- KH r . K ' O- fc KH j ^ < LSWORT OQ <2 O &, 23,) and that "the above distinction be- tween elders and a grade superior to them in regard especially to the power of ordaining, was so per- severed in as to indicate that it was a permanent arrangement, and not designed to be but tempo- rary/' Pp. 23, 24. 5* 54 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT In the inquiry, then, whether this distinction was continued or persevered in, we might insist on what has been already shown as decisive. If the original distinction was what it has been shown to be, that the design of selecting and appointing the apostles to their office was that they might be " witn esses" of the life, the teachings, the death, the resurrec- tion, and the ascension of the Saviour, then it could not be persevered in without (as in the case of Paul) a personal, direct manifestation of the as- cended Saviour, to qualify every future incumbent in the apostleship. 1 Cor. ix. 1. No modern "bishop," it is presumed, will lay claim to this. The very supposition that .any such revelation was necessary would dethrone every prelate and pros- trate every mitre in Christendom. But we have, as before remarked, an independent train of arguments on this point. It is evident that the whole burden of proof here lies on the Episco- palian. He maintains that such an original dis- tinction existed, and that it was perpetuated. Both these positions we deny. The first has been shown to be unfounded, and has thus virtually destroyed the other. Let us proceed, however, to the com- paratively needless task of showing that the posi- tion, that there was an arrangement by which an order of men " superior to the elders' 7 was con- tinued in the church, is equally unfounded. The argument in support of the position, that OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 55 there was to be an order of men of substantially the same rank as the apostles, and superior to another grade of ministers in the church, can be made out only by substantiating one or both of the following positions : either (1) that it is expressly stated in the New Testament that the " order"* was con- tinued, or was to be continued; or (2) 'by an induc- tion of particulars, showing that though there was no formal statement on this point, yet that the order was, in fact, continued. Either of them, I admit, would settle the question in favour of Epis- copacy; if both fail, then it is equally clear that the claim is unfounded. It is proposed to examine both these points by the New Testament. First, then, there is no express statement in the New Testament that such a " superior order" of ministers was to be " continued" in the church, or that the apostles were to have " successors" in the peculiarity of their office. This point is so clear that even Episcopalians do not pretend to affirm, it. There is nothing to which they refer as conveying this idea. Neither in the instructions of the Saviour himself when he called them to their office, nor in any declaration which fell from his lips during his ministry, nor in any thing that the apostles them- selves said, either before or subsequent to the resur- rection of the Saviour, is it declared that the pecu- liarity of the apostolic office was to be continued by a " succession" of men extending into future 56 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT times. This assertion is made with entire confi- dence, and it is not and cannot be denied by the advocates of Episcopacy. The only declaration in the New Testament that has any resemblance to such a position^ or that is ever even remotely referred to by Episcopalians on this point, is the promise of the Saviour in Matt, xxviii. 20 : " Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world/' But, assuredly, this passage will not demonstrate that the peculiarity of the apostolic office was to be perpetuated, or that the apostles were to have successors in their office, or that there was to be an order of men continued in the church superior in rank and power to a certain other order of men. It does not prove this for the following reasons : (1.) There is no declaration in this pro- mise, express or implied, that the peculiarity of their office was to be continued. That, certainly, is not the point of the promise, whatever may be its real import. The point of the promise is, the pre- sence of the Saviour to the end of -time with those who were to go and preach the gospel. (2.) There is no allusion to any such fact as that they were to be " superior" to another order of men, or that an order of men superior to others was to be continued in the church. No mention is made of any such " orders" of men; there is no intimation that there would be. (3.) The promise is one that is adapted to all authorized preachers of the gospel, whatever OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 57 rank or order they may sustain. According to the Saviour's commission, the promise extends to all those who should be called by him and commis- sioned to go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Matt, xxviii. 19. It was to such persons (ver. 20) that the promise of his presence was made by the Saviour ; and wherever any per- sons have evidence that they are authorized by .him to engage in that work, they have a right to apply this promise to themselves. But is this work to be confined to prelates, the pretended " successors" of the apostles ? Are no others authorized to go and disciple the nations ; to baptize in the name of the Trinity, and to teach men to observe the command- ments of God ? Assuredly, this will not be pre- tended, for no Episcopalian ever supposed that " bishops" only were authorized to become mission- aries to the heathen. But, if this text will not support the pretensions to a " succession" in the peculiarity of the apostolic office, which it neither expresses nor implies, then there is no express declaration in the New Testa- ment that an order of men was to be " continued" in the ministry " superior" to another order. And if this be so, we have here one of the most remark- able facts that has ever occurred in the institution of any office whatever; a fact so remarkable as to render it incredible that it should ever have occurred. 58 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT A brief glance at the circumstances of the case will illustrate this. They are these : According to the belief of Episcopalians, this "order" of the ministry to wit, that of "bishops" as the successors of the apostles, was to continue forever. It was intended by the Saviour that at nc time should the church be without an order of men who should be properly the " successors of the apostles." According to their belief, that arrangement was to take place in all lands where the gospel was preached. No matter what might be the form of civil government there prevailing whether a re- public, a democracy, an aristocracy, or a monarchy there was to be but one form in which the church was to be organized; and in every land there was to be an order in the ministry who should be properly the "successors of the apostles." According to their belief, the correct organization of the whole church was dependent on the ob- servance of the distinction between this "supe- rior grade" and an inferior grade in the ministry; and there could be, in fact, no properly organized church unless there was an order of men who should be properly " the successors of the apos- tles." According to their belief, the validity of all ordi- nations everywhere depended on this, and no one could be authorized to preach the gospel unless OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 59 there had been laid on him the hands of those who were properly the "successors of the apostles/' According to their belief, the validity of all sacra- ments depended on this, and no one could properly administer the rite of baptism or the Lord's supper unless he had derived his authority from those who were properly " the successors of the apostles/' According to their belief, the proper government of the church everywhere depended on this, and none would have a right to administer discipline except those who were properly the "successors of the apostles/' According to their belief, if these things arc not so, and if there is no such " succession" of men in the church, the churches are unauthorized assem- blies, without a valid ministry ; with no sacraments properly administered; with none empowered by the great Head of the church to proclaim salvation, to offer pardon, to minister consolation, or to bury the dead. With these consequences full in view, we turn, then, to the original commission of these men whose "successors" were to be intrusted with so much power, and the continuation of whose office was to involve the destiny of countless millions of mankind. We go and listen to the Saviour when he called them on the banks of Gennesareth. We examine all the instructions that he gave them in three years of his most faithful ministry. We listen to his voice 60 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT when lie was about to ascend to heaven, and when he gave them his parting counsel and issued his great commission. Strange to tell, in all this, not one word do we hear of any such, tremendous re- sults depending on the fact that there were to be those who should be " successors' ; in the peculiari- ties of their office, nor is there even a hint that they were to have any such successors. We turn then to another fact a fact which must have been before the eyes of the Kedeemer. It is the arrangement made in regard to the priestly office in the Old Testament. There every thing was ordered in the most exact manner. There is no ambiguity. There is no reason for doubting that Moses intended that the ministry which he in- stituted should be arranged in three orders, or that it was designed that there should be a " successor" o to the one of " superior order" the high-priest. Every thing relating to that officer, and to the " succession/' is specified with the utmost particu- larity, and the arrangement entered into the essen- tial structure of the constitution of the Jewish commonwealth. Can any one believe that the Saviour intended that there should be similar dis- tinctions in his church, essential to its very exist- ence, and yet that there should not be a single word in regard to it in his own statements of the nature of the ministry? They may explain this who can ; but if such results were to be dependent OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 61 on the fact that an order of men was to be con- tinued in the church, who should be the " succes- sors" of the apostles in the peculiarity of their office, and yet not one word of this ever occurred in the account of its organization, then the church of the Lord Jesus is the most singularly organized body that ever pretended to have a constitution. Leaving this matter to be explained by Episcopa- lians as it may be a work which remains yet to be attempted the fact is all that is of essential im- portance to us now. That fact is, that there is no intimation in the instructions or counsels of the Saviour that he ever designed that the peculiarity of the apostolic office should be transmitted to a body of men who should be their " successors." The second point of the inquiry, then, is, Whether the recorded facts in the doings of the apostles themselves are such as to show that this was in- tended? It is certainly undeniable that it might be so. Though there were not in the original commis- sion of the apostles themselves, or in any declaration of the Saviour, an express statement that this order of men was to be continued in a regular " succes- sion/' yet it must be admitted that such might have been the organization of the church under them, and such their uniform practice, as to show that this regular succession was contemplated, and is still indispensable to the existence of the church. It is conceivable that in every case where a vacancy 62 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT occurred in the apostolic college, they should forth- with ordain a " successor -" or that they should, in some sufficiently intelligible and formal way, appoint men over others, with the powers and functions of their own office ; or that, having ordained certain men to the ministry, they should uniformly address them as apostles, and as invested with the functions of the apostolic office ; or that, in every country where churches were organized in sufficient number, they should constitute some one with the right of confirmation, and with the general charge of govern- ing the churches, and with instructions to transmit his peculiar authority to some < 'successor" of the same rank. In either of these cases it is admitted that there would be a sufficient indication that the church was to be constituted and governed in this manner however we might explain the want of any such statement in the original commission. The defect in the original commission would be practically supplied, and the authority for the supe- rior "apostolic" order in the church could not, with propriety, be called in question. The advocates for Episcopacy, conceding the want of the express statement in the original commission on this point, suppose that they find evidence of such an arrange- ment in the subsequent organization of the church ; or such evidence that the apostles intended that their own " order" or rank in the ministry should be continued as to amount to a proof that this was OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 63 the intention of the Saviour. That evidence is found, they think, not in any express declaration of the apostles themselves, but in such supposed acts as to show that there was the same authority transmitted which they had, as apostles, and that this was to be a permanent arrangement. The evi- dence consists in the alleged fact that certain indi- viduals are mentioned with such appellations, and designated to perform such offices, as to show that they belonged to an order of the clergy " superior" to the presbyters, and were in the same rank as the apostles. To examine this claim, therefore, is essen- tial to a correct understanding of the subject, and this examination will settle the question. This must be done by an investigation of the cases of the particular individuals who are claimed to be the successors of the apostles. It is proposed to take up these cases in the order in which they are usually presented by Episcopalians, and to inquire, What is the evidence that they succeeded the apostles in the peculiarity of the apostolic office, so as to show that it was intended that this should be a permanent arrangement in the church f The first -case is that of Matthias, Acts i. 15-26. The argument which is relied on in his case is, that one of the first acts of the apostles, after they re- ceived the apostolic office, was to "transfer the very same power which they had received from Christ ;" (Bishop McrCoskry;) and that Matthias was so se- 64 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT lected, and such power conferred on him, as to prove that he was to be ranked among the apostles, and to indicate that this was to be a permanent arrangement. It is supposed to be the first step in the doings of the apostles, indicating that their order was to be continued in the churches, and that it was not to be allowed to become extinct by the death of those sustaining the office. Now, in regard to the case of Matthias, the follow- ing remarks will show the bearing of this example on the argument : 1. He was undoubtedly chosen to be an apostle in the proper sense of the word. This is implied in the whole transaction, and is, indeed, expressly affirmed. Peter states, in his argument for going into the election, that one of their number had com- mitted suicide, and that it was proper that his place should be supplied by an election. The propriety of this he argues by a quotation from Psalm Ixix. 25 : " Let his habitation be desolate, and let no mand well therein ; and his bishopric let another take;" that is, let his -office, or churgc i-w/M-riV be conferred on another. The word is applied to any oversight or care of a thing, and. in the New Testament refers to having the care or oversight of the church, without reference to any particular rank in doing it. See Acts xx. 28, and Phil. i. 1, where it is applied to presbyters. On the ground of this ancient prediction, Peter argued that it was OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 65 necessary and proper to elect one with suitable qualifications to fill the office with which Judas had been invested, or to accomplish what he was chosen to accomplish as an apostle. That it was understood that he was to be an apostle, with the rank, title, and prerogatives of an apostle, is clear. He was to be in the office what Judas would have been, if he had not, by transgression, fallen. Ac- cordingly, it is expressly stated that " he was num- bered with the eleven apostles," (Acts i. 26,) and the apostles are twice referred to afterwards, in their collective capacity, in such a manner as to lead to the supposition that Matthias was with them. Thus it is said, (Acts ii. 14,) " But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice ;" and in Acts vi. 2, " Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them/' implying that at that time Matthias was recognised as one of the number of the apostles, or that the apostolic college was full. 2. I am willing to admit that all this was done, under the full influence of inspiration, and by the sanction of the Holy Spirit. It is true that the presence of the other ten apostles on the occasion is not mentioned ; that the question was submitted, not particularly to them, but to the whole of the assembled church, (Acts i. 15 ;) that probably the whole church acted in the selection of the successor of Judas, and voted on the occasion, (see Acts i. 15, 66 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT coinp. vs. 23, 26;) and that Peter seems to have been led to the conclusion that such an election was proper by a course of reasoning on the declaration in the Ixixth Psalm; but I see no reason to doubt that he acted in accordance with the will of the Great Head of the church, and under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. This would seem to be fairly implied in the general promises which the Re- deemer made to the apostles in regard to the organization of the church. ^John xiv. 26; Matt, xvi. 19 ; xviii. 18. Whatever inferences may fol- low from this fact, the fact itself should be cheer- fully conceded. But, if these points are conceded, the question then is, What is the exact bearing of this case on the question, whether it was intended that the ar- rangement should be " permanent" in the church, and that there should be a regular " succession" of men invested with the functions of those who sustained the- apostolic office ? It is important, then, to look at this case just as it is presented in the New Testament; and the following .acts, which no one will dispute, comprise all that is said in regard to it, and embrace all that can be construed into an argument in regard to the suc- cession. (1.) It was an election to. a vacancy, not to a sin-cession in the office. The reason which Peter gives for the election at all is that it was proper OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 67 because a vacancy had occurred by the death of Judas, not because it was necessary to keep up the " succession" One had been removed who had been chosen to fill a specific place and to accom- plish a particular object, and it was important that his place should be filled. If it were possible to perpetuate the apostolic office in its peculiarity as we have seen that it is not this reasoning of Peter would be forcible to demonstrate that the number twelve was to be continued, and that when a va- cancy occurred, it was to be supplied by election; but it is of no force whatever to demonstrate that there must be a "succession" of an unlimited num- ber, and that the office was to be transmitted by embracing hundreds or thousands in the "apostolic college" in every successive age. The argument of Peter is, that Judas was " numbered with them, and had obtained part in the same ministry" with them ; that he had fallen from this office, and that it was predicted that another should take " his" place; and that, such being the case, it was proper to appoint another, having the proper qualifications, who might be, as Judas would have been had he lived, a " witness of the resurrection" of the Sa- viour. In all this there is not one word about a "succession;" not an intimation that it was to be a permanent arrangement; not a hint* that the ori- ginal number was ever to be enlarged or to have any other qualifications than the original apostles 68 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT had the qualifications which made them competent to bear witness of the resurrection of the Saviour. There is all the difference imaginable between the . power to fill a vacancy in an office, and a power to perpetuate an ORDER of men and especially if that " order" is to be indefinitely enlarged. (2.) It was an election by the church, and not particularly by the apostles. Indeed, it is only from the probability that the apostles would be present on such an. occasion that there is any reason to believe that they were there, for they are not mentioned. The address of Peter was made to the " disciples," who are said to have been " about a hundred and twenty/' 7 (Acts i. 15;) and it is manifest from the narrative that the votes in the case were given by them. No intimation is furnished that any others voted than those before whom the proposition of Peter was made ; and it is morally certain that if the vote had been given only by the apostles, such a fact would have been stated. This account shows that the apostles did not mean of themselves to ap- point successors ; but, so far as it goes, it shows that the selection was made by the body of the commu- nicants in the church. If they had been intrusted with a special commission to continue their " pecu- liar order/' and to " transfer their authority," as a permanent arrangement, it is scarcely credible that the execution of tnis should have been left to the body of communicants. At all events, this has OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 69 much more of a democratic aspect than is found now in Episcopacy. In the whole of the speech of Peter, he never breathes a note of either himself or his fellow-apostles conferring apostolic power on/ Matthias, or on any one else. He submitted the nomination in the most anti-Episcopal manner to the whole of the disciples, and then referred the final decision to the Lord. " That/ appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias." The fair and obvious construction of this is, that it was done by the " hundred and twenty disciples" to whom Peter had submitted the proposition respecting the necessity of electing one to fill the vacancy. (3.) The purpose for which Matthias was chosen is specifically mentioned. It was that he might Be, in the proper sense of the word, as explained above, an apostle a "witness" of the resurrection of the Saviour. " Wherefore, of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us must one, Le ordained TO BE A WITNESS with us of his resurrection" (ver. 21, 22.) Here the same object is referred to which is specified by the Saviour as implied in the nature of the apostolic office to be his witnesses to the world. In order to divest this of all doubt as to what was intended in the case, Peter specifies all the qualifications which were necessary in the elec- tion. He who was to be chosen was to have just 70 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT such qualifications as to fit him to he a competent "witness" of the resurrection of the Saviour. In order to that, it was indispensable that he should have been with him ; that he should have been familiar with his person and his instructions, that he might thus be qualified to bear witness to his identity after his resurrection. Accordingly, Peter says that it was necessary that he should have been with them " all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and -out among them, beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day when he was taken up from them/ 7 (ver. 21, 22;) thus embracing the en- tire period of his public ministry, his crucifixion, and the forty days in which he appeared to his dis- ciples after his resurrection. It was to bear witness to* these things, as we have seen, that the apostles were originally chosen ; and it was for this specific purpose that Matthias was selected in the room of one who would have been abundantly qualified for this had he lived. In all that Peter says on this subject, there is not an intimation of the necessity of. any other qualification than this; there is no hint that he ought to be endowed with uncommon talents, eloquence, or learning; there is no allusion to any power, control, or jurisdiction that he was to exercise over the churches ; there is no suggestion that he was to perform the ceremony of " confirma- tion," or that he was to take the jurisdiction over n particular district or "diocese;" nor is there any OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 71 allusion to any such fact as that he was to transmit his power and authority to " successors/ 7 The pur- pose was specific ; it was just that for which all the apostles had been called by the Saviour. These are the simple facts in regard to the elec- tion of Matthias. It is to be remembered now that this is the only case of an election to the apostolic office recorded in the New Testament. The only other apostle, respecting whose authority and ranlE there is no dispute, was Paul. He was called di- rectly from heaven, without any arrangement, elec- tion, designation, or ordination by the other apos- tles ; and he was qualified for the peculiarity of the apostolic office by having been permitted, in a mi- raculous manner, to see the Saviour after his resur- rection. " Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" 1 Cor. ix. 1. When James, the brother of John, was put to death by Herod, (Acts xii. 1,) there was no election to supply his place, nor is there any mention that as the apostles died their places were supplied. The pur- pose of the original appointment of twelve a com- petent number to establish the important truth of the resurrection of Jesus had been accomplished when they died; and it was alike useless and impos- sible to continue the succession useless because the twelve had testified to the world the fact of his resurrection in such a manner as to secure the per- manent establishment of the Christian religion; and 72 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT impossible because the original witnesses of the resurrection of the Redeemer died. How could an order of men be kept up in the world from age to age*, qualified to be "witnesses" of his resurrec- tion ? It is left, then, to the judgment of all to determine with what propriety the case of Matthias is referred to as an evidence that it was designed that there should be a permanent arrangement in the church to perpetuate the apostolic office, or to continue the appointment of an order of men of " superior qualifications and rank" in the ministry. If the very first link fails, all the others will be likely to fail also. The next case on which reliance is placed by the advocates of Episcopacy is, that of Barnabas. The argument in support of his claims to the apostleship is based mainly on the fact that the name apostle is given to him. Acts xiv. 14: "Which when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of, they rent their clothes." See the tract "Episcopacy tested by Scripture," p. 18, and Bishop McCoskry's Ser- mon, p. 24. In connection with the fact that the name apostle is given to Barnabas, it is urged by the author of the tract that the transaction re- corded in Acts xiii., by which Paul and Barnabas were designated to a particular work, and in the performance of which they are called "apostles," was not an "ordination" in the peculiar sense of tli<- word, but a mere designation to a special missionary OF THE ArOSTOLIC CHURCH. 