching in the syna- 
 gogues, and of their preaching in the market-places, and of their 
 preaching in the streets, but never hint of their reading the ser- 
 vice. Episcopalians think, that in the public worship of God 
 the reading of the church service is the great thing. With 
 them, this is primary, the preaching is secondary. How can 
 they explain this profound silence of the scriptures respecting 
 the prayer book? respecting the great thing? Why havd w« 
 12* 
 
250 THE CHURCH, 
 
 in no place some such record as the following : " Now when the 
 prayers had been read by Barnabas, Paul stood up and preached 
 unto the people, saying," (fee ? Mr. Schuyler tells us, page 167, 
 *' Wherever they, i. e. the apostles, went, they sought the Jews, 
 and taught them in their synagogues; hence, in their early 
 ministry, the worship which preceded their preaching, was that 
 of the Jewish church," which he pretends was liturgical, i. e. 
 consisted of a precomposed service of prayer. Compare this 
 statement with a simple record — Acts xiii: 14-16, — "But 
 when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in 
 Pisidia, and went into the synagogue, on the sabbath day, and 
 sat down, and after the reading of the law and the prophets, 
 the rulers of the synagogue, sent unto them sa}dng. Ye men 
 and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, 
 say on. Then Paul stood up," <fec. Where is Mr. Schuyler's 
 service of prayer ? " The law and the prophets" he knows 
 were the scriptures of the Old Testament, simply. Why is the 
 reading of these so distinctly mentioned, and no mention made 
 of the other ? Look at every similar record, and over each one, 
 ask, where was the prayer book ? Echo will answer, " Where 
 was the prayer-book ? " Still, my brother will have it, that in 
 every such instance, the preaching of the apostles was preceded 
 by a liturgical service of prayer ! 
 
 Second. The scriptures convey instruction on this point by 
 their exhortations, and their preceptive teaching on the general 
 subject of prayer. Eph. vi: 18, — "Praying always with all 
 prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto 
 with all perseverance and supplication for all saints." — I will 
 only ask the candid reader whether this looks as though Paul 
 expected a hook to be used ? Again ; turn to Rom. xv : 30 
 31, — "Now I beseech you brethren — that ye strive together 
 with me in your prayers to God for me, that I may be delivered 
 from them that do not believe in Judea ; and that my service 
 which I have for Jerusalem, (he was the bearer of the contri- 
 butions of foreign christians to the poor saints at Jerusalem,) 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 251 
 
 may be accepted of the saints." Does this seem to intimate 
 that they were restricted to the forms of a book, or, that they 
 had the largest Hberty to introduce into their prayers all sub- 
 jects whatsoever, that might seem to be proper and expedient ? 
 Look now at 1 Cor. xiv: 13, and onward. I call attention 
 particularly to this passage. The apostle is speaking expressly 
 of praying in the church, be it observed. He says, " Wherefore 
 let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue, pray that he 
 may interpret." That is, according to Macknight, " so as some 
 one may interpret." He adds, "Else when thou shalt bless 
 with the Spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the 
 unlearned, say amen at thy giving of thanks ? seeing he under- 
 standeth not what thou sayest, for thou verily givest thanks 
 well, but the other is not edified." Now, I ask, how could 
 there be prayer in the church in an unknown tongue, if the 
 church was tied up to certain specified forms ; if there was a 
 prayer book ? " If Mr. S. should reply, that they might have 
 recited the authorized prayers in an unknown tongue, then I ask 
 again, where was the need of an interpreter ? If each man had 
 the prayers before him, written down in a language which he 
 perfectly understood, could he not join in them by simply look- 
 ing over in his book ? Could he not know, without having 
 them interpreted, when to say amen, and what he was saying 
 amen to ? I challenge any one to explain this passage on any 
 other assumption than that, in the early and apostolic church 
 the prayers were free, uttered as they were conceived in the 
 heart of the person offering them ? 
 
 In first Timothy, ii: 1, 2, Paul says — "I exhort, therefore, 
 first of all, that prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, 
 be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in 
 authority," &c. Why such an exhortation, if the prayers to 
 be said in the church were all put down already, in set forms 
 and order ? The exhortation would appear very proper on the 
 supposition that the prayers were free, but entirely superfluous 
 
252 THE CHURCH, 
 
 on the supposition that they were all prescribed and arranged 
 in a liturgy. 
 
 I might quote such texts as these indefinitely. One or two 
 more, however, shall suffice. Take such a passage as that in 
 Phil, iv : 6, — " Be careful for nothing, but in every thing, by 
 prayer and supplication, let your requests be made known unto 
 God." Was there ever seen on earth a prayer-book, in the use 
 of which this injunction might be followed ? Is it possible, 
 except by free prayer, to obey either the letter or the spirit 
 of the apostle's exhortation ? To show that the language of 
 the Old Testament is coincident with that of the new, let the 
 exhortation of David, in the sixty-second psalm, be considered — 
 " Trust in him (God) at all times, ye people ; pour out your 
 heart before him." Now, what idea does any one get of this 
 pouring out of the heart beforfe God ? I think it is of some- 
 thing widely different from reading prayers out of a book. So 
 also it may be said of the prophet's exhortation, Isaiah Iv: 6, — 
 " Seek ye the Lord while he may be found ; call ye upon him 
 while he is near." Only to think of a sinner, agonized and 
 trembling under a sense of his exposure to divine wrath, and 
 of the awful danger of ha\-ing the last moment of mercy slip 
 from him unimproved, reading his prayer out of a book! 
 thumbing over the leaves of a prayer book to find a petition 
 suitable to his case, while his heart is bursting to utter in the 
 ear of heaven its loud and earnest cry for deliverance ! Does 
 any one suppose that the prophet had such a thing in his mind 
 as this ? I affirm that the whole current style of the hortatory 
 and preceptive teaching of the bible, on the subject of prayer, 
 implies that prayer is to be free, and is directly adverse to the 
 notion of prescribed forms and liturgies. And now, 
 
 Third. For the scripture teaching by examples. The prayer 
 of Solomon at the dedication of the temple, the best instance 
 of pubHc prayer, of prayer in the presence of a congregation, 
 recorded in the Old Testament, we have considered. Ex- 
 amples from the New Testament are especially required, and 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 253 
 
 there are enough of them. First, look at the record in Acts 
 i: 13, 14. — "And when they were come in, they went up into 
 an upper room, where abode Peter, and James, and John, and 
 Andrew, PhiHp and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, 
 James the son of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the 
 brother of James. These all continued with one accord in 
 prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mo- 
 ther of Jesus, and with his brethren." Here is a fair example 
 of social prayer. Indeed, it was the church that was gathered 
 together in this upper chamber. Does Mr. Schuyler believe 
 that they used, on this occasion, precomposed forms ? Has he 
 even a suspicion that they did so ? If he does beheve or 
 suspect it, wiW he venture an opinion as to where the written 
 forms suited to the unprecedented exigency of that time were 
 found ? Does the simple statement of the narrative look as 
 though they prayed from a book ? Would it naturally suggest 
 such an idea to any sane mind ? " These all continued," not 
 in the reading of prayers^ but " in prayer and supplication," 
 in pouring out, undoubtedly, their hearts before God. In the 
 same chapter, read the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth verses. — 
 " And they prayed and said. Thou Lord which knowest the 
 hearts of all men," &c. The occasion was that of choosing 
 Matthias by lot, to fill the place of Judas. This prayer was 
 offered in an assembly of the church, on a great and solemn 
 occasion. Was it part of a liturgy then existing ? If so, by 
 whom was that liturgy composed ? It will not be pretended 
 that the apostles, at so early a period, had composed one, nor 
 that such a prayer could have been found in any liturgy 
 in use among the Jews. Whence, then, was it obtained? 
 Now, let any one read the prayer; short, all contained in two 
 little verses ; simple, just stating their request that God would 
 show by the lots about to be cast, whether he had chosen Mat- 
 thias or Barsabas, and let him say, if the supposition is unrea- 
 sonable, that it was conceived and uttered at the moment. Can 
 any one doubt that this was the real fact ? Again. Take the 
 
254 THE CHURCH, 
 
 prayer recorded in Acts iv : 24-30. Let the circumstances be 
 considered in whicli this prayer was uttered. The church was 
 in sore affliction. Persecution was beginning to rage. Peter 
 and John had just been imprisoned and cruelly treated, for 
 preaching in the name of Jesus, and were now only set at 
 liberty under strict charge to preach no more. Dangers were 
 pressing upon them on every hand, and nothing, to human 
 eyes, appeared more probable, than that the new faith was 
 about to be crushed by the mighty power of its adversaries. 
 When Peter and John were let go, we are told, they went to 
 their own company, i. e. to the church, whom they found 
 assembled, doubtless praying already for their imprisoned 
 brethren, and considering of the state of their affairs ; " and 
 they reported all that the chief priests and elders had said 
 unto them. And when they heard that, they hfted up their 
 voice to God with one accord, and said. Lord, thou art God, 
 which hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in 
 them is ; who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said. 
 Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain 
 things ? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were 
 gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. 
 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast 
 anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and 
 people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever 
 thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. And 
 now Lord, behold their threatenings ; and grant unto thy ser- 
 vants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word, by 
 stretching forth thine hand to heal, and that signs and won- 
 ders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus." 
 Now let any person attentively consider this prayer, so season- 
 able in its appeals, so evidently framed to meet the very wants 
 and exigencies of the time, so full of allusions to events actually 
 transpiring, and say if he will, that it was part of an established 
 liturgy — that it was read from a book. Let it not be forgotten 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 255 
 
 that this is an example of public prayer, of prayer in an assem- 
 bly of christians, in the church. 
 
 Once more. Acts xii : 5,— " And Peter was kept in prison, 
 but prayer was made without ceasing, of the church unto God 
 for him." Was this done, does any one suppose, by a precom- 
 posed form ? Was there a liturgy at that time, which contained 
 a form of prayer suitable for such a crisis ? The Episcopal 
 prayer-book may contain a petition that God will show his 
 " pity upon all prisoners and captives," but where has it prayers 
 that would have served the purpose of the church when they 
 were met to beseech God on behalf of Peter, fallen into the 
 hands of his enemies ? If there is no liturgy now that is 
 sufficiently copious to meet such a case, can it be supposed that 
 there was one at that early day ? It is idle to debate. The 
 church, on that occasion, had assembled to pour out their hearts 
 before God, to plead on their brother's behalf in such words as 
 the spirit of God should dictate to their minds. 
 
 More examples are not wanting, but these will suffice. 
 And now, although I am swelling this article beyond all 
 expectation, I must take the trouble, seeing that Mr. Schuyler 
 has said, " We have no record of extempore prayer in church 
 worship, in any part of Christendom, from the apostles' days 
 to the time of the reformation," to adduce some testimony on 
 this point. 
 
 I might assert that what he says is just opposite the truth^ 
 and I suppose my assertion would weigh as much as his. 
 
 But I am not content with barely balancing his assertion, I 
 
 wish to prove that it is not true. We have seen already that 
 there is ample record of extempore prayers in the very time of 
 the apostles. Now for the times after the apostles. 
 
 The truth on this subject is very briefly and clearly stated 
 by the late Dr. Ebenezer Porter, President of the Andover 
 Theological Seminary. In his Lectures on Homiletics, page 
 292, he says, — "When, and how, then, did liturgies come 
 into use? I answer promptly, nothing of the kind, that is 
 
256 THE CHURCH, 
 
 genuine, can be fixed upon, for tlie first three hundred years 
 after Christ. When the Arian and Pelagian doctrines began 
 seriously to disturb the church, various forms of expression, 
 occasioned by public controversy, gradually insinuated them- 
 selves into the language of prayer ; and it was deemed neces- 
 sary by the council of Laodicea, A. D. 364 or 365, to require 
 by ecclesiastical regulations, that ministers, instead of using the 
 liberty before enjoyed, should always keep to one form of 
 prater, L e. should not pray ' pro arbitrio, sed semper easdem 
 preces.' This form, however, each minister might compose for 
 himself provided that ' before using it he should consult with 
 learned and experienced brethren.' This regulation was ex- 
 plained, as already in existence, by the council of Carthage, 
 A. D. 397. About twenty years later, that is, A. D. 416, the 
 council of Milan ordained that none should use set forms of 
 prayer, except such as were approved in a synod. The result 
 of my inquiries is, that no forms of prayer were prescribed by 
 public authority till the fifth century. Before this, forms were 
 used at the option of individual ministers." 
 
 Until A. D. 364, then, every minister prayed '''■pro arbi- 
 trio,^'' that is, according to his own judgment, or the dictates 
 of his own mind. Prayer was free. Subsequently, until the 
 year 416, each minister was required to write his prayers out, 
 and having had them approved by " learned and experienced 
 brethren," to use " semper easdem preces " — always the same 
 prayers. After A. D. 416, the ministers ceased to make their 
 own prayers, and forms were prescribed by the synod. Was 
 Mr. Schuyler utterly ignorant of these simple facts of history ? 
 
 Authorities for free and extempore prayer in the primitive 
 church are not wanting. I shall cite a few of the many that 
 I have before me. Justin Martyr, in the second century, 
 describing the manner of oflfering up prayer in the church, in 
 his time, says — Apol. ii, in fine. p. 162 — "He, ^. e. the presi- 
 dent, offers prayers and thanksgivings according as he is able" 
 i. e. according to the ability that he possesses. Such is a fair, 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 257 
 
 rendering of the Greek. Some advocates of liturgies have 
 pretended that this expression, " as he is able^^ means according 
 to the fervency of his desires; that it has respect to the spirit^ 
 rather than to the substance and words of his prayers. But 
 this is a bare subterfuge, and a very poor one. No one would 
 think of saying that my brother Schuyler " offers prayers and 
 thanksgivings " in his church every sabbath day, according as 
 he is able, or according to the ability he possesses. No ; that 
 is the charge against us Presbyterian ministers ; that we are 
 left, each of us, to pray according to our ability, and that many 
 of us, lacking the ability, make shocking work of it; while 
 Episcopal rectors, having all such a beautiful liturgy which they 
 are required to use, are enabled, though of feeble capacity, to 
 make their ser\^ces always edifying and pleasing. To test the 
 meaning of Justin in this place, we may refer to another 
 instance in his writings, where the same expression in his own 
 Greek occurs, as that upon which we are now debating. He 
 says — Apol. ii, in fine. p. 157 — "Having, therefore, exhorted 
 you as ive are able, we shall be henceforth blameless if you 
 do not believe." What the expiession, "as we are able" 
 means here, no one can be at a loss to tell. The testimony, 
 therefore, of this father is, that in his time, the prayers offered 
 in the church were extempore. 
 
 My next authority is Hernias, who wrote some forty years 
 earlier than Justin. I quote from the Pastor, lib. 2, — "When 
 a man who has the spirit of God, comes into the church of 
 just men, who have the faith of God, and prayer is made to 
 God,J^then the holy messenger for the divinity fills him with 
 the Holy Ghost, and he speaks in the congregation as God 
 would have him^ That is, he prays as God would have him, 
 for it is of prayer that Hernias is speaking. Does not this 
 mean, he prays as he is prompted at the time by the Holy 
 Ghost. ^ Can it mean any thing else ? Thus the testimony of 
 Justin is confirmed. 
 
258 THE CHURCH, 
 
 Tertullian, A. D. 200, uses the following language, — Apol. 
 c. 80. He also is describing the manner of christian worship. 
 — " Looking up to heaven, they spread abroad their hands, 
 because innocent, with their heads uncovered, because not 
 ashamed, and without a monitor, because they prayed from the 
 heart." This passage presents the most unequivocal evidence, 
 that in Tertullian's time, prayer in the public worship of God 
 was extempore, and not by written forms. I have a similar 
 testimony from Clemens Alexandrinics, who flourished A. D. 
 194. The quotation is made by Dr. Porter in his Lectures on 
 Homiletics. This father says, — " We pray with the head lifted 
 up, and the hands stretched out." In addition to Tertulhan's 
 testimony that they prayed without a monitor, i. e. without a 
 book or any thing written down, because they prai/ed from the 
 heart, — the testimony of both these fathers, that they per- 
 formed this service with their heads elevated, and their hands 
 outstretched, like Solomon's at the dedication of the temple, 
 is absolutely fatal to the idea that they used a book. If they 
 had used a book, both hands and eyes would have had employ- 
 ment altogether incompatible with such an attitude. 
 
 Tertullian says again, in his book on prayer, ch. 9, — " Yet, 
 since our Lord, who foresaw men's necessities, after he had 
 delivered the rule of prayer, said particularly, 'Ask and ye 
 shall receive ; ' and there are several things which need to be 
 asked according to every one's circumstances, — the rightful 
 and ordinary prayer being first used as a foundation, we may 
 lawfully add other desires, and build other petitions upon it." 
 
 Origen's testimony on this subject is very full. This father 
 flourished about A. D. 230. In his eighth book against Celsus, 
 from page 386, to page 402, there is much that might be 
 quoted. The following passages among others, occur, — " We 
 worship one God and his one Son, who is his word and image, 
 with supphcations and honors, according to our ability." 
 Again ; " but the Grecian christian in Greek, the Romans in 
 Latin, and every one in his own proper language, prays to God, 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 259 
 
 and praises him as he is able. Lord chancellor King, after 
 quoting Origen's comment on the injunction, not to use " vain 
 repetitions,^'' has this judicious observation, — " Surely this cau- 
 tion had been needless, of stnctly obser\'ing the words that 
 they uttered, and this fear had been groundless, of expressing 
 themselves indecently, or sinfully, if they had a prayer-book to 
 recur to." 
 
 Dr. Porter, in his Lectures on Homiletics, page 293, says, — 
 " Origen, in his treatise on prayer, maintains the necessity of 
 closing the eyes to avoid the interruption of external objects. 
 In his treatise contra celsum, too, he says, that ' we should 
 close the eyes of the body, and elevate those of the soul.' Now, 
 it must have been a gift next to inspiration to read prayers 
 with the eyes shut." 
 
 Let me close those citations with a passage from Augustine, 
 who flourished in the fourth century. He is enforcing the 
 necessity of the people being taught to exercise humihty and 
 forbearance in estimating the gifts of ministers. He says, — 
 De Catech. Rudib. cap. ix, tom. iv, — " Make them understand 
 that not the voice, but the feelings of the soul, reach the ear 
 of God ; for then they will not laugh if they observe any of 
 the bishops and ministers of the church are guilty of barbar- 
 isms and solecisms in their praying to God." How, it may 
 be asked, could the officiating ministers be guilty of barbar- 
 isms and solecisms, in their praying to God, if they used 
 precomposed forms? 
 
 Will these testimonies be deemed sufficient ? I have more 
 of them at hand, if they are called for ; but I can not think 
 that more are necessary. The truth is, the entire weight of 
 testimony, and in fact, every thing that can have weight as 
 testimony, is in favor of free prayer, both among the Jews 
 and in the early christian church. Yet, Mr. Schuyler coolly 
 tells us, and leaves it there, as though it were a settled fact, 
 that we have no record of extempore prayer in the church, in 
 any part of Christendom previous to the reformation ! He has 
 
260 THE CHURCH, 
 
 the authority of the bishop of Vermont for this, I know ; but 
 with the bishop of Vermont, who, by the way, is no more 
 bishop of Vermont than I am, but of a very few feeble Epis- 
 copal congregations in that state, it is just as unproved an 
 assertion as it is with the real bishop of St. John's church in 
 the city of Buffalo. I have read Dr. Hopkins' lecture on 
 liturgies, in his book entitled, " The Primitive Church," and 
 find that it contains all Mr. Schuyler has said on this subject, 
 with a remarkable similarity in the manner of saying it, and 
 some things besides, which I regret Mr. Schuyler did not say, as 
 it would have afforded me peculiar pleasure to reply to them. 
 For example, I would have liked to show how sorely pushed 
 for an argument a man must be, when he finds it necessary to 
 quote in defense of liturgies, Paul's words to Timothy, — 2 
 Tim. i : 1 3, — " Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou 
 hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus ! " 
 I w^ould have liked to solve also, what seems to Dr. Hopkins, 
 on our principles, so incredible a marvel, as, "that such an 
 alteration," as the introduction of liturgical services in the place 
 of free prayer, in the public worship of God, "could have 
 taken place in the primitive church, without noise, without 
 opposition, yea, so quietly, and so much in the dark, that not 
 one line remains to testify the fact to after ages." The wonder, 
 demanding an explanation, might be somewhat diminished to 
 his view, by letting him know that instead of there being " not 
 one line left to testify the fact (of this change) to after ages," 
 a very distinct, and satisfactory, and credible account of the 
 change is actually upon record, and may be exhibited to him 
 at any time that he desires to be enhghtened. For the rest, 
 how does he know that this change took place " without noise,'* 
 and " without opposition ?" 
 
