b'^>^:;>o^^ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n^^t\'l^ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\xe2\x96\xa0f^ \n\n\n\n\n~^it U. (\xe2\x96\xa0 \n\n\n\n/a /y/.^v/\' U/ / / /9 J ^ \n\n\n\nPRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nOP \n\nCHRISTIAN CHURCHES \n\nALSO, \n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\n\n\nBY JAMES PrWILSON, D. D., \nLate Pastor of the Fint Presbjierian Chui-ch, Philadelphia. \n\n\n\n**Nil nisi justum suadet, et lene." \n\n\n\nTO WHICH IS PREFIXED, \n\nTHE SERMON, \n\nPREACHED ON THE OCCASION OF THE DEATH OF THE AUTHOR, \nBY REV. THOMAS H. SKINNER, D. D. \n\n\n\nP HILADELPHIA: \nFRENCH & PERKINS\xe2\x80\x94 159 CHESTNUT STREET \n\nBOSTON: \n\nPERKINS & MARVIN-114 WASHINGTON ST. \n\n1833. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nEntered according to the act of Congress, in the year one thousand \neight hundred and thirty-two, by Matthew Wilson, in the Clerk\'s OfEcc \nof the District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. \n\n\n\nliOMZZ^^^^ \n\n\n\n\nTER, 9 LIBRARY ST. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nADVERTISEMENT. \n\nThis work is a defence against unfounded pretensions; and in- \ntended to exhibit, without wounding any individual, the illiteracy \nof excluding from mercy or covenant favors, all but the subjects of \nthe hierarchy; and of making mute presbyters a characteristic of \nthe primitive church. The inquiry is first orderly pursued through \nthe early testimonies, that innovations might be detected; and the \nScriptures afterwards examined according to original ideas. \n\nThis book has been printed in numbers in the Christian Specta- \ntor, but merely with the design to elicit objections, that it might \nbe rectified, if found unjust, or in error on any point. Compensa- \ntion was offered by the pubUsher at New Haven, but refused, \nbecause the right was reserved. \n\n\n\nCONTENTS. \n\n\n\nSECTION I. \n\n\n\nPage \n\n\n\nThe ordinary officers at the \'demise* of the apostles. Barnabas \nspurious. The Pastor of Hermas a forgery. The testimony \nof Clement of Rome, ...... i \n\nSECTION II. \n\nThe evidence furnished by Polycarp. The fragment of Papias, . 7 \n\nSECTION III. \n\nThe disinterested representations of Justin Martyr. The letter of \n\nthe church of Smyrna. The fragment of Hegesippus, - 16 \n\nSECTION IV. \n\nTatian. The letter of the churches of Vienne and Lyons. The \nfragment of Melito. The writings of Athenagoras. The tract \nof Hermias. The books of Theophilus of Antioch. The works \nof Irenaeus, ....... 25 \n\nSECTION V. \n\nThe facts appearing in Clement of Alexandria. Novatian\'s writ- \nings in Tertullian and Cyprian. The testimony of TertuUian, - 36 \n\nSECTION VI. \nThe letters ascribed to Ignatius are evidence of the third century. \n\nA reply to Philo-Ignatius, .... 45 \n\nSECTION VII. \n\nThe dialogue of Minucius Felix. The writings of Hippolytus. \n\nThe testimony of Origen, - - . - . 61 \n\nSECTION VIII. \nThe character and evidence of Cyprian, . . , . 69 \n\n1* \n\n\n\n\\\'l CONTENTS. \n\nSECTION IX. \n\nThe epistle of Firmilian. The writings of Gregory Thaumaturgua. \nThe fragments of Methodius. The seven books of Arnobius. \nThe writings of Lactantius, - - - - - 82 \n\nSECTION X. \nThe character and writings of Eusebiua, .... 89 \n\nSECTION XI. \nThe origin and history of councils prior to A.D- 787, - - 99 \n\nSECTION XII. \nThe writings of Hilary of Poictiers. The learned productions of \n\nHilary the deacon, ----.. 108 \n\nSECTION XIII. \n\nThe intjportant writings of Athanasius. The six books of Optatus. \n\nThe testimony and sufferings of Aerius, \xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\xa2 - 118 \n\nSECTION XIV. \n\nThe writings of Basil the Great. The life and writings of Gregory \nof Nazianzum. The works of Gregory of Nyssa, the brother of \nBasil, 127 \n\nSECTION XV. \n\nThe ordination and writings of Cyril of Jerusalem. The writings \n\nof Ambrose, - - - .... 137 \n\nSECTION XVI. \nThe works of Epiphanius the imbecile Metropolitan of Cyprus. \n\nHis testimony of the Apostolical Constitutions, - - 144 \n\nSECTION XVII. \n\nThe supposititious writings of Dionysius the Areopagite. The vol- \numinous writings of John, since called Chrysostom. The frag- \nments of letters of Isidore of Pelusium, - - - 153 \n\nSECTION XVIII. \nThe works of the learned Jerom, - ... - 162 \n\nSECTION XIX. \nThe ten tomes and supplement of Augustine of Numidia. The \n\n\n\nCONTENTS. VU \n\nremaining writings of Synesius of Ptolemais. The history, epis- \ntles, dialogues, &c. of Sulpicius. Severus. - - - 177 \n\nSECTION XX. \n\nThe writings of John Cassian of Marseilles. The history of So- \ncrates of Constantinople. The nine books of Sozomen of Pal- \nestine. The writings of Theodoret of Antioch, - - 188 \n\nSECTION XXI. \n\nThe writings and ambitious efforts of Pope Leo the first, \xe2\x80\xa2 198 \n\nSECTION XXII. \n\nSEPARATISTS OF THE EIGHTH AND TWELFTH CENTURIES. \n\nThe Piedmontese apart of the Latin church, A. D. 817. They \nwere episcopal at the death of Claude. The history of the ori \xe2\x80\xa2 \ngin and progress of the Bohemians. The Waldenses of France \nsprang from the followers of Claude, - - . - 208 \n\nSECTION xxm. \n\nTHE HISTORY OF ORDINATIONS. \n\nThe extraordinary offices of Apostle and evangelist were not by \nordination. There were no ordinations but of presbyters and \ndeacons. The first diocesan bishops were not constituted by im- \nposition of hands- Canonical ordinations arose after the second \ncentury, -------- 221 \n\nSECTION xxrv. \n\nLAY ELDERS EXCLUDED BY EPISCOPACY. \n\nThe Syrian churches, Waldenses and Culdees were all episcopal. \' \nLay elders were introduced at Geneva, by a compromise. Af- \nterwards adopted by other cantons; also in France, Nether- \nlands, Scotland, England, and America, - - - 253 \n\nSECTION XXV. \nThe primitive state of the church having been sought from credible \nwitnesses of the facts, without regard to their opinions, or hear- \nsays; and the changes marked from the commencement of the \nsecond to the termination of the fifth century, and having seen \nthe successive introduction of parochial and diocesan episco- \npacy, the canonical ordination and human authority of the latter, . \nand the creation of quasi presbyters by Calvin, we are prepared \nbetter to understand the New Testament by the rejection of these \nnovelties. But bishops are by some supposed to be the succes- \n\n\n\nVIU CONTENTS. \n\nEors of the evangelists, and Timothy is made bishop of Ephesus. \n\xe2\x80\x94 How Timothy received authority and for what purpose. An \nevangehst before he came to Ephesus. He was left by Paul at \nEphesus, the last time Paul was there, Timothy having returned \nthither after Paul\'s first letter to the Corinthians. Timothy left \nEphesus after ordaining presbyters there, and came to Paul in \nMacedonia, before his return to Jerusalem and first imprison- \nment. The first letter to Timothy was before he left Ephesus to \ngo to Paul in Macedonia, and instructed him in choosing and or- \ndaining the presbyters. He accompanied Paul to Jerusalem and \nRome, where he was during the Apostle\'s first imprisonment. \nThe second letter to Timothy was written during the second im- \nprisonment, and discovers that Timothy was not then at Ephe- \nsus; it calls him to Rome; and it no where appears that Timothy \never returned to Ephesus after ordaining the elders there, - 251 \n\nSECTION XXVI. \n\nTITUS WAS ALSO AN EXTRAORDINARY OFFICER, AND NOT A \nBISHOP OF CRETE. \n\nHe was Paul\'s attendant or evangelist, before the Gospel was \ncarried to Crete. \xe2\x80\x94 A polios is named in the epistle to Titus, but \nas they first saw Apollos on Paul\'s last visit to Ephesus, it was \nwritten after that visit. Every movement of Paul, from the riot \nat Ephesus unto his first imprisonment, is given, and events show \nhe did not leave him in Crete before he went to Rome. \xe2\x80\x94 His let- \nters from Rome discover that Titus was not with him during his \nfirst imprisonment, and of course he could not have left him in \nCrete on his return from Rome. \xe2\x80\x94 Titus had been with Paul at Je- \nrusalem, but after separating from Barnabas, he was no more \nwith Paul till his second visit to Ephesus; probably he was sent \nwith the letter to the Galatians.and met Paul at Ephesus on his last \nvisit there, from whence Paul sent him to Corinth,\'and he came \nto Paul in Macedonia, and was sent back to Corinth. \xe2\x80\x94 At some \nperiod after his first imprisonment, they may have gone to Crete; \nand Titus being left there, received this letter as a discharge from \nthence, when a substitute arrived. He was at Nicopolis one win- \nter with Paul; and the Scriptures leave him in Dalmatia, - 263 \n\nSECTION XXVII. \n\nTHE FIXED STATE, AND ORDINARY OFFICERS OF THE PRIMI- \nTIVE CHURCHES. \n\nUnder the spiritual dispensation of the gospel, the extraordinary \noflTicers were the apostles, to confer gifts and teach by means of \n\n\n\nCONTENTS. IX \n\nthe inspiration of suggestion; the evangelists, to plant and water \nchurches; prophets, with occasional inspiration to explain the \nScriptures. \xe2\x80\x94 The gifts are described, 1 Cor. xii. 28; Rom. xii. \n6 \xe2\x80\x94 8; Ephes. iv. 11, 12 \xe2\x80\x94 Officers qualified to administei ordi- \nnances, succeeded the extraordinary gifts, and churches, which \nwere Christian societies, were substituted for the synagogues. But \ntwo orders or kinds were adopted \xe2\x80\x94 presbyters, who were called \nalso pastors, to teach, ordain, administer baptism and the euchar- \nist, and to govern, and deacons to serve. \xe2\x80\x94 Among the presbyters, \na bench of which was at first in every church, and but one pres- \nbytery in a society or city, there was one who presided, denomi- \nnated TrpioalceCf angel, and by other names; yet the ordination \nwas not different from that of the rest. \xe2\x80\x94 The first change was by \na gradual transition into pastoral or parochial episcopacy, after- \nwards into diocesan. \xe2\x80\x94 This was established by the Council of \nNice, and at length produced papacy, - . - - 270 \n\nLiturgical Considerations, . - - - . 889 \n\n\n\nSERMON.* \n\n\n\nAmong the reasons, my brethren, which induced the \nspeaker to undertake, at your request, the performance of \nthe present service, he is unwilling any one should reckon, \na sense of his competency to the task. If one\'s ability to \nspeak justly of another, is at all proportional to their de- \ngrees of mutual conformity in talents and virtues, there \nare not many persons among the acquaintance of your late \npastor, of whatever experience and attainments, who ought \nto think themselves adequate to a complete description of \nhim . An intimacy of nearly sixteen years, has made him \nwho addresses you very conscious, that his inferiority in \nage, though a great disqualification, is probably the least \nconsiderable point in his unfitness to that undertaking. \nHe was led, however, to hope, that he would receive so \nmuch assistance from the papers of his lamented friend, \nthat he might almost make him his own biographer^ but, \nto his great surprise, that peculiar man was found to have \nleft not a sentence about himself, among all his manu- \nscripts; nor have many particulars in his history been \nascertained, besides such as are of extensive notoriety. \n\n* Preached in the First Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia, \nJanuary 16th, 1831. \n\n\n\nXll SERMON. \n\n\n\nHence it became necessary to make a discourse of a very \ndifferent character from that which was first projected, \nand which perhaps would have better met your anticipa- \ntions. \n\n\n\nMiCAH VI. 9. \xe2\x80\x94 The Lord\'s voice crieth unto the city ; and the man \nof wisdom shall see thy name. Hear ye the rod, and who hath ap- \npointed it. \n\nIt is one of the consequences of man\'s fallen state, that \nhe is apt to misapprehend the design of God\'s gracious \nmeasures for his recovery. Shadows of good things he \nmistakes for the reality^ ordinances of mercy become \nmeans of spiritual pridej grace is turned into licentious- \nness; and Christ himself is made the minister of sin. \n\nThe prophet had given, in the Jews of his day, an ex- \nemplification of this trait of human perverseness. He had \nrepresented that idolatrous generation as apparently sen- \nsible to the dangerous consequences of their idolatry, and \ndesirous to discover some way in which they might avert \nthe divine displeasure. \'* Wherewith shall I come before \nthe Lord; and bow myself before the high God? Shall 1 \ncome before him with burnt-offerings; with calves of a \nyear old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of \nrams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give \nmy first-born for my transgression; the fruit of my body \nfor the sin of my soul?" These interrogatories betray a \nradical misconception of the purpose for which sacrifices \nwere appointed. They make God vindictive; and ap- \npeasable, only by expensive oblations. So had the hea- \nthen, amidst their guilty darkness and fear, reproached \nthe divine nature; but that the Depositaries of revealed \n\n\n\nSERMON. Xlll \n\ntruth should have fallen into this error, was scarcely to \nhave been expected. An illustrious example in their own \nhistory should have made them wiser. The royal peni- \ntent\'s memorable declarations\xe2\x80\x94" Thou desirest not sacri- \nfice, else would I give it; thou delightest not in burnt- \nofferingj the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit \xe2\x80\x94 a bro- \nken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise," \nshould have left them at no loss, as to the way of regaining \nthe divine favor. But this people were strangers to the \nrelentings of godly sorrow; they had formed no purpose \nof a genuine change of life; but merely desiring to avert \nthe consequences of their infidelity, and thinking this \nmight be done by ofi*ering costly sacrifices, they declare \nthemselves ready to go to any practicable length, in such \na way of escaping the displeasure of God. The prophet \nanswers rebukefuUy to their infatuated inquiries, " He \nhath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth \nthe Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love \nmercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." Sacrifice not \nyour first-born, but your sins. Reform your dishonest, \noppressive, profane practices. Humble yourselves before \nGod with a penitent, sin-renouncing, obedient spirit. \n*\'Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and \nsacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold to \nobey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat \nof rams." \n\nThe madness which the prophet tlius sharply repre- \nhends, in his own people, has not been limited to them. \nThere are multitudes even now, who, to escape the pun- \nishment of their sin, would do any thing which might be \nexacted, in the way of expense or penance \xe2\x80\x94 would fast \nand wear sackcloth, and give all their goods to feed the \npoor, and their own bodies to be burned, who yet most \n\n2 \n\n\n\nXiy SERMON. \n\nstubbornly withhold from God the acceptable sacrifice of \na subdued and obedient heart. \n\nThis, however, is God\'s great demand of the sons of men \n\xe2\x80\x94the main end and argument of all his overtures, ordinan- \nces, instructior>s, and commandments; and any ritual ob- \nservances which do not involve compliance with this de- \nmand, are a perversion of the right ways of the Lord, to which \nand its authors, as in the case of Cain, the beginner of \nthis iniquity, God hath not, and, without being opposed to \nhis own institutions, cannot have respect* Hence the \nremonstrant strain of our prophet, after exposing in the \nmanner we have seen, the mistake of his countrymen\xe2\x80\x94a \nmost culpable mistake, which might well incur a divine \nrebuke. What was the pretext of that ignorance which \ncaused the perplexity of this people? Had not their means \nof information been adequate? Had God winked at their \niniquity? Had he called them to repentance with an in- \ndistinct or feeble voice? His voice, said the prophet, *\xe2\x80\xa2 cri- \neth" \xe2\x80\x94 not speaketh with a still small accent \xe2\x80\x94 but crieth, \nputteth on strength, calleth aloud, and reacheth afar- \xe2\x80\x94 not \nto one or another, but the chief place of concourse, "the \ncity," where the multitudes of men dwell \xe2\x80\x94 to all, from the \nleast to the greatest, doth the almighty voice extend: As \nsaid Solomon, speaking of the Lord\'s voice under the fit \nnames of wisdom and understanding \xe2\x80\x94 \'\'Doth not wis- \ndom cry? and understanding put forth her voice? She \nstandeth in the top of high places, by the way, in the \nplaces of the paths. She crieth at the gates, at the entry \nof the city; at the coming in at the doors. Unto you, O \nmen, I call, and my voice is unto the sons of men." \n\nAnd now, if we would know what had hindered this \npeople from comprehending that voice, by attending to the \n\n\n\nSERMON. XY \n\nnext words of the prophet, we shall learn that they had \nbecome so worldly-minded, so sensual, that in respect to \nthe things of the Spirit of God they were as men without \nunderstanding. Into this deep fatuity does the prophet \ninsinuate they had sunk, when to his announcement that \nthe Lord lifteth up his voice, he upbraidingly subjoins, \n"the man of v\xc2\xbbisdom shall see thy name." This it is \nwhich makes graceless men contemptuous of God\'s calls, \nthat they heed not these calls as coming from God; full of \nall that is awful in his nature and imperative in his sove- \nreignty. If they so regarded them, both their ears would \ntingle until they ceased to resist them; and that they \nshould not so regard them, is almost enough, as the Scrip- \nture in several places intimates, to provoke unconscious \nnature itself into outcries of wonder and sorrow. \n\nAnd shall this stupidity pass unrebuked? Shall not that \ndivine majesty which is not acknowledged in God\'s calls \nto repentance, assert itself at length in inflictions of just \ndispleasure? Why then the mention in our passage, of \n*\'the rod," along with "the voice of the Lord;" the one \nto punish the contempt of the other. If ye will not hear \nhis voice, said the man of God, \'* hear ye the rod, and \nwho hath appointed it." That awful rod which is al- \nready stretched out, before your eyes, in the judgments \nwhich are abroad in your land, who think ye hath ap- \npointed it, and for what purpose? You can despise calls to \nrepentance, as though they were but the breath of a mor- \ntal like yourselves; shall the judgments which are upon \nyou, be held in like contempt? \n\nNow what, brethren, was the manner and fashion of that \ncrying voice of God, which it was so fearful a thing not to \nunderstand? Was it, do ye suppose, like that which \npoured through the open heavens at the baptism of Christ? \n\n\n\nXVI SERMON. \n\nDid it sound forth from the clouds with the loudness and \nterribleness of thunder? It was the simple expression of his \nwill by the ministry of his servants, the prophets. So it \nwas that God anciently spake to the fathers of the Jewish \npeople. The voice of the prophets \xe2\x80\x94 that was His voice of \nwhich it is said, the voice of the Lord is powerful, is full \nof majesty, breaketh the cedars of Lebanon, maketh Sinai \nto skip like a young unicorn, divideth the flames of fire, \nshaketh the wilderness, maketh the forest bare, by which \nthe heavens and all their hosts were made, which spake \nand it was done, which commanded and it stood fast\' \xe2\x80\x94 that \nsame almighty voice proceeded forth from the mouth of \nholy men of old, when they spake in the prophetical cha- \nracter. \n\nL And now, in shaping the tenor of our discourse to \nthe occasion of the meeting, our first remark is, that the \nfact just asserted in respect to the ancient prophets, is true \nalso, in respect to the Christian ministry, the prophets of \nthe present dispensation. The official and veritable ut- \nterances of the evangelical ministry are as surely *\'the \nvoice of the Lord" as were the testimonies of the holy \nmen of old, who spake as they were moved by the Holy \nGhost. The outward rank and condition of that ministry \n. \xe2\x80\x94 their birth, breeding, civil standing, and connexions \xe2\x80\x94 for \nthe most part confessedly low, make nothing against this \nhigh speech concerning them. For the prophets and even \nthe apostles, what were some of them in these unessential \nrespects? Nay, what, in such respects as these, was the \nIncarnate Word, the voice of the Lord embodied and \nspeaking with its own and not another\'s mouth? \xe2\x80\x94 It \nshows the depth to which our nature is degraded, tliat al- \nmost nothing seems of worth in the world\'s estimation, \ncompared to outward distinctions and possessions: And, \ntherefore, God, that he might employ the strongest mean \n\n\n\nSERMON. XVll \n\npossible for recovering us from this insanity, hath poured \nthe full vials of his infinite contempt on these idols of \nmankind; in his choice and separation of persons, both \nunto the honors of his heavenly kingdom, and unto the \nmanagement and labors of his kingdom on earth: Not \ndeigning, as his usual way has been, even to look on \nprinces, and judges, and mighty commanders, while he \nputs his Holy Spirit in poor, unknown, uncultivated men; \nand from the mouth of such babes and sucklings, sounds \nout his own almighty voice, by which he hath shaken the \nearth, and not earth only, but also heaven; and will yet \nshake the deepest foundations of hell, and establish order \nand peace throughout his vast dominions, never to be dis- \nturbed again in all the ages of eternity. \n\nIf any one still think, that the claim which we set \nup in behalf of the ministry of reconciliation, cannot be \nsustained, since these men, not being inspired, are fallible \nand may misinform their fellow men, which it were blas- \nphemy to say the voice of God might do \xe2\x80\x94 let such an one \ncall to mind, that the present ministers of the word have \nthis advantage over the Old Testament prophets, that \nwhereas those prophets received the communications of \nthe divine will, in sundry parts, here a little and there a \nlittle, unto us are committed at one and the same time, \nthe whole mass of the inspired oracles, both of the old \nand the new dispensations; whereby we are far better fur- \nnished as organs of the counsel of God to mankind, than \nthey were, although unto them the manifestations of the \nSpirit were immediate and fresh. For all those manifes- \ntations, whenever and to whomsoever first made, having \nbeen written down under infallible guidance, and the re- \ncord intrusted to an almighty guardianship, are at this \nmoment as genuine, as excellent, and as directly from \n\n3* \n\n\n\nXVlll SERMON. \n\nthe Spirit, as if they had just been given to the world: \nThe only difference is, that while ancient prophets re- \nceived them in visions, dreams, extasies, and trances, \nthey are presented to our minds through the medium, and \nsurely not less desirable medium, of letters. Though the \nChristian ministry, then, be not inspired men, they possess \nall the inspirations ever given \xe2\x80\x94 all that God has thought \nneedful, for the benefit, whether of his ministers them- \nselves, or those to whom he sends them. What prophet \nwas ever so thoroughly furnished to his work, as far as \ninspiration could furnish him, as the New Testament man \nof God? \n\nBut it will doubtless not escape recollection, that the \nministry may misinterpret inspired Scripture; to meet \nwhich seeming argument against their being considered as \n\'\xe2\x80\xa2the voice of the Lord," let me put you in mind, that nei- \nther did the ancient prophets fully comprehend some of their \nown inspired deliverances, but were left to discover, in \nthe free exercise of their own fallible understandings, what, \nand what manner of time, the Spirit which was in them did \nsignifv, in his deep revelations to them concerning things \nto come. Inspired prophets, then, commenting upon their \nown oracles, might perhaps err, as the Christian ministry \nmay and do, in their commentaries on inspired Scripture. \nBut the prophets, notwithstanding the possibility of their \nmisinterpreting some things, were the mouth of the Lord \nto mankind; and so, notwithstanding a like imperfection \nin our case, may be the regular preachers of the everlast- \nino- gospel. Take a distinction between the pure dicta- \ntions of the S )irit, and our uninspired expositions and rea- \nsonino-s upon them, and understand us as extending the \nhidi ministral communications, whether of prophets or \npreachers, not a hair-breadth beyond the former, and \nwhere is the arrogance or the ill -consequence in either \n\n\n\nSERMON. XIX \n\ncase of pronouncing these communications \'\' the voice of \nthe Lord." If preachers speculate, and sometimes, per- \nhaps, thej may do even that to edification unless they \nseek to become wise above what is written, let them ap- \nprize the people tliat they are not then presuming to speak \nin the name of the Lord^ as the prophet who told a dream, \nas a dream should have let it pass \xe2\x80\x94 let but this needful \nprecaution be used by preachers, and let the people care- \nfully make the forementioned distinction, and there will \nbe no danger of their receiving as inspired doctrine the \ncommandments and speculations of men. \n\nStill, perhaps, some cannot but stand in doubt of this \nview of the ministerial function, a3 attaching to it a sa- \ncredness and a sanction unwarranted by observation. \nAmong those who profess to exercise that function, there \nis a radical discordance both in doctrine and life: Some \nunquestionably are not the Lord\'s mouth, and what sure \nproof is there that such sacred honor belongs to any of \nthem? Now freely do we grant, nay, loudly protest, that \nthere are indeed false teachers, bearing the name of \nChristian ministers, who privily and otherwise brino- in \ndamnable heresies, even denying the Lord who bought \nthem; but is it not forgotten that there were false prophets \nof old, who made the people of God to err through their \n*Mies" and their \'\'lightness?" And if in the presence \nof many hundreds of such deceivers, one solitary Elias or \nMicaiah could stand forth and sound out a voice as con- \nvincingly the Lord\'s, as if no counterfeit of that voice \nhad ever been attempted, so may the regular ministry now \non the stage, show credentials, no less clear, of a divine \ncommission, in the midst of all the varieties of self-sent \npreachers on the face of the whole earth. Indeed, com- \nplaint on the ground now^ taken is as perverse, in this case, \nas it could be in any other, wherein genuine excellence \n\n\n\nXX SERMON. \n\nshould be denied existence, merely because there are pre- \ntenders who say they have it, and have not. Real and \napparent, genuine and spurious, are designations which \nmen find occasions to use, in reference to almost every \nthing with which they have to do^ and shall they, there- \nfore, become universal skeptics? All things in this world \nare such and so evidenced, as to suit a state of trials and \nif this be proof of divine wisdom and goodness on the gene- \nral scale, why should not these attributes be recognized \nas displayed, particularly, in the plan of Providence con- \ncerning the ministration of God\'s saving counsel and \ngrace? \n\nBut now while you yield to the conclusiveness of these \nobservations, you are probably but the more solicitous to \nknow THE MARKS OF THE TRUE MINISTRY, that you may \nbe sure of not paying your personal attendance where \n"the voice" which *\'crieth" is not that of the Lord, but \nanother. \n\nHow, while one saith, lo here, and another lo there, \nis many a poor wayfaring man to know whither he must \ngo? Is his rustic ear acute enough to try this confusion of \nexclamations, and distinguish the heavenly cry amidst all \nthe imitations of it which the father of lies hath been able \nto invent? Men of corrupt minds are often in great fear, \nwhere no fear is, and surely there is none here, although \nthe show of danger be not small. Scorners and sectarists \nhave led heady and heedless people into the apprehension \nof an insurmountable difficulty, which is, in fact, no dif- \nficulty at all. And who that is not utterly overpowered \nby the spirit of bigotry j can allow himself soberly to think, \nthat God would give forth his compassionate voice for the \nguidance of benighted mortals in the way of life, and not \nmake that voice intelligible even to the feeblest mind, in \n\n\n\nSERMON. XXI \n\ndefiance of all the great deceiver can do to drown or to \nmimic it? How can it be the opinion of any thoughtful \nmind, that unless a man be learned and logical enough to \nexplore and sift the arguments for and against the \nclaims of a certain denomination, to be considered as \ndescending with its ministers in an unbroken succession, \nfrom the apostles; unless he can do all this, he cannot \nknow, by sound conviction of his own understanding, \nbut that he is the dupe of a false teacher, who, in the guise \nof a sheep, may be inwardly a ravenous wolf? In no such \nway did Christ instruct his disciples to satisfy themselves \nas to the true character of teachers professing to have \nbeen sent from God? He gave them a test, at once infalli- \nble, and so easy of application, that any unlearned man or \nchild may use it, as will as a master of Israel. Not \nby their having the apostles at the beginning of their \nministerial line \xe2\x80\x94 no, said He, who was even higher than \nthe apostles, but \'^by their fruits ye shall know them. \nDo men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?\'* Here\xe2\x80\x94 \nI would think it no boldness to affirm, in the midst of the \nwhole multitude of strivers for exclusive apostolic counte- \nnance \xe2\x80\x94 here, is the true criterion of ministerial preten- \nsions. A minister exemplifying the heavenly spirit of Christ \nin his walk before the world, and in his doctrinal inculca- \ntions ever enforcing the pure and entire truth of the gospel, \nand thus striving to win souls and build up converts in their \nmost holy faitli\xe2\x80\x94 such a minister, of whatever Christian \ndenomination, approved by his brethren and having a seal \nto his commission in the hearts, perhaps, of hundreds be- \ngotten, through his preaching, to holiness and heaven \xe2\x80\x94 is \na minister of Christ, who hath entered by the door into \nthe sheepfold, the porter having opened to him as a true \nshepherd of the sheep, however some may suspect that \nhands were laid upon him which wanted pure ordaining \nvirtue. But, on the contrary, a minister who, by light- \n\n\n\nXXll SfeKMOlf. \n\nness of manners, or by lies in his preaching, causes God\'s \npeople to err from the narrow way of the gospelj who, in \nthe tendency of his life and ministrations, makes little \ndistinction between the world and the saints, whether in \npresent character or eternal destiny^ who pleads against \na strict, and in favor of an easy and fashionable religion; \nand who, instead of having a seal to his ministry in the \nhearts of the elect, has there a witness against him, whose \ncomplaining voice, day and night, enters into the ears of \nthe Lord of Sabaoth \xe2\x80\x94 such a minister, though of a church \nunquestionably the most apostolical in Christendom, is one \nagainst whom all heaven, if it might speak, would protest, \nand whom every one who cares for his soul, ought to shun, \nas a kid should shun the den of a hungry lion. \n\nII. So evident it is that " the voice of the Lord" truly \n"crieth," in the testimony of the Christian ministry 5 and so \neasy is it, to distinguish that voice amidst all evil attempts \nto assume or imitate it: \xe2\x80\x94 Now, the next thing which the \ntext and the occasion of this service lead us to set forth \nin our discourse, is the infatuation of mankind in not dis- \ncovering the name and majesty of God, through the me- \ndium of bis voice lifted up and crying in our humble tes- \ntimony. That this discovery is not made, except by a \nvery small remnant, it were preposterous to dispute, \nwhile almost the whole world as evidently lieth in wick- \nedness, at this day, as when the trumpet of the gospel was \nfirst sounded by the apostles. For such surely would not \nbe the state of the world \xe2\x80\x94 they would not be slumbering \n80 securely in the lethean arms of their sins, with the \nclouds of eternal wrath gathering and thundering about \nthem, if they discerned in the simple cry of their preachers \nthe presence of the almighty and uncontrollable will . No, \nthey neither discern it, nor believe it to be there; but \nrather, in their deceived heart, if not with open clamor, \n\n\n\nSERMON. XXm \n\nthey scorn the very pretence that God is with his minis- \nters, and speaks with their mouth \xe2\x80\x94 they supremely scorn \nit, as the consummation of arrogance or delusion. "Who," \nsay they, \'* are these that speak as if they were God him- \nself, and were armed with celestial power? Do we not \nsee that they are sinful mortals as well as we?" If any \nthing pertaining to the persons or circumstances of the \nministry \xe2\x80\x94 their weakness, their poverty, their obscurity, \ntheir v/ant of great learning and relinement, their having \nno connexion with courts, and no countenance from \nprinces \xe2\x80\x94 if things like these seem appendages not likely \nto be found about tlie ministry of Him who covereth him- \nself with light as with a garment, and stretcheth out the \nheavens as a curtain, and layeth the beams of his chambers \nin waters, and hath his way in the whirlwind and the \nstorm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet \xe2\x80\x94 if any one \nthink such a being would be ashamed ofaministry so mean \nas are the preachers of the gospel, then let him deny that \nGod spake by Elias, and Amos, and other prophets of like \npersonal disadvantages: and let him also justify the Jews \nin rejecting their Messiah, on these same grounds; and let \nhim hold, moreover, that the fishermen of Galilee were not \nthe holy apostles of the Lamb, but emissaries of Satan. If \nGod would have ministers great and dignified enough to \nbe worthy of their office, where, among all the sons of men \nor even his holy angels, could they be found? Should we \nmeasure the divine majesty by any personal exhibitions of \ngrandeur in the power of archangels to make, we should \nlimit and degrade the Holy One even to the depriving \nHim of his essential glory. Why then do we not acknow- \nledge the wisdom of God in choosing representatives of \nHimself, whose personal appearance and character could \nnever be thought of, as the medium of judging concern- \ning His nature? Other obvious reasons there are, why the \nmeanness of the ministry should be their recom.menda- \n\n\n\nXXIV SERMON. \n\ntion; but these need not be mentioned: No " man of wis- \ndom," none who is not smitten with the spirit of slumber, \nhaving eyes that he should not see, and ears that he should \nnot hear, will fail to discern the excellency of the gospel, \nmerely because we have that treasure in earthen vessels. \nNo excuse for this insensibility to the majesty of God, can \nbe derived from the manner in which that majesty reveals \nitself. If it should be revealed daily in voices directly \nfrom the skies, and amidst all the apparatus of terror \nwhich invested Mount Sinai at the giving of the law, \nwhile such a mode of disclosure would be wholly incon- \ngruous with God\'s good and wise purposes, and with the \npresentstate and circumstances of man, it needs no pene- \ntration to see that those ever sounding voices would be as \nlittle likely to secure due acknowledgment, as the voice of \nnature ceaselessly proclaiming, in all her works and move- \nments, the presence of her God. *\'The man of wisdom" \nwill consider, not so much the medium by which "the \nLord\'s voice crieth," as the evidences tliat the voice is \ntruly that of the Lordj and when that is the fact, the evi- \ndences of it, most assuredly, cannot be justly weighed for a \nmoment, without over.vhelming the mind with conviction. \nFor is it even supposable that God may speak and room be \nleft to doubt as to the source of the utterance? Must there \nnot be something in the very voice itself, marking it as \nimpossible to have come, save from the mouth of the Lord? \nCan any creature speak like the Creator? A man is not so \nfar above a brute as God is above the greatest of his crea- \nturesj and if a man*s voice sound differently from a brute\'s, \nmust God\'s be undistinguishable from a man\'s? Let all \nthe voices in the whole creation cry, and after that the \nLord\'s^ shall He, before whom the whole creation itself is \nas the small dust of the balance, utter a voice so little \nwiser, greater, better, than every other, that it is hard to \ndiscern the difference? Compare God\'s workmanship to \n\n\n\nSERMON. XXV \n\nthat of a creature\'s. What pencil can paint, what hand \ncan build like His? How coarse and clumsy seem the cun- \nningest copies of art in the presence of His originals? And \nif the difference be so vast in what He does, shall it be \nalmost undiscernable in what He says? When the mind \nwhich contains the original conceptions of all the forms of \nbeauty, and sublimity, and strength, and goodness, which \nare to be found in creation- \xe2\x80\x94 when the fountain of all in- \ntelligence, opens His mouth, shall nothing be expressed be- \nyond the power of a breathing atom to utter? What else \nwere to be expected but that what ever is truly divine, \nwhether it be deed or word, will bear the impress of \ndivinity so clearly in itself, that it need but be considered \nin order to be known as wholly unlike, what might come \nfrom a creature. So all likelihood leads us to conclude; \nand if any man on the earth will now candidly hearken to \nthe voice of which we speak, he will find in this instance \nour conclusion confirmed: that is such a voice, that no \near is so dull but must confess it divine, unless resolved \nagainst a fair and submissive hearing. Think ye that the \nChristian ministry, whether of the present or any past \ngeneration, could of themselves have uttered such a \nvoice? Could their narrow and sinful hearts have con- \nceived such thoughts as that voice reveals? could the \ntongue of men or angels, unless moved by the inspiration \nof God, have uttered, and uttered with an eloquence \nsuch as mortal ears never elsewhere heard, such high les- \nsons of virtue and righteousness, such sublime concep- \ntions of God and his works, such humiliating views of \nman and his state, such a scheme of grace, such histories, \nsuch proverbs, such parables, such psalms, such prophe- \ncies, as that marvellous voice repeats, of which ministers \nof the gospel are appointed to be the echo, from land to \nland, and age to age. But the height of human infatua- \n\n\n\nXXVI SERMOX. \n\ntion will not be fully discovered without coasidering also \nthe effects and achievements of tliat testimony which men \nso dishonor. If a voice should be uttered which should \nbreak the cedars of Lebanon, make Sirion to skip like a \nyoung unicorn, dry up rivers, set the mountains on \nfire, and melt down the ancient rocks, almost as much \namazement would seize you to hear a man question \nwhether that voice came from God, as to witness the \nproof of its stupendous efficiency; yet it is certain that \neven such a voice would not accomplish greater wonders \nthan that hath done in which the world sees nothing to \nawaken their attention. It needs more than a mortal\'s \ntongue to tell, and more than a mortal\'s heart to under- \nstand, the number and excellency of the doings of this \nvoice. It hath produced a new creation; a creation re- \nsplendent with the Maker\'s glory, in a far higher sense \nthan was the outward world in the freshness of its being. \nIt hath dispersed a worse than the primeval darkness, \n"with a better than the primeval light. It hath built for \nruined man a far fairer than his first habitation, and new- \nmade him in the likeness of God, that he might be fitted to \ndwell in it; and scattering the powers of darkness before \nhim, subduing hell and death under his feet, it hath \nbrought him triumphantly to his new Paradise, and opened \nits\' everlasting gates for his admission, and in that bright \nworld it hath enthroned him a king and a priest unto \nGod, to reign and shine for ever as the sun in the firma- \nment. To use plainer speech, it hath in unnumbered in- \nstances illumined poor man\'s benighted mind, melted his \nstony heart into tenderness and love, conquered and re- \nnewed his obstinate will, refined and sanctified his vile \naflfections, broken him oft\' from all manner of vicious \nhabits, and established him in habits of the strictest pu- \nrity, given him immortal liope for the gloom of despair, \nspoken his storms of trouble into peace, made great tribu- \n\n\n\nSERMON. XXVll \n\nlation tlie occasion to him of heavenly rejoicing, and \nchanged for him the grave into the gate of heaven. Such \nhave been and such are some of the actual and manifest \neffects of this voice: but what more might not be added? \nIf there is any thing desirable in refinement of taste and \nmanners, in learning and the arts, in liberty and peace, \nthe praise of it will not be bestowed where it is most due, \nunless it be acknowledged as an incidental legitimate fruit \nof the same wondrous voice. How soon would our entire \nworld be as