73 service; and that, as the term "apostle" belonged of right to Paul before this, so it is to be inferred that the same designation belonged to Barnabas, and to each of the others who were there named "'Simeon, and Niger, arid Lucius, and Manaeu." Tract, pp. 16, 17. The argument is, that if this were not an " ordination/' the name "apostle" was not given to them in virtue of this transaction, but must have appertained to them before. As this is a point of some importance, and as it is an argument much insisted on by Episcopalians, that because the name apostle is given to certain men in the New Testament, therefore they were- of a grade superior in rank to other " clergy," and that the "order" was designed to be perpetuated, it is important first to examine the meaning of the word "apostle," and then to inquire in what sense it is applied to Barnabas. The word dxoffrolos apostle, meaning one sent forth, a messenger occurs in the New Testament eighty-one times. It is ap- plied to the following persons : (1.) To the Saviour himself, as sent from God the Great Apostle to the world. Heb. iii. 1. Compare here the nume- rous places where the Saviour says he was " sent" from God into the world. (2.) To the original number whom the Saviour chose to be his apostles to the world. Matt. x. 2; Mark vi. 30; Luke vi. 13; ix. 10; xi. 49; xvii. 5; xxii. 14; xxiv. 10; Acts i. 2, 26; ii. 37, 42, 43; iv. 5)8, o5-37; v. 2, 74 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT 12, 18, 29, 34, 40; vi. 6; viii. 1, 14, 18; ix. 27; xi. 1; xiv. 4; xv. 2, 4, 6, 22, 23, 33; x\ 7 i. 4; Rom. xvi. 7; 1 Cor. xii. 28, 29; xv. 7; Gal. i. 17, 19; Eph. ii. 20; iii. 5; iv. 11; 1 Thess. ii. 6, 11; 2 Pet. i. 1; ii. 1; iii. 2; Jude 17; Rev. xviii.20; xxi. 14. (3.) To Paul, reckoned as an apostle, and especially endowed for this purpose by having had a miraculous view of the Saviour after his ascension. Acts xiv. 14; Rom. i. 1; xi. 13; 1 Cor. i. 1; ix. 1, 2; xv. 9; 2 Cor. i. 1; xii. 12; Gal. i. 1; Eph. i. 1; Col. i. 1; 1 Tim. i. 1; ii. 7; 2 Tim. i. 1, 11; Titus i. 1. (4.) To Barnabas in one instance only : Acts xiv. 14. (5.) To certain " brethren" who accompanied Titus when he was sent by Paul to Corinth, and who are called " the messengers of the churches" a-o6To)*ot y.xlrj<7iwv the apostles of the churches. The number and names of these persons are unknown, but the only rank which they sus- tained was that of being sent from one church to another. 2 Cor. viii. 23. (6.) In a similar sense it is applied in Phil. ii. 25, to Epaphroditus, sent by the church at Philippi to Rome, to supply the wants of Paul when a prisoner there. (7.) It is applied to any one who is sent to perform any office whatever. "The servant is not greater than his Lord ; neither is lie that is sent (oude a-oa-ohx; neither the apostle') greater than he that sent him." John xiii. 16. These passages show the sense in which the word OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 7D is used in the New Testament, and the true force of any argument that may be derived from its use. It- means properly one who is sent, and may be used with reference to one who is sent for any purpose, and may be applied, therefore, to any minister of religion, or to any one sent for a specific object, who is not even a minister of religion. The mere use of the word, therefore, proves nothing in respect to jbhe hiatter under consideration. The argument relied on by the Episcopalian is, that the fact that ^the word is applied to an individual proves that he was an apostle in the strict and proper sense. But, in order to the validity of this argument, it is neces- sary to believe that the word is used in no other sense in the New Testament; and this would prove, not only that Barnabas was an apostle properly so called, but that Epaphroditus was, and that all the messengers whom Paul sent with Titus were ; arid that any one who was ever sent for any purpose was called an "apostle" in the strict and proper sense. If the Episcopalians, therefore, insist on it that the fact that the name "apostle" was given to Barnabas or Silas proves that they were apostles, and that the "order" was intended to be "continued," then we insist on it that the church at Philippi sent a pre- latical bishop Epaphroditus to "minister to the wants of Paul," and that Paul sent a whole com- pany of "apostles," or prelatical bishops, on a gene- ral exploring toitV through Greece, or more likely 76 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT on a visit to a particular church there. 2 Cor. viii. 23. But, as this consequence will not be conceded by Episcopalians, it follows that the argument on which they rely, derived from the fact that the name " apostle' 7 is given to Barnabas, is worthless. In fact, it is known to be worthless by Episcopa- lians themselves. Dr. Onderdonk himself practically concedes it in the following judicious observation, Tract, p. 13: "A little reflection and practice will enable any of our readers to look in Scripture for the several sacred OFFICES, independently of the^ NAMES there or elsewhere given to them." The truth is, in regard to this word, and to all others, that the specific sense in which it is used is to be determined by the connection and the circum- stances. Let us, then, inquire in regard to the case of Barnabas, whether there is any thing in the con- nection and circumstances where the term is ap- plied to him, which shows that he was an apostle in the strict and proper sense, or that it was intended that the " order" should be perpetuated through him. The only instance in which the word apostle is applied to Barnabas, as hag already been remarked, is in Acts xiv. 14 : " Which when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of, they rent their clothes." Now, to see the fair and proper mean- ing of the word, as here applied to Barnabas, we * OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 77 may advert to the following considerations : (1.) There is no account that Barnabas was ever elected, ordained, or appointed, in any way, te the apostolic office. There is a particular account of the election of Matthias, and of the manner in which Paul was selected and set apart to be an apostle; but there is no intimation that Barnabas was ever chosen in any manner for that office.- (2.) Barnabas is repeatedly mentioned in the New Testament, but in no other instance as an apostle. He first appears in Acts iv. 36, where it is said that he came with other converts having property and laid it at the apostles' feet. He is then mentioned (Acts xi. 22) as hav- ing been sent by the "church in Jerusalem" to Antioch, on occasion of a revival of religion there, and an account of his success as a preacher is there given. He is then referred to as having voluntarily gone to seek the apostle Paul at Tarsus, to induce him to come to Antioch. At this time, Paul and Barnabas laboured together a whole year at Antioch, but there is no intimation that he was ordained to the apostleship. Acts xi. 26. He is then mentioned as going up to Jerusalem with Paul in a time of famine to carry to afflicted Christians there the benefactions of the church at Antioch. Acts xi. 30. In Acts xii. 25, it is said that, having accomplished this, Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem to Antioch, taking with them John. Mark. Subse- quently, Barnabas and Paul are mentioned as 78 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT travelling companions, and Barnabas is not adverted to except in connection with Paul. Acts xiii. 1, 2, 50; xiv. 12 -xv. 2, 12, 37; 1 Cor. ix. 6; Gal. ii. 1, 9, 13 ; Col. iv. 10. In all this, however, there is no intimation that he was ever selected and or- dained to the apostolic office. In the numerous in- stances in which he is mentioned, the name apostle is never given to him but once. (3.) The reason why the name was given to him on that occasion, it is not difficult to understand. It was not because he was in the proper sense of the term an "apostle," but in the same sense in which Epaphroditus was the "apostle" of the church at Philippi, (Phil. ii. 25,) and as the "brethren" sent with Titus were the "apostles" of the churches, (2 Cor. viii. 23 ;) that is, they were the messengers of the churches. We find the following account of an important transaction in relation to Barnabas before this name is given to him at all. In the church at Antioch there were "certain prophets and teachers, as Barnabas, and Simeon, and Lucius, and Manaen, and Saul." The rank which they together sus- tained was that of "prophets and teachers;" and the only title which appears to have been conferred on Barnabas was that of a "prophet and teacher." That also appertained to Paul, though from many other^ places we also know that before this he was entitled to the proper name of an apostle. As these "prophets and teachers" ministered to the Lord OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 79 and fasted, "the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia." Acts xiii. 1-5. Now, two things are manifest in this account. The first is, that this ivas not an ordination to the apos- tolic office. This is perfectly apparent from the face of the transaction, for (a) Paul was an apostle before; (6) the persons engaged in the ordination, if it were an ordination, were not themselves apos- tles ; (c) the purpose for which they were set apart is particulaijy specified, and that is a distinct design from the apostolic office. Indeed, so clear is this, that Dr. Onderdonk has admitted that this was not an ordination at all. Tract, pp. 16, 17': "If it was not an ordination/' says he, " as it certainly was not, it was a mere setting apart of those two ^apostles (?) to a particular field of duty/' "That this transaction at Antioch related only to a special missionary 'work/ will be found sufficiently clear by those who will trace the progress of Paul and Barnabas through that work from Acts xiii. 4, to xiv. 26, where its completion is recorded/' "This call, therefore, this separation, this work, related only to a particular mission, and this laying on of hands was no ordination." The second thing appa- rent from this account is, that this setting apart to a 80 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT particular work laid the foundation for the ap- propriate designation of Barnabas and Paul as "apostles," in the sense that they were the mes- sengers of the churches. They were designated to a particular " missionary work. 7 ' They were "sent forth" to accomplish this. They are de- signated as thus sent forth, or as apostles or messengers of the church, by the inspired his- torian, (comp. Phil. ii. 25; 2 Cor. viii. 23,) and all the circumstances of the case are met by this sup- position. (4.) This view is confirmed by a fact which can be explained on no other supposition, that the name apostle is never given to Barnabas subsequent to his fulfilling this missionary appoint- ment with the apostle Paul. He is repeatedly mentioned after this, but in no case as an apostle. No instance is referred to of his performing any other functions than those of a travelling companion of the apostle Paul as a preacher and a beloved brother; nor is there an intimation that he sus- tained any other "rank," or belonged to any other "order" than that which appertained to all who were preachers of the gospel. With what pro- priety, then, is he pressed into the service of Epis- copacy ? And what must be the real strength of that cause which is constrained to rely on such an instance to prove that there was such "an arrange- ment persevered in as to prove that the apostolic OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 81 order was to be permanent" in the church to the end of the world ? The next case relied on by Episcopalians is "James, the brother of 'our Lord/' Tract, p. 15. " James, the Lord ; s brother," is once mentioned as an apostle. Gal. i. 19. But it should be remem- bered that there were two of the name of James among the apostles, in the specific sense of the term, \ 7 iz. Jarnes the brother of John and son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alpheus. Matt. x. 3 ; Luke vi. 15. Nor should it be forgotten that the word brother was used by the Hebrews to de- note a relation more remote than that which is designated by the ordinary use of the word among us, and that Alpheus was probably a connection of the family of our Lord. What proof, then, is there that he was not referred to in the passage before, us? Silvanus and Timothy are the next mentioned. As their claim to be considered apostles rests on the same foundation, so far as the name is any evidence, these cases will be disposed of by con- sidering that of Timothy at length in a subsequent part of the argument. The other cases are those of Andronicus and Junia. The foundation for their claim to be en- rolled as apostles is the following mention of them by Paul, Horn. xvi. 7 : " Salute Andronicus and * Junia* my kinsmen, who are of note among (he 82 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT apostles" o'lrwlq slew l~iGr}rwt & rots o. On this claim I remark : (1.) Admitting that they are here called apostles, the name, as has been proved, does not imply that they had any " supe- riority of ministerial rights and powers. " They might have been distinguished as messengers, like Epaphroditus. (2.) It is clear that Paul did not mean to give them the name of apostles at all. If he had designed it, the phraseology would have been different. Compare Rom. i. !' 1 Cor. i. 1; 2 Cor. i. 1 ; Phil. i. 1. (3.) All that the expres- sion fairly implies is, that they, having been early converte'd, (Rom. xvi. 7,) and being acquainted with the apostles at Jerusalem, were held in high esteem % them; that is, the apostles regarded them with confidence and affection. The next point of proof, "that the distinction between elders and a grade superior to them, in regard especially to the power of ordaining, was so persevered in as to indicate that it was a permanent arrangement," and a point much insisted on by Episcopalians, is drawn from the charge given by the apostle Paul to the elders of Ephesus. Acts xx. 28-35. The point of this evidence is this : Paul charges the elders at Ephesus to "take heed to themselves," " to take heed to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers to feed the church of God to watch against the grievous wolves that would assail the flock," etc.' OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 83 In all this, we are told, there is not a word respect- ing the power of ordaining, nor any thing which shows that they had the power of clerical discipline. "No power is intimated to depose from office one of their own number, or an unsound minister coming among them/' They are to "tend" or "rule" the flock as shepherds; "for shepherds do not tend and rule shepherds." This is affirmed to be the sole power of these elders. In connection with this, we are asked to read the epistles to Timothy the power there given "personally to Timothy at EpJiesus," (Tract, p. 23,) or as it is elsewhere expressed, " Compare now with this sum total of power assigned to mere elders, or presbyters, that of T-imotliy at Ephesus, the very city and region in which those addressed by Paul in Acts xx. resided and ministered." P. 25. It is said by Episcopalians that in those epistles the "right of governing the clergy and ordaining, is ascribed to him personally;" and numerous undis- puted passages are adduced by them to show that Timothy is addressed as having this power. 1 Tim. i. 18; iii. 14, 15; iv. 6; 1 Tim. i. 3; v. 19-21, etc. etc. Now, this argument proceeds on the following assumption*, viz. 1. That Timothy was called an apostle, and was therefore invested with the same powers as the apostles, and was one of their suc- cessors in the office. 2. That he was, at the time 84 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT when Paul gave his charge to the elders at Mile- tus, bishop of Ephesus. 3. That the "elders" sum- moned to Miletus were ministers of the gospel of the second order, or, as they are now usually termed, priests, in contradistinction from bishops and dea- cons. If these points are not made out from the New Testament, or if any one of them foils, this argument for Episcopacy will be of no value. The first claim is, that Timothy is called an "apostle," and was, therefore, clothed with apos- tolic powers. The proof on which this claim is made to rest is contained in 1 Thcss. i. 1, com- pared with 1 Thess. ii. 6. Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy are joined together in the commencement of the epistle, as writing it to the church at Thessa- loriica; and in ch. ii. 6, the following expression occurs: "Nor of man sought we glory when we might have been burdensome as the apostles of Christ." This is the sole proof of the apostleship of Timothy, of which so much is made in the Episcopal controversy, and which is usually ap- pealed to as of itself sufficient to settle tne ques- tion. Perhaps there is no point in this controversy asserted with more confidence, or more relied on by Episcopalians, than that Timothy was an "apostle," and was "bishop" or prelate of Ephesus. It is of importance, therefore, to show how this matter is in the New Testament; and having disposed of this OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 85 case, the argument about the immediate te succes- sors" of the apostles is at an end. Now, without insisting on the point which has been made out, that the apostolic office was con- ferred not to impart " superiority of ministerial rights and powers," but to bear "witness" to the great events in the life and teachings of the Saviour, the claim will be disposed of by the following con- siderations : 1. The passage in 1 Thess. ii. 6 does not fairly imply that Timothy was even called an apostle. For it is admitted (Tract, p. 15) that "it is not unusual for St. Paul to use the plural number of himself only." It is argued, indeed, that the words "apostles," and "our own souls," (v. 8,) being in- applicable to the singular use of the plural number, the "three whose names are at the head of the epistle are here spoken of jointly." But if Paul used the plural number as applicable to himself, would it not be natural for him to continue its use, and to employ the adjectives connected with it in the same number? Besides, there is conclusive evidence that Paul did not intend to include the "three" named at the head of the epistle in this expression in ver. 6. For in the verses immediately preceding the following language occurs : " We had suffered before, and were shamefully treated, as ye know, at Philippi," etc. Now it is capable of de- monstration that Timothy was not present at that 8 86 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT time, and was not subjected to those sufferings ;it Philippi. Acts xvi. 12, 19; xviii. 1-4. It fol- lows, therefore, that Paul did not intend here to imply that "the three named at the head of the epistle" were apostles, and that he intended to speak of himself alone in ver. 6. That this is so, is evident from chap. iii. In ver. 1 of that chapter Paul uses the plural term also: "When we could no longer forbear, we thought it good to be left at Athens alone. " Conip. ver. 5. "For this cause, when / could no longer forbear, /sent to know your faith. " From this it is clear that Paul, when he uses the plural here, refers only to himself, and that Timothy and Silas are associated with him in chap. i. 1, not as having apostolic authority, but for the mere purpose of salutation or kind remembrance. 2. Our next proof that Timothy was not an apos- tle is, that he is expressly distinguished from Paul as an apostle; that is, in the same verse Paul is careful to speak of himself as an apostle, and of Timothy as not an apostle. Thus, 2 Cor. i. 1 : "Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother." Again, Col. i. 1: "Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother." Now the argument. is this, that if Paul regarded Timothy as an apostle, it is remarkable that he should be so careful to make this distinction, when his own name is mentioned as an apostle. Why did he not also make the same honourable mention of Timothy? OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 87 The distinction is the more remarkable from the next consideration to be adduced, which is, that Paul is so cautious on this point so resolved not to call Timothy an apostle that when their names are joined together, as in any sense claiming the same appellation, it is not as apostles, but as -servants. Phil. i. 1: "Paul and Tiinotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ/' See, also, 1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1. These considerations put it beyond debate that Timo- thy is not called an apostle in the New Testament. The second claim for Timothy is, that he was bishop that is, prelate of Ephesus. This is com- monly assumed by Episcopalians as an indisputable or conceded point. Indeed, so confident are they of this, that it is not deemed necessary by them to suggest any arguments in the case, but it is adverted to as if it were among undoubted historical facts. Thus, in one of the latest publications on Episco- pacy, Dr. McCoskry says, "The apostle places Mm [Timothy] over the church at Ephesus, and gives him the power to ordain elders and deacons in the churches, as is evident from his instructions to him." Now this point should be made out, for it is not one of those which we are disposed by any means to concede. It is to be remembered, too, that it is a point which is to be made out from the New Testament, for our inquiry is, Whether Episcopacy can be defended "by Scripture." Let us see how this matter stands. 88 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT It may be proper here to remark, that the sub- scription at the close of the Second Epistle to Timo- thy* is admitted on all hands to be uninspired, and of no authority in the argument. Assuredly, Paul would not close a letter by seriously stating to Ti- mothy that he wrote "a second epistle" to him, in- forming him that he was "ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians," and that it was " written from Rome when Paul was brought before Nero the second time." None of the subscriptions at the close of the epistles in the New Testament are of any authority whatever; several of them are undoubtedly false; and where they happen to be correct, the correctness is to be made out from other considerations than the fact that they are found there. Now, how does the case stand in the New Testa- ment with respect to Timothy? What testimony does it afford as to his being " bishop of Ephesus?" A few observations will show what is the real strength of the proof relied on by Episcopalians in the case : 1. It is admitted that he was not at Ephesus at the time when Paul made his address to the elders at Miletus. Acts xx. 17-35. Thus, Dr. Onder- dorik (Tract, p. 25) says, "Ephesus was without a * "The second epistle unto Timotheus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the second time." OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 89 bishop when Paul addressed the elders, Timothy not having been placed over that church till some time afterward." Here, then, was one diocese, or one collection of churches, which is admitted to have been constituted without a prelate. The pre- sumption is, that all others were organized in the same way. 2. The charge which Paul gives to the elders proves that Timothy was not there ; and proves fur- ther, that they, at that time, had no prelatical bishops, and that they previously had had none. They are charged to take heed to themselves and to all the flock; "to feed" or "to rule" the flock ? etc. But not one word is to be found of their having then any prelatical bishop; not one word of Timothy as their episcopal leader. Not an exhorta- tion is given to be subject to any prelate; not an intimation that they would ever be called on to re- cognise any such officer. Not one word of lamenta- tion or condolence is expressed, that they were not fully supplied with all proper episcopal authority. Now, all this is inexplicable on the supposition that they were then destitute, and that it was desi- rable that they should be supplied with an officer "superior in ministerial rights and powers." Nay, they are themselves expressly called bishops, without the slightest intimation that there were any higher or more honourable prelates than themselves. Acts xx. 28: "Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and 90 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops" -t of those churches is Ephesus; and when we read concerning its angel, 'thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars/ do we require further evidence that what Timothy, the chief officer there, was in the year 65, in regard to the supreme right of disci- pline over the clergy, the same was its chief officer when this book was written, in 96?" The singular number, it is added, is used emphatically in tho address to each of the angels, and "the individual called 'the angel' is, in each case, identified with his church, and his church with him." The force of this argument can be founded only on the supposition that the epistles to those churches are addressed to an individual called "the angel of the church," and that this individual could be no other than a prelatical bishop. It is indispensable that each of these points should be made out, or the argument is worthless. It will not do to ar- gue, because Timothy was once Jeft by Paul in Ephesus, in the year "65," that therefore there was a "bishop" there in "96." We have seen that Timothy did not long remain there; that he 112 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT was subsequently with the apostle Paul; and there is not the slightest intimation in the New Testa- ment that in that interval of thirty-one years a "successor" was appointed. Whence, then, is the ground of the inference that thirty-one years after- ward, this individual, addressed as "the angel of the church," was the " successor" of Timothy ? The argument from the "angels" of the seven churches, so strenuously urged and defended by Episcopalians, involves also the following assumptions : (1.) That there was an inferior body of clergy- men, called " clergy at large." Assuming this point, it would not be difficult to make out an argu- ment from the address "to the angel." But this is a point to be proved, not to be assumed. Where is there found, in the New Testament, an intimation of the existence of an order of "clergy at large" in these churches? In the epistles themselves, there is not the slightest hint of the existence of any such personages distinct from "the angels/' Nay, the very style of address is strong presump- tion that there were not any such inferior clergy- men. The only mention which occurs is of the angel and the church. We hear nothing of an in- termediate order; nothing of any supremacy of "the angel" over "the clergy at large;" not the least intimation of any duty to be performed by the supposed prelatical "angel," toward the inferior presbyters. Why is all reference to them omitted, OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 113 if they had any existence? Is it customary, in ad- dressing "bishops" noiv, to omit all reference to their duties over the inferior "clergy at large"? This is a point of too much consequence to be left unguarded; and accordingly the rights and duties of the order which is regarded as superior "in ministerial rights and powers" are sedulously marked out and inculcated. (2.) It must be assumed, in this argument, that there were in each of those cities more churches than one; that there was a circle or confederation of churches, which would answer to the modern notion of a "diocese," over which "the clergy at large," of inferior "ministerial rights and powers," might exercise a modified jurisdiction. If this is not assumed, the argument has no force; since, if there was but one church in each of those cities, the "angel" was not a bishop in the Episcopal sense, but a pastor in the ordinary acceptation of the term. Now this is a point which, in an argument like this, should not be assumed. It should be proved, or at least rendered highly probable, from the New Testament. But there is not the slightest hint of any such divided and scattered diocesan organization. In each instance, the church is ad- dressed as one and undivided. "The angel of the church," not the churches, "of Ephesus," Rev. ii. 1; 'The angel of thr church in Smyrna," ii. 8; "the angel of the church at Thyatira," ii .18; "the angel 10* 114 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT of the church in Sardis," iii. 1, &c. In every in- stance the address is the same. The point of inquiry now is, whether in this address the Saviour meant to intimate that there was a plurality of churches an ecclesiastical, diocesan organization ? This is a point for Episcopalians to prove, not to assume. The presumption is directly against the Episcopa- lians. It is, that the apostles would not organize separate churches in a single city; and that, if it were done, they would be specified as the churches. Accordingly, we learn that the apostle organized "a church" at Corinth. 1 Cor. i. 1, 2. Thus, also, at Antioch. Acts xiii. 1. Thus, also, at Laodicea. Col. iv. 16. And in the address of Paul to the .elders at Miletus, respecting one of the very churches under consideration, that at Ephesus, it is mentioned jiot as the churches of Ephesus, but as the church. Acts xx. 28: "Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. " When Paul addressed this same church in an epistle, it was directed, not to the churches, but to the saints at Ephesus. Eph. i. 1. But where there were distinct churches organized, there is a specific mention of the fact of the plurality; thus Acts xv. 41: " Paul went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming (i. e. strengthening, establishing) the churches;" Rom. xvi. 4: "the churches of the Gentiles;" 1 Cor. xvi. 1: "the churches of Galatia;" 1 Cor. xvi. 19: "the churches of Asia;" 2 Cor. viii. 1: "the churches in OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 115 Macedonia," Sec also, 2 Cor. viii. 19, 28; xi. 8; Gal. i. 22; Rev. i. 4. Now, if it is neither proved that there was a body of " clergy at large," nor that there were separate churches in each of those cities, I ask, what is the force of the argument from this case? How does it bear on the point at issue? What has it to do with the subject? (3.) A third assumption, in supposing that this argument is of any force, is, that a "successor" to John himself had already been appointed at Ephe- sus, and that he had actually taken his place. John passed a large part of his long life there. It was from Ephesus that he was banished to Patmos. If there was a prelate at Ephesus, it is morally cer- tain that John was himself the man Indeed, it is inconceivable, almost, that any other should have been raised to the episcopal " throne" in Ephesus, while- John was himself there, or should have the right to the peculiar title of "the angel" of the church. It is equally improbable that in the brief interval between the banishment of the apostle and the time of addressing those epistles to the churches in the Book of Revelation, another person should have been appointed to supersede the exiled apostle. And it is equally improbable also that, if it had been so, no special allusion should have been made to this circumstance in the letter addressed to the church at Ephesus. All these circumstances are so remarkable as to render it morally certain 116 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT that no such individual as a "prelatical bishop," or a "successor of the apostles," was addressed under the title of "the an:el of the church." C5 In reference to the term "angel," as used in the Apocalypse, I have only to remark, further, that the interpretation which makes it refer to a prelatical bishop is so unnatural and forced, that many Epis- copalians are compelled to abandon it. Thus Still- ingfleet, than whom an abler man, and one whose praise is higher in Episcopal churches, is not to be found among the advocates of prelacy, says, of these angels: "If many things in the epistles be directed 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 repre- sentation of the body itself, either of the whole church, or, which is far more probable, of the con- cessors, or order of presbyters, in that church ? We see what miserable, unaccountable arguments those are which are brought for any kind of government from metaphorical or ambiguous expressions, or names promiscuously used." Ircnicum. Archbishop Whately also abandons the common views of Episcopalians on the subject; and the views of Presbyterians, who regard it as applicable to the pastor of a single church, are sustained by his high authority. He says, "It seems plainly to have been the general, if not the universal, practice of the OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 117 apostles, to appoint over each separate church a single individual as a chief governor, under the title of "any el" (i. e. messenger or legate from the apostles) or "BISHOP," i. e. superintendent or overseer. A CHURCH and a DIOCESE seem to have been for a con- siderable time co-extensive and identical. And each church or diocese, (and consequently each superin- tendent,) though connected with the rest by the ties of faith and hope and charity, seems to have been (as has been already observed) perfectly independ- ent as far as regards any power of control."* With one or two additional remarks, I shall dis- miss this point. The first is, that it cannot be argued from the term angel, given to those ministers, that they were Episcopal bishops. That term, as is well known, has no exclusive applicability to a prelate. It is nowhere else applied to the ministers of reli- gion; and its original signification, "a messenger/' or its usual application to celestial spirits, has no special adaptedness to an Episcopal bishop. With- out any invidiousness, it may be observed that pre- lates have not usually evinced any such extraordinary sanctity as to appropriate this title to themselves by prescriptive right. The other remark is, that the supposition that these angels were pastors of the churches presbyters on a parity with each other and with all others will fully meet every thing ' Kingdom of Christ Delineated, Essay II. 20. 118 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT which is said of them in the book of Revelation : for, (1) It is an appropriate appellation to designate them as messengers sent by God to communicate his will to his people as appointed to make known his truth; (2) there is no reason to suppose that there was more than one church in each of the cities referred to, and it is indispensable for the friend of prelacy to prove that there was, before he can assume that this term was not used to designate a pastor in the ordinary sense of that term; (3) it is a term which would designate the respect in which the office was to be held; (4) it would impress upon those to whom it was applied a solemn sense of their responsibility; and (5) it would be more appro- priately applied to the pastor of a single church than to a prelatical bishop to the tender, intimate, endearing relation of a pastor with his people to the blending of sympathy, interest, and affection, where he is with, them continually, meets them each week in the sanctuary, administers to them the bread of life, goes into their abodes when they are afflicted, and attends their kindred to the grave, than to the union subsisting between the people of an extended diocese and a prelate to the formal, unfrequent, and, in many instances, stately and pompous, visitations of a diocesan bishopto the cold and distant connection between a people scat- tered into many churches, who are visited at inter- vals of a year or more by one claiming "a superiority OF TUE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 119 in ministerial rights and powers/' robed in lawn, and with the crosier and mitre, as emblematical of office, state, and power, and one who must be a .stranger to the ten thousand tender ties of endear- ment which bind the hearts of a pastor and his peo- ple together. The appellation thus given to a pastor of a church speaks the sentiments of our hearts, a respects the union of a pastor and people. And while I would not allow myself to speak with disre- spect of the episcopal office, it cannot but be felt that the language of the Saviour, addressed through the mild and gentle John to the churches of Asia, breathes far more of the endearing "identity" of the pastoral relation, than it does of the compara- tively cold and distant functions of one who, in all other lands but this, has been invested with his office by the imposing ceremony of enihr&ning^ and who has borne, less as badges of affection than of authority, the crosier and the mitre. As a proper conclusion, in regard to the claims of "bishops" to a superiority of rank among the clergy, it may be proper to state, in few words, what is the meaning of the term as it is used in the New Testament : The word xi(rxo-y episcope whence the word episcopal is derived, occurs but four times in the New Testament. It is translated visitation in Luke xix. 44, and in 1 Pet. ii. 12; bishopric, Acts i. 20; and in this place, office of a bisJi&p. The verb from 120 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT which it is derived (&rc) to the elders of the church at Ephesus, "over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers" Acts xx. 28; (c) to the elders or presbyters of the church, in 1 Pet. v. 2, "Feed the flock of God, taking the oversight thereof;" (W) to the officers of the church in Philippi, mentioned in .connection with deacons as the only officers of the church there, "to the saints at Philippi, with the Lishops and deacons/ 7 Phil. i. 1; (e) to Judas, the apostate, Acts i. 20; and (/) to the great 'Head OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 121 of the clmrch, the Lord Jesus Christ, "the Shep- herd and Bishop of your souls." 1 Pet. ii. 25. From this use of the term, it follows: (1.) That the word is never used to denote the peculiarity of the apostolic office, or so as to have any special applica- bility to the apostles. Indeed, the term bixhf'p is never applied to any of them in the New Testament; nor is the word in any of its forms ever used with reference to them, except in the single' case of Judas. Acts i. 20. (2.) It is never employed in the New Testament to designate an order of men superior to presbyters, regarded as having any other functions than presbyters, or being in any sense ^successors" to the apostles. It is so used now by the advocates of prelacy, but this is a use wholly unknown to the New Testament. It is so unde- niable that the name is never given in the New Testament to those who are now called "bishops/' that even Episcopalians concede it. Thus, Dr..0n- derdonk (Tract on Episcopacy, p. 12) says, "ALL that we read in the New Testament concerning 'bishops' is to be regarded as pertaining to the 'middle grade/ that is, to those who arc now re- garded as 'priests.'" This is not strictly correct, as is clear from the remarks above respecting what is called the "middle grade/' but it is strictly cor- .rect, so far as it affirms that it is never applied to prelates. (3.) It is used in the New Testament to denote ministers of the gospel who had the care or 11 122 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT oversight of churches, without any regard to irnide or rank. (4.) It has now, as used by Episcopalians, a sense which is wholly unauthorized by the New Testament-, and which, indeed, is entirely at vari- ance with the usage there. To apply the term to a. pretended superior order of clergy, as designating their* peculiar office, is wholly to depart from the use of the word as it occurs in the Bible. (5.) As it is never used in the Scriptures with reference to prelates, it should be used with reference to the pastor or other officers of the church ; and to be a pastor or overseer of the flock of Christ should be regarded as being a scriptural bishop. I have now considered all that Episcopalians rely on from the Scriptures, in vindication of the exist- ence of such an order of men as prelatical bishops. It will be remembered that the burden of proof lies on them. They advance a claim which is indispen- sable to the existence of their ecclesiastical polity. These are the arguments on which they rely. Whether these arguments authorize the tone of as- sumption which we not unfrequently hear; whether they are such as to justify the advocates of prelacy in the language which they sometimes use when speaking of those out of the pale of their denomina- tion, as left to "the uncovenanted mercies of God;" whether they are such as to prompt, legitimately. (< a very frequent reference to "the primitive and apostolic order" of the ministry, or to the modest OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 123 use of the term "the Church" with an exclusive reference to themselves, must now be left to the judgment of my readers. The point which I proposed to consider in regard to the claims of their " bishop" I conceive to be settled. If Episcopalians cannot make good their pretensions in reference to this office, it follows, of course, that the ministers of the gospel are on an equality. The whole argument is concentrated in this claim. We take our stand here. It is admit- ted on all hands that there is somewhere in the church a right to ordain. Episcopalians, with sin- gular boldness in not a few instances with pro- fessed, and in all with real exclusiveness maintain that this power lies only in the bishop. They ad- vance a claim to certain rights and powers; and if that is not made out, the argument is at an end. If, from the authority of the New Testament, they cannot succeed in dividing the ministers of religion into various ranks and orders, it follows that they remain on an equality. On this point, also, they are compelled, as we conceive, to admit the whole of our argument. So manifest is it that the sacred writers knew of no such distinction; that they regarded all ministers of the gospel as on a level; that they used the same name in describing the functions of all; that they addressed all as having the same episcopal or pas- toral supervision, that even Episcopalians, after no 124 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT small reluctance, are compelled at last to admit it. They are driven to the conclusion that the term bishop in the New Testament does not in a single instance designate any such officer as now claims exclusively that title. Thus, Dr. Onderdonk says that "That name (bishop) is there (i. e. in the New Testament) given to the middle order or presbyters; and ALL that ice read in the New Testament con- cerniny 'bishops' (including of course the* word* 'overseers' and 'oversight,' which have the same derivation^) is to be regarded as pertaining to that middle grade. It was offer the apostolic age that the name 'bishop' icas taken from the second order, and appropriated to the first." Tract, p. 12. This admission is of inestimable value. So we believe, and so we teach. We insist, therefore, that the name bishop should be restored to its primitive standing. If men lay claim to a higher rank than is properly expressed in the New Testament by this word, we insist that they should assume the name apostles. As they regard themselves as the "suc- cessors" of the apostles, as they claim that Timo- thy, Titus, Andronicus, and Junia were apostles, why should not the name be retained ? The Chris- tian community could then better appreciate the force of their claims, and understand the nature, of the argument. I venture to say, that if the name " apostles" were assumed by those who claim to be their successors, the Christian world would soon dis- OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 125 abuse itself of the belief of the scriptural authority of any such class of men. We admit that if "the thing sought" were to be found in the Scriptures, it would not be worth while to engage in a contro- versy about the mere name. But we maintain that the fact here conceded is strong presumptive proof that "the thing sought" is not there. The name, therefore, should be given up, for it is conceded by Episcopalians that it does not anywhere in the New Testament designate any such class of men as are now clothed with the episcopal office. I remark, further, that the thing itself is practi- cally abandoned by Episcopalians themselves; and an Episcopal ordination is, in fact, merely a Presby- terian ordination; and it is this fact, and not the fact that it is done by a prelate claiming to be the "successor"- of the apostles, which gives to such an ordination all its validity, for even ordination is never performed in the Episcopal Church by the "bishop" alone. In the "Form and Manner of Ordering Priests," the following direction is given : "The bishop with the priests [presbyters] present shall lay their hands severally upon the head of every one that receiveth the order of priesthood; the receivers humbly kneeling, and the bishop say- ing: Receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and work of a priest in the church of God now com- mitted unto thee by the imposition of OUR hands" There is indeed among them a difference of opinion 11* 126 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT about the reason why this is done. One portion regards the bishop as the only source of authority.* Others suppose that the act of the presbyters ex- presses the assent and confidence of the churches. But, whichever opinion is maintained, it is, in fact, a Presbyterian ordination. If not, it is an unmean- ing and idle ceremony, ard the presence of the presbyters is mere pageantry and pomp. Who can resist the impression, that if the New Testament had been the only authority appealed to in other times, Episcopacy would long since have ceased to urge its claims, and have sunk away with other unauthorized dynasties and dominations from the notice of mankind? On the basis which has been now examined, this vast superstructure this system which has heretofore spread over the entire Christian world this system which has always ad- vanced most arrogant claims, has been reared. The world, for ages, has been summoned to submit to various modifications of the episcopal power. The world, with the single exceptions of the Waldenses and Albigeuses, did for ages submit to its authority. The prelatical domination rose on the ruins of the liberties of cities, states, and nations, till the power of the whole Christian world was concentrated in the hands of one man "the servant of fJtc servants of God!" The exercise of that power in his hands * Hooker's Eccl. Pol., book vii. $ 6. or: THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 127 is well known. Equally arrogant have been its claims in other modifications. That power was felt in the days when Puritan piety rose to bless man- kind and to advance just notions of civil and reli- gious liberty. Streams of blood have flowed, and tears of anguish have been shed, and thousands of holy men have been doomed to poverty, want, and imprisonment, as the result of those claims to supre- macy in the church of God. It may surprise those who peruse these pages to learn that all the author- ity from the Bible which could be adduced in favour of these enormous claims has now been sub- mitted to their observation. Who can repress melancholy emotions at the thought that such power has been claimed, and such domination exercised by man, on so slender authority as this ! It does not accord with the design which I had in view in this argument to go into an examination of the testimony from the Fathers, nor into an inquiry into the question : What light is thrown upon the doctrine of the " apostolical succession" from the history of the church? It is perfectly clear, how- ever, that there are two points which it is incum- bent for the advocate for such a "succession" to establish. The first is, to demonstrate that, accord-' ing to the New Testament, such a u succession'' was designed. That point has been examined. The other is, to adduce positive evidence that such a succession has been in fact maintained. To esta- 128 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT blish the claim of prelacy, one of these points is as essential as the other. Without departing, there- fore, materially from the design which I had in view, and in order to show how utterly untenable the claims of prelates are to any such "succession" from the apostles, I may here remark, that should we admit all that Episcopalians claim on the Scrip- ture argument, there is not the slightest proof, as a matter of historical record, that the episcopal office has been transmitted from prelate to prelate to the present time, but that the pretended line has been repeatedly broken. As satisfactory evidence, I ad- duce the following indisputable facts : "We are informed by many ancient historians, and very expressly by Bede, in his famous Ecclesi- astical History, 'That at the request of Oswald, King of Northumberland, certain presbyters came (in the seventh century) from Scotland into Eng- land, and ordained bishops; that the abbot, and other presbyters of the island of Hy, sent Aydan for this express purpose, declaring him to be worthy of the office of bishop, and that he ought to be sent to instruct the unbelieving and the unlearned/ He* informs us, that ' those presbyters ordained him and sent him to England on this errand; and that Finan, sent from the same monastery in the same island, succeeded him in the episcopal office, after having been ordained by the Scottish presbyters/ " Upon this testimony of Bede, Baxter remarks, OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 129 "You will find that the English had a succession of bishops by the Scottish presbyter's ordination; and there is no mention in Bede. of any dislike or scruple of the lawfulness of this course. The learned Dr. Doddridge refers us to Bede and Jones to substantiate the fact, that 'the ordination of Eng- lish bishops cannot.be traced up to the Church of Rome as its original; that in the year 668, the suc- cessors of Austin, the monk, (who came over A. D. 596,) being almost extinct, ly far the greater part of the bishops were of Scottish ordination, by Ay- dan and Finan, who came out of the Culdee monas- tery of Columbanus, and were no more than presby- ters.' "And is it verily so, that the episcopal blood ws thus early arid extensively contaminated in Eng- land? Is it verily so, that when the effects of pious Austin's labours had become almost irn perceptible, the sinking church was revived again by sending to Scotland fob predbyters'to come and ordain a mul- titude of bishops? Then it is verily a fact, that Presbyterian ordination is one of the sturdiest pillars that support the vast fabric of the Church of Eng- land. No matter if only ten bishops were thus ordained, the contamination, (if it be one,) having been imparted more than eleven hundred years . Sec also the Tract on Confirmation, pp. 5, 6, aud Hooker's Ecol. Pol., vol. i. pp. G58-666. OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 143 as a mere matter of expediency, not as a ceremony of human prudence, but as directed by the word of God. It is claimed, also, that it is a rite not to be performed by all the ministers of religion, but ex- clusively by prelates as the successors of the apostles, and as being one of the objects for which there is continued in the church, from age to age, a rank of clergy of superior' " order." It is only with refer- ence to this question that it is proposed now to examine it. Were it a mere matter of human pru- dence a regulation which experience had shown to be useful a decent and solemn form of admission into the church adopted by Episcopalians no more objection could lie against it than against any of the forms adopted by other denominations in admitting members to their communion. All churches have found it desirable to prescribe some method by which the profession of faith shall be indicated, or by which candidates shall be admitted to their, fellow- ship; and, in itself considered, the method of ad- mitting them by what is called " confirmation" by a public presentation before the church and congre- gation by reverent kneeling and by the imposi- tion of the hands of a pastor, and by prayer would be as solemn and appropriate as any other method, and might be adopted without endangering either the orthodoxy or the spirituality of any church. But when the claim is set up to scriptural authority in the case, the subject assumes quite another 144 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT aspect. Then it is taken out of the inquiries re- lating to human prudence and expediency, and placed on the basis of obligation. Then, if this claim is substantiated, it is binding not only on Episcopalians, but on all who profess to be Chris- tians; and then also the churches which do not admit the regulation are guilty of renouncing one of the rites appointed by the Redeemer, and the in- dividuals who are connected with those churches are excluded from one of the important means of grace appointed by him to promote the spirituality and the comfort of his people. For the vindication, then, of those churches, and for the purpose of showing that those who have been admitted to the church without the imposition of the hands of a " bishop/' are not guilty of violating the rules of the great Head of the church, I propose to demon- strate that this claim of scriptural authority for the rite of confirmation is wholly unfounded. Before proceeding to examine the authorities re- lied on, it may be proper to remark that no argu- ment can be derived from the use of the English word "confirm" in the New Testament. It is said of Paul and Barnabas that they went to " Lystru, and to Iconium, and to Antioch, confirming ixtffTiqpiZovTeq the souls of the disciples, and ex- horting them to continue in the faith." Acts xiv. 22. And again of Paul, that "he went through Syria and Cilicia confirming IxtenqpiZwy the OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 145 churches." Acts xv. 41. So of Judas and Silas it is said, that "being prophets themselves," they " exhorted the brethren with many words, and con- firmed ^etfr^tfav-^them." Acts xv. 32. The word here used occurs in no other places in the New Testament than those just referred to, arid means, properly, to "set or place firmly upon, to let lean upon.'' (Robinson's Lexicon.) The essential idea in the* word is that of strengthening or impart- ing strength , confirming or upholding that winch is feeble, &c. The word as so used has no reference to any particular rite of religion. Nothing is said or intimated of the act of confirmation being done by the imposition of hands, nor is there the slightest reason to suppose that this was practised in the cases referred to. All that the word fairly implies is, that it was done by instruction, counsel, exhorta- tion, and prayer. The truth was, that these were young converts ; that they were surrounded by ene- mies, and exposed to temptation } that they had as yet but a slight acquaintance with the gospel ; and that it was therefore important that they should be further instructed and established in the faith of Christianity. There is not the slightest evidence that they had not been admitted to all the privi- leges of the church before, or that any ceremony whatever was now performed in confirming or strengthening them. Whatever may be adduced in favour of this rite, these passages will not be claimed 13 146 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT in its defence by intelligent Episcopalians. But these are all' the passages in the New Testament, where the English word " confirm" is used, where it could possibly be supposed to have reference to this rite ; and these are never adduced by intelli- gent Episcopalians as furnishing any support for it. In examining the claim for the scriptural authority for confirmation, and the question whether it should be retained in the church as a religious "rite, I sub- mit the following remarks : (1.) In the New Testament, the act of laying on of hands, appealed to in support of this claim, was uniformly connected with imparting the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. That the apostles did lay their hands on the disciples which they made, or on young converts, is indisputable ; but the design was specific, and is mentioned in each case. And yet there are but two instances of the "laying on of hands" on converts to the Christian faith referred to in the New Testament, in both of which there need be no possible danger of mistaking the object and the effect, and in neither of them is the effect stated which is claimed for the rite of " confirma- tion." The first occurs in Acts viii. 14-17: "Now when 'the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John ; who, when they were come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost : for as yet he was fallen OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 147 upon none of them; only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. " Now, the only material question in regard to this passage as a proof-text for the rite of con- firmation is, whether it refers to " the ordinary grace of the Holy Spirit which is necessary to enlighten and aid Christians in the spiritual life/' (Bishop Hobart,) or whether it refers to the gifts of the Holy Spirit which were manifested in some visible or outward mode. If it refer 'to the former, it is a legitimate proof-text to be used in defence of this rite; if to the latter, then it proves nothing to the purpose, unless it be maintained that the Holy Spirit is always miraculously imparted to those who receive "confirmation" from the hand of the bishop. That the imposition of the hands referred to was accompanied with an imparting of the Holy Spirit in a miraculous or public manner, is evident from the narrative, (a) It is that which the language used would naturally express. Thus, it is said, " As yet he ivas fallen upon none of them," lan- guage which naturally suggests the remarkable oc- currences on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended in a public and visible manner, conferring the miraculous endowment of being able to speak foreign languages. It is not such lan- guage as would properly denote the ordinary in- fluences of the Spirit in converting the soul, or that 148 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT " ordinary grace which is necessary to enlighten and aid Christians in the spiritual life." (6) That it was accompanied with some remarkable power or outward manifestation something of the nature of miracle, either enabling them to work miracles or to speak with new tongues is manifest from the effect which it had on Simon Magus, who witnessed it: "And when Simon saw that through laying on o / o of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands he may receive the Holy Ghost." Verses 18, 19. Now, it is evident that there must have been some visible manifesta- tion, some outward power, which Simon supposed would be of value to him in carrying on a system of fraud and deception something which he would be willing to " purchase" if possible, as constituting a valuable capital in exerting an influence over men. Whatever this was, it must have been some- thing besides the " ordinary grace which is neces- sary to enlighten and- aid Christians in the spiritual life." It must have been more than is conferred now in the rite of confirmation ; for what power or influence is conferred now by the " apostolical bishop" in this rite which a man who wished to exert an influence over his fellow-men would de- sire to purchase? What would Excite greater wonder than for a man with the spirit and design of Simon Magus wishing to obtain some powerful OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 149 agency not possessed by others for the purpose of fraud and imposture to approach a prelate after he had administered this rite to a company of dis- ciples " properly instructed/' and deliberately pro- pose to purchase this remarkable power? Would such a prelate understand precisely what it was that he desired to purchase? It need only be added, on this passage, that whatever was conferred on the disciples of Samaria, from any thing that appears in the narrative, was conferred on them all. There is no reason whatever to suppose, as Bishop Hobart does, (p. 6,) that these remarkable endowments were conferred on one part, and that on the other the ordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit only were be- stowed. Of any such distinction, the sacred writer has not thought proper to give us any information ; and that there was such a distinction should not be assumed in an argument to defend the scriptural authority of this rite. The only other case appealed to in defence of this rite is in Acts xix. 1-7, where the narrative is equally clear and decisive. It is that of the dis- ciples at Ephesus. When Paul came there, he asked them whether they had received the Holy Ghost ? They replied, " We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." They had been baptized, they said, "unto John's bap- tism /' and after now being baptized " in the name of the Lord Jesus/' it is added, " and when Paul 13* 150 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues and prophesied." Here it is expressly affirmed that the miraculous endowment of speaking foreign lan- guages was conferred on them, and evidently on them all, for there is no distinction made among them. There is no intimation whatever that it was a, rite designed merely to confirm them in u the ordinary grace which is necessary to enlighten and aid Christians in the spiritual life/' or that it w::s to be continued as an ordinance in the church. So far as these cases go, they demonstrate merely the fact that the -Holy Ghost, in his miraculous in- fluences, was conferred by the laying on of the hands of the apostles, and by them only. These are the only cases in the New Testament, the only facts appealed to, to show that the " rite of confirmation" is scriptural in its character and authority, and is to be continued in the church. There is no intimation whatever that it was a mere rite of religion for establishing Christians in the be- lief of the truth, or for admitting members to the communion, or that there would be any special effi- cacy or benefit in the imposition of the hands of the "successors" of the apostles. Now, it is a matter of simple justice to demand that, if these cases are appealed to, it should be just as they occurred. It should be to prove, that by the "laying on of the hands" of the "bishops/' OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 151 there will be imparted some remarkable gift of the Holy Ghost which can properly be spoken of as "falling upon" those who receive it, and which is so visible and manifest, that a bad man might deem it desirable to " purchase" it, if he could, in order to exert an influence over his fellow-men ; and that there is, in fact, imparted, in each case, the "gift of tongues" and the power of "'prophesying." These texts would be entirely pertinent and un- answerable to prove those points ; but how do they prove another and quite a foreign thing a thing that has no resemblance to this that the "bishop" has the right of laying on his hands to impart the "ordinary grace which is necessary to enlighten and aid Christians in the spiritual life" ? They prove one thing only that in certain cases the laying on of the apostles' hands was accompanied with the miraculous gift of the Holy 'Ghost. Is this conferred by the laying on of the bishop's hands? If so, the passages, as proof-texts, are in point; if not, why are they adduced? Whatever may be the force of other arguments in favour of the rite of confirmation, it is respectfully insisted on that these texts referring to the QU\J facts on the subject in the New Testament prove nothing. (2.) There is no evidence that the passage so often appealed to by Episcopalians in support of confirmation in Heb. vi. 1, 2, has any reference to that rite as now practised, or that it furnishes any 152 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT authority for it : " Therefore, leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfec- tion ; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.' 7 This passage is often referred to, as the quotations already made are, as if it were indis- putable that it must refer to that rite of religion, and as if it needed no further proof than a mere re- ference to it in order to remove all doubts on the subject. But a few considerations will show that it cannot with propriety be adduced as a proof-text to demonstrate that the rite of confirmation is to be of perpetual observance in the church. First, the laying on of hands was practised among the He- brews, and by the apostles themselves, on a great variety of occasions, and with no exclusive reference to the rite of confirmation. It occurred in the fol- lowing cases : when a blessing was imparted to any one, (Gen. xlviii. 14, 18;) when prayer was offered for one; and when sacrifice was offered, accompanied with the confession of sin. In the latter case, the hands were laid on the head of the victim, and confession was made that he who had sinned deserved punishment. Lev. xvi. 21; xxiv. 14; Num. viii. 12. It was also done on solemn consecration to office, as in setting apart the high- priest to his office. In the New Testament, the OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 153 custom is referred to in the following cases : - - () The Redeemer laid his hands on children to bless them, and on the sick when he healed then). Matt, xix. 13; Mark v. 23; Matt. ix. 18. (6) The apos- tles, in like manner, laid their hands on others in healing the sick. Acts xxviii. 8. (c) In ordination to office, 1 Tim. v. 22; Acts vi. 6; and (o?) In im- parting the Holy Spirit, in the cases already re- ferred to. Acts viii. 17, 19; xix. 6. Now, in not one of these cases is the precise thing intended which is denoted by the laying on of the hands of a prelatical bishop in confirmation, as connected with the "ordinary grace which is necessary to enlighten and aid Christians in the spiritual life." That rite corresponds neither with the act of a patriarch in imparting a blessing to his children; nor to the offering of a sacrifice; nor to the consecration of a priest; nor to the act of Christ's blessing little chil- dren; nor to the healing of the sick; nor to an ordination to office; nor to the imparting of the Holy Spirit in a miraculous manner. It is a DCIC idea, wholly unknown to any use of the phrase a* employed in the New T.estament. By what author- ity is this new idea attached to a scriptural phrase ? and by what form of reasoning is it, then, urged that this rite is of divine appointment, and is to be ob- served in the churches as of divine obligation ? Further: if the phrase had been so used in the New Testament, and there were any instances in 154 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT which it could be shown that it was employed as it is now by Episcopalians, it is natural to ask, On what principles of interpretation it is held that this must be the manner in which it is used in Heb. vi. 2 ? The apostle is speaking of certain elementary truths or principles of the Christian religion. In the enu- meration he speaks of the doctrine of " baptisms, . and of the laying on of hands, and of tHe resurrec- tion of the dead." He refers to these things as im- portant to be held in regard to the faith and the order of the Christian church. The doctrine of the laying on of hands is an important and elementary principle; a doctrine that is to be held. But why shall we infer that it must refer to " confirmation" ? Why may it not refer to the laying on of hands in healing the sick, or in ordination, or in the bestow- ing of the miraculous endowments of the Holy Spirit? Were not these important and well-under- stood things, which it was desirable to maintain, and which were conceded to be so important that it was not necessary to dwell further upon them? Why, of all the cases in which the laying on of hands was used, is this selected as being indubitably what the apostle intended in the case? Again, if it be supposed that the order in which these things are mentioned is such as to demand that it shall be understood of some rite of religion that immediately succeeded baptism, then I observe, that it should be held just as it was. The apostles OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 155 did lay their hands on young converts after they were baptized, and the Holy Ghost was imparted to them. Acts viii. xix. But it was the miraculous power of the Holy Ghost which was imparted; and the passage before us should be used only to de- monstrate that. That fact was of sufficient import- ance for the apostle to mention it in this connection as one of the great things connected with the Chris- tian religion a thing so well understood then, that he did not think it important to dwell upon it. It should be further added, that the Saviour ap- pointed no such institution of his religion for per- petual observance in the church. He instituted baptism and the Lord's supper, and required them to be observed at all times; but there is no intima- tion that he designated any such rite as that of " confirmation" to be observed in his church. This consideration is important to show that he did not design that this shouldl be a permanent ordinance of his religion. Since he so particularly specified baptism and the supper, it is inconceivable that he should have wholly omitted any reference to the rite of " confirmation," if he had intended that it should be observed permanently in the churches. The sum of all that is said on this passage is, that if it is to be understood as referring to the im- parting of the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands after baptism, it should be employed just as it was just in the sense in which it was then understood. 156 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT The only instances in which it was used in such a connection, were in imparting the Holy Spirit in a miraculous manner. If Episcopal bishops claim this now as the true doctrine, if they mean to be understood as having the power of imparting the Holy Spirit in a miraculous manner, then, and not otherwise, the text in Heb. vi. 2, is pertinent proof. But when they advance this claim, it will be easy to test its validity. These are all the texts of Scripture which are relied on to demonstrate the scriptural authority of the rite of "confirmation." Whether they demonstrate this, may be left to the conclusion of any candid mind. Let it be remembered, that the Saviour appointed no such rite to be of perpetual observance in the church; that though he instructed his apostles to "lay hands on the sick," assuring them that they should "re- cover," (Mark xvi. 18,) he gave no instructions to them to "lay hands" on the'newly-baptized to "con- firm" them; and that in the only instances where the subject is referred to in the New Testament, it is with exclusive reference to the conferring of miraculous gifts, and it will be easily seen with what propriety the appeal is made to the New Tes- tament, to show that to the "bishop" appertains the authority to administer . the rite of "confirma- tion." (3.) If the above be a fair interpretation of the only texts in the Scriptures'wliich are relied on in OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 157 support of the rite of "confirmation/' then it is ob- vious that there is great impropriety in appealing to them with a view to giving a scriptural sanction to this ceremony. It is among the means of giving a wholly unscriptural prominency and importance to the office of a "prelate/' and of preserving the opinion that he is of a rank elevated above the infe- rior clergy. The use of those texts, and the habit of appealing to them as authority, has the tendency, if it is not designed to do it, to leave the impression, that the "bishop" has the power, in some mysterious way, and in a manner which no one of the "inferior clergy" has, and which the ministers of no other denomination are invested with, of imparting the Holy Ghost. It is true, we may be told, that there is no such claim as that the miraculous influences of the Holy Ghost are imparted; or that the only meaning is, that this is a method by which the "ordinary influences of the Holy Spirit adapted to enlighten and edify Christians are conferred/' or that it is a mere ceremony or mode by which the candidate himself "confirms" his purpose to be the Lord's; but there will be at the same time an ap- peal to Scripture in support of it, and only to texts which speak of the conferring of extraordinary en- dowments. If these texts relate to the matter, and are, as they are adduced to be, proof-texts in sup- port of the rite, then they carry along also the im- pression that there must be still some unusual infiu- 14 158 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT erices of the Holy Spirit conveyed through the hands of the bishop. Such an effect is unavoidable on the mass of minds; and it may be doubted whether the prelate himself would be solicitous to avoid it. He will be regarded as a man invested with functions which appertain to no other man. He has a power of conferring that which no other man can confer. He stands between God and man, to be the medium of conveying important influences which are in- trusted to no other mortal. There will be supposed to be influences of a valuable kind to be obtained only by the laying on of his hands, and to attempt to impart which would be an act of the highest presumption in any one of the inferior clergy. It cannot be doubted, therefore, that the right of confirmation is one of the arrangements adapted to give an unscriptural pre-eminence to the office of the Episcopal bishop. It is fitted to keep up the impression of a superior sanctity in the man who holds this office, and to exalt the episcopate over the body of the inferior clergy. Associate with an office the idea that there are peculiar endowments to be obtained only through that, and especially the idea that the Holy Spirit, even in "the ordinary influ- ences necessary to enlighten and aid Christians in the spiritual life/' is conveyed in this way, and there is a degree of sanctity attached to the office in the public estimation which can be secured by the possession of no personal moral worth, and which OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH.' 159 will soon be felt to be an equivalent for the want of moral worth. The office becomes sacred, no matter what the man is; the ministrations of that office convey rich blessings to the soul, though the in- cumbent may himself be wholly destitute of the graces of the Holy Spirit. The tendency of the doctrine, therefore, is to give a pre-eminence to the office of the prelate; to sustain him in a usurpation over the "inferior clergy;" to keep up the idea that the Holy Ghost is conveyed to the soul by some ac- tion of the diocesan, and independently of any piety in him, or any personal religion on the part of the recipient; and, therefore, that they who are "con- firmed'' in this manner, and on whom the Holy Spirit has thus been conferred, can be in no danger in regard to their eternal salvation. It is a part of the system of the Papacy, and is essentially papal in its nature, and in its whole tendency on the in- dividual and on the church of Christ. Apart from the entire want of all scriptural au- thority in favour of the rite of "confirmation," there are other considerations which go to demonstrate that, as one of the methods of exalting the "bishop" and of supporting prelacy, it is wholly a device of human origin. It is an institution adapted, and probably originally intended in the progress of cor- ruption in the church, to humble the pastor and ex- alt the prelate. It is a perpetual aggression on the respect which is due to the pastor of a church, the 160 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT man who, under God, is instrumental in the conver- sion of those who are to be " confirmed." If the "rite" is to be administered at all, every considera- tion of propriety and of justice demands that it should be done by the pastor himself. Those who are candidates for "confirmation" he has trained up under his care. He has instructed and guided them from childhood. If they are converted, he has been the means of their conversion. He has imparted to them the knowledge of salvation, and has been the instrument in qualifying them to become mem- bers of the church of Christ. In all this, there has been no supposition of his incoinpetency to do all, by the divine blessing, which was required to fit them for the kingdom .of heaven. But now a time ap- proaches in which Tie is to be superseded. He is to be set aside as disqualified for performing the duty of admitting them to the church, and the work is committed to the hands of a stranger a prelatical bishop. The man who was deemed qualified to teach them from childhood, and to guide them, un- der the Great Shepherd, beside the living waters of salvation, and who is not disqualified to break unto them the bread of life the man bound to them by the tender ties of the pastoral relation, and by all the associations and intimacies resulting from such a charge, is to be set aside, and is to give place to whom? To a man in relation to whom none of these associations exist; a man whom they may .OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 161 never have seen before, and whom they may never see again; a man with no possible claim to take any supervision over them, except the abstract claim of office; and a man who, when the rite is performed, is never to perform toward them any pastoral super- vision whatever. Possibly, too for such cases are not uncommon he may be a man far inferior in moral worth, in spirituality of mind, in talent, age^ eloquence, and learning, to the pastor himself; a man of vitally different views on the subject of spiritual Christianity from him; a man whose coming is barely tolerated by the pastor, and that only in virtue of his office. But admitting that he has in all cases the highest degree of personal respectability; that there centres in him always all the excellencies which may endear the most venerable bishop to the religious commu- nity, still it may be asked, what there is in the character and teaching and lives of the great mass of the Episcopal clergy and of other pastors which renders them incapacitated for so simple an office as that of invoking the blessing of God on those whom they have been instrumental in converting? Why should such men be held up to the community as disqualified to perform a function which, if appro- priate at all, properly .belongs to them? Why should it be announced that they are not qualified to admit their own members to their own churches in their own way? Why shall this work be re- 162 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT served to be performed by a stranger? Why shall the whole community be told periodically, that the regular pastor of a people is disqualified for laying his own hands on the youthful members of his charge, and imploring for them the divine blessing? Is this in accordance with the obvious spirit of the New Testament? And is it improper to ask here would it be uncourteous to put it to the conscience and heart of the great body of the clergy in the Episcopal Church how they can bear to be periodi- cally displaced from their station over their flocks, and be required to yield to another the performance of a duty -if it be a duty which properly belongs to them? If there be an advantage in this arrange- ment to them, it must consist in its tendency to produce great humiliation of mind, and in keeping before their eyes, and the eyes of their people, for the purpose of preventing the growth of spiritual pride, the idea that they are only of "the second or inferior order" even in their own churches. To the rite of "confirmation" as a mere mode of admission to a church, or as a method of making a profession of religion, there can be no reasonable objections. Every denomination has a right to adopt such methods of signifying a purpose to make a profession of religion, not inconsistent with the principles of the Bible, as shall be deemed best adapted to edification. The method adopted in "confirmation" might be used by a Presbyterian ; or OF* THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 163 a Methodist, or a Baptist, without violating any of the principles which they entertain about the proper methods of admission to the church of Christ. With such a view, it may be left to be adopted or not, as a sense of propriety may lead them to determine. But* when it is urged as a matter of scriptural au- thority; when it is claimed that it should be confined to a prelatical bishop; when texts are referred to which can have no reference to any thing like "confirmation" as now understood; when the effect of appealing to such texts is to keep up the idea of 'some superior sanctity in the "bishop/' and of some mysterious power of imparting the Holy Ghost; and when the whole tendency is to debase and degrade, the pastoral office to displace the pastor and repre- sent him as disqualified from performing a simple rite in relation to his own flock to remove him to make way for a stranger, then the whole subject assumes a different aspect. It makes an invasion on the constitution of the Christian church, and be- comes a part of that great usurpation which, under the Roman hierarchy, asserted a domination of the prelate over the whole "inferior clergy/' and of the priesthood over the whole world. Nothing can be more flimsy and futile than an attempt to show, from the New Testament, that a "bishop" has the exclu- sive authority for administering the rite of confirma- tion; and perhaps there is no device in the hier- archy better fitted to foster a sense of superiority in 164 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT (t ministerial rank and dignity," and to nourish the worst feelings of ambition in the human heart, than the consciousness of possessing this power to dis- place the pastors from their 'office periodically from an extended circle of churches, and to make an an- nual journey where every step is a practical procla- mation of their superior "rank," and where every church becomes a memento of this domination. SECT. 3. The Claims of the Bishop to the Right of Supervision and Discipline. These points might be examined separately, but as the same principle applies to both, it will be more convenient to consider them in connection. The claim that the bishop has the right of super- vision, and of administering discipline over the churches of a diocese, is one that is essential to Episcopacy. It is a claim which asserts not only that the general care of the churches within a given district devolves on the " bishop," but that neither the individual church nor the pastor of the church has the right to administer discipline on the mem- bers. It asserts that this power is placed in the hands of one man, who is comparatively a stranger, and who alone has the right of determining the amount of punishment that is. to be inflicted on the offending members of a particular church. The authority which is urged for this mighty power is, that the apostles, in virtue of their office, thus in- OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 165 flicted discipline; and that to the prelate, as being a " successor' 7 of the apostles, this power belongs, therefore, as a matter of course. I have examined the claim of the prelate to be regarded as the "suc- cessor" of the apostles, and here the argument might be left; for if prelates are in no proper sense the "successors" of the apostles, then it will follow that even if the apostles did exercise discipline, the bishops have no claim to the prerogatives of disci- pline in the churches. But, in order wholly to dis- prove this asserted right, I shall proceed to con- sider the question, whether the apostles themselves claimed the power of administering discipline, and* were, therefore, superior to the presbyters. The inquiry will be pursued with reference to the ques- tion, whether they administered discipline in virtue of their office, and if they did, whether the adminis- tration of discipline was confined to them. If it was not, but was exercised either by the presbyters or the churches, then the claim of the "bishop" is invalid. The argument, that the apostles inflicted discipline on the churches, is thus stated by Dr. Onderdonk, Tract, p. 12: "In 1 Cor. iv. 19-21; v. 3-5; 2 Cor. ii. 6; vii. 12; x. 8; xiii. 2, 10; and 1 Tim. i. 20, are recorded inflictions and remissions of discipline performed by an apostle, or threatenings on his part, although there must have been elders in Corinth, and certainly were in Ephesus." 166 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT The two cases referred to are those of Corinth and of Ephesus. They will be examined separately, as they are the only eases referred to in the New Testament. The purpose for which these cases are adduced by Episcopalians is, to show that the apos- tles were superior to presbyters in power and rights, and the alleged proof is, that they administered dis- cipline. To bear on the case, therefore, the pas- sages must prove not only that they exercised discipline, but (1) that they did it as apostles, or in virtue of their apostolic office; (2) that they did it in churches where there were presbyters; and (3) that neither the churches nor presbyters ever administered discipline themselves. Now in regard to these passages referred to for proof, the following general remarks may be made: (1.) There were certainly, in all, fourteen apostles; and if we may credit Episcopalians, and reckon Timothy, and Bar- nabas, and Silvanus, and Apollos, and Andronicus, and Junia, and Titus, and perhaps half a dozen others, there were somewhat more than a score in- vested with this office; yet it is remarkable that the only cases of discipline referred to, as going to prove the superiority of the whole college of apostles, are those in which the apostle Paul only was con- cerned. (2.) There are accounts in the New Tes- tament of perhaps some hundreds of churches; and yet, we meet with no instance of the kind of disci- pline relied on, except in the single churches of OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 167 Corinth and Ephesus. It is incredible that there should have been no cases of discipline except in those churches. But if there were, the presump- tion is, that they were settled without the interven- tion of an apostle. (3.) These very cases, as will presently be shown, occurred in churches where Titus and Timothy were present, both regarded by Episcopalians as " apostles" and " bishops/ ' and thus were acts of manifest disrespect for the author- ity of those prelates. And if the fact that the discipline was administered where there were pres- byters proves that the apostle Paul was superior to them, the same fact proves that he was superior likewise to Timothy and Titus. The course of the argument, then, from this would be, that Paul was disposed to assume the whole power into his own hands, and to set aside the claims alike of bishops and presbyters. The two cases alleged as proof that the apostles only had the power of administering discipline are those at Corinth and Ephesus. Paul wrote fourteen epistles to eight churches. In all these epistles, and in all the numerous churches of which he had the charge, (2 Cor. xi. 28, "the care of all the churches,") these are the only instances in which he was called, so far as appears, to exercise disci- pline. We now inquire, Whether he did it for the purpose of showing that the apostles only had this power ? 168 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT The first case alleged is that at Corinth. The argument in regard to this church is thus stated by Dr. Onderdonk, in his " Answer/' pp. 103, 104 : " There must have been elders in Corinth when the epistles were written to them. We prove this by the language of Paul : < As a wise master-builder I nave laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon/ We prove it by the language, hyper- bolical, indeed, in the number, but decisive of the fact: i Though ye have ten thousand instructors in CHRIST/ We prove it by the language in reference to the right of the clergy to be maintained by their flocks : < If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather V We prove it by the fact that the ' Lord's supper' was celebrated in that church, which required an elder at least. We prove it by the language respecting some of the Corinthian teachers : < Are they ministers of CHRIST .... I am more/ " Yet without noticing these elders in the matter, so far as the epistles show, though they doubtless were noticed and consulted as much as courtesy and their pastoral standing made proper without putting the matter into their hands, or even passing it through their hands, Paul threatens, inflicts, and remits discipline among the people of their charge. This is a ' ministerial' act; and Paul's doing it himself, instead of committing it to the elders, shows that he, an apostle, was superior to them in OF THE APOSTOLIC CHUB GIF. 169 ministerial powers and rights. The conclusion is unavoidable if the fact be sustained. Let us, then, look to the fact our readers, we trust, will accom- pany us patiently. " ( But / will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and. will know riot the speech of them that are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. What will ye ? Shall / come to you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness V 1 Cor. iv. 19-21. " Here is ' power' and a ' rod' to be exercised under God's ' kingdom 7 or sovereignty, and by one man, an apostle, if those who were ( puffed up' did not humble themselves. Here is church discipline threatened, not by or through the elders, but by an apostle individually, and with the rod in his hands. (f ( For /verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged (in the margin determined!) already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed. 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 a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus/ .1 Cor. v. o-5. " Here is an act of church discipline nothing less than excommunication ; and who inflicts it ? The elders at Corinth ? By no means. Paul does it. 15 170 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT The apostle ( judges' and determines to e deliver to Satan 7 the unworthy Christian and to do it when that church and 'his spirit' were assembled to- gether, himself being -in that sense present when his sentence was executed. Who read his sentence in the assembly we are not informed; probably. one of the elders. Who ejected the man personally, if that mode of executing the sentence was added to the reading of it, we are not told. It is enough that the ' judgment/ the decision, the authority for the discipline, was that of an apostle alone, and evinced his superiority, in ministerial functions, to 'the elders of that church. The excommunication led, of course, to the exclusion of the man from the friendship and kind offices of the brethren; and this is called his ' punishment inflicted of many/ in the passage we are next to quote. " ( Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. To whom ye forgive any thing, /forgive also; for if /forgave any thing, to whom /forgave it, for your sakes foryare I it in the person of CHRIST/ 2 Cor. ii. 6, 10. "Here is a remission of discipline, not by the elders, but by an apostle; lie pronounces the punish- ment to be i sufficient/ The brethren forgive the scandal of the man's conduct, he having become penitent; and Paul forgives him, by removing the sentence. They forgave as men and fellow-Chris- tians he forgave l in the person of Christ/ OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 171 " With such illustrations of an apostle's power to threaten discipline, to inflict discipline, and to remit discipline, we shall understand the force of the other passages in the epistles to the Corinthians. " ' Wherefore, though I wrote unto you, I did it not for his cause that had done the wrong, nor for his cause that suffered wrong, but that our care for you in the sight of God might appear unto you.' 2 Qor. vii. 12. < But though I should boast some- what more of our authority, (which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruc- tion,) I should not be ashamed/ 2 Cor. x. 8. ' I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were pre- sent the second time; and being absent, now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all otherj that if I come again / will not spare. Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present /should use sharpness, according to the power which the Lord hath given me to edifica- tion, and not to destruction/ 2 Cor. xiii. 2, 10." This is the iclioJe of the argument from the case in the church at Corinth. This argument I pro- ceed now to examine, and in reply would observe : That there were elders, teachers, ministers, instruc- tors in Corinth, is placed beyond a question by the nature of the case. This fact I do not intend to call in question. Further, if there were elders there, there was. also, according to Episcopalians, an "apostle," a 172 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT prelatieal bishop, there to wit, Timothy. That Timothy was there at the time referred to, is shown by a quotation from the epistle itself, relating to this very time, and in immediate connection with the case of discipline. 1 Cor. iv. 17: " For this cause [that is, on account of your divided and con- tending state] have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church." Now, as it will not be pretended by Episcopalians that Timothy was not an " apostle" and a prelate, and as it is undeniable that he was at that time at Corinth, the argument will as well apply to set aside his right to administer discipline in the case, as that of the elders. Borrowing, then, the words of Dr. Onderdonk, I would say: "Yet without noticing" this apostle " in the matter, so far as the epistles show though" he was " doubt- less noticed and consulted, as much as courtesy and" his apostolical "standing made proper without 'putting the matter into" his "hands, or even pass- ing it through" his " hands Paul threatens, in- flicts, and remits discipline. This is a ministerial act. And Paul's doing it himself, instead of com- mitting it to" Timothy, "shows that he, an apos- tle, was superior to" him fi in ministerial power and rights." Now, no Episcopalian will fail to be at once deeply impressed with the fallacy of this OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 173 reasoning in regard to Timothy. And yet, it is manifestly just as pertinent and forcible in bis case as it is in regard to the elders of Corinth. It can- not be pretended that a difference existed, because the " elders" were permanently located there, and Timothy not; for the argument relied on is, that the apostles were superior as apostles, and therefore it made no difference on this point whether they were at Corinth, or at Crete, or at Antioch; they were invested with the apostolic office everywhere. The conclusion which I derive from this instance, and from the fact which has now been stated, is, that there was some peculiarity in the case at Co- rinth, which rendered the ordinary exercise of dis- cipline b.y presbyters difficult; which operated equally against any interference by Timothy; and which called particularly for the interposition of the founder of the church, and of an inspired apostle - of one clothed with authority to inflict a heavy judgment, here denominated " delivering unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh," (1 Cor. v. 5,) a power which could be exercised by none then in Corinth. The next inquiry is, whether there are any reasons for this opinion ? The following appear to be entirely satisfactory : * (1.) Paul had established that church, (Acts xviii. 1-11,) and his interference in cases of discipline would be regarded as peculiarly proper. There would be a natural and obvious deference to the 174 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT founder of the church, which would render such an interposition in the highest degree appropriate. This view is confirmed hy the fact that he puts his authority in this very case on the deference which was due to him as their spiritual father : " For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many FATHERS ; for in Christ Jesus / have begotten you through the gospel." 1 Cor. iv. 15. (2.) The circumstances of the church at Corintli were such, evidently, as to render the ordinary exercise of discipline by their own elders, without counsel from abroad and the judgment of one who would be respected, impossible. They were rent into parties } were engaged in violent contention and the authority, therefore, of one portion of the "teachers" and " instructors" would be disregarded by the other. Thus, no harmonious sentence could be agreed upon, and no judgment of a party could restore peace. An attempt to exercise discipline would only enkindle party animosity, and produce strife. See chap. i. 11-17. So great, evidently, was the contention, and so hopeless the task of allaying it by any ordinary means, that even Ti- mothy, whom Paul had sent for the express purpose of bringing them into remembrance of his ways, (1 Cor. iv. 17,) could have no hope, by his own in- terference, of allaying it. It was natural, there- fore, that it should be referred to the founder of the OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 175 church, and to one who had the power of punishing the offender. (3.) It is material to remark, that this was not an ordinary case of discipline. It was one which re- quired the severest exercise of authority, and in a form which was lodged only with those intrusted with the power of inflicting diseases, or, as it is termed, " of delivering to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. " 1 Cor. v. 5. Such cases would inevi- tably devolve upon the apostles, as clothed with miraculous power; and such, beyond all contro- versy, was this instance. It therefore proves nothing about the ordinary mode of administering disci- pline. This offence had reached such a degree of enormity it had been suffered to remain so long, and had become so aggravated that it was neces- sary to interpose in this awful manner, and to de- cide it. Yet, (4.) The apostle supposes that they ought to have exercised the usual discipline themselves. This is evident from a comparison of the following pas- sages : 1 Cor. v. 9, 10, 11, 12, with v. 2. In these verses it is supposed that they did themselves usually exercise discipline. Paul (ver. 9) gave them the general direction not to keep company with fornicators; that is, to exercise discipline on those who did. In ver. 11, he asks them in a manner showing that the affirmative answer to the question expressed their usual practice whether 176 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT they did not "judge those that were within?" that is, whether they did not ordinarily exercise disci- pline in the church ? And in ver. 2, he supposes that it ought to have been done in this very case ; and as it had not been done by them ; and the affair liad assumed special enormity, he exercised the miraculous power intrusted to him, by inflicting on the offender a grievous disease. Yer. 4, 5; conip. 1 Cor. xi. 30. (5.) This case of discipline in the church was, after all, in fact, administered by the church itself, and not by the apostle Paul. This is conclusive from verses 3-5 : " For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed ; 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 a one unto Satan." They were to be assembled for the purpose of administering discipline, and the act was in reality to be administered ly the church. The apostle did not assume the authority to do it independently of the church, or without their con- currence ; and though the offence was so great and glaring that there was no doubt as to the propriety and the necessity of administering the discipline, yet even Paul would not do it, though in a church founded by hinfself, in a way which would invade their own proper prerogatives. It is to be rernem- OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 177 bered, too, that this was a case where bodily pains were to be inflicted by miraculous agency, for the offender was to be delivered " unto Satan for the destruction of thefle.sk;" and that even in this case the apostle would not visit a member of the church with ' this punishment without the concurrence of the church itself. Even Paul, an apostle, and the spiritual father of the church, did not claim the authority to remove an offender except through their agency. The church was to take up the case, to act on it, to pass the sentence, to excommunicate the man. And again, when the sentence was to be re- mitted, and the offender was to be restored, it was to be by the church itself. Even an apostle did not assume the prerogative of saying that the offender should be reinstated in the church ; he did not by his own authority restore him to his former good standing : he placed himself before the church as a pleader, and asked them to do it : " Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was in- flicted of many, [not of one, as the apostle, but by the collective church.] So that contrariwise YE OUGHT rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I BESEECH you that ye would confirm your love toward him. For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you. whether ye be obedient in all things/' 2 Cor. iii. 6-9. Here the church is consulted at 178 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT every step, and without its action nothing is done. In judging in the case, in excluding the member, and again in admitting him to the communion, the church acts throughout. The apostle does nothing himself. I would respectfully ask whether this is the method of administering discipline by those who claim to be the " successors" of the apostles in the " Protestant Episcopal Church" ? When disci- pline is to be administered, is it the practice for the "bishop" to make a representation of it to the " church" in which the offence was committed, and to ask, or even to enjoin, the church to " gather to- gether with his spirit," and to deliver the offender to the just measure of punishment ? And again, when he judges that the " punishment inflicted of many" is " sufficient," does he present himself at the door of the assembled church, and "BESEECH" them to receive the offending member again ? I apprehend that in this respect there has been an entire departure from the " apostolic" rule and example. The matter of fact is, that in all in- stances of discipline in the Episcopal Church, the bishop is the ultimate arbiter, and if a case is brought before him, he has the sole right of de- cision, and neither church nor pastor, nor both, can set his verdict aside. ' (6.) It is evident that other churches did, in ordinary cases, exercise discipline without the in- tervention of an apostle. Thus, the church in OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 179 Thessaloriica where Episcopacy, with all its zeal, has never been able even to conjecture that there was a diocesan bishop was directed to exercise discipline in any instance where the command of the inspired apostle was not obeyed : "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.'' 2 Thess. iii. 14. (7.) The circumstances of the early churches were such as to make the apostolic intervention proper, and even indispensable, without supposing that it was to be a permanent arrangement. These churches were ignorant and feeble. They had had little opportunity of learning the nature of Chris- tianity. In most cases, their founders were with them but a few weeks, and then left them under the care of elders ordained from among themselves. (Comp. Acts xiii. xiv., et passim.) Those elders would be poorly qualified to discharge the functions of their office, for they would be but little elevated, in character and learning, above the mass of the people. The churches must have been imperfectly organized, unaccustomed to rigid discipline, ex- posed to many temptations, easily drawn into sin, and subject to great agitation and excitement. Even many subjects in morals and religion, which may now be considered as settled, would appear to them open for debate, and parties, as at Corinth, would easily be formed. Comp. Acts xiv. xv. ; 180 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT Rom. xiv. ; 1 Cor. viii. In these circumstances, how natural was it for these churches to look for direction to the inspired men who had founded them ; and how natural that such persons should interpose and settle important and difficult cases of discipline. In view of these obvious considerations, are we to suppose that the fact that the apostle Paul in two cases and two such cases only are recorded directed an extraordinary act of discipline, is to be regarded as proof that this power appertained only to the apostolic office, and was to be a permanent arrangement in the church ? It is rather a matter of wonder that but two cases of apostolic inter- ference are mentioned during the long and active life of Paul ; and this is evidence of great weight that the churches were expected to exercise disci- pline, and actually did so, on their own members. These views are confirmed by what is known to take place in organizing churches in heathen coun- tries at the present day. In a conversation with me, the Rev. Mr. Wirislow, one of the American missionaries then stationed at Ceylon, incidentally remarked that the missionaries were obliged to re- tain the exercise of discipline in their own hands ; and that, although the mission had been established more than fifteen years, yet it had never been in- trusted to the native converts. He further observed that the missionaries had been endeavouring to find persons to whom they could intrust the discipline OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 181 of the church, as elders, but that as yet they had not found one. The native converts were still so ignorant of the laws of Christianity, they had so little influence in the church, they were so partial to each other, even when in fault, that thus far dis- cipline though somewhat frequent acts were neces- sary was retained in the hands of the missionaries. Substantially the same thing must have occurred in the early churches in Asia Minor, in Syria, arid (Greece. Will Episcopalians infer that, because modern missionaries have found it necessary to re- tain the power of administering discipline in their own hands, therefore they are diocesan bishops, and that they do not contemplate that the churches under their care shall be other than prelatical ? If not, the argument in the case of the church in Corinth should be allowed to have no weight. I have now done with this instance of discipline. J have shown that all the circumstances of the case can be accounted for without any such conclusion as that to which Episcopalians are desirous of con- ducting it. I turn, therefore, to the other case of discipline referred to that in the church at Ephesus. The case is thus stated in 1 Tim. i. 20 : " Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander ; whom / have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." The argument of Episcopalians is stated by Dr. Onderdonk in the following words : " There * certainly were' elders in Ephesus when 16 182 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT Paul wrote the first epistle to Timothy. We prove this fact from the language : i That thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine.' Teachers, then, there were in that church, public teachers, authorized teachers, and such are not the ruling elders or deacons of parity, nor (except under the bishop's license) the deacons of Episcopacy ; therefore both these parties, the only ones con- cerned with the Tract, must agree that they ' cer- tainly' were elders or presbyters. "We prove it by the apostle's condemnation of Hymeneus and Alex- ander, for ' making shipwreck concerning faith/' i. e. making shipwreck in teaching the faith, teach- ing it publicly and with authority; and these teachers were elders, for the reasons just given. We prove it also from the fact that there were elders at Ephesus when Paul said to them, in Acts xx.: < Grievous wolves shall enter in among yun, also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things ;' Paul thus declaring that the false teaching at Ephesus would be by elders, and would occur afterward, it not having occurred as yet. That the false teaching would be by elders, seems de- cisive in favour of the assertion that the false teach- ing there was by elders, as we have just maintained ; that the false teaching was yet to occur, when thoiv were already elders in Ephesus addressed by Paul, in Acts xx., is proof that that church had its elders when this evil indoctrination had occurred, which OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 183 was the case when Paul first wrote to Timothy, as our extracts from that epistle show. This latter argument we consider final : the epistle enumerates, as errors then existing there, < fables, endless genea- logies, swerving from charity and faith to vain jangling, questions and strifes of words, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, profane and vain babblings, and op- positions of science falsely so called / Y vwffZ(J} s, per- haps gnosticism, as Hammond argues. This was the state of things at Ephesus when Paul wrote the epistle. But when he addressed the ' elders/ in Acts xx., he spoke of nothing of the sort as having existed, or as existing then, but only as to exist at a future time. If ; then, there were elders there before these mischiefs appeared, there 'certainly were' when they were afterward developed i. c. when Paul wrote the first epistle to Timothy. "Well, then, is the discipline of the church at Ephesus intrusted to these elders ? Nothing like it. As in the case of the Corinthians, that i power was given by the LORD' to an apostle, and only an apostle exercised it. It is the apostle who inflicts the dis- cipline ; the elders do not appear in the matter. And discipline is a ministerial function, and excom- munication its highest exercise." (Answer, p. 13.) 'In reply to this argument, I make the following observations : (1.) It occurs in a charge to Timothy that 184 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT Timothy, who, on the supposition of Episcopalians, was an apostle co-ordinate with Paul himself; Timo- thy, the prelate of Ephesus. If Timothy was an apostle, and a diocesan bishop, and if the exercise of discipline pertained to an apostle and bishop, why did Paul take the matter into his own hands ? Why did he not refer it to Timothy, and repose sufficient confidence in him to believe that he was competent to fulfil this part of his episcopal office? Would it now be regarded as courteous for the " bishop" of the diocese of Ohio to interpose and inflict an act of discipline on some Hymeneus or Alexander of the diocese of Pennsylvania? And would there be as cordial submission of the bishop of the diocese of Pennsylvania as there was of the bishop of the diocese of Ephesus? If Timothy was at Ephesus, and if the case of discipline oc- curred at the time which Dr. Onderdonk supposes, this case appears very much as if Paul regarded Timothy as neither an apostle nor a prelate. (2.) If the exercise of the authority in this case of discipline by Paul proves that the presbyters at Ephesus had no right to administer discipline, for the same reason it proves that Timothy had not that right. By the supposition of Episcopalians, Timo- thy was there, as well as the presbyters. The as- sumption of the authority by Paul as much proves that it did not belong to Timothy as that it did not belong to the presbyters. OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 185 (3.) This was a case similar to that which oc- curred at Corinth. It was an act of discipline which supposed the infliction of the judgment of Gcd by a miraculous agency: "Whom I have de- livered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blas- pheme/ 7 Compare this account with the record of the case in Corinth, (1 Cor. v. 5,) and it is evident that this was not an ordinary act of discipline, but was such as implied the direct infliction of punishment by the Almighty. That such inflic- tions were intrusted to the hands of the apostles, I admit; and that Paul, not Timothy, inflicted this, proves that the latter was neither an apostle nor a prelate. (4.) It is supposed by Episcopalians that this occurred at Ephesus, and while Timothy was there. But what evidence is there of this? It is neither affirmed that the transaction was at Ephesus, nor that Timothy was present. The argument of Episco- palians proceeds on the assumption that Timothy was bishop there when the epistle was written, and that the case of discipline occurred there. The only possible pretence of proof of this would be the subscription at the end of the second epistle. But that subscription has no authority whatever; and it is not to be assumed, but proved, that Timothy was there in the capacity of a prelate, or there at all, when this epistle was written to him. The demon- stration, that a bishop only exercised discipline, it 16* 186 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT must be admitted, rests on slender grounds, if this be all. (5.) But if this case did occur at Ephesus, what evidence is there that it occurred at the time that Episcopalians suppose? The account in the Epistle to Timothy by no means fixes the time of the trans- action. " Whom I have delivered (napd&oxa) unto Satan." It was already done ; and the presumption is, that it was done when Paul was himself present with them. It is morally certain that it was not an act of discipline then to be performed. My readers have now the whole case before them. Episcopacy affirms that prelates only have the power of administering discipline. It affirms that the churches are prohibited from exercising it on their own members; that those appointed to preach the gospel, to administer the sacraments, and to be pas- tors of the flock, and who may therefore be sup- posed to understand the cases of discipline and best qualified to administer it, have no right to exercise this act of government over their own members, but that this exclusive prerogative belongs to a stranger, and a foreigner a prelatical bishop whom the churches seldom see', and who must be, in a great degree, unacquainted with their peculiar wants and character. All power of discipline in an entire dio- cese of some hundreds of churches is to be taken away from the churches themselves, and from the pastors, and committed to a solitary, independent OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 187 man, who, from the nature of the circumstances, can have little acquaintance with the case, and pos- sess few of the qualifications requisite for the intelli- gent performance of this duty. And does the reader ask, What is the authority for this assump- tion of power? Why are the churches and their pastors disrobed of this office, and reduced to the condition of humble dependants at the feet of the prelate? Let him, in astonishment, learn. It is not because there is any command to this effect in the New Testament; it is not because there is any declaration implying that it would be so; it is not by any affirmation that it ever was so. This is the reason, and this is all : The apostle Paul, in two cases, and in both instances over the heads of pres- byters, (and over the head of " Bishop' 7 Timothy, too,) delivered men "to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that they might learn not to blas- pheme;" and THEREFORE, Episcopal bishops only have power to administer discipline in the Christian church; and THEREFORE, all the acts of discipline exercised by Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, and Congregationalists are null and void. The disposal of sucJi antecedents and consequents may be safely left to all who hold that "no argument is worth taking into the account that has not a clear V&& palpable bearing on the naked topic the scrip- tural evidence of Episcopacy." Tract, p. 8. But I have, not done with this subject. I shall 188 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT yet show,'(ch. iv. 2, 2,) not only, that there is no evidence that the apostles exclusively exercised discipline, but that there is positive proof that all the acts of discipline were in fact exercised by the presbyters arid the churches. I have now examined the essential point in Epis- copacy; for, if the claims which are arrogated for prelatical bishops are unfounded, the system, as a system, is destroyed. I have examined the solitary passage urged directly in its favour, "the apostles and elders," "the apostles, and elders, and bre- thren;" and the claims set up in favour of their exclusive right to administer discipline and to administer the rite of confirmation. I have shown, if I mistake not, that none of the passages of the New Testament relied on furnish support for the stupendous claims set up in favour of the prelate. If they do not, then, by the uniform admission of Episcopalians, and by the special concession of Dr. Onderdonk, there is no authority for Episcopacy in the Scriptures, and it must be regarded as wholly an arrangement of human origin. "If we cannot/' says Dr. Onderdonk, (Tract, p. 11,) "authenticate the claims of the episcopal office" [the office of the prelate,] "we will surrender those of our deacons, and let all power be confined to the one office ofprcs- byh-rs." It is submitted to the reader whether we arc not now prepared to avail ourselves of this con- cession, and to draw the conclusion that "the claims OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 189 of the episcopal office' ' are not made out, and that the ministers of the gospel should be regarded as equal in grade and honour. If so, the controversy should be considered as at an end. CHAPTER IV. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH AS ESTAB- LISHED BY THE SAVIOUR AND THE APOSTLES. HAVING thus examined all the scriptural argu- ments which are adduced by Episcopalians in fa- vour of the peculiar organization of their church, the argument might be left here, for, if the positions which have been taken are correct, the principal ob- ject contemplated is accomplished. If there is no scriptural authority for prelacy; none for an apos- tolical succession; none for confirmation; none for the right which the " bishop" claims for administer- ing discipline, then it follows that there is nothing in the system which makes it binding on the churches of the Redeemer, and that the whole arrangement of the Episcopacy is one of human origin. But it is often objected by Episcopalians, that all the efforts of those who doubt the claims of the " Episcopate" are employed to demolish that system without proposing any substitute in its place; and that, while so much zeal is evinced to prove that 190 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT their claims are not founded on the authority of Scripture, nothing is done to show what -was the plan on which the church in the New Testament was organized. It is proposed, therefore, to collect and arrange the scattered notices on this point in the New Testament, and to inquire whether it was the design of the Saviour to prescribe any form of church government which should be universally binding on his church. The first point will relate to the officers referred to in the New Testament; the second, to the actual organization and govern- ment of the churches. SECT. 1. The Officers of the ChnrrJi. The officers referred to in the New Testament, in the organization of the church, may be divided into two great classes. 1. Those which were in- tended to be temporary; and, 2. Those which are so mentioned as to show that they were designed to be permanent. I. Those which were designed to be temporary. Under this class are to be ranked, (1.) The apostles, properly so called, who were appointed by the Saviour to be his companions, to be WITNESSES of what he taught, and to be WIT- NESSES of his resurrection. This has been demon- strated in ch. ii. This office, from its nature, was temporary, and was confined to those who had been OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 191 with him during his public ministry, and whom he had specially called for this purpose, with Matthias, who was chosen to fill the vacated place of Judas, (Acts i.,) and Paul, who was called to the special work of the apostleship among the Gentiles, and permitted to see the Saviour in a miraculous manner after his ascension, in order that he might have the appropriate qualification of an apostle. 1 Cor. ix. This office was one in. which, from the nature of the ease, there could be no succession, unless the " suc- cession" was kept up by a miraculous manifestation of the Saviour to each one in the " succession," as in the case of the apostle Paul, to qualify him to be a " witness" that the Redeemer was risen from the dead. In reference to this point, I may briefly sum up all that has been shown to be contained in the New Testament. The case stands thus: (a.) There is no command in the New Testament to the apos- tles to transmit to others the peculiarity of the apos- tolic office. If the peculiarity of the office was to be transmitted, it was required that such a command should be given. But it has not been pretended that any such command has been discovered. (6.) There is no affirmation that it would be thus transmitted. No one has been able to find an affirmative on that point. And we may ask here whether it is credible that the apostles were bish- ops of a superior order, and that it was designed that all the church should be subject to an order of 192 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT men " superior in ministerial rank and power," de- riving their authority from the apostles, and vet not the slightest command thus to transmit it, and not the slightest hint that it would be done ? (c) It was impossible that the peculiarity of the apostolic office should be transmitted. I have shown, not by assumptions, but by a large array of passages of Scripture, what that peculiarity was : to bear wit- ness to the great events which went to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, and that he rose from the dead. The peculiarity of that office, as specified by Jesus Christ, by the chosen apostles, by Paul, and by the whole college, COULD NOT be transmitted ; for no prelate is, or can be, a witness, in the sense and for the purpose for which they were originally designated, unless he can make the affirmation which Paul did in proof that he was an apostle : "Am I not an apostle ? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? 1 Cor. ix. 1. (d) I have examined the case of Ti- mothy, of Titus, of Barnabas, and of the " angels" of the churches the slender basis on which, in the absence of direct command to continue the succession, and direct affirmation that it would be continued, the whole fabric of Episcopacy has been reared. The conclusion to which we have come is, that, while this was a most important and wise arrange- ment in the organization of the church, there is not the slightest evidence that the Redeemer intended that it should be perpetual ; that it is impossible to OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 103 make out the fact of such a " succession;" and con- sequently that the whole claim that the " bishop" is the " successor' ' of the apostles is a usurpation of authority in the church. The organization of the Christian church is complete without any such "succession" or such officers as really as it is without the "order" of "deaconesses," and with- out the " order" of the " seventy disciples." (2.) There were special ministers sent out for a temporary purpose by the Lord Jesus himself: "After these things the Lord appointed other se- venty also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come." Luke x. 1. These persons were (a) evidently appointed for a different purpose from the apostles. The apostles, as has been shown, were to be with him, to hear his instructions, to be witnesses of his miracles, his sufferings, his death, and his resurrection, and then to go and proclaim those things to the world; and, having done this, the apostolic office was to cease. The object of the appointment of the "seventy" is expressed, and we have no right to go beyond that in interpreting their commission. They were to "go two and two into every city and place, whither he himself would come." This was the extent of their commission. It was to proclaim the coming of Jesiis of Nazareth, and pre- pare the way for his personal preaching there, evi- dently by calling the minds of the people to his claims, 17 194 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT to the remarkable character of his preaching, to his power in working miracles, and to the evidence that he was the Messiah. There is no commission to go out of Judea, as the Saviour evidently did not design himself to go out of Judea; and there is no com- mission to the appointment as a permanent office. (6) They were appointed to a temporary office. This appears from the nature of the commission, and from the fact that there is no reference in the New Testa- ment to any persons who claimed to be the " suc- cessors" of the "seventy." There is no record of their number having been filled up when one of them died, nor is there any intimation whatever of the permanency of their office. We never hear them alluded to as having a fixed office in the church; not: in the appointment of any class of ministers is then* any intimation that they were to succeed the " se- venty" disciples. In the accounts of the churches which were organized by the apostles there is no allusion to them, nor does it appear to have ever occurred that any reference was to be had to them in the organization of a church. If this be so, and that it is, no one acquainted with the New Testament will deny, then the ap- pointment of the " seventy disciples" should not be urged as an argument to prove that the ministry \va, established in " three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons." Between the appointment of the seventy, a& the record is made in Luke, and the office of a OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 195 "priest" in the Episcopal Church, there is no re- semblance whatever. There is no evidence, as has been remarked; that it was to be permanent ; there is no intimation that they were to be subject to the "bishops" the apostles; or that they might not ordain, or might not administer the rite of confirma- tion, or that they might not administer discipline, or that they might not take the oversight of a " diocese." All this is language unknown to the New Testa- ment; and the simple and obvious account of the appointment of the " seventy" is, that they were em- ployed by the Saviour to prepare the way for his per- sonal ministry in the places where he proposed to go. (3.) There were in the apostolic church, also, "prophets" who, unless they were classed under the denomination of " teachers," were designed only to be temporary in the duration of their office. Acts xiii. 1 : " There were in the church at Antioch cer- tain prophets and teachers;" xv. 32 : "And Judas and Silas being prophets also themselves." 1 Cor. xii. 28 : " God hath set some in the church se- condarily prophets" Ver. 29 : " Are all prophets ?" Eph. iv. 11: "And he gave some prophets" 1 Cor. xiv. 3 : " He that prdphesieih speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort." Yer. 5 : " I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that y& prophesied ; for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues." Ver. 22; " Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, 196 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT but to them that believe not; but prophecy serveth not for them that believe not, but for them that be- lieve/' Ver. 29 : "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the others judge. " There is some evidence that the persons here referred to were under the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and that they were therefore appointed in an extraordinary manner in the circumstances in which the church was placed when newly founded, and when it needed special guidance and direction. There is no evi- dence whatever that the office of " prophet" was in- tended to be permanent. (4.) Under this denomination of officers that were not designed to be permanent, may be ranked also the office of deaconess. Horn. xvi. 1 : " I commend unto you Phebe, our sister, which is a set' van t (jidzowv of the church which is at Cenchrea." Comp. 1 Tim. v. 3, 911; Titus ii. 3, 4. Deaconesses appear to have been commonly aged widows, sus- taining a fair reputation, and qualified to guide and instruct those who were young and inexperienced. The "apostolical constitutions" say: "Ordain a deaconess who is faithful and holy, for the minis- tries toward the women." Book iii. Pliny, in his celebrated letter to Trajan, says, when speaking of the efforts which he made to obtain information re- specting the opinions and practices of Christians : " I deemed it necessary to put two maid-servants, who are called ministrx, [deaconesses,] to the tor- OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 197 ture, in order to ascertain what is truth/' The rea- son for their appointment in the early churches of the Gentiles was probably the fact, that in the East, females are kept secluded from men, and are not per- mitted to mingle freely in society, as is the case in the Western nations. It became necessary, therefore, to appoint aged and experienced females to instruct the young of their sex, to visit the sick, and to distri- bute to them the alms of the church. From the na- ture of the case, however, the necessity of this office would not exist in those countries where these customs did not prevail ; and there is no reason to suppose that it was designed to be permanent in the church.* II. Permanent officers mentioned in the organiza- tion of the church in the New Testament. These officers are : (1.) Those designated by various terms, denoting that they were set apart or appointed to preach the gospel, to impart instruction, and to take the over- * It may be a question, however, whether it would not bo well to revive this order in the church. There is a large class of females in most churches, especially in cities, who cannot, in any proper seri.se and to any suitable degree, be under the supervision of a pastor. They are those who have had little early training in religion, who are not connected with pious families, many of whom are employed as domestics, and who peculiarly need instruction in the doctrines and duties of reli- gion. Some of them are too old to be in Sabbath-schools, and many of them could not be well collected in Bible classes j but they could with great propriety be placed under the care of more aged and experienced females in the church, whose spe- cial duty it should be to visit them, to counsel them, to instruct them, and to aid them in the divine life. 17* 198 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT sight of the flock. This class of persons is men- tioned under different appellations as preachers, bishops, pastors, teachers, evangelists; but all of them in such a connection and form, that it is evident that the arrangement was intended to be permanent. (a) The office of preacher was designed to be per- manent, for the Saviour gave direction to his apostles to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature," assuring them that he would be " with them alway, even unto the end of the world/' Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. Comp. Rom. x. 14, 15; 2 Tim. iv. 2. That the office was designed to be permanent, is made certain from the instruction which Paul gives to Timothy : " And the things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." 2 Tim. ii. 2. (&) The office of bishop, or overseer of the flock, in the true scriptural sense as a pastor of a parti- cular church was designed to be permanent also. " The name ' bishop/ which now designates the highest grade in the ministry," says Dr. Onderdonk, (Tract, p. 12,) "is not appropriated to that office in Scripture. That name is given to the middle office or presbyters ; and ALL that we read in the New Tes- tament concerning 'bishops' is to be regarded as ap- pertaining to that middle grade. It was after the apostolic age that the name * bishop' was taken from the second order and appropriated to the first." The OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 199 office of "bishop," as it was used in the "apostolic age," denoting an "overseer/' is designed to be permanent in the church. This is evident from the fact that instructions were given which implied this : " If a man desireth the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop, then, must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good be- haviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach, not given to wine." 1 Tiin. iii. 1-7; Titus i. 7-9; Acts xx. 28; Phil. i. 1. The appointment of bishop)* in the churches by the apostles, and the instructions to Timothy in regard to their qualifications, prove that it was understood that the arrangement was to be permanent. No such instructions are given in re- gard to the qualifications of " apostles," or of pre- lates, as the " successors of the apostles," or of those who were to succeed the " seventy disciples," or of those who were to succeed the "prophets." Those things were, therefore, of a temporary character; this was a fixed arrangement. (c) The office of pastor another name for the office of "bishop" was designed to be permanent, for the same reason that instructions are given which imply this, and that the office is mentioned in such a connection as to show that this was designed : "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body 200 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT of Christ : till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a per- fect man." Eph. iv. 11, 12. This passage proves that some, at hast of these offices were to be perma- nent in the church. That it was designed that the pastoral office should be one of them, is apparent from the fact that the word is applied to the office In such a way as to show that it was a permanent arrangement. The word " pastor/' indeed, in the sense in which it is used in Eph. iv. 11, does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament, nor have our translators rendered the same word puxtor else- where. It occurs often in the sense of shepherd, and is uniformly elsewhere so rendered. Matt. ix. 36; xxv. 32; xxvi. 31; Mark vi. 34; xiv. 27; Luke ii. 8, 15, 18, 20; John x. 2, 11, 12, 14, 16; Heb. xiii. 20; 1 Pet. ii. 25. But the verb (TT^/WVW) is so used as to denote that the office was to be of a permanent character. John xxi. 16: " He saith to him, Feed 7ro/y.acv my sheep." This was indeed addressed to Peter; but that he understood it as contemplating a permanent arrangement in the church, is apparent from his own instructions given to the elders of the church : " The elders which are among you 1 exhort, who am also an elder, feed xm'i.rbaTs the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof [fwrciswg the office of a bishop IxtffnntowTssj not by constraint, but willingly." 1 Pet. v. 1, 2. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 7. OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 201 (d) The office of teacher was designed to be per- manent. Eph. iv. 11: " He gave some teachers.'" "And God hath set some in the church thirdly, teachers." 1 Cor. xii, 28; Gal. vi. 6: "Let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teacheth in all good things. " Eom. xii. 7 : " Or he that teacheth on teaching." Gomp. Acts xiii. 1 ; ICor. xii. 29; 2 Pet. ii. 1. (e) The office of an evangelist, or of a publisher of the gospel, was designed to be permanent in the church. Eph. iv. 11 : "He gave some evangelists.'! 2 Tim. iv. 5 : " But watch thou in all things, do the work of an evangelist/' Comp. Acts xxi. 8. All these offices relate to the preaching of the gospel, and to the proper care and oversight of the church, and might evidently be united in the same person. There is no incompatibility in the offices themselves which would prevent this, and there is every reason to suppose that they were thus united. Nay, there is positive evidence that in the case of Timothy and of some of the apostles they were thus united. They are not incompatible now ; and there is the same evidence that they were intended to be permanent that there is that the church itself was designed to be permanent. (2.) There were rulers, or ruling ciders, in the church, who are so mentioned as to make it probable that it was designed that there should be in every church such officers to direct and govern its affairs. 202 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT That the permanent officers already referred to were authorized to exercise government over the church, in addition to the duty of preaching, of pastoral supervision, and of teaching, is evident from many places in the New Testament, as well as by the names by which they are designated ; but there is also evidence that there was, in some churches at least, a distinct class of men to whom the govern- ment of the church was especially confided. In cases where a church was established where there had been a synagogue, it seems most probable that the apostles would make use of the existing organiza- tion in its government, and engraft the Christian church on that religious community which they found already in existence. On this point, the fol- lowing remarks of Archbishop Whately seem so well founded, that they must commend themselves to every one as founded in truth : " It appears highly probable I might say mo- rally certain that wherever a Jewish synagogue existed that was brought the whole or the chief part of it to embrace the gospel, the apostles did not there so much form a Christian church (or con- gregation ; ecclesia) as make an existing congre- gation Christian; by introducing the Christian sacra- ments and worship, and establishing whatever regu- lations were requisite for the newly-adopted faith; leaving the machinery (if I may so speak) of govern- ment unchanged ; the ' rulers of synagogues/ elders, OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 203 and other officers (whether spiritual or ecclesiastical, or both) being already provided in the existing in- stitutions. Arid it is likely that several of the earliest Christian churches did originate in this way ; that is, that they were converted synagogues, which be- came Christian churches as soon as the members, or the main part of the members, acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah. " The attempt to effect this conversion of a Jewish synagogue into a Christian church seems always to have been made, in the first instance, in every place where there was an opening for it. Even after the call of the idolatrous Gentiles, it appears plainly to have been the practice of the apostles Paul and Barnabas, when they came to any city in which there was a synagogue, to go thither first and deliver their sacred message to the Jews and ' devout (or proselyte) Gentiles/ according to their own ex- pression, (Acts xiii. 16,) to the ' men of Israel and those that feared God / adding, that ( it was neces- sary that the word of God should first be preached to them/ "And when they found a church in any of those cities in which (and such were, probably, a very largo majority) there was no Jewish synagogue that received the gospel, it is likely that they would still conform, in a great measure, to the same model/ 1 * * Kingdom of Christ Delineated, Essay II. g 9. 204 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT But there is also express mention in the New Tes- tament of permanent officers appointed to rule the church, as distinct from the teachers and pastors. 1 Cor. xii. 28: "And God hath set some in the church, first, apostles ; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers; after that, miracles;" that is, those who had the power of working miracles; "then gifts of healing," or those who had the power of healing the sick; " helps, governments, diversities of tongues." The idea here is, undoubtedly, that there were those who were appointed in the church to the business of ruling as there were for prophesying, or for teaching, or for healing the sick. Whether it refers to a distinct class of men who were set apart to this work, and who were to be a permanent " order' 7 in the church, cannot, from this passage, be determined with certainty, and is not now material. All that is necessary to be observed is, that there were those who were distinct from the "apostles," and the " prophets," and the " teachers," whose office it was to administer the government of the church. The same thing is apparent from 1 Tim. v. 17 : " Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine." The plain meaning of this passage is, that while there were "elders" who laboured in "the word and doctrine," that is, in preaching, there were also those who did not labour in "word and doctrine," but who yet were appointed to " rule" in the church. OP THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 205 (3.) There were in the church, as it was organized by the apostles, those who administered the office of deacons ; and this office is so mentioned as to make it evident that it was designed to be permanent. Acts vi. 1-6. The office, as there designated, was to take the charge of the poor, and to administer to them the alms of the church. This office is subsequently referred to in such a way as to show that it was not designed to be a temporary appointment. Thus, the church of Philippi was organized with such a class of officers, and that class remained at the time when the apostle addressed them from Borne : " Paul and Tiinotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to the saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi } with the bishops and deacons." Phil. i. 1. So in 1 Tim. iii. 8-10, the qualifications of " deacons" are so mentioned as to show that this was to be a permanent office in the church : " Likewise must the deacons 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. And let these also be first proved, then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless." " Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well For they that use the office of a deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." Verses 12, 13. It is to be remembered that, in the epistles to Ti- mothy and Titus, the apostle was addressing those 18 206 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT who were ministers of the gospel, and who were especially and expressly intrusted with the organizing of churches, and the appointment of Officers over them, (1 Tim. i. 3, 4; Titus i. 5;) and it will contri- bute to illustrate what has been said about the per- manent offices of the church, to remark that in these epistles there are no instructions given about appoint- ing any to be the " successors of the apostles" or to the apostolic office ; none in regard to the appoint- ment of those who should succeed the " seventy dis- ciples ;" none in reference to the institution of " pro- phets;" and none in reference to the appointment of " deaconesses ;" unless 1 Tim. v. 3, 9-11, and Titus ii. 3, 4, should be regarded as such. This circumstance is an additional consideration to show that those were not designed to be permanent offices in the church, but that they were temporary in their nature. It is scarcely conceivable that in formal letters to two ministers of religion, occupied mainly with instructions respecting the officers and the government of the church, there should have been such an omission if those offices had been designed to be of a permanent character. (4.) There is evidence in the New Testament that it was intended that there should be a perma- nent relation between a minister of the gospel and a particular church; or that the pastoral relation should exist. The evidence of this is found in the following considerations : (a) The name pastor, already adverted to, which OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 207 naturally implies the existence of the correlative pastoral charge as the name "shepherd" naturally implies that there is & flock. (Z>) The duty enjoined on the churches to provide for the wants of the ministers of religion, also, na- turally implies the existence of this relation. Ifc could scarcely be inculcated as a duty to support the ministry in general, or those to whom they sustained no special relation; and the duty is, in fact, enjoined on them to support those who laboured especially for their benefit. Gal. vi. 6 : " Let him that is taught in the word communicate [impart] unto him that teacheth in all good things." 1 Cor. ix. 7 : " Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock V Ver. 11 : " If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things ?" Ver. 14 : " Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel." (c) Such permanent officers or pastors were ap- pointed in the church at Ephesus. In the discourse of the apostle Paul to the " elders" of the church there, when assembled at Miletus, he addresses them as appointed to watch and guard and govern the church, evidently with the understanding that they had been appointed to their office as a permanent relation between them and the church there. " Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock, 208 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you over- seers, to feed the church of God which he hath pur- chased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departure shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock." Acts xx. 28, 29. (YZ) The church at Philippi was likewise organ- ized with those who are addressed as sustaining a permanent relation to the church. "Paul and Timo- theus to the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the BISHOPS (y prophecy ; WITH THE LAY- ING ON OF THE HANDS OF THE PRESBYTERY." Here it is evident, that the presbytery bore a material part in the transaction. Paul says, that the gift which AVUS in Timothy was given him \$y prophecy, with the lay- ing on of the hands of the presbytery . That is, that some prophecies relating to Timothy (comp. 1 Tim. i. 18, " according to the prophecies which went be- fore in thee") had designated him as a proper person for the ministry, or that it had been predicted that he would be employed in the ministry; but the prophecy did not invest him with the office did not coni'er the gift. That was done that formal ap- OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 215 pointment fulfill ing the prophecy by the imposition of the hands of the presbytery. It was necessary that that act of the presbytery should thus concur with the prophecy, or Timothy would have remained a layman. The presbyters laid their hands on him, and he thus received his office. As the prophecy made no part of his ordination, it follows that he was ordained by the presbytery. (3.) The statement here is just such a one as would be given now in a Presbyterian ordination ; it is not one which would be made in an Episcopal ordi- nation. A Presbyterian would choose these very words to give an account of an ordination in his church; an Episcopalian would not. The former speaks of ordination by 9, pre&yt&ry ; the latter, of ordination by a bishop. The former can use the account of the apostle Paul, here, as applicable to ordination, with- out explanations, comments, new versions, or criti- cisms; the latter cannot. The passage speaks to the common understanding of men, in favour of Presbyterian ordination of the action of & presby- tery in the case ; it never speaks the language of Episcopacy, even after all the torture to which it may be subjected by Episcopal criticism. The pas- sage is one, too, which is not like that which speaks of the "apostles and elders/' "the apostles, and elders, and brethren," the only direct passage on which Episcopacy relies, and which has no perceptible con- nection with the case; but it is one which speaks on the very subject which relates to the exact trans- 216 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT action, and which makes a positive affirmation of the very thing in debate. (4.) The supposition that this was not &presby- terial transaction renders the passage unmeaning. Here was present a body of men called a presby- tery. We ask Episcopalians, why they were there ? The answer which they give is, not for the purpose of ordination, but for " concurrence." Paul, the prelate, say they, is the sole ordainer. We see Timo- thy kneeling before the presbytery. We see them solemnly impose their hands on him. We ask, Why is this? "Not for the purpose of ordination," the Episcopalian replies, " but for concurrence. Paul is the ordainer/' But we ask, further, Had they no share in the ordination ? "None at all." Had they no participation in conferring the gift designated by prophecy? "None at all." Why, then, are they present ? Why do they lay their hands on him ? For "concurrence" for form, for nothing! It was empty pageantry, in which they were mistaken when supposing that their act had any thing to do in con- ferring the gift; for their presence really meant no- thing, and the whole transaction could as well have been performed without as with them. (5.) If this ordination was the joint act of thfff$ OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 225 who are among you I exhort, who am also a PRES- BYTER. FEED (^ot/idvari) the flock of God which is among you, taking the OVERSIGHT ^iiiufooitdvvTef, discharging the duty of BISHOPS) thereof, not by constraint, but willingly/' Here the very work which is claimed for prelates is enjoined on presby- ters, and the very name which Episcopal bishops assume is given to presbyters, and Peter ranks him- self as on a level ivith them in the office of exer- cising discipline , or in the government of the church. It is perfectly obvious, that the presbyters at Ephe- sus, and the presbyters whom Peter addressed, were intrusted with the pastoral care to the fullest extent, for they were required to engage in all the work re- quisite in instructing, directing, and governing the flock. And it is as obvious that they were intrusted with a power and an authority in this business with which presbyters are not intrusted by the canons of the Episcopal Church. It is respectfully asked, whether the bishop of Pennsylvania or New Jersey would now take 1 Pet. v. 2, 3, for a text, and ad- dress the "priests," or "second order of clergy," in these words, without considerable qualification : " The PRESBYTERS who are among you I exhort, who am also a PRESBYTER. Feed (xoi t u.dvw; oij.a)^ h y.upitp. 1 Tim. v. 17 : " Let the PRESBYTERS that rule well (gpQW&nf) be counted worthy of double honour. 1 ' There can be no question that these passages are ap- plied to presbyters. We come, then, to the conclusion, that the terms which properly denote government and discipline, arid on which alone airy claim for the exercise of authority can be founded the terms ex- pressive of governing, of feeding, of ruling, of taking the oversight are all applied to presbyters; that the churches are required to submit to them in the exercise of that office and that the very term de- noting Episcopal jurisdiction is applied to them also. We ask for a solitary passage which directs apostles or prelates to administer discipline; and the case of discipline, therefore, may be left to the common sense of those who read the New Testament, and who believe that presbyters had any duties to perform. But further : The churches were authorized to ad- minister discipline in connection with the presiding officers ; and such an account is given of this matter as to lead to the inevitable conclusion that the churches were always consulted, and that discipline OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 227 was never administered by an independent foreign minister, such as an Episcopal bishop is. The case of the ('hurch of Corinth, the one on which Episco- palians; most rely, has already been considered, and it has been proved that even there the apostle Paul did not assume the authority of excluding a member without the concurrence and action of the church. Of a similar character is the following direction given to the church at Thessalonica : "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed." 2 Thess. iii. 14. In this case the church was directed to administer discipline itself, if there was a member in it who was disobedient to the inspired command of the apostle. The direction is not, to observe him, and to report him to the apostle or " bishop/' but to proceed themselves to the act of discipline, and so to exclude him as to have no company with him. And of the same nature is the direction of the Saviour himself, in the solemn command which lays the foundation for the only authority for administering discipline at all in the churches : " Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone ; if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church ; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee 228 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT as a heathen man and a publican." Matt, xviii. 15-17. In regard to this passage, it may be ob- served, (1.) That it is to be presumed that the Sa- viour designed to embody the principles of discipline here so that they might be applied in all ages of the world, and so that this, in all circumstances. m>uld be an adequate direction. There is not anywhere in the New Testament a more formal direction given on the subject of discipline, and it can hardly be pre- sumed that, on such an occasion, the Saviour would have omitted what he designed should be an cwn- tial and a permanent principle. (2.) The apostles had been chosen and ordained before that direction was given, (Matt, x.,) and if he had designed that they alone should have the power of administering discipline, it is unaccountable that there is no inti- mation whatever that so important a function was conferred on them. The direction, " Tell it to the church" (ei-e ry h.'/J^tria^ is not one which would be understood as referring to the apostles, as being, in fact, " the church/' It is a direction which would naturally be understood as referring to the assembly of the faithful. (3.) Equally unaccountable is it that no reference is made to the "wccessors" of the apostles, as having the power to administer disci- pline, and that this should be left to be a xttnidiinj subject of mistake in all ages of the world. Evon now, to the apprehension of the groat body of plain Christians, this direction cannot possibly bo made to mean that when an offence is committed, the brother OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 229 who is injured must tell it to " the bishop" as the "successor of the apostles," and that if the offender will not hear him, he is to be regarded as a " heathen man and a publican." (4.) This direction of the Saviour is not complied with in Episcopal churches, nor under their arrangement is it possible that it should be. The "bishop," intrusted with the ad- ministration of discipline, is not " the church," nor does " the church" ever have an opportunity of de- ciding on the case as the Saviour contemplated. The whole authority to administer discipline is claimed by the "bishop" by divine right, as one of the prerogatives of his office; and "'the church" is ex- cluded from all participation in saying, either collec- tively or by representatives, whether the offender shall or shall not be regarded "'as a heathen man and a publican." The church has no option in the case. The authority thus claimed by the bishop is a part of a system of usurpations on the prerogatives con- ferred by the Saviour on others. We have seen that he has usurped the prerogative of being regarded as the peculiar " successor" of the apostles ; that he has usurped the exclusive power of ordaining thus de- priving presbyters of a right conferred on them in the New Testament ; that he has usurped the right of "confirmation" if it should exist at all in the church thus practically declaring that the pastor is disqualified from admitting his own members to the communion, and claiming that there is some heavenly 20 230 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT influence imparted through his hands which can he conferred hy no other minister of religion and we now see that this system of usurpation is completed by depriving the church and the eldership wholly of the right of administering discipline over an offending member, thus claiming that the whole of this tremendous power should be lodged in his hands. The standing, the influence, the character of each one of the thousands of a " diocese" is thus lodged ultimately in the hands of one man a man who is a stranger ; who is bound to them by none of the tender ties of the pastoral relation ; and who has the sole power to decide the case without appeal. Now, we may ask, where any thing like this is to he found in the New Testament ? Did the Saviour contemplate that the voice of the church should never be heard in the discipline of its own members ? On what basis is it that this power is claimed, thus depriving the churches of rights and prerogatives indubitably con- ferred on them by their Great Head ? It is a part of a great system of usurpation which began when ambition began in the church ; which has been fos- tered to give authority to the higher " orders" of the priesthood ; and which finds its appropriate place only in the corruptions of the papacy. SECT. 3. The primitive churches were organized without a prelate j and without "three orders of clergy" In support of this, I shall adduce the case of one church at least that was not organized on the prin- OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 231 ciples of Episcopalians, with three orders of clergy. I refer to the church at Philippi : "Paul and Ti- mothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus, who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons/' ouv Sxiffxanotq xat diaxovotq. In re- gard to this church, I make the following observa- tions : (1.) It was organized by the apostle Paul himself, in connection with Silas, and was, there- fore, on the " truly primitive and apostolic" plan. Acts xvi. (2.) It was in the centre of a large ter- ritory, the capital of Macedonia, and not likely to be placed in subjection to a diocesan of another region. (3.) It was surrounded by other churches; as we have express mention of the church at Thessalonica, and the preaching of the gospel at Berea. Acts xvii. (4.) There is mention made of but two orders of men. What the deacons were, we know from the appointment in Acts v. 1-6. They were desig- nated, not to preach, but to take care of the poor members of the church, and to distribute the alms of the saints. As we have there, in the original appointment of the office, the express and extended mention of its functions, we are to infer that the design was the same at Philippi. The other class, therefore the " bishops" constitute the preaching order, or the clergy those to whom were committed the preaching of the word, the administration of the sacraments, and the discipline of the church. Now, either these bishops were prelates, or they were the pastors, the presbyters of the church If Episco 232 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT palians choose to say, that they were prelates, then it follows, '(a) that there was a plurality of such pre- lates in the same diocese, the same city, and the same church ; which is contrary to the fundamental idea of Episcopacy. It follows, also, (/>) that there was entirely wanting, in this church, the " second order" of clergy; that an Episcopal church was organized, defective in one of the essential grades, with an ap- pointment of a body of prelates without presbyters ; that is, an order of " superior' 7 men, designated to exercise jurisdiction over "priests" who had no ex- istence. If it be said that the "presbyters," or " second order," might have been there though Paul did not expressly name them, then we are presented with the remarkable fact, that he specifies the dca- a///.s, an inferior order, and expresses to them his Christian salutations; that he salutes also the 4b saints" or the private members of the church and yet entirely disregards those who had the special pastoral charge of the church. Paul thus becomes a model of incivility. In the epistles to Timothy, he gives him directions about every thing else, but no counsel about his brother " prelates;" in the epistles to the churches, he salutes their prelates and their deacons, but becomes utterly regardless of the "second order of clergy," the immediate pastors of the churches. But if our Episcopal brethren prefer to say that the "bishops" here mean not prelates, but presby- ters, we, so far, shall agree with th'ern ; and then it OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 233 follows, (a) That here is an undeniable instance of a church, or rather of a group of churches, large enough to satisfy the reasonable desire of any dio- cesan bishop for extended jurisdiction, organized without prelate or bishop. None is mentioned; and there are but two orders of men, to whom the care of the " saints at Philippi" is intrusted. (6) If there was a prelate there, then we ask, why Paul did not refer to him with affectionate salutations ? Why does he refer to "the second and third orders of clergy/' without the slightest reference to the man who was " superior to them in ministerial rank and power' ' ? Was Paul jealous of the prelate? Or have we here another instance of indecorum and incivility ? (c) If they had had a prelate, and the see was then vacant, why is there no reference to this fact? Why no con- dolence at their loss ? Why no prayer that God would send them a man to enter into the vacant diocese ? (<:/) Episcopalians have sometimes felt the pressure of these difficulties to be so great, that they have supposed the bishop was absent when this epistle was addressed to the church at Philippi, and that this was the reason why he was not remem- bered in the salutation. Of this solution, I observe only, that it is mere assumption. But, even granting this assumption, it is an inquiry of not very easy solution, why Paul did not make some reference to this fact, and ask their prayers for the absent pre- late. One can scarcely help being forcibly remind- 20* 234 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT ed, by the ineffectual efforts of Episcopalians to find a prelate at Philippi, of a remarkable transaction mentioned in 1 Kings xviii. 27, 28: "Either he is talking; or he is pursuing; or he is in a jour- ney ; or pcradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked." It is scarcely necessary to remark, that t if a single church is proved to have been organized without the " three orders of clergy/' the parity of the ministry is made out by apostolic appointment, and the Episcopal argument is at an end. I may add, that this view of the organization of the church in Philippi is confirmed by an examina- tion of the organization of the church in its imme- diate neighbourhood, in Thessalonica. In the two epistles which Paul directed to that church, there is not the slightest reference to any prelatical bishop; there is no mention of "three orders of clergy;" there is no hint that the church was organized on that plan. But one order of ministers is mentioned, evidently as entitled to the same degree of respect, and as on an entire equality. They were clearly of the same rank, and engaged in discharging the functions of the same office. "'And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them very highly in love, for their work's sake." 1 Thess. v. 12, 13. Will the advo- cates of Episcopacy be kind enough to inform us why there is no mention of the prelate, whether present or absent ? OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 235 We are here prepared to estimate the force of the undeniable fact, that there is no distinction of grade or rank in the names which are given to the ministers of the gospel in the New Testament. It is admitted by Episcopalians themselves, that the names bishop, presbyter, etc., in the Bible, do not denote those ranks of church-officers to which they are now applied, but are given indiscriminately to all. On this point, we have the authority of Dr. Onderdonk. " The name ' bishop/ " says he, " which now designates the highest grade of the ministry, -is not appropriated to this office in Scripture. That name is given to the middle order, or presbyters; and ALL THAT WE READ IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CONCERNING ' BISHOPS/ (including, of course, the words 'overseers' and ' oversight/ which have the same derivation,) is TO BE REGARDED AS PERTAIN- ING TO THIS MIDDLE GRADE." Tract, p. 12. " 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." Tract, p. 14. In accordance with this fact, which is as re- markable as it is true, we have seen that Peter applies to himself the name presbyter, and put him- self on a level with other presbyters. " The pres- byters which are among you, I exhort," (not I com- mand, or enjoin, as a prelate would do,) " who am also a presbyter." 1 Pet. v. 1. And in the very 236 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT next verse he exhorts them (the elders, or presby- ters) to " feed the flock of God, taking the over- sight/' (intffxoxouyre?, exercising the office of bishop,) " not by constraint/' Now let these conceded facts be borne in mind. The term presbyter is applied by the apostle Peter to himself, and " all that we read of in the New Testament concerning ' bishops/ is applied to the middle grade." The apostles address each other, and their brethren, by no words or names that indi- cate superior rank, grade, or authority. This fact can be accounted for only on the supposition that they regarded themselves, as ministers, as on a level. If they meant to teach that one class was superior in rank and power to others, they would not have used terms always confounding such distinctions, and always proceeding on the supposition that they were on an equality. It will not be pretended that they could not employ terms which would have marked the various grades. For if the term " bi- shop" can now do it, it could have done it then; if the term presbyter can now be used to denote " the middle grade," it could then have been so used. It v is clear, also, that if such had been their intention, they would have thus employed those terms. That the sacred writers were capable of using language definitely, Episcopalians will not doubt. Why, then, if they were capable, did they choose not to do it ? Are prelates now ever as vague and indefinite in OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 237 their use of the terms " bishop" and " presbyters/' as were the apostles? It is remarkable, also, that the mode of using these terms in the New Testament is precisely in accord- ance with the usage in Presbyterian and Congrega- tional churches. They speak indiscriminately of their ministers, just as the sacred writers did, as "bishops/' as "pastors," as "presbyters" or "elders." as " teachers/ ' as " evangelists." They regard their ministers as on an equality. Did not the sacred writers do the same ? It is as remarkable, that the mode of using these terms in the Episcopal churches is NOT that which occurs in the Bible. And it is as certain, that, were they thus to use those terms, it would at once con- found their orders and ranks, and reduce their mi- nisters to equality. Do we ever see any approxima- tion in their addresses, and in their canons, in this respect, to the language and style of the New Testa- ment ? Do we ever hear those of the "second order" or priests mentioned as bishops ? Do we ever hear the term presbyter or elder applied to their bishops ? Would it not confound all the arrange- ments in the Episcopal Church, if the terms were thus indiscriminately applied? And yet, it is to be presumed that the terms used in the New Testament to designate any office may be used still. It cannot be improper to call things by their true names, and to apply to all ranks and orders of men the terms which are applied to them by the Spirit of inspira- 238 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT tion. And as the indiscriminate use of these terms is carefully avoided by the customs and canons of the Episcopal Church; as there seems to have been a presentiment in the formation of those canons that such indiscriminate use would reduce the fabric to simple "parity" of the clergy; and as these terms cannot be so used without reducing these " ranks and orders" to a scriptural equality, we come to the conclusion, that the apostles meant to teach that the ministers of the New Testament are equal in mi- nisterial rights and powers. SECT. 4. Conclusion. I have now gono through this entire subject. I have examined, I trust, in a candid manner I am sure with the kindest feelings toward my Episcopal brethren every argument which they have to ad- duce from the Bible in favour of the claims of their bishops. Those arguments have been disposed of, step by step. These are ALL the arguments which Episcopacy has to urge from the Bible. There is nothing that remains. The subject is exhausted. Episcopacy rests here; and it is incumbent on Epis- copacy to show, not to affirm, that our interpretation of those passages is not sustained by sound princi- ples of exegesis. The burden of proof still lies on them. They assumed it, and on them it rests. They affirm that enormous powers are lodged in the hands of the pre- late every thing pertaining to ordination, to confir- OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 239 mation, to discipline, to the superintendence of the Christian church. They claim powers for the " bi- shop" which would degrade every presbyter in the world ; which would reduce him to the condition of a subordinate officer, and which would strip him of the right of transmitting his own office, and of adminis- tering discipline among his own flock. They arro- gate powers which go to deprive all other presbyters, except Episcopal presbyters, of any right to officiate in the church of God; rendering their ordination in- valid, their administrations void, and their exercise of the functions of their office a daring and impious in- vasion of the rights of the priesthood, and a violation of the law of Christ. The foundation for these sweep- ing, and certainly not very modest, claims, I have examined with all freedom. The argument for pre- lacy may be summed up in a word. It consists in the text the solitary text " the apostles and elders," "the apostles, and elders, and brethren/' joined to a circuitous train of reasoning, remote from common apprehension, and too abstruse for the guidance of the mass of men. Step by step, I have followed the defenders of this system in their circuits; argument after argument I have endeavoured patiently to displace; and at the conclusion, I may ask any person of plain common sense to place his finger on that portion of the book of God which is favourable to prelacy. This argument for the authority of prelates hav- ing been met and disproved, I have produced an 240 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT instance of express Presbyterian ordination, in the case of Timothy. Two churches we have found which, were organized without prelates. We are thus, by another train of argument, conducted to the same result that prelates are unknown in the New Testament. And, to make the argument per- fectly conclusive, it has been shown that the same titles are applied indiscriminately to all. This argument may be summed up in still fewer words. The Episcopal claims are not made out; and, of course, the clergy of the New Testament are equal. The Episcopalian has failed to show that there were different grades ; and it follows that there must bepariYy. In conducting this argument, I have endeavoured to show that the claims of Episcopalians are un- founded, and at the same time that there were ar- rangements in regard to the constitution, govern- ment, and officers of the church, which were de- signed to be permanent. The general principles of church organization were laid down as binding. The details were not prescribed ; they were left, like the subject of civil government, to be modified by cir- cumstances from age to age. The gospel was to be preached in all lands and in all times; the church was to be located under different forms of civil go- vernment, and among people of different habits and customs ; the organization of the Christian commu- nity was to be such as would be consistent and pro- per under a civil government of the monarchical, OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 241 the aristocratic, or the republican form. Those re- gulations in detail which would be fitted to the cus- toms of the Oriental world, might be little adapted to habits which might exist toward the setting sun ; and rites, and customs, arid modes of worship and of discipline which would have been appropriate to the times when the apostles lived, might be ill- adapted to some future age of the world. The same great principles of truth and worship might receive new influence and power under some modified form in a future age ; and the external arrangements of the church might be left, as the subject of human government is, somewhat to the developments of time and experience. Truth is always the same. The doctrines of religion were not, indeed, suscep- tible of being modified for truth is always the same. But the details of worship, and order, and discipline in the church did not require or admit of the same explicituess which were requisite in regard to the doctrines of the Trinity and the atonement. The following remarks of Archbishop Whately on this subject seem to me to be so weighty and important, as to demand the profound attention of all who would understand the constitution of the Christian church : " Among the important facts which we can col- lect and fully ascertain from the sacred historians, scanty and irregular and imperfect as are their re- cords of particulars, one of the most important is 21 242 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT that very scantiness and incompleteness in the de- tail that absence of any full and systematic de- scription of the formation and regulation of Chris- tian communities that has been just noticed. For we may plainly infer, from this very circumstance, the design of the Holy Spirit, that those details, concerning which no precise directions, accompanied with strict injunctions, are to be found in Scripture, were meant to be left to the regulation of each church, in each age and country. On any point in which it was designed that all Christians should be, everywhere and at all times, bound as strictly as the Jews were to the Levitical law, we may fairly conclude they would have received directions no less precise, and descriptions no less minute, than had been afforded to the Jews. " It has often occurred to my mind that the gene- rality of even studious readers are apt, for want of sufficient reflection, to fail of drawing such im- portant inferences as they often might, from the omissions occurring in any work they are perusing; from its not containing such and such things rela- tive to the subject treated of. There are many cases in which the non-insertion of some particulars which, under other circumstances,, we might have calculated on meeting with in a certain book, will be hardly less instructive than the things we do meet with. "And this is much more especially the case OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 243 when we are studying works which we believe to have been composed under divine guidance. For, in the case of mere human compositions, one may conceive an author to have left out some important circumstances, either through error of judgment or inadvertency, or from having written merely for the use of a particular class of readers in his own time and country, without any thought of what might be necessary information for persons at a distance and in after-ages ; but we cannot, of course, attribute to any such causes omissions in the inspired writers. On no supposition whatever can we account for the omission, by all of them, of many points which they do omit, and of their scanty and slight men- tion of others, except by considering them as with- held by the express design and will (whether com- municated to each of them or not) of their heavenly Master, restraining them from committing to writing many things which naturally, some or other of them at least, would not have failed so to record. " No such thing is to be found in our Scriptures as a catechism, or regular Elementary Introduction to the Christian religion ; nor do they furnish us with any thing of the nature of a systematic creed, set of articles, Confession of Faith, or by whatever other name one may designate a regular, complete compendium of Christian doctrines; nor, again, do they supply us with a liturgy for ordinary public worship, or with forms for administering the sacra- 244 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT inents, or for conferring holy orders j nor do they even give any precise directions as to these and other ecclesiastical matters any thing that at all corresponds to the rubric, or set of canons."* I here close this inquiry into the organization and government of the apostolic church. As there is nothing in the Bible which Episcopacy can add, the whole subject here should be allowed to rest. The entire scriptural argument is exhausted ; and here the inquiry ends. In conclusion, I may remark, that I speak, I believe, the language of the great body of those who are not Episcopalians and the language expresses the convictions of my intellect and the feelings of my heart when I say, that we have no unkind emotions toward those who believe that Episcopacy is founded on the word of God, and is the form of church government best adapted to promote the cause of the lledeemer of the world. We do not forget the former services which the Episcopal church rendered to the cause of truth and of the world's redemption: We remember the bright and ever-living lights which her clergy and her illustrious laymen have in other times enkindled in the darkness of this world's history, and which con- tinue to pour their pure and steady lustre on the literature, the laws, and the customs of Christian * Kingdom of Christ Delineated, Essay II. g 8. OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 245 nations; and we trust the day will never come when the bosoms of Christians in any denomination will cease to beat with emotions of lofty thanksgiving to the God of grace that he raised up such gifted and holy men, to meet the corruptions of the papacy, and to breast the wickedness of the world. We have no unkind emotions toward any branch of the true church of God. We strive to cherish feelings of affectionate regard for them all, and to render praise to the common Father of Christians, for any efforts which are made to advance the in- telligence, the purity, and the salvation of mankind. In our views of the nature of mind and of freedom, we can have no uncharitable emotions toward any denomination of true Christians. " There are di- versities of organizations, but the same Spirit." We have no expectation that all men, in this world, will think alike ; and we regard it as a wise arrangement that the church of God is thus organized into dif- ferent sections and departments, under the banner of the common Captain of their salvation. It pro- motes inquiry; it prevents complacency in mere forms and ceremonies; it produces healthy and vigorous emulation ; it affords opportunities for all classes of men to arrange themselves according to their preferences and their habits of thought; and it is not unfavourable to that kindness of feeling which the Christian can cherish, and should cherish, when he utters in the sanctuary the article of his 246 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT faith, " I believe in the holy catholic church, the communion of saints." The attachment of a sol- dier to a particular company or squadron need not diminish his respect for other divisions of the armies of his country, or extinguish his love for her liberty. His being joined to a company of infantry need not make him feel that cavalry is useless, or involve him in a controversy with the artillery. We ask only that Episcopacy should not assume arrogant claims ; that she should be willing to take her place among other denominations of Christians, entitled, like them, to all the tender and sympathetic affections of the Christian brotherhood, and willing that they should walk in the liberty wherewith Christ has made his people free. We ask, that while ice cheerfully concede this, she also should concede to all those who " love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity," the right to be accredited as being true churches of the Lord Jesus, and as hav- ing a valid ministry and valid ordinances.* We * This right is conceded in form by the author of the "Tract" so often noticed in this argument Dr. Onderdonk. "An apparently formidable, yet extraneous difficulty," says he, "often raised, is, that Episcopal claims unchurch all non- Episcopal denominations. By the present writer this consequence is not allowed." P. 6. But is it ever conceded in any other way, or ever acted on ? Is there any recognition of the minis- ters of other denominations as having a right to preach the gospel? Is there any introduction of them to the pulpits of Episcopal churches? Would such an introduction by any of the "inferior clergy" be tolerated or connived at by the dio- cesan bishop? To ask these questions is to answer them. But another question may be asked here : it is, How can many of OP THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 247 shall have no contest with our Episcopal brethren for loving the church of their choice, and the church in which they seek to prepare themselves for heaven. We shall riot utter the language of unkindness for their reverencing the ministerial office in which the spirits of Cranmer and Leighton were prepared for their eternal rest. Content that other denomina- tions should enjoy like freedom, when they do not arrogate to themselves unholy claims, and attempt to "lord it over" other parts of " God's heritage/' we shall pray for their success, as for that of all other Christians, and rejoice in their advancement. But the moment they cross this line the moment they make any advances which resemble those of the papacy the moment they set up the claim of being the only " primitive and apostolical church" and the moment they speak of the " invalid minis- try" and the "invalid ordinances" of other churches, and regard them as "left to the uncovenanted mer- cies of Grod" that moment the language of argu- ment and of Christian rebuke should be heard from every other denomination. There are minds which can investigate the Bible as well as the advocates for Episcopacy; there are pens which can compete' the clergy of the Episcopal Church be satisfied with occupying such a position in regard to tlieir ministerial brethren of other denominations, as to have the fair interpretation of tlieir con- duct to be that they regard them as whol^ unauthorized to preach the gospel? Do they really believe this? If they do not, does not Christian candour, fairness, independence, and justice, require them in act and word to avow it ? 248 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT with any found in the Episcopal Church and there are men who will not be slow to rebuke the first appearance of arrogance and of lordly assumption, and who will remind them that the time has gone by when an appeal to the infallible church will answer in this controversy. Arrogant assumptions do not suit the present state of intelligence in this land, or the genius of our institutions. While the Episcopal Church shall seek, by kind and gentle means, to widen its influence, like the flowing of a river, or like the dews of heaven, we shall hail its advances : when she departs from this course, and utters the language of authority and denunciation, when she endeavours to prostrate other churches, as with the sweepings of the mountain torrent, she will be re- minded, by a voice uttered from all the institutions of these times, that Episcopacy has had its reign of authority in the dark ages and at the Vatican ; and that the very genius of Protestantism is, that one church is not to utter the language of arrogance over another, and that not authority or denunciation, but SCRIPTURAL EXPOSITION, is to determine which is in accordance with the book of God. We have no war to wage with Episcopacy. We know, we deeply feel, that much may be said in favour of it, apart from the claim which has been set up for its authority from the New Testament. Its past history, in some respects, makes us weep; in others, it is the source of sincere rejoicing and OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 249 praise. We cannot forget, indeed, its assumptions of power, or hide from our eyes the days of the papacy, when it clothed in sackcloth the Christian world. We cannot forget the days in its history, when, even as a part of the Protestant religion, it brought ".a numb and chill stupidity of soul, an in- active blindness of mind, upon the people, by its leaden doctrine;" we cannot forget " the frozen captivity" of the church, " in the bondage of pre- lates;"* nor can we remove from our remembrance the sufferings of the Puritans, and the bloody scenes in Scotland. But we do not charge this on the Episcopacy of our times. We do not believe that it is essential to its existence. With more grateful feelings we recall other events of its history. We associate it with the brightest and happiest days of religion, and liberty, and literature, and law. We remember that it was under the Episcopacy that the church in England took its firm stand against the papacy ; and that this was its form when Zion rose to light' and splendour from the dark night of ages. We remember the name of Cranmer Cranmer, first, in many respects, among the reformers ; that it was by his steady hand that, under God, the real church of the Saviour was conducted through the agitating and distressing times of Henry the Eighth. W r e remember that God gave this distinguished pre- * Milton. 250 ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT late access to the heart of one of the most capri- cious, cruel, inexorable, blood-thirsty, and licentious monarchs that has disgraced the world ; and that for the sake of Cranmer and his church, he con- ducted Henry as u by a hook in the nose," and made him faithful to the Archbishop of Canterbury when faithful to none else; so that, perhaps, the only redeeming trait in the character of Henry is his fidelity to this first British prelate under the reformation.* The world will not soon forget the names of Latiuier and Ridley, and Rogers and Bradford ; names associated in the feelings of Chris- tians with the long list of ancient confessors " of whom the world was not worthy/' and who did honour to their nature and to mankind by sealing their attachment to the Son of God in the flames. Nor can we forget that we owe to the Episcopal Church that which fills our mind with gratitude and praise, when we look for examples of consecrated talent, elegant literature, and humble piety. While men honour elevated Christian feeling wliile they revere sound learning while they render tribute to * It may be proper here to remark, that Cranmer by no means entertained the modern views of the scriptural authority of bishops, lie maintained "that the appointment to spiritual offices belongs indifferently to bishops, to princes, or to the people, according to the pressure of existing circumstances. He affirmed the <>ri