 A change in the manner of public worship, which took place 
 more than fourteen hundred years ago, may have excited oppo- 
 tion and a noise, or it may not. If we have historical e\^dence 
 of the change itself, we may well be content, without demanding 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 261 
 
 an account of all tlie minute details and particular circum- 
 stances attending it. For all that appears to the contrary, there 
 may have been noise and opposition enough to satisfy even 
 Dr. Hopkins, could he be sufficiently certified of it, that the 
 introduction of liturgies was an innovation on all former usage. 
 But, how, he asks, would the christians of that age submit to 
 such a change at all ? — " Let us only imagine what a clamor 
 would be raised, if any man or set of men should try to in- 
 troduce liturgies among our Presbyterian or Congregational 
 brethren. Let any degree of practicable human management 
 be used to change their habits on this subject, and I venture to 
 say, that if the attempt succeeded at all, it would be but par- 
 tially, and at the cost of an open and bitter schism." The Dr. 
 is right in this, beyond the shadow of a doubt. But is there 
 no difference between the circumstances of his Presbyterian 
 and Congregational brethren at the present day, and those of 
 the christians of the fourth and fifth centuries ? I believe I 
 may venture to ask Dr. Hopkins himself, if he does not think 
 that we are rather then* superiors in point of intelligence? 
 Certainly, he will own that among us there is no monarchical 
 power to make changes at its will, resembling the well-grown 
 hierarchy of the period at which we affirm that the change 
 under consideration was introduced. So far from its being a 
 wonderful thing, that such a change should have been made, 
 and the people should have submitted to it, we rather look upon 
 it as most natural, that when the christian ministry, according 
 to all historical evidence, was filled with extremely illiterate 
 men, wholly incompetent to conduct the services of religion 
 themselves, the idea of providing them with written prayers 
 should have occurred to the governors of the church ; and we 
 see nothing more difficult to understand, in the supposition that 
 the people, as ignorant, to say the least, as their priests, and by 
 this time accustomed to submit to the domination of their 
 bishops, should have accepted the change when it was imposed 
 upon them. That, tlierefore, which seems to Dr. Hopkins a 
 
262 THE CHURCH, 
 
 " wild supposition^'' I think will not seem so to others ; and the 
 marvel which overwhelms his powers of conception, I am per- 
 suaded, will very generally appear a most natural and rational 
 affair. 
 
 I shall not attempt to follow Mr. Schuyler in his argument 
 for liturgies on the ground of expediency. 
 
 We object to liturgies on the ground of expediency, affirm- 
 ing, — First, that they are unfavorable to devotion, and tend to 
 mere formahty in rehgion. 
 
 Second. That they can not be framed so as to meet all the 
 possible and ever actually recurring wants of the soul, and to 
 be adapted to all the varied and ever varying circumstances of 
 the church. 
 
 We object to them farther and mainly, on the ground that 
 they are totally destitute of authority in the scriptures, being 
 mere devices of men, and corruptions of the worship which 
 God himself has sanctioned, and which is commended to us by 
 the practice of our Lord, of his apostles, and the first christians. 
 
 The main practical objection to free prayer, which is urged 
 by our author, is stated on page 174, as follows: 
 
 " Who that has attended public worship thus conducted, has 
 not often gone away, feeling that his spiritual desires have been 
 unsatisfied, and that there was much in his heart which had 
 found no expression in the prayers of the minister ? Or, who 
 has not been pained with listening to irreverent and unsuitable 
 petitions, or chilled with the set phrases, and stifi" and formal 
 sentences of the dull and lifeless petitioner, or shocked by the 
 reckless discussion of some favored topic of fanaticism ? " 
 
 I think it will not be considered unfair, if I refeather this 
 shaft, and send it back. My opinion is, that it will fly as well 
 in that direction as in this, and stich there as well as here. 
 
 Who, that has attended public worship in churches where a 
 liturgical service was employed, if of a devotional frame of 
 mind, has not often gone away feeling that his spiritual desires 
 have been unsatisfied, and that there was much in his heart 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 263 
 
 that had found no expression in the prayers that the minister 
 read out of his book ? Or, who has not been pained by the 
 hght and irreverent manner in which the prayers were read, as 
 well as by the " vain repetitions," and sometimes unscriptural 
 doctrine of the prayers themselves; or chilled with the set 
 phrases and monotonous petitions of the book, made still more 
 set and monotonous by the aflfected drawl of the dull and life- 
 less reader ; or shocked by the exhibition of the most unmis- 
 takable signs, that what was a mere form in the letter, was a 
 mere form also in the spirit, and hardly reverenced even as a 
 form of worship offered to God ? 
 
 For the edification of my readers, and possibly of Mr. 
 Schuyler himself, I will here describe a veritable scene, of which 
 I myself was a disgusted eye-witness, seven years ago, in Lon- 
 don. Attracted by, I hope, a pardonable curiosity, I attended 
 morning service, one day, at St. Paul's, the very high place of 
 episcopacy in England. The htany was chaunted by the offi- 
 ciating minister of the day, assisted in the responses by three 
 or four little boys, frocked in white, who stood in a side gallery 
 opposite the reading desk. During the entire service the boys 
 were making themselves merry, in a quiet way, at something 
 that amused them in the congregation. There were, in all, 
 perhaps fifty persons in attendance. In the course of the cere- 
 mony, the minister, who probably had been hastily summoned 
 from his dreams to engage in this duty, actually went through 
 with the most offensive operations of his neglected toilette, 
 occupying with this most devout exercise, chiefly, the time of 
 the responses. First, he pared and scraped his nails ; then with 
 an ear-shovel he removed the serum from the cavities of his 
 ears, examining the shovel after each use of it, apparently to 
 see what was obtained. When this was done, the tweezers 
 were applied to his reverend nose, and many a quick jerk bore 
 witness that this labor, at least, was not a form. The toilette 
 and the prayers were concluded together. 
 
264 THE CHURCH, 
 
 You look incredulous, gentle reader, but I do assure you that 
 what I have described, without exaggeration or adornment, my 
 own eyes saw. You may suggest that I had no business to be 
 looking about me in such a place. Perhaps I had not, but I 
 did, nevertheless. Conjiteor mihi peccatum. 
 
 Alas ! alas ! for the unseemly possibilities of our Presbyterian 
 prayers. It must, at least, be owned that we would not find it 
 easy to beat his reverence of St. Paul's. 
 
 The only farther comment that I desire to make, involves 
 another story. When this most edifying service was ended, I 
 passed out of the chapel, into the nave of the cathedral, where, 
 after a little time, I w^as joined by that Mr. Huntington who 
 wrote the silly, but somewhat celebrated religious romance, 
 entitled "Lady Alice." He was then, a high-toned Episco- 
 palian, but has since yielded to his tendencies, and joined the 
 Roman Catholics. " Well," said Mr. H. in a very low tone of 
 voice, as though he felt himself to be standing on holy ground, 
 " tell me, Mr. Thompson, what impression has this service made 
 upon your mind ? " Do you really wish me, I replied, to tell 
 you exactly what I think of it ? " Oh, certainly ; of course." 
 Well then, my dear sir, said I, to speak with entire plainness, 
 and I beg you will not take it as a personal affront, I think it 
 is one of the biggest humbugs in all London. " I can only 
 say," rejoined Mr. H. with a most lugubrious roll of his eyes, 
 as, after a little hesitation, he turned away from me, apparently 
 horrified at my impiety, — "I can only say that your opin- 
 ion evinces a very imperfect development of the religious 
 principle in you ! " 
 
 I will only add, that there is evidently no security in a 
 liturgy, against the evil of which Mr. Schuyler complains. On 
 the lips of a buffoon, or a fop, or a fool, even the Lord's prayer 
 may be divested of all its power to enhven and edify the souls 
 of men. I do not deny, that there may have been sometimes 
 in Presbyterian pulpits, mournful and mortifying exhibitions, 
 both of mental and moral incapacity to conduct the devotions 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 265 
 
 of God's people, but I do deny that in this respect Episcopa- 
 lians have any advantage over us. I affirm, on the contrary, 
 that they greatly suffer in a comparison. 
 
 MR. SCHUYLER'S APPENDIX. 
 
 I propose briefly to notice a variety of matters which our 
 author has collected from various sources, and thrown together 
 in a heterogeneous mass, at the end of his volume. His first 
 article is an extract from bishop Macoskry, of Michigan, on the 
 
 REPUBLICAN CHARACTER OF THE AMERICAN EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 Why he deemed it necessary to introduce this topic, I can 
 not imagine, unless he felt a suspicion that the point to which 
 it relates is one on which his church is peculiarly vulnerable. I 
 do not see that it has any intimate relation to the object of his 
 book, or that it can seriously affect, either way, the main ques- 
 tion in debate between us. Either, he had some special reason 
 for being sensitive on this subject, and therefore availed himself 
 of this not very suitable occasion for relieving his mind, or else, 
 which perhaps is the more charitable conclusion, he barely 
 wanted an appendix, a tail to his kite, and fancied this would 
 do to begin with, as well as any thing. Bishop Macoskry says, 
 " At the time of our civil revolution, the church, as is well 
 known, separated herself entirely from the jurisdiction of a for- 
 eign bishop, and declared her independence," &c. &c. Was it 
 at the time of our civil revolution, or after? Did the Episcopal 
 church sympathize with the spirit of that great national move- 
 ment, and co-operate with it; or, when the movement was 
 perfected, did she ungracefully submit to a necessity, and con- 
 form herself, for the sake of her own existence, to her altered 
 circumstances? I am not going into a discussion of this 
 13 
 
266 THE CHURCH, 
 
 subject. If any of my readers desire to see full justice done to 
 it, I recommend them to the able work of Dr. Thomas Smyth, 
 of Charleston, S. C, on " Ecclesiastical Repubhcanism." What 
 attitude the Episcopal church in this country occupied " at the 
 time of our civil revolution," is very well understood by those 
 who are at all conversant with the history of that eventful and 
 trying period. That, from the beginning to the end, it was an 
 attitude of decided and earnest protest^ I can not suppose that 
 any man needs to be informed, for it is notorious, that as a 
 body, the Episcopalians of the country were either openly 
 or covertly devoted to the English interest, and that great 
 numbers of their clergy resigned their charges and went 
 home in disgust, while those who remained, as a general 
 thing, both preached and prayed against the cause of the 
 colonies. 
 
 Whether the Episcopal church is republican or othenvise in 
 its present peculiar organization, I have no disposition to in- 
 quire. That the Presbyterian church is so in a pre-eminent 
 degree, everybody knows, who knows any thing about it. I 
 feel very much as a distinguished friend of mine. Dr. Joel Par- 
 ker, expressed himself on another subject, some few years ago, 
 in the city of Philadelphia. It was at an annivei-sary meeting 
 of the Pennsylvania Bible Society, on which occasion Dr. P. 
 was one of the speakers. He had been preceded by Rev. Dr. 
 Tyng, who, with all his christian hberality, can never suffer an 
 opportunity to slip unimproved, of bestowing his laudations on 
 " the church." Dr. T. had been boasting of his long and de- 
 voted attachment to the cause then advocated before the meet- 
 ing, and reiterating his assurances to the congi-egation that his 
 church loved it, and that his brethren in the ministry loved it, 
 and especially, that he knew it to be dear to the heart of their 
 newly-elected bishop (Dr. Potter) whom he desired to com- 
 mend to their esteem and confidence as a staunch friend of the 
 Bible Society. When Dr. Parker arose, he said, "We are 
 pleased to hear that the Episcopal clergy are so favorable to 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 267 
 
 the dissemination of the bible, and especially, that this is true 
 of the bishop elect of the Episcopal church in this state. We 
 shall be happy, when he arrives, to give him the right hand of 
 fellowship, and to own that he is almost as good a bishop as 
 any of us." My friend's politeness evidently betrayed him 
 into a slight extravagance here. "In regard to us Presby- 
 terians," he continued " there is no occasion for giving assur- 
 ances of our devotion to the work in which this society is 
 engaged. You all know where we stand. A Presbyterian, 
 of course," &c. (fee. 
 
 So precisely, in regard to civil liberty. A Presbyterian, of 
 course, is a liberty-man, and a liberty-supporting man, the 
 world over. As far as it is possible for him to be so, he is a 
 republican, in whatever age, or in whatever country you find 
 him. He believes that the bible teaches the simplest and 
 purest principles of democracy ; that it is opposed to the rule 
 of all kings but Christ, and that it aims to establish, ere the 
 world shall be burnt up, universal freedom, and equal rights, 
 under a universal sovereignty of the people. This is part of a 
 Presbyterian's religious faith. We need not proclaim the 
 republicanism of our church. The world has been well 
 instructed on this point. 
 
 Bancroft, in his history of the United States, says, — " We 
 are proud of the free states that fringe the Atlantic. The pil- 
 gi-ims of Plymouth were Calvinists; the best settlers of South 
 Carolina came from the Calvinists of France; William Penn 
 was the disciple of the Huguenots; — the ships from Hol- 
 land that first brought colonists to Manhattan were filled with 
 Calvinists. He that will not honor the memory, and respect 
 the influence of Calvin, knows hut little of the origin of 
 American lihertyT In connection with this, may be cited 
 the admission of Thomas Jefferson, an admission which is the 
 more valuable in consequence of his well known dishke of the 
 men whom he thus honored, that, to no class of persons in this 
 country was the successful issue of the American struggle for 
 
268 THE CHURCH, 
 
 independence more directly attributable, than to the ministers 
 of the Presbyterian and Congregational churches. 
 
 Gibbon says, — " After we pass the difficulties of the first 
 century, we find the Episcopal form universally established, till 
 it was interrupted by the republican spirit of the Swiss and 
 German reformers^ for Calvin, though horn in France., was 
 a Swiss reformerT 
 
 When the unhappy Charles First was urged to give his assent 
 to the act of Parliament for abolishing episcopacy, he wrote to 
 lord Jermyh, lord Culpepper, and Mr. Ashburnham, his tried 
 friends and couilsellors, as follows : "Show me any prece- 
 dent where presbyterial government and regal were together 
 without perpetual rebellions, which was the cause that necessi- 
 tated the king, my father, to change that government in Scot- 
 land. And in France, where they are upon tolerance, (which 
 in likelihood should cause moderation,) did they ever sit still 
 so long as they had power to rebel ? And it can not be other- 
 wise, for the ground of their doctrine is anti-monarchical. I 
 will say, without hyperbole, that there was not a wiser man 
 since Solomon than he who said ' No bishop, no kingl " 
 
 King James, at the Hampton court conference, held by him 
 in 1604, happening to hear bishop (then Dr.) Reynolds use the 
 word presbytery, broke out in the following language : " You 
 are aiming at a Scot's presbytery, which agrees with monarchy 
 as well as God and the devil. Then Jack, and Tom, and Will, 
 and Dick shall meet, and at their pleasure censure me and my 
 council, and all our proceedings." 
 
 Similar testimonies and admissions might be furnished with- 
 out number. 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 269 
 
 THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 
 
 I said, in tlie appendix to my sermon, page fifty-five, " The 
 ancient authors on whom prelatists mamly rely, are Clement, 
 who flourished about A. D. 100, Ignatius, his cotemporary, and 
 Ireneus, who lived nearly a century later." I might have said, 
 that Ignatius alone, is the witness among those Avho are com- 
 monly styled the apostolic fathers, on whom their dependence 
 is placed. Thus an Episcopalian, author of Letters on the 
 Fathers^ page sixty-seven, says, — " As to bishops distinct from 
 presbyters, we have no evidence, except that of Ig-natius, for the 
 first two centuries. Clement and Polycarp most clearly recog- 
 nize but two orders. Barnabas and Hermas have nothing very 
 distinct on the subject. Justin mentions only two officers in 
 the church in his time, whom he calls president and deacon. 
 Ireneus uses the terms bishop and presbyter indiscriminately. 
 Thus we see, the weight of e\ddence, during the first two cen- 
 turies, is against three orders, — which may naturally create 
 suspicion that those passages in Ignatius which refer to them 
 are interpolations ; for he stands alone in what he states foe the 
 first two centuries; and not only alone, but opposed hy the 
 strongest authorities during that period." 
 
 This father, to whom any number of epistles have at differ- 
 ent times been attributed, is not now regarded by any as being 
 the author of more than seven, and of these seven, the genuine- 
 ness of four, those to the Magnesians, TraUians, Smyrnseans, 
 and Philadelphians, has always been disputed. It has, never- 
 theless, been the habit of authors to quote from all of them, — it 
 being understood that their doubtful authority should be taken 
 at its duly depreciated value. In our controversy with Epis- 
 copalians, seeing that the genuineness of all the seven epistles 
 is claimed by them, we feel at liberty to quote even from 
 those which we hold to be apocryphal. Though the author- 
 ity is not respected by us, it is by them, and we are willing 
 
270 THE CHURCH, 
 
 to show them how weak is their position, even where they 
 consider it most impregnable. Yevj recently, however, there 
 have been made important discoveries in regard to these Igna- 
 tian epistles, which, I am inclined to think, will effectually 
 exclude from all credit the four that I have named, and con- 
 sign them henceforth, by general consent, to the catalogue 
 of admitted forgeries. I refer those who desire particular in- 
 formation, to the number of the Edinburgh Review for July, 
 1849, article sixth. The article is a notice of the " Corpus Igna- 
 tianum, by Wilham Cureton, M. A., F. R. S." This work was 
 pubhshed in London, in 1849, and judging from what appears 
 in the Review, I am satisfied that it does contain testimony 
 which, by the learned world, will be regarded as conclusive, that 
 the four epistles above named are spurious, and that even the 
 three which are admitted to be genuine, are sadly infected with 
 interpolations. 
 
 The state of the Ignatian controversy, independently of 
 Mr. Cureton's discoveries, can not be more distinctly or briefly 
 presented, than in the following extract from the article in 
 the Edinburgh Review : — " The fact of epistles having been 
 written by Ignatius to different christian communities, a short 
 time before his martyrdom, is sufficiently well attested. They 
 are mentioned by respectable authors of the second and third 
 centuries, — by Polycarp, Ireneus, Theophilus of Antioch, and 
 Origen, — who refer to or quote three several epistles, still 
 extant; but do not intimate that any others were then in exist- 
 ence. In the fourth century, however, Eusebius specifies 
 seven epistles, attributed to Ignatius, as being current in his 
 time ; but speaks of them in guarded terms, as if he were not 
 perfectly satisfied of their genuineness. He states indeed, that 
 those addressed to the Romans and to Polycarp, had been 
 mentioned by ancient writers ; and he might have added the 
 testimony of Origen with regard to the one to the Ephesians. 
 But neither he nor any one else adduces ancient evidence on 
 behalf of those to the Magnesians, Trallians, Philadelphians, 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 271 
 
 and Smyniseans, which were circulated along with the others in 
 the fourth century. Here then, we have three documents, indu- 
 bitably known at a very early period, placed in company with 
 four others, which, as far as we know, were never heard of 
 before the fourth century. The question, therefore, naturally 
 arises, whether all seven are to be put on the same footing ? o\\ 
 whether the same process of amplification was exercised on 
 Ignatius, to which St. Clement had been subjected in the pre- 
 vious century? This point was argued, pro and con, with 
 great ability in the seventeenth century; but, as is generally 
 the case in controversies, when the data are scanty, and the 
 opponents equally matched and equally confident, with veiy 
 unsatisfactory results." 
 
 The question respecting the genuineness of the four disputed 
 epistles may be regarded as having been, previous to the 
 publication of Mr. Cureton, pretty equally balanced, — preLi- 
 tists affirming, and others denying. The testimony of arcli- 
 bishop Usher may be appealed to as confirming what I say, of 
 the perfectly unsettled state of this controversy. At the time 
 of the reformation no less than fifteen epistles were extant in the 
 church, supposed to have been written by Ignatius. Eight of 
 these were so evidently forgeries, that on the slightest inspec- 
 tion, their credit was destroyed, even with those who would 
 have been most interested in maintaining it. They had mani- 
 festly been composed for the purpose of fraudulently maintain- 
 ing the influence of the hierarchy, being filled with the most 
 inflated representations of the importance and high authority 
 of the episcopal office. 
 
 The four disputed epistles that remain, present nearly all 
 the marks internally of having been forged for party purposes, 
 which are presented by the eight rejected ones, and difier 
 from them in no important respect, save that they are mani- 
 festly of an earlier date, having been doubtingly mentioned by 
 Eusebius. But why is there no mention of them by any author 
 who proceeded Eusebius? Why do not Poly carp, Ireneus, 
 
272 THE CHURCH, 
 
 Theopliilus, and Origen, who distinctly mention the other 
 three, take some notice of these also? We can account for 
 their utter silence concerning these epistles in no other way, 
 than by supposing that they had no knowledge of them, 
 because the epistles had no existence ; and knowing, as we do, 
 that the episcopal leaven had begun to work before the time of 
 Eusebius, and that the fashion of forging epistles for party 
 purposes had been introduced, we are furnished with the ground 
 of a supposition in regard to them, which reasonably satisfies 
 our minds, if it does not the minds of our opponents in this 
 debate. 
 
 This much may be safely said, that the epistles to the 
 Magnesians, Trallians, Smyrnseans, and Philadelphians, do not 
 stand upon such ground of e\ddence, as can justify an appeal 
 to them for the settlement of debated questions of christian 
 faith and practice. 
 
 In regard to the acknowledged works of the ancient fathers, 
 those passages in them wdiich bear strongly on controverted 
 subjects, are always to be taken with many grains of allowance. 
 Who knows whether they are interpolations or not ? or whether, 
 at least, they have not been subjected to important verbal alter- 
 ations ? If the rage for accumulating testimony of this kind 
 was such as to multiply without number entire works of im- 
 posture, ascribing them to authors who would have blushed to 
 see their names so employed, who can doubt that the genuine 
 productions of these authors, as far as it could safely be done, 
 were tampered with, and corrupted for similar ends ? 
 
 In regard to the epistles of Ignatius, the London Christian 
 Observer, one of the oldest and most respectable Episcopalian 
 periodicals now published, holds the following language : " In 
 these epistles we have the same order of bishops, priests, and 
 deacons, marshalled with unseasonable exactness, and repeated 
 with importunate anxiety. There appear, moreover, so many 
 symptoms of contrivance, that these compositions will surely not 
 be alledged by any capable and candid advocate for primitive 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 273 
 
 episcopacy, without great hesitation; by many they will be 
 utterly rejected." The writer asserts, in the same connection, 
 that in all the particular passages which bear most strongly on 
 the episcopal controversy, " the language, at the earliest, is that 
 of the fourth century'^ 
 
 " It is impossible," says Mr. Riddle^ " to attach any impor- 
 tance to any separate portions of these epistles, in which it is 
 highly probable that spurious clauses have been artfully mixed 
 up with the genuine expressions of the apostolical fathers." 
 
 Let no one suppose that I desire to destroy the credit of 
 these ancient writings, through fear of any legitimate use that 
 can be made of them in this controversy. I still affirm, with 
 the Episcopal writer whom I have already quoted, that the 
 weight of evidence during the first two centuries, is against our 
 opponents, and in our favor. 
 
 Of the quotations from Ignatius, made by Dr. Carmichael, 
 with which our author has favored us, two only, the first and 
 the last, are from epistles acknowledged to be genuine. 
 
 Epistle to the Ephesians, Sec. 2. — I transcribe the im- 
 portant sentence. — " For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, 
 is sent by the will of the Father ; as the bishops appointed unto 
 the utmost bounds of the earthy are, by the will of Jesus Christ^ 
 The entire value to Episcopalians of this passage depends upon 
 the occurrence of the word " bishops " in it, and the sheer as- 
 sumption that that word stands for something more than ordi- 
 nary christian ministers. What right have they to make such 
 an assumption ? We insist that they have none whatever. In 
 the writings of the apostles, in the New Testament, they are 
 forced to own that the word bishop is convertable with presby- 
 ter, and means always the very same thing. On what ground, 
 then, do they assume that in the writings of those who imme- 
 diately succeeded the apostles, it means something different? 
 Let them show, if they can, a single substantial reason for sup- 
 posing that the use of the word was so early changed. This 
 they can not do. Substitute in this passage from Ignatius, 
 13* 
 
274 THE CHURCH, 
 
 ministers for bishops, or understand the latter word in the 
 authorized scriptural sense, and then the passage stands for 
 precisely what it is. 
 
 Sec. 4. " Wherefore it will become you to run together, ac- 
 cording to the will of your bishop, as also ye do. For your 
 famous presbytery (worthy of God,) is fitted exactly to the 
 bishop as the strings are to the harp." It is to be observed 
 again, that the use of the word ^^ bishop ^^ proves nothing. 
 Neither does that superiority of the bishop, indicated by the 
 exhortation to " run together, according to his will," prove any 
 thing, for it is barely coincident with all those directions given 
 to christians in the New Testament, which inculcate subordina- 
 tion and obedience to those who have authority in the church, — 
 see 1 Tim. v : 1 7, — " Let the elders (presbyters) that rule well 
 be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor 
 in the word and doctrine." That is, especially let double honor, 
 the honor of reverence and subjection, be shown to those elders 
 to whom is especially committed the instruction and spiritual 
 oversight of the church. 
 
 What Ignatius intended by saying that the " presbytery is 
 fitted exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp," I 
 am not able with certainty to say. I suppose that by the pres- 
 bytery he meant the college or board of elders in any church, 
 and that he designed to magnify the office of the presiding 
 elder or pastor, by pointing out its beautiful adaptation, in 
 connection with the entire eldership, to all the purposes of 
 church government. The well-understood constitution of our 
 Presbyterian churches may serve as an illustration. If any 
 thing more can be fairly made of it, let Dr. Carmichael, or any 
 of his brethren show what more. 
 
 Epistle to Polycarp, Sec. 6. — " Hearken unto the bishop, 
 that God also may hearken unto you. My soul be security for 
 them that submit to their bishop, with their presbyters and 
 deacons; and may my portion be together with theirs in God." 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 275 
 
 The first sentence here may be explained by what Christ 
 said to his disciples, Matt, x : 40, — " He that receiveth you, 
 receiveth me, and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent 
 me." The bishop is the pastor of the church, the minister of 
 Christ, God's embassador to men, and to hearken to him is 
 certainly the way to obtain the divine favor. The language 
 of Ignatius here is eminently Presbyterian. In each of our 
 churches, when the complement of ofiice-bearers is perfect, 
 there is first a bishop or pastor, who is also an elder ; then the 
 presbyters or elders, whose duty it is to assist the pastor in 
 the spiritual oversight of the church, and in the administration 
 of discipline ; and finally, the deacons, who serve tables, and 
 look after the poor. The arrangement in an Episcopal church 
 is very different, and such as does not at all agree with what 
 Ignatius says. An Episcopal church has a bishop^ who com- 
 monly resides at a distance, rarely visiting it, and who, when he 
 does visit it, is hardly brought in any way into contact with the 
 people, so that he can scarcely be said to bear rule over them. 
 The clergy are ruled by the bishop, but if there is any ruling 
 in the churches themselves, over the people who compose them, 
 I do not well see how it is done by the bishop. They ordi- 
 narily know very little about him, so that his government, in 
 fact, is more nominal than real. Then they almost never have 
 either presbyters or deacons. They have a single presbyter, or 
 a single deacon. If it is a presbyter, then they have no dea- 
 con. If it is a deacon, then they have no presbyter. Now 
 suppose that some great saint were to write an epistle to my 
 brother Schuyler's church, in the city of Buffalo, and in the 
 course of his earnest exhortation should say, — " My soul be 
 security for them that submit to their bishop with their presby- 
 ters and deacons." The people might say, — " We are quite 
 wiUing to submit to the bishop in all things that are right and 
 proper, though we do not see him oftener than once a year, and 
 then only for a little time in church, on Sunday; but as for 
 presbyters, we have but one, and we have no deacons at all. 
 
276 THE CHURCH, 
 
 We are above deacons, having a priest in full orders." If this 
 saint's letter were addressed to all the Episcopalians in Buffalo, 
 the comment upon it might be much the same, for I believe 
 there is not an Episcopal deacon in the city — I do not know of 
 any. Such a letter, addressed to any one, or to all of our 
 Presbyterian churches, would find a state of things, on the 
 contrary, exactly corresponding to its terms. 
 
 Both of these quotations, therefore, from undoubted epistles 
 of Ignatius, I claim as direct and clear testimony in our favor, 
 and against our opponents, nor will any disinterested person 
 deny that they are so. 
 
 Our adversaries seem to think that wherever three grades of 
 officers in the church are mentioned, it is proof positive of 
 three grades in the ministry ; and although they are forced to 
 own, that the term bishop, in the New Testament, means 
 nothing but presbyter, yet, the very instant they find the word 
 occurring in the writings of men, who flourished even before 
 the last of the New Testament writers was dead, they insist 
 upon attaching to it, without the shadow of a reason, a meaning 
 to suit their own party views; and that too, in spite of the 
 clearest evidence shown by us, that the fathers used the terms 
 bishop and presbyter convertibly, precisely as the apostles 
 themselves did. 
 
 In regard to the other testimonies taken from the pretended 
 epistles of Ignatius to the Magnesians, Trallians, Philadelphians, 
 and Smyrnaeans, I have only to ask, that the language in 
 which they are expressed, may be compared with the language 
 used by the New Testament writers, in speaking on similar sub- 
 jects ; and if any reasonable mind is not satisfied, either that 
 Ignatius was crazed, or that these epistles are forgeries, or at 
 least that the passages quoted are interpolations, then I shall be 
 altogether disappointed. Look, for example, in the quotation 
 from the epistle to the Trallians, — " Let all reverence the 
 deacons as Jesus Christ, and the bishops as the Father, and 
 the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and college of the 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 277 
 
 apostles." Did the disciple of the meek and lovely John, whose 
 highest ambition was to be known as " the elder," and to be 
 permitted to counsel and beseech men as one of them^ write 
 such stuf as this ? Will any one beheve it ? What would the 
 members of Mr. Schuyler's church think of their rector, if he 
 should exhort them in such words as those which are here attri- 
 buted to good old Ignatius ? Look also in section sixth, of the 
 epistle to the Magnesians, — " I exhort you, that ye study to 
 do all things in a divine concord, your bishops presiding in the 
 place of God; your presbyters, in the place of the council of the 
 apostles ; and your deacons, most dear to me, being entrusted 
 with the ministry of Jesus Christ," &c. Not to dwell upon the 
 important fact, that the writer of this epistle, whoever he was, 
 knew nothing of the modern theory of Episcopalianism, which 
 puts the bishops, and not the presbyters, in the place of the 
 council of the apostles, just let it be considered, whether the 
 nonsense, if what seems rather blasphemous may be so de- 
 scribed, of the " bishops presiding in the place of God," does 
 seem less attributable to so good a man, as we all suppose 
 Ignatius to have been, than to "that man of sin," who, it was 
 said by Paul, 2 Thess. ii : 3, 4, should be quickly " revealed, 
 the son 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 ! " 
 I might quote passage after passage, from these four epistles, 
 which are at least of doubtful authority, and which I fully 
 believe to be spurious, that would serve quite as strongly as 
 those which I have noticed, to show, either that Ignatius did 
 not write them, or that the \ oor old man was in no state of 
 mind to write on any subject, — a fitter candidate for a cell in 
 a mad-house, than for the place of teacher to the churches. 
 Our Episcopal friends should consider it beneath them to rely 
 for evidence on writings of such a character. If they will 
 do so, however, it is a poor reliance, which can give them no 
 fe. 
 
278 THE CHURCH, 
 
 I must close this article with a quotation from the glorious 
 John Milton. I quote from Griswold's Philadelphia edition of 
 Milton's prose works, from the dissertation on prelatical episco- 
 pacy, vol. 1, page 38. — "Now come the epistles of Ignatius 
 to show vis, first, — that Onesimus was bishop of Ephesus ; 
 next, to assert the difference of bishop and presbyters ; wherein 
 I wonder that men, teachers of the Protestant religion, make 
 no more difficulty of imposing on our belief a supposititious 
 offspring of some dozen epistles, whereof five are rejected as 
 spurious, containing in them heresies and trifles ; which can not 
 agj-ee in chronology with Ignatius, entitling him archbishop of 
 Antioch Theopolis, which name of Theopolis that city had 
 not till Justinian's time, long after,. as Cedrenus mentions ; which 
 argues both the barbarous time, and the unskillful fraud of him 
 that foisted this epistle on Ignatius. In the epistle to those of 
 Tarsus, he condemns them for ministers of Satan that say, 
 ' Christ is God above all.' To the Philippians, them that kept 
 their Easter as the Asian churches, as Polycarpus did, and them 
 that fasted upon Saturday or Sunday, except one, he counts as 
 those that had slain the Lord. To those of Antioch, he salutes 
 the sub-deacons, chanters, porters, and exorcists, as if these had 
 been orders of the church in his time ; those other epistles less 
 questioned, are yet so interlarded with corruptions, as may 
 justly endue us with a wholesome suspicion of the rest. As 
 to the Trallians, he writes, that 'a bishop hath power over 
 all, beyond all government and authority whatsoever.' Surely 
 then, no pope can desire more than Ignatius attributes to every 
 bishop; but what will become then of the archbishops and 
 primates, if every bishop in Ignatius' judgment be as supreme 
 as a pope ? To the Ephesians, near the very place from whence 
 they fetch their proof of episcopacy, there stands a line that 
 casts an ill hue upon all the epistle, — ' Let no man err,' saith 
 he, ' unless a man be within the rays or enclosure of the altar, 
 he is deprived of the bread of life.' I say not but this may 
 be stretched to a figurative construction ; but yet, it has an ill 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 279 
 
 look, especially being followed beneath with the mention of I 
 know not what sacrifices. In the other epistle to Smyrna, 
 wherein is written that, ' They should follow their bishop as 
 Christ did his Father, and the presbytery as the apostles ; ' not 
 to speak of the insulse and ill-laid comparison, this cited place 
 lies on the very brim of a noted corruption, which, had they 
 that quote this passage, ventured to let us read, all men would 
 have readily seen what grain the testimony had been of, where 
 it is said, ' That it is not lawful without a bishop to baptize, 
 nor to offer, nor to do sacrifice.' What can our church make 
 of these phrases, but scandalous ? And but a little farther, he 
 plainly falls to contradict the spirit of God in Solomon, judged 
 by the words themselves : ' My son,' saith he, ' honor God and 
 the king ; but I say, honor God, and the bishop as high-priest, 
 bearing the image of God according to his ruling, and of Christ 
 according to his priesting; and after him, honor the king.' 
 Excellent Ignatius! Can ye blame the prelates for making 
 much of this epistle ? Certainly, if this epistle can serve you 
 to set a bishop above a presbyter, it may serve you next to set 
 him above a king. These, and other like places in abundance^ 
 through all those short epistles, must either be adulterate, or 
 else Ignatius Avas not Ignatius, nor a martyr, but most adulte- 
 rate and cornipt himself. In the midst, therefore, of so many 
 forgeries, where shall we fix, to dare say, this is Ignatius ? As 
 for his style, who knows it, so disfigured and interrupted as it 
 is ? Except they think, that where they meet with any thing 
 sound and orthodoxal, there they find Ignatius; and then 
 they believe him, not for his own authority, but for a truth's 
 sake, which they derive from elsewhere. To what end, then, 
 should they cite him as authentic for episcopacy, when they can 
 not know what is authentic in him, but by the judgment which 
 they brought with them, and not by any judgment which they 
 might safely learn from him ? How can they bring satisfaction 
 from such an author, to whose very essence, the reader must 
 be fain to contribute his own understanding ? Had God ever 
 
280 THE CHURCH, 
 
 intended that we should have sought any part of useful instruc- 
 tion from Ignatius, doubtless he would not have so ill pro- 
 vided for our knowledge, as to send him to our hands in this 
 broken and disjointed plight ; and if he intended no such thing, 
 we do injuriously in thinking to taste better the pure evangel- 
 ical manna, by seasoning our mouths with the tainted scraps 
 and fragments of an unknown table, and searching among the 
 verminous and polluted rags, dropped overworn from the toiling 
 shoulders of time, with these deformedly to guilt and interlace 
 the entire, the spotless, and undecaying robe of truth, the 
 daughter, not of time but of heaven, only bred up here below 
 in christian hearts, between two grave and holy nurses, the 
 doctrine and the discipline of the gospel." 
 
 JOHN CALVIN'S VIEWS OF EPISCOPACY. 
 
 The portion of our author's appendix relating to this subject, 
 borrowed from Hobarfs Apology^ seems to have been intended 
 as retaliatory for my unkind notice of the well-authenticated 
 fact, that the pious reformers of England were dissatisfied with 
 their own reformation, and would gladly have gone the whole 
 length of their Presbyterian brethren on the continent. To 
 make things even between us, on this score, the shade of bishop 
 Hobart is evoked, to affirm that John Calvin was equally dis- 
 satisfied with the reformation on the continent, and would 
 gladly have arrested it at the same point at which it was 
 arrested in England. I can not but wonder, that Mr. Schuyler 
 should not have sought the nobler and more serviceable revenge 
 of proving that my representation in regard to the English 
 reformers was incorrect. This he has not even attempted to 
 do. A generous friend, indeed, who has kindly stepped in to 
 his assistance, has made a feeble reply, — see his book, page 
 225, — to the effect that we are not to take the opinions of a few 
 individuals of that time, as expressing the sense of the EngUsh 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 981 
 
 church. It seems to me, that on a point of such grand impor- 
 tance for Enghsh episcopacy, there should have been a careful 
 vindication. I refer again to Mr. Macaulay's statement, thc.t 
 the pious and leading reformers of England were not satisfied; 
 and that the English church ivas the fruit of a comi^romise 
 between the true friends of reform and the government^ as 
 setting forth a fact susceptible of the clearest demonstration. 
 I say, and what I say can be proved — I believe every intelli- 
 gent Episcopalian knows it can be proved — that the reforma- 
 tion in England did not stop where it did, in consequence of 
 a conviction in any man's mind, that it had already restored 
 the church to its true scriptural and primitive order, but 
 because, for political and state reasons, wholly disconnected 
 with religion, the government would not permit it to proceed 
 farther. To exhibit the full proof on this subject, would demand 
 greater space than can, at present, be afforded to it. It is on 
 hand, however, and will be furnished when a suitable occasion 
 shall require it. I shall recur to the subject again in this 
 volume. At present, I must attend to bishop Hobart, and I 
 am concerned to say, spoil Mr. Schuyler's revenge ; for what 
 the bishop asserts concerning John Calvin, is not true. 
 
 If John Calvin favored episcopacy, and desired to introduce 
 it into the reformed churches on the continent, why have we 
 not one word given to us in proof, from his own voluminous 
 published writings ? Why are we to be told what Toplady 
 says, and what Toplady says that Strype says, and what Top- 
 lady says that Strype says that archbishop Abbot says, accord- 
 ing to something discovered among archbishop Usher's manu- 
 scripts, after both these archbishops were dead ? Why, on so 
 grave a subject as this, are we to be served with the mere gossip 
 of discontented churchmen, who would have given the world 
 for the testimony of such a name as Calvin's in favor of their 
 system, instead of having produced to us the veritable words of 
 John Calvin himself? I commend this passage from bishop 
 Hobart, which Mr. Schuyler endorses by quoting, as a very fair 
 
282 THE CHURCH, 
 
 specimen of that kind of reasoning for wliich this bishop was 
 remarkable, and which gained for him the glory of a contro- 
 versial martyrdom at the hands of John Mason. Did Mr. S. 
 read it ? I am sure he did not examine its statements, or even 
 he must have discovered their utter worthlessness. 
 
 I have asked, Why are we not favored with a single testimony 
 from Calvin's own writings, on this point, of his partiality for 
 the Episcopal form of church order? and every one must 
 admit that the demand is reasonable. Few men that ever 
 lived have written and published so much, or upon so great a 
 variety of subjects. Indeed, almost every thing that he ever 
 did write, is in print, and easily accessible ; and I affirm that it 
 is fair to say, that what can not be proved from his published 
 works, on a point like this, can not be proved at all, and ought 
 not to be asserted ; more especially when, as in the present 
 instance, the current testimony of his published works is 
 exactly contrary to it. Next to the reformation of doctrine, 
 the great business of Cahdn's life was the reformation of church 
 order, and his views on this latter subject are expressed freely 
 and fully. Shall we set aside this free and full expression of 
 his opinions, and, in order to determine what he really thought, 
 go fishing with a long line of dead men's recollections in arch- 
 bishop Usher's well, for scraps and bits of old letters ? 
 
 I do not overlook the pretended quotation from Calvin's 
 book " on the necessity of reforming the church." No indeed. 
 I am not likely to overlook so choice a specimen of Jesuitical 
 craft as that. I invite particular attention to it. 
 
 Bishop Hobart wrote as follows, and Mr. S., never dreaming 
 that a bishop could write nonsense, not to use a harder word, 
 gives it to us as he finds it : 
 
 "I can not avoid calling your attention to the follo^ving 
 corroborating evidence that Calvin and the reformed divines 
 approved of the episcopacy of the church of England^ and 
 would have adopted it, if circumstances had favored such a 
 measure. The diligent, learned, and accurate historian, Strype, 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 283 
 
 furnishes this evidence. It may be proper to premise that the 
 following quotations from this historian have been adduced 
 as decisive testimony of the preference of Calvin and other 
 reformed divines, to the English episcopacy, by Rev. Augus- 
 tus Toplady. * * * * Toplady, let it be remembered, 
 was a rigid Calvinist^ a warm admirer and panegyrist of Cal- 
 vin, and his works rank high in the estimation of Calvinists. 
 Strype and Toplady both adduce the passage in which Calvin 
 denounces an anathema against all who should reject a primi- 
 tive hierarchy, as a proof of his approbation of the episcopacy 
 of the church of England. Toplady observes, 'that great 
 reformer (Calvin) wished for the introduction of protestant 
 episcopacy into the reformed churches abroad^ and then he 
 quotes the following passage from Strype — ' How Calvin stood 
 affected in the said point of episcopacy, and how readily and 
 gladly he and other heads of the reformed churches would 
 have received it, is evident enough from his writings and 
 epistles.' " 
 
 I have been at the pains to transcribe all this medley of 
 words, to show the reader how pompously the proof is ushered 
 in. Surely, after all this parade of names and circumstances, 
 we might expect something of real consequence, something 
 very clear and specific to be adduced. What is it ? What is 
 the evidence from John Calvin himself, which proves that he 
 ardently desired to introduce the episcopacy of England into 
 the reformed churches on the continent? Bishop Hobart 
 proceeds, quoting still from Toplady's quotation of Strype : 
 
 " ' In his book (Calvin's) of the necessity of reforming the 
 church, he hath these words : * Talem nobis hierarchiam exhi- 
 beant,' &c. — Let them give iis such an hierarchy, (fee. Top- 
 lady agrees with Strype in considering the above passage as 
 a proof that Calvin's opinion was favorable to the English 
 episcopacy.' " 
 
 And it seems that bishop Hobart agrees with Strype, and 
 Mr. Schuyler agrees with Strype. What delightful unanimity 
 
284 THE CHURCH, 
 
 of sentiment is here exhibited ! All agree with Strype, that 
 when John Calvin said — " Talem nobis hierarchiam exhibeant," 
 &c. he meant — '•'- Let them give us such a hierarchy''^ — as 
 they have in the church of England, and ive will consider our- 
 selves the most favored and fortunate of men! The reader 
 could siij^pose nothing else than that such, or such like, would 
 of course be the onward rendering of Calvin's interrupted sen- 
 tence. What will he think, when I tell him that Calvin, in that 
 connection, is thinking as little of the church of England as he 
 is of a church in the moon ? Let me explain the manner in 
 which Calvin happens to use the words referred to, and show 
 precisely the connection in which they stand. His book on 
 "The Necessity of Reforming the Church," was addressed to 
 the emperor Charles Fifth, and the imperial diet at Spires, A. D. 
 1544, It is mainly a vindication of the reformed churches, and 
 in this way an argument for the reformation of the church 
 generally throughout the empire. This diet at Spires had been 
 called for the special purpose of taking into consideration the 
 state of the church, and devising means for its improvement. 
 Calvin, in the first place, goes largely into a statement of those 
 deep and dreadful corruptions in the church which had 
 prompted the reformers to their course. He says in his open- 
 ing, " I wish to show how just and necessary the causes were 
 which forced us to the changes for which we are blamed." 
 Next, he defends what had been done, and shows that " the 
 remedies employed were just and salutary." Under this head 
 he refers particularly, among other things, to their having 
 adopted the principle of presbytery, in opposition to that of 
 hierarchy, or prelatical episcopacy, and at great length vindi- 
 cates this change. " In the government of the church," he says, 
 " we do not differ from others in any thing for which we can not 
 give a sufficient reason." He then proceeds to give reasons 
 strong and cogent, fairly scouting at the assumed divine right 
 of the Episcopal order, and the absurd dogma of the apostolical 
 succession. " They quarrel with us," he says, " first, concerning 
 
ITS MmiSTRY AND WORSHIP. 285 
 
 the right and 'power^ and secondly, concerning the form of 
 ordination. They quote ancient canons which give the super- 
 intendence of this matter to the bishops and clergy. They 
 alledge a constant succession, by wliich this right has been 
 handed down to them, even from the apostles themselves. They 
 deny that it can be lawfully transferred elsewhere. I wish they 
 had by their merit, retained a title to this boasted possession. 
 But if we consider, first, the order in which for several ages 
 bishops have been advanced to this dignity ; next, the manner 
 in which they conduct themselves in it; -and' lastly, the kind of 
 persons whom they are accustomed to ordain, and to whom 
 they commit the government of the churches, we shall see 
 that this succession, on which they pride themselves, was long 
 ago interrupted." After alluding to some methods adopted to 
 prevent men from " forcing an entrance by stealth into the 
 episcopal office, or insinuating themselves by indirect artifices," 
 he adds — "These things, I here only mention in passing, be- 
 cause they afford an easy means of judging how much impor- 
 tance is due to this smoke of succession, with which our bishops 
 endeavor to blind us. They maintain that Christ left as a 
 heritage to the apostles the sole right of appointing over 
 churches whomsoever they pleased, and they complain that we, 
 in exercising the ministry without their authority, have with 
 sacrilegious temerity invaded their office." In addition to the 
 utter want of authority for the hierarchical orders, he goes on 
 to show how dreadfully abandoned and corrupt these orders in 
 the church of Rome had become ; how the bishops had become 
 nothing more than secular officers, had abandoned wholly their 
 work as pastors, and had come to be mere scramblers after 
 power, and place, and emoluments. In this connection occurs 
 the remarkable passage on which Toplady, and Strype, and 
 Hobart, and last of all Mr. Schuyler, agree, as proving that 
 Calvin approved of the episcopacy of the church of England, 
 and earnestly desired to introduce it into the reformed churches 
 on the continent! Calvin says, pursuing his splendid appeal 
 
286 THE CHURCH, 
 
 to the emperor and the diet — not, " Let them give us," a 
 singular rendering for " exhibeant " — " Let them show, or 
 produce to us such a hierarchy, (intimating that the challenge 
 was a desperate one) in which the bishops are distinguished, 
 but not for refusing to be subject to Christ, in which they de- 
 pend upon him as the only head, and act solely with reference 
 to him, in which they cultivate brotherly fellowship with each 
 other, bound together by no other tie than his truth; then 
 indeed I will confess that there is no anathema too strong for 
 those who do not regard them with reverence, and yield them 
 the fullest obedience. But is there any thing like this in that 
 false mask of hierarchy on which they plume themselves ? " — 
 Now where is the allusion to the episcopacy of the church of 
 England; or what proof does the passage afford, that Calvin 
 desired to introduce such an episcopacy into the reformed 
 churches on the continent? What does he say, except that 
 had the Roman hierarchy been such an one as he described, he 
 would not have deemed himself justifiable in rejecting it? 
 Though he regarded it as not the best form of church govern- 
 ment, as an unfortunate deviation from the simple order pre- 
 sented in the New Testament, yet seeing that it was established 
 in the church, he would not have rebelled against it, if it had 
 not been corrupt ; and he would have counted worthy of the 
 severest anathema those who did rebel, and thus introduce di- 
 visions and strife for the sake of a mere unessential point of 
 outward order. Calvin said in this passage, just what I, or any 
 other, the most strenuous Presbyterian, might have said in the 
 same circumstances. We do not think of defending the violence 
 of the reformation on the ground alone of the hierarchism of 
 the Romish church, but on the ground of the abominable cor- 
 ruptions of that church in doctrine and morals, for which indeed 
 its hierarchism is in no small degree responsible. If the Romish 
 church, hierarchical as it was, had been pure in christian doc- 
 trine and practice, there is no difference of opinion among us, 
 that it would have been both foolish and wicked to disturb and 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 287 
 
 rend it for a reform of its outward order merely — and that 
 those who should have done so, would have merited the severest 
 anathema. Still, we say, that when, on other grounds, reform 
 became indispensably necessary, when the very maintenance of 
 religion itself depended upon it, it was then wise and proper, 
 and so Calvin showed by his acts that he also judged, to lay 
 the axe at the root of the tree, and to reform away, not alone 
 the deadly depravities of the hierarchical church, but the hier- 
 archy itself, and make the church what Christ and his apostles 
 left it. The work of cleansing the augean stables being begun, 
 it was well to make it thorough. 
 
 If any desire to see other evidence that Calvin could not 
 have desired to introduce such an episcopacy as that of the 
 church of England into the reformed churches on the conti- 
 nent, they may consult for themselves the following references : 
 In his " Institutes of the Christian Religion," book 4, ch. iii, — ch. 
 iv, — ch. V : sec. 1 5 ; also his commentary on Philip i : I ; I Tim. 
 v: I7; Tit. i: 5; 1 Pet. v: 1, and Acts xx: 28. The opinions 
 expressed in these places were written at different periods of 
 his life ; some of them when he was a young man, and some 
 of them not long before his death. I forbear, for the lack of 
 room, from making these quotations at large, for to do justice 
 to the subject, some of them would be very long. Whoever 
 will take the trouble to consult them, will see more perfectly 
 the justice of my remark, that Calvin could not have had the 
 desire that is ascribed to him. But evidence enough is before 
 the reader. If his own words, in what I have quoted from his 
 book on the necessity of reforming the church, will weigh any 
 thing against the testimony of Toplady and Strype, he did not 
 believe in such an episcopacy as that of the church of Eng- 
 land. He had neither faith in it, nor respect for it. Did he 
 believe in that sort of episcopacy which rests upon the doctrine 
 of apostolical succession in an order of bishops, distinguished 
 as such, from presbyters ? Will any man have the hardihood 
 and reckless eflfrontry to say that he did, after reading the 
 
288 THE CHURCH, 
 
 passages wliicli I have quoted from him ? Yet he would gladly 
 have introduced it, and Avas only prevented by circumstances ! 
 What circumstances prevented him ? For a long time, as all 
 authorities agree, his influence was such, especially in Switzer- 
 land, among the reformed, that his will was law. This his 
 enemies are very anxious to have undei-stood, when they desire 
 to fix upon him the reproach and shame of burning poor crazy 
 Servetus. Why then, if he desired to introduce episcopacy, 
 did he not introduce it ? What could have hindered him, if 
 he had brought all his indomitable energy and overwhelming 
 influence to bear on such an object ? 
 
 Says bishop Hobart, proceeding to another point, — " Toplady 
 asserts that ' Calvin made a serious motion of uniting Protest- 
 ants together ; ' and in proof of his assertion, quotes again 
 from Strype, — ' They (the foreign Protestants) took such great 
 joy and satisfaction in this good king (Edward Sixth) and his 
 establishment of rehgion, that BulHnger and Calvin, and others, 
 in a letter to him, oflered to make him their defender, and to 
 have bishops in their churches, as there were in England; 
 with a tender of their service to assist and unite together.' " 
 
 The foreign Protestants did indeed take great joy and satis- 
 faction in this good king ; for, knowing his character, his earnest 
 piety, and his desire for a thorough work of reform in the 
 church, and especially knowing the influence over him of such 
 men as Hooper, Cranmer, Ponet and others, who all inclined 
 strongly to Presbyterianism, they had the most sanguine expec- 
 tations that the church in England would be placed, under his 
 direction, upon a true scriptural foundation. Indeed, although 
 it can not be said that there was any real establishment of reli- 
 gion in Edward Sixth's time, but rather that things were rapidly 
 approaching to an established state, yet already the strong fea- 
 tures of the hierarchical system were beginning to disappear. 
 "In fact," says McCrie, in his Life of Knox, referring for 
 authority to Strype's Memorials of the Reformation, vol. 2, pp. 
 144, 145, — " In fact the title of bishop was very generally 
 
ITS MmiSTRY AND WORSHIP. 289 
 
 disused in common speech during the reign of Edward Sixth, 
 and that of superintendent substituted in its place. And this 
 change of style was vindicated by Ponet, bishop of Winchester, 
 in an answer which he published to a popish writer." An 
 entire volume of further testimony on this point, from all the 
 ecclesiastical historians of this period, including bishop Burnet, 
 and even Str?/pe himself, might easily be furnished if it were 
 necessary. 
 
 " Bullinger and Calvin, and others," in such a state of things, 
 may have wi-itten such a letter as is ascribed to them ; but 
 does it prove that they were hierarchists in principle, or that 
 they would ever have consented to receive such bishops as 
 were imposed upon the English church in the reigns immedi- 
 ately succeeding the unhappy death, for England, of its 
 beloved Edward? Like all Presbyterians, then and since, 
 " Bullinger and Calvin, and others " were anxious for a consoh- 
 dation of the strength of Protestantism. They were anxious 
 to see all true christians united in a loving brotherhood ; and 
 being willing for the sake of this, to make compromises and 
 concessions in things unessential, and thinking that they saw in 
 the happy auspices of the reign of Edward, the way becoming 
 plain for consummating so cherished and dear an object, they 
 may have written the letter referred to. 
 
 What then ? Were they prelatists ? Would they have con- 
 sented to receive the system of prelacy into their churches ? 
 If bishop Hobart did not know the contrary, I am greatly 
 mistaken. If Mr. Schuyler does not know the contrary, I 
 advise him to study the history of this subject, just a little, 
 before he publishes another book. 
 
 Calvin did not object strongly to that kind of episcopacy 
 which, in Edward Sixth's time, was on the eve of being estab- 
 lished in England, which exists now in the Lutheran churches 
 of Europe, and of which w^e have a sample in the Methodist 
 church in this country. Although he certainly preferred, for 
 
 the churches with which he was immediately connected, to 
 14 
 
290 THE CHURCH, 
 
 liave no form of episcopacy -whatever, except the simple form 
 presented in the New Testament, that of pastors having the 
 oversight of single congregations, yet he did, in certain cases, 
 when there were peculiar reasons for it, recommend that men 
 should be appointed by their brethren to a genei-al and perma- 
 nent superintendence of affairs. I have now before me, a letter 
 written by him, December 9, 1544, to the king of Poland, in 
 which he proposes something of the kind to be adopted in that 
 country. But let the place be shown, in any of his writings, 
 where he recommended or even spoke approvingly of such an 
 episcopacy as that which now exists in England. It can not 
 be done. This great man and true reformer had a supreme 
 loathing for such episcopacy. He knew well, how, and where, 
 and when, it originated, for what ends it had been maintained, 
 and what had been its fruits, and he detested it as heartily as 
 I do. John Calvin an advocate of the apostolical-succession 
 episcopacy, and mourning because his beloved Genevan churches 
 could not enjoy the blessings of it ! It is too ridiculous. 
 
 Bishop Hobart says again, — " Toplady adduces from Strype 
 * another very remarkable proof, both of Calvin's regard for 
 episcopacy and of the manner in which a seeming difterence 
 arose between the plan of ecclesiastical government adopted 
 by that reformer, and the plan of episcopal government adopted 
 by the church of England.' Toplady quotes ' a curious paper 
 in archbishop Abbot's own hand-writing, found among arch- 
 bishop Usher's manuscripts, and published by Strype,' and then 
 subjoins — ' so wrote that most respectable prelate, archbishop 
 Abbot, whose evidence may be thus summed up : Calvin's 
 last letter concerning episcopacy, sent to the ruling clergy of 
 England in the reign of Edward Sixth, was craftily intercepted 
 by Bonner and Gardiner, w^ho (to crush Calvin's scheme for 
 episcopizing the foreign protestant churches,^ forged a surly, 
 snappish answer to Calvin, in the names of the divines to whom 
 it was addressed, but whose hands it had never reached. Cal- 
 vin being disgusted at the rudeness with which he supposed 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 291 
 
 his overture had been received, dropt all thoughts of making 
 any further advances on the subject.' And thus, had not two 
 Popish extinguishers put out the design, Calvin had admitted 
 the discipline of the church of England^ with as much zeal 
 and heartiness, as the church of England actually adopted 
 Calvin's doctrine." 
 
 The Arminianism of bishop Hobart is considerably shocked 
 by Toplady's concluding remark in this passage, that "the 
 church of England adopted Calvin's doctrine," and he strongly 
 denies it; but he is quite delighted with what goes before, 
 when, in fact, that concluding remark is the only truth in the 
 entire extract. In the first place, Calvin wrote no letter to the 
 ruling clergy of England in Edward Sixth's time, concerning 
 episcopacy, if by episcopacy is understood that peculiar system 
 of church government to which Toplady and Hobart were so 
 much attached. I have shown already that Cah-in never could 
 have desired to have any fellowship with such a system. It 
 was altogether a different kind of episcopacy, if any at all, that 
 the ruhng clergy of England, in Edward Sixth's time, were 
 proposing for themselves. A mere system of superintendency, 
 involving no essential contrariety to our own Presbyterianism. 
 In the second place, the motive ascribed to Bonner and Gardi- 
 ner, for their crafty interception of Calvin's letter and forged 
 reply to it, is evidently not the real one. Instead of aiming 
 " to crush Calvin^ s scheme for episcopizing the foreign protes- 
 tant churches^,'' it is much more reasonable to suppose that 
 what they feared, and wished to thwart, was a scheme of the 
 leading clergy of England for presbyterianizing the churches 
 at home. It is easy enough to understand why Bonner and 
 Gardiner should be anxious to arrest the reformatory move- 
 ments in England, but very difiicult to understand why they 
 should be so eager to prevent the reformed churches on the 
 continent from retrograding. Bonner and Gardiner were strain- 
 ing every nerve, and not leaving any artifices unemployed, to 
 hold things in the English church where they were, at least, 
 
292 THE CHURCH, 
 
 or, if possible, to urge tliem back farther from Protestantism. 
 It is easy enough, therefore, to see how they would naturally 
 feel a lively jealousy of the intimacy that was every day increas- 
 ing between the ruHng clergy of England and such men as 
 Calvin, and why they should wish to break it off. And now, 
 to confirm the view of this matter which I have expressed, let 
 me repeat former testimonies, and add others in regard to the 
 real state of sentiment and feeling among the English re- 
 formers, in the times of which we are speaking. We shall 
 then be better able to judge, whether they were coUeaguing 
 with Calvin to episcopize the continent, or he with them to 
 WTiepiscopize England. 
 
 These testimonies have been so well collated by M'Crie, in 
 his life of John Knox, that I shall make no apology for appro- 
 priating the entire note in which he presents them. It may be 
 found at page 407, and onward, of the Philadelphia edition, 
 and is as follows : 
 
 SENTIMENTS OF ENGLISH REFORMERS, 
 
 RESPECTING THE GOVERNMENT AND WORSHIP OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 " I shall endeavor to compress the body of evidence which 
 can be produced for the conformity between the private senti- 
 ments of the English reformers respecting worship and church 
 government, and those of Knox, along with the reformers of 
 Switzerland and Geneva. Hooper, in a letter dated Feb. 8, 
 1550, informs Bullinger that 'the archbishop of Canterbury, 
 the bishops of Rochester, Ely, St. David's, Lincoln, and Bath, 
 were sincerely bent on advancing the purity of doctrine, 
 agreeing in all things with the Helvetic churches.' — Burnet, 
 iii, 201. Parkhurst, bishop of Norwich, in a letter to Gualter, 
 Feb. 4, 1573, fervently exclaims, ' ! would to God, would to 
 God, once at last, all the English people would in good earnest 
 propound to themselves to follow the Church of Zurich as the 
 most absolute pattern.' — Strype's Annals, ii, 286, 342. 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 293 
 
 " Cranmer expressed his opinion formally in writing, that 
 ' the bishops and priests were at one time one, and were no 
 two things, but both one office in the beginning of Christ's 
 religion.' 'The bishop of St. Da^dd's, my lord elect of 
 Westminster, Dr. Cox, Dr. Redman, say that at the beginning 
 they were all one.' — Collier, ii, Records, No. 49 ; Bm-net, i, 
 Append, pp. 223-225. Thirteen bishops, with a great num- 
 ber of other ecclesiastics, subscribed this proposition, ' that in 
 the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees 
 or distinctions in orders, but only of deacons or ministers, and 
 of priests or bishops.' — Burnet, ut supra, p. 324. Cranmer 
 says, ' In the New Testament, he that is appointed a bishop or 
 a priest, needeth not consecration, by the scripture, for election 
 or appointment thereto is sufficient.' And of the same judg- 
 ment was the bishop of St. Da^dd's. — Ibid. 228, 230. Lati- 
 mer and Hooper maintained the identity of bishops and 
 presbyters, by divine institution. — Voetii. Polit. Eccles. tom 
 ii, p. 387. This w^as also the opinion of Pilkington, bishop of 
 Durham. — Treatise on the burning of St. Paul's, apud Cald. 
 Altare Damascenum, p. 204. Bishop Jewel assents to it in 
 his Answer to Harding, page 121. And on the accession of 
 Elizabeth, he expressed his hope, that 'the bishops would 
 become pastors, laborers, and watchmen, and that the great 
 riches of bishoprics would be diminished and reduced to 
 mediocrity, that, being delivered from regal and courtly pomp, 
 they might take care of the flock of Christ.' — Burnet, iii, 288. 
 In the same year, Dr. Aylmer addressed the right reverend 
 bench in these terms : ' Come ofl", you bishops, away with your 
 superfluities, yield up your thousands, be content with hun- 
 dreds, as they be in other reformed churches, where there be 
 as great learned men as you are. Let your portion be priest- 
 like and not princelike. Let the queen have the rest of your 
 temporalities and other lands to maintain these warres which 
 you procured, and your mistresse left her; and with the reste 
 build and found scholes thorow out the realme : that every 
 
294 THE CHURCH, 
 
 parishe cliurcli may liave his preacher, every city his superin- 
 tendent, to live honestly and not pompously ; which will never 
 be onles your landes be dispersed and bestowed upon many, 
 which now feedeth and fatteth but one. I would our country- 
 man Wicliefe's boke which he wrote, De Ecclesia, were in 
 print, and there should you see that your wrinches and cavil- 
 lations be nothing worthie. It was my chaunce to happen of 
 it in ones hand that brought it out of Bohemia.' — An Harbo- 
 rowe for Faithful and Trew Subjects, sig. 0, 4. Cranmer 
 expressed himself in a similar strain respecting the ' glorious 
 titles, styles, and pomps,' which were come into the church 
 through the working of the spirit of Diotrephes, and pro- 
 fessed his readiness to lay them aside. Strype's Cranmer, 
 Append, p. 20. — Burnet, iii, 105. — Append, p. 88. In fact, 
 the title of bishop was very generally disused in common 
 speech during the reign of Edward Sixth, and that of superin- 
 tendent substituted in its place. And this change of style was 
 vindicated by Ponet, bishop of Winchester, in an answer which 
 he published to a Popish writer. — Strype's Memorials of the 
 Reformation, ii, 444, 445. 
 
 " It was proposed by Cranmer to erect courts similar to the 
 kirk-sessions and provincial synods afterward introduced into 
 the Scottish church. — Burnet, iii, 214. — Reformatio Leg. 
 Eccles. cap. 8, 10. He ardently wished the suppression of 
 prebendaries, ' an estate,' he said, ' which St. Paule, reckoning 
 up the degrees and estates allowed in his time, could not find 
 in the Church of Christ.' — Burnet, iii. Append, pp. 157, 158. 
 All the Protestant bishops and divines in the reign of Edward 
 Sixth were anxious for the introduction of ecclesiastical dis- 
 cipline. Dr. Cox (Oct. 5, 1552) complains bitterly of the 
 opposition of the courtiers to this measure, and says, that, if 
 it was not adopted, ' the kingdom of God would be taken 
 away from them.' — Latimer's Sermons, fol, cix, b. Lond 1570. 
 Strype's Memor. of the Reformation, ii, 366. — Repository of 
 Orig. p. 150. 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 295 
 
 " Cranmer and his colleagues were far from being satisfied 
 with the purity of the last common prayer book of Edward; 
 and the j^rimate had drawn up one which is said to have been 
 ' an hundred times more perfect.' — Troubles at Franckfort, p. 
 50. He and Ridley intended to procure an act for abolishing 
 the sacerdotal habits ; ' for they only defended their lawfulness, 
 but not their fitness.' — Burnet's Letters respecting Switzerland, 
 &c., p. 52. — Rotterdam, 1686. When Grindal was appointed 
 to the bishopric of London, he ' remained under some scruples 
 of conscience about some things, especially the habits and 
 certain ceremonies required to be used of such as were bishops. 
 For the reformed in these times,' says Strype, 'generally 
 went upon the ground, that, in order to the complete freeing 
 of the church of Christ from the errors and corruptions of 
 Rome, every usage and custom practised by that apostate and 
 idolatrous church should be abolished, — and ihat the ser\dce 
 of God should be most simple, stript of all that show, pomp, 
 and appearance, that had been customarily used before, es- 
 teeming all that to be no better than superstitious and anti- 
 christian' — Life of Grindal, p. 28. Horn and others had the 
 same views and scruples. ' By the letters,' says bishop Burnet, 
 ' of which I read the originals, [in the archives of Zurich,] it 
 appears, that the bishops preserved the habits rather in com- 
 pliance with the queen's inclinations, than out of any liking 
 they had to them ; so far were they from liking, that they 
 plainly expressed their dislike of them.' — Burnet's Letters, ut 
 supra, p. 51. Before they accepted the ofiice, they endeavored 
 to obtain the abrogation of the ceremonies ; and when the act 
 enjoining them passed, they were induced to comply chiefly 
 by their fears that Papists or Lutherans would be put into 
 their places. — Strype's Annals, i, IVS. — Burnet, ii, 376, and 
 his Sermon on Psalm cxlv. 15, preached before the House of 
 Commons, Jan. 1688. Cox writes to Bullinger, 5th May, 
 1551, 'I think all things in the church ought to be pure and 
 simple, removed at the greatest distance from the pomps and 
 
296 THE CHURCH, 
 
 elements of the world. But in this our church what can I do 
 in so low a station ? ' — Strype's Memor. of the Reform, ii, 305. 
 Burnet, iii, 202. Jewel, in a letter to Martyr, Nov. 5, 1559, 
 calls the clerical habits ' a stage-dress,' (vestis scenica,) to 
 which those alone were attached, who 'had nothing else to 
 recommend them to the people, but a comical dress,'' — ' stipites 
 sine ingenio, sine doctrina, sine moribus, veste saltem comica 
 volebant populo commendari.' He engages that no exertions 
 of his should be wanting to banish utterly these ridiculous 
 trifles, 'ludicris ineptiis,' and relics of the Amorites, as his 
 correspondent (he says) had well designed them. And, at a 
 period still later, (Feb. 8, 1566,) he writes to Bullinger, that 
 ' he wished that the very slightest footsteps of popery might 
 be removed out of the church and minds of men; but the 
 queen would at that time suffer no change in religion.' — 
 Burnet, iii. Append, p. 291, ii Api:>end. p. 351, Strype's 
 Annals, i, 174. Grindal and Horn wrote to Zurich, that they 
 did not approve of, but merely suffered, kneeling in the 
 eucharist, and signing with the cross in baptism, with some 
 other ceremonies, hoping that they would speedily obtain their 
 abrogation. — Burnet, ii, 310, 314. As to Parkhurst, bishop 
 of Norwich, Pilking-ton of Durham, and Sands of Worcester, 
 the non-conformists bear testimony, that these prelates dis- 
 covered the gi'eatest zeal in endeavonng to procure their 
 abrogation. — Ibid, iii, 316. The most respectable of the 
 clergy in the lower house were of the same sentiments with 
 the bishops on this subject. In the year 1562, the abrogation 
 of the most offensive ceremonies was, after long reasoning, put 
 to the vote in the convocation, and carried by a majority of 
 those present; but, when the proxies were included, there was 
 found a majority of one for retaining them. The arguments 
 used by archbishop Parker's chaplains to prevail upon the 
 house to agree to this, derived their chief force from their 
 being understood to be the sentiments of the queen. — Burnet, 
 ii, Append, pp. 319, 320. Strype's Annals, i, 298-300. 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 297 
 
 From these facts (and a collection much more ample could 
 easily be made) the reader will see who were the first puritans, 
 and how very different the sentiments of the English reformers 
 were from those of their successors. Those good men who 
 had the direction of ecclesiastical affairs in the reign of Edward 
 Sixth, thought it most prudent to proceed gradually and slowly, 
 in removing the abuses, and correcting the evils, which had 
 overspread the church ; and to indulge the people for a season 
 with those external forms to which they had been habituated, 
 that they might draw them more easily from their superstitious 
 notions and practices, and in due time perfect the reformation 
 to the satisfaction of all. The plan was plausible; but its 
 issue was very different from what was intended by those who 
 proposed it. Nor was this unforeseen by persons who wished 
 well to the church of England. After the bishops had 
 resolved to rest satisfied with the establishment which they 
 obtained, and felt themselves disturbed by the complaints of 
 the Puritans, (as they were afterward called,) they endeavored 
 to engage the foreign divines on their side ; and having, by 
 partial representations, and through the respect entertained for 
 the government of England, obtained letters from them some- 
 what favorable to their views, they employed these to bear 
 down such as pleaded for a more pure reformation. Whitgift 
 made great use of this weapon in his controversy with Cart- 
 wright. Bishop Parkhurst wrote to Gualter, a celebrated 
 Swiss divine, cautioning him on this head, adding, that he had 
 refused to communicate some of Gualter's letters to Whitgift; 
 because, ' if any thing made for the ceremonies, he presently 
 clapped it into his book and printed it.' — Strype's Annals, ii, 
 286, 287. But these divines had formerly delivered their 
 unbiased judgment, disapproving of such temporizing mea- 
 sures. Cranmer having signified to the Genevese reformer, 
 that he ' could do nothing more profitable to the church, than 
 to write often to the king,' Calvin wrote a letter to the arch- 
 bishop in 1551, in which he lamented the procrastination usec\ 
 14* 
 
298 THE CHURCH, 
 
 and expressed his fears, that ' a long winter would succeed to 
 so many harvests spent in deliberation.' — Epist. p. 62; Oper. 
 torn, ix, Strype's Cranmer, p. 413. Peter Martyr, in June, 
 1550, gave it as his opinion, that 'the innumerable corrup- 
 tions, infinite abuses, and immense superstition, could be 
 reformed only by a simple recurrence to the pure fountain, 
 and unadulterated original principles.' And the prudential 
 advice, that as few changes as possible should be made, he 
 called 'a device of Satan, to render the regress to Popery 
 more easy.' — Burnet, iii. Append, p. 200. Gualter, in a letter 
 dated Jan. 16, 1559, says, that such advices, though 'according 
 to a carnal judgment full of modesty, and apparently conducive 
 to the maintenance of concord,' were to be ascribed to ' the 
 public enemy of man's salvation ; ' and he prophetically warns 
 those who suffered abuses to remain and strengthen themselves 
 in England, that ' afterward they would scarcely be able to 
 eradicate them by all their efforts and struggles.' — Ibid, iii, 
 273. Append, p. 265. 
 
 " Fuller says, that the English Reformers ' permitted igno- 
 rant people to retain some fond customs, that they might 
 remove the most dangerous and destructive superstitions; as 
 mothers, to get children to part with knives, are content to let 
 them play with rattles.^ Very good ; but if children are 
 suffered to play too long with rattles, they are in great danger 
 of not parting with them all their days." 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 299 
 
 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION OF THE AMERICAN 
 EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 Introducing his author, Chapin, from whom he quotes on 
 this subject, Mr. Schuyler says, page 209, — "We give the 
 reader a catalogue of the names of the bishops, in the line of 
 the apostolical succession in the church of England, through 
 which our episcopacy is derived. The line of succession as here 
 given, is traced through the archbishop of Canterbury to Au- 
 gustine, who was consecrated by Vigellius, the twenty-fourth 
 archbishop of Aries, in France, and -^Etherius, the thirty-first 
 bishop of Lyons, — whose commissions are traced in a direct 
 line, through Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, to St. John. That 
 this catalogue is perfectly correct toe have not the least douhtP 
 
 As a matter of some interest, I would like to ask our author 
 why he has not given us the pure Anglican line, without pud- 
 dling at all through the feculent and unwholesome bogs of 
 Rome ? Why does he not stand to the popular modern notion 
 of an independent and separate Anglican church, planted on 
 the soil by an apostle, by Paul, or James the son of Zebedee, 
 or Peter, or Simon Zelotes? Possibly, he has some little 
 doubt of the practicability of tracing such a line with exact- 
 ness and certainty. He has none, however, in regard to the 
 one which he has selected. " That this catalogue is perfectly 
 correct " he has " not the least doubt." 
 
 Does he mean that he has an undoubting knowledge, or an 
 undoubting faith of the perfect correctness of this catalogue ? 
 His assurance, I need hardly say, must be the assurance of 
 faith; for knowledge he will not pretend that it is possible for 
 him to have. Take almost any name that occurs in this list, 
 previous, we will say, to the time of William the Conqueror, in 
 the eleventh century, and how will he proceed to verify the 
 necessary facts to show that that name belonged to a man, who 
 was a bona fide bishop, duly consecrated to the office, by a 
 
300 THE CHURCH, 
 
 bishop, or by bishops, that had been duly consecrated before 
 him ? Mr. Schuyler may have no doubt of the perfect regu- 
 larity of this succession, but / am an unbeliever ; and now the 
 question is, how am / to be convinced ? He may show me 
 plausible reasons for supposing that the succession may have 
 been regular and uninterrupted ; he may establish a tolerable 
 presumption in its favor ; but this will not relieve my difficulty, 
 because I can show better reasons for supposing that there have 
 been many breaks in the line of that succession, and that there 
 is, at least, ground for a forcible presumption that it is utterly 
 unworthy of any credit whatever. Now, it devolves upon our 
 Episcopal friends to establish their pretended succession by well 
 attested records, and by clear documentary evidence. We want 
 such testimony for it, as would be demanded in a court of jus- 
 tice, to prove the parentage of an individual, claiming to inherit 
 property by virtue of his being the lineal descendant of some 
 person who died a hundred years ago. Do they say, " that is 
 absurd, such testimony is entirely out of the question in a case 
 like thisP^ We reply, that to pretend to furnish such testi- 
 mony may be absurd, but it is not absurd in us to ask for it. 
 It is the very thing that we ought to have ; and nothing less 
 than this ought to be thought of, by them or by us. They do 
 not come claiming to inherit a farm, or a thousand farms, 
 but the entire grace of God, a complete monopoly of powers 
 and privileges, under the original charter which Jesus Christ 
 gave to his apostles, and which was bequeathed by them to 
 their successors, on the ground that they, and they alone, are 
 the apostles' lineal descendants, to whom, in this case, the inher- 
 itance belongs. Shall we not ask for clear, unequivocal, and 
 positive testimony ? Are we not justified in demanding full 
 proof, before we consent to be ousted from all that we have 
 heretofore deemed our rights? They say it is absurd, do 
 they ? that such testimony as we call for, is entirely out of the 
 question in a case like this ? Very well ; if such testimony can 
 not be produced, then the long and the short of it is, that they 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 301 
 
 can not make out their case. Talk to us of strong presump' 
 tions! Of proof that puts it ^^ next to impossible ^^ that they 
 should be mistaken! Why such proof would not weigh a 
 feather, if the suit were brought for a doubloon, in any respect- 
 able court in Christendom. It looks brave on paper to make 
 out a long list of names, with the name of St. John the apostle 
 at the top, and of bishop White, of Pennsylvania, at the bot- 
 tom, and to call it the line of the apostolical succession of the 
 American Episcopal church; and, beyond a doubt, there are 
 very many, just weak and ignorant enough to swallow the 
 joke. They stare at this array of names with profound vene- 
 ration, never doubting that it is a veritable genealogy, by which 
 the apostolical descent of our American episcopal prelates is 
 established, as really and truly as the Kneal descent of Christ 
 from Abraham through David, by the genealogy given in the 
 first chapter of Matthew's gospel. There is now and then, 
 however, I suppose, a man who knows that this line of apostol- 
 ical succession is, for the most part, as fanciful as that famous 
 vine, of which I have an indistinct recollection, in the old nur- 
 ser}^ tale, that grew up to the moon, upon which an aspiring 
 English gentleman once ascended, till his progress was cut 
 short by the severe and awful tones of a huge giant, growling 
 
 from above. 
 
 " Phe, phi, pho, phum," etc. 
 
 Episcopalians, assuming that their theory is sound, and that 
 the very existence of the christian church depends upon a true 
 succession in a line of bishops from the apostles, infer that that 
 succession has been maintained, and that they have it, from 
 the acknowledged care which God exercises over his church. 
 Taking for granted the main thing to be proved, that the true 
 church exists by virtue of the apostolical succession in a line of 
 bishops, they say, it betrays an infidel spirit toward God, to 
 suppose that he has not taken care of the succession, and pre- 
 served its integrity. It is a favorite notion with them to place 
 this succession of theirs on the same ground of importance to 
 
302 THE CHURCH, 
 
 the churcli, with the holy scriptures, and then to argue, that as 
 the providence of God has preserved the latter in their integrity, 
 in all the translations through which they have passed, from 
 generation to generation, so, we may believe, that it has the 
 former. They do not, therefore, demand absolute proof of their 
 succession as a fact^ but are willing to take it upon trust. This 
 presumption lacks nothing to make it forcible^ save some rea- 
 sonable evidence in favor of the episcopal theory. Let us have 
 proof that the apostolical succession stands on the same ground 
 of importance to the church with the holy scriptures, and then 
 we shall begin to listen with respect to this kind of reasoning. 
 
 We say, on the other hand, that if a true succession from the 
 apostles, in a line of bishops, were in any manner essential to 
 the existence of the christian church, God would have taken 
 care, in the first place, that there should be no room for doubt 
 in the minds of any of his people respecting its importance ; 
 and in the second place, that there should be no lack of evi- 
 dence in regard to the regularity of the succession as a fact. 
 He would have provided us, on whom the ends of the world are 
 come, with as ample means of satisfaction respecting the suc- 
 cession, both as a doctrine and a fact, as we have for satisfying 
 ourselves respecting the divine origin, and the present purity of 
 the scriptures. He would not have permitted any serious dark- 
 ness to gather over this subject in either branch of it. Instead 
 of inferring the succession as a fact, from an assumption of the 
 principle of prelatic episcopacy, we infer from the utter impossi- 
 bility of estabhshing the principle that it is absurd to look for 
 ihoifact; and from the equal impossibility of establishing the 
 fact, we are still more strengthened in our conviction that there 
 is no confidence to be put in the principle. We think our 
 method of reasoning evinces no less piety, and far more good 
 sense, than that of our opponents. 
 
 In a direct inspection of the catalogue of bishops with which 
 we are furnished, as drawn up by Mr. Chapin, a variety of 
 points is presented, which invite our attention. We can not 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 303 
 
 even glance at all of them. We propose simply to furnish ex- 
 amples of the kind of criticism to which this catalogue is liable. 
 
 If we begin at the beginning, the name which first offers itself, 
 is that of St. John the apostle. Now was St. John the apos- 
 tle, a bishop ? Is he ever so styled in the scriptures ? Pres- 
 byter he calls himself, but where bishop ? In what one respect 
 can it be shown that he resembled a modern episcopal prelate ? 
 By what right, then, is his name placed at the head of such a 
 catalogue as this ? Had he any oflBcial character save his pres- 
 byterial one, which was communicable to others, and in which 
 he might have successors ? This list of episcopal bishops, at its 
 very first name, revives the whole of our previous discussion in 
 regard to the apostolical office, and if we have shown, as we 
 certainly claim to have done, that the apostolical office was ex- 
 traordinary, and not successive, either in its nature or design, 
 we might reasonably be saved from any farther trouble with 
 this subject. If the apostles, as such, were not bishops, and 
 their apostolic office was not successive, then, of course, the 
 whole claim of prelatic succession falls to the ground. 
 
 But look at the next name, that of Polycarp, bishop of 
 Smyrna. Has it ever been proved, or can it be, that Polycarp 
 was bishop of Smyrna in the prelatic sense ? We have demon- 
 strated in the most conclusive manner, that for the first two 
 centuries and upward, the term bishop was used in the church 
 convertibly with presbyter^ precisely as it is used by the sa- 
 cred writers themselves in the New Testament ; and that the 
 utmost distinction that appears during all that period, is that of 
 president-presbyter, or pastor, presiding over a single congrega- 
 tion, differing from other presbyters in the nature of his duties 
 but not at aU in the grade of his ministerial office. We affirm 
 here, and we claim to have proved, that Polycarp was no more 
 a bishop in the sense in which William White was bishop of 
 Pennsylvania, than he was civil magistrate or king. The grand 
 difficulty with this succession of diocesan prelates is, that it 
 lacks a beginning. Our Episcopal brethren never can show, 
 
304 THE CHURCH, 
 
 either that the apostleship was intended to be perpetuated by- 
 such a succession as they claim, or that such a succession, in 
 point of fact, ever commenced. 
 
 But it is not solely for the lack of a beginning that this chain 
 fails. We are prepared to show, even on episcopal principles, 
 that there are breaks in it all along in its continuation. Let us 
 take the name of Phlegmund,, ordained archbishop of Canter- 
 bur}'-, according to Godwin in his lives of the English bishops, 
 by pope Formosus, A. D. 891. Of this pontiff it is credibly 
 affirmed, that he obtained his election by perjury, and that his 
 entire life was one of the most abandoned and outrageous wick- 
 edness. Cormeniu, himself a Roman Catholic, says of him, in 
 his history of the popes, that " he died at the age of eighty 
 years, after having put to death in his quarrels, one half of the 
 population of Rome." His authority, at the time of his eleva- 
 tion to the popedom, was violently disputed, on the ground 
 both of personal ineligibility and irregularity in the proceedings ; 
 and after his death, Stephen Seventh caused his dead body to 
 be exhumed, and a formal sentence of condemnation to be 
 passed against him, for having ^^ pushed his ambition so far, as 
 to usurp the See of Rome, in defiance of the sacred canons^ 
 which forbade this infamous action" All his ordinations were 
 declared to be null and void, and those whom he had ordained 
 were directed to be ordained again. This decree of condemna- 
 tion against Formosus, was afterward confirmed, in its utmost 
 extent, by pope Sergius Third. 
 
 Now I will say nothing of the fitness of Formosus to per- 
 petuate the succession. It is claimed by Episcopalians that 
 neither the character of the ordainer, nor the manner in which 
 he obtained his place, has any thing to do with the validity of 
 his acts, — that the simple question is — was he fully invested 
 with the episcopal office ? But if the acts of Formosus were 
 valid, so also were those of Stephen Seventh, and Sergius Third. 
 What, in this case, becomes of those whom Formosus ordained, 
 and of their successors? Phlegmund, who received from 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 305 
 
 Formosus whatever episcopal grace he may have had, is placed 
 then, to say the least, in an extremely questionable position. 
 We believe that to the great majority of unbiased minds, the 
 chain of the English apostolical succession, will forever seem to 
 be in want of a link at his name, and that no possible reasoning 
 will avail to persuade them of the contrary. 
 
 The next name to which we direct attention is that of Ro- 
 dolph or Rodulph, put down in the list as ordained A, D. 1114. 
 Of this archbishop, it is said by Selden, (works, vol. iii,) that 
 he was invested with his office merely by receiving from the 
 king, the pastoral staff and ring, without any consecration 
 whatever. " Much stir," says Selden, " both at Rome and in 
 England, was touching investiture of bishops and abbots by 
 lay hands; Anselm, archprelate of Canterbury, mainly oppos- 
 ing himself against it, whose persuasion so wrought with the 
 king, that it was permitted to be discontinued from that time. 
 Notwithstanding this, in the year 1107, hy the ring and pasto- 
 ral staff — per annulum et baculum, {as Matthew Paris tells,) 
 was, by the same Henry, one Rodolph made archbishop of 
 CanterburyP There is a slight discrepancy of the dates, but 
 the identity of the persons can not be questioned. What 
 becomes, then, of the link in this chain of succession, at the 
 name of Rodulph? 
 
 We refer next to the case of Henry Chichely, ordained arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury, A. D. 1414, by pope Gregory Twelfth. 
 To say nothing of the character of either of these personages, it 
 is enough to inform the reader that Gregory was one of three 
 who claimed, at the same time, to be invested with the papal 
 authority; that previous to his ordination of Chichely, he had 
 been condemned in a council, and that, subsequently, at the 
 council of Constance, all his acts were formally disanmdledy 
 and he was declared to be neither pope nor bishop. How, 
 then, stands the case with Chichely, on episcopal principles ? 
 Was he a true successor of the apostles? I think it will 
 be difficult to satisfy any reasonable mind, that the chain of 
 
306 THE CHURCH, 
 
 the English apostolical succession is not broken again at this 
 place. 
 
 Matthew Parker, ordained archbishop of Canterbury, A. D. 
 1559, is in even a worse predicament. I find his case so well 
 stated in a recent publication, which has just come into my 
 hands, from the pen of Dr. J. N. Campbell, of Albany, that I 
 can not forbear to quote it in full : " Dr. Matthew Parker, was 
 consecrated archbishop of Canterbury, in obedience to letters 
 patent of queen Elizabeth, in the year 1559, in the chapel of 
 the palace of Lambeth. Strype and Burnet, the Episcopal, and 
 Neal, the Puritan historian, all agree that the persons who per- 
 formed this act were Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgkins. 
 These bishops, according to Neal, had been deprived {i. e. 
 deposed) in the last reign, for not one of the present bishops 
 would officiate — facts admitted by the two other historians. 
 Strype says of this consecration, ' all things w^ere rightly and 
 canonically performed.' Neal says, * it was performed in a plain 
 manner, — only by the imposition of hands, and by prayer.' 
 But the point to which we desire to direct attention, is the 
 unquestionable fact, that doubts were entertained at the time, 
 w^hether Parker's consecration was valid, principally because 
 the persons peforming the act had been deposed in the last 
 reign, and had not yet been restored. Accordingly, to allay 
 these doubts, seven yeai-s after the consecration, the parliament 
 passed an act to confirm the validity of it, which set forth, 
 according to Strype, the Episcopal historian, that the queen 
 had, in her ' letters patent,' ' by her supreme power and author- 
 ity, dispensed with all cases or doubts of any imperfection or 
 disability that might any way be objected against the same.' 
 Such is the source from which the whole English succession 
 flows: a consecration commanded by the queen of England, 
 performed by four bishops deposed by the same authority 
 which created them, and confirmed by an act of parliament ; a 
 consecration in which the church had no voice, and declared, 
 by even the Oxford divines, to be irregular and a scandal." 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 307 
 
 I will not ask, as Dr. Campbell does, if there is not abund- 
 ant ground here for suspicion and doubt, but I ask, if it is .not 
 perfectly evident, even on Anglican principles, that the chain 
 of succession is absolutely broken in Matthew Parker ? Does 
 not deposition disqualify a christian minister from performing 
 any ministerial acts ? Of what avail, then, was the form of 
 consecration in this case? And could an act of parliament, 
 authorized by a queen of England, make up the deficiency 
 which here existed ? 
 
 Coming down, now, to more recent times, I would inquire 
 of the defenders of the English apostolical succession, whether 
 it has yet been proved, that archbishop Tillotson ever received 
 christian baptism? Of course, on Anglican principles, he 
 could not have been bishop without this, for without it he was 
 not even a christian, or a member of the church. Evidence of 
 this archbishop's baptism has a thousand times been asked for, 
 but has never yet been furnished. He, in his own lifetime, was 
 repeatedly challenged to produce proof on this point, but never 
 did it. That he was not baptized in infancy is undeniable, 
 since his father was a Baptist, and no proof whatever exists, of 
 his having received the ordinance afterward. Under all the 
 circumstances, considering how much has been said on this 
 subject, how much was said while Tillotson lived, and how 
 often the proof of his baptism was called for, and called for in 
 vain, it is fair to conclude that this prelate was really an unbap- 
 tized person. That he was ever ordained as a deacon, is 
 as much a matter of doubt, as that he was baptized. How 
 will our Episcopal friends dispose of this difficulty, and relieve 
 their succession of the fatal doubts that are again gathering 
 over it ? 
 
 Similar to the case of Tillotson, is that of Thomas Seeker, 
 elevated to the see of Canterbury in 1738. This person was 
 baptized, but on Anglican principles his baptism was of no 
 account. Says Dr. Adam Clarke, vol. xii, of his miscellaneous 
 works, page 171, — "Mr. Thomas Seeker, afterward archbishop 
 
308 THE CHURCH, 
 
 of Canterbury, was the son of a dissenting minister, born in 
 1693. He was baptized after the form of that church, and 
 studied at three dissenting schools successively, until he was 
 nineteen years of age, when he went to the university of 
 Oxford, and afterward entered the communion of the church of 
 England." Clarke proceeds with a particular account of the 
 successive steps by which he finally attained to the primacy, 
 and adds, — "We hear nothing of his ever having been 
 rebaptized." 
 
 Again, therefore, What becomes, on Anglican principles, of 
 the boasted succession? Either Seeker was not a successor 
 to the apostles, being not even a member of the christian 
 church, or, the ministrations of men not episcopally ordained 
 are valid. 
 
 Thus I might amuse myself to almost any extent, in 
 pointing out defects in this most amusing line of Episcopal 
 genealogies ; but why should I multiply examples, when one is 
 enough ? 
 
 What I would like to say, in concluding this chapter, I prefer 
 to say in the language of eminent Episcopalians. 
 
 Archbishop Whately, in illustrating the small reliance which 
 can be placed on the regularity of the proceedings, by which, 
 anciently, individuals were raised to the episcopal dignity, 
 says, — "Even in later, arid more civilized and enlightened 
 times, the probability of an irregularity, though very greatly 
 diminished, is diminished only, and not absolutely destroyed. 
 Even in the memory of persons living, there existed a bishop, 
 concerning whom there was so much mystery and uncertainty 
 prevailing, as to when, and where, and by whom, he had 
 been ordained, that doubts existed in the minds of many 
 persons, whether he had ever been ordained at all." 
 
 Again he says, — " Irregularities could not have been wholly 
 excluded without a perpetual miracle ; and that no such mirac- 
 ulous interference existed, we have historical proof. Amidst 
 the numerous corruptions of doctrine and practice, and gross 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 309 
 
 superstitions that crept in during those ages, we find recorded 
 descriptions, not only of profound ignorance and profligacy of 
 life, of many of the clergy, but also of the grossest irregulari- 
 ties in respect of discipline and form. We hear of bishops 
 consecrated when mere children ; of men officiating, who barely 
 knew their letters; of prelates expelled, and others put into 
 their places by violence ; of illiterate and profligate laymen, and 
 habitual drunkards, admitted to holy orders; and in short, of 
 the prevalence of every kind of disorder, and reckless disregard 
 of the decency which the apostle enjoins. It is inconceivable 
 that any one even moderately acquainted ivith history^ can feel 
 a certainty that^ amidst all this cwifusion and corruption^ 
 EVERY REQUISITE FORM was in EVERY INSTANCE strictly ad- 
 hered to, by men, many of them openly profane and secular^ 
 unrestrained by public opinion, through the gross ignorance 
 of the population among which they lived, and that no one not 
 duly consecrated and ordained was admitted to sacred offices^ 
 
 It seems to me, speaking with all honesty, that there must 
 be some singular defect in the structure of that person's mind, 
 who does not perceive the unanswerable force of Whately's 
 statement in this passage. He says, in the same connection, — 
 " There is not a minister in all Christendom, who is able to 
 trace up, with any approach to certainty, his own spiritual 
 pedigree." 
 
 Dr. John Brown, of Edinburgh, Scotland, — whom I quote 
 here for the sake of his own citations contained in the passage, — 
 in his book on "Puseyite Episcopacy," page 256, says, that in re- 
 gard to the ancient bishops, " It is utterly impossible to produce 
 any evidence of the regularity of their baptisms, or of the va- 
 lidity of their orders, or to tell, in many instances, which of them 
 was first and which of them was last. Eusebius, the most 
 early of our church historians, confesses that he could not do 
 it ; for he says, that he was '■ like a man walking through a 
 desert, with only here and there a light to direct him;' and 
 that he had been able to collect such notices as he had procured, 
 
310 THE CHURCH, 
 
 * of the successors, not of all, but only of the more illustrious 
 apostles.^ — Hist. Eccles. lib. i, cap. 1. And if such was his 
 want of light in the fourth century, will you, or Mr. Newman, 
 or Mr. Gladstone, throw more light on these matters in the 
 nineteenth? And he says, in another passage, 'Who they 
 were, that imitating these apostles, (Peter and Paul,) were by 
 them thought worthy to govern the churches which they 
 planted, is no easy thing to tell, excepting such as may he col- 
 lected from PauVs own ivords^ — Lib. iii, cap. 4. On which 
 Stillingfleet remarks — 'Then what becomes of our unques- 
 tionable line of succession of the bishops of several churches, 
 and the large diagi-ams made of the apostolical churches, with 
 every one's name set down in his order, as if the writer had 
 been clarencieux to the apostles themselves ? Are all the great 
 outcries of apostolical tradition, of personal succession, of un- 
 questionable records, resolved at last into the scripture itself, by 
 him from whom all these long pedigrees are fetched ? Then 
 let succession know its place, and learn to vaile bonnet to the 
 scriptures ; and withal, let men take heed of overreaching them- 
 selves, when they would bring down so large a catalogue of 
 single bishops from the first and purest times of the church, 
 for it will be hard to others to believe them, when Eusebius 
 professeth it so hard to find them.' — Irenicum, page 297." 
 
 Bishop Hoadley says, — "As far as we can judge of this, 
 God's providence never yet, in fact, kept up a regular, uninter- 
 rupted succession of rightful bishops." " It hath not pleased 
 God in his providence, to keep any proof of the least proha- 
 hility, or moral possibility of a regular uninterrupted succession ; 
 but there is a great appearance, and humanly speaking, a cer- 
 tainty of the contrary, that the succession hath often been 
 interrupted.''^ 
 
 The bishop of Hereford, in a charge some years since to his 
 clergy, uses the following language, — " You will exceed all just 
 bounds, if you are constantly insisting upon the necessity of a 
 behef in, and the certainty of the apostohcal succession in the 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 311 
 
 bishops and presbyters of our church, as the only security for 
 the efficacy of the sacraments," — " To spread abroad this notion, 
 would be to make ourselves the derision of the world." 
 
 Riddle, another English Episcopalian, in his "Plea for 
 Episcopacy," says, — "Whatever may become of the apostolic 
 succession as a theory, or an institute, it is impossible at all 
 events, to prove the fact of such a succession, or to trace it 
 down the stream of time. In this case, the fact seems to 
 involve the doctrine ; and if the fact be hopelessly obscure, the 
 doctrine is irrecoverably lostP * * * " It is impossible to 
 prove the personal succession of modern bishops, in an unbroken 
 episcopal hne, from the apostles, or men of thea postolic age." 
 
 We conclude with i-emarking, that if our Episcopal brethren 
 can find a pleasing entertainment in attempts to trace back the 
 genealogies of their bishops to the apostles, we are sincerely 
 glad of it, but they must not require us to receive their playful 
 fancies for sober historical verities. We can look upon it as 
 nothing less than an insult offered to our common sense. 
 
 HISTORICAL NOTICES. 
 
 Under this caption, an anonymous friend of Mr. Schuyler, 
 at page 215 of his book, is very severe upon me for alledged 
 blunders, or worse than blunders, in certain historical references 
 contained in my sermon. We are informed in the brief note 
 with which Mr. S. presents him to his readers, that he " has 
 access to one of the best private libraries in the United States." 
 We should expect him, therefore, to be a person of large 
 attainments, and thoroughly versed in all these matters. 
 
 I said, " It is given on the authority of Eusebius, that at a 
 council held in Antioch in the year 260, there were present 
 more than six hundred bishops." The learned gentleman thus 
 notices my assertion, — " I have hunted out his quotations from 
 Eusebius. Dr. T. never could have read Eusebius, or if he 
 
312 THE CHURCH, 
 
 has, he is open to the charge of dishonesty; besides he is 
 incorrect in his dates." In regard to the date, I am quite wil- 
 ling to confess that either through an oversight of my own in 
 copying, or through a fault of the printer, and of my proof- 
 reading, an error of five years was really committed. It should 
 have been 265, and not 260. This however, can not be con- 
 sidered a very serious inadvertance. But what else was so very 
 wrong in my statement as to justify the opinion, that I have never 
 read Eusehius^ or else, am open to the charge of dishonesty? 
 I said, " more than six hundred bishops were present at the 
 council." Is not this exactly what Eusebius affirms? My 
 astute critic annihilates me in the following manner : 
 
 "Of the second council in 265, Eusebius says, — book vii: 
 chap. 28, after naming several bishops who took an active part: 
 * Sex centos quoque alios qui una cum presbyteris et diaconis, eo 
 confluxerunt, nequaquam difficile fuerit recusere, verum hie quos 
 dixi illustres prae ceteris habebantur.' ' Six hundred other 
 bishops also, who together with presbyters and deacons, 
 flocked thither, and whom it would not be difficult to enu- 
 merate.' " 
 
 The reader, by noticing the italics and the capitals used by 
 the writer in his rendering of the passage from Eusebius, will 
 be able to comprehend his idea. He supposes that the " more 
 than six hundred," is to be made up by counting the bishops 
 and presbyters and deacons together! I would like to know 
 whether I am replying to the criticism of a bny who has access 
 to his father'' s library, or to the very owner of the library. If 
 to the latter, there is no hope for him. He will surely die a 
 blockhead in spite of his opportunities. If a lad in any respect- 
 able grammar school in our city should make a blunder like 
 this, he would deserve to be beaten. " Several bishops who 
 took an active partj'' and " sex centos quoque ahos," six hundred 
 others also, make "more than six hundred bishops," who, 
 according to Eusebius, " with the presbyters and deacons that 
 flocked thither, it would be difficult to enumerate." I will not 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 313 
 
 say that this critic proves himself, either to have never read 
 Eusebius, or to be open to the charge of dishonesty; but I do 
 say, that however much he may read Eusebius, or any other 
 author, he is Httle hkely to be made the wiser, — and that he 
 evidently lacks the wit to do much mischief in the world by 
 his knavery. 
 
 My next assertion was, that "as late as the year 410, Augus- 
 tine and the bishops of his province in Africa, held a conference 
 with the Donatists, at which there were present over five hun- 
 dred bishops." My critic completely stultifies himself again on 
 this point. He goes into a very careful history of the affair 
 with the Donatists, in the course of which he says, — " When, 
 however, Attains was put down, not five hundred, but two 
 hundred and seventeen bishops of Africa, feeling that his 
 rescript was injurious to the Catholic church, met at Carthage, 
 in the year 410, for the purpose of petitioning Honorius to 
 recall his rescripts. Augustine was present, but did not preside, 
 as one would infer from Dr. Thompson's statement, but Aurelius, 
 bishop of Carthage. Dr. T. gives his quotations so unfairly," 
 &c. What has this sixth provincial council held in Carthage, 
 in 410, to do with the conference of which I spoke? /was 
 not talking about the council, but another matter entirely, a 
 conference agreed upon at that council, and held very soon 
 after, — some say the same year, some the year after, for which 
 reason I was careful in my sermon to say, " as late as the year 
 410." Let Mosheim be heard, — vol. 2, chap, v, sec 2, — "Thi» 
 law, however, was not of long duration. (The law of the em- 
 peror Honorious, giving religious toleration to all parties.) It 
 was abrogated at the earnest and repeated solicitations of the 
 council which was held at Carthage in the year 410; and 
 Marcellinus, the tribune, was sent by Honorius into Africa, with 
 full pov/er to bring to an end this tedious and unhappy con- 
 test. Marcellinus, therefore, held at Carthage in the year 411, 
 a solemn conference,^'' &c. " The catholic bishops who were 
 present at this conference, were two hundred and eighty-six in 
 15 
 
314 THE CHURCH, 
 
 number ; and those of the Donatists two hundred and seventy- 
 nine." Now, if we add together two hundred and eighty-six 
 bishops and two hundred and seventy-nine bishops, the sum, 
 that is, if bishops add hke other people, is, I beheve, " over five 
 hundred bishops," according to my statement. Bishop Burnet, 
 also, in his observations on the first and second canons, called 
 apostolical, says, — " In some countries we find the bishoprics 
 very thick set. They were pretty throng in Afi'ick ; for, in a 
 conference which Austine and the bishops of that province had 
 with the Donatists, there were of bishops present, two hundred 
 and eighty-six, and one hundred and twenty absent, and sixty 
 sees vacant, which in all makes four hundred and sixty-six. 
 There were also two hundred and seventy-nine of Donatist 
 bishops." I trust that this matter now is straight, so that my 
 reviewer can understand it. 
 
 Again ; I am sharply called to my account by this accom- 
 plished gentleman for a misnomer. He says, — "He, (Dr. 
 Thompson,) quotes * Victor Uticensis : ' the work turns out to 
 be ' Victor Vitensis.' How he makes out of it ' Uticensis,' he 
 ought to explain." 
 
 I will, with all my heart, my dear sir ; — First, then, you 
 must know that Victor was bishop, as, in those early times, 
 they were in the habit of calling all pastors of churches, of 
 Utica, or, which is equivalent, of the church in Utica; not 
 Utica on the Mohawk river, in this state, but a famous cit}'^ of 
 the Phoenicians, on the northern coast of Africa. Are you 
 attending? Well, then; he is called Uticensis, from Utica, 
 the place where he lived, by converting the final vowel into 
 ensis, a very common method among the Greeks of getting 
 new names of distinction for individuals who needed them. I 
 hope I make myself intelligible. The younger Cato, it may 
 be recollected by you, from your extensive reading in that best 
 private library in the United States, committed suicide in this 
 same city of Utica, whence he was styled, as a convenient way 
 of distinguishing him from all other Catos, " Cato Uticensis, ^^ 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 315 
 
 By good writers, Victor has very generally gone by the name 
 of Uticensis, from the first; yet by a corriiiDt change of the u 
 into v, by dropping one letter and transposing another, some 
 have made Vitensis out of it, for which they ought to be 
 ashamed. 
 
 I said, "Victor Uticensis informs us in his book, "i)e Fersecu- 
 tione Vandalica,''^ (the book may be found by those who desire 
 to see it, in the Bibliotheca Patrum,) which was a pei-secution 
 by one body of christians against another, — that from the part 
 of Africa in which it raged, six hundred and sixty bishops fled, 
 besides a great number who were imprisoned, and many more 
 who w^ere tolerated. Upon the lowest estimate, counting the 
 bishops of the persecuting party with those of the persecuted, 
 there could not have been fewer of them in that part of Africa 
 alone, than from two to three thousand. My object was, to show 
 from the great number of bishops, that these bishops could not 
 have been diocesans, in the episcopal sense, but must have been 
 simipiiy pastors of churches, ordinary christian ministers; the 
 word bishop being used in the New Testament sense. My critic 
 says, — "I hardly think- Dr. T. could have made such a parade 
 about the six hundred and sixty fugitive bishops, which he esti- 
 mates to be about one-third of the whole, had he hiown, as we 
 do, that the primitive practice was to ordain bishops in every 
 city." Why, my dear sir, I reply, that is the very thing which I 
 do know, and which I desired to make my hearers know when 
 I preached that sermon. " The primitive practice was to ordain 
 bishops in every city ; " and more than that, in every place 
 where a ^christian church was gathered, just as the practice of 
 Presbyterians always has been, and is at this day ; and hence 
 we infer, that the primitive bishops, instead of being prelates, 
 like bishops in the Episcopal church, were plain Presbyterian 
 ministers, each one having charge of his own parish, and, as 
 a bishop indeed, ''feeding the floclc of God, taking the over- 
 sight thereof r My object was to show, that as the term bishop 
 in the New Testament, means simply minister, or pastor, so 
 
316 THE CHURCH, 
 
 in the early records of the church, in the times immediately 
 following those of the Ne\Y Testament writers, it means the 
 same; and the proof in part, was drawn from the very great 
 number of bishops, showing that all the pastors of churches 
 must have received that designation. Can it be supposed that 
 the number of churches exceeded the number of bishops, when, 
 by the lowest possible estimate, there were at least two thousand 
 of the latter in a single small district of Africa ? 
 
 In these early times it may be mentioned here as a fact, 
 that on the island of Crete, just about one-third as large as 
 the little state of Maryland, there were one hundred bishops. 
 Were they Episcopal prelates, does any one suppose, or Presby- 
 terian pastors ? I might give any number of similar examples, 
 showing, beyond the possibility of a rational doubt, that the 
 primitive bishops were nothing more nor less than parish 
 ministers. 
 
 I have devoted space enough to this subject. The reader 
 perceives, that, in every material instance, the statements of my 
 sermon were rigidly correct, and that the attempt to disprove 
 them has only betrayed the utter incompetency of the critic. 
 He evidently ventured beyond his depth, not at all compre- 
 hending the topics to be considered. If I have indulged in 
 unusual severity in my notice of his strictures, let the amount 
 of provocation in the nature of his attack upon me, be weighed, 
 and especially the impertinence of such an attack from such 
 a person. Had he given his name, I probably should have 
 felt bound to treat him with some respect^ but the laws of 
 courtesy atford no protection to the anonymous. 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. gj? 
 
 NUMBER OF EPISCOPALIANS AS COMPARED 
 WITH THE VARIOUS OTHER SECTS. 
 
 'I said in my sermon, page fi%-five,~« With the exception 
 ot the Enghsh and American Episcopal churches, all the 
 reformed churches in the world are Presbyterian ; that is to say 
 they are all organized on the principle of parity in the one 
 order of ministers, called, in the New Testament, presbyters. 
 All, without exception, save Episcopalians, have abjured the 
 prmciple of hierarchism as a corrupt invention of men, leaving 
 them in a very small minority." What reply does my reviewer 
 make to this ? Read it, and admire,— p?ge 217. 
 
 " Says bishop Delancy, in his sermon entitled 'The Faithful 
 Bishop,' 'geographers tell us, that of the eight hundred millions 
 of mhabitants on this globe, but httle more than two hundred 
 millions bear the christian name ; and of these two hundred 
 milHons, one hundred and eighty millions acknowledge the 
 authority of christian bishops in the church, as possessing, in 
 contradistinction from other ministers, the governing and or- 
 daining power.' In a note, he (bishop Delancy) appends the 
 following : 
 
 " * Geographers differ somewhat as to the precise amount of 
 christian population in the world. Malte Brun makes the 
 Protestant population of Christendom about forty-two millions ; 
 one-half of which being Episcopal, would make it stand thus: 
 
 Total christian population of the world, . . . 228,000,000 
 Those who reject the office of a bishop in the 
 
 *^^^^^^' • 21,000,000 
 
 Leaving, as the number of those who retain the 
 
 ^ffi^^' 207,000,000 
 
 " 'According to Hassel, it would stand thus: Total christian 
 population, two hundred and fifty-one milhons; of whom those 
 
318 THE CHURCH, 
 
 who retain the office of bishop in the church amount to two 
 hundred and twenty-three miUions ; those who reject the office, 
 to twenty-seven milhons and a half. From other calculations it 
 is made out that five-sixths of the christian world receive this 
 form of the ministry.' " 
 
 This is an answer, is it, to my statement that the Enghsli 
 and American EjDiscopal churches alone, of all the reformed 
 churches in the world, retain the hierarchical feature, and that 
 in so doing, compared of course with other reformed churches^ 
 they are in a very small minority ? I am replied to by a quotation 
 from bishop Delancy, which has just about the same relation to 
 the comparative amounts of population in the several planets, 
 that it has to the subject on which my statement was made. 
 
 Who denies, that if Episcopalians are counted with all the 
 vast multitudes of nominal christians in the Roman Catholic 
 and Greek communions, they have a majority ? and that if to 
 all these are added the Lutherans, and Moravians, and Metho- 
 dists, and others, who, though they have renounced the principle 
 of hierarchism, have nevertheless adopted a species of episco- 
 pacy which we ourselves do not object to for them, if they hke 
 it, that majority is considerably increased? We made our 
 statement, let it be observed, of reformed churches^ and of the 
 principle of hierarchism, not of preshyterial episcopal super- 
 intendence/; and we repeat that statement as literally true. 
 
 Among all christians that pretend to be reformed, the Epis- 
 copalians of England and America are perfectly solitary in 
 maintaining the corrupt institution of a hierarchical ministry, 
 and in this respect they are in a very small minority. In 
 regard to the principle oi parity, Lutherans, Moravians, Metho- 
 dists, and all others who are called episcopal on account of the 
 feature of superintendency in their ecclesiastical systems, are 
 with tis, and not one whit behind us in their abhorrence of 
 Merafchisin, and in this comparison are to be counted with us. 
 
 The forms in which Christianity is professed are very numer- 
 ous, but the whole are comprehended in three leading systems : 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 319 
 
 tlie Roman Catholic, the Eastern or Greek, and the Protestant 
 or Reformed. Protestantism is professed in two chief forms, — 
 presbytery, which rejects the great external feature of the 
 Romish and Greek systems of a hierarchy of bishops, and 
 admits only the government of the church by a body of minis- 
 ters all equal in rank ; and episcopacy, which retains that chief 
 external feature of the Romish and Greek systems, and admits 
 the government of the church by a hierarchy of bishops, whose 
 spiritual authority is claimed to be derived from the apostles, 
 by transmi-ssion through an uninterrupted series of ordinations 
 from the beginning. Now we say, that in the Protestant or 
 reformed section of nominal Christendom, to which the Episco- 
 pal churches of England and America belong, they, in retaining 
 the hierarchical feature, stand alone, and are in a very small 
 minority. I have not the figures at hand to show the actual 
 difference, but I venture the opinion that they are considerably 
 less than one-fifth of the whole. Taking bishop Delancy's 
 statement from Malte Brun, that one-half of the Protestant 
 population of Christendom is Episcopal, and deducting from 
 that all the Lutherans, and Moravians, and Methodists, and 
 other christians belonging to churches which have a form o 
 episcopacy, but are really Presbyterian, who are included in 
 Malte Brun's calculation to make his one-half and any one can 
 see how small the proportion must be that will be left. 
 
 "What advantage do Episcopalians hope to derive in an argu- 
 ment with us, from swelling the numbers of those who support 
 the hierarchical form of church government, by counting with 
 themselves the hordes of the Romish and Greek communions ? 
 Or what advantage do they hope to derive for the same object, 
 from counting dishonestly with themselves those who resemble 
 them in the mere accident of a name, but utterly reject their 
 principle ? 
 
320 THE CHURCH, 
 
 BARROW ON THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 
 
 My reviewer finds fault with me because the extracts from 
 this author in my sermon, " are culled from two pages of an 
 octavo volume." I do not see how the extracts are less perti- 
 nent on that account. It seems to me that the difference is 
 quite imperceptible, so long as they are veritable extracts from 
 BaiTow, whether they are culled, or taken up as a solid whole ; 
 whether they are culled from two pages or from one; or, 
 whether they are culled from two pages of an octavo volume, 
 or from two pages of a duodecimo. If these are great matters 
 with him, they are small matters with me. The main question, 
 I think, relates to the nature of Barrow's testimony. I know 
 that the main drift of Barrow's reasoning is against the succes- 
 sion to the primacy of St. Peter, and the su^^remacy of the 
 pope. But how does he maintain his point? Simply by 
 showing that St. Peter could have no successor to his primacy ? 
 or by showing that the apostles could have no successors to 
 their apostleship ? In the latter way, certainly. " The apos- 
 tolical office," he says, *' as such, was personal and temporary;" 
 (precisely what Presbyterians affirm,) " and therefore, accord- 
 ing to its nature and design, not successive or communicable to 
 others, in perpetual descendance from them." " Now such an 
 office was not designed Jx) continue by derivation; for it con- 
 taineth in it diverse things which apparently were not com- 
 municable, and which no man, without gross imposture and 
 hypocrisy, could challenge to himself." 
 
 What is it that Barrow says was " personal and temporary," 
 and " not successive or communicable to others ? " My reviewer 
 says, (page 220,) that he affirms this of "the personal endow- 
 ments and miraculous qualifications by which they (the apos- 
 tles) were fitted for the extraordinary circumstances of the 
 infant church." The reader can see for himself what the fact 
 is, — " The apostolical office^^ says Barrow, was personal and 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 391 
 
 temporary, ' and " not successive or communicable to others." He 
 speaks not of the mere accidents of the office, but of the office 
 itself. The apostolical office, "as such" that is, in its own 
 proper and peculiar nature^ was personal and temporary, and 
 not successive or communicable to others. My reviewer goes 
 on to say, expository still of Barrow's meaning, " It is only the 
 apo?- olical office as characterized by the inspiration and mirac- 
 ulous powers of its first incumbents, which he asseils can have 
 no succession." But I simply appeal to Barrow himself. Wliat 
 does he say ? That the apostolical office, as characterized by 
 something personal to its first incumbents, is not successive or 
 communicable ? Or, does he affirm this of the office itself, as 
 such? Is it some mere temporary character of the office as it 
 was first held, that he speaks of, or the very office? From 
 such interpreters as this anonymous reviewer, I can say devoutly 
 in the language of the prayer-book, — " Good Lord deliver us." 
 Having furnished us with this specimen of his critical acu- 
 men, he proceeds to make other quotations from Barrow, to 
 show that he did truly believe in the doctrine of apostolical 
 succession, as it is held by the high-church Episcopal party. 
 In other words, he undertakes to make Barrow stultify himself, 
 by teaching elsewhere a doctrine which, in the passages that 
 have been noticed, he emphatically condemns — to make him 
 say, in the face of his own unequivocal denial^ that "the apos- 
 tolical office, as such," has been succeeded to by multitudes, 
 and that it is " communicable to others in perpetual descend- 
 ence." Poor Barrow ! well might he exclaim, were he alive, 
 and could he know of my re^dewer's labors, Save me from my 
 friends/ If his good character will not save him, I must let 
 him go, for, as to taking up these several quotations and show- 
 ing, as I might do,, that in not one of them does Barrow con- 
 tradict his own assertion, which has been already considered, 
 I shall not attempt it. The apostolical office, as such, ceased 
 with the apostles, but the office of the christian ministry, which 
 they held, did not cease with them, and in that they have 
 15* 
 
322 THE CHURCH, 
 
 successors undoubtedly, which is the real doctrine of Barrow 
 in all the places which my re\dewer has quoted from him. I 
 claim, myself, to be a successor of the apostles in this holy 
 office, and to have derived my succession from them, hy trans- 
 mission, through "the laying on of the hands of the presby- 
 tery," when I was ordained. I claim to be a true scriptural 
 bishop, in the very sense of the word bishop, as it occurs in the 
 New Testament, and as it was used by all the early christian 
 writers; in the very sense of Cyprian, as quoted from Barrow 
 by my reviev/er, on page 221, and of Chrysostom, on page 
 222. Barrow, of course, would not allow, that in denying the 
 false doctrine of apostolical succession, which had been the pro- 
 lific source of so many abominable coiTuptions in the Romish 
 church, he gave up the derivation of ministerial authority in the 
 Protestant churches from the apostles, and he was veiy careful, 
 therefore, to guard this point, and he has done it well. He 
 teaches everywhere, that in their apostolical office, as such, the 
 apostles had no successors, but that all regularly ordained chris- 
 tian ministers are their successors in the only communicable 
 office which they held. If Barrow, as an Episcopalian, had 
 some ideas of the superiority of the episcopal office, and of 
 the exclusive appropriation to it, by general consent, of certain 
 ministerial powers and prerogatives, which the body of minis- 
 ters should forego and surrender, for the sake of government ; 
 and that, in this respect, while all ministers are truly successors 
 of the apostles, bishops are so in a larger sense; — that is not 
 strange, nor do I reproach him for it He was a great and 
 good man, who has done eminent service to the church, and 
 will doubtless do more, if he is not too much maligned by 
 such men as my reviewer. 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 323 
 
 INCONSISTENT OPINIONS OF INDIVIDUAL 
 BISHOPS OF NO WEIGHT. 
 
 Such is the heading of the concluding article in Mr. Schuy- 
 ler's book, furnished by his anonymous friend ; the design of 
 which is to show that it matters not what the opinions of the 
 leading reformers in England were at the time Avhen the refor- 
 mation in that country was an-ested, and the English church 
 took that permanent character and form which it wears at the 
 present day. Their views, the writer says, do not affect the 
 real question in debate, which is to be decided upon its own 
 merits. Now I would be disposed to grant the principle 
 claimed here, in all ordinary cases. But this case is peculiar. 
 The English church is held up before us, as the only example on 
 earth of a truly reformed church. Other reformed churches, 
 so called, are no churches, but have broken out of the pale, 
 have unchurched themselves, by casting off" some things which 
 are essential to a true church existence ; but the English church 
 came just far enough, and not a step too far. She truly 
 reformed, and not c?e-formed, stopping at the precise point of 
 absolute perfection, and now presents the only instance of the 
 true church of the Redeemer in its purity and beauty. I grant 
 that the great question in regard to her claims is to be settled 
 finally and definitely, by comparing her, as she stands, with the 
 unerring word of God in the scriptures. But is there no ques- 
 tion in regard to the history of her reformation, in regard to 
 the influences under which it was conducted, and under which, 
 also, it was arrested, by which the great question may be in 
 some measure prejudged, and a ^probability one way or the 
 other be estabhshed, that shall cheer us on and lighten our way 
 in the main definitive investigation ? Or, seeing that the argu- 
 ment upon scripture ground is likely to be endless, and never 
 to bring forth a conclusion in which all parties may harmonize, 
 is there no question of the kind that has been referred to, whose 
 
324 THE CHURCH, 
 
 answer may serve as a make-weight to decide, if possible, the 
 quivering scales ? or which, at least, may help some minds in 
 resoMng their troublesome and most adhesive doubts ? It is 
 certainly a most remarkable thing, that the English church in 
 her work of reformation, stopping so soon upon the road, 
 should have been so fortunate as to hold up at the very point 
 of perfection. Other reforming churches found a very natural 
 stopping place at the end of the way, when they had divested 
 themselves of the last rags of the papacy ; but the church of 
 England held up in medias res, before the end was even in 
 sight, and yet, it was at the exact moment when she had per- 
 fected herself! This is truly wonderful, and the question natu- 
 rally arises, — Was there any thing in her peculiar circumstances, 
 or in the pecuhar influences under w^hich she acted, that may 
 serve in any measure to account for this most fortunate issue of 
 her reforming movements ? Had she better and more enlight- 
 ened men at the head of her affairs, than the church in Scotland, 
 or the churches on the continent ? Was she less embarrassed 
 than these other churches, by secular interference ? Had she a 
 fuller opportunity for acting out the free, enlightened, and con- 
 sentaneous christian sense of her wisest and best men ? And, 
 as a fact, was it in a peculiar manner, in the unhindered, unin- 
 fluenced acting out of the free, enlightened, and consentaneous 
 christian sense of her wisest and best men, that she finally 
 arrested her reform where she did, and took on the shape and 
 character in which she now appeai-s ? 
 
 Now, if all these questions, and others like them, are to be 
 answered clearly in the aflirmative, then it seems to me that 
 the scriptural argument for the English church begins on high 
 vantage ground, and has every thing in the actual circumstances 
 of the case, to prepare its way, and give it force. Or, if the 
 argument has been taken, and the conclusion hangs in suspense, 
 then, the peculiar circumstances of the case must serve strongly, 
 if not effectually, to determine a preponderance on the Angli 
 can side. If, however, these and similar questions are to be 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 325 
 
 answered clearly in the negative ; if the English church, at the 
 time referred to, had no better or more enlightened men than 
 the church in Scotland, or the churches on the continent ; if 
 she was far less free than these other churches from the embar- 
 rassments of secular interference, being completely in the hands 
 of a wicked and worldly government, which used its power to 
 the utmost ; if the opportunity afforded her of following the 
 free, enlightened, and consentaneous christian sense of her 
 wisest and best men, was really far inferior to that enjoyed by 
 other churches ; and if, as a fact, in the final adjustment of her 
 reform, and consolidation of her permanent state, the free, 
 enlightened, and consentaneous sense of her wisest and best 
 men was not followed, then, I say, the scriptural argaiment on 
 her behalf must be overwhelmingly conclusive, or it vdW be 
 a hopeless labor forever to those who undertake it ; and to those 
 minds that are balanced upon that argument, having previous- 
 ly attended to it, the circumstances of the case must, I think, 
 afford immediate relief, and decide a most cordial rejection of 
 her claims. In Scotland, the cause of reform met with abun- 
 dant opposition from the government, but it was able to bear 
 down that opposition, and succeeded finally in estabhshing itself, 
 in spite of all its enemies, secret or open, according to the most 
 enhghtened views, and fondest wishes of its supporters and 
 friends. Such was the fact also upon the continent. Luther, 
 and his coadjutors, in Germany, — Calvin, and Zuinglius, with 
 their coadjutors in Switzerland, under God, were enabled to carry 
 out their views, and to constitute the churches with which they 
 were severally connected, in the fullest accordance with what they 
 approved as scriptural and expedient. Very different was it in 
 England. The church in that country was very part and parcel 
 of the civil government. So thoroughly was it interlaced with 
 the state, that any material change of its outward structure, 
 ine^^tably involved changes to the same extent in the state 
 itself. To demolish and reconstruct the ecclesiastical, w^as to 
 demolish and reconstruct the civil. Revolution in one, beyond 
 
326 THE CHURCH, 
 
 what was simply speculative and spiritual, was revolution in the 
 other. While changes of opinion, therefore, on merely doctri- 
 nal points, were easily tolerated ; while the government did not 
 care a pin whether the church were Calvinistic or Arminian in 
 its dbctrine, but was willing it should be either, or neither, or 
 both, as the thirty-nine articles bear witness, changes of eccle- 
 siastical structure and administration were from the first stead- 
 fastly resisted, and none were admitted, even to the last, except 
 such as might be, without disturbing the estabhshed order of 
 things. What the wisest and best men in England desired, 
 what they longed after, and sought to obtain, I have shown 
 abundantly in other places. But what could they do against 
 the colossal power of the throne, backed by nearly all the no- 
 bility of the realm, almost every family of which had younger 
 members dependent for their influence and incomes, on the 
 preferments of a hierarchical and state-paid church? They 
 could do nothing but be content with the largest reform which 
 that government would give them. Fortunately, things were 
 in a condition which gave the reformers power. The people, 
 to a great extent, were with them, and their wishes could not 
 be wholly disregarded. Besides, England had given deep 
 offense to the reigning powers of Europe, and her very exist- 
 ence depended on the maintenance of peace and concord at 
 home. Hence, as Macaulay says, — " As the Protestants needed 
 the protection of the government, so the government needed 
 the support of the Protestants. Much was, therefore, given up 
 on both sides ; a union was effected, and the result of that union 
 was the church of England." 
 
 Will it be pretended that such facts as these are to have no 
 weight, in ascertaining what degree of respect is due to the 
 high claims which are set up for the English church ? I aflSrm 
 that it is utterly impossible that they should not have weight 
 with every human mind that perceives them. Nevertheless, 
 certainly, they ought not to decide the question. God may 
 have wrought another miracle for his church in England, as we 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. ^t 
 
 know that in former times he has wrought many, and given 
 her a true and perfect reformation, in circumstances, that on 
 natural principles, would seem to exclude the possibility of it. 
 Who can tell ? Therefore, "to the law and to the testimony." 
 The scriptures alone are competent to afford a final and infal- 
 lible decision. Let it be proved from the scriptures, that the 
 English church is what our Episcopal friends claim that she is, 
 that her reformation did go just far enough, and no farther, 
 and that the result of it was to bring forth the church of 
 Christ in its purity, as he constituted it at the first, and intended 
 it should be; — prove this, I say, from the scriptures, and I will 
 bow to the authority. I will own the miracle, by which this 
 glorious result was secured, and praise God for his grace. 
 
 It is true that the Enghsh reformers accepted of their church 
 as it was finally estabhshed, and served it, and served in it, 
 praying for its peace and prosperity, and submitting themselves 
 to its ordinances. "What then? Were they dishonest men 
 because they did this, while in their hearts they fully beheved 
 that the reformation had been incomplete ? Is it so, then, that 
 no honest man can be a member of a church which he does 
 not believe to be in all respects perfect ? In that case, if the 
 principle were acted upon, I fear we should soon have few 
 honest men in any of our churches. We fully believe that the 
 system of prelacy has no ground in the scriptures ; that there 
 is neither precept nor precedent there to recommend it ; and we 
 believe, that as a form of church government, it is unwise and 
 inexpedient ; yet we do not regard it as positively sinful^ so as 
 to vitiate whatever else in a church is good, and make the 
 church which adopts it, no church. So, doubtless, felt the pious 
 reformers of England. Unable to obtain all that they desired, 
 they were wisely thankful for all they could obtain, and tried 
 to make the best of it, rejoicing in what was good, and submit- 
 ting, in the hope of better days to come, to the evil which they 
 could not cure. I believe that / am an honest man, and yet I 
 am free to confess, that with all my disrehsh for episcopacy, 
 
32S THE CHURCH, 
 
 and my deep conviction that it is both without scripture war- 
 rant, and very far from being the best form of government the 
 church can have, that had I been in the place of one of those 
 reformers, I should have had a good conscience in doing as 
 they did. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 I have finished the work which I proposed to do. 1 wish I 
 could think that I have done full justice to my theme. I have 
 done the best that I could, in the circumstances, and now com- 
 mit the result to God's holy providence, earnestly praying that 
 if no good influence shall be exerted by what I have written, 
 there may, at least, be exerted no influence that is evil. My 
 main purpose has been, to furnish Presbyterians with a simple 
 and easy method of meeting the arguments that are commonly 
 used against them, and of defending their own system ; and at 
 the same time to help those minds that are embarrassed with 
 doubts, respecting the comparative claims of prelacy and parity. 
 I have not now, nor have I ever had, the least idea of making 
 converts from the ranks of confirmed Episcopalians — I hardly 
 expect from that class to obtain readers. I doubt if many of 
 them are at all accustomed to read works on this subject which 
 do not inculcate their own peculiar views. As little as I expect 
 that my book will make converts from the ranks of confirmed 
 Episcopalians, do I expect that it will exert any perceptible 
 influence in arresting the onward progress of the Episcopal 
 church. That church has attractions for many that will always 
 serve, especially in our large towns and cities, to replenish and 
 augment its numbers. Many, who can not reconcile themselves 
 to the senseless mummeries of the Catholic service will be 
 drawn into the Episcopal church by their natural fondness for 
 forms, and imposing ceremonial display. Episcopalians, more 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 329 
 
 ilian any other Protestant christians, are fond of elegant church- 
 cdifices and furniture, of pictorial adornments, and highly 
 artistic choral performances, and whatever else they lack, these, if 
 :.G all within their reach, they will not be without. Many will be 
 drawn to them by the natural influence of these things. Their 
 church is an easy one for easy christians. They have little or 
 no discipline for unruly members, so that a reputable standing 
 may be maintained among them by persons, who, in almost 
 any other communion, could not avoid the extremest censures 
 and discipline. This makes it a place of refuge for the discon- 
 tented and restive of other churches, and determines, at once, 
 the election of it by those who wish to maintain some sort of 
 rehgious character, without the ordinary restraints of a rehgious 
 profession. All these circumstances make it a fashionable 
 church. People of fashion go to it, because it does not inter- 
 fere with their fashionable pleasures, and because it has the 
 means of gi-atifying a fashionable taste. As a fashionable 
 church, it not only attracts fashionable persons, but great num- 
 bers besides, who are aspuing to the same distinction. Then, 
 in addition to all these things, the Episcopal church affords the 
 utmost latitude of theological views to its ministry and members. 
 It puts nobody in a strait jacket. Its articles cover the whole 
 ground from the north pole of Calvinism, to the extreme south 
 of Arminianism ; and its practice consecrates any thing, that 
 any one chooses to think, in any direction, so long as on the one 
 hand he does not embrace Popery, or on the other utterly reject 
 the authority of the bishop. No man inclined to go into the 
 Episcopal church need give himself any uneasiness about his 
 doctrinal sentiments; and no man need hesitate about going 
 there, from the least apprehension, especially, if he lives in a 
 large city, that he shall not be able to find a preacher that will 
 suit his taste. Does he want a man strictly orthodox, and 
 rigidly Calvinistic ? Mr. A. will please him perfectly. Does he 
 prefer a low and flaccid Arminianism ? Mr. B., just around the 
 corner in the next street, will meet the requirement to a tittle* 
 
330 THE CHURCH, 
 
 Must his preaclier be a staimcli revivalist ? Mr. 0. is second to 
 none of that class. Must he be a bitter opposer of revivals, 
 even an utter disbeliever in them and mocker of them, who ^vill 
 tolerate nothing among his people but the dull monotony of a 
 mere prayer book religion, and eschew excitements as he would 
 schism and death ? Mr. D. then, is his man. The picture could 
 not have been more faithful, had he sat for it. Will he bear to 
 hear nothing in the pulpit but pretty moral essays, very short ? 
 At the reverend Dr. E's church he may count with a perfect 
 certainty on hearing nothing else from year's end to year's end. 
 Does he desire to learn the lessons of extreme high-churchism ? 
 Young Mr. F. will suit him then, for, if all his sermons had 
 been imported direct from Oxford, with Dr. Pusey's own im- 
 primatur upon them, they could not be more highly impreg- 
 nated than they are with the genuine Oxford element. Is his 
 mind, perchance, deeply imbued with a love for the simple 
 gospel, and wherever he goes, will he insist upon being fed with 
 the pure evangelic manna? Happily, the Episcopal church 
 can provide for him, for there are those in her ministry, and I 
 praise God for it, who have no superiors as faithful messengers 
 of the grace of life. Thus all sorts can be suited. In this re- 
 spect it is a broad net that the Episcopal church casts forth 
 upon the waters. Episcopacy gains farther a large advantage, 
 with a certain order of minds, from the very extravagance of its 
 pretensions, and the positiveness with which those pretensions 
 are maintained. There is something in our very nature, that 
 predisposes us, in determining the relative merits of conflicting 
 claims, to accord superiority to that which is most audacious, 
 and which presses itself upon us with the most unswerving 
 pertinacity. We are very apt to think that where there is most 
 smoke, there is most fire, and that the biggest thunder comes 
 from the biggest cloud. Episcopalians claim, that of all Protes- 
 tants, they alone have the church, the christian ministry, and 
 the sacraments. They are the true " Israelites, to whom per- 
 taineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 331 
 
 giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 
 whose are the fathers," and whatever else may be regarded as 
 distinguishing the elect people of the Most High. Others are 
 only dissenters, schismatics, aliens, — and their churches mere 
 human societies, dissevered from Christ the head, and having 
 no share in the streams of heavenly grace. This claim they 
 put forth with the utmost seriousness, and urge with as much 
 pertinacity as if they verily believed that the honor of God, 
 and the salvation of souls depended on it. Who can wonder, 
 that to minds of a certain class it is deeply affecting ? It would 
 be strange, if it were not. The claim is imposing. It is grand. 
 With many pei-sons it is overwhelming, and they are taken 
 by it as by storm, without even asking for the first evidence. 
 They think there must be something in it, or good men would 
 not be found so earnestly advocating and urging it. 
 
 The Episcopal church has always received, and probably 
 always will receive, from other denominations, numerous acces- 
 sions to its ministry. I have not the means of ascertaining 
 with any certainty what proportion of its living clergy is com- 
 posed of this class of persons, but it is undoubtedly very large. 
 I think I can say with truth, that quite one-third of those with 
 whom I am personally acquainted, were educated under an- 
 other system. Episcopalians boast of this, and refer to it as 
 evidence of the peculiar force with which their system com- 
 mends itself to educated minds. Some facts, therefore, are 
 important to be stated here, bearing upon this point. It is to 
 be considered, in the first place, that young men, aiming at the 
 christian ministry, are ordinarily not in possession of very 
 highly educated minds, at the period when they elect the 
 church in whose fellowship they will perform their labors. At 
 the time when this question is commonly decided by them, they 
 are much more likely to be influenced by certain considerations, 
 which I propose to mention, than by any clear and well-digested 
 views of christian doctrine and the facts of sacred and profane 
 history. I believe it will not be denied that young men, of the 
 
332 THE CHURCH 
 
 class that we call educated, are far nior« apt to be very am- 
 bitious than very learned ; and the prelatic system of church 
 order has, what the presbyterial system has not, an object to set 
 before them. In our diurches there is no high place of dignity 
 and power to be sought a^ won. There are with us no dis- 
 tinctions but those of superior merit, and pre-eminent usefulness, 
 — distinctions, to which the kind of ambition that I now speak 
 of, is by no means likely to aspire. Does any one suppose, that 
 of all the young men that have entered the ministry of the 
 Episcopal church from the ranks of parity, not one has been 
 attracted there, by the prospect of one day becoming a bishop ? 
 It may seem a small thing to mention the gown, and bands, 
 and muslin robes which compose the Sunday uniform of Epis- 
 copal clergymen, but as drops make up the ocean, so small 
 things make up the sum of life ; and I must not fail to ask my 
 readers, if it is not, at least, supposable, that some young men 
 are drawn into the ministry of the Episcopal church, by the 
 idea that they shall looh well in all that finery ? Young men 
 are very silly sometimes, and in respect to nothing, more than 
 the article of dress; and I am sorry to say that young men 
 aiming at the christian ministry have never shown themselves 
 to be exceptions to this remark. A good Episcopal lady, many 
 years ago, lamented to me that I was not in her church, be- 
 cause, being tall, and very erect, I would look so well in the 
 robes. There is a consideration yet to be named, which has 
 exerted, I have no doubt, more influence than all the rest. The 
 duties of the ministry in the Episcopal church are compara- 
 tively light, and demand but little exertion, and Httle talent. 
 It is the fasliion, in that church, to have far fewer services, than 
 are common with us. For the devotional parts of those ser- 
 vices, provision is already made in the prayer book. The 
 sermons are expected always to be short, about half the ordinary 
 length of ours; and as the preaching is esteemed secondary to 
 the reading of the prayers, the gi*eat demand is for good read- 
 ing, rather than for good preaching. It is notorious that men 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP. 333 
 
 may sustain themselves reputably in the Episcopal church, with 
 a grade of ability in their discourses, which among us would 
 not be tolerated. They may become doctors of divinity, on 
 an amount of capital that with us would hardly gain them 
 parishes. This is a matter well understood, and I need not 
 enlarge upon it. Who doubts, that many diffident young men, 
 fearful of failure where higher demands would be made upon 
 them, besides many indolent ones, shrinking from much labor, 
 and like many more, of feeble capacity, ambitious of an honor- 
 able standing at small cost, and with small means — who 
 doubts, I say, that many such, diffident, indolent, and weak, are 
 drawn into the Episcopal church by a consideration of what I 
 have now stated ? There is one Episcopal minister, holding no 
 mean place, in no mean city of our land, who, in a conversation 
 with me, before entering that church from ours, frankly owned 
 that he was going there, mainly for the reason that he feared 
 he never could maintain a respectable standing in our church. 
 He is now a hio-h-churchman of the hio-hest kind. Who 
 doubts, that if the truth were known, he would appear to be one 
 of a very large company? Illustrative of another point to 
 which I have alluded, may be mentioned the case of a young 
 man of rather superior abilities, who entered the Episcopal 
 ministry from our ranks some five years ago, assigning, as his 
 sole reason, to myself and others, the latitude of opinion on 
 doctrinal subjects, which was allowed in that church. It is a 
 fact which may here be' mentioned, that young men of un- 
 doubted piety Imxe gone from us into the ministry of the 
 Episcopal church, from a simple conviction, that in consequence 
 of the lack of really ftiithful and evangelical preachers in that 
 communion, they might be more extensively useful there, than 
 they could be in any other connection. I have been credibly 
 informed that this was the case with a certain eminent divine 
 who, to the profound giief of all that knew his worth, died 
 recently in one of our principal cities. 
 
334 THE CHURCH, 
 
 Tims we see, that there are ample ways of accounting for the 
 success of episcopacy among us hitherto, without at all suppos- 
 ing that a rational conviction has prevailed, to any extent, of 
 its peculiar claims; and we see, also, that while human nature 
 remains such as it is, there is little prospect that its success will 
 be rendered, by any cause, less than it has been. Certainly I 
 should never dream of essentially impairing that success by any 
 efforts of mine. The Episcopal church will flourish still, and 
 large numbers will flock to it. I do not apprehend, however, 
 that it will ever become relatively a large church in this coun- 
 try. It will hold its own, and make its natural increase of 
 those whose idosyncrasies peculiarly incline them in that direc- 
 tion. Its form of government^ on account of the monarchical 
 feature of it, can never be extensively j^opular with Americans^ 
 and the generally prosaic character of our people, aftbrds a 
 suflicient guarantee that its forms of worship will never be 
 extensively admired. There is also a strong working through- 
 out the length and breadth of our land, of the old Puritanic 
 element, against which prelacy will never be able, on any large 
 scale, to make headway. In addition to all this, Americans 
 are eminently a reading and a thinking people, who will have 
 good reasons before they believe, and episcopacy has no such 
 reasons to give. 
 
 Should our land be visited with large and extensive outpour- 
 ings of the Holy Spirit, there is no doubt the Episcopal church 
 would suffer by it. As compared with her, the strength of 
 other Protestant churches, destitute as they are of whatever 
 appeals to the outward senses and aims to affect the imagina- 
 tion, lies in the power of truth and in their spirituality. Revi- 
 vals of religion, therefore, must strengthen them where their 
 true strength hes, and weaken her in the same vital point. 
 The truth of this observation is attested by the whole history 
 of revivals. Let our non-prelatical churches r<emember this, 
 and let them pray and labor, above all, to secure in their midst 
 the presence of their Saviour God. Then shall they '•'have a 
 
ITS MINISTRY AND WORSHIP 335 
 
 strong city; and salvation ^oill God appoint for walk and 
 bulwarks^ 
 
 In taking leave of Mr. Schuyler, I desire to say, that con- 
 formably with my promise at the outset, I have had no purpose 
 in any thmg that I have said, to wound his feelings. I have 
 wntten honestly and earnestly, and sometimes, no doubt, have 
 expressed myself with a degree of sharpness which it would 
 have been better for the success of my own argument, if I had 
 restramed; but I can say, with all truth, that there has been no 
 moment when, in my heart toward him pei^nally, there was 
 any other feehng than that of kindness. Precisely so I feel 
 toward h,m now, and with the utmost cordiality, offer him my 
 
 THE END. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Prefatory. —A word of explanation. 
 
 An unj ust accusation 6 
 
 Something amusing 8 
 
 Tiie Church, its ministry and worship li 
 
 Mr. Schuyleu's Position 12 
 
 The Invisible Church » . . 15 
 
 The Main Questions considered SO 
 
 The Church 2() 
 
 The Ministry of the Church 29 
 
 First scriptural argument for episcopacy; three orders in the Aaronic 
 
 priesthood 35 
 
 Second scriptural argument for episcopacy; the consecration of Christ, 
 
 aiid hifi ordination of the twelve and the seventy 40 
 
 Tiiird scriptural argument for episcopacy; a second order constituted 
 
 by the appointment of deacons 50 
 
 Fourth scriptural argument for episcopacy; tlie three-fold ministry 
 
 completed hy the discovery of another order called presbyters 57 
 
 Was the apostle.'^hip designed to l»e a permanent and successive oflice. . . 68 
 Episcopal arginnents fur ihe p-enniiucncc and successiveness of the 
 
 apostolic otfice 99 
 
 The case of Matthias 100 
 
 The term " apostle " applied in the New Testament to others besides 
 
 the twelve 114 
 
 Were Bai-nabas, Silas, Timothy, Titus, Androuicus, Junia, and Epaph- 
 
 roditus apostles'? 120 
 
 Was -Timothy prelatic bishop of Ephesus 7 125 
 
 Was Titus prelatic bishop of Crete 1 143 
 
 Were the angels of the seven churches of Asia prelatic bishops 1 153 
 
 Is there authority for presbyierial ordination 7 175 
 
 Testimony of the father.s in favor of prcsbyterial ordination 192 
 
 The apostolical succes.sion 221 
 
 The Worship of thk Church 228 
 
 Mr. Schuyler's Appendix 265 
 
 Republicanism of the American Episcojjal church 265 
 
 The Ignaiian epistles 269 
 
 ' John Calviii'd views of episcopacy 280 
 
 Sentiments of English reformers respecting the government and worship 
 
 of the church 292 
 
 Apostolical succession of the American Ejdscupa! church 299 
 
 Historical Notices 311 
 
 Nurabpr of Episcopalians as compared with the various other sects 317 
 
 Barrow on the apostolical succession 320 
 
 Inconsistent opinions of individual bisliops of no weight 323 
 
 Conclusion 3-28 
 
4#