a vast field of blood, where wickedness in- \nevery frightful form would raven without restraint, if the \nvoice which speaks through the gospel ministry should be \nsilent. And yet mankind see nothing of God in it, but \nfor the most part hold it in less esteem, than many of the \nempty cries which they raise among themselves. \n\nIII. Now this in itself is an evil more deplorable than \nevery other in the present lot of man^ a strange evil truly 5 \nat the same time, the greatest of calamities and the \ngreatest of sins 5 and yet what we are in the next place \nbriefly to declare is, that bad as it is in itself, it draws af- \nter it worse consequences \xe2\x80\x94 consequences which it had \nbeen well for him who has to meet, that he never had been \nborn. These consequences will teach the incorrigible \ndespisers of our testimony what it is they hold in such \ncontempt. It now appears to them as having nothing in \nit to be feared 5 they take liberties with it and find no \nhurtj they hear it or hear it not, as may suit their conve- \nnience or caprice: they mock at itj they gainsay it; they \ntreat it in whatsoever manner they please, and yet it in- \njures not a hair of their head. They sometimes do worse; \nseeking even to silence it, by stifling the breath that gives \nit expression. They lay their hands on the persons of the \nministry, they scourge, they imprison, they kill them, \nthey account them as sheep for the slaughter, and still what \n\n\n\nXXVin SERMON. \n\nharm do they suffer? So dealt the Jews with the prophets, \nthe apostles, and the Prince of Life himself^ and thou- \nsands of God\'s faithful witnesses have fared in like man- \nner in subsequent times. If this voice be the Lord\'s why- \nis it not proved to be his, by some instant stroke of divine \nanger on every one who offers it the least disrespect? \nThe patience of God which bears so long with the world\'s \nblasphemies and crimesf the spirit of Jesus which re- \nstrained him from coming down from the cross to prove his \nMessiahship at the challenge of his murderers, is not less \nmysterious than that the miracle performed on Lot\'s wife \nis not repeated upon every one who in any way dishonours \nthe gospel ministry. Could the judgment, however, of \nthese disdainful men be now realized, no one would com- \nplain that it seemed to linger. As the voice of civil law \n\xe2\x96\xa0which is treated as if it were without strength by success- \nful robbers and ruffians, appears sufficiently powerful at \nthe terrible moment of their shameful execution > so when \nthe doom of these contemners of "the Lord\'s voice" has \nonce overtaken them, that now unavenged voice, will con- \nvincingly show whose it is, by inflictions as demonstrative \nof an almighty hand, as the creation of the world. Time \nallows us not to enlarge here beyond one or two remarks. \nWhen the word of God came to the prophet Jeremiah, a \nman of like passions with ourselves, "See," it was said to \nhim, "I have this day set thee over the nations, and over \nthe kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, \nand to throw down, and to plant and to build 5" so tremen- \ndous was the strength that dwelt in a prophet\'s tongue: \nyet was it not equal to that with which Christ has armed \nthe commissioned heralds of the gospel. "I give unto thee \nthe keys of the kingdom of heaven 5" "Whatsoever ye \nshall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatso- \never ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven 5" \n"Whosesover sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto \n\n\n\nSERMON. XXIX \n\nthem, and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained;" \n**Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every \ncreature, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, \nbut he that helieveth not shall be damned ," O when the \nvoice of the eva iio;elical ministry shall be honoured by the \nfull revelation of the power here given it by Christ, no \ncreature will be left in doubt whether that voice be their \nown, or His who called the world out of nothing and it \ncame. Then will be seen how truly Christ said, *\'He that \nheareth you, hearethme; and he that despiseth you, despis- \neth me: and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent \n\n\n\nThis also should be remembered,that the penalty of these \ndespisers though not immediate, does not slumber for a mo- \nment; neither is it slack in its approach as some count \nslackness. It is coming, as directly as the arrow to its \nmark; and when arrived it will be thought that light itself \nis not so swift. Nor are there wanting tokens of its ter- \nribleness and its haste. For God, still rich in mercy, \ngives much warning to rebellious men; bringing forth the \ncloud of his indignation as from afar, with his lightning \nplaying gently before it, that they may be without no in- \nducement to make their escape from the fury of the com- \ning storm. Since they contemptuously turn away their ears \nfrom his \'\'voice," he lifts up his menacing "rod," to alarm \nthem if possible out of their desperate stoutness. Revis- \nits them with corrective stripes: they are stricken, smit- \nten, and afflicted in their minds, in their persons, in their \nfamilies, in their connexions, in all their outward circum- \nstances; others are struck with death for their admonition; \nchild, lover, and friend, one, another, and then another, \nare known no more in the sphere of their social inter- \ncourse; and yet for all this his comminatory anger is not \nturned away, but his hand is stretched out still. Lo, all \nthese things worketh God oftentimes with man, to bring \n\n\n\nXXX SERMON, \n\nback his soul from the pit, to be enlightened with the light \nof the living. But when these methods of correction have \nfailed of their designed result, when men after proving \ntheir contempt on the voice of the Lord, refuse also to \nhear the rod, and who hath appointed it, God having en- \ndured these vessels of wrath, with so much long suffering \nwill hasten to show his wrath and make his power known \nin their everlasting destruction. \n\nBut there is one way whereby God sometimes reveals \nhis admonitive indignation against the refusers of his mer- \ncy, which though seldom so esteemed by them, is of all \nothers by far the most dreadful in the view of the man of \nwisdom^ and the event which has this day convened us \nmakes it specially proper to mention it. It is when God \nwithdraws his voice and appoints silence to instruct them: \nwhen he smites not them but his own ambassador^ and call- \ning his rejected witness home, leaves them only his grave \nand his dust to remind them of eternity. This is a kind \nof warning which almost no one lays to heartj and yet, in \nthe way of reproof, what could the Lord do more than this, \nto strike the rock of impenitency into contrition? \n\nIt were most ungracious to insinuate that the recal of that \nvery eminent man, who so long sounded out the "Lord\'s \nvoice" from this place, should be regarded as a judgment upon \nthe congregation; but this we may freely say, that every \nperson, "man of wisdom," or otherwise, who was accus- \ntomed to hear the word at his mouth, should not be unex- \nercised in deep thought and feeling, by that solemn act of a \nmost deep meaning Providence. Especially does it con- \ncern those of you who though his testimony is ended, re- \nmain yet in your sins, to ponder this, to you surely, serious \noccurrence. How often have you heard from him as he \nwas about closing a powerful argument against your unbe- \nlief, the tender premonition that his days were almost num- \n\n\n\nSERMON. XXXI \n\nbered: what he then said has come to pass^ and how so- \nberly does the fulfilment of his word in this instance warn \nyou, that though heaven and earth may pass away, nothing \nthat he ever spoke to you, *\'as the voice of the Lord," \nshall fail to be accomplished. He is not more certainly \ngone the way of all the earth, nor was it at all more cer- \ntain that he would go, than that what he has often told you \nout of the Scriptures respecting the final doom of the \nwicked, will be fulfilled in yourselves, if you do not re- \npent. \n\nBut, however bis removal should be interpreted in \nrespect to the flock of which he was specially the shep- \nherd, it reads a lesson to the church and the community \nat large, which nothing but the stupidity reprehended in \nthis discourse can misunderstand. When one of the \nfirst luminaries in ouriieaven disappears, shall the inhabi- \ntants of the land have no concern at the event? When \nElias is taken up, shall the cry be nowhere heard, \'\' My \nFather, my Father, the chariot of Israel and the horse- \nmen thereof." We shall not now venture to present a \ncharacter of this great man 5 which, whoever attempts, \nshould aim at an exactness of resemblance, such as when \nin water face answereth to face, lest, b}\' being confronted \nwith the very precise image which he has left of himself \nin your hearts, and in his works, it should be reproved as \nuntrue to so rare a specimen of God\'s handiwork. Our \nremarks concerning him, will be such only as may be \nprompted by an endeavor to enforce the instruction af- \nforded us by the Providence which has removed him.* \n\n* It may be well to record in this place, the following- biographi- \ncal particulars concerning- this disting-uished man. He was born \nFebruary 21st, 1769, at Lewes, in the state of Delaware. He was \ngraduated in the University of Pennsylvania, in 1788, He was \nadmitted to the bar, in Sussex county, Delaware, in 1790. He \n\n\n\nXXXU SERMON. \n\nWhile ministers of a certain class, possessing little in- \ntellectual furniture, besides a bare knowledge of the es- \nsential truths of the gospel, are, with warm spirits, with a \nmost exemplary zeal, and with much success, constantly \nemployed in applying those truths to the hearts of their \nfellow men, they are sometimes disposed to hold in too \nlittle esteem, the labors of those of their brethren, whose \ntaste, learning, and sense of duty, incline them to deep \nresearch into the principles of things, to careful analysis \nof complex subjects, to critical investigation, and minute \nexegesis of the sacred text, to elaborate inquiry into ec- \nclesiastical antiquities and the opinions and productions \nof early days, and to the knowledge and solution of all \ntlie most subtile objections that have at any time been \nurged by heretics and unbelievers, against the true Chris- \ntian faith; as if without such vast labors at the fountains \nof wisdom, these less curious divines could have been \nsupplied with some of those sweet streams, of which they \nare content to drink, without considering to whom next to \nGod they are most indebted for the privilege. When our \n\n\n\nwas licensed to preach the gospel in 1804, and, in the same year, \nwas ordained and installed as pastor over the united cong-rega- \ntions of Lewes, Coolspring, and Indian river. In 1806, he was \nadvised by the Presbytery of Lewes to accept the call of the First \nPresbyterian church in Philadelphia, to which he removed in the \nsame year. In May, 1828, he removed to his farm, about 20 miles \nfrom Philadelphia, on account of the infirm state of his health; \npreaching, nevertheless, to his congregation frequently as his \nhealth permitted. His resignation of his pastoral charge was ac- \ncepted in the spring of 1830. In the same season, he visited the \ncity, and preached for the last time to his people. He triumphant- \nly departed to heavenly rest, December 9th, 1830, at nine o\'clock \nin the evening, and was buried on the following Monday (Dec. \n13th) in a spot, selected by himself, in the grave-yard of the Nesha- \nmony church. \n\n\n\nSERMON, XXXlll \n\nfriend fell asleep, in what pulpit of this land, was a man \nto be found so enriched as himself, with the fruits of this \npatient, and, at this day, too unusual researches of mind ? \nOur ears never listened to a preacher whose common dis- \ncourses discovered as rich treasures of recondite learning. \nAnd what more surprised us than the extent and variety \nof his acquisitions, was the ease and simplicity, and nice \nexactness, with which, on all occasions, he used them. \nIn proportion to the depth and difficulty of his subjects, \nhis tongue was loosed and moved nimbly and trippingly, \nas in its favorite sphere, expressing the most subtle dis- \ntinctions and discriminations of thought^ pursuing the \nmost refined and complicate argumentations; collating, \ncriticising, paraphrasing. Scriptures hard to be under- \nstood; reciting out of ancient and uncommon books, his- \ntorical testimonies, and. statements of doctrine; without \nthe assistance of notes, and yet with a fluent precision and \nperspicuity of language which no such assistance could \nhave improved. \n\nAnother recollection of him, which deepens exceeding- \nly our sense of the loss we sustain by his departure, is, \nthat with his great elevation in other respects he united in \na rare degree what transcends all other excellence, and \nis the highest proof of true greatness, a catholic and chari- \ntable spirit. We never knew one who scrutinized more \nseverely the evidences of doctrine; and he was, conse- \nquently, when convinced, not liable to be soon shaken in \nmind; nor did he lightly esteem the truth which with so \nmuch diligence and honesty he liad acquired, or think it \nunimportant that others should be ignorant of it, much less \nthat they should pervert or falsify it. But his reading was \ntoo various, his observation too wide, his acquaintance with \nthe history of theological strifes too ample, his persuasion \ntoo lively, that the diflferences among religious parties are \n\n\n\nXXXIV SERMON. \n\nrather referable to a sectarian than a truth-seeking spirit, \nand while they anathematize one another, may be consis- \ntent with the existence, in some degree^, of real piety in \nboth, and their ultimate reconciliation in heaven \xe2\x80\x94 he was, \nin a word, too sound -minded and enlightened a man to be \na fierce champion of an ecclesiastical shibboleth, or to elimi- \nnate those whom he might suspect of having no readiness in \nframing to pronounce it right. He was among the wor- \nthiest of those ministers in our own denomination, who, \nespousing no side in our debates about orthodoxy, are will- \ning to let those debates proceed as long as they threaten \nno schism, but when that danger is seen, throw in their \ninfluence, as a balance wheel in a vast machine, whose \nmovement, without such a regulator, would presently \nstop with a terrific crash and damage. Such was the \nspirit of this high-souled manj and who of us can consider \nthe present state, might we not almost say, crisis, of af- \nfairs in our church, without sighing deeply in his spirit, \nthat the voice which he could raise, were he now in the \nmidst of us, is not to be heard again till time shall be no \nlonger. \n\nNor was it merely in his high place as a minister of \nChrist that he singularly honored his Master: he was dis- \ntinguished by simplicity as his disciple, not less than by \ngifts as his representative 5 and it is when these two exist \nin union, that they become worthy of admiration. What \na charm is there in gifts when simplicity exercises them; \nand how venerable is simplicity when it invests illustrious \ngifts. Never have we seen the person, in whom sim- \nplicity dwelt in an equal degree. Whether in his public \nministrations, or in private life, this great man was unas- \nsuming as a little child, claiming no distinctions above \nthe plainest individuals, and appearing to be conscious of \nno superiority to them in understanding and knowledge. \n\n\n\nSERMON. XXXV \n\nAnd such exemplifications of the Spirit of Christ are not \nso common amongst us that we shall suft\'er little by this \nprivation: How often does the church, not to say the \nworld, concede reputation for greatness, where it is no \nsooner received than it becomes manifest there was a mis- \ntake, by the immediate taking on of stateliness which it \noccasions? Such a transcendent instance of the reverse of \nthis w^eakness was not to be lowly rated by true judges of \nexcellence, and by them at least the loss of it will not \nbe unlamented. With such rare simplicity in such a \nman, it was unavoidable that other great virtues should be \nunited: in two of which especially, he was almost exces- \nsive. How did justice, as beaming from his example, re- \nbuke those inconsistent religionists, whoj^^by their pious, \nwould fain make atonement for their dishonest deeds; \nand how did his generosity, a kindred principle, put to \nshame those covetous professors who uphoard treasure for \nthemselves, as if orphans and widows, and the children \nof want, had ceased from among men. Time fails us to \nspeak of his other high excellencies; the strength and \ncalmness of his feeling, his gravity and cheerfulness; his \nease, pleasantness, and exhaustless resources in conver- \nsation; and his most exemplary manner of life in his fami- \nly. We shall leave his defects to be reported by those \nwho would remind us that human nature is imperfect; \nonly begging them, if they censure his excitability, and \nhis too great confinement at home, to imitate his noble- \nbleness in retraction; and to remember what an invalid \nhe was for the last twenty years, how open his door ever \nstood to visiters, and what a good use he made of re- \ntirement* It being our purpose by these remarks to \n\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Dr. Wilson\'s self-seclusion from company and society-meet- \nings should not be imitated, at least to the extent to which he prac- \n\n\n\nXXXVl SEHMON. \n\nstir and strengthen in our minds a just sense of the dis- \npensation which has taken him from us for ever, we choose \nrather to remember, to what a height of excellence he at- \ntained, than that he did not rise beyond it. \n\nIt does not alleviate the sadness of the event we \ndeplore, that it occurred not unexpectedly, but bj means \n\ntised it, by the g-enerallty of ministers of the gospel: he had rea- \nsons for retirement peculiar to himself; but the best and most \navailable kind of influence which a minister may exert, especially \nin a larg-e city, is, for the most part, we think, that which prayer \nand intense study, rather than free intercourse with mankind, and \nabundant parochial visiting", are -a.dapted to supply. With few \nexceptions, it may be questioned, whether ministers who are much \nabroad in the families of a city congreg-ation, not to say in other \n6ocial circles, do not receive more injury to themselves, in the loss \nof time, in discomposure of spirit, in dissipation of thought and feel- \ning, than is compensated by any benefit, obtained or imparted, in \nsuch discursive modes of pastoral activity. Where, indeed, the \nprivate conversation of ministers with their people, is like Paul\'s \npreaching "from house to house," \xe2\x80\x94 a succession of sermons ad- \ndressed to individuals or families, unspeakable good may be both \ncommunicated and received, and ministerial usefulness and in- \nfluence, and even power in the pulpit, be greatly promoted: But \nthe gifts of ministers must be very peculiar, or there must be an \nextraordinary state of religious feeling in their congregations, to \nadmit of regular parochial visitation being so conducted in such a \ncdty, for instance, as Philadelphia. At least, if much of this sort \nof work is indispensable to the success of the gospel, in our cities, \nthere should be more than one minister to a church; for certain it \nis, that the character and frequency of public preaching, the at- \ntention to benevolent societies, the attendance on funerals, and the \nvisitation of the sick, demanded of the ministers of city congrega- \ntions, in this day of unusual excitement and action, make full re- \nquisition on all their time, and form a burden of effort which few \nmen can long endure, without exhaustion and perhaps irreparable \nloss of health. \n\n\n\nSERMON. XXXVll \n\nof a very lingering illness which slowly enfeebled his \nframe, until it could no longer perform the least function \nof life. On his own account indeed we rejoice that the \ndays of his patient suffering are ended, but he had not yet \nnumbered three -score years and ten, and the force of his \nmind was never greater than at the moment of his expi- \nration. \n\nHe departed prematurely in the full strength of all his \nintellectual powers, and that disease should have so long \ninterfered with the use of those powersbefore his hour came, \nonly gave cause in a- less degree for the same grief which \nhis death more loudly calls for. But let us now cease from \nrecollections of what we have lost, whether by the in- \nfirmity of his years, or the too soon completion of them, \nto secure in our breasts, if possible, an indelible stamp of \nthe precious lesson of his dying conduct. \n\nHaving protracted his pastoral labors until his breath \nbecame almost too short for the purpose of continuous ut- \nterance, he reluctantly concluded, as he was wont to say \nto his friends, that his work for the church and his God \nwas done, and all that remained for him now was to pre- \npare for his change. And how seriously did he set him- \nself to that most momentous of all the undertakings that \nmortal men are concerned withj choosing as the scene of \nit, a country retreat, and there amid the quiet, for which \nhe always pined, ordering his conversation and reading, \nhis prayers and meditations, with constant reference to \nthe great event \xe2\x80\x94 whereby, while he established his own \nheart in the faith of the gospel, the hope of immortality, \nand confidence in the fullness of God\'s forgiving mercy, \nhe became so instinct with these divine themes, that with \nthe pen of a ready writer he indited for the edification of \nmankind a treatise on each of them. His favorite books \n\n4 \n\n\n\nXXXVlll SERMON. \n\nnow were those of the most spiritual and heavenly strain^ \nwhereof the Saint\'s Rest of Baxter was almost always \nfound with the Bible upon the stand beside him. Of that \nwork especially he would speak in strong terms of com- \nmendation, at the same time remarking, "there is no \nbook to be compared with the Bible, and if I might prefer \none part of that blessed book before others, I would say, I \nlove the Psalms the best; I can always find in them some- \nthing more expressive of my feelings than my own lan- \nguage." At the last communion-service of the church \nwithin whose bounds he resided, which was but a little \nwhile before his death, he took part in the distribution of \nthe sacred symbols, and in a manner which revealed his \nconsciousness that he should never so officiate again \xe2\x80\x94 \nsolemn from a sense of a near eternity and with a heart \nenlarged with the love of Christ and the hope of soon be- \ning with him \xe2\x80\x94 he addressed his fellow worshippers on the \ngreat things of their common faith, far be\'yond his strength. \nHis soul henceforth spread her wings for the world of \nrest. He said to a friend, *\' I have a strange difficulty, \nand you will perhaps think strangely of it, I am at loss \nwhat to pray for" \xe2\x80\x94 and added, in a most solemn tone and \nwith his eyes lifted to heaven, \'* God knows I am willing \nthat whatever he pleases shall be done." His triumph too \nover the fear of death was complete. " I have," said he, \n"been looking the case between God and myself, over \nand over and over again; and though I see enough to jus- \ntify God in casting me off a thousand times and more, my \nconviction of my interest in Christ is so firm, that I can- \nnot make myself afraid; the only thing I fear is, that I \nhave not fears enough." He remarked on the last Sab- \nbath evening of his life, "I am almost home, and I thank \nGod that I am- \xe2\x80\x94 I went astray from him, but in his rich \nmercy he brought me back. I am unworthy of the least \n\n\n\nSERMON. XXXIX \n\nof his mercies, and if I may lie down beside his footstool, \nor if he will even put me under it \xe2\x80\x94 I will take the very \nlowest place in heaven." He needed some refreshment, \nand when the cup was handed to him, he took it and said, \n"0 God bless this cup \xe2\x80\x94 I think I have a covenant right \nto it." A few hours before he died, he asked a brother \nin the ministry to pray for him, and specified this peti- \ntion, "Pray that God will do with me just as he pleases." \nMark the perfect man, and behold the upright; for the end \nof that man is peace! We. mourn for him, but not on his \nown behalf. Such a life, and such a death, to those who \nbelieve the Scriptures, are equivalent to an assurance from \nheaven, that he now shares the beatitude of that holy \nworld. We sorrow that he has left us, but not as those \nwho have no hope. "For if we believe that Jesus died \nand rose again, even so them also who sleep in Jesus will \nGod bring with him. For this we say unto you, by the \nword of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain to the \ncoming of the Lord, shall not prevent them who are asleep: \nFor the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a \nshout, with the voice of the arch-angel, and with the \ntrump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. \nThen we who are alive and remain, shall be caught up \ntogether with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the \nair, and so shall we be ever with the Lord. " \n\n\n\nPRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\n\n\nCHRISTIAN CHUHCHES, \n\n\n\ni>BOa\xc2\xa3 THE EARLIEST TESTiaiONT OF FACTS ; IX THE ORIGUTAI. \nWOBDS OF THE AlfCIEJfT "WRITIIN^GS, AND ESTAB- \nLISHED EX THE SACKED BECORDS. \n\n\n\nSECTION I. \n\nTlie ordinances and officers of the Gospel neither conventional, nor svhsequenf \nto inspiration. \xe2\x80\x94 Presbyter meant not different offices; but presbyter and bishop \nthe same commission. \xe2\x80\x94 The fathers credible for facts, their opinions unim.- \nportant, their silence presumptive proof \xe2\x80\x94 Barnabas and Hermas rejected. \nThe testimony of Clement of Rome weighed. \n\nForms of civil government are conventional, except \nwhere the social compact has been excluded by the \ndictation of power, or perverted by the stratagems of \nfraud. But in the kingdom of Christ, laws, ordinances, \nand offices are all prescribed and adjusted with pre- \ncision; innovation is disobedience; an unauthorised \noffice is insubordination and rebellion. The commis- \nsion and duties of the gospel-herald are spread upon \nthe same pages of that word which he is to preach ; \nthat he may know his own obligations, and the people, \nhow he is to be regarded. Offices erected in the \nchurch, after the removal of inspired men, are unlaw- \nful, whether in ancient or modern times. If such \n\nB \n\n\n\n2 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMEJVT \n\noffices can be justified on the conjectural ground of \nconvenience, so may ordinances, and we may " teach \nfor doctrines the commandments of men." Unity of \ndesign and operation, and especially the prevention of \nsinful competitions and disorder, justified presbyteries, \nin determining that one of their number should pre- \nside in their sessions, and in public w^orship. But for \nthe ordination of a presbyter, or the ordination of any \nas lay presbyters, v^ithout apostolical precept or ex- \nample, neither right nor power existed ; and every \nsuch unscriptural office v\\^as and is merely void. \n\nThat no such commission under that dispensation \nwhereof Christ was a minister, belongs to gospel \ntimes, will be conceded by those for whom I write ; \nand that the commissions of apostle and evangehst, \ngiven by him after his resurrection, for the planting \nof the churches, being obviously temporary, have ex- \npired, may be at present also assumed. Our purpose \nis to show from facts, what permanent offices at first \nexisted in every regularly constituted church ; that we \nmay ascertain whether the term presbyter, Hpscs^vlepo^, \nwas, among the first Christians, understood to desig- \nnate two offices, a preaching and ruling elder, or one \nonly, \xe2\x80\x94 whether the epithet ruling, Ttpoealus:, was so far \nfrom importing subordination, that it was adopted to \nsignify a presiding authority, \xe2\x80\x94 and whether becoming \npermanent at the close of the second century, this \noffice, founded on mere expediency, was more usually \nexpressed by the word sraaxorco^, bishop, common be- \nfore that period to all elders. If these things shall be \nmade clear, the assumption of the existence of two \noffices, couched under the same term, and constituted \nby ordination, but deemed to be distinct merely be- \ncause presbyters exercised a diversity of duties in \ntheir episcopal character,^ will be evinced to be mere- \nly gratuitous and unsupported. \n\nAlthough the opinions and practice of the fathers \n\na Phil, i, 1. Acts XX. 17\xe2\x80\x9428. Heb. xiii. 17. IPet. v. 1. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. \n\n\n\ncan have not the least authority to estabHsh any ofRce \nor doctrine, any prerogative or duty, not taught or \nexemphfied in the Sacred Scriptures, yet their under- \nstanding of the Scriptures, without superseding the \nduty of thinking for ourselves, is entitled to our re- \nspectful attention; and their testimony, where unper- \nverted, may prove that an office or order was in use \nin their times; or their silence may, under circum- \nstances, estabhsh, as far as a negative is capable of \nproof, that none such was then in existence. Where \nthe genuine w^ork of a pious father represents a doc- \ntrine, 01 an office to have been common, w^hen he \nwrote, his testimony is credible, that the thing, which \nhe asserts, was at least the fact as far as he knew. \nBut if the opinion of such father, or the practice of \nthe church in his day, must be admitted as authora- \ntively obligatory, though not founded on the word of \nGod, then indulgences can remove sin, and a w^afer \nbecome the body of Christ ! The utility of their testi- \nmony is compatible with the admission that most of \nthe Christian fathers, of whose writings w^e have any \nmore than fragments, have left melancholy proofs of \nweakness and error; the confficting opinions also of \ncouncils, equally disprove their infallibility. \n\nThe meaning of a law is often discoverable from \nthe first practice, w^hich obtained under it. If the \nruling elders, of which some modern divines have \ndreamed, were a grade of officers in every church, \nbetween preachers and deacons, such fact ought to \nappear in the early uninspired Christian writers. If \nit should not be discovered upon a fair investigation, \nthe silence of antiquity w411 be conclusive against the \nexistence of such an office. Those who inveigh \nagainst clerical aggrandizement, as a modern substi- \ntute for original simplicity, and denounce episcopal \npower as an unscriptural invasion of the privileges of \nthe pastoral office, ought never to plead expediency, \nwhen they degrade the presbyterial, which is the only \nepiscopaj order, by reducing presbyters to the stand- \n\n\n\n4 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\ning of deacons. The present appeal shall be to facts \nsupported by undeniable testimony. \n\nThe ancient miserable production, by many ascribed \nto Barnabas, but deemed spurious by Eusebius, has \nnot touched our subject. *\'The Pastor," supposed to \nhave been vv^ritten by Hermas, whom Paul mentions, \nwas certainly not earlier than the middle of the second \ncentury. A translation only has survived ; from this \nthe non-existence of the intermediate order might be \neasily argued; but our proofs shall be drawn only \nfrom books of indisputable genuineness. \n\nThe excellent Clement, whose name Paul pronounc- \ned to be in the book of life, is by the voice of anti- \nquity the author of a letter, which is the most, if not \nthe only credible uninspired Christian production of \nthe first century. Its caption purports a letter from \nthe church at Rome to the church at Corinth; the \ncontents are a persuasive and pious address, well de- \nsigned to produce submission to the government of \ntheir elders, whom they had rejected. There is not a \nhint in the letter, either of an individual bishop, or of \nsubordinate presbyters at Rome, Corinth, or else- \nwhere. Had there existed a superior officer at Co- \nrinth, this letter in defence of the presbyters must \nhave recognized his authority; had there been lay \nelders, the total silence of the letter on that point is \nwholly unaccountable. \n\nThat the elders, mentioned in this epistle, are of the \nsame order, appears continually : " Let the flock of \nChi^t enjoy peace, with its elders, }9pEsj5vlipcov, appointed \nover it :\'"* It is a shame that " the church of the Co- \nrinthians, on account of one or two individuals, should \nrise against their elders, npes^vlsfiov^ :"*^ " Our apostles \nknew from our Lord Jesus Christ, that contention \nwould arise about the honor of the oversight, sTtvaxoTtv^^. \nOn this account, having perfect foreknowledge, they \nconstituted those before mentioned; and they appoint- \n\nl> Chap, 54. c Chap. 47. \n\n\n\nor CHRISTIAN- CHURCHES. O \n\ned in succession, that when they should die, other ap- \nproved men should accept that sacred office. That \nthose should be ejected from their pubHc ministrations, \nwho were ordained by them, or afterwards by other \nexcellent men with the consent of the whole church, \nand w^ho have ministered blamelessly to the flock of \nChrist with humility, peacefulness, and intelligence, \nand with universal approbation for a long time, we \nthink to be unjust For it would be a great sin in us, \nif we should cast off those who have performed the \nfunctions of the episcopate, sTtcaxorcyj^, blamelessly and \nholily. Blessed are those elders, rtpsajSvlspoi, who have \nfinished their course, who have obtained their com- \nplete and happy discharge, for they have no fears, lest \nany shall remove them from the place assigned as a \nmansion to them."\'^ These elders held the episcopate ; \nwere the bishops, presbyters, or leaders^ of that \nchurch ; were in every instance named in the plural, \nand, beyond all question, ranked in the highest order \nof the ordinary officers of a Christian church. \n\nThe original organization of churches is particularly \nshown.*" The apostles, "preaching through regions \nand cities, %copa^ xao ttoxei^, set apart their first fruits, \nhaving proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and \ndeacons st^ sTtiaxortov^ xai dcaxovovc; of those w^ho should \nbelieve." Had the word presbyters been here substi- \ntuted for bishops, lay-elders might have been alleged \nto have been com-prehended ; but the word is not here \ngeneric ; nor can it be appellatively taken. The word \nset-apart, xaStdlavov, fixes upon it an official sense. Also \nthe expression ;ta\'7a x^?^? xo.t no%sv$ evince that the pres- \nbyters in the region of country, and in the cities, the \nchorepiscopi and episcopi; were at the first of one \ngrade, and the individuals of equal authority. The \nsupposition that either a superior, or an intermediate \ngrade of officers, is omitted in this enumeration, is not \n\nd Chap, 44. \n\ne Chap. 1. *\' vTroleta-a-ojiAivoi roie )iyov /unvote v/utaef." \n\nf Chap. 42. \n\nb2 \n\n\n\n6 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nmerely to charge the vrriter with a careless inattention \nto an important fact, but to impeach his veracity ; for \nif the first converts were set apart to three orders, \nthey v^ere not to two, for a portion of them constituted \na third. That his language was designedly exclusive, \nappears also from his justification of this apostolical \ntwo-fold distribution, by a passage in Isaiah ; " I will \nconstitute their bishops in righteousness, and their \ndeacons in faith."^ Thus does this letter positively \naffirm to the church at Corinth, that their presbyters, \nwhose government they had renounced, were all \nbishops, iTiidxoTiov^^ both by apostolic ordination, and \nprophetic authority. Should any allege, that this \nprophecy was misunderstood, our argument is still \nsafe, because the opinion of the writer is clear, and \nhe must have given the officers of a Christian church, \nas they then existed. Thus nothing can be more evi- \ndent than that this letter, which, above all other unin- \nspired productions, is of the highest authority, and at \nthe earliest period, being prior to the Revelation of \nJohn, does use rt^ic^vl^^o^ and envoxoTio^ for the same \norder and office, and allows them but one ordination \nonly ; and, as it is in the face of those lordly powers, \nwhich bishops afterwards claimed, jure divino, over \npresbyters ; so it is a standing and perpetual testimo- \nny against those, who would degrade the office of the \npresbyter, to the mute ministrations of a modern ruling \nelder; which is but another name for a deacon, and \nin a large proportion of the American Presbyterian \nchurches, (whose opinion on this point has been pro- \ntected by all their successive forms of government, \xe2\x80\x94 \nhis ordination, charge, authority, and duties being the \nsame,) no other deacon exists. \n\ne Isaiah Ix. 17. mpa he renders gcr/jritoTreyf, and d>B\'Jj //AJtorcvc \n\n\n\nSECTION II. \n\nThe testimony of the Scriptures heing postponed, till the facts and primitive \nusage of the churches have been shown; the letter of Polycarp is examined. \n\xe2\x80\x94 According to Clement and Polycarp, at Rome, Corinth, Smyrna, and Phi- \nlippi, no officer was superior to the presbyter, and no presbyter a layman. \xe2\x80\x94 \nPapias accords with the same representation, that\' a presbyter, appellatively \nan elder, was the only ordinary teacher, and without a superior. \n\nAfter the credible uninspired evidence of the first \ncentury, the testimonies of the second, may be con- \ndensed into three periods. In the first period are dis- \ncovered, except forgeries, but two witnesses, Polycarp \nand Papias. \n\nThe venerable "apostolical presbyter" Polycarp, \nwhose letter is common, derived his first religious \nknowledge from the apostles: and was "in the church \nat Smyrna," probably, t\\iQ presiding zi^ozdlc^?, presbyter, \n"bishop," or angel.* This epistle, unquestionably \ngenuine, was wTitten to the church at Phihppi, near \nthe comm.encement of the second century, w^e suppose \nabout A. D. 116, and more than fifty years before his \nmartyrdom. Read publicly in the churches in Asia, \nso late as the fourth century,^ it w^as too generally \nknown, to be removed, or successfully interpolated; \nits simplicity too undisguised and evangelical, to en- \ncourage imitation. \n\nA single letter from each of those apostolical men, \nClement and Polycarp has rescued their testimonies \nfrom the frauds of designing ecclesiastics. The for- \nmer was saved by a single copy. Had a genuine let- \nter of the pious Ignatius, in like manner escaped, it \nwould have confounded those Arian and Athanasian \n\n\n\n\xe2\x80\x94 \xe2\x80\xa2\xe2\x99\xa6\xc2\xaby T\xc2\xbb 2,\xc2\xabt;gv\xc2\xab iKKKrto-ia. t7ri!Tx.o\'7r(^ .*\'\' IrenseUS, \nb **usque hodie/\' Hieronym. \n\n\n\n8 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nproductions, too credulously ascribed to him,andv\\^hich \nare the corner-stone of that system, w^hich partaking \nof the Jewish and Pagan hierarchies, is equally hostile \nboth to the rigl^ts of God and man. \n\nThis precious relic of ancient times begins, in a man- \nner altogether becoming the character of its excellent \nand pious author; "Polycarp and the presbyters with \nhim, to the church of God dwelHng at Philippi, mercy \nto you, and peace be multiplied from God Almighty, \nand the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.\'"^ The \nomission of his official name, has been made an argu- \nment of superiority. He was neither an apostle, nor an \nevangelist. In a particular church, no office more \nelevated than that of a presbyter, has yet appeared. \nHis silence, though precisely that, which might be ex- \npected from the saint, had he been even Patriarch or \nArchbishop, names then unknown in the Christian \nchurch, can never establish the existence of a non-en- \ntity. Neither the title angel nor cipo\xc2\xa3(y7cos\', if such he \nwas, which is probable, nor any consequent duty or \nhonor, rendered him more than a presbyter. Not a \nword have we yet found, nor shall we in this letter dis- \ncover any thing, that bears even a semblance of a \nproof of any diversity of grade, in the ordinary preach- \ning office, the possessor of which as yet, was indiscri- \nminately denominated presbyter and bishop. The \nflfw ouvtco^ Ttp\xc2\xa36j3vlEpocipresbyters with him, mSiy import equal- \nity, or locality; but it seems rather to denote a union, \nin design and action. If it be asked, why then was his \nname expressed? Because he wrote the letter, which is \nthroughout in the first person singular. Thus Paul \nand Timotheus are joined in the introduction of the \ninspired letter to the same church; but the third verse \nis in the first person singular, and the letter was Paul\'s \nThis introduction can neither prove parity, nor dispa- \nrity, in the office of Polycarp and the presbyters with \nhim; yet it is not improbable, that his grace, talents, cha- \n\nc noxwxagcro? nxl oi <rvv Avra Tr^io-Cvrt^ot, th ixKKhTlA tJ 0t\xc2\xab \nT\xc2\xbb <w\xc2\xabgovjtoi/cr\xc2\xbb <Jfi\\i7r7rot( x. t. a.. \n\n\n\nor CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 9 \n\nracter, seniority in office, and even their personal know- \nledge of him, may have conduced, with the fact that \nhe composed the letter, to his naming himself in it to the \nPhilippians. If Polycarp was the only elder, "who la- \nboured in word and doctrine," and the other presby- \nters were laymen, ordained in the same, and that the \nonly mode, to govern and rule; why were the deacons \nomitted? That such there were, appears from the let- \nter itself. This omission of deacons and association \nof Polycarp with presbyters, is at least a probable \nfoundation for the supposition that he was himself a \npresbyter, a name expressly given him in the writings \nof Irenaeus who remembered him, but whose account \nof him, being later testimony, must be left for future \nexamination. This probabihty corroborated by the \ncircumstance that no ordinary preaching officer ex- \ncept the presbyter has appeared in any testimony prior \nto this period, is all that can reasonably be expected on \nthe point. As every presbyter was hitherto a bishop, \nif any were laymen, they were of course, lay-bishops. \nIf Polycarp was as we have supposed a aposalco^, or \np-esiding bishop, he had the only preaching office, and \nthe highest standing then known in the church; unless \nany of the Evangelists yet survived, of which we know \nnot any testimony. If he was the angel of the church \nof Smyrna, mentioned in the Apocalypse, as some \nimagine he was, it is fair to presume that he was of \nthe same grade with the angels in the other Asiatic \nchurches, w^ho w^ere consequently not superior to that \nof the presbyter or bishop; but if angel was a higher \noffice, it was a wandering star, that has come and gone \nwithout leaving a trace behind. Every talent must \nrender its account, and the personal influence of every \ncpofcfTcos-, presiding elder, or bishop carried with it, its \nown responsibleness. Neither Clement, nor Polycarp \nhas recognised, either a superior authority, or an as- \nsignment of duty more arduous, in aruy one presbyter \nof a church, than in another. The latter mentions \nonly presbyters and deacons at Philippi; Paul directs \n\n\n\n10 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nonly to bishops and deacons there.*^ Each naming \ntwo orders only, if Paul omitted presbyters and Poly- \ncarp bishops, the defect is equally unaccountable; but \nif they respectively wrote to the same class, by those \ndifferent names, they were both consistent with the \nconstant usage of those days; and the conclusion is \ninevitable, that at neither period were they laymen. \nThe advice of Polycarp to the church at Philippi to be \nsubject to the presbyters and deacons,*^ would have \nbeen a misdirection, if the bishops to whom Paul wrote \nwere different persons, and then surviving. That some \nof them remained is probable, because Polycarp, as ap- \npears by this letter, was Hving at both periods, and \nsurvived the latter, we presume forty or fifty years. \nIf the terms presbyter and bishop were promiscuously \nused to denote the same office, at the beginning of the \nsecond century, which is satisfactorily clear; such was \nthat of Polycarp; and if those presbyters were lay- \nmen, it is evinced, contrary to all belief, that he was \nno other. But hitherto for the existence of a lay pres- \nbyter, we have found not a word, sentiment, or impli- \ncation. His profession of sorrow on account of Va- \nlens, who had been "wa^e a presbyter" with them slI \nsome period,*" and afterwards lapsed into error, de- \ntermines the word presbyter to its official, not an ap- \npellative meaning. The admission of the judicial au- \nthority of those presbyters over their co-presbyter \nValens, is not merely a renunciation of authority in \nthe writer, but a proof, that the cognizance of the \n\n\n\nd Phllipp. Ch. i. V. 1. \n\ne ^\'uTroTAo-a-cijUivovc To/f /w^ar^uli^otc kai Jisacovots. \n\n*" Three paragraphs are here supplied by the Latin translation, \n**Nimis contristatLis sum pro Valente qui presbyter factus est ali- \nquando apud vos, quod sic ig-noret is locum, qui datus est ei," Sec. \nHow and by whom he had been made a presbyter is not shown. \n"But factus est implies a passiveness on his part. He was probably \nmade a presbyter by imposition of hands, [^^^ei^oQia-ta.\'] and the office \nhaving been given [datus] to him, [apud] ivitk the Philippians, it \nWas, we suppose by election [;:^s/\xc2\xa3otov/*-] Anarg-ument, neverthe- \nkss, must not be founded upon the uncertain basis of a translation. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 11 \n\ncause lay not in their itfpojcy?^;^, presiding presbyter, if \nthey had one. There is a mischievous tendency to \npersonal conflicts and confusion, implied in the suppo- \nsition, that one presbyter should be amenable to ano- \nther as an individual officer in equal degree. The pe- \ntition that he should not be treated as an enemy, is ad- \ndressed to the presbyters as such; the power of, the \npresbyters in council, or presbytery is therefore in this \ninstance plainly imphed. But if every member of the \nchurch at Philippi, should be understood to have been \nthus advised with respect to Valens, then the congre- \ngation, as such, was supposed to possess the power of \ncensure and restoration. By neither interpretation is \nthere the least possible ground, to imagine a disparity \namong presbyters, by a diversity of order, or a differ- \nence of ordinations. \n\nClement and Polycarp, were co-temporaries and \nsurvivors of the apostles; their representations are en- \ntitled to the highest credit, and deserve to be received, \nas unprejudiced exhibitions of apostolical practice, \nprior to the corruptions introduced by clerical ambi- \ntion. Successors of, but not apostles; presbyters in \nconfessed parity wdth their co-presbyters; exalted only \nby superior knowledge, grace, talents, usefulness, and \nhumility; they must, we suppose, have presided in the \nchurches at Rome and Smyrna, but merely as *po\xc2\xa3ff7oT\'fs\', \nfor other precedence in the officers of a church, does \nnot as yet appear. Among presbyters, they have in- \ntimated no diversity of order, degree, ordination, or \npower. Every presbyter w^as, by his commission, \nequally set over and bound to feed and govern the \nflock.^ Their authority was from the word of God. \nThe apostles could transfer none from themselves; \nthey delegated no power ; as servants of Christ they \nselected those, who appeared to be best qualified to ex- \nercise the offices necessary in a church. By imposing \n\nE TTgOlS-lA/UliVOi, 1 TheSS. V. 12. (arClfjl.(ttVitV SV Z {jSrOtfJ.VlU^ llf^OLi \n\nTO tJTVtvy.xTO aytov eS-g7o iTri^KCTrag. Ac.xx.17, 28. \xe2\x80\x94 nyov/utvn, Heb. \n\nxii.r. \n\n\n\n12 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\ntheir hands, no virtue proceeded from them; they pray- \ned, that his spirit might rest upon the person, and gave \nin charge to the people the relation they should stand \nin to him> and the Holy Spirit confirmed by his gifts, \nthe office thus derived from the head of the church. \nThe ordainer could neither enlarge, nor abridge the \npovi^er incident to the office. Whatever misconstruc- \ntions of the presbyterial office, have obtained ; it is, \nand always will be, the highest ordinary office in a \nChristian church; and no presbyter, who is officially \nsuch, can be less than a bishop and authorised to in- \nstruct, govern, administer ordinances, and ordain, at \nleast, conjunctly with his co-presbyters of the same \npresbytery, or council. Not a single word, fact, or even \ncircumstance has occurred in the testimony, prior to \nthe year one hundred and sixteen, adverse to these po- \nsitions. From all that can be collected from the letter \nof Polycarp, and also from that of Clement, there exist- \ned not at Rome, Corinth, Smyrna, Philippi or elsewhere, \nany office superior to that of presbyter, nor a presbyter \ninferior to the clerical office. No canonical, or re-or- \ndination is heard of till long after this period. Thus \nfar not a tittle of proof has appeared to justify either \nthe opinion of those, who would elevate the viposaldls^, \nruling elders, to a superior order; or of those, who \nwould depress them to a grade inferior to that of the \nelders who laboured in word and doctrine. The practice \nof the four churches, concerned in the two letters \nmentioned, may be supposed to have afforded at that \ntime, a fair sample of all others. What errors sprang \nup in the Christian societies after the period of this \nletter, and within the protracted life of this holy man, \nin relation to officers and government, must be defer- \nred at present. The successful discriminatiojii of \nchanges forbids all anticipations, except what are in \nsupport of the genuineness and ci\'edibihty of the evi- \ndence adduced. The account given of Polycarp by his \nchurch, if credible, is therefore of future consideration; \nand the testimonies of him by Irenseus, though deemed \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 13 \n\na cotemporary, are at the distance of almost a cen- \ntury from the time, towards which our inquiries have \nbeen directed, and may perhaps appear, when exam- \nined, somewhat accommodated to later views and cir- \ncumstances. \n\nPapias, who flourished about the period of Polycarp\'s \nletter, has been called his companion; but resided at \nHierapolis.^ He wrote several books, which have \nperished : except a fragment, which may be translated \nthus: " I shall esteem it no labour to set in order be- \nfore you, the things I have rightly learned from the \nelders, (viapa tiovcpsajSvlspcov,) a.ndwe\\l remember, and \nshall confirm their truth by my explanations. For I \nam not, like the most, pleased with those, who say \nmatiy things, but with such as teach the truth: nor with \npersons, who relate injunctions, which are unusual; \nbut with such as speak those things, which were by \nthe Lord deUvered to faith, and which proceed from \nthe truth itself. If, on any occasion, some one came \nwho had been a companion with those of former \ntimes, {vi^eGjSvls^oog,) I inquired lor the words of the el- \nders {a^aGevlt^cov;) what Andrew and what Peter might \nhave said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James; \nor what John or Matthew, or what any other of the \ndisciples, /xaOriluv of the Lord; and what things Aris- \ntion, and John the presbyter [Ttpsa^vlepog,) and the dis- \nciples [fiaSritav^) of the Lord are teaching (T-syovcrt). \nFor the things which I received from books, did not so \nmuch profit me, as those from a voice living and pre- \nsent."\\ \n\nIrenseus says, he was a hearer, (axorcrVi^s\',) of John \nthe apostle : which appears doubtful from the frag- \nment. Nicephorus accounts him to have lived an \napostolic life. Eusebius deemed him a man of cre- \ndulity, but of veracity; he has not only given the above \nquotation, but confirmed it, by asserting the existence, \nin his day, of two monuments at Ephesus, of John the \n\nK Col. Iv. 13. \n\ni Euseb. lib. iii. c. 39. Nicephor. lib. iii.. c, 20, \n\nC \n\n\n\n14 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERjVMENT \n\napostle and John the presbyter. He styles him the \nbishop of Hierapolis, ev tspaTio^Eo \xe2\x80\x94 srticxorcog.^ The title \nof bishop given to men of the first and second centu- \nries, by those of later times, is no argument of clerical \ndisparity at the former period, when the word bore a \ndifferent sense. This sophism is often played off, by \npresenting catalogues of ancient bishops made for a \ndifferent purpose; its seeming force springing wholly \nfrom modern associations. That Papias was a bishop \nin the sense of Eusebius and Nicephorus is destitute \nof proof; he has discovered no regard to clerical ti- \ntles, desirous only of the truth, and with a simplicity \nalmost peculiar to the days of primitive purity, he de- \nnominates the apostles themselvesbut seniors taps aj^vlt pot,, \nin the gospel. That this word was intended by him \nappellatively and that the apostles were consequently \nnamed without a title, appears from his attributing \ndpe^^vlspo^ to the younger John in its official sense to \ndistinguish him from the beloved disciple. Eusebius, \nenforcing the same discrimination, denominates the \napostle an evangelist eva^yeus\'t\'yic: , the younger John a \npresbyter; the one being a preacher unto the world, \nthe other a presbyter of a particular church, not a \nlayman, for he was a teacher of Papias whom Euse- \nbius styles bishop of Hierapolis. \n\nThus does it appear, that apostle, evangelist, presby- \nter, and for the same reason, bishop, were anciently \nused according to the forces of the terms, and also \npredicated respectively in their official senses. John \nwas an apostle by commission, in his labours an evan- \ngelist, and an elder by age. The younger John was \nan elder, not, at least comparatively, in age, but by \noffice. James was an apostle by his commission, ap- \npellatively an elder and bishop; it being expedient, \nthat he should maintain a continued oversight in the \nchurch at Jerusalem. Timothy was by office an evan- \ngelist, yet was occupied for a time in the oversight of \nthe church at Ephesus. Every officer in advanced \n\nk Valesius, the annotator, supposes this to be an interpolation. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 15 \n\nage was an elder; and every one, but the deacon, was \na bishop. In the fragment of Papias, nothing appears \ncontrary to the simph\'city of the Scriptures; but what- \never can be ehcited from it, accords with the condition \nof the primitive churches in the first part of the se- \ncond century. Clement in the first has decided in lan- \nguage, affirmative and exclusive, for two offices in a par- \nticular church; according to Polycarp and Papias, who \nare the only witnesses known to us, in the first part of \nthe second century, the offices were the same. Every \nthing, therefore, hitherto, exhibits the office of elder, \nin a particular church, as the only ordinary teacher, \nequally without superiority and inferiority. \n\n\n\nSECTION III. \n\nThe representations of Justin Martyr not only respectable for his learning and \ncharacter, hut disinterested. \xe2\x80\x94 The ruling elder Trposaluc blesses the eucha- \nHstic elements, and the deacons carry them to the communicants. \xe2\x80\x94 This \ntestimony is that of a martyr, given to the emperor, in behalf of Christendom, \nand renewed in a second apology. \xe2\x80\x94 The Trpoio-laxr among the Ephori held \nthe same grade, as the rest. \xe2\x80\x94 The letter of the church of Smyrna. \xe2\x80\x94 The \nfragments of Hegesippus. \xe2\x80\x94 The Trpoea-lcex or primus presbyter, wcls at an \nearly period distinguished by the name i7ricrx,o7ros at first common to all \npresbyters. \n\nDid there exist in the middle of the second century, \nmore than two kinds of officers ? or were elders then \nof different kinds? These must be our inquiries in \nthis section. Polycarp was now in extreme old age ; \nIrenaeus, a youth ; Athenagoras, Melito, and Theophi- \nlus of Antioch, commencing public life; and Justin \nMartyr, a Gentile, but Christian philosopher, standing \nbut to fall in the front of the battle. He, our almost \nsolitary witness for this period, received his Greek \neducation at Alexandria, in Egypt, and was succes- \nsively a Stoic, Peripatetic, and Platonist. Occupied \nin contemplation in a place of retirement near the \nshore of the sea, he was abruptly encountered, and \neffectually vanquished by an aged Christian. The in- \nteresting and ingenious arguments are detailed in his \ndialogue with Trypho. Left to his own reflections, \nfavored with no other interview, wounded by the ar- \nrow of conviction, he sought and found his cure in \nChristianity, the only true philosophy. Mingling his \nold attachments with evangelic charity, he indulged \nthe hope, that Socrates and others had also imbibed, \nat least, the spirit of the Gospel, in a humble degree. \n\nRetaining the habit, he exhibited a singular specta- \ncle, a philosopher bleeding in the cause of Christ.* \n\n\xc2\xbb iv pw/x\xc2\xbb <pixoa-o<^e6V kaI roic xoyoK Kctl Ttfi^ta kai rceO\'^nfJt.et.rt.\'-^ \nPhotius, 303. \n\n\n\nor CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 17 \n\nThe opinions of one, never an ecclesiastic, must \nhave been viewed with less prejudice. Familiar with \nmen of science, the influence of his character on those \nin power, rendered him important to the suffering \ncause. His conversion we place at A. D. 132, and his \nmartyrdom at 163, without danger of material error. \nIn his dialogue he mentions his apology. The pas- \nsage is found in that, which has been placed last, but \nwas the first. This appeal to the understanding, and \nfeelings of the discreet, but mistaken, Antoninus Pius, \nA. D. 140, whilst the blood of those, whom it defended, \nwas flowing under a merciless persecution, procured \na temporary respite. \n\nIn his description of public worship,^ after men- \ntioning prayers and the fraternal salutation, he says \xe2\x80\x94 \n" There is brought to him who presides over the \nbrethren, to Ttposatoao tw a^t-k^av, bread and a cup of \nwater, and wine, and he, taking them olfers up praise \nand glory to the Father of the universe, through the \nname of the Son and the Holy Ghost, and renders \nthanks for these, his gifts. At the close of his petition \nand thanksgivings, all the people present say Amen ; \nwhich, in the Hebrew language, signifies may it be so. \nAnd he who presides, having given thanks, ^vxai^iLdcweos \nSs tov TtpoeGTfcoTfo^, and the whole assembly having ex- \npressed their assent, they who are called among us \ndeacons, Siaxovot, distribute the bread, and the wine \nand water, to each of those who are present, to par- \ntake of that which has been blessed. Also they carry \nto those who are not present." \n\nHis birth in Samaria, the natural acumen of his un- \nderstanding, his philosophical education at Alexan- \ndria, Christian instruction, through eight years, in \nprovincial Asia, and religious associations at Rome, \nare pledges, that Justin knew the forms of Christian \nworship. His piety, character, and death, secure to \nhis testimony the claim of indefectible veracity. The \nhigh ground which he assumed, as the advocate of \n\nb 2 Apolog, 97. Oxford edition. 1 Apol. 127. \n\nc* \n\n\n\n18 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nthe whole proscribed church, before the Emperor and \nSenate of the civiUzed vi^orld, rendered every word a \nmatter of life and death, and required absolute verity. \nUnder all these appalling circumstances he testifies \nthat two orders only officiated, a president, TtpoeaTfa^, \nwho taught, prayed, and administered the eucharist, \nand deacons, who distributed the symbolical elements. \nLay-elders are not named, but there is an express \nassignation to deacons of the work now thought by \nsome to belong peculiarly and exclusively to them ; \na violent presumption that there were no such officers. \n\nThe same word Ttpos^tus;, ruling elder, deemed the \nprincipal and almost solitary scriptural proof of \nthis lay order, is here the clerical character. If Paul \nmeant by it a lay presbyter, it is strange that, in forty \nyears from John\'s death, the ruling elder TtpoES\'tio^ has \nbecome, throughout the church, the presiding officer \nin every charge \xe2\x80\x94 the mouth of the people unto God ; \nand standing in the place of Jesus Christ, takes, blesses, \nand administers the memorials of his body and blood, \ndevolving his own original employment, if a lay elder, \nupon deacons who had been solemnly ordained, to feed \nthe poor. \n\nIf the " brethren" aBs-k^iov over whom he presided \nwere the people, his authority may be referred to \nhis office as presbyter ; if they were his co-presbyters, \nor bishops, for such existed in all the churches, and \nhave appeared in those of Smyrna, of Philippi, Co- \nrinth, and Rome, he was that primus inter pares, who \nfrom necessity exists in all presbyteries, councils, \nassemblies, and other public bodies. Among presby- \nters the presidency rested not on ordination, but a \nvoluntary concession, by reason of seniority, talents, \ngrace, or influence. ^HiaxoTto^ is a word of stronger \nimport : the ?t^o\xc2\xa3tfT\'cos\' far from having the oversight of \nhis coprcsbyters, retained only the first standing in the \nsame order. If according to those suppositions letters \ntoo zealously attributed to the venerable Ignatius, the \nsrtKjxoTtos\' had presided in every church, Justin must \nc 1 Tim.v,3. 17. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 19 \n\nhave known it, and used the term, or have been justly \nchargeable with misrepresentation. But the term, \nbishop, being equally applicable to every presbyter, as \nhaving the oversight of the flock, could not have dis- \ntinguished the presiding bishop from his brethren, at \nwhose head he had been placed by common consent, \nfor reasons founded in utility. In the same apology, \nprecious to the ancient Christians for its timely aid in \na season of extreme suffering, it is again published to \nthe world, that, " upon that, which is called the day \nof the Sun, there is an assembling together of all of the \nrespective cities, or residing in the country ; and the \nrecollections of the apostles, and the writings of all the \nprophets are read, as long as time permits ; when the \nreader has ceased, he who presides, o Tt^osaTfa^ by a \ndiscourse, 5ta xoyov, admonishes and exhorts, to the \nimitation of things that are good. We then all rise \nup together, and offer prayer, and as already men- \ntioned, when the prayer is ended, bread is brought, \nand wine and water. And he who has the Jirst place, \ne Tt^oeatoi^, again prays and gives thanks, according to \nhis ability, harj bwaixcg avtco, and the people add their \napprobation, saying, Amen. And a distribution and \ndelivery of the things, upon which thanks have been \ngiven, are made to all, and sent to those who are ab- \nsent, by the deacons.\'"^ He then speaks of the lift- \ning of a collection for widows, orphans, prisoners, \nand strangers, \xe2\x80\x94 ^which is deposited ?tapa to) jt^oE^Tfcoti, \nwith the presideiit. \n\nHad error obtained in the former description of \nworship, Justin would probably have discovered \nit in his second effort. If a martyr for the truth, \nwhich he records, is not worthy of credit, sincerity \ncan offer no higher pledge. He has a second time \ndescribed the officers of a Christian church, employed \nin the most solemn act of public worship, the euchar- \nist, and again he has said they w^ere the TtpoECT-ws\' sciL \nft^eojSvtspog, presidijig elder, and the Biaxovoi, deacons. \n\nIt were weakness to expect him to deny the exist- \n\nd 2 Apolog-. 99, Oxford edit. ?. Apol. 13, 12. \n\n\n\n20 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nence of lay presbyters, an order which had then never \nbeen named, or, as we suppose, thought of. The \nreader of the lessons may have been a copresbyter, \nor any well taught member of the Church. The pre- \nsiding presbyter expounded and applied the lesson \norally ; his prayers were also unwritten, because " ac- \ncording to his ability ;" and he alone administered the \neucharist, the deacons distributing the symbols to the \npeople. The word Ttposa\'ta^ being a participle, and \nwritten without its noun, determines only an order, of \nwhich this person stood first. Every Christian knew \nrtpscjjSii\'T\'fpos\', elder, was intended; and other readers from \nthe force of the term, must have understood, from its \napphcation to Archons and Ephori, that an order, \necclesiastic and peculiar to a single worshipping as- \nsembly was meant. \n\nThis history establishes the fact, that the elder, who \nruled, Tipta^vtspo^ it^osrsti^^, was the same who laboured \nin word xokk^v sv xoyw^ and that ruling should be \nunderstood not of inferior duties, but of the presi- \ndency. \n\nIn the writings of Clement, and Polycarp, it has \nappeared, that a plurality of presbyters, or bishops, \nexisted at Ephesus, Philippi, Corinth, and Rome; and \nthat these, with the deacons, were their only officers. \nIn every regularly constituted church, the same or- \nders appear, by the New Testament, to have been \nordained. No instance has hitherto occurred of the \nerection of an office, or order, of higher authority, \nthan that of presbyters, or bishops ; nor does there as \nyet, appear among them any disparity. One only in \nevery church was the Ttpos^-tai^, either designated by \nhis copresbyters, or by the society. It would have \nbeen improper for Justin, in his description of the pub- \nlic eucharistic service, to have mentioned those pres- \n\ne 1 Tim. v. 17. Thus the Apostle Paul, also in 1 Thesal. v. \n12, by the word lahuuring roue KOTrtcovTit; in the word, and set over, \nKttt TTpo^Toi/uivouf, thc chui\'ch at Thessalonica, and admonishing \nthem, Kctt vovBsTovn;, evidently means the same persons and pres- \nbyters, as appears by the omission of the article after the conjunc- \ntion, before the latter epithets. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 21 \n\nbyters, who, for the time present, acted no other part, \nthan merely to partake with the people. Neither did \nthe distinctive name describe, nor the work of him \nwho presided, prove him to be of a superior order. \nAlthough Tt^ofcTT^cos\' was used among the Lacedoemo- \nnians, for one of the Ephori, yet they possessed an \nequality of power and grade. Annually elected by \nthe people, they held the supreme authority, could \nsummon before them, charge and pass judgment upon \nthe king himself. \'J\'he 7i^os6t<^^ of the presbyters or \nbishops of a church, w^orshipping at the same time, in \ndifferent places, in a city, was the nearest approach to \ndiocesan episcopacy. Yet the term, by which he was \ndistinguished from the other presbyters, being the \nvery same that was used for the president of the moral \ncensors of Sparta, who were of equal degree; and \nthe term npo^Gtoig, by its own force, implying no more \nthan the first place or station, and not a diversity in \nthe kind of office, it was discovered by rising ambi- \ntion, to be necessary to abandon the word, and adopt, \nas W\'C shall soon find, the word z7ii6xo7io^ when a fur- \nther distinction was intended. Neither was the rfpof tfi\'^s\' \nof the Ephori clothed with the power of a dictator ; \nnor his colleagues in office reduced to the condition of \nsubordinate, anrl merely dependent counsellors. In \nlike manner the Ttpofcrcos- of presbyters was by no \nmeans vested with the sole power of ordaining and \ndeciding, nor w^ere his copresbyters in any church \nselected, merely to advise, or execute. \n\nThe letter of the church at Smyrna, descriptive of \nthe death of Polycarp, if genuine, falls into the middle \npart of this century. Pionius, as appears by its post- \nscript, obtained it by a revelation made to him by \nPolycarp, long after his death. It represents that the \nmartyr had a vision, by w^hich he was preadmonished \nof his martyrdom by fire ; that he was apprehended \non Friday, brought on an ass to the city ; that he was \naccosted when coming to the place of suffering by a \nvoice from heaven; that, by a wonderful miracle, the \nflame encompassed him in a hollow circle and his \n\n\n\nS^ THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMEN^T \n\nbody could not be burned, but afterwards was wound- \ned, and was, when dead, consumed by fire ; that an \nodour ascended like frankincense and rich spices ; that \nbeing pierced with a lance, a dove escaped, and the \nblood extinguished the fire. The pious and venerable \nPolycarp, in extreme old age, suffered martyrdom \nabout the middle of the second century. Of this no \none doubts ; and that many of the sorrowful circum- \nstances of it, may have been embodied in this won- \ndrous letter, is possible ; but how much of it is true, \nmust be submitted to ^sf^xy reader. Those who will \ncompare that which is supposed to be the letter itself, \nwith Eusebius, will see that even where he professes \nto give the words, he omitSy interpolates, changes and \nmangles the letter, in a manner suited to destroy all \nconfidence in the representations of Constantine\'s \nfavored historian. The letter we believe, never \nmentions either the word presbyter or deacon. It \npurports to have been written by one church unto \nanother, omitting the officers of both. In it the word \n\nbishop once occurs yEW/ifvos- f7tK?:>c07tos\' t\'e tv^ tv \'%y.v^\\\'fk \n\nxaeo%ixrj^ \xc2\xa3xx%rj6Las:- " Being a bishop of the Catholic \nchurch in Smyrna." That Polycarp was a presbyter, \nthat every presbyter was a bishop, and that a plurali- \nty of this nrflp\xc2\xbbr oxietod. in o^-orj- chureh, hfivfi been \n\nshown. We have also already ventured the supposi- \ntion that he was a TtpofSfcos\', presiding presbyter. For \npresident, the term bishop was soon after this, substi- \ntuted. If sTiicixoTio^ be so taken in this letter, against \nwhich we confess the omission of the article to be no \nargument, the anticipation is fatal to the genuineness \nof that sentence, and thrown into the scale, renders \nstill lighter the credibility of the whole letter. \n\nThe character of Hegesippus, a Jewish convert, \nwho wrote five historical books, which have, except \nfragments, perished, has been doubted, by many wri- \nters, catholic and protestant. Also the circumstance \nthat these fragments, except an irrelevant sentence \n\nE reserved by Photius, have been derived from Euse- \nius, and no doubt accommodated to the language of \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 23 \n\nhis own times, renders his evidence of little weight. \nThis historian introduces his quotation by sv Stor hrpTo^^ . \nin zchich he discovers ; and then, proceeding in his own \nwords, he says, " going to Rome he," Hegesippus, \n" fell in company with many bishops" \xe2\x80\x94 " and found \nthem to hold the same doctrine." That the church of \nCorinth remained orthodox, bv \'tcfi o^eca -Koyea, until the \ntime of Primus\' acting as bishop, sTtcaxoTtovvto^, in Co- \nrinth." \xe2\x80\x94 " Being in Rome I abode until the succession \nof Anicetus, whose deacon Eleutherus was ; Soter \nsucceeded Anicetus, and Eleutherus, Soter." \n\n" After James, the just, died, as his Lord had done, \nfor the same word, Simon the son of Cleopas, his \nuncle, w^as chosen bishop, whom all preferred, be- \ncause he w^as the Lord\'s next kinsman."^ \n\nThe denominating presbyters, bishops, is unexcep- \ntionable, for such they were. That one of them pre- \nsided in every churc4i from the apostles\' days is \nequally certain. To reckon up the succession by \nthese, was in no wise improper. But all these things \nfall far short of proving a diversity of office among \npresbyters, or a difference of order. \n\nAn apostle, as such, possessed powers and had \nduties to accomplish beyond those of a presiding pres- \nbyter. We ought not therefore to conclude, that, be- \ncause the Scriptures have not mentioned the travels \nof James, all his labours were confined to Jerusalem. \nThe numbers sometimes mentioned to be there, pro- \nbably include visitants coming up to the feasts. There \nis no evidence of an extension of his authority over \nJudea, though the thing is possible; or that there w^ere \nthen different places of worship of Christians in Jeru- \nsalem. And if there had been, and he had exercised \na general authority, it was that of an apostle. That \nthe apostles should have successors in their ordinary \npowers, to teach, baptize, ordain, censure, &c., may \nbe fairly inferred from the promise of Christ\'s pre- \nsence, which could only be divine, annexed to their \n\nf Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. iv, ch. 22. \nelbid, and Nicephor- Cal. lib. iv. c. 7. \n\n\n\n24 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\ncommission. That these duties were to be performed \nby the presbyters, or bishops of every particular \nchurch, is capable of positive proof. That in every \npresbytery there came to be a president, is undeniable. \nBut it remains to be proved that such officer received \na second ordination; either by scriptural authority, \nor in the apostles\' days ; ^ or that the presbyters \nof a church were so ordained, as that one species of \nthem was authorized to preach, and another restrained \nfrom the exercise of such power. \n\nHaving now passed the middle of the second cen- \ntury and found one kind only of elders, and these the \nonly ministers of the word, we may infer that such is \nthe fair construction of the JVezo Testament, on the ordi- \nnary officers of the church. The innovations which \nwe are soon to witness in their gradual progress, were \nunauthorized and consequently mere nullities. Though \nevery denomination has on som.e point erred, and the \noriginal names of the officers have been often changed \nthe providence of God has in every age preserved the \ntwo orders, and a legitimate administration. But if \nthe outward forms had all perished, being only means \nto an end, and consequently of minor importance, the \ncharacteristics of his true church have remained, \n*\' righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.^* \n\nh The Apostolical constilutions need no refutation. The ApoS\' \ntolkal traditions, refen-ed to by Hippolitus, we design to consider, \nwhen he arrives, in the first part of the third century. \n\n\n\nSEOTIOlsr IV. \n\n\n\nChristianiiy was taught as philosophy hy Tatian and his preceptor Justin, both \nlaymen. \xe2\x80\x94 TTie letter of Vienne and Lyons, differently represented; Pothinus \na presbyter, TTgoarl a?, and Irenceus the same \xe2\x80\x94 Melito and Athenagoras \nprofessed the new philosophy, and Hermias wrote "The Discordance of Phi- \nlosophers." \xe2\x80\x94 Theophilus of Antioch speaks of no officer in the church. \xe2\x80\x94 \nIrencBUS was a presbyter, at Lyons, hitherto there is no other higher ordina- \ntion, or office. \xe2\x80\x94 The evidence given by Irenceus makes presbyter and bishop \nthe same office, and that the succession from the apostles was by presbyters. ^ \n\n\n\nThat "destructive superstition" which Tacitus had \npronounced almost repressed by the Neronian perse- \ncution, surviving also the edicts of his successors, ob- \ntained some respite in the last thirty years of the se- \ncond century, the period assigned to this section. The \nphilosophic Pliny had expressed a sentiment, too pre- \nvalent in the second century, that Christianity v^as a \ncrime fit to be expiated by death. Entitled to no legal \ntoleration, though sometimes screened by the ignor- \nance or caprice of a Galleo, the profession could be \navowed only at the hazard of life. The only possible \nmotive to accept or exercise an office in the church, \nunder such circumstances, must have been duty, not \ndignity; conscience, not interest. Paul had saved his \nlife, by claiming to teach the Athenians the knowledge \nof their own God. Many, with more success than \nSocrates, taught, bearing no office among Christians, \na philosophy deemed to have originated among bar- \nbarians. An appetite for saving knowledge values \noffices, as means subordinate to a higher end, the ac- \nquisition of truth. Every Christian applauds Justin, \nreceiving, in the habit of a philosopher, the crown of \nmartyrdom. \n\nD \n\n\n\n26 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nTatian was his disciple, axpovflvj^ hearer, says Irenseus, \nwho charges him with apostacy* after the death of \nhis patron. "An oration to the Greeks," is the only \nsurviving production of Tatian. Written with ele- \ngance and point, and not far distant from orthodoxy, \nit pleases, but contains nothing that bears upon the \npresent inquiry. He calls himself, in a philosophic \nsense, di preacher of the truth, xt^^vxa tv^^ a^vjdsia^ (p. 64.) \ncertainly neither as Noah nor Paul, of whom the same \nexpression is used. After representing himself born \namong the Assyrians, and educated among the Greeks, \nhe again says, that Jie preached xT^pvVsw, professing to \nknow God and his works. The good sense of the " Ora- \ntion" is justly commended by Clement of Alexandria, \nand by Origen., Justin was a philosopher, not a pres- \nbyter; yet he taught: and Tatian, Si hearer of Justin, \npreached, but as a layman. If laymen did, at this pe- \nriod, preach without censure,^ it is not probable that \nthere were presbyters restricted from a privilege so \ncommon. \n\nLarge fragments of a letter, purporting to have been \nwritten by the churches of Vienne, and Lyons, in \nGaul, have been preserved by Eusebius and Nicepho- \nrus. It describes some most affecting scenes of suffer- \nings, in the persecution which took place, it is said, in \nthe 17th year of Mark Antonine, A. D. 177. There has \nbeen nothing found in the letter concerning our subject, \nexcept the mention of the offices of two of the martyrs. \nThe first is of Sanctus, who is styled a deacon from \nVienne, fitaxoj/os\' aTtoBuvvT^^i the other of the venerable \nPothinus, who died in his ninetieth year, in prison, from \nthe abuse he received at his trial. He is said in the \nletter, according to Eusebius, to have been " intrusted \nwith the ministry of the episcopate in Lyons" o tt^v 8iaxovi(w \n\n\'tiqi tTti6xoTtiri^ \xc2\xa3V T-uySiJVca TisrCc^lEVfisvoc;. NicephorUS haS \n\ngiven the same portion of the letter, with more sim- \nplicity in these words : " Pothinus, a minister of the \n\na Iren. lib. i. Ch. 30. 31. \xe2\x80\x94 eivocrctc 7r\xc2\xbbc tKKK>t<rixe, \n^ Tertullian\'s complaint was afterwards. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 27 \n\nchurch at Lyons,^\'\' \xe2\x80\x94 HoB^vo^ 5a o hiaxovo^ fvjc; Xt;ySwQv \xc2\xa3xx7.\xc2\xbbj(yc- \n\nas"." If Nicephorus wrote from the letter itself, the \nlast is the truth; or if he compiled from Eusebius, his \nwas probably still the original reading both of Euse- \nbius and the letter ; and the term Staxo^s\' may have \nbeen subsequently changed into Siaxoviav, and (TticxoTtr^g \ninserted. We have shown, in a former section, that \nEusebius was unfaithful in his quotations of ancient \nwritings. That Pothinus was the rt^oeglio^, ox presiding \npresbyter, and consequently a bishop of the church at \nLyons, is very possible.^ The church appears to \nhave been small, and the cause of truth an object of \nhatred and contempt, in that region ; it is, therefore, \nimprobable that a diversity in orders, which, as yet, \nexisted nowhere else, should have originated there. \nAlso, Irenseus, who was a presbyter in the same place, \nwill presently be found to have known no difference \nbetv/een presbyter and bishop. As there appears in \nthis letter no order above that of presbyter, which hith- \nerto always had the oversight, so we find no lay pres- \nbyters. \n\nMelito of Sardis wrote, about A. D. 182, several \nworks, the titles of which Eusebius has preserved, with \na fragment of his Apology for what he calls the new \nphilosophy, and an important catalogue of the books of \nthe Old Testament. But there remains nothing from \nhim on our subject. \n\nAthenagoras is a writer who also falls within our pre- \nsent period. The proofs in support of his Apology for \nChristians, and of his Discourse on theResurrection are \nfew and modern ; yet no one can read the book, and \ndoubt its genuineness. The Apology, being directed to \nMarcus Aurelius and Commodus, sufficiently deter- \nmines its own date. Written to idolaters, its arguments \n\nc Mons. Blondel (Apol. p. 23 \xe2\x80\x94 32) has proved, that it was nine \nyears after Irenxus had been placed in the chair, Tr^ooloKn^iS^ittt \nof Pothinus, a bishop and martyr, at Lyons, when he was repre- \nsented in a letter written by that church to Eleutherius, as their \nbrother and a presbyter of the church, as 7r^i<r/3vli^ov iKuxnernti. \xe2\x80\x94 \nEu&eb. Lib. V. C. 4. \n\n\n\n28 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nare as they should be, chiefly drav^n from reason. This \nwriter styles himself an Athenian,*^ and a philoso- \npher, and the Apology speaks itself the work of a Chris- \ntian, and well suited to its period. His arguments, in \nthe discourse concerning the resurrection, are worthy \nof attention even in the present day. Of church of- \nficers, we have been able to find no mention in either \nof his productions. \n\nThe tract of Hermias, called the " Irrisio Gentium," \nor " Aia&v^fio^,^^ which is more properly the discordance \nof philosophers, is of uncertain time, but very ancient ; \nand is probably the genuine, though unsupported pro- \nduction of a Christian. The various opinions of the \nnature of the soul, the chief good, and our future con- \ndition, are well contrasted, and with great effect. It \nterminates abruptly, but not before it has well estab- \nlished the position with which it commenced, that \n" The wisdom of this world is foolishiiess with God.^^ It \ntouches not our subject. \n\nThere are three small books, written by Theophi- \nlus of Antioch to his friend Autolycus, an idolater. \nThe writer had been himself a heathen, and appears \nto have had much Greek learning. The first is a \ngeneral defence of the nature and perfections of the \ntrue God, of his work of creation, and of the resur- \nrection. The second is against idolatry, and the dif- \nferent opinions of philosophers; and compares the \ncosmogony of the poets with that of Moses. He \nspeaks of the " Trinity (T^iaSos-) of God, and of the Lo- \ngos, and of wisdom." He says it was the Logos who \nappeared in Paradise; and though he describes him as \nan effect, yet represents him as being at the first in \nGod. In the third, after vindicating Christians from \naspersions, he compares the profane with the Scriptu- \nral chronology. There is no claim of an ecclesiasti- \ncal office by the writer, nor even the mention of any \n\nd Phillip Sidetes (apud Dodwell, p. 489) says, that he studied \nthe Scriptures on purpose to confute them, but became convinced \nof their truth. \n\n\n\nor CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 29 \n\nin either of the books. They bear all the marks of \ngenuineness. His death has been placed at periods \nsomewhat difterent, but the weight of probability \nseems to determine it to about the year of Christ 182, \nwhich is but two years later than the death of Mar- \ncus Aurelius, expressed in the end of his third book, as \nthe last period of his chronological calculation. \n\nIrenseus was a Greek of Asia Minor, for he remem- \nbered there to have seen, when a youth, the venerable \nPolycarp. He spent his advanced life in Gaul, at \nLyons. That he w^as a presbyter, we learn from his \nown church. That he received any other ordination, \nor held any other office, there is no competent proof, \nnor have we found any evidence of such occurrence \nin his day. That he was a " disciple of Polycarp," \nand was " raised to the episcopal chair" upon the death \nof Pothinus, ought neither to be assumed, nor granted \nwithout evidence brought from the second century. \nThat he died a martyr, has been often said, but gratui- \ntously, because asserted too lately. His death may \nbe placed with sufficient correctness, after many vain \nefforts at precision on the point, about the commence- \nment of the third century. He wrote five books \nagainst the wild opinions of Valentinus, and other \nGnostics. Of these a Latin version censured by diffe- \nrent writers as feverish, faulty, and barbarous; and \nsome Greek fragments, in Eusebius, Epiphanius, John \nDamascenus and Nicephorus, together with some \nportions of letters, yet remain. The moral endow- \nments of this father were much greater than his intel- \nlectual. Under all disadvantages, the facts, so far \nas given from his own observation, are worthy of \nbelief. \n\nIn a fragment of an epistle written to Florinus on \nthe subject of the errors of Valentinus, and preserved by \nEusebius, he says : " These doctrines, they who were \npresbyters before us, ot ri^o \xc2\xab^qv rt^ff^utf^oc, and who \nwere the followers of the apostles, never delivered \nunto thee. If that blessed and apostolic presbyter \nPolycarp, had heard any such thing, &c. he would \nd2 \n\n\n\n30 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nhave said," &c. In the fragment of a letter to Victor \nat Rome, who had attempted to cause the Asiatic \nchurches, on account of a diversity in the observance \nof Easter, to be excommunicated, Irenaeus possessing \nequal authority and more prudence, says, " Those \npresbyters who, before Soter presided over that \nchurch which you now govern, h t^o XuPri^o^ n^soj^vlsgoi, \not ri^oalavls^ t\'^/j\' exxT^Ti^oa^ y,;; vvv a^rjyyj, &C. I speak of Ani- \n\ncetus, and Pius, and Hyginus, with Telesphorus and \nSixtus, they neither observed it themselves, nor did \nthey require those who were under them. Those who \nwere presbyters before you, who did not observe the \ncustom of the Asiatic churches, ot fiv; tv^povvls^ U ?rgo \n0(A) -^gia^vtigoi sent the eucharist to those from other \nchurches, who did observe it. Neither did Polycarp \npersuade Anicetus to observe it, who alleged that he \nought to maintain the custom of the presbyters, who \n\nhad gone before him, tuv a-uvuSitctv Tm tt^q oLvrcvrgio-l^dligm." \n\nBy these letters it is clear that Polycarp, and the \npredecessors of Victor, who are in modern times in \nthe catalogue of popes, were presbyters ; and conse- \nquently other Christian churches could have had no \nhigher officers than the rr^io-^vligoi Tr^oerlnvh?, presiding \npresbyters. To these were attributed the continuance \nof the succession from the apostles. To them resort \nwas had for the tradition of the custom in relation to \nEaster. That these presbyters were bishops, no one \nwill deny ; they were consequently not laymen. The \nPapal predecessor, neither possessed infallibiKty, nor \neven superiority over Irenaeus, who in this letter writ- \nten in presence of his brethren, aSe-kcpw, in Gaul, thus \narraigned his conduct. The term presbyter, so often \nrepeated in these letters, may be taken sometimes ap- \npellatively, but then the persons so denominated have \nreceived no official designation. Its connexion also \nwith the epithet 5rgo<r7\xc2\xabv76c, presiding, the expression \netTToa-roKtico? Trgic/ivli^oc, and the Uncertainty of such de- \nscriptions, as, " those who were old men before you," show \nthe official sense to have been at least sometimes de- \nsigned. If the correptions intended in these letters, \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 31 \n\nshould be assigned as a reason for the omission of titles, \nyet justice and truth required, that their offices in the \nchurch should have been fairly recognized, had differ- \nent orders of preachers then existed. \n\nSpeaking of the unwillingness of the heretics to be \nbound, either by the Scriptures or by the traditions of \nthe churches, he says : (lib. iii. c. 2, s. 2.) " When \nwe appeal to that tradition which is from the apostles, \nand is preserved in the churches, through the succes- \nsions of the presbyters, per successiones preshytei-orum, \nthey oppose traditions, saying, that they are -wiser, \nnot only than the presbyters, but even than the apos- \ntles." That by presbyters here, are meant officers, \nseems conclusively established by their successions. \nThese were necessarily described by the successive \nprimi, or Trpoicrlalt;. In the next chapter he observes : \n" It is easy for all who wish to see the truth, to behold \nin every church the traditional doctrines of the apos- \ntles announced in all the world, and we can enume- \nrate those, who by the apostles w^ere ordained, instituti \nsunt, bishops, episcopi, in the churches, and the succes- \nsors, (or successions,) of them, even to ourselves; \nwho taught no such thing ; nor did they know what \nis doted about by these. For if the apostles had \nknow^n hidden mysteries, w^iich they were teaching \nto higher proficients in secret, and without the know- \nledge of the rest, they would especially have delivered \nthem to those to whom they committed the churches. \nFor they earnestly desired that they should be perfect \nin all things, and irreprehensible, whom they were \nleaving as successors, delivering up their own place \nof government, suum ipsorum locum magisterii tra- \ndentes." The very same traditions and successions, \nhere referred to bishops, were, in the next preceding \nchapter predicated expressly of presbyters. If, there- \nfore, the passage in this chapter be taken alone, as it \nhas somictimes been, and accounted "the testimony \nof Irenaeus," it will, though true in the sense of the \nwriter, speak what he never intended ; at least, it will \ndo so in the eyes of those who understand the term \n\n\n\n32 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nbishop in their own modern acceptation. Those, \ntherefore, whom later times have elevated into dio- \ncesan bishops, were, in the days of Irenaeus, bishops \nonly as they were presbyters. When enumerated in \nsuccessions, because presiding presbyters in particu- \nlar churches, they must have been ordained in the \nsame manner as other presbyters ; since there is no \nevidence that there was as yet any but one ordina- \ntion of elders. To represent the magisterium which \nwas given to officers, indifferently called presbyters \nand bishops, as an authority given to bishops over \npresbyters, is to adopt a conclusion without premises. \nTo say that the succession and mastership affirmed by \nIrenaeus of bishops, who were presbyters, are a proof, \nthat bishops in the modern sense, were intended by \nhim, is the peiitio principiif or weakness of begging the \nquestion. \n\nThe frequent mention, made by this writer, of the \nuninterrupted successions in several of the principal \nchurches, does not appear to have proceeded from \nhis respect to the dignity, or even to the importance \nof such presidential authority in the respective par- \nticular churches, but from the certainty which he sup- \nposed to have been hereby attached to the traditional \ndoctrines which he opposed to the heretics, against \nwhom he wrote. The gift to Linus of the public work \nof the episcopate, or oversight, " iTna-KOTrnz T^nTov^yia.^^\'\'^ be- \ning understood of the individual church at Rome, \n" fxxT-iytfta," expresses care and labor, not worldly \nhonor. So Clement, who succeeded Linus, and Poly- \ncarp, mentioned under the same circumstances in this \nchapter thought. That Irenaeus intended no superiori- \nty above presbyters is also clear ; because he after- \nwards assigns the episcopate, in so many words, to \npresbyters. "It is proper," says he, "to obey those \npresbyters, eis presbyleris, who are in the church, " his" \nthese, w^ho have succession from the apostles, as we \nhave shown; who with the succession of the episco- \n\ne Lib. iu. C. 3. S. 2. 3. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 33 \n\npate, qui cum episcopatus successione, have received the \nsure gift of the truth, according to the w^ill of the Fa- \nther." ^ \'\' Presbyter s,^^ it has been objected, may mean \nhere, old men. But he contrasts those presbyters, w^ith \nthe heretical preachers, and speaks of them as bei7igin \nthe church, and having succession from the apostles, and \nwith the succession of the episcopate, as having re- \nceived the gift of the truth; that is, those sound doc- \ntrines, which are taught in the original churches. On \nall which accounts, they were to be obeyed, rather than \nthe heretics, who had none of these things. "Such \npresbyters, n^sG^vls^ovg,\'\'\' he says in another place, "the \nchurch nourishes, concerning whom also the prophet \nsays, \'I will give your princes, ap;toj\'7as\', in peace, and \nbishops, frttffxortws\' in righteousness.\' "^ The prophecy \nwhich he here introduces, in support of presbyters, ex- \npresses bishops. The succession from the apostles, \nwhich he sometimes affirms of bishops,^ he also ap- \nplied to presbyters: repeatedly thus discovering, that \nhe accounted presbyters to be bishops, and bishops \npresbyters. When Irenseus therefore makes presby- \nters the successors of the apostles, and ascribes the \nepiscopacy to presbyters, he maybe considered a very \npositive, as well as competent witness to establish, that \nthere were no preachers, after the apostles and evan- \ngelists, of an order higher than that of presbyters, nor \nany presbyters, of an inferior grade. \n\nIn another place he speaks of bishops, as of those to \nwhom, the apostles delivered the churches, ^\'episcopi quibus \nApostoli tradiderunt ecclesias,^^ and says that "the church \nevery where preaches the truth." \' In the next para- \ngraph he observes, that "They who leave (reli?2quunt) \nthe preaching of the church, praeco?iium ecclesice, accuse \narguunt the holy presbyters of ignorance." The pres- \nbyters named in this passage are spoken of as the only \npreachers then in the church, as having had succession \nfrom the apostles, as being the bishops to whom the \n\nf Lib. iv. C. 26. S. 2. e Lib. iv. C.26, S. 5, \n\nb l4b. iv. C. oZ. i Lib. v. 20. \n\n\n\n34 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nchurch was committed, and evidently the highest of- \nficers, at that period existing in the church. The v^ri- \nter is speaking of his own day, and in the present \ntense, and therefore excludes the fond conceit of those \nwho imagine that Irenasus used the terms bishop and \npresbyter promiscuously, only of those, who lived be- \nfore his day. It is plain that one preaching office only \nexisted in this age. He mentions no preaching officer \nof his day either superior or inferior to a presbyter, \nand no class among presbyters who were not preach- \ners. Neither do the works which remain of Ireneeus, \nnor any other genuine writing in or before his time, \nappear to contain a solitary proof of any distinction \nin the office of presbyter. \n\nOne passage only have we found in Irenseus to pre- \nsent a semblance of variance with the promiscuous \nuse of presbyter and bishop. "The bishops and pres- \nbyters who were from Ephesus, and other neighbour- \ning cities, being convened at Miletus, because he," \nPaul, "was hastening to spend Pentecost at Jerusa- \nlem," &C.\'\' In the history of "the Acts of the Apos- \ntles," the bishops only of a single "flock," or church \nare addressed, unless we suppose them placed over the \nwhole Christian church. Consequently, they who are \non that occasion called presbyters, are the same per- \nsons whom Paul denomanates bishops. If the original \nof this inconsistent passage should ever emerge from \ndarkness, and no article should follow the xav before \nTt^sojSvifs^av, the identical persons were at the same time \nbishops and presbyters. This hearsay evidence, for a \nversion is no more, of a distinction in the only preach- \ning office, appears in a faulty, barbarous and misera- \nble translation, the original of which, at the place, has \nbeen lost. It not only stands alone, and is at variance \nwith every book and testimony before it, but it is dia- \nmetrically opposed to all the numerous representa- \ntions of Irena3us himself upon the same subject. And \nafter all, if the distinction had been expressed by him, \n\nk Lib. iii. c, 14. \n\n\n\nor CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 35 \n\nand had been true, it could have furnished not even the \nidea of a lay presbyter. \n\nThat this passage in the translation falsely repre- \nsents the mind of Irenseus, plainly appears, when he \nafterwards expressly affirms the office of presbyter to \nbe the highest in the church. "They who have also \nbeen accredited as presbyters by many, but serve their \nown pleasures and have no fear of God, in their hearts, \nwho treat others reproachfully and are puffed up with \nthe loftiness of the principal seat, et principalis conces- \nsionis tumore elati su?it, and do evil in secret, and say \nno one sees us, shall be condemned by the Word." \nThis language plainly represents, that the presbyterial \noffice was the highest in the church. If the Tt^osalcolBg \npresidents of churches are here intended, w^hich is pro- \nbable, because he speaks of such in the persons of So- \nter,Victor and others,in the present catalogue of popes, \nyet they are in this place expressly called presbyters. \nThe testimony of Irenaeus is therefore upon the whole \ndecisive, that in his day, the office of presbyters was \none and undivided, and the highest in the Christian \nchurch ; and consequently that no presbyters w^ere lay- \nmen. \n\n\n\nSECTION V. \n\nClemens Alexandrinus mentions, a Trgalox.etQiJ\'piti, first seat, in each presby- \ntery, and although he mentions presbyters, bishops and deacons, yet he shows \nthere were but two orders. \xe2\x80\x94 Teriullian supports Justin\'s description of a \neucharist and proves an antistes or president in the presbytery of each \nchurch; calls this highest priest the bishop, and affirms his right to grant \nbaptism.\xe2\x80\x94 He makes a succession of such bishops from the apostles in the \nfirst churches a test of the orthodox faith which the heretics could not furnish. \n\nNo alteration appears in the offices of the church \nduring the second century, unless with the change of \npresident, Tt^o^oliog, for sTti^xoTio^ bishop, presbyters began \nto act by his appointment, or in his presence. Though \nnot in writers hitherto examined, some traces of it are \nin the two assigned to this section; who lived in both \ncenturies. \n\nTitus Flavius Clemens is called Atheniensis because \neducated at Athens ; Alexandrinus, because instructed \nin the catechetical school of Panteenus, and a presby- \nter of the church at Alexandria. The preceptor of \nOrigin, Alexander of Jerusalem, and others, he lived \ntill the reign of Alexander Severus. He w^rote an \nAdmonition to the Greeks, The Pedagogue, Stromata, and \nWhat rich man can he saved 1 He had a leaning to Gen- \ntile ethics, and the merit of works. On future pun- \nishments he is erroneous. \n\nChurch officers are mentioned incidentally; "For as \nmuch as we arc shepherds, Ttoiixsvec: s^^fnv, who govern \nji^of^yovixsvoi, the churches, after the example of the good \nshepherd, and guard the sheep." * This pastoral office \nwas that of the presbyter, for he was such. In strict \naccordance he speaks of the presbyter, as blessing \nwith the imposition of hands. "Upon whom will the \n\na Pedagogne, Lib. i. p. 99. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 37 \n\npresbyter, n^ss^vfs^oi, impose his hand, and whom will \nhe bless?" ^ This ascription of blessing to presbyters \nsupposes them of one kind and clerical. \n\nAfter citing from the epistle of Paul ten passages \nof practical duties, suited to various classes, he ob- \nserves; "numerous other precepts also, directed to \nselect characters, have been written, in the sacred \nbooks, some to presbyters Ti^sGiSvls^ot.?^ some to bishops, \nand some to deacons, and others to widows."^ If \npresbyters be not here taken appellatively, the language \nmakes a threefold discrimination, presbyters, bishops \nand deacons. It is possible that the author, in these \nprecepts given from the New Testament, follows the \nlanguage of the epistle to Titus, in which the same or- \nder is named, presbyters and bishops. (Ch. i. 5. 6. 7.) \nThat there were but two orders, {8iaxovai) presbyters \nand deacons, he expressly and repeatedly shows; and \nthat there was a n^dloxaOES^ca or first seat, in each pres- \nbytery, he also asserts ; the meaning therefore of the \npassage is obvious. \n\nIf from the circumstance, that this writer never \nenumerated deacons before presbyters, because an in- \nferior order, it may be fairly inferred, that the colloca- \ntion of bishops after presbyters, in this sentence, evin- \nces no inferiority in presbyters, we may be permitted \nto argue from the same circumstance, that he had no \nidea that presbyters w^ere mere laymen. Whether, in \nthis passage, n^sa^vls^oi^ was intended only of those \nwho presided over the rest of the bishops, or vice versa, \nlay presbyters are equally, and wholly omitted. \n\nIn the numerous precepts addressed by the Scrip- \ntures to various characters, neither this author nor any \nother, has ever found a charge directed to lay pres- \nbyters. \n\nWriting of marriage, he decides, that each man \nshould be "the husband of one wife, whether he \n\n^ Pedag-ogoie, Lib. iii. p. 248. \n= Pedag-ogue, Lib. iii. p. 264. \n\nE \n\n\n\n38 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nbe a presbyter, or a deacon, &c." *av ft^eapvts^os jy, x(tv \n\nidaxovos .^ \n\nThe word presbyter being substituted in this direc- \ntion, for bishop, used in Paul\'s epistle,^ and by himself \nin two other references to the same duty,^ proves that \nClement understood the same by bishop and presby- \nter, and could not have intended an inferior, or lay el- \nder. And if the promiscuous use of bishop and pres- \nbyter can demonstrate a parity in the clerical, it must \nbe equally effectual to exclude an inferior order. \n\nIn another place he observes ; "That man is in fact \na presbyter, rt^\xc2\xa3g}Svl\xc2\xa3^og, of the church and a true min- \nister, 8iaxovo5, of the counsel of God, who practices and \nteaches the things of the Lord; deemed righteous, not \nbecause ordained of men nor because a presbyter, but \nbecause a righteous man, he is numbered in the pres- \nbytery. And if here on earth he be not honoured with \nthe first seat, tipioloxaO ed^ta fiti T^i/xfje^ he shall sit down on \nthe twenty four thrones, judging the people, as John \nrepresents it in the Apocalypse."^ This writer does \nnot distinguish the presiding presbyter by the name \n^go\xc2\xa3ff7cof, the word sjtccsxoTto^ having begun to take its \nplace, nevertheless the Jlrst implied other seats of the \npresbyters; and the Jirst seat on a bench of presbyters \nis occupied by a presbyter, with no less certainty than \nthe last. This president called H^oKsti^i in the New \nTestament, is henceforth denominated \xc2\xa3?ttffxortoj without \nany authorised diversity in order. In the same page, \nhe says ; "Seeing that in the church, there are promo- \ntions of bishops, presbyters, deacons, nioxoTtai sTtiaxoytw \nTt^sajSvle^oiv Scaxovoiv, I supposc they are semblances of \nangelic glory, and of that economy which, the Scrip- \ntures say, awaits those, who live after the example of \nthe apostles, in the perfection of righteousness, accord- \ning to the gospel. These, the apostle whites, being \nraised up in the clouds, Biaxovr^ascv, attend as deacons at \nthe first ; afterwards they are associated with the pres- \n\nd Strom. Lib. iii. 464. e l Tim. iii. 2. \n\nf Strom. 459. 472. e Strom. Lib. vi. p. 667. \n\n\n\nor CHRISTIAAT CHURCHES. 39 \n\nbytery, rt^sa^vli^icf,, according to their proficiency \nkgoxoTirjv, in glory ; for glory rises above glory, until \nthey shall increase to a perfect man. \n\n^ This writer thought that the Saviour preached the \ngospel to departed spirits in hell ; and believed, that \nfuture punishments w^ere restorative. To the same hy- \npothesis may be attributed his opinion of the value of \nthe righteousness of the saints, both in this world and \nin the next, which is here described as measuring their \nproficiency in glory. His first comparison of the or- \nders in the church, is unto those of the angels, of whom \nit has been remarked, there are but two, archangels \nand angels. He supposes also a discrimination in the \nnext world between the glory of deacons, and of the \npresbytery. But although he names bishops, presby- \nbyters, and deacons on earth distinctly, he considered \nbishops and presbyters, as constituting the same pres- \nbytery, not differing in order; otherwise his compari- \nson has failed. Deacons are here also represented as \nentering into the presbytery, without an intermediate \norder. Clemens has consequently assigned no place \nto lay elders, either in the church militant, or triumph- \nant. Having spoken of an instructive, and an obedi- \nential service, he says; "In hke manner also with re- \nspect to the church, the presbyters maintain the part \nwhich renders men better, ^^tCIi^uHixtiv nxova, and the \ndeacons the obediential, vtctj^sIvxtjv. Both these offices, \ntavta? a/x^io fa? Siaxovia?, do the augcls perform to God, \naccording to the economy of earthly things."^ Thus \nagain he expressly describes two, and but two orders \nin the church, presbyters and deacons ; the former to \nmake men better , the latter to aid in a subordinate de- \npartment. \n\nIn this author we find a presbytery and deacons only, \nwhich is as forcible an exclusion of a third order, whe- \nther superior or intermediate, as can be reasonably \n\n\' h Strom. Lib. vi. p. 667. \n\ni Strom. Lib. vii. p. 700. Some render 0t\\Ttte}f\xc2\xbbHV, dignified^ \nothers \'* qu2e facit melioreg," \n\n\n\n40 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nexpected from a v^rriter who had no knowledge of a \nthird. \n\nIn his "What rich man can be saved?"^ Clemens re- \nlates that John the Apostle, observing a young man \nand turning to the bishop who presided over all, sftt Tiaai ta \nxa0\xc2\xabcr7w7t ;tgoj3^\xc2\xa34aj frttcyxort^, committed him to his care \nin the presence of the churchy tHv tvi^ axx^Tjgias, who re- \nceived him \'tov dtxoi^evov. John is then said to have re- \nturned, after repeating the charge, to Ephesus. And \nthe presbyter taking home, 6 8s 7t\xc2\xa7\xc2\xa3cy)3Wf\xc2\xa7oj avaXa|3cov otxaSf, \nthe young man that had been committed to his care, \nnourished, educated, and lost him. Here we have \nClemens, no doubt in the language of his day, as it \nhad been in that of the apostles, expressly denominat- \ning the same person both a bishop and ^presbyter. Also \nJohn, returning, is represented to have addressed him \nas a bishop, "w tytiaxoTts] return to us your deposit.\'\'^ It \nthus appears, that a successor of the last apostle, and \nby John himself styled a bishop, was notwithstanding a \npresbyter. \n\nThe sum of the testimony of Clemens, the most \nlearned Christian in his age, is that there was one or- \nder only of officers in the church, above that of the \ndeacons. He has not only not named subordinate, or \nlay presbyters, but has in the enumerations and de- \ncriptions, excluded the possibility of the existence of \nsuch an order in his day. \n\nQuintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, was born at \nCarthage, of a Roman family; his father being a cen- \nturion under a pro-consul of Africa. Educated in the \nlearning of the Greeks and Romans, and becoming a \nChristian before the close of the second century, he \nflourished chiefly in the third, and preached at Car- \nthage many years. Offended at the unkind treatment, \nor at the irregularities of the orthodox, he preferred \nthe severities of the Montanists. His language is \nharsh and obscene. Speaking in his apology of the \nworship of Christian assembhes, he observes; "Ap- \n\nk Ch. xlii. p. Sr, \n\n\n\nor CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 41 \n\nproved elders preside, who have obtained that honor, \nnot by price, but by the evidence of their fitness."^ Aged \nmen, as such never presided in the church. Also \nthese are expressed to have obtained their standing by \ntestimony, and were consequently chosen. We have \nseen in Justin, that the eucharist was dispensed by the \n;tpo\xc2\xa3ff7oj, presiding presbyter. The same practice, \nthough not mentioned by Clement, is recognised by \nTertulHan, his cotemporary. " We never take from \nthe hand of others," says he, "than presidents, de alio- \nrum manu quam presideiitium, the sacrament of the eu- \ncharist, commanded by the Lord, in the time of his \nlife, to all, even the nightly assemblies."\xe2\x84\xa2 In the same \nchapter, he has used the Latin word, antistes which ex- \nactly corresponds to Trposalio?; " Being about to go to \nthe water, but a little before it, we testify in the church, \nin the presence of the president, sub antistitis manu, that we \nrenounce the devil, and his pomp and angels." That \nthe names, ?tpo\xc2\xa3o7cof, Tt^oialafxsvo^, presses and antistes, \nwhich had been used for the first presbyter from the \napostolic age, began to give place to the word sTtcaxorcos, \nepisccpus, or bishop, is established by his exclusive as- \nsignation of the exercise of the power last mentioned, \nto the bishop of every congregation in the following \npassage." "The highest presbyter, who is the bishop, \nsummus sacerdos, qui est episcopus, has the right of grant- \ning baptism, afterwards the presbyters and deacons, \ndehi?ic presbyteri et diaconi, nevertheless, not without the \nauthority of the bishop, for the honor of the church, \nwhich being preserved, its peace is secure ;jDtherwise \nthe right is also with the laymen." The highest im-- \nplies inferiors of the same kind. These were the pres- \nbyters, because no others had existed at this period, in \nany Christian church. That this diversity sprang, not \nfrom any original difference in order or office, is evi- \ndent; because TertuUian expressly founds the superior \n\n1 *\xe2\x80\xa2 Pr3esident probati quique seniores, honorem istum non pre- \ntio sed testimonio adepti." \xe2\x80\x94 Jl^ol. c. 39. \nm De Corona, chap. 3, p. 341. \nn Opera Tertulliani a Semler, vol. iv. p. 203. \ne2 \n\n\n\n42 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nauthority of bishops, upon its necessity to the preserva- \ntion of the honour and peace of the church, and not \nupon any scriptural or apostoHcal ordination or ap- \npointment. Here are no lay-presbyters; yet the expe- \ndiency alleged for degrading presbyters by a transfer \nof a part of their original authority to a presiding \npresbyter, bears some affinity to that, which is now \nmade the excuse for conferring on elders the place and \nstation of deacons in the church. The terms, ^^next \nthe presbyters and deacons^\'\' imply that baptism was not \noriginally proper, only to the presiding elder; but the \npeace of the church appears to have been disturbed by \nthe rivalship of presbyters, whose power of baptizing \nhad been made an engine of raising adherents, and \npromoting divisions. The peace of the church re- \nquired that it should be under the direction of the pres- \nbytery in every congregation, and be performed by the \npresiding presbyter, or by some other for him. If the \noriginal power of these presbyters, which expediency \nonly suspended, authorized their administration of or- \ndinances, they were not lay elders. The implied con- \ncession of a power in deacons to do the same things, \nand the position, that the right existed in laymen, show, \nnot merely that, had there been lay-presbyters, they \nmight have baptized, but that the presbyters spoken of, \nwere not laymen. \n\nHe expresses his opinion, "That the authority of \nthe church appointed, constituit, the difference between \nthe order and the people, inter ordinem etplebem"\xc2\xb0 But \nthat authority he must have understood to have been \nexercised in the days of the apostles; for he chal- \nlenges the heretics to prove their doctrine by uninter- - \nrupted tradition, through successive bishops from the \napostles ; by which bishops, and the other presbyters, \nhe must have meant the order of which he has spoken \nin the singular. "Let them show the commencements \nof their churches \xe2\x80\x94 let them tell the series of their bish- \nops, so descending by succession from the beginning, \n\no Opera Tertulliani a Semler, vol, iii. p. 119. \n\n\n\nOP CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 43 \n\nthat the first bishop shall have had some author or pre- \ndecessor from the apostles, or apostolic men, who con- \ntinued constantly with the apostles; for in this manner \nthe apostolic churches deduced their own genealogies; \nthus the church of Smyrna, having Polycarp, relate \nthat he was located there by John; thus the church of \nRome, having Clement, put forth that he was ordained \nby Peter; in the same manner, also, other churches \npresent those whom, placed in the episcopacy by the \napostles, they account the propagators of the apostolic \ncion."P The originality of doctrines was to be proved \nby that of the churches; and this could be shown by \nthe successions of the presiding officers. \n\nThe preservation of the names and successions of \nall the presbyters for a century, might have been im- \npracticable ; 5\'et the strength of the argument for the \nsameness of doctrines, chiefly depended upon this cir- \ncumstance, that the presbytery of each church, at any \ngiven period, secured the orthodoxy of each succes- \nsive n;po\xc2\xa3(j7\xc2\xab?, presiding, presbyter, whom TertuUian de- \nnominates bishop. \n\nInveighing against the irregularities of the heretics, \nhe observes, "One is the bishop to day, to-morrow, an- \nother, alius hodie episcopus, eras alius; to day he is a dea- \ncon, w^ho is a reader to-morrow, hodie diaconus, qui \neras lector; to-day a presbyter, w^ho is a layman to- \nmorrow, hodie presbyter, qui eras laicus; for they also \nimpose sacerdotal functions on the laity.\'* Individual \nassemblies are here the allusion, as in all other parts of \nhis writings; if one to-day acted as the bishop in pub- \nlic worship, and to-morrow another, it must have been \nintended of one man\'s leading in the ordinances on one \nday, and another on the next, which is no more than the \noffice of the Jt^o^dl^i, president; except that with heretics, \nthe duty belonged to no one permanently. This pas- \nsage also proves, that reading was no part of the dea- \ncon\'s office; that elders were not laymen; and that \n\np lb. vol. ii. p. 39. \n\n\n\n44 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT, &C. \n\nthe latter ought not to have performed clerical duties in \nthe church. \n\nWhen arguing the truth of the common doctrines \nagainst Marcion, from their priority, after mentioning \nthe churches of Corinth, Galatia, PhiHppi> Thessalon- \nica, Ephesus and Rome, he observes, *\'v^^e have also the \nchurches nourished, alumnas, of John ; for if Marcion \nrejects also his Apocalypse, nevertheless, the series of \nthe bishops, ordo tamen episcoporum, reckoned up to \ntheir commencement, will stand upon John their foun- \nder. In the same manner also, the genuieness of the \nother churches is recognized." The enumerations of \nthe presiding presbyters, w^hich have formerly occur- \nred, render this passage perfectly clear, and vastly \ndifferent from the modern import of the phrase order \nof bishops. He sometimes also means by ordo, the bench \nof presbyters w^hich sat in every organized church. \n" Ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consensus, where there is \nnot a presbytery, offers et tingis, you administer the eu- \ncharist, and baptize, &c."*i This is the plain testimony \nof Tertullian,"^ that there was but one kind of ecclesi- \nastics in every church, who were called an order, be- \ncause they sat in a row; of these there was one, who \nby custom, from the apostle\'s days, presided; and the \nseries of such presidents, up to the apostles, was also \ndenominated the order of the bishops of that particular \ncongregation; but we have not found a word con- \ncerning lay-presbyters, in all his writings. \n\nq lb. vol. iii. p. 119. \n\n*\xe2\x96\xa0 The piece on the Trinity appearing among* the works ascribed \nto TertuUian, has been referred by Jerom to Novatian, who lived \nuntil about the middle of the third century. In like manner the \ntreatise on Jewish meats, among the works of TertuUian, is ascribed \nto Novatian; and also the 30th letter in the works of Cyprian. \nNeither Novatian nor Hilary, the deacon, are accounted authors, \ntheir writings having been incorrectly assigned to others. \n\n\n\nSECTION VI. \n\nIgnatius wrote epistles; the Latin are given up, and the larger Greek gene\' \nrally: the smaller are liable to many objections.\xe2\x80\x94 They sustai?i not the cha^ \nracier given by Polycarp, were opposed to Arianism, which was long after \nhis day; differ in style; were written when the government was parochial \nepiscopacy \xe2\x80\x94 The word iTna-KOTrog had not been substituted for TrooitrTai \nin the days of the martyr, as these letters represent. \xe2\x80\x94 The uriter^s principal \nobject was to enhance the power of parochial bishops, which had not commenc- \ned then- \xe2\x80\x94 They allege he saw Christ, ivhich would make him too old in \n116 to have walked and acted as described. \xe2\x80\x94 There is mention of an error, \nwhich arose long after his martyrdom. \xe2\x80\x94 Tlieir description of the church as \nCatholic, the worship as at an altar, and in a temple, and the bread as if \ntransubstantiated, are arguments against them. \xe2\x80\x94 Other objections. \n\nThat Ignatius was sentenced by Trajan, whilst at \nAntioch on his way to the East, in his fourth year, \nA. D. 116, to be carried to Rome, and there given to \nwild beasts, which was accordingly done, is sufficient- \nly certain. The account of his martyrdom, which \nhas been defended as ancient and authentic, disagrees \nwith the relation Eusebius has given of his progress \nto Rome. The former declares that he sailed from \nSeleucia to Smyrna, thence to Troas, and from thence \nto NeapoUs. The latter relates that he passed through \nAsia, and confirmed the congregations throughout \nevery city where he came, preaching the word of \nGod, &c. Whoever compares the seven larger Greek \nepistles which bear the name of Ignatius, with the ac- \ncount which Eusebius has given of the epistles of that \napostolic father, will find such an agreement as will \nestablish a strong probabihty that they are the same. \nYet this argument is nearly the same in favor of \nthe smaller which are chiefly preferred. The Latin \nepistles, and the larger Greek ones, are now generally, \nif not universally given up. The larger epistles are \n\n\n\n46 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nevidently tinctured with Arian opinions, vi^hich Euse- \nbius held. His approbation of the epistles w^hich he \nhad, is some evidence that they were the larger ones. \nThe question is, whether those letters, which Eusebius \nsaw, were genuine epistles of that martyr. If the \nlarger be claimed, their Arianism militates against \ntheir genuineness ; if the smaller, their opposition to \nthat doctrine must equally prove them supposititious. \nThe writings of twelve Christian fathers, all born after \nthe death of Ignatius, and dead before the birth of \nEusebius, have reached our times. Clemens Roma- \nnus died before Ignatius; Polycarp survived him long. \nHis letter to the Phihppians appears perfectly in cha- \nracter for that excellent man, and entirely consistent \nwith the circumstances of his day, and the condition \nof the churches. That letter does mention letters of \nIgnatius, but except the message to the people of An- \ntioch, the description of their contents by Polycarp, \nas those " from which the Philippians would be able to \nderive great advantage, as containing faith and pa- \ntience, and all that edification which brings us to our \nLord,"* is greatly diflferent from the tenor of those \nwhich are now offered to the world. \n\nThat which purports to have been written toPoly- \ncarp differs in style, but accords with the strain of the \nother six, the obvious design and the main scope of \nwhich, were to enhance clerical authority and popu- \nlar subjugation ; evils of a date long after the days of \nIgnatius. Speaking to the people through Polycarp, \nhe is made to say, " Attend unto the bishop, that God \nmay also to you ; my soul for theirs, who shall be sub- \nject to the bishop, presbyters, and deacons."^ We \nshould have expected from the venerable martyr, on \n\n* E^ av utycfKct at^iWibmt.i S\'vvifo-io-^i. Tltpuxovcrt yap Tticrliv kai \nVTrojuovnVy Kut TrcKroLV oiitoSo/uMV Tuv iic Tov KVf)tov n/umv ctv\xc2\xbb\xc2\xab,ov(rcty . \n\n^ \xc2\xa7 6. Tffi iTria-KOTrm Trpocrt^iJi) iva Kctt o 6\xc2\xabof v/utv, Avli-^v^ov tyu \nToov v7rolat.<r<ro/ui.iva)V tu) i7ri<nt.07rci> Trptcr^vltpiui SietKUVotf. In the larger \nepistle it is vpta-Bvltpici kai Sianovon. The Latin translator has \nrendered Ayli-l^v^ov unanimis, but that is the force of the word \no^o4w;tof. The English translation has, " My soul be for theirs," \n&c. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 47 \n\nhis way to the amphitheatre, where he was to be \neaten by wild beasts, that he should have breathed \nfar other language. Eusebius has mentioned a quo- \ntation by Irenasus of a sentiment, which is found \nin the letter supposed to have been written by Igna- \ntius to the Romans.*^ Irenaeus mentions not the name \nof Ignatius, but says : " As one of ours, adjudged to \nwild beasts for his testimony unto God, said." Ire- \nnaeus\'s book was written more than a hundred years, \nand the expression of Ignatius, as spoken or written, \ntwo hundred before the time when Eusebius wrote. \nThis was probably the evidence by which this credu- \nlous historian received those letters. If he had had \nother proofs, he would probably have given them. \nBut there existed prior to his day, in the writings of \nOrigen also a proof, which extends further than the \npassage in Irenaeus, inasmuch as it both mentions the \nname of Ignatius, and gives a sentiment which is \nfound in that epistle, which is directed to the Ephe- \nsians.*^ Thus Ireneeus and Origen in these scanty \nreferences to the venerable martyr Ignatius, furnished, \nas far as we know, all the foundation upon which \nthose seven epistles, which may have existed in the \ndays of Eusebius, could have then claimed to be those \nmentioned by Polycarp.^ If false men have produced \n\nc \xc2\xa7 4. Iilo? iifxl rev B-iou Ksti S\'i oSovlav B-nptcev ttXh^ofxai ivet \nxn-Supos o-plof (S-scy, in the larger epistle) iupiB-ae (tow x?^alov is not \nin Irenaeus. I am God\'s grain, and am (now to be) ground by the \nteeth of wild leasts, that I may be proved to be the pure bread {of \nChrist.) \n\nd Ka/, sxjtSeSs tov ctf-xjivra. rov itiavoi tgvtou h -praipSevtA Metput;, \n&,c. (6th horn, on Luke, Compar. with Ep. ad Ephes. \xc2\xa7 19.) \nAnd the virg-inity of Mary was hidden from the ruler of this world. \nAlso Origen quoted the words, \'O 6^oc epui \'i<rTa.vpceTu.t, Ad. \nRom. \xc2\xa7 7. \n\ne Feeble as this evidence is, which establishes no more than that, \nif aforg-erv, it was committed prior to the time in which Eusebius \nwrote his Ecclesiastical History. It might pass unsuspected, if the \nstrain of the letters suited the character of the martyr, and the con- \ndition of the churches in his day. They do evince that they were \nwritten before the diocesan episcopacy was introduced; and in this \nthey establish a claim of antiquity, but other circumstances place \nthem after the period they arrogate to themselves. \n\n\n\n48 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMEJfT \n\nother letters of Ignatius, written to Tarsus, Antioch, \nHiero, Mary, and two to John; and enlarged the \nseven, now under consideration ; or, as some think, \nabridged the large ones, to become what are now \ncontended for, and corrected with excessive liberality, \nthe presumption arising from the integrity of our \nrace, that these are the original letters of Ignatius, is \nexceedingly imbecile. The word bishop (sTtKjxoTto?) \nwas not used to distinguish the president {ftposatai^ or \nmessenger (oyya^^o?) in the respective churches from the \nother presbyters {TtptajSvtspoL) who were equally bishops \n(efioaxoTioi,) till long after the death of Ignatius. Yet \nthese letters impute to this pious martyr an ardent \nzeal for the authority of the bishop (sTti^xoTtos) and al- \nways subordinate the presbyteis to him. This also \nappears to have been more at heart with the writer \nthan any other subject. Nor can a reader fail to dis- \ncern the striking contrast between them and the letter \nof Polycarp before cited ; not only in the particular \nlast mentioned, but in the general scope and tendency, \nand in the breathing of humility and piety, conspicu- \nous throughout the latter. There are other particular \ngrounds of objection appearing in these letters, which \nought not to pass unobserved. In the epistle to the \nChristians at Smyrna, he says, "For I also after his," \nChrist\'s " resurrection," " saw him in the flesh, and \nbelieve he exists."^ This is at variance with the \nopinion, that Ignatius was blessed by the Saviour when \nan infant.^ For if then an infant, he could not have \nwitnessed the resurrection of Chiist. We may admit \nhe was given to wild beasts, A. D. 116, for the reasons \n\nf \xc2\xa7 3. \'Eyce, yaip Kcti jusra. tuv etVcta-Tcta-tVi fV crapKl etvrov itJ\'oVy kcli \nTria-Tivec ovret. IT, instead of uSov, be read oiS\'d.^ it may then be, \n\'*/ know that after the resurr( clion he was in ihejiesh, and believe \nthat he is no." But wliy should he have written to those who had \nthe same testimonj\'^ from the apostles, of the divinity of Christ, \nwhich he professed; and why say that he knew it, when it was a \nmatter of belief ? |}ut if he had seen him, it was proper to assert \nthe fact. \n\ng lyVATlQV OV tTl VHTTIQV, CVTit-Ce? ATTXOUV KAl CiKifettOV iVtfUKVV/mtVOCy \n\nitjuYi iTriTus iKiivwyovctTo, &c. Nicephorus, vol. i, p. 192. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 49 \n\nassigned by Pearson, Smith, and others ; and if he \nwas twenty years of age at the resurrection of Christ\', \nwhich is supposing him to have been as young as can \nwell be admitted for such a testimony, then he was \nnot such an infant, but must have been one hundred \nand two years old when he walked from Antioch to \nSeleucia, and sailed to Smyrna, where he wrote four \nof those letters, and from, thence to Troas, where he \nwrote this letter, that to Polycarp, and another to the \nPhiladelphians, and from thence sailed to Neapolis, \nfrom whence he went on foot across Macedonia unto \nthe Adriatic. These labors appear inconsistent with \nthe truth of the fact of his having seen Christ after \nhis resurrection. And if Eusebius and Chrysostom \nare correct in saying that he travelled as a convict \nthrough x\\sia, preaching and comforting the churches, \nthe ditiiculty is greatly enhanced. Chrysostom wrote \nsince Eusebius, has given us a long eulogy on the \npiety and death of Ignatius, through twelve folio half \npages, and detailed his labors ; yet never once has he \nmentioned any of his letters. But Dupin thinks there \nis, in one place, half a line which has been taken from \nthe letter to the Romans. If he accredited those let- \nters, why did he pass them in silence ? Many of the \nterms used in them appear to be of later adoption than \nthe days of the venerable martyr. The church is de- \nnominated cathohc, {xaSo-Kixr^ the place of worship is \nfoojj a temple^ where there is ev ^GLa6tri<;nov, one altar, \n\nand it is affirmed \'triv svxo.pi-Gtiav cjapza nvao Tfov (JcotJ^poj \n?7/icov Ijj^od. Xpt(jT\'o-u Tfi^v ortsp afxapt lcov tj^o^v rCa9ovar]v, that \n\nthe euchay-ist is thefiesh of ow Saviour Jesus Christ, which \nsuffered for our sins ; and also to be the bread of God, \naptos tov e^cyv. But the favorite and predominant ex- \npression appears to be, vnotansiGeai ta iTtcaxortcp, to be \nin subjection unto the bishop, to which is also added, \n\xc2\xab5 ^tO\'P\'\'^*\' ^fov, as to the grace of God. \n\nThere appears in the letter to the Trallians an ex- \nample of proud boasting, badly accordant both with \nthe character and circumstances of the aged martyr \n\nF \n\n\n\n50 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\non his way to execution^ " Am not I able to write \nto you heavenly things? But I fear that I should do \nyou an injury, being infants ; and, pardon me, lest, not \nbeing able to swallow, you should be strangled. For \nI also, not as though I am bound, am able even to \nwrite (ypo^/at) heavenly things, and the local dispositions \nof the angels, and the companies under the princes, \nand things visible and things invisible." Christ\'s ap- \npearance to Paul after his resurrection, and Paul\'s \nrapture and sight of what it was not allowed him to \ndescribe, seem to be the things here imitated, but the \nknowledge which Ignatius boasted, exceeds any \nclaimed by the apostle. \n\nIt has been often objected to these letters, that there \nis a denial in that to the Magnesians, that Jesus \nChrist proceeded from Sige ; which had been affirmed \nby Valentinus some time after the martyrdom of Igna- \ntius. The words of the letters are, " Seeing there is \none God, who manifested himself by Jesus Christ his \nson, who is his eternal Word, not proceeding from \nSige, who in all things pleased him who sent him." * \nIrenaeus and Tertullian, who wrote against the follow- \ners of Valentinus, both show that he held Sige to be \none of his first duad, from whom ^mediately Christ \ncame. Also, that Valentinus began his fanciful modi- \nfications of the heresy of the Gnostics almost half a \ncentury after the death of Ignatius, is indubitable.\'^ It \nhas been answered that Sige {silence) was meant ap- \n\nJ^ \xc2\xa7 5. yin ov ivvAfxAi TO, ivovfctviit yfdi-^\'dii\'^ OLWoLi (^ojiovfjietl fxn \nynTTiQig ov!riv v/uiv ^Koi^mv TrttpciBco. Kctt a-vyyvafjioviiri /utoi, /unTrert \nou Jvvyi&ivri? ^oopTia-tt (rTpttyyctKovQ)i\'Ti {a-TpAyyAKad-nri in the larg\'Cr \nletter.) Kat< yap iyoo ov Kot.6oTt S\'Ji/ustt, Kcti Suva/uivos ret iTrovpxviAf \n\nopATotTiKitt ctopATct. Whiston joins ov with J^vva/unoc, am not able; \nbut then these words contradict those which precede them, and \nalso the larger epistle, which here adds his knowledg-e *\' of the \nmag-nificence of the ^ons, and of the incomparable majesty of \nAlmighty God." \n\ni \xc2\xa7 8. \xe2\x80\x94 Ort 8/? S-gof fCTTiv (psiVipcua-eii ittvrov J\'iet, JiKrou X^icrov too \nviov ctvTob, Of io-Ttv dLVTou Koyog AtSiog OUK, cLTTo <ny\xc2\xbbg TrpoixBav, o? katx \nTTAVTA iUHpiorrna-iv Tct) ?riju-^a.vri avtov. \n\nk Vide Irenaeus, lib. iii. c. iv. Euseb. Hist, lib, Iv. c, 2, Nice- \npliorus, lib. iv, c, 3. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 51 \n\npellatively. But this is not satisfactory. It has been \nalso asserted that the Gnostics had the same error \nbefore Yalentinus. But the correctness of this we \nhave never found. There is a passage in Eusebius \nwhich has been brought to show that he referred \nSige to Simon Magus, but the better opinion is, that \nhe speaks of Marcellus\'s Sige, as derived from Valen- \ntinus, and agrees with Epiphanius, who affirms that \nMarcellus took his iEons from that arch-heretic of \nthe second century, which is also credible, because \nSimon Magus was dead long before his day. This \nobjection might appear enough, but it is amply sup- \nported by its coincidence with many others. \n\nThe larger copy is generally and deservedly aban- \ndoned as tumid wdth interpolations, and savoring of \nArianism. Yet there are expressions in the smaller, \nhow justifiable soever in point of doctrine, which \nwould not have been so frequently reiterated, and \nwith so much point, by any writer before the days of \nArius. Thus Ad Smyrnm. s. 1. Aofafo irjawv xpf\'i\'^ov, \n\ntov Oiop, &C. S. 10. w5 6\'axavwj ;tptsT\'ov Osov. Ad Ephes. \nPraet. Ev OsXr^fiato iov rtar\'pof, xao I^/jov ;^pKJT\'ov, t\'ou 0fov \na^jucov. S. 1. iv at^aT\'c dtov* S. 7. \xc2\xa3v Gapxv ysvofisvoi 0\xc2\xa3Of. \nS- 18. Oyap Oso^ rifji,Z)V Ir^Oov^ o j^pt^foj, &C. Ad. Trail. S. 7. \n\xc2\xa9fow lr^6ov xptatov. Ad Roill. Praef. liycrov ;^pn?\'r\'0D, tov Osov \nf^ficiv. ibid, sv Irjaov xp<,(STfu, ta Osio iqfjLMV. S. S. O yap d^o^ \n\n^fiuv i^fjoTJ? xpi\'S\'to^, &c. Because Whiston has utterly \nfailed in his efforts to sustain the larger epistles and \nthe pseudo-apostolic constitutions which President \nDwight justly pronounces " a miserable forgery \xe2\x80\x94 in \nthe latter end of the fourth, or the beginning of the \nfifth century," it by no means follows that the above \nand other passages, which he has noted in the smaller \nepistles, are not strong proofs that those letters were \nwritten long after the days of Ignatius. \n\nThat Ignatius wrote letters is true, if the passage to \nthat effect in Polycarp\'s letter be not an interpolation. \nBut the genuineness of these letters appears to be \nwithout any sufficient support prior to the fourth cen- \ntury. That either the smaller or larger ones existed \n\n\n\n52 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nwhen Eusebius wrote, is credible, but to what inter- \npolations and alterations they may have been since \nsubjected, is not known. If we place them in the third \ncentury, near its commencement, their existence is \nthen admitted to have been an hundred years prior to \nthe evidence furnished by Eusebius, and their language \nand subject matter will be freed from the many other- \nwise insurmountable objections which have been so \noften brought against them. \n\nThose to the churches at Ephesus, Magnesia, \nTralles, Rome, Philadelphia, and Smyrna, and another \nto Polycarp, seven only, out of fifteen, are now thought \nto claim any attention. \n\nThat parochial episcopacy which they inculcate, \neven to indiscretion, determines them, at the earliest, \nto the third century, when the rtpofoTwj, or presiding \nelder, had monopolized the name bishop ; and the tacit \nconcession of their scriptural title had produced a \npartial surrender of the episcopal authority of presby- \nters, under the plausible pretext of securing the honor \nand peace of the church. But these epistles discover \nonly a diversity in degree, not order ; some change \nin government, none in ordination. They were indi- \nvidual churches, in each of which there were a bishop, \nof less power than a modern pastor, a presbytery, and \ndeacons. \n\nThe letter to the Ephesians represents them con- \nvening, BJio to ouT\'o, unto the same place, at the same time, \nor for the same purpose as a single church. Their \nbishop, Onesimus, was, in the impious language \nof the letter, to be respected as the Lord himself, \n\'\'\xc2\xabj aufoi\' tov Kvci\'Ov Sst rtpoojSxfrtEtv.*\' T^he\'iY presbytery \nwas worthy of G od ! vy^u>v Tt^ecfjSDT\'f^tov tov Osov a|tov 5 and \nif that duty be chiefly important which is most en- \njoined in these letters, the reverence of God must give \nplace to clerical aggrandizement. \n\nThe uniform representation of a bishop, presbyters, \nand deacons, in a single church, accords with the \nstate of things in this century. The observation, that \nit is good to teach, if the teacher practices accordingly^ \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 53 \n\ndirected to the Ephesian Christians, in the absence of \ntheir bishop, imphes that the presbyters were teachers; \nand is corroborated by the commendation of the silence \nof their bishop, " avyavla srctr<xo7tov,^^ otherwise culpable. \nAn inculcation of obedience to the bishop and presbytery ^ \n\ncij rto vrCaxovsLv v/jLag T\'9 ZTiiaxorici xao \xe2\x80\xa2r\'9 rt^fffjtJwT\'f^t^) \n\nhowever singular it would have appeared in the age \nof the martyr, discovers in such a writer the necessity \nof yielding to the pubHc notoriety of the sameness of \nthe order, even at the period of the forgery. \n\nThe church of Magnesia, in Asia, is also represented \nas a single congregation, worshipping in one place, \nand by one supplication. In language approaching \nprofaneness, this letter describes Damas, who was in \ndanger of being despised on account either of youth \nor stature, as the bishop presiding in the place of Gody \nstpoxaOr^jxsvov 1*01; sTitaxortov stj \'tojtov &sov ; the presbyters, in \nplace of a session of apostles, \'icav Ttpsaf^vls^oiv ft? -tortov \n(fvvsSptov tu>v artoslo\'Kiov ; and the deacons, as entrusted with \nthe service of Jesus Christ, tav Scaxovuv Tteriiolivfisvcuf \nBiaxoviav itjaov xptcf7ov. The Word rt^oxaOrifisvov IS, lite- \nrally, occupying the first seat, which, being of the same \nkind with that of the presb3\'ters who sat with him, \nimplies that their order was the same. Acaxovtai/, \nthough rendered ministry^ is no stronger than Biaxovo^, \nIf these presbyters were successors of the apostles, \nand the pastor denominated the bishop, and compared \nto God himself, was of the same order, they were not \nlaymen. At Tralles, the church were advised, in the \nlanguage of modern idolatry, to respect the deacons, \nhiaxovovi, and the bishop erven as Jesus Christ, who is the \nSon of the Father, oj Irjaovv Kpcalop coj xai tov B7tt(Sxo7tovf \novta ^vLov tov na7poj, and the presbyters as a council of \nGod, and a college of apostles, tw^ 8s Ttpsajivtepovs \xc2\xab? aws- \nSpcov Ssov, xav evvhidixov artoal oXi^v . He that, zuithout the \nbishop, presbytery, and deacons, does any thbig, rtpasaw tit \n15 not pure in his consciejice. It becomes you, every indi^ \' \nvidual, and especially the presbyters, to cherish, ava^xst\'V, \nthe bishop, to the honor of the Father of Jesus Christ, and \nof the apostles. After the valediction, subjection to the \nf2 \n\n\n\n54 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nbishopf as by command, wj fji evto^vi^ is enjoined^ and in \nlike manner also to the presbytery. This, in like manner, \no^otwj xM tc^ rt^ccjjSuf fpt9, discovers that the presbytery \nwere not included in the vitolaasofiivoiy or subjection to \nthe bishop, as were the people to the bishop and pres- \nbytery : another proof that the presbyters were not \nlaymen. \n\nThe letter to the church at Rome, dated at Smyrna, \nis a violation of the sixth precept of the law, repre- \nsenting it to be easy for them to do what they pleased, \n*vfit,v yap svxspsi Boltv \'o dsT^sls Tioiri^at, but injurious to him, \nif they should spare him. He was sure of death, if \nthey would consent. This letter bears little resem- \nblance, except in weakness, to the rest, and was pro- \nbably the work of some third Ignatius. \n\nThe letter to the church at Philadelphia, in Asia \nProper, from Troas, may be imputed to the writer \nof the three first. It represents Ignatius to have \nspoken in the church at Philadelphia, with a great \n\nvoice, 1*9 \xc2\xa37io6xo7tcp Ttpodsx^ls^ xav T\'9 Tipscj^vtBpicf) xav biaxovoc^, \nadhere to the bishop, the presbytery, and the deacons. It was \nthought that he had foreseen a division of the people, \nbut he calls God to witness, that the Spirit spake. To gg \nTtvBviio. \xc2\xa3XYi^v66Bv, Saying these things: ^\'Do nothing with\' \n\nout your bishop, <^-C." %tycov taSs i X^P^^ \'^^ov \xc2\xa37ti6x07tov fi7j8sv \n\n7toi\xc2\xa3(,Tfe, &c. The position is unsound, the inspiration \nat best a delusion, and the oath a falsehood, of all \nwhich the pious Ignatius was probably clear. But \nwe are concerned at present only with the fact, that \nthere were, at the period of this forgery, no lay \nelders. \n\nThe letter to the church at Smyrna, from Troas, \nresembles the last and the three first. This church \nwas also a single assembly, ortw cw ^aviq \'o sTicaxoTto?, txa \nto 7i%Yi9oq ealci, wheresoever the bishop may appear, there let \nthe multitude be. The same extravagant comparisons \nare here reiterated : Let all follow the bishop, as Jesus \nChrist does the Father, and the presbytery as apostles ; \nand let them reverence the deacons, as the commandment of \nGod. Let that eucharist be accounted valid, which is by \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN" CHURCHES. 55 \n\nthe bishop, or by him whom he shall appoint, txstvfj /3fj3atci \ntvxo>^\'\'0\'^^<^ jyysta^co, ij vrto t\'ov tritcxoTtov otxja, \xc2\xbb/ 9 av cin)7oj \n\ntHri^B-i^. Whilst this delegation of authority shows \nthe late period of the letter, it equally evinces that the \npresbyters of the third century were not la3^men. \n" It is not lawful, ovx s^ov sale, without the bishop, to bap* \ntize, or oyarti^v TioLsw, celebrate the feast.^^ If the duties \nwhich are here supposed to be legalized by the bishop, \nbe baptism and the eucharist, presbyters, not laymen, \nmust have been prohibited. The prohibition supposes \nan antecedent contrary practice ; and the power of \nthe bishop, hereby gained, resulted from a restraint \nimposed upon presbyters, under the pretext of secur- \ning peace. They were not, however, reduced to lay- \nmen, nor have they been at any subsequent period. \n\nThe letter directed to Polycarp, from Troas, re- \nsembles the rest, except that to the Romans ; yet has \nbeen doubted by some who have received the other \nsix. If Polycarp could have had a personal acquain- \ntance with every man in his charge, i-otj xa-r-a owSpa\xe2\x80\x94 \nXnUi, he was scarcely a diocesan. After enjoining \nhim to let nothing be done without his consent, " Mf^Bev \nap\xc2\xa3v yvcof^tj? 60V ytveaOa, turning to the people, the cun- \nning writer says, attend to the bishop that God also may \n\nto you, t(^ \xc2\xa3jii(jxo7ti^ rCpo6a%\xc2\xa3t\xc2\xa3, iva xai. 6 Oso^ \'vfiiv. I will be \n\nthe surety, soul for soul, of them that submit to the bishop, \npresbyters, and deacons, avli-^vzov syo thov v7iotasooiA,\xc2\xa3vcov -ti^ \nsriiaxoTiCiX, TtpsajSvfEpoos, Staxoi^otj. This is not too much \nto be expected of the real author. All the relevant \npassages have not been quoted, but nothing has been \ndiscovered in these letters, either of diocesan superi- \nority, or of lay eldership. Nevertheless, an indiscreet \nzeal to enhance the power of bishops, and to depre- \nciate the authority of presbyters, appears in all, ex- \ncept that to the Romans. \n\nAt the period of these letters, it is plain, that bishops \nin nothing, differed from pastors of churches, or con- \ngregational bishops ; except that there still remained \nin all the churches, presbyters who preached, and \nmight, with the bishop\'s usurped permission, perform \n\n\n\n56 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nthe other ordinances ; and nothing has appeared in \nthese letters, or any other writings hitherto examined, \nto show, or even found a suspicion, that there ever \nhad been more than one ordinary preaching office. \nAlso, not a solitary fact or circumstance has occurred \nin these letters, or prior to the third century, which \nfurnishes even the idea of a lay presbyter. Those \nwho are accustomed to argue conclusively from them, \nthat no diversity existed in the ordination of preach- \ners, ought also to discern, that this circumstance is \nequally decisive against the existence of lay presby- \nters at that period, and corroborates the allegation of \na total defect of such an ordination, either by precept \nor example in the Sacred Scriptures. \n\n\n\nAN ANSWER TO " PHILO-IGNATIUS." \xc2\xbb \n\nTms signature is an assumption of that, which the \nwriter aims to establish ; and unjust in the eyes of \nthose who deem the letters vindicated a blot upon the \nmemory of the pious martyr. That they are ancient \nis unquestionable : if P. I. can show them to be gen- \nuine, or disclose ancient proofs of the martyrology, he \nwill do a public service. The burden of proving lies \nupon the affirmative ; facts only, not opinions, are ad- \nmissible. Proofs later than the third century, in \nwhich their subject matter appears to place them, are \nof no avail, except as to their Arian and Athanasian \ninterpolations. \n\nThatEusebius represents Ignatius b,s passing through \nAsia on his way to martyrdom at Rome, was alleged \nby W. To this P. I. has politely answered : " Euse- \nbius in truth asserts no such thing." The first issue is, \n\n1 Gospel Advocate, Vol. iii. No. 2. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN\'^ CHURCHES. 57 \n\ntherefore, upon the words \xe2\x80\x94 "f^v 5t\' Acta^ avaxo^t^j^v \n\nTtOlOVfiSVOi. "\xe2\x84\xa2 \n\np. I. has observed, " Avaxo/xi^By^ means, according to \nSuidas, the same as amyoS^^, srcavoBos ava^o^a. The word \nis used in speaking of the transportation of a dead \nbody from one sepulchre to another, from a field of \nbattle to interment. See 2. Mace. xii. 39. E|fxo^t^f7o, \na word of the same origin is used in Luke, vii. 12, of \nthe son of the widow of Nain, who was carried out for \nburial. The idea, then, conveyed by this expressive \nword, is that of carrying away without any will of the \nperson carried^ \n\nIf the three synonymes brought from Suidas be cor- \nrect, to which Hesychius adds amycoyj^, then avaxo/xL^vj \nmust signify the very reverse of carrying away, a \nreturn. But, ^\' \xc2\xa3ttxoiJ.i^sto, a word of the same origin, is \n\xe2\x80\x94 carried out.\'\'\'\' And rightly, for \xc2\xa3x and ava, in compo- \nsition, have opposite meanings. Another proof is \nbrought from 2 Mace. xii. 39, where avaxoiii6aGeai is \nused for " the tra?isportation of dead bodies." It is a \nmistake ; it is there used for the bringing the dead \nbodies to be buried ; otherwise socxoixiaaadai would have \nbeen adopted, as in Luke. Ko^t^co is to hear, sx is \nawayy sxxo/xL^a is to bear away, and exxofiiSr], like sx^o^a, \nis transportation, or a carrying away. On the contrary, \n(wa is re in composition ; aj^aseo^t^w is to bring back, or \nreturn; and avaxofjLoSrj a return, as Suidas has shown. \nBy what authority P. I. could affirm, that avaxofitSy] \nsignifies a " carrying away without any will of the person \ncarried, remains for him to discover. He knew, that \n*o^t\xc2\xa7>7 means care, or a carrying ; that \xc2\xa3x signifies away, \nand ava the opposite. How he could represent amxo- \nlii^ the same as sxxoixiSy}, a carrying away, his claim of \n" learning and experieyice^^ requires him to develope. In \nxofiia, euro, the will of the agent is implied. But if he \ncould elicit from avaxofA,tSvi the idea of " without any will \n\n\xe2\x84\xa2 Euseb. lib. iii. c. 36. Vide Necephor. lib. iil. c. xix. \xe2\x80\x94 xa* \n\n*F\xc2\xabiyvv Sio-fxioc Si A (T tot? laiv /uiT (t<r^ciKovs tovs ^povfiAS \xe2\x80\x94 " et Asiam \n\ncum firma militum custodia pera^rans." \n\n\n\n68 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nof the person carried^\'\' he would depart from the syno- \nnymes he has brought from Suidas \xe2\x80\x94 oppose the letters \nhe wishes to estabhsh, which assert the martyr\'s wil- \nlingness ; and contradict Ttotavfisvo^^ which expresses \nthe reverse. \n\nW. imagines that txxofjn^ and oA\'axo^vB^ were words \ncommonly used, for going from and returning to the \ncapital, especially on those pubHc roads, which were \nmade from Rome into the provinces. But he was \n*\' misled by trusting to the Latin translatio7i of Valesius, \nwhich is, cum per Asiam ductaretur. This, in his zeal to \nfind out an inconsistency, he thought could mean no- \nthing else than an overland journey. If he had looked \nat the ancient translation by Rufinus, he would have \nfound this very passage thus rendered, cum per Asiam \nsub custodia navigaret.^^ \n\nP. I. concluding, what indeed is too true, that W. is \na " novice," sports with him ; as if Ttovwixsvo? was navi- \ngaret, and an object, \'tvjv avaxofuS\'yjv, equivalent unto sub \ncustodia, a circumstance. P. I. has been himself se- \nduced, and as those who fall into bad company have \na heart ready for it, so he has been too anxious to \nmake this passage express sailing. If a thousand \nsuch critics as Philo-fgnatius and Rufinus should ren- \nder \'t\'yjv avaxofxi^nqv 7ioLovfi\xc2\xa3voi by ex custodia navigaret, \nthere would be no defect of " modesty" in smiling at \ntheir acumen. \n\nIt is further observed by the author in the " Gospel \nAdvocate ;" " An examination of a map would show \nat once, why Eusebius used the expression St\'Acrta?. \nInstead of going straight from Antioch through the \nMediterranean to Italy, which would have been the \nmost direct and ordinary course, the martyr was con- \nveyed St\'Affta?, by the way of Asia Minor." " The Mar- \ntyrology specifies that Ignatius went by water from \nSelucia to Neapolis, touching only at the several \nplaces mentioned in Asia Minor." " Learned" men \nsometimes presume too much upon the " ignorance" of \nothers. A great circle passing through Antioch to \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 59 \n\nthe capital of the empire, varies little from the ancient \nRoman way, through what is now called Asia Minor, \nto Pergamus ; and from the road from NeapoHs by \nThessalonica to the Adriatic, opposite Brundusium ; \nand from the Appian way, which passed directly to \nthe Amphitheatre. Any course by sea from Antioch \nto Rome will deviate from the line mentioned, by a \nperpendicular distance, not less than three or four \ntimes longer than any one from any part of the route \nthrough Asia, by Neapolis, Thessalonica, and Brun- \ndusium. If it were worth the effort to controvert the \nassertion, that sailing was then the " ordinary\'\'\' mode, \nit can be evinced equally incorrect. \n\nThat the pious Ignatius was sent by Trajan to Rome \nin some manner, and died a martyr there, we will not \ndispute. That these forgeries existed when Eusebius \nwrote, is credible, but to what interpolations they were \nafterwards subjected, is not known. A suggestion of \na possibility that the larger were those which Eusebius \nhad seen, induced P. I. to exhibit comparisons of the \nthree quotations in that versatile historian. The first \nhe has judged unimportant. The second is five to one \nagainst him, upon his own showing. With regard to \nthe third, it is enough to say : If Eusebius had the \nlarger ones before him, he omitted only what was in \nthe Scriptures, and sufficiently known. Also, it is not \nto be supposed, that if the smaller were last made, the \nabridger would have ventured to deviate from the \nthen most public historian in the Christian world. \nThe same reason also operates with equal force to \nshow, that the larger were prior to Eusebius ; at least \nin that passage, for a wary interpolator must have \nfeared the variance. \n\nWhether the Arian or Athanasian set, or the origi- \nnal forgeries, were seen by Constantine\'s historian, it \nis impossible to tell. P. I. thinks their genuineness \n" long ago settled by the judgment of the learned \nworld." On the contrary. Dr. Priestly alleges, " that \nthe genuineness of them is not only very much doubt- \n\n\n\n60 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT, &C. \n\ned, but generally given up by the learned." Both \nhave erred ; for the history of the dispute will show, \nit is still sub judice. But an appeal to opinions is \nworse than vain ; facts must decide. \n\nThe imbecility of W. should have saved him from \nthe charge of eiimity against episcopacy. If by that \nname, P. 1. intends a denomination, W. believes it a \npart of the body of Christ, and to continue till He \ncomes ; \xe2\x80\x94 it has his daily prayers : if a class of profess- \ning Christians, many of these are his best and most be- \nloved friends, with whom he mixes before the throne \nof grace : if the diocesan form of government, W. wishes \nevery one to follow it who chooses, and promises to \ndo so himself, if P. I. will show even probability for its \nexistence in the New Testament, or the two first cen- \nturies. \n\nThe object of the writer of these numbers is to coun- \nteract an episcopacy industriously, but not always in- \ngenuously, propagated in his own denomination ; with \nwhich the letters of the pseudo-Ignatius have a closer \naffinity than with that which is diocesan ; against the \nearly existence of which they are a standing monu- \nment. \n\n^ Schroeckh, the most distinguished of the modem ecclesiastical \nhistorians of Germany, not only asserts that the genuineness of the \nlarger epistles of Ignatius has received very little support from the \nlearned, but plainly intimates an opinion that the smaller, if not a \nforgery, have been interpolated. In his epitome, he says, " appa- \nruit tandem, etiam breviores earum, nisi ab alio scriptas, at certe \ninterpolatas esse in gratiam episcoporum." \xe2\x80\x94 Ed. \n\n\n\nSECTION VII. \n\nExpediency no justification for ordinations ncft prescribed hy divine autJwrtiy. \n\xe2\x80\x94 The work of Minucius Felex shows that Christians had no temples, altars, \nnor images, when he wrote, and that their worship was concealed.\xe2\x80\x94 TTie Sta- \ntue ofHippolytus in the Vatican, is later than A.D. 600. \xe2\x80\x94 His tract against \nNoetits, proves that a presbytery in a church had the power to cite and depose \na heretic. \xe2\x80\x94 Origen calls the angels of the seven churches in the Apocalypse \nTpoiff-lapig . \xe2\x80\x94 Tlie Philocalia were collected long after his death; a passage \nin them has been misunderstood. \xe2\x80\x94 His censures of the ambition and ignor- \nance of bishops and presbyters, and his interpretations of the Scriptures \nevince, that the church vxls still in the state of parochial episcopacy. \n\nIf a mode of government can be elicited from the \nNew Testament, the maxim, "whatever is best admin- \nistered is best," is more objectionable in ecclesi- \nastical, than civil politics. Ambition has often per- \nverted both; yet the essentials of the church of Christ \nexist in many denominations unto this day. Never- \ntheless, to affirm that expediency can vindicate ordi- \nnations not found in the word, is to assert, that the end \ncan justify unlawful means. Pious breathings of heart \nare religion, yet zeal should associate attainable know- \nledge, correct motives, and other circumstances ; and \nnever substitute " for doctrines the commandments of \nmen." \n\nMinucius, Hippolytus, and Origen will now prove, \nthat during the intermissions of the sufferings inflicted \nby Severus, Maximinus, and Decius, in the third cen- \ntury the scriptural ordinary officers ruled, and served \nthe churches. \n\nThe Octavius of Marcus Minucius Felix appears to \nhave been written, after the apology of Tertullian, \nand to contain passages transcribed by Cyprian. It \nis a vindication of Christianity perfectly in character \nfor a Roman orator, as was the writer. \n\nG \n\n\n\n62 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nCecilius presents the arguments of the day against, \nand Octavius defends, the "mad superstition;" Marcus \nis intrusted by the former to be umpire, and by hims \nalso saved from the trouble of a sentence. This plea- \nsant little fiction offers to our subject nothing relevant, \nexcept an unbiassed representation, at its period, of \nthe humble condition of the Christian church in the \ncapital of the world. Cecilius, in his ardor asks; \n"Why have they," the Christians, "neither altars, nor \ntemples, nor any images, at least which are known? \nWhy do they not speak, but in private holes, and cor- \nners, whither they repair by stealth, if this their reli- \ngion be not infamous and criminal?\'\'^ Octavius, who \nanswers the objections of his opponent in succession, \nasks, "To what purpose should we make any form or \nrepresentation of God, whose living image, man him- \nself is 1 Or what temple should we raise to him, since \nthe world, which he has formed, is not able to contain \nhim? Were it not much better to dedicate our mind for \nhis abode, and consecrate our heart for his altar? \nNor ought we to be accused of prating in corners, if \nyou be either ashamed or afraid to hear us in pubhc." \nCecilius had also said, "Their nocturnal ceremonies \nand concealed devotions sufficiently prove the things \ncharged against them. And they who tell us, that \nthey worship a man, who was crucified, and that the \nwood of a cross constitutes a great part of their de- \nvotion, do worthily attribute to them altars suitable to \ntheir crimes, adoring what they deserve." To these \nthings Octavius replied; "We neither worship crosses, \nnor wish to be nailed to them. You yourselves are \nmore likely to adore them, who worship wooden \ngods, that are made of the same matter." Cecilitis \nhad with acrimony asked; "shall we suffer men of an \nunlawful, infamous and desperate faction, without fear \nof punishment, to attempt against the gods \xe2\x80\x94 a confe- \nderacy, or rather a conspiracy, into which they are \nnot initiated by any holy rites, but by impious crimes, \npractised in their night conventicles, solemn fasts, and \nhorrid and inhuman feasts? These are the people that \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 63 \n\nskulk in the dark, and flee the Hght, who are mute in \npubHc, and full of chat in their private assemblies. \nThey slight the dignities of the priesthood, and con- \ntemn the sacred purple, &c." Octuvius answered; \n*\'As for our feasts, they are chaste and sober. With \nrespect to honors, it doth not follow, that because we \ndecline your purple and dignities, that we are the dregs \nof the people; nor are we to be accounted factious, if \naspiring after the same happiness, we all meet together \nin peace, and retirement." \n\nSuch was the humiliating condition of the churches \nin Italy, at the period mentioned. Instead of power \nand dignity, liberty of conscience had no public pro- \nlection, and the true worshippers met, only, under the \nclouds of the night, in sequestered corners. \n\nHippolytus, probably an inhabitant of Arabia, was \ncontemporary with Minucius Felix; but if a resident \nof Portus, the mouths of the Tiber only divided him \nfrom the scene of the Octavius. Some fragments on- \nly are his, in the volume which bears his name. \n\nThe "Chronicon" was the work of another Hippoly- \ntus. The tract "De Consummatione Mundi," which \ntreats of Antichrist, is the production of a later age. \nThe confidence and ignorance, which it displays, agree \nnot with the character given by Photius and others, of \nthis father. "The commentary on the story of Su- \nsannah" is equally unworthy. "The accounts of the \nApostles and Disciples," if his, have been interpolated \nwith fictions of later times. The nameless monumental \nstatue, now in the Vatican, rescued from the ground \nin 1551, bearing an engraving of the Cycle attributed \nto Hippolytus, is supposed to have been of him ; but \nfour-fifths of the titles of the works, appearing on the \nengraved representation of it, are not those ascribed \nto him by Eusebius, Jerom, Photius, and the rest; and \nno one of them is certain. The forms of some of the \nGreek letters are later and so must the statue be, than \nthe sixth century. "The apostohc tradition" which is \nnow published in his name, rests upon no other evi- \ndence than this stone. Being indeed a modification \n\n\n\n64 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nfrom the eighth book of the apostolical constitutions, it \nmerits equal contempt, and carries its obvious grounds \nof condemnation on its face. Yet was it written when \nbishops were parochial, commissioned without impo- \nsition of hands, when a presbytery was in every \nchurch, when the presbyters were all preachers, and the \ndeacons served. "The demonstration against the \nJews," seems to be a commentary on the 69th Psalm. \nNeither in it, nor in any of the fragments of his com- \nmentaries, has any thing been found relative to the go- \nvernment of the church. \n\nThe tract "Against the heresy of a certain Noetus,\'* \nthe patripassian, contains much good sense and has \nclaims of genuineness. In the first paragraph Noetus \nis said to have affirmed, that Christ was the Father,., \nand that the Father himself suffered; that NcEtus was \nMoses; and his brother, Aaron; and that "the presby- \nters having heard these things, and cited him, Tt^sa- \n^vls^oo Tt^osxa\'KB6afisvoo, they examined him before the \nchurch." He denied, but afterwards, defended openly \nhis opinions. "The presbyters summoned him a se- \ncond time, condemned" \xe2\x80\x94 and "cast him out of the \nchurch." If this be a part of the writings of Hippo- \nlytus against heretics, mentioned by Eusebius, Jerom,. \nand Photius, and quoted without name by Epiphanius, \nit accords with all antecedent evidence, and evinces^ \nthat the presbytery in a church, then, had the power of \nciting, trying, and excommunicating heretics. The \npresbyters in this case acted unquestionably as a pres- \nbytery, which must have had its president, or in the \nlanguage of some in that day, bishop. The whole pro- \nceedings are described as they should have been, upon \nthe supposition, that this had all the officers heretofore \nfound in any regularly constituted church. The trial \nand sentence against a heretic, here had by presby- \nters, well accords with their clerical ordination. Hip- \npolytus says, Noetus was of Smyrna. Epiphanius \nmakes Ephesus, the birth place of this heresy, but he \nis a loose writer, and was bom more than ^ century \nafter. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 65 \n\nOrigen, who was honoured with the name Adaman- \ntius, was born some time before the end of the second \nand lived unto the middle of the third century. Hav- \ning taught successfully a philosophic and catechetic \nschool in Alexandria, he was at length irregularly or- \ndained in Palestine, a presbyter.* His expositions of \nthe Scriptures are often refined and visionary; and his \ndoctrines on some points unsound. But as his powers \nof discrimination have justly demanded high respect, so \nhis piety was of the purest water. Speaking of the an- \ngels in the Apocalypse, he says; "That certain ruling \npresbyters in the churches were called angels, by John \nin the Apocalypse."\'^ The same term, ?t^o\xc2\xa3a7cof, was \nused by Paul;^ and continually by Justin Martyr, for \nthat presbyter, who presided in worship, and blessed \nthe sacramental elements. This head of the elders \nmust have been, for there was no higher ordinary offi- \ncer in any Christian church, the angel in each of the \nchurches in the Apocalypse. Here is the learned Ori- \ngen, a cotemporary for many years with Irenasus, Cle- \nmens Al. and Tertullian, another decisive witness, that \nthe riding, was not a lay, presbyter. He observes also, \n"With us, reasonings are mild towards those, who re- \nceive instruction; but it becomes him, who has been \npromoted to the work of teaching, Tt^aialafjitvov tov ^oyw, \nto be able to convince such as oppose the Gospel." \n*^The word n^oiala^tvov here used for any person, \nwho has been elevated to the office of a teacher, is \nused in the same sense, in 1 Thess. v. 12. where, fol- \nlowing, without the article, it is another characteristic \nof those, who had been described as "labouring in the \nword." If it be the duty of a n^otalafxEvoi presidefii to be \n\na Erasmus in his life of Origen, and others, have given too much \ncredit to the relations of Eusebius: he was partial to Origen, and \nopposed Porphyry by stories instead of proofs. \n\nb TlgoiTlZflcLi TtVAs TOY iKKXna-iSiV ctyyiKovi Ki-yio-bctl TTctoA t^ \nlastyyHsv Tit^TfOKcLW-^ii.*\'\' DeOrat. S, 34. \n\nc ITim. V. 17. \n\nd Contra Celsum, lib. vi. p. 279. \n\ng5? \n\n\n\n^6 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nable to convince adversaries, it follows that the same \nrt^ot(j7a^\xc2\xa3j^oj, ruling elder of a church was a teacher. \nThe word denotes presidency or priority, and being \nassociated with the authority to teach, but contrasted \nwith the milder instructions of catechist, it sufficiently \ndiscovers the office to have been that of a presbyter; \nfor although the term bishop was now often used for \nft^osal cii, presiding elder; there were, as yet, but the \ntwo ordinations, one of presbyters, the other of dea- \ncons. \n\nAn argument for the identity of the orders of bish- \nops and presbyters, has often been drawn from the first \nchapter of Titus, where the terms of office, and the \npersonal quaUfications are used so promiscuously, as to \nbaffle all powers of discrimination. Origen has ob- \nserved on the same passage, that, "It is evident, that \nin the designation of those denominated bishops, Paul \ndelineating what kind of a man, it was fit, should be a \nbishop, has directed, that he be a teacher, saying, it \nbecomes him to be able to confute gainsayers^^ Here the \npresbyters, whom Titus was left in Crete to ordain, are \ndeclared by Origen, to have been the persons, whom \nPaul immediately afterwards denominates bishops; \nand if these were all to be teachers, which is here also \naffirmed, they were of one kind only, and none of \nthem laymen. \n\nA passage has sometimiCs been quoted and unfairly \ntranslated, on prayer. " Besides those which are gen- \neral, there is a certain debt to the widow, who has \nbeen received by the church, t-ij xn^o.^ \xe2\x80\x94 o^n-kri^ and ano- \nther to the deacon, xat ifc^a fitaxovw, and another to the \npresbyter, xat ck-k-kti 7t^f(yj3in\'\xc2\xa3^o\'D,but the debt to the bishop \n\nis the most weighty, xat STtc<Sxo7tov St oqist\'Ktj ^a^vlalfj saltVf \n\nbeing required by the Saviour of the whole church, and \navenged, unless it be paid." ^ \n\nIf the debt to the presbyter was thought by Origen, to \nbe different from that due the bishop, he has not so ex- \n\nc Orig. contra Celsum. lib. iii. p. 140. \nf Orig". n\xc2\xabp<. (v^n;. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 67 \n\npressed it. The translation, "another to presbyters, \nand another to bishops" is indefensible. Yet if we \nsuppose Origen to have intended, that the debt dtie the \nbishop was weightiest, because of his care and res- \nponsibility, as the presiding presbyter, whose superin- \ntending anxiety for the whole church, laid a just foun- \ndation of a claim upon the people for proportional re- \nmuneration, the passage will be a just representation \nof facts, in the government of the churches at that \ntime; and the adoption of the word bishop in the sense \nof rt^o\xc2\xa3(jT\'\xc2\xabs, ruling elder would have been no more than \na conformity to a mode of expression, which was be- \nginning to be adopted in his day. But the debt to the \nbishop not being expressed to be another, may be taken \nto be that, which was before declared to be due to the \npresbyter, and what may be said of the bishop\'s claim \nmay be grammatically viewed, as affirmed of the last \nof the three kinds of debts, which had been enumerat- \ned. This interpretation is supported also, by the cir- \ncumstance, that he speaks of the officers of the \nchurch, sometimes as presbyters, and deacons, and at \nothers as bishops, presbyters, and deacons.^ But upon \nany interpretation there is no ground to imagine, that \nhe meant by the presbyter, a layman. \n\nThe Philocalia were collected more than a century \nafter Origen\'s death. To quote this production in sup- \nport of those writings from whence they are presumed \nto have been taken, may be proper. But they ought not \nto be deemed competent evidence of any thing, not \nfound in his works. A mistaken passage has been \nbrought from the Philocalia to prove "the succession \nhw,hoxr^v of the apostlcs," but the writer is speaking of \nthe handing down of the Scriptures by the apostles. \n\nHe censures those deacons, who coveted " the first \nseats of those, who are denominated presbyters, and \nsuch as laid schemes to be called presbyters \',^ and al- \nleges, that as Christ washed the feet of his disciples, \n\nE Tract No. v. on Matt, and Horn. vii. on Jeremiah. \n^ Tract 24, on Matt. \n\n\n\n68 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT, &C. \n\n"so a bishop should minister as a servant, to his fel- \nlow servants."\' His complaint of those bishops and \npresbyters, who were unlearned and flagitious\'\'\' may \nhave provoked his own bishop, by whose obloquy his \ncharacter was assailed. Had the office of Demetrius \nbeen by ordination, or resulted from seniority, those \njealousies would probably never have arisen; nor had \nthe church at Alexandria been deprived of the unrival- \nled learning, and exemplary piety of Origen. \n\nThat there should be one, however designated among \nthe plurality of equals, in every public body, to facili- \ntate their operations, or lead in duties, is suggested by \nthe experience of all assemblies, civil and ecclesiastical. \nThe Greeks denominated him Tt^os 57co?, president, the \nidentical term adopted by the first Christian presbyte- \nries for theiv primus. The seven apocalyptic churches \nwere indirectly addressed, through that officer, by the \nname angel, chosen because less publicly known, but \nwe have found not one instance in any uninspired \nwriting of the use of that name in the same sense. To \nshow how this unordained presidency over equals, \ngrew into parcohial episcopacy, all the credible evi- \ndence which has hitherto occurred, has been present- \ned. But every effort to discover, even the existence \nof lay elders, or of any inferior grade of presbyters, \nhas totally failed; neither has there been found a single \nword of such a diversity, nor the idea of such an offi- \ncer, in any church. If such a class of men had existed \nin the apostoUc churches, it could not have escaped \ndetection. If the Scriptures had been understood, by \nthe apostles and evangelists to warrant it, the grade \nmust have existed, and would certainly have appeared. \nThe conclusion is consequently undeniable, that those, \nwho find lay presbyters in the New Testament, have \nmade a discovery of that, of which the inspired men, \nwho wrote it, never entertained an idea. \n\ni Tract 31, on Matt. k Tract 15, on Matt, \n\n\n\nSECTION VIII. \n\n\n\nCyprian was chosen bishop of his church by the people, against a majority of \nthe presbyters. \xe2\x80\x94 The great promoter of episcopal power \xe2\x80\x94 He presided over \none church or congregation only, and had no idea of diocesan episcopacy. \xe2\x80\x94 \nProfessing it his duty to act only with the presbyters, he availedhimself of every \nopportunity of acting prior to them. \xe2\x80\x94 He often justified his conduct by the \npretences of visions, suggestions, and dreams. \xe2\x80\x94 The presbyters of Carihzge \nover whom he presided, had not distinct assemblies ; the flock was one, and \nno more. \xe2\x80\x94 This bishop was cliosen by the people from among the presbyters, \nand Cyprian is the first and earliest authority for bishops being commission- \ned by other bishops ; how it was done, is not shown ; and five of the eight \npresbyters being opposed to him, it is not discernible how otherwise it could \nhave been effected.\xe2\x80\x94 The apostolical constitutions had probably no existence \nai this period. \n\nThascius Cyprianus was a native of Africa, and a \ncelebrated teacher of rhetoric in Carthage. Convinced \nby CceciHus, a presbyter, about the middle of the third \ncentury, he adopted his name at his baptism ; was, in \nthe compass, of a year, ordained a presbyter; and, in \nthe next, made bishop by the suffrage of the people, \nbut against the opinion of five of the eight presbyters \nof the church.* He soon deserted his charge, retiring \nfrom persecution. Censured by his people, and the \nChristians at Rome, he alleged, among other defences, \na divine admonition, revealed by vision. His sudden \nchange from Gentilism, and almost simultaneous pro^ \nmotions ; his conscious possession of superior talents, \nwith consequent impatience of instruction and igno- \nrance of evangelical doctrines, rendered him the vic- \ntim of numerous and destructive errors. His native \nambition, stimulated by opposition, and supported by \nmistaken conceptions of priestly power, led him to \nemploy the protracted period of his retirement in epis- \n\n8 Vide Epist. 43. p. 22^, \n\n\n\n70 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\ntolary correspondence, not only v^ith his own forsaken \ncharge, but with the bishops and presbyters of all the \nchurches in the civilized world, wherever there existed \ninquietude. With him heresy and schism appeared \nconvertible terms, and discipline, rather than truth, the \nproper instrument of their destruction. The bishops \nand church at Rome were successively dependent on \nhis guidance, or jealous of his influence. The nume- \nrous bishops of Africa found him a bond of union, nor \nwere the churches of Spain and Cappadocia, opposite \nextremes, insensible of his ascendency. His ideas of \nepiscopal unity, and of the necessity of intercourse and \nmutual support among bishops, then every where pa- \nrochial, probably laid the foundation of hierarchy in \nthe church of Christ. The multiplication of presby- \nters became necessary in the cities, as the number of \nChristians increased, more churches than one being in \nthem now prohibited. The danger in times of perse- \ncution of convening in multitudes, the instruction of \ncatechumeni apart from the church, the frequency of \nschisms, and other circumstances, evince, that diffe- \nrent presbyters conducted worship, at least, occasion- \nally, in separate places. But neither has diocesan \nepiscopacy, nor a solitary instance of a ruling or lay \nelder as yet occurred. Had there existed more than \none congregation in Carthage or Rome, they must \nhave appeared in Cyprian\'s letters ; for it is not pro- \nbable that any other schisms, or heresies arose in either \nof those cities, within the period of his letters, than \nthose which he has mentioned. The minuteness of \nhis descriptions of persons and things, renders it cer- \ntain, that had he been placed over more than one \nchurch, it would have appeared. On the contrary, no \nseparate churches, no diversity of communions, no \nseduction of any particular section of his charge are \nseen; but though convening in small numbers, and \npossibly in different places, they are considered one \nchurch, having the same officers. \n\nThe bishop and presbyters at Carthage sat on the \nsame bench, were all, in the language of the day, \n\n\n\nOP CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 71 \n\npriests, to instruct and administer ordinances, acted in \nconcert in all judgments, excommunications, and res- \ntorations; and, except when Cyprian assumed the \npower, but for which he always offered an excuse, they \njoined in ordinations. In the absence of the bishop, \nwe find the presbyters refusing the communion to \nGaius a co-presbyter, and to a deacon, in which Cy- \nprian acknowledges, they acted uprightly and hy \nrule.^ Though evidently not scrupulous in the as- \nsumption of power, he trespassed only where he was \nsure of support, and never ventured to ordain a pres- \nbyter, but in the presbytery. \n\nWhen omitting bishops, readers, subdeacons, aco- \nlythes, he names only prcepositi and diaconi, it is evi- \ndence that the two original orders were not forgotten. \n" Since it becomes all to be observant of good order, \nmuch rather is it proper that the presbyters and dea- \ncons, prcepositos et diaconos, should take care of this,wha \nmay afford an example and proof to others, by their \nconversation and manners.\'"\' At first opposed by \nthe majority of his co-presbyters, and not yet secure \nof new ones in whom he could confide, his language \nwas very different from his after conduct. He de- \nclared " that he had resolved from the commencement \nof his episcopate, to do nothing privately by his own \nopinion, without the counsel of his presbytery, and \nwithout the consent of the people."^ This represen- \ntation, extorted by circumstances, was in unison with \nthose established customs, in the changing of which \nhe was too successful. Hitherto each original church \nwas governed by its presbytery, the president, ft^w^ta?, \nof which is called in Cyprian, sometimes propositus, \nbut chiefly episcopus. Such presbytery, with its presi- \ndent, had been heretofore competent to the manage- \n\n^ Page 217, Ep. 34. \xe2\x80\x94 Integra et cum disciplina fecistis. \n\nc Ep. 4. p. 174. \n\nd Quando a primordlo eplscopatus mei statuerim, nihil sine con- \nsilio vestro, et sine consensu plebis, mea privatim sententia gerere \n\xe2\x80\x94 de lis quae vel gesta sunt vel gerenda, sicut honor mutuus poscit \nin commune tractabimus. p. 192. \n\n\n\n72 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nment of the ecclesiastic government and worship of \nthe Christians in each city, because of the paucity of \ntheir number. Cyprian, by the erroneous principle, \nthat w^here a church has been planted no other ought \nto be erected, professedly an antidote to schism, at \nthe same time enhanced episcopal influence, and laid \nthe foundation of vs^hat he did not foresee, diocesan \ngovernment. Though tumid w^ith self-importance, \nand enamored of ecclesiastical influence, it is possible \nthat his opposition to the erection of a second altar, \nchurch, and bishop, in any place, v^as at least prima- \nrily to suppress heresy. He v^rote to Cornelius at \nRome, v^ho had informed him of the ordination of \nNovatian there, that it v^as irregular, because v^^here \nthere is one bishop there cannot be another, and pro- \nnounces him a spurious and rival head, out of the \nchurch.\xc2\xae He argues that Cornelius succeeded Fa- \nbianus, and that Novatian had no predecessor at \nRome. His crime was, therefore, that of Jeroboam. \nIf Novatian worshipped the true God, so did Korah. \nWhy there could not have been a second church at \nRome, if the number of converts had justified it, was \nneither asked, nor answered. That all new assem- \nblies were heretical, soon became, by his influence, \nthe popular opinion. Cyprian contended that those \nwho are in error, have not the Holy Spirit ; that this \nis necessary to him who baptizes, because he who \nbaptizes, remits sins. He affirmed also, that the water \nmust be made clean, sanctified by the priest ; " that it \nmay be able to wash away the sins of him who is \nbaptized," which is proved by the passage, " / will \npour clean neater upon you, a?idye shall be clean.^^^ From \nsuch reasonings he concluded, that their ordinations \nand their baptisms were void. Firmilianus, bishop of \nCaesarea in Cappadocia, in his letter to Cyprian, e says \n\ne Adultervim et contrarium caput extra ecclesiam. Page 231. \n\nf Pages 295, 296, 300. \n\ng Epist. 75. \xe2\x80\x94 *\' In ecclesia constituta sit, ubi prsesldent majores \nnatu, qui et baptizandi, et manum imponendi, ordinandi possident \npotestatem.\'* \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 73 \n\nof all heretics, " that if they divide themselves from \nthe chmxh of God, they can have nothing of power \nor of grace ; seeing all power and grace are placed \nin the chmxh, where the elders preside^ who possess \nthe power of baptizing, imposition of hands, and ordi- \nnation." The presbyters, not in exclusion of their \npresident, are here asserted to be the highest officers \nof the churches, and rightly ; for bishops had no other \nauthority to baptize or ordain, than as they were pres- \nbyters. The words majores natu are a correct trans- \nlation of 7tps(5,3i;T\'fpot, shown to be taken in an official \nsense, by the specification of powers which were \npeculiarly those of presbyters. \n\nCyprian, whose efforts had been to acquire language \nand gesture, not science ; whose elocution, not his su- \nperior attainments in doctrine and experience, had \ngained him ascendency, was sensible of his prefer- \nment, and proportionally soured by opposition. Whilst \nhe excused the martyrs for their kindness to the laps- \ned, Cyprian blamed those presbyters and deacons \nwho had received them to church privileges ; and \narrogantly directed, that they should be kept from the \ncommunion, until they had pleaded their cause before \nhim, and before the confessors themselves, and before \nall the people.\'\' This letter was directed to the pres- \nbyters and deacons of a single congregation, who \nwere to be assembled together with the people to de- \ncide the cases of the lapsed. But no disparity appears \nin this or any other of the letters, among presbyters, \nexcept the presidential dignity, all being confessedly \nand universally clerical. \n\nBy his discrimination between presbyters and dea- \ncons, Cyprian plainly shcTws, he had no idea of lay \npresbyters. " Deacons should remember that the \nLord chose apostles, that is, bishops and presbyters, \napostolos, id est, episcopos et prcepositos ; and that, after \nthe ascension of the Lord, the apostles appointed \n\n^ *\xe2\x80\xa2 Acturi et apud nos, et apud confessores ipsos et apud ple- \nbem universam, causam suam." Ep. 16, p. 196. \n\nH \n\n\n\n74 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\ndeacons the servants of the episcopate and the \nchurch."\' \n\nThe fortieth letter has been strangely distorted, on \nthe one hand to prove the commission of cardinals, \nand on the other to establish the existence of lay pres- \nbyters. Whilst Cyprian w^as in retirement, a layman \nof the church at Carthage, vv^hose name was Numidi- \ncus, being arraigned, confessed and suffered, but sur- \nvived. This confessor, Cyprian, secure of the popu- \nlar voice, directs to be numbered, and to sit with the \nEresbyters. No duty is expressed to be performed by \nim as a presbyter, until the bishop should arrive, and \nhe should be regularly ordained, and promoted to the \nhigher grade. The letter may be freely rendered \nthus : \n\n" Cyprian to the brethren most beloved, and longed \nfor, the presbyters and deacons, and all the people, \ngreeting : \n\n" It has become my duty to announce to you, be- \nloved brethren, that which pertains to the common \nexultation, and highest honor of our church. Be it \nknown, therefore, to you, that God has vouchsafed to \ndiscover to us, and direct, that Numidicus, renowned \nby the clearest truth of a confession, and elevated by \nthe honor of fortitude and faith, may be enrolled a \npresbyter in the number of the presbyters of Carthage, \nand sit with us among the clergy.\'\' By his encou- \nraging counsels he has sent before him to glory a \nlarge company of martyrs through a shower of stones \nand of fire, witnessing with pious exultation the same \nfiery consumption, or rather salvation of his own wife, \nclinging to his side. Broiled in the fire, and then over- \nwhelmed in stones, he was abandoned with the dead ; \nbut whilst the tender solicitude of a pious daughter \n\ni Epist. 3, p. 173. \n\nk Nam admonltos nos et instriictos sciatis dignatione divina, ut \nNumidicus presbyter adscribatur presbyterorum Carthageniensium \nnumero, et nobiscum sedeat in clero, luce clarissima confessionis \nillustrls^ et virtutis ac fidei honore sublimis, &c. Epist. 40, p. \n225. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 75 \n\nwas searching for the dead body of her parent, he is \nfound with symptoms of hfe, drawn out, and recov- \nered from the mangled remnants of dead companions, \nhe has survived, against his own desires. But the \nconspicuous cause of his continuance is, that the Lord \nmight join him to the clergy of our church, and adorn \nwith glorious priests the company of our presbyters \ndesolated by lapses. And when God shall permit, by \nhis protection, my presence with you, his promotion \nshall be effected to the higher order in his worsliip,^ \nIn the meantime, let that which has been mentioned be \ndone, that we may accept this gift of God with thanks- \ngiving, hoping, from divine mercy, more ornaments of \nthe same kind, that the strength of the church being \nrenevv\'ed, he may adorn our ecclesiastical council \nwith men of like mildness and humihiy. Brethren, \nmost desired and dear, my wish is your everlasting \nwelfare." \n\nThe language of this letter plainly shows that Nu- \nmidicus was not previously a presbyter ; its effect \nwas neither an ordination, nor a direction to accom- \nplish one, but an appointment to a future commission. \nA ruling elder is not named ; and, in the modern sense \nof the phrase, was probably an idea of w\'hich neither \nCyprian, nor any who preceded him, had formed a \nconception. ^^ Sedeat in dero\'^ shows, that all w^ho \nsat wdth him, were clerical ; on this bench he was to \nsit prior to his promotion. If promotion, promovehitur, \nmeant any thing more than the ceremony of ordina- \ntion, then he was to be raised to a bench above that \nof the clergy ; but such there was not, because the \nnobisciim determines that the same was the seat also \nof the bishop. In no enumeration of officers in the \nchurch, found in Cyprian, or in any preceding w^riter, \nhas this imaginary presbyter ever appeared ; but of \nthe diligence with which the nondescript has been \n\n1 Et promovehitur equidem cum Deus permiserit, ad ampliorem \nlocum religionis su3e, quando in prsesentiam, protegente Domino, \nvenerimus. Epist. 40, p. 225. \n\n\n\n76 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nunsuccessfully sought, the fanciful perversion of this \npassage, appearing in several American productions, \nwill remain a curious monument. Cyprian defended \nhis opinion against the reception of the lapsed, as he \ndid his escape from persecution, by his dreams, which \nhe promised to disclose upon his return to the church."* \nHe also claimed the inspiration of suggestion." In \nthe cases of Aurelius and Celerinus, who had become \nconfessors, having the divine suffrage, as he thought, \nhe needed not to wait for a consultation with the peo- \nple, and ordained them to be readers.^ \n\nThose who have absurdly taken the rt^ofaVoffj of \nPaul to mean, not presiding, but subordinate idling \nelders, have sapiently understood the doctores audien- \ntium,^ or presbyters, who in some private place taught \nthe catechumeni, to be a distinct order, and implying \nothers who were inferior. The letter is short. " Cy- \nprian to his brethren, the presbyters and deacons, \ngreeting: Most esteemed brethren, lest any thing \nshould be unknown to you, either of what has been \nwritten to me, or of what I have returned in answer, \nI have sent you a copy of each epistle, and I trust that \nwhat I have replied will not be displeasing to you. \nBut I ought in this letter to disclose to you the fact, \nthat from the pressure of necessity. I have sent the \nletters to the clergy of the city [Rome.] And because \nit was proper that I should write by clergymen; but \nI know that the most of ours are absent, and that the \nfew who remain, are scarcely sufficient for the labor \nof the daily service, it was necessary to constitute \nsome new ones, who might be sent. Know, therefore, \nthat I have made Saturus a reader, and the confessor \nOptatus a subdeacon, whom we had some time ago in \ncommon council, placed next to the clergy; either \nwhen we gave the lesson once and again to Saturus on \nthe day of Easter ; or afterwards, aut modo cum pres- \n\nm Epist xvi. p. 194. \n^ n Placuit nobis, Sancto Spiritu suggerente et Domino per \nvisiones multas et manifestas admonente. Epist. 57, p. 254. \nPages 222, 223. p Epist. 29. \n\n\n\nOP CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 77 \n\nbyteris doctoribus lectores diligenter probaremus, when be- \ning with the presbyters occupied in teaching [the cate- \nchumeni,] and having dihgentiy made trial of readers, \nwe appointed Optatus among the readers as a teacher \nof the hearers, Optatum inter lectores doctorem audien- \ntium constituimus ; whilst examining whether their \nqualifications might agree w^ith those which ought to \nbe in such as are preparing for the clerical office. \nNothing, therefore, has been done by me in your ab- \nsence ; but that which was commenced before in the \ncommon council of us all, has been finished, by urgent \nnecessity. I desire, dear brethren, your continued \nwelfare, and remembrance of me. Salute the brother- \nhood : farewell." In this letter, we have a descrip- \ntion of that teaching which is performed by presby- \nters and readers, of the audientes, or c.atechumeni. \nThose who by any means were awakened, and had a \ndesire to understand the Christian religion, were in- \nstructed as in a school ; they who taught them were \ndoctores, teachers ; and if it were their only em.ploy- \nment in the Christian church, they were denominated \ncatechists.i- These catechumeni are expressly distin- \nguished by the writer from the people, plebs, by the \nname audientes.^ The doctores audientium were, there- \nfore, as such, not the public teachers of the people, but \nthe teachers of the catechumeni. This instruction \nwas superintended, and partly performed by the pres- \nbyters, but the readers were appointed to exercise \ntheir talents in the work. And this letter shows, that \nCyprian and those presbyters, as teachers of the cate- \nchumeni, in private, did, on some such occasion, make \ntrial of Optatus, and actually appointed him to be \na reader. The trial of Saturus was not in the school \nof the catechumeni, nor are the presbyters said to \nhave been then occupied in teaching, but it happened \n\nq Audientibus etiam \xe2\x80\x94 vigilantia vestra non deslt, implorantibus \ndivinam, &c. Epist. 18 \xe2\x80\x94 in eorum numero, qui apud nos catechi- \nzati sunt\'habentur. Ep. 75, p, 325. \n\nr Vide Epist. 18. p. 198. \n\nh2 \n\n\n\n78 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nin the congregation, by directing him to read, several \ntimes, public lessons on Easter. \n\nThat one presbyter presided \xe2\x80\x94 that some vs^ere \nchiefly employed in discoursing and others in reading \nin the congregation according to their talents, must \nbe supposed, for all these were duties belonging to the \noffice of presbyters. That they acted also as doctores, \npatient teachers of the heathenish audientes or cafe- \nchumeni in private places, is supported by abundant \nevidence, besides this letter. If it affords a tittle of \nproof that presbyters were of different orders or kinds, \nlet it be shown fairly, and not by the mistakes of one \nor two good men, who have differed from numerous \nand more competent judges. \n\nHe speaks of presbyters as " honored with the di- \nvine priesthood, appointed by a clerical ministry, \nbound to serve only at the altar and the sacrifices, and \nunder obligation to find leisure for nothing but prayers \nand discourses.\' They are said to be conjoined with \nthe bishop in the sacerdotal honor.* In no instance \nis a discrimination made between presbyters, except \nthat Cyprian claim.ed the title of bishop, whilst he de- \nnominated them his co-presbyters, " compreshyteri nos- \ntrV^\'^ The modern inferior lay or ruling elders are \nnever once mentioned in his writings, but the same \nprofound silence as to this unscriptural order, is found \nin Cyprian, which has been observed in every writer \nbefore him. The supposition on the other hand, that \nthe eight co-presbyters of Cyprian were over distinct \nassemblies, is not merely gratuitous, but contrary to \nmany passages in his letters, which show that the \nflock was one and no more. The presbytery was not \nof many charges, but of one ; and the bishop not a \nmere moderator, but a president of the worshiping \n\ns Singuli divino sacerdotio honorati, et in clerico minlsterlo con- \nstituti, non nisi altar), et sacrificio deservire, et precibus atque ora- \ntionibus vacare debeant. Pag-e 109. \n\nt Qui cum episcopo presbyteri sacerdotali honore conjuncti. p. \n272. \n\n\xc2\xab Page 169. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 79 \n\nassembly, as well as of the deliberating and judging \nchurch-presbytery. \n\nThat upon the demise of a bishop his place was \nfilled by an election of the people/ and that the suc- \ncessful presbyter was commissioned by the bishops of \nother churches, we do at present read in the letters of \nCyprian. At any prior period this new order does not \nsatisfactorily appear. To them Cyprian concedes the \nliberty of doing what they choose,^"" no one of them \nbeing accountable to any other bishop,"^ but to God \nonly.y Also, every bishop is the vicar of Christ,^ over \nthe Christians, who reside within the geographical \nprecincts of his own parish ; and every teacher there, \nnot of his church, be his doctrines what they may, is \na schismatic.^* \n\nBishops were entitled to the same honor, and the \nsame obedience, which was due to the high-priest \namong the Jews, and the Mosaic laws for the protec- \ntion of the priesthood, and the punishment of offenders, \nwere considered by Cyprian as still in force. Thus \nwas paved the way for all the mischief and bloodshed \nthat have followed in the church. Cyprian\'s declara- \ntion that " he had determined to do nothing without \nthe presbytery," and his apologies, when he made \nSaturus a reader, and Optatus a subdeacon ; when \nalso he promoted Aurelius and Celerinus, and ap- \npointed Numidicus to be futurely ordained to be a \npresbyter, only show that he was restrained by the \nwell known antecedent usages in the church ; but his \ndoing the thing, was full proof that he did not think as \nhe spoke, but intended to arrogate higher powers, his \n\n^\' Popull universi suffragio. Epist. 59, p. 261. \n\n"t^\' Unus quisque episcoporum quod putat faciat habens arbitrii \nsui liberam potestatem. Ep. 73. \n\nX OvTi yAg TIC iTTic-KOTTov iitvTov kaQio-tho-iv, hjs language in the \nfirst council of Carthage. Zonarae, p. 275. \n\ny Actum suum disponit et dirigit unusquisque episcopus ration- \nem sui Domino redditurus. Ep. 55. \n\nz Judex vice Christi cogitatur. Ep. 39. \n\naa Nee curiosos esse deb ere quid ille doceat, cum foris doceat. \nEpist. 55. \n\n\n\n80 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\npiety and veracity to the contrary notwithstanding. \nSeveral passages in his letters accord with the original \nidea of two orders, those in authority, prcepositi, and \ndeacons. Yet having been made a bishop by the \nvotes of the people^^ against the wdll of five-eighths of \nthe presbyters, he was ever vigilant to support himself \nby encroachments on the rights of the presbytery, and \nindefatigable in his exertions to convince his colleagues \nof their transcendent powers. \n\nThe ancient form of the designation of a 7C^o\xc2\xa3Cf7cjj, or \npresiding presbyter, is not shown. But in this book \nit is denominated an ordination, and said to be by im- \nposition of hands.*^\'^ The ordination of Cyprian, in \nwhatsoever manner, was probably by bishops, because \nof the opposition of all the presbyters but three, as \nthose of Cornelius"^*^ and others are expressed to have \nbeen. This device exalted bishops into a new and \nsuperior, though unscriptural order. They became \ncolleagues, maintained correspondence, frequently as- \nsembled, made laws, and supported each other\'s dig- \nnity and power. \n\nIn the Apostohcal Constitutions, instead of an impo- \nsition of hands, the deacons held the open gospels upon \nthe head of the intended bishop, during the conse- \ncrating prayer. Nor is x^^^oOeaia, that we find, used \neither in the canons or the constitutions for the ordina- \ntion of a bishop, but always ;^at^oT\'oi^ta. That these \nconstitutions were not written by the apostles is cer- \ntain ; that they were not known to Cyprian is clear, \nfor he would have used them ; that they did not then \nexist is probable, because first quoted by Epiphanius ; \nthat imposition of hands should have been in practice \nin Cyprian\'s day, or before the constitutions were \n\nbb Populi universi suffragio. Ep. 59, 52. \n\ncc Ep. 67. \n\n<Id That Cornelius, after his ordination as a presbyter, was ordain- \ned a bishop of Rome, Cyprian expressly asserts. Ep. 69. No co- \ntemporary evidence which we have ever seen, or of which we have \nheard, establishes the same thing of any preceding bishop of Rome. \nCertainly Fabrianus, his immediate predecessor, was made of a \nlayman a bishop. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 81 \n\nmade, is unaccountable and incredible, because it \nmust have been given in them. Whatever, therefore, \nappears in Cyprian concerning imposition of hands, \nupon one who was already an elder, is probably an \ninterpolation. That Cyprian was beheaded in 258 \nmay be received, but his life by Pontius, though an- \ncient, deserves very littk respect. \n\nThe works of Cyprian, if unadulterated, discover a \nnew order of presbyters by episcopal ordination, also \nreaders, subdeacons, acolyths, and virgins. By the \nsame authority also are established sacrifices for the \ndead, the intercession of deceased saints for the living, \nholy water and remission of sins by baptism, and that \nthere is no salvation out of the church. He inculcated \nthe doctrine of the keys, but although Rome was \ngreater than Carthage, he denied that Stephen had \nmore power than he possessed ; and died under the \nanathema of the successor of Peter. What has been \nits effect on him, and whether his subsequent canoni- \nzation has afforded him relief, another day will dis- \nclose. \n\n\n\nSECTION IX. \n\nFirmilmn speaks of a plurality of teachers in the same church; of annual \nmeetings of the presidents and presbyters; and of the right of presbyters to \nbaptize, impose hands and ordain; Gregory Thaumaturgus and his genu- \nine writings; his first episcopal charge was one deacon and seventeen indi\' \nviduals. Hitherto every bishop has. been such in one worshiping assembly \nonly. Of Methodius. Of Ar7wbitis. Of Laciantius and his writings. \n\nFirmilian presided in the church at Caesarea, in Cap- \npadocia. He wrote an epistle in Greek, about the mid- \ndle of the third century, in answer to a letter which \nhe had received from Cyprian, by the hands of Roga- \ntian, a deacon. A translation only remains, which \nappears in the works of Cyprian, and is attributed to \nhim*^ When Firmilian speaks of the abounding of \nknowledge, and the multiplication of teachers, as an \nevent anticipated by an apostle, and provided against \nby the rule, that one should be silent, if any thing were \nrevealed to another, he alludes not obscurely to a plu- \nrality of teachers in the respective churches.^ After- \nwards he observes; "It obtains among us necessarily, \nthat through successive years, the presbyters and \npresidents meet together, to set in order those things, \nwhich have been committed to our care ; and if there \nbe any matters of more serious importance, that they \nmay be directed, by public advice."*\' In another \nlace, having asserted that those who are at Rome, \nave not in all respects observed those things which \nwere delivered from the first, and that they in vain pre- \n\n\n\nh; \n\n\n\na Vide Cyprian, Epist. 75, p. 319. \n\nb 1 Corinth, xiv. 30. \n\no Qua ex causa necessario fit ut per singnlos annos, seniorea \net propositi in unum conveniaraus ad disponenda ea, quse cur\xc2\xab \nnostrzc comraissa sunt, ut siqua graviora sunt, communi consiKo \ndirigantur. \n\n\n\nTHE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT, &C. 83 \n\ntend the authority of the apostles, he afterwards af- \nfirms ; " that all power and grace are placed in the \nchurch, where the elders preside, who have the power \nalso of baptizing, and of imposing the hands, and of \nordaining. For as it is not lawful for a heretic to \nordain, nor to impose the hands, so neither to baptize, \nnor to do any thing sacred, or spiritual; seeing he is a \nstranger to that holiness which is spiritual and the \nw^ork of God."^ The epistle closes with a salutation \ndirected to the bishops and clergy in Africa. The \nword elders has been no where else found in the epis- \ntle. In the first instance, they are named before their \npresidents, in a description of the assembling of the \nofficers of many churches in an annual council; and \nin the second, without particularizing the presiding \npresbyters, although speaking of a single church, he \nmeans the whole bench. Of presbyters he affirms, \nthat they have the lawful right to administer baptism, \nto impose hands and to ordain. This venerable man \nunquestionably represents facts, as they were in his \nday; and is a positive and credible witness, that the \npresidents of the churches, called bishops in the last \nsentence of the letter, had not, as yet, at least in Asia, \nmonopolized the power of ordination. In the original \nletter, the term n^of j7co7fj or u^oyjyovfisvoo was most pro- \nbably used, where we read prcBpositi, which we have \nrendered presidents, they being undoubtedly the bishops, \nwho moderated the board of presbyters, in the respec- \ntive congregations. The churches of Cappadocia \nthus appear to have retained the names of their offi- \ncers, which had been given by the apostles and evan- \ngelists at the period of their creation. The majores \nnatu, seniores or elders, being baptizers and ordainers, \nwere of course not laymen. Blondell on this testi- \nmony of Firmilian says, "nequis uUos ab ordination um \njure seniores arcendos putet;" which though directed \n\nd Omnis potestas et gratia in ecclesia constituta sit, ubi presi- \ndent majores natu, qui et baptizandi, et manum imponendi\'et or- \ndinandi possident potestatem, &c. \n\n\n\n84 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nagainst an ordination exclusively episcopal, with no \nless propriety may be spoken against lay presbyters; \nbecause the right to ordain appearing thus to have \nbeen vested in elders, they were all clerical. Neither \ncan the monopoly of the ordaining power by bishops, \nnor the protrusion of elders from the clerical office, be \nvindicated, except by conceding to the church the right \nof erecting new offices for its government which is an \ninvasion of the rightful authority of the great Head of \nthe church. \n\nTheodorus, who was afterwards denominated Gre- \ngory, and by the credulity of his age, Thaumaturgus, \nw^as a native of Pontus, and of an honourable pagan \nfamily. At the age of fourteen he lost his father. Af- \nterwards he became the pupil of Origen, at Caesarea \nin Palestine, with whom he studied five years, and at \nlength the Ti^oGlatri^,^ or bishop of the church at Neo \nCaesarea in Pontus; which according to Eusebius he \nretained until his death, A. D. 265. His oration pro- \nnounced on leaving Origen, which still remains, is elo- \nquent, but adulatory. Yet it speaks him then a Chris- \ntian, which is more than can be collected from the Phi- \nlocaha. His Metaphrasis of the Ecclesiastes, or as \nJerom styles it, his Ecphrasis, is a short, practical and \npleasing representation of the experience and advice \nof the aged wise-man. The creed ascribed to Thau- \nmaturgus by Gregory Nyssen, in which it is affirmed, \n"that there is in the Trinity nothing created, and no- \nthing subordinate,"*" has been thought by some to bear \nthe marks of a later hand, but the autograph of a \ncreed, in some form, probably existed when Nyssen \nwrote. Tfie exposition of faith,^ and the twelve ana- \nthemas, also printed with his works are evidently of \ntimes more modern. His eleven canons, which he \ngave as advice for the government of a society, upon \nwhich barbarians had made an incursion in the reign of \n\ne Tl^oa-\'lctTou t\xc2\xab? iK.x.K>io-isic v/ucev Tgnyo^tou. \xe2\x80\x94 Basil. Epis. 62. \nf Ovlicuv KTitrlov Ti i^S\'ovKov iv t\xc2\xab T/j/ottT/, &c. Greg. Nys. 2. Vol. \n979. Greg. Thaum. p. 1. \n\nS E}pBi<n( r>ts icctTcifAigoi Tria-lia?. Greg. Thaum. p,97. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 85 \n\nGallienus, appear founded in Christian prudence. The \nlast canon has been doubted to be genuine, but its de- \nscription of the hearers, as standing next within the \ndoor; the catechumens as standing immediately be- \nfore them, and behind the congregation of believers; \nand of the exclusion of the two former after the read- \ning of the Scriptures and the delivery of a discourse, \nand before the prayers and the sacramental ordinance, \nmay have accorded with the manner of conducting \npublic worship in some places, at the period of this fa- \nther. Baronius and Du Pin agree in the rejection of \nall the sermons ascribed to him, and found with his \nworks; and also of the treatise concerning the soul; \nall of which evidently appear to have been the produc- \ntions of a later age. Gregory Nyssen, who hved a \ncentury after him, affirms, as others also doy that he \nwas made bishop oL Neo Caesarea in Pontus against \nhis inclination, and in his absence,^ by Phedimus who \npresided over (xaei^yovi^Bvov) the church of Amasia, a \nneighbouring city, the birth place of Strabo. But it is \nsubjoined, that after a little time, the usual rites w^ere \naccomplished upon him. That extraordinary powers \nwere conferred by this ordination, was the belief of the \nantistes of Amasia himself; and Gregory Nyssen has \nlabored with equal assiduity and creduhty to estabHsh \nthe same thing. It is also the concurrent testimony of \nothers, that Gregory Thaumaturgus said at his death, \nhe had had but seventeen Christians in his charge, when \nhe was ordained. His episcopal authority could there- \nfore have been neither over presbyters, for his only \nsubordinate was one deacon; nor diocesan, for he had \nthe oversight of no more than seventeen people. This \nfact, in perfect accordance with the history of the \nchurch prior to this period, evinces, that there were \nbut two orders, one to preach and rule, and the other \nto serve. The like silence as to presbyters is observ- \ned, in the account of his ordination of Alexander, \nupon the invitation of the church of Comana. Nys- \n\n^ Toy ffufiiAruooi ou ^AgovT*. Greg. Nyss. 2. vol. p. 979. \nI \n\n\n\n68 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nsen represents him as superseding the suffrages of the \npeople, by substituting and ordaining a collier, tvha \nhad been mentioned sarcastically as the dregs of the \npeople.* No presbyters are mentioned; there was one \nordainer, one ordained, and one flock. Basil in vindi- \ncation of the antiquity of the doxology, in which the \nHoly Spirit is named, having alleged, that Gregory \nThaumaturgus had given it to the church at Neo \nCsesarea in Pontus, which was still in the use of it, \nhas ranked his spiritual gifts with those of the pro* \nphets and apostles.^ But though Basil, and his brother \nGregory Nyssen, with some in our own day, have \ndeemed him an extraordinary man; yet no evidence \nof such wonder-working powers appearing in his writ- \nings, it is probably safer to impute the strange things \nrelated by Nyssen, to credulity; and to account him \nno more than a faithful and successful pastor of a sin- \ngle flock, which by his instrumentality, had been col- \nlected in a city almost wholly given to idolatry. In \nall that remains of this father, nothing has been found \neither of lay presbyters, or of episcopal diocesan au- \nthority. If, as Jerom, Theodoret, and others, have al- \nleged,"^ he was of higher estimation, than his brother \nAthenodorus, Firmilian, Helenus, and other bishops of \nhis day, the inference is fair, that they also were min- \nisters of single congregations, as all the bishops, who \nhave fallen hitherto under our notice have certainly \nbeen. \n\nOf the productions of Methodius, mentioned by Je- \nrom, Photius, and others, several fragments with "the \nbanquet of the virgins," have reached our times. \nHaving been written about the end of the third cen- \ntury, they have also been examined with care, but \nfound to contain nothing, that relates to the govern- \nment of the church, or that can be of any importance. \nHis representations of Origen are feeble, and serve \nmerely to show, that Methodius was not carried away \n\ni Jlpoa-Ayn TO) \xc2\xa9sa) J\'lst, liPaxrvvMi tov etvcfg* sctTct Toy viVO/uKrfAivov \nrgoTTov TiKiioKrctg. Greg". Nyss. 2 vol. p. 995. \nk Basil, op. 2. vol. p. 160. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTiAN" CHURCHES. 87 \n\nby such dreams, though at best a miserable commen- \ntator of the sacred volumes. He is said to have been \na bishop, that is in the sense of tlie term, in his day, \nthe presiding presbyter of a single congregation, but \nwhere his particular charge was, is not settled. He \nprobably lived in Lycia, and died a martyr under the \nDiocletian persecution. \n\nArnoblus lived about the termination of the third cen- \ntury, and wrote as a Christian.^ He is said neverthe- \nless, by Jerom, to have been at the time of writing his \nseven books, a heathen, but to have had a dream \nwhich had awakened him, whilst a teacher of rhetoric \nat Sicca in Africa. That his former opposition to the \nGospel prevented the confidence, necessary to a re- \nception into the church, until his books evinced his sin- \ncerity. This representation is rendered probable by \nthe occasional, but palpable proofs of defective reli- \ngious instruction, which occur in his books. Neverthe- \nless .on several points, disputed in our day, he speaks \nwith admirable clearness and precision.^^ \n\nHis seven books are in opposition unto those idola- \ntries of which he had been a zealous advocate. On \nthe officers, and government of the church, nothing \nhas occurred, and consequently, as in every other in- \nstance, not a word in support of lay presbyters. \n\nLucius Ccelius Fii^mianus Ladantius is supposed to \nhave received the last name from his flowing style, and \nFirmianus from Fermum in Italy. But he was a \nteacher of rhetoric in Africa, where he had been the \n\n* \'Trecenti sunt anni ferme, minus vel plus aliquid, ex quo \nccepimus esse Christiani. " Arnob, lib. i. p. 5. \n\nm He calls original corruption, "vitium infirmitatis ingenitx." \nOn the divinity of Christ, after having" spoken of him as more \npowerful than the fates, he says, "Deus ille sublimis fuit, Deus ra- \ndice ab intima, Deus ab incognitis regnis, et ab omnium principe, \nDeus sospitator est missus," 8cc. He also discriminates with accu- \nracy between his divine and human natures. To the question why \nhe took the form of a man? he asks in answer, "an aliter potuit in- \nvisibilis ilia vis \xe2\x80\x94 inferre et accommodare se mundo," &c. To the \nquestion, who was it that died? he answers, *\'Homo, quern induerat, \net secum ipse portabat \xe2\x80\x94 mors ilia, quam dicitis, assumpti hominis \nfuit^ non ipsius^ gestaminis non gestantis, &c, \n\n\n\n88 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERBTMENT, &C. \n\npupil of Arnobius, from whence he was removed hy \nDiocletian to Nicomedia in Bythinia, and afterwards \ninto Gaul to be the instructor of Crispus, the son of \nConstantino. His writings have been placed between \nA. D. 302 and 320. His seven books of institutions^ \nhis book on the a7iger of God, and another o?i the work \nof God have survived unto our day. The book on the \ndeaths of the persecutors is not in his style. It must \nnevertheless have been written by some person, soon \nafter the Diocletian persecution. In one passage in \nCh. XV. the writer says, "Comprehensi Presbyteri ac \nministri, et sine ulla probatione ad confessionem dam- \nnati, cum omnibus suis deducebantur:" which Dr. Bur- \nnet has rendered; "Some presbyters and deacons were \nseized on, and without any proof against them, they \nwere condemned and executed." If the "cum omni- \nbus suis," be meant of the people whose worship they \nconducted, we have the primitive idea of a church; \nbut howsoever understood, there is no evidence either \nof the exaltation, or prostration of the one original \nordinary preaching office. The several poems attri- \nbuted to Lactantius are unworthy of credit. His nu- \nmerous doctrinal mistakes are of common observa- \ntion, and in some editions collected into one view. Not \nhaving been an ecclesiastic, his religion, like that of \nJustin, Tatian and Arnobius appears to have been his \nphilosophy. Lactantius speaks with much commen- \ndation both of Tertullian and Cyprian, but has left, \nwe believe, not a word of the clerical standing or \ngrade of any one in the church." \n\nn Lactant. Institut. Lib. v. S. 1. \n\n\n\nSECTION X. \n\n\n\nEusebius, his cJiaracter, an Arian ; his object power. \xe2\x80\x94 In favor with Con- \nsianthie. \xe2\x80\x94 His advantages, credulity, and cunning great. \xe2\x80\x94 Ecclesiastic \nauthority having been conferred upon the Christians by an establishment in \nhis day, he aimed to conceal the truth of the former state of the church. \xe2\x80\x94 His \nhistory presents the poor and persecuted pastors of single churches in the \ndress of the bishops, whom, Constantine in the fourth century had elevated to \nrank and power. \xe2\x80\x94 Tlie permission of one church in a city, the position \nthat the Holy Ghost was communicated only by the hands of the presiding \npresbyter, or bishop, required only increase of numbers to produce diocesan \nepiscopacy, for which the church was ripe at the council of Nice. \n\n\n\nEusEBius, distinguished by the additions Pamphilus, \nCsesariensis, and Palasstinus, received his Christian in- \nstruction from Dorotheus, a presbyter of Antioch : \nhis parentage is unknown. The intimate friend of \nPamphikis, he taught in his school at Cesarea, af- \nter whose martyrdom, A. D. 300, he assumed his \nname ; and, sometime prior to 320, became bishop of \nthe church in that city. \n\nNot less a courtier than theologist, he gained and \npreserved the confidence of Constantine, and was \nhonored with more than ordinary familiarity. To \nhim was assigned the first seat at the emperor\'s right \nhand in the council of Nice, and to address him in \ntheir behalf."^ He was also appointed to dedicate \nConstantine\'s temple at Jerusalem ; and, at different \ntimes, to make two public orations, at the palace at \nConstantinople. \n\nJerom calls Eusebius a defender and standard \n\na Some think Eustathius, and others that Alexander had this \nhonor, but the omission of the name by Eusebius, (Life of Con- \nstantine, lib. iii. c. xi.) unless he had been the person had been \ninexcusable. \n\ni2 \n\n\n\n90 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nbearer of the Arian faction.^ It was also the judg- \nment of Photius*^ that he was an Arian blasphemer. \nHe denominated Christ " a philosopher, and a truly- \npious man;"^ often spoke of Christianity as a resto- \nration of the ancient religion of nature, and a substitu- \ntion of moral virtues in the place of bloody sacrifices ; \nand always inveighed against the consubstantiality, \nO/X00V6M, of the Son as Sabellianism. If this were the \nonly spot in his character, however fatal to himself, it \nwould not prevent his competency as a witness ; but \nhis disingenuousness, a trait of character appearing \nin his profession of religion, his doctrines, his conduct \nin the council of Nice, his treatment of the Athana- \nsians, in his adulation of Constantino, and his repre- \nsentations of the sacred canon, must affect the credi- \nbility of the historical representations he has given of \nthe church. His Christianity was philosophy, his piety \nprudence, and his highest zeal the establishment of the \nvisible church. That he sacrificed to idols, and thus \nescaped martyrdom, was openly charged upon him, \nand believed. Such prudent policy restrained the \nviolence of passion, and saved him from much open \nopposition. \n\nHe wrote fifteen books of evangelical preparation, \nand twenty of evangelical demonstration ; of the lat- \nter, the first ten only remain. Next followed his \nChronicle, and then his Ecclesiastical History, in ten \nbooks. He also left four books of the life of Constan- \ntino ; a treatise against Hierocles, in defence of Chris- \ntianity ; five books against Marcellus ; a small gazet- \nteer of the Scriptures, in two books, but the last only \nsurvives ; an Oration in praise of Constantino ; com- \n\nt* \xe2\x80\x94 impietatis Arii apertissimus propugnator. Vol. i. p. 483. \nArianse \xe2\x80\x94 signifer factionis. Page 493, \n\nc Ev TTOXKoi? icrltv ctuTov tSiiv Tov uicv 0Kct<r<pyi/Acvvl:t, Kill J^ivrtgcv \naptov \xc2\xbbsj.?vouvT\xc2\xa3t \xe2\x80\x94 KdLt cLKKcf. Ttv X A piictviKiis ?.y!7(7\xc2\xabs. \xe2\x80\x94 Photil BlbUoth. \nP- 12. \n\nd \xe2\x80\x94 <^tKoa-ocpoi ct^x, KAt uKuQios tyo-s/2\xc2\xab?.\xe2\x80\x94 Dem. Evang. Lib.iii. \np. 127. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 91 \n\nmentaries on the Psalms and on Isaiah. His numerous \nother works have perished. \n\nIt was in the Hfe-time of Eusebius, and much owing \nto his influence, that the Christian church received the \naccession of worldly power, riches, and honor, tempt- \nations of baleful influence. His advantages for writ- \ning a history were great ; he mentions his access to \nthe library collected by Pamphilus^ and to that also \nof Alexander at Jerusalem,^ but the intimate of Con- \nstantino might command whatever evidence the civil- \nized world possessed. What he wrote of his own \ndays, is more credible ; his account of the earlier ages \nof the church obviously bears, whether intentionally \nor not, a conformity to the then modern ideas of epis- \ncopal domination. And so careful has he been to con- \nceal the gradual progress of the 7t^o\xc2\xa3a7co7\xc2\xa3f, presiding \npresbyters, into the parochial, diocesan, and metropoli- \ntan bishops, that Blondell was able to find in his \nworks, but three passages, in which he could discover \na hint of the ancient state of things ; and even those \nthree have been written with so much caution, that \nthey must be abandoned as doubtful proofs. His \ncredulity in some things, forms so strange a contrast \nwith his discernment and caution in others, that their \nconsistency is an enigma, solvible only at the expense \nof his moral character. The success of a prayer of a \ndeceased martyr, and her apparition to Basilicles ;S the \nefficacy of the prayer of Narcissus, whereby water \nwas turned to oil ;^ and of a piece of sacramental \nbread, sent by a child to a dying man for the removal \nof his guilt,\' appear to have been firmly believed by \nEusebius. But how a rational believer, who prized \nthe Christian religion only as a system of philosophy, \ncould have been firmly persuaded of such incredible \nthings, is a difficult problem. \n\nWhen he denominates those by whom the first pro- \n\ne Eccles. Hist. Lib. vi. c. 8. f Ibid. Lib. vi, c. 22. \n\ng Lib. vi. c. 5. h Ibid. c. 9. \n\ni Ibid. c. 44. \n\n\n\n92 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nmulgation of the gospel was effected, evangelists and \napostles, \xc2\xa3Dtty\'y\xc2\xa3?ito7cov xac a7toa7o)%u>v,^ he follows the Scrip- \ntures ; and when describing a period somewhat later, \nhe substitutes pastors and evangelists, jioiixsvs? xav tvay- \n\'/ET.vslac,^ he is still not censurable, if by rtoi/xsvs? he in- \ntended the bench of presbyters in every church ; but \nif by pastors, be meant the n^osaliJls?, presidents only \nof the respective congregations, he misrepresents the \ncondition of the churches, at the period of which he \nthere treats. And this sense is most probable, because \nhe has used ri^osalcolss and Ho^^fisvss as convertible terms.\xe2\x84\xa2 \nIt had been in the preceding ages accounted one cha- \nracteristic of the orthodoxy of a church, that it could \nshow a line of presiding presbyters, or bishops, from \nthe days of the apostles ; and we have seen, that \nIrenaeus and others, have been careful to record their \nnames ; Eusebius^ from motives of another kind, not \nto be mistaken, has devoted a number of his chapters \nto the perpetuation of the successions in the original \nchurches; and has noticed, with great emphasis, \nmany individuals of different ages, in distinct chapters, \nthe enumeration of whose names, with whatever he \nhas said of them, might have been exhibited together, \nwith far less labor, but not with equal pomp. His ef- \nforts have had their premeditated effect. He has \nclothed the early presiding bishops in the dress of \nbishops of the fourth century. His example has been \nfollowed. It has been asserted, " that it is as impossi- \nble to doubt, whether there was a succession of bish- \nops from the apostles, as it would be to call in ques- \ntion the succession of Roman emperors from Julius \nCaesar." This is true of the name, but a misrepresen- \ntation of facts. The imperatores, among the Romans, \nwhen the word came first into use, differed not more \nin power and dignity from those emperors who after- \nwards governed the civilized world, than the bench of \npresbyters, or bishops, whom the apostles and evange- \n\nk Lib. lii. c. 3. 1 Lib. iii. c. 37. \n\n\xc2\xbb Lib. viii. 2d. Suppt. c. 13. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 93 \n\nlists placed in the respective churches, did from the \nlordly dignitaries, who have succeeded in later ages \nto the title of bishop. It is also as correct to apply \nthe term emperor, in its modern sense, to every com- \nmander of an ancient Roman band, as it is to use the \nword bishop in its modern European meaning, to de- \nsignate the early persecuted and humble followers of \nthe fishermen of Galilee. In like manner to degrade \nthe presbyters, who were the highest kind of officers \nin ev^ery Christian church, by making a portion of them \nlaymen, is as unscriptural an error, as the erection of \nthe primus presbyter in every church, to be the lord \nof his brethren, w^hether in the character of a diocesan, \nmetropolitan, patriarch, or pope. In the former three \ncenturies, the influence and the power of these primi \namong the presbyters, we have seen gradually in- \ncreasing, until a parochial episcopacy became every- \nwhere estabUshed. But from the time of Constantine \nand Eusebius, when the church, becoming more cor- \nrupt, was visited with riches and honors, a diocesan, \nand, as the canons of the council of Nice discover, a \nmetropohtan episcopacy prevailed. Bishops seem to \nhave stepped up to a more elevated seat, and to have \nbeen accounted henceforth of a higher order. They \nwere the political friends of Constantine, and treated \nby him with discriminating attention. When he sent \norders to Chrestus> bishop of Syracuse, summoning \nhim to a synod, he directed him to associate with him- \nself two of the second hench, at his own election ; and \nalso to bring three servants, ail at the public expense." \nBut although the degradation of presbyters, was the \nnecessary consequence of such episcopal aggrandize- \nment ; yet were they, in no instance, merely ac- \ncounted laymen. Amongst the numerous martyrdoms \nrecorded in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, \nnot a single person is mentioned, who sustained \nthe office of lay presbyter. We have seen in the \n\nn Sua yi rivds Tcev (k Tcy Siun^ou S-gcy&y nxi T^e/f TTcttSai, &C. \nLib. X. c. 5. \n\n\n\n94 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nworks of Cyprian, the commencement of episcopal in- \nfluence and rivalship ; this appears to have advanced \nuntil, by the righteous judgments of God, the Diocle- \nsian persecution fell upon the Christian church." But \nin the glowing description of this visitation, given by \nEusebius, it w^as by no means his design to inveigh \nagainst the hierarchy ; rather artfully he points the \njudgments of heaven against those v^^ho should resist \nusurpation. So remote were his desires from lessen- \ning his own office, that he approved the sentiment, \nthat the Holy Ghost was communicated by the hands \nof the bishop,P than which, no doctrine could have \nbeen more conducive to that sacred veneration which \nhas been the basis of ecclesiastical domination with \nthe credulous. This error, coming in aid of a propo- \nsition generally adopted, that there must be but one \nChristian society in each city, would require only a \nlarge accession of converts, to insure the erection of \ndiocesan episcopacy in any place. Dionysius, bishop \nof Alexandria, prior to A. D. 270, says in Eusebius, \nthat there were in the remote suburbs, places denomi- \nnated synagogues, in which a portion of the congre- \ngation assembled for worship.^ Athanasius, who \nwas bishop of Alexandria in the hfe of Eusebius, shows \nthat in his time there were different Christian assem- \nblies there, and that they were all collected in one, \nonly in Easter. But although, from the co-operation \nof these causes, there were in Rome, one bishop, forty- \nfour presbyters, seven deacons, and as many sub-dea- \ncons, forty-two acolyths, and fifty-two exorcists door- \nkeepers, and readers, we find no lay-presbyter. Sub- \ndeacons there were, but no sub-presbyters. The cor- \nrect principle, that there could be but one Ttposata^, \npresiding presbyter in a church, produced parochial ; \nand when associated with the unauthorized rule, that \n\no Lib. viii. c. 1. \n\nP Lib. vi. c. 43, TcJle. er<p^a.\'y<r&iivcit vtto tow vriiTx.ofrcv\xe2\x80\x94~fAn \nIv^aVj vaoi etv lov Ayiov TrviUjuttloc ilv^t. \n\nq \xe2\x80\x94 IV TrpoATluois Tr^celigco KUfjtiVQtst xetlet /Migoj\xe2\x80\x94 avyaj/aj/ai,-\xe2\x80\x94 - \nLib. vU. c, 23, \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 95 \n\none church only could exist in one city, produced also \ndiocesan episcopacy. But how lay presbyters came \nin, it will be soon enough to inquire, when they have \nfound their way into the church. Come when they \nmay, their introduction will be an innovation, equally \nunauthorized by the word of God, and at variance \nwith the history of the church, during the three cen- \nturies which have already passed under our inspec- \ntion. \n\nEusebius relates, with much improbability, that \n" after the martyrdom of James, and the immediately \nconsequent destruction of Jerusalem, it is reported, \nthat the apostles and disciples of the Lord who were \nstill left alive, came together from every place, with \n^the relations of the Lord, according, to the flesh, of \nwhom many then survived. That they all held a \ncouncil, and with one consent judged Simeon, the son \nof Cleopas, of whom mention is made in the gospel, to \nbe w^orthy of the throne, e^ovw altov.\'"\' The apostolic \ncommission had no other limits, than the world ; and \nthe evangelists were also general officers, ordained to \ngo from place to place, and country to country, to \nerect new churches, or set in order those which had \nbeen planted. \n\nThe government of particular societies was com- \nmitted to presbyters, who were generally men of ordi- \nnary gifts and talents. In the distribution of the fields \nof labor among the apostles, James the Just, if he was \nan apostle, remained, because of the importance of the \nstation w^hence the gospel had proceeded, and where \nits chief proofs stilf existed, among the Christians at \nJerusalem, and in Judea,by a common consent. But \nin the age of Eusebius, the presiding presbyters, hav- \ning monopolized the name bishop, and changed its \nmeaning from the oversight of the church, to that of \nthe original bishops themselves, claimed to be sole \nsuccessors to the offices and honors of the apostles ; or \nrather, according to the representation of Eusebius in \n\nr Lib.in. c. 11. \n\n\n\n96 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nthe case of James, the bishop\'s throne was an honor \nabove that of the apostleship. To the first seat in the \npresbytery of the respective churches, the succession \nwas not yet reduced to uniformity : in some it was \naccording to seniority among the presbyters; in \nothers tJie successor was elected by and out of the \nmembers of the bench, as at Alexandria in Egypt : in \nothers, he was commissioned over their heads, with- \nout or even against the voice of the majority of the \npresbyters ; as in the case of Cyprian at Carthage : \nand sometimes superstition, as in the choice of Fabi- \nanus,\' decided the question. But upon the death of \nJames, the choice of a successor is reported to have \nbeen deemed sufficiently important to authorize a call \nof the surviving apostles from the different nations, \nwherever dispersed. Nevertheless the same thing \nmight have been effected as well by an evangelist, or \nby the presbyters of that particular church, no imposi- \ntion of hands being then necessary to constitute a \n?t^of(j7coj, presiding presbyter. That the blood relatives \nof the Saviour should have been convened, as though \nby their relationship they had authority or grace \nwhich might aid the consecration, is just as credible \nas the rest of the story, which had rested upon mere \nreport, if it had any existence for two centuries, and \nas such is given by the credulous historian. \n\nThe circular, by which the synod of Antioch pro- \nmulgated their excommunication of Paul of Samosata, \nhas been preserved by Eusebius. After specifying \nsixteen by namQ, it proceeds, " and all the rest present, \nwho hve in the adjacent cities and countries, the bish- \nops, and presbyters, and deacons, and the churches of \nGod to our beloved brethren in the Lord greeting." ^ \nAn evil had arisen beyond the control of a single \nchurch : its repression was important. The apostle \nand evangehsts being long before removed by death, \nand the presiding presbyter having assumed powers \n\n8 Lib. vi. c. 29. \n\n< Lib. vii. c. 30. \xe2\x80\x94 UTrtfrnoTroi kcli 7rgta-J2vligot Kcti SictKOtoh *\xc2\xab\' \ndi tnKhio-iAt rou Biou, &C. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 97 \n\nbeyond the restraint of his co-presbyters, a necessity \nwas created that the neighboring Christians, both \nclergy and people, should concur in correcting the \nevil. Had lay-presbyters existed, they must have \nbeen here included. If supposed either in the word \npresbyters or churches, the hypothesis must extend to \nevery church ; and a class of such officers existed in \nevery Christian assembly, yet never discriminated in \nany enumeration, or by any occurrence, or circum- \nstance, recorded by any writer, orthodox or heretical, \nduring the first three hundred years of the church. \nThe ruling presbyter, rt^ofcf7\xc2\xabj,\'^ we have had in full de- \ntail. He was the primus presbyter on every bench, \nequal in commission, but presiding in duty; his accu- \nmulated power and dignity, before the days of Euse- \nbius, had come to be distinguished by the name bish- \nop. The " helps and governments"^ have been erro- \nneously represented as " those who rule well, but do \nnot labor in word and doctrine." If these mute of- \nficers had been found in every church, we should have \nheard of them. The man who can suppose, that such \nan office could have existed in the societies in the \ndays of the apostles, and no trace of it have remained \nafterwards; or that such officers could have been \ncontinued in the churches, but have escaped so much \nas a whisper in all the divisions and agitations, in all \nthe lists of martyrs and councils, and every mention \namong the friends and enemies of the church, for three \nhundred years, has a mind capable of any extrava- \ngance of credulity. He can adopt an erroneous and \nimaginary meaning of Scripture, and afterwards ad- \nhere to it, not only without, but in opposition to, all \nevidence. \n\nA charge, severe but probable, has been brought \nagainst Eusebius, of suppressing certain passages, par- \nticularly 1 John V. 7, from his edition of the New Tes- \ntament. He was commanded by Constantine to cause \n\nn 1 Tim. v. 17. Rom. xii. 7, 8. \nT 1 Cor. xii. 28. \n\nK \n\n\n\n93 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT, &C. \n\nfifty copies of the Scriptures, legible and fit for use, to \nbe written on prepared parchment, by skilful artists, \nand to send them to Constantinople by tv^o public \ncoaches, under the care of some deacon of his \nchurch."^ These copies, having the influence of Con- \nstantino, must have been received by the churches, for \nwhom they were provided by the emperor, with vene- \nration. That in these copies Eusebius suppressed cer- \ntain passages tending to establish the consubstantiali- \nty of the Father and the Son, particularly 1 John v. \n7, has been lately alleged, and too well supported. He \nexcepted against the doctrine of those texts, in the \ncouncil of Nice, but escaped censure by covering his \nregard for Arianism under the pretence of a fear of \nthe heresy of SabelKus. In a letter to his charge, he \ndefends his inconsistency, by softening the language of \nthe creed he had reluctantly signed. The disposition \nof the man, his opposition to the doctrines, the empe- \nror\'s coincidence with him in sentiments, the opportu- \nnity afforded him by Constantino, the complexion of \nthe Greek copies generally, over which his edition \nmust have had a decisive influence ; and, on the con- \ntrary, the support which the text receives from Latin \ncopies and writers, Tertullian, Cyprian, Facundus, \nVigilius, and others, all conspire with the certainty of \nhis having omitted a portion of Mark\'s gospel, to at- \ntach the blame of the defective copies to his disingen- \nuousness. \n\n^ De vit, Constant. Lib. iv. c. 36. \n\n\n\nSECTIOlSr XI. \n\nThe council at Jerusalem was extraordinary. \xe2\x80\x94 Councils may he traced to the \ncommencement of the third century. \xe2\x80\x94 They were at first advisory ^ not appel- \nlative, much less legislative. \xe2\x80\x94 They strengthened clerical power. \xe2\x80\x94 The coun- \ncil of Carthage, A. D. 258.\xe2\x80\x94 The two councils of Antioch, A. D. 264, 270. \nThe council of Eliberis, A. D. 205.\xe2\x80\x94 Tlie council of Aries, A. D. 309.\xe2\x80\x94 \nThe synod of Ancyra, A. D. 314. \xe2\x80\x94 The synod of Pontus, A. D. 314. \xe2\x80\x94 \nThe general council of Nice, A. D. 325. \xe2\x80\x94 The general council of Constan- \ntinople, A. D. 3S1 \xe2\x80\x94 The general council of Ephesus, A. D. 431. \xe2\x80\x94 T%c \ngeneral council at Chalcedon, A. D. 451. \xe2\x80\x94 The second general council at \nConstantinople, A. D. 553. \xe2\x80\x94 The third general council at Constanti- \nnople, A. D. GSO.\xe2\x80\x94Ajiother, A. D. 692.\xe2\x80\x94 The seventh CEcumeni- \ncat council was at Constantinople, A. D. 754. \xe2\x80\x94 Another seventh at Nice, \nA. D. 787. \xe2\x80\x94 This was after the commencement of the empire of Charle- \nmagne, the erection of a monarchy in England, and the civil power of the \npope. \xe2\x80\x94 None of these councils were founded upon the consent of ike Chris- \ntian church, or upon any spiritual authority ; often established error, and \ncreate no obligation upon the Christian world. \n\nThe records of the early synods and councils of the \nChristian church, so far as genuine, are credible evi- \ndence of facts, and competent, to some extent, to show \nthe condition of the church at different periods. Ec- \nclesiastical associations have never possessed the \nrightful power of legislation in the church of Christ ; \nbut as every man is bound to believe for himself, so \nevery Christian denomination has a right to adopt \ntheir own form of church government, and every \nmember equal liberty to dissent and withdraw. The \nvoluntary conventions of synods and councils are \njustifiable, at least when merely deliberative. The \nconduct of Paul and Barnabas, in waving the rite of \ncircumcision with respect to Gentile converts, having \nbeen censured at Antioch, by persons who had come \nfrom Jerusalem, was submitted unto, and confirmed \nby the opinions of Peter, James, and perhaps John, and \n\n\n\n100 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\ntjie presbyters and church at Jerusalem. But the \nquestion wsls proposed in the abstract form, and the \nadvice was founded upon the antecedent decisive tes- \ntimony of the Holy Spirit. This appeal ought, there- \nfore, to have remained, after inspiration ceased, an \nisolated case, nor was it followed for a long series of \nyears. \n\nWe learn from Tertullian, in the third century, that \n" councils were collected in certain places throughout \nthe Greek cities, from all the churches, by which the \nhigher matters were managed in common, and the \nrepresentation itself of the whole Christian persuasion, \nwas regarded with high respect."^ Because, when \nsynods were introduced, the churches were represent-^ \ned by delegates, and this was among the Greeks only, \nit has been conjectured that they took the idea from \ntheir own civil forms. The practice was certainly \nfounded on common consent, since they were neither \nat first of appellative jurisdiction, nor founded on \nScriptural authority. The numerous Greeks then in \nlesser Asia, were probably included in the term "per \nGrcBcias" Consultations concerning Easter were \nheld in Palestine, Pontus, Rome, and France, in the \ndays of Polycrates and Victor, about the commence- \nment of the third century.^ Cyprian did not neglect \nto avail himself of means, so well adapted to enhance \nclerical influence and power, to which he w^as so \nmuch inclined. In Africa, therefore, they soon be- \ncame frequent ; and their members gradually losing \nsight of the representation of their churches, consider- \ned themselves as acting by virtue of their offices. \nAnd as the presiding presbyters had become bish- \n\na Tertul. adversus Psychicos. c. 13. Whether he speaks only \nof the Montanists, or of those consultations of the orthodox in Asia \nMinor, against Montanus, cited by Eusebius, from Apollinarius, \nLib. V. c. 15, let the reader decide. " Aguntur prseterea per Grse- \ncias, ilia certis in locis concilia ex universis ecclesiis, per quse et \naltioria quseque in commune tractantur et ipsa representatio totius \nnominis Christiani magna veneratione celebratur." \nb Vide Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Lib. v. c. 23, 24, 25. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 101 \n\nops of the bishops, who constituted the presby- \nteries of the respective congregations, so the me- \ntropolitans soon presided in the provincial synods, \nand afterwards patriarchs in general councils. That \nof Carthage in the reign of Decius was conven- \ned by Cyprian, A. D. 258, to consult of the pro- \npriety of re-baptizing those who had been baptiz- \ned by heretics. There were eighty-four members, \nwho all gave their own, and sometimes also the votes \nof others, as proxies, and the details evince, that they \nwere considered the representatives of particular \nchurches there named. Cyprian, when opening the \nbusiness, described the assembly as deliberative only, \nand not as designed to pass a censure upon any indi- \nvidual. The fifth speaker observed, that all who came \nto his church from heretics he baptized, " and those \nfrom their clergy he placed among the laity.\'"^ It has \nappeared from the works of Cyprian, that episcopacy \nwas then parochial ; consequently the presbyters of a \nsingle church must have been the clergy here named. \nNo other reference to presbyters is found in the record \nof this council. The councils held at Antioch, A. D. \n264 and 270, against Paul of Samosata, excited great \ninterest among Christians. They were not obstructed \nby the civil power : on the contrary, application was \nmade to the emperor Aurelian, though a Pagan, to \neffectuate their final decision by ejecting Paul from \nthe church. This appeal of a Christian synod to the \ncivil authority, was unscriptural, unprecedented, and \nof mischievous tendency. \n\nThe council of Eliberis in Spain, about A. D. 305, \nand that of Aries in France, A. D. 309, both recognize \nthe subordination of deacons to presbyters, and of \neach to their bishop, who was evidently parochial. \n\nThe synod of Ancyra, in Galatia, met A. D. 314, to \nestablish rules of disciphne concerning the reception \nof those who, in time of persecution, had abandoned \nthe cause. The first canon re-admitted such presby- \n\n\xc2\xab Lett love ATTo xxti^oy avleef xaikovs \xc2\xaba-7*(r<*.-^Zonaras, p. 276. \nk2 \n\n\n\n102 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMEPfT \n\nters unto the honor of their bench, Vc^^yj tvj? xala x(xBih^o,T \n(iBlBxsf\'V, but denies them the privilege of serving. By \nthe second, deacons so offending are in Hke manner to \nbe received to the other honor, but not again to ad- \nminister the bread or the cup, or to preach, a^lov tj \nTtdlf^^Lov, am ^jf^stv, 97 xri^vdtssiv. If the dcacons in the \nchurches of Asia Minor served the sacramental tables, \npreached and held the other honor, 7^v a\'k\'ktjv %y.7]v sx^f\'Vy \ncertainly the presbyters were not laymen ; nor do \nsuch appear in the other canons of this synod. By \nthe thirteenth canon, it is made unlawful for coun- \ntry bishops (chorepiscopi, sTtvcixojioo x(xla ;t;co^aj) to or- \ndain presbyters and deacons, and also city presbyters \nwithout the consent of the bishop in the other parish.*^ \nThe chorepiscopi presided over congregations in vil- \nlages, and the design of this canon was to monopohze \npower and influence in city bishops, by prohibiting or- \ndinations by the chorepiscopi. If they were bishops by \na secondary or canonical ordination, this canon was \nin furtherance of the same design, the accumulation of \npower, and of no higher authority, that is, merely \nvoid. If they had been ordained as presbyters only, \nthis canon is a recognition of their right to ordain \npresbyters and deacons, at the period of this synod. \n\nThe synod of Neocsesarea in Pontus, was A. D. 314, \nand also prior to the council of Nice. By the first \ncanon, presbyters are forbidden to marry upon pain \nof deposition, which is conclusive proof that tliey were \nnot laymen. By the eleventh canon it is decreed, that \nno presbyter shall be ordained under thirty years ; \nand the reason assigned is, that Christ was baptized \nand began to teach in his thirtieth year. The thir- \nteenth prohibits country presbyters from offering in \nthe presence of the bishop and presbyters of a city, \nbut if they he absent, (sav 8a aTiirici) and he alone should \nbe called to prayer, he may administer the bread and \n\ntl Xai^iTrientoTrotc /uh i^iivai Tr^io-J^vli^ovc yi Siakcvovc ^itgorovin \naKket (unSi TT^iff/ivligovg (Blondcll supposed 7rgt(T&v]igoig) TroKices \n\n9 *goix.ici. \xe2\x80\x94 Zonaras, p. 295. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAIf CHURCHES. 103 \n\ncup; by which it is evident that the country presby- \nters were, when alone, to break the bread, and to bless \nthe cup. The fourteenth canon declares the chorepis- \ncopi to be, xa7a IvTiov, after the example of the seventy \ndisciples, and consequently that they were not succes- \nsors to the twelve apostles. The fifteenth declares, \nthat there ought to be no more than seven deacons, \neven in a great city. In the councils prior to those \ndenominated oecumenical, no mention has been made \nof any elders, but those who preached and adminis- \ntered ordinances ; the fathers and the synods thus \nagreeing, all probability of their existence hitherto is \nthus evidently excluded. \n\nThere were no general councils until the emperors \nbecame Christians. Constantino set the example, and \nwithout invading the peculiar province of an ecclesi- \nastic, presided in the council of Nice, and probably \nprevented much discord. In the character of a civil \ngovernor, it belonged to him to preserve the peace of \nhis subjects. To call the council, he had no ecclesi- \nastical authority. The fact, that the kings of Israel \ngathered the people on several occasions, was no jus- \ntification. They governed under a theocracy, and \nwere to execute, not to make laws : they were also \ncommissioned, being the anointed of the Lord. When \nChristianity arose, though in, it was not of, the world, \nand was established upon principles wholly distinct \nfrom those of civil government. Its subjects were en- \njoined submission to the laws of the country wherever \nthey might be, if not inconsistent with the divine law. \nValentinian refused to call a general council, and as- \nsigned as a reason, at least ostensive, that being a lay- \nman, he had no right. The councils of Carthage, \nAntioch, Ancyra, and Neocassarea in Pontus, were \nprior to any of those termed oecumenical. That at \nNice, A. D. 325, was the first so denominated.\xc2\xae The \nprofessed object was the defence of the divinity of the \n\n\xc2\xab OiKovjUiv)! signified the habitable world, but was used for the \nextent of the Roman empire ; from hence, oiKov/uivocy oecumenical, \nwhen applied to a council, imported, that it was convened from the \n\n\n\n104 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nSon of God, against the heresy of Arius, a presbyter \nof Alexandria, v^hose chief opponent was Athanasius, \na deacon of the same church. The second canon re- \ncites, that some who had been Gentiles, as soon as \nbaptized, pass into the office of bishop or presbyter, \n\nIs^cov, which is forbidden, until they shall have given \nproof of their change. This accords with the antece- \ndent practice of the churches, in showing, that at the \nperiod of this council, the ordination of a bishop was \nsometimes still the first, and only ordination of him \nwho received the office. The fourth canon gives the \nright of election and ordination of a bishop, to all those \nof the same province ; but subject to the authority of \nthe Metropolitan. As the bishops in the provinces \nwere parochial, or merely pastors, and without any \nprevious ordination as presbyters, the office having \nbeen the same, these ordinations, though denom- \ninated episcopal, were therefore "still, in fact, by \npresbyters, and consequently equally without Scrip- \ntural authority, and episcopal succession, in the \nmodern sense of the terms ; and although by the \npresiding presbyters, Tt^oaoVw???, who had long before \nmonopolized the name bishop, their office was no \nmore than that of presbyters. The fifth directs two \nsynodical meetings of all the bishops in a province, \nannually, to judge in cases heretofore within the cog- \nnizance of the presbytery of each church. This re- \nmoved the responsibihty of presiding presbyters or \nbishops from their own co-presbyters, who were not \nto sit in the new provincial synods. This innovation \nwas the more strange, because presbyters and dea- \ncons constituted some of the most active members of \nthis council of Nice. The sixth canon makes the con- \nsent of the bishops of Alexandria necessary to the \nelection of all bishops in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis \nin Africa ; and also of the bishops of Rome, of An- \n\ndvilized world. But the g-ospel had extended beyond the limits of \ntlie empire, and the whole church never acted in any one counciL \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 105 \n\ntioch, and of other provinces, as far as had been usual. \nThe seventh canon secures the same undefined pre- \nrogative to the bishop of JElia. Capitohna. With this \ncouncil commenced the combination of civil and ec- \nclesiastical authority ; force being substituted for the \nconviction of truth. \n\nThe second was at Constantinople, A. D. 381, in \nthe reign of Theodosius the Great, for the correction \nof the errors of Macedonius, who denied the divinity \nof the Holy Spirit. The second canon confines bish- \nops to their own dioceses, and declares that the eccle- \nsiastical government of each province shall be admin- \nistered by its own synod. \n\nThe third was convened at Ephesus, A. D. 431, by \nTheodosius the Younger, emperor of the East, and \ncondemned the heresy of Nestorius, who accounted \nthe Son of God and Christ two persons, and denied that \nthe Virgin was the mothe?- of God. In the canons of this \ncouncil, the terms " bishops, clergy, and laity," often \noccur, the word clergy including unquestionably the \npresbyters and deacons. Charisius alone is named in \nthese a presbyter ; he was a heretic, w^hose writings \nwere condemned by the synod. \n\nThe fourth met at Chalcedon, under the emperor \nMarcianus, A. D. 451, and anathematized Eutyches \nand Dioscorus, who held that Christ was to be wor- \nshiped as God and as man ; and in both natures as \none nature. This council recognized the repeal of the \nsecond council of Ephesus by the bishop of Rome, \nwhich had established the Eutychian error. The \nsecond canon expressly describes bishops, chorepis^ \ncopi, presbyters and deacons as clergy. \n\nThe fifth was held at Constantinople, in the reign of \nJustinian the First, A. D. 553. Its efforts were directed \nagainst the Nestorian errors which had been taught by \nTheodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus ; the \nopinion that the soul exists before the body, and some \nancient doctrines of Origen and others. \n\nThe sixth convened at Constantinople, A. D. 680, \nunder Constantine the Fourth, called Pogonatus, the \n\n\n\n106 Primitive government \n\nfather of Justinian, against the Monothelites. This \ncouncil held, that Christ had one person, but two na- \ntures, neither of which was destitute of its own will \nand works. \n\nAnother council, h olden in 692, in the tower of the \npalace, by Justinian the Second, is also called the sixth, \nbecause the former, like the fifth, enacted no canons. \nOf this there remain an hundred and two. The can- \nons of this council abound with proofs that presbyters \nwere of the clergy ; the reader will find these in can- \nons 3, 6, 18, 14, 32, 58, and others. \n\nThe seventh oecumenical council was held at \nConstantinople, in the year 754, under the reign \nof Constantino, called Copronymus, the father of \nLeo the Fourth, and condemned the use of images \nin worship. This council is denominated oecu- \nmenical by the Greek church, but is rejected by \nthe Latin. Upon the death of the emperor Leo, his \nson Constantino being a youth, his mother Irene who \nreigned in his behalf, held a council, also accounted \nthe seventh, at Nice, A. D. 787, in defence of the wor- \nship of images, against the iconoclasts. The records \nof these furious zealots are preserved with great par- \nticularity, together with their unanimous anathema of \nall those who will not kiss the images.*" \n\nAt the period of the council last mentioned, Charles \ntlie Great possessed Burgundy, France, Germany, \nand Italy, and was about to re-establish the empire of \nthe West, which had been overrun and divided in the \nbeginning of the fifth century. A little before the time \nof this council also, the pope had received the civil \nexarchate of Ravenna, the commencement of his tem- \nporal power; and a general monarchy had been \nerected in England. \n\nThese councils, in no instance, were founded on the \nconsent of the whole church. Even had they been, \nthey could thereby have derived no power to legislate \nfor Christ, to erect or legitimate the hierarchy, which \n\nf UtK^otXf K.g-n-ct^ofAiQct.y fAu ovras i^ovretf ctfAQtfJiA ta-lato-xr. \n\n\n\nor CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 107 \n\nwas the principal object of their care. The pretence \nthat they were under spiritual guidance is absurd, for \ncouncil decided against council, and often against the \nword of God. Their decisions were by majorities, \nwho repeatedly silenced the truth merely by numbers, \nand generally persecuted those who were in the mi- \nnority. Augustine gave it as his opinion, that the \ntruth was to be investigated without regard to the \ndecrees of councils ; and Gregory Nazianzan declared \nthat he never had observed good to result from any \ncouncil. What he had not, others may have seen. \nCouncils composed of holy men, with a view delibe- \nrately to investigate the meaning of revelation, and \nto advise, have, especially in times of great declension, \ndone much good. Nevertheless their articles, creeds, \nand confessions, however excellent, are uncommanded, \nmerely human, and destitute of authority. \n\n\n\nSECTION XII. \n\nThe canons of the council of Nice established diocesan episcopacy, for which \nvarious causes had paved the way. \xe2\x80\x94 Yet parochial episcopacy was not wholly \nhanished in the fourtJt century. \xe2\x80\x94 Hilary of Poictiers ; his writings. \xe2\x80\x94 Hilary, \na deacon of Rome ; his commentary among the works of Ambrose, and his \nquestions in the Ath tome of Augustine. \xe2\x80\x94 He says, Presbyters were at first \ncalled Bishops, and still performed the same duties in their absence. \xe2\x80\x94 And \nproves, in the middle of the fourth century, that the ordination and office of \na Bishop and Presbyter were the same. \xe2\x80\x94 He agrees with antecedent proofs \nthat the priority of the Bishop or first Presbyter, was merely adventitious, \nand no diversity in office until made so by canons. \n\nThe removal of parochial authority by the intro- \nduction of councils, paved the way for, and became \nthe engine of, the establishment of diocesan episcopa- \ncy. Power being aggregated from the individual \nchurches into synods and councils, there remained to \nbe effected for the hierarchy, the exclusion of presby- \nters from synods and councils, and the appointment of \nbishops by bishops, both of which were secured by the \ncanons of the council of Nice. But although a supe- \nrior order was by these means prepared for diocesan \ngovernment, it did not universally supersede parochial, \nduring the fourth century. \n\nThe gradual advances towards episcopal domina* \nlion and patriarchal pre-eminence, by the monopoly \nof the name bishop, by the necessity of his concur- \nrence, by the computation of successions, by the \nclaims of ecclesiastical legislation and appellatory ju- \nrisdiction, by the exclusive but unsupported claim of \nepiscopal ordination, by the exclusion of presbyters \nfrom councils, all of which have passed successively \nunder our view ; and, also, by the erection of diocesan " \ninstead of parochial government, which, in the middle \nof the fourth century, our present place, is still incom- \n\n\n\nTHE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT, OZ:C. 109 \n\nplete, are obvious to every unprejudiced reader of the \nfathers. Nevertheless, presbyters have not been de- \ngraded from their principal employments, the preach- \ning of the gospel and the administration of the bap- \ntismal and eucharistical ordinances, even among Epis- \ncopalians. To rescue Presbyterians from such an \nimputation, to which some are willing to succumb, is \nthe object of these efforts. At a late period, upon \nwhich the finger shall be placed, as soon as it arrives, \nruling elders, so denominated from a mistaken sense of \nthe words Ttpoeata\'tsi 7tps6i5vtBpoc, presidhig presbyters, were \nmost unwarrantably intruded into the original stand- \ning of deacons, who were thereby driven from their \noffice. This was not a degradation of presbyters, but \nan encroachment of mere laymen, and equally repre- \nhensible, who have no title to the name presbyter, nor \nto the employment assigned by the Holy Spirit to \ndeacons. On a full understanding of this faulty cleri- \ncal contrivance, a great portion of the American pas- \ntors ordain and consider only as deacons, those who \nare denominated ruling elders ; and they are autho- \nrized to do so by their form of government. \n\nThe author who next succeeds is Hilary of Poic- \ntiers, who was born in Gaul near the end of the third \ncentury, and educated a heathen, but afterwards con- \nvinced, instructed, and baptized. When bishop of \nPictavium, he wrote Tractates on the Psalms, and a \ncommentary on the gospel of Matthew. \n\nOn Psalm cxxxiv. 27,^ he observes, that the Psalm- \nist means difierent things by the house of Israel, Aa- \nron, Levi, and those who fear the Lord : and that, in \nlike manner, Paul writing to the Corinthians distin- \nguishes between the called, the saints, and those who \ncall upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. By Aa- \nron, he understands the priests \xe2\x80\x94 " in Aaron, sacerdotes \nsignificari ;" for he was first of the order under the \nlaw : by Levi, the deacons \xe2\x80\x94 " in Levi autem ministros \nostendi ;" for this tribe was chosen to attend. But the \n\na Hilar. Pict Opera, vol. i. p. 413. \nL \n\n\n\nno THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nrest of the people, to whom the duty neither of the \npriesthood, nor attendance, but of fear, *^cui non \nsacerdotiif neque ministerii sed timoris qfficium" belonged, \nare designated by those " who fear the Lord." Hilary, \nwho was himself a bishop, and knew the novel claims \nof such to a superiority over their presbyters, does \nvery plainly in this passage, pass over the distinction, \nand account them as the same order of " sacerdotes,^* \npriests, recognizing only two kinds of officers, sacer- \ndotes and ministri, presbyters and deacons. He conse- \nquently thereby excludes lay presbyters. The sacer- \ndotal order of the Old Testament vanished with that \nshadowy dispensation, and no other priest exists but \nJesus Christ, who has passed into the heavens. \n\nHilary wrote also twelve books against the Arians, \nand was banished to Phrygia by the emperor Con- \nstantius, because he defended Athanasius. In Asia he \nwrote his Treatise of Synods, about A. D. 359. It is \ndirected to his fellow bishops, coepiscopis,^ in Germany, \nBelgium, &c. to the people, ^^plebibus^^ of the province \nof Narbona; to the clergy, ^\'\'dericis/^ oi Toulouse; \nand to the bishops, " Episcopis" of the provinces of \nBritain. Lay elders are not found in the enumeration, \nnor in his works, this imaginary grade not having, in \nthe age of Hilary, found an entrance into the church. \n\nConstantius followed his father\'s partialities for the \nEusebian faction, and was more decisive in his pre- \nferences. Hilary, exasperated by persecution, against \nwhich his writings often inveigh, addressed the empe- \nror in several books, which assume the style and form \nof letters, in language often excessively severe. In \nthe second he observes : " I am a bishop in connexion \nwith the Gallic churches and bishops, although re- \nmaining in exile, and to the present time dispensing \ncommunion to the church by my presbyters."*^ These \n\n^ Hil. Pict. vol. ii. p. 358. \n\nc ** Episcopus ego sum in omnium Gallicarum ecclesiarum atque \nepiscoporum communione, licet in exilio permanens, et ecclesiae \nadhuc per presbyteros meos communionem distribuens." Paffe \n431. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. Ill \n\nappear consequently to have been separate churches, \nor single parishes, and his charge was probably of the \nsame kind, in which there were presbyters who sup- \nplied his place. These must have administered ordi- \nnances as well as preached the gospel, and conse- \nquently were not laymen. \n\nHe was sent back to Gaul in 360, and died in 367. \n\nThere is a commentary on the epistles of Paul \nfound at present among the works of Ambrose, which \nAugustine has quoted as the production of Hilary, \nwho could have been no other than he who was a \ndeacon of the church of Rome and a native of Sardi- \nnia. The writer of this commentary must also have \nwritten the questions on the Old and New Testaments, \nattributed to him, and now appearing in the fourth \ntome of the works of Augustine. But whether he was \nthe author or not, the works place themselves at 300 \nyears from the destruction of Jerusalem, discover \nunusual proofs of a strong and well-instructed mind, \nand are entitled to speak for themselves. If they have \npartaken in the advantages of the canonizations of \nAmbrose and Augustine, the honor of infallibility \nshould prevent their condemnation with Hilary ; who \nthough denominated by Jerome a Deucalion, because \na rebaptizer, did hold his very opinions on the subject \nbefore us. It is too late to subject to expurgation \nworks which have been received by the Christian \nworld from the reign of Valentinian the First. Also, \nthe piety and sufferings of Hilary for the cause of \nChrist are abundantly proved by Athanasius.*^ On \nEphesians, iv. 11, 12, among other things, he observes: \n" For also Timothy, who had been created by him- \nself {Paul) a presbyter, he denominates a bishop, be- \ncause presbyters were at first called bishops, seeing \nthat one receding, the next might succeed to his \nplace. Finally, in Egypt, presbyters confirm,^ if a \n\n^ Athanasii, Oper. vol. i. p. 647. \n\n\xc2\xab "Whether the term constgnanl expressed the confirmation of the \nbaptized, or the imposition of hands on those who were ordained, \nor on penitents, it was correctly accomplislied by the presbyter in \n\n\n\n112 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nbishop be not present. But because the presbyters \nvfho came afterwards, began to be found unworthy \nto hold the highest office, the custom was changed, a \ncouncil "providing that not succession, but merit, \nshould create a bishop, constituted by the judgment of \nmany presbyters, lest an unworthy person should \nrashly intrude, and become an offence to many."*" \nHilary thought Timothy to have been by his ordina- \ntion a presbyter, and also by the same ordination a \nbishop, because presbyters were so denominated in \nthe days of the apostle. Moreover, he asserts, that \npresbyters presided successively, by which he means \nthat they came to be primi, or bishops, in a more \nmodern sense of the word, according to seniority in \nordination, until by a canon of council, it was decreed, \nthat the successor should be appointed according to \nmerit. If presbyters were at the first bishops, and \nwere the highest ordinary officers in the church, it is \nunnecessary to allege, that they were not laymen. \nBut when this writer comes to speak of Timothy\'s \npower to ordain bishops, he expresses his views more \nclearly. On 1 Tim. iii. he observes, that the apostle, \n" after the bishop, subjoins the ordination of the dea- \ncon ; why ? unless the ordination of the bishop and of \nthe presbyter is one, for each of them is a priest. But \nthe bishop is first, seeing every bishop is a presbyter, \nnot every presbyter a bishop ; for he is a bishop, who \nis first among the presbyters. Finally, he represents \nTimothy to have been ordained a presbyter, but be- \n\n\n\nthe absence of the bishop, whose preference was founded only on \ncustom and canons; but these could not have leg-alized such act of \na presbyter, had his authority not been apostolical. \n\nf Ambros. Oper. torn. iii. p. 239. **Nam et Timotheum pres- \nbyterum a se creatum episcopum vocat, quia primum presbyteri \nepiscopi appellabantur: ut recedente uno, sequens ei succederet. \nDenique apud ^g^^ptum presbyteri consignant, si praesens non \nsit episcopus. Sed quia coeperunt sequentes presbyteri indig-ni \ninveniri ad primatus tenendos; immutata est ratio, prospiciente \nConcilio, ut non ordo sed meritum crearet episcopum, multorum \nsacerdotum judicio constitutum, ne indignus temere usurparet, et \nesse multis scandalum." \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAW CHURCHES. 113 \n\ncause he had not another before him, he was a bishop. \nWhence also he shows, that he may, after the hke \nmanner, ordain a bishop. For it was neither right \nnor lawful, that an inferior should ordain a superior, \nfor no one confers what he has not received."^ After \na few sentences, he adds : \xe2\x80\x94 " But there ought to be \nseven deacons and some presbyters, that there may be \ntwo in every church, and one bishop in a city."*^! \nWriting in the middle of the fourth century, this last \nsentence accords with the circumstances of his day, \nand discovers his own acquiescence in the authority \nof the church. Nevertheless, he shows his clear dis- \ncernment of ancient facts, when he affirms, that there \nwas but one ordination for the bishop and the presby- \nter, and their office the same. The presiding presby- \nter we have seen, came afterwards to be distinguished \nby the title of bishop, a name common at first to all \npresbyters. After this, it was correct to say, every \nbishop was a presbyter, but not every presbyter a \nbishop, because the presiding presbyter only, in every \npresbytery, was so denominated. Thus he accounts \nTimothy, who had been ordained, as he thinks, no \nmore than a presbyter, to have been a bishop, because \nthere was no presbyter to pr&side over him. The \nword primus, where it first occurs in this quotation, \nhas been supposed to agree with sacerdos ;^ but that \nit goY ems presbyter orum understood, ana takes its gen- \nder, is evident from his own explanation : " hie enim \n\nB Ambros. Oper. torn. iii. p. 272. Post episcopum taraen dla- \nconi ordinationem subjecit. Quare? nisi quia episcopi et presby- \nteri una ordinatio est, uterque enim sacerdos est. Sed episcopus \nprimus est, ut omnis episcopus presbyter sit, non omnis presbyter \nepiscopus. Hie enim episcopus est, qui inter presbyteros primus \nest. Denique Timotheum presbyterum ordinatum significat. Sed \nquia ante se alteram non habebat, episcopus erat, unde et quemad- \nmodum episcopum ordinet ostendit. Neque enim fas erat aut lice- \nbat, ut inferior ordinaret majorem. Nemo enim tribuit quod non \naccepit. " \n\nh Ibidem. \xe2\x80\x94 **Nunc autem septem diaconos esse oportet, et ali- \nquantos presbyteros, ut bini sint per ecclesias, et turns in civitate \nepiscopus." \n\ni Skinner, p. 219. \n\nl2 \n\n\n\n114 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nepiscopus est, qui inter presbyter os primus est J* Besides, \nalso, the superiority of Timothy is not ascribed to a \nhigher order of priesthood, but to his being a primus \npresbyter ; for since Timothy vs^as directed to ordain \nbishops, he could not have done this, if, instead of be- \ning in equal grade, a " primus^^ he had been an " infe- \nrior presbyter r Here mention is made of inferior pres- \nbyters, but it is obviously clear, that though they \nhad been at the period of this author canonically \nrobbed of the right to ordain, they were not laymen, \nbut inferiors only in relation unto the primus, or pre- \nsiding presbyter of their bench. \n\nOn 1 Tim. v. 1, he observes, that " an aged man on \naccount of the respect due to his years, must be ex- \ncited to a good work with mildness, that he may re- \nceive more easily the admonition. For when admon- \nished, he can be respected, lest he may afterwards be \nreproved, which is dishonorable to an old man. For \nevery where, among all nations, old age is honorable. \nWhence also, the synagogue, and afterwards the \nchurch, have had seniors, without whose counsel, no- \nthing was transacted in the church. Which\'\' by what \nneglect it should have grown out of use, I know not, \nunless perhaps by the negligence of the teachers, or \nrather by their pride, whilst they desire to appear \nalone to be something. Younger men, he thinks, \nshould be advised with the affection of regard, as if \nbrothers, that seeing themselves admonished for the \nsake of love, they may more easily correct themselves, \nforasmuch as they may discern, that his own conduct \ndoes not disagree with his preaching. But old women \nmust be treated as mothers" \xe2\x80\x94 " young women as sis- \nters."\' It is surprising, that any mind ever hap- \n\nk \'< Quod has been rendered \' which order\' by mistake. In hia \nquestions on Leviticus, No. 25, Hilary has censured vocavit senatuniy \nbecause implying- ordinem seniorem, and has substituted vocavit serif \nlores Israel, to exclude the idea of order of office. Consequently, \nby stniores habidt he meant merely old men. \n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Ambros. Oper. torn. iii. p. 276. "Propter honorificientiam \nwtatis majorem natu cum mansuetudine ad bonum opus provocan- \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 115 \n\npened to conceive this passage to contain the idea of \nlay presbyters. That here are mentioned old men, \nwho were lay men, is very certain ; it likewise appears, \nthat such were consulted on church affairs in ancient \ntimes, and also that Jewish synagogues were wont to \ndo the same thing. This comment, like the text on \nwhich it was made, relates only to old men who are \nnot presbyters. In both, they were contrasted with \nyoung men, and old women with young women. \nThere is no mention made of office or order, in either. \nThe idea of an order of presbyters in the comment \nwould have been a departure from the text. The not \ntaking their advice, is not stated to have been a viola- \ntion of any right, except of the respect due to years, a \nthing merely optional, yet improperly omitted. No \ninferior presbyter in the church, has been once men- \ntioned by any father or council prior to this writer. \nSo far is he from alleging a general discontinuance of \nsuch a class of officers, that he never has hinted at the \nexistence of such an officer, and for the best of reasons, \nbecause no such order was ever found in any Chris- \ntian church before his time. Had this author known \nof two offices of presbyters, he would have discovered \nthat knowledge, when arrived at the seventeenth verse \nof this chapter, where a diversity in the exercises of \nthe presbyter\'s duty being mentioned by the apostle, \nit has become in modern times, the foundation of an \nimaginary distinction into ruling elders, and those \nwho labor in word and doctrine. Hilary has well es- \ntablished the identity of the ordination of the ruling \npresbyter or bishop, and of the other presbyters ; but \n\ndum, ut facllius suscipiat admonitionem. Potest enim vereri cora- \nmonitus ne postea corripiatur, quod turpe est seniori. Nam apud \nomnes ubique g-entes, honorabilis est senectus. Unde et synag-oga \net postea ecclesia seniores habuit, quorum sine consilio nihi ageba- \ntur in ecclesia. Quod qua negligentia obsoluerit, nescio, nisi forte \ndoctorum desidia, aut raag-is superbia, dum soli volant, aliquid vi- \nderi. Juniores quasi fratres censet admonendos, cum dilectionis \naffectu, ut videntes amoris causa se commoneri, facilius se corrigant; \nquippe cum videant non discrepare opera ejus a prjedicatione. \nAnus vero quasi matres." \xe2\x80\x94 ** Adolescentulas ut sorores,*\' &c. \n\n\n\n116 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nbeing unable to divine the modern construction, by- \nsome put upon this verse, he says, " Good and faith- \nful stev^ards ought not only to be judged worthy of \nhonor {reward) on high, but of that v^^hich is earthly, \nthat they may not be distressed v^ith a v^^ant of sup- \nplies, but rather rejoice in their faith and doctrine. \nFor he becomes more assiduous, if he be not humbled \nby want, and his influence increases, when he per- \nceives, that he obtains the present fruit of his labors ; \nnot that he may abound, but that he may not suffer \nwant."\xe2\x84\xa2 Here no distinction is made among presby- \nters, they being at first spoken of together in the plu- \nral. And this officer is then named in the singular, \nthe commentator thereby plainly evincing that he un- \nderstood the verse as descriptive of one office. That \nthree centuries should have elapsed after Paul wrote \nthis word Tt^oecjT-wVf^ ruling, and this sentence have \nbeen read daily in the original, being, in the age of \nHilary, still a living language, spoken in the fairest \nportion of the churches ; also, that no intimation \nshould have been given, in this or any other writer, \nthat it described an inferior order of presbyters, is a \nposing fact to the advocates of lay presbyters. \n\nHilary, the deacon, exposes the opinion of one Fal- \ncidius, that Levites were equal to priests, and deacons to \npresbyters, announcing it as boldness and presumption, \nbecause Levites were bajulos, porters, and deacons, \nministros, servants. He argues \'^^ " The greater order \n\n\n\n^ **Bomdispensatoresac fideles non solum honore siiblimi de- \nbent digni judicari, sad et terreno, ut non contristentur indigentia \nsumptuum sed mag-is gaudeant fide sua et doctrina. Instantior enim \nfit, si non humilietur inopia, et crescit in illo authoritas, cum videt \nse etiam in praesenti laboris sui fructum percipere, non ut abundet, \nsed ut non deficiat. " Ambros. Oper.tom. iii. p. 277. \n\n^ Quest, ci. August, torn. iv. p. 779. ** Major enim ordo intra \nse et apud se habet et minorem, presbyter enim et diaconi agit \nofficium et exorcistze et lectoris. Presbyterum autem intelligi epis- \ncopum, probat Paulus apostolus, quando Timotheum quern ordi- \nnavit presbyterum, instruit qualem debeat creare episcopum. Quid \nest enim episcopus, nisi primus presbyter, hoc est, summus sacer- \ndos? Benique non aliter quam compresbyteros, hie vocat et consa- \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 117 \n\ncontains in it the less, for the presbyter acts the part \nof deacon, exorcist, and reader. And Paul the apos- \ntle proves, that a presbyter is to be understood a bish- \nop, seeing he instructs Timothy, whom he ordained a \npresbyter, what kind of man he ought to create a \nbishop. For what is a bishop, unless a first presby- \nter, that is, a chief priest 1 Wherefore, he calls them \nno otherwise than his co-presbyters and co-priests." \xe2\x80\x94 \n" The order of the deacon is to receive from the priest \nand give to the people." \n\nThis passage well accords with the evidence of fact, \nwhich has hitherto appeared in detail; that the priori- \nty of the bishop or first presbyter was merely adven- \ntitious, and by no means, however supported by can- \nons, a diversity in order of office ; there being origi- \nnally but one ordinary preaching order in the church \nof Christ, which was that of presbyters; and that \nbishops, after every effort to elevate them by ecclesi- \nastical authority and preferences, had no other than \npresbyterial ordination. If there were not different \nkinds of presbyters, it results, that none of them were \nlaymen. Also, the fact, that deacons still, in the mid- \ndle of the fourth century, received the bread and wine \nfrom the hands of the presbyters, and conveyed those \nelements to the people, clearly evinces, that there ex- \nisted at that period no such intermediate grade of \nelders in the churches. \n\ncerdotes suos. *\' \xe2\x80\x94 *\xe2\x80\xa2 DIaconi ergo ordo est, acciperea sacerdote, et \ngic dare plebi .\'* \n\n\n\nSECTION XIII. \n\nAtkanasius was a deacon, then archdeacon, and then a hishop. The powerful \nopponent of Arius. Often banished and still preserved. He conformed to \nthe canons of Nice, which gave ordination to bishops. In Alexandria there \nwere different congregations under different presbyters, who all made one \npresbytery for the purpose of ordination, and had one 7rfoi<r]aiCy i7ri<rK07rof \nor bishop. Optatus lived in Numidia, and conformed to the government of \nhis day; bishops, presbyters and deacons, his seniors were not officers. \xe2\x80\x94 \nAerius accorded in views of government with Hilary the deacon, and lived \nin Pontus, \n\nAthawasius excelled neither in style nor eloquence, \nyet in strength of understanding, clearness of concep- \ntion, and choice of expression, on abtruse subjects, he \nwas surpassed by none of that age. \n\nThat this champion against Arianism, was duly \nchosen and ordained to be the bishop of Alexandria, \naccording to the customs of that church, and the direc- \ntions of the council of Nice, whereof he had been a \nvery active member but five months before, there is no \nreason to question. That he had attended that coun- \ncil as a deacon, and at the death of Alexander was an \narchdeacon, are clear.*^ But that he was at any pe- \nriod a presbyter, except as that office identifies itself \nwith that of bishop, we have no where any proof, un- \nless a general expression left by Gregory Nazianzan \n^ can be received as such. The words of this father, \ncompared with the views of that age exhibited in our \nlast section, and with the circumstances recorded of \nthe placing Athanasius in the chair, probably extended \n\na Athan. Oper. 2d vol. 547, 523, 531, 570.\xe2\x80\x94 ^cTi* luxt tov t\xc2\xbbf ag- \n\n^ihAKOVCDV ^ctQfAOVf &C. \n\n^ Greg. Nazianz. Oper. i. vol. 376. \xe2\x80\x94 Trat-ostv mv tc^r 0AQfAi\xc2\xbbv \n\n\n\nTHE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT, &C. \' 119 \n\nonly to the office of deacon, and his promotion to be \nthe head of his order. His extermination v^^as the set- \ntled purpose of the Arians, but Providence always de- \nfeated these schemes, and truth prevailed against the \nimperial authority which they wielded. His ostracisms \nwere blessings to the provinces; for in every place to \nwhich he came, he was a learned and insuperable ad- \nvocate of the doctrine of the Trinity. Self-defence \nled him to claim and exercise powers, justified only by \nthe exigencies of his condition. Thus his refusal, upon \nhis second restoration, to permit a single church of the \nArians at Alexandria, being suspended upon the con- \ndition of a like toleration of the orthodox party in \nother cities, appears to have been founded in policy, \nrather than in right. His popularity at home, protec- \ntion abroad, and long concealment from persecutors, \nprove that his episcopal administration, however un- \nscriptural, had not been tyrannical. \n\nThere occurs a passage in a circular written by the \nSynod of Alexandria, and preserved in his second apo- \nlogy, wherein they defend him from the charge of \nbreaking a chalice of certain schismatics, by denying \nthat there was any church at the place, any celebra- \ntion of the ordinance at the time, or the existence of a \npresbyter there, except the far-famed Ischyras, who \nwas never chosen by a church, and when Alexander \nreceived the presbyters, who had been constituted by \nMiletius, he was not numbered with them: nor had he \nbeen thus set apart in that place. When therefore w^s \nIschyras a presbyter? "By whom constituted? Was \nhe by CoUythus, since this remains? But because Col- \nlythus died a presbyter, every imposition of his hand \nwas void, and all those who were constituted by him in \nthe schism, became laymen," 6z:c.^ This argument is \nfounded upon the supposition that Ischyras was not a \npresbyter, and therefore had no right to administer \n\n* Vol. i. 570. T/vo? KATdt,(rT>iT::vris; apa koxxcv&cv, rcuro yag \nauiQV ytyoviv axt/^of, &c. \n\n\n\n120 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nthe ordinance; and that he was not a presbyter, be- \ncause Collythus had no right to ordain him such, "un- \nder a pretence that he v^as a bishop, v^hen he was \nnot." ^ The members of the synod to which the church \nof Alexandria appertained, were neither ignorant of \nthat canon which confined the ordination of bishops to \nbishops,^ nor unacquainted with the ancient govern- \nment of the church of Alexandria, secured to it by the \ncouncil of Nice/ Collythus did not ordain by virtue \nof his office as presbyter, but as if he was a bishop, who \npresided over presbyters, which he was not, and such \nhe was afterwards judicially decided never to have \nbeen. It has been alleged that Ischyras had no church, \nhad been ordained by a schismatic, and out of the dio- \ncess. There is also another ground which Athanasius \nhas particularly stated, "Mareotes was a part of Alex- \nandria, and there never was a bishop or chorepiscopus \nconstituted in it, but the churches of the whole dis- \ntrict were under the bishop of Alexandria, and each of \nthe presbyters had their own sections."^ From the \nfirst planting of the gospel in cities, one presbytery \nonly existed in each, and when from an increase of \nnumbers there were many places of worship, the pres- \nbyters served in the different congregations, but ordin- \nnations were performed only by the presbytery of \nthe city, and each had its permanent president, Ttpoealoi^, \nwho was afterwards called zTticxoTio^^ bishop, a name at \nfirst common to all presbyters. If a single presbyter \nshould exercise the power of ordination, especially \nwithin the district, over which his presbytery had al- \nways exercised that power, it was deservedly account- \n\nd Ibid. p. 616. vTTo yAp kokkovBou rov Trgia-^vlifiov <^ct.\'/l<t<rBnTot \ntTTia-Kovniv, &c. \n\ne Council of Nice. Canon iv. \nf Canon, vi. \n\nytyovtY ivtaKOTTog, cvSi ^ocgiTTiiTKOTroi, clKKa TdBTxc A\\i^a.YSg(iAi \niTTia-KOTrw At iii>c\\>i<ncit 7ra.crni t\xc2\xabc ;t*S^f vTroKsivlstiy mxc-log Si t\xc2\xbb\xc2\xbb \nwgia-/3t/7\xc2\xabgav tKtt rets i^istt Kco/uAt. \xe2\x80\x94 Athan. apol, ii. \n\n\n\nOP CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 121 \n\ned a nullity, and such an unfounded claim of presi- \ndency by Collythus was properly denied him by his \nbrethren. \n\nThe important life of Athanasius was devoted \nto the defence of truth, and almost all that he \nwrote, was in vindication of that cause which he had \nsuccessfully defended in the council of Nice. A con- \nsiderable portion of the tracts collected together as \nhis works, were certainly not his, and, among the rest, \nthe creed that goes by his name. But his genuine writ- \nings remain to this day second to no human production \non the subject of the Trinity. At length he terminat- \ned his tempestuous voyage of life, A. D. 373. \n\nAbout the same period lived Optatus, bishop of \nMilevis, a city of Numidia, who wrote six books \nagainst Parmenianus, the successor of Majorinus. \nAfter the death of Mensurius their bishop, the Chris- \ntian people of the city of Carthage elected Ccecihanus, \nwho was ordained by the neighbouring bishops; those \nof Numidia, who had been neglected, took offence, con- \nvened and ordained Majorinus, altar against altar. \nCoecilianus was an archdeacon when ordained ; and \nMajorinus being of the same order, his reader, received \nordination.^ Neither did the Donatists object this cir- \ncumstance against Coecilianus, nor the Catholics deem \nit an objection to the ordination of Majorinus. These \nfacts are mentioaed m-erely in confirmation of the simi- \nlar occurrence alleged in the account of the ordination \nof Athanasius. being free from every imputation of in- \nformality, because the episcopal was, as we have seen, \noriginally, and ought ever to be deemed really, the \npresbyterial ordination, and not of two kinds, for of \npresbyters there are not two kinds, which the modern \nnotion of lay presbyters gratuitously supposes. \n\nThe classification of the clergy by this writer, per- \nfectly accords with those of his century. In the first \npriesthood, he places bishops; in the second, presby- \n\n^ Optat. Lib. i. p. 18. Adhuc diaconum ordinarent Coecilianum, \np. 19. Majorinus, qui lector in diaconis Coeciliani fuerat, episcopus \nordinatus est, &c. \n\nM \n\n\n\n122 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERR-MENT \n\nters; in the third, deacons, and other ministers.* When \nhe mentions the aged men among the people, he cau- \ntiously avoids the use of the term presbyter, lest its \nofficial should be mistaken for its appellative meaning; \nand adopts the word senior^ or some equivalent phrase. \nThus, when relating the obedience of Mensurius to im- \nperial process, the doubtfulness of his return to Car- \nthage, and his anxiety about the safety of the treasures \nof the church, he says, "He committed them to old \nmen deemed worthy of trust, taking an inventory of \nthem, which he delivered to an old woman, with direc- \ntions to deliver it to whomsoever she should observe to \nbe the occupant of the episcopal chair."^ It is evident \nthat these seniors were communicants, for when the \nproperty was demanded^ they withdrew from the com- \nmunion; but neither resignation of office, nor deposi- \ntion is mentioned. Nor does any circumstance appear \nthat would lead to the conclusion, that they had been \nofficers.- They were selected quasi fideles, upon the \nground of character ; their being communicants and \naged, were circumstances conducive to confidence; \nand the inventory was for still greater security, taken \nand intrusted to an aged woman. The last precaution \nwould scarcely have been adopted, had they been offi- \ncers, and consequently as such deemed worthy of trust \nby, and responsible to, the church. The peculiar cir- \ncumstances of the case, the use of the word seniores, \nnot presbyteri, the fact that presbyters at that period \nwere second in the priesthood, added to the circum- \n\ni P. 13. **Quid commemorem lalcos, \xe2\x80\x94 quid ministros plurimos? \nquid diaconos in tertio? quid presbyteros in secundo sacerdotio con- \nstitutos? Ipsi apices et principes omnium episcopi, &c. lib. ii. p. \n39, \'Certa membra sua habet ecclesia, episcopos, presbyteros, dia- \nconos, ministros, etturbamfidelium.\' Ibid. p. 46. \xe2\x80\x94 \xc2\xab<Cumsintqua- \ntuor genera capitum in ecclesia, episcoporum, presbyterorum, dia- \nconorum, et fidelium,"&c. **Invenistis diaconos, presbyteros, epis- \ncopos, fecistis laicos." \n\nk Ibid. lib. i. p. 17. "Quje, quasi fidelibus, senioribus commen- \ndavit commemoratorio facto, quod cuidam aniculse dedisse dicitur; \nita ut si ipse non rediret, reddita pace Christianis, anicula illi daret \nquem in episcopali cathedra sedentem inveniret." \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 123 \n\nstance, that even the deacons were clerical, render it \nstrange that this passage should have been thought any \nproof of the existence of subordinate- official presby- \nters. That the office of "ruhng elders" in protestant \nchurches should have been attempted to be supported \nby those passages which in ancient writers, represent \nthe aged of the church to have been called upon for \nadvice or testimony, argues equal deficiency of proofs, \nand intemperance of zeal. \n\nThe terms major natu and seniar, denoting an aged \nman, and thus corresponding in meaning to the Greek \nword presbyter, have been by such I^atin writers as Cy- \nprian, who vvas inimical to the office of presbyter, sub- \nstituted for it in its official sense; but it is believed, \nupon careful examination, that Optatus has done so in \nno instance. And the supposition that at this period \nthere were inferior to deacons, who were all preach- \ners, certain lay officers or ruling elders, who were de- \nnominated seniores and seniores plebis, is destitute of sup- \nport. Whence did they spring? Were they a species \nof presbyter? and if so, how came they to be laymen? \nBy what means, and on what occasion, did the dea- \ncons rise above them? And where is the proof that \nthere were two branches of elders, a higher and a \nlower?\' ^ The seniores in civil society, and the senim-es \necclesice were evidently men of advanced age. Eccle- \nsiastic may indeed be synonymous with clerical, but \necclesiastici viri] signified men belonging to the church, \nin contradistinction unto those members of society who \nwere not of the church. Thus in Augustine we find \npresbyters and seniores made parties to a suit, and of the \nsame side, the former as officers of the church, and \nthe latter as private citizens liolding the legal title to \nthe property or possession, claimed by them as seniores \nplebis, the representatives of the people of the church, \nin which respect they were ecclesiastici viri. \n\n\n\n* M\xc2\xab jt*9s5-9\xc2\xab/\xc2\xabF /xta-alay 7r^iT0vli^av i^i^luloit SisLXOVoi(,it mVLSt \nnot be allowed to deacons to sit in the midst of presbyters. \xe2\x80\x94 Coun- \ncil of Nice, Can. xviii. \n\n\n\n124 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nThey were more generally called seniores plebis, be- \ncause they were neither members of the presbytery, \nnor were they deacons, or of the lower clergy. To \nthem, no trust, no authority, no clerical duty is ever as- \nsigned; but in matters of moment, their opinions and \nsage advices were sought, and considered as the coun- \nsel of the people. This wholesome practice was not \nimproperly followed at the reformation, as we may at \nsome period see; but this was no apology for foisting \ninto the church of Christ a new office, and casting out \ndeacons, into whose place and employment, ruling el- \nders have been intruded. But they are still properly \naccounted deacons, and commissioned as such in many \nof our churches ; but where they are considered of- \nficers, ytposalcoJes Ttpsc^vls^oc ruling elders, they are impro- \nperly named, unauthorized by the New Testament, and \nwithout example in the ancient churches. Ecclesias- \ntical government from the days of Constantino became \nthrough the influence of the council of Nice, nearly \nuniform throughout the civilized world. The advo- \ncates of clerical authority by uniting church and state, \nreared an episcopal monopoly of power, friendly to \ndespotism, and therefore carefully cherished by the \nChristian emperors; but presbyters were nowhere, \neven in a solitary instance, reduced to the condition of \nlaymen. In almost every writer, hitherto examined, \nsome evidence of primitive parity in the ordinary \npreaching office may be found, but almost as soon as \ncivil power took the side of Christianity, the clerical \nsuperiority, which had been gained by courtesy and \nclaimed by usage, boasted a right to govern, and as- \nsumed a threatening aspect. \n\nThe views which Hilary the deacon has been ob- \nserved to have retained of the office of presbyter or \nbishop, were precisely those of Aerius his contempo- \nrary, who escaped not clerical persecution, though far \ndistant in Cappadocia or Pontus. The name of the \nformer has been almost blotted out, that of the latter \nconsigned to infamy and detestation. That he swerv- \ned to the Arian side is probable, but this was not the \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHXmCHES. 125 \n\ncause of his ofFensiveness. Eustathius, his unequal \nbut preferred competitor, was avowedly of the same \nparty. He did indeed condemn prayers and offerings \nfor the dead, and the observance of the pubHc Jewish \nfasts; but his great crime lay in holding that mortifying \ntruth, that the presbyterial and episcopal offices were \noriginally the same, and in withdrawing from the \nchurch of Sebastia."^ Augustine refers to Epiphanius, \nwho represents him to have asked, " as to what is a \nbishop before a presbyter 1 In what do they differ? \nThe order is the same, the honor one, and the excel- \nlence one; the bishop imposes hands, and so does the \npresbyter; the bishop performs the whole of public \nworship, and the presbyter in like manner ; the bishop \nsits upon a throne and so does the presbyter."" No \nmention is here made of any difference among pres- \nbyters. Had there existed some, who laboured not in \nword and doctriiie, but were subordinate, they ought to \nhave been excepted. Of such we have found no, not \nthe least, intimation in any writer in ancient times. \nBut from the earliest period, Tt^oitfliolss, or presiding \npresbyters, whom an apostle deemed worthy of dou- \nble honor, have been of common occurrence, and at \nlength having monopolized the name bishop, did in the \nage which is passing under our present examination, \nwith the aid of the civil power, erect themselves into a \nsuperior order, against which it was the honor and in- \nfelicity of Aerius, to bear his testimony. His fate fur- \nnishes another example, that truth is a feeble defence \nagainst power. His motives we know not; if disap- \n\n\xc2\xbb\xc2\xbb Augnstin. torn. vi. col. 25. Orare, vel offerre promortuis ob- \nlationem non oportere, nee statuta solemniter celebranda esse jeju- \nnia, sed cum qaisque voluerit jejunandum, ne videatur esse sub \nlege, presbyterum ab episcopo nulla differentia debere discerni. \n\nn Epiphani. adv. hseres.lib. iii. torn. i. p, 906. TutIiv tTrta-icornro; \n^gof Trpitrl^uligiv; ouSiV S\'lxwetl\'Jit ot/lof rcv^ov. /xict ya.^ e<rliv 7^|/f, \n\nTTgiirJivli^oc. Kovrgov StJ\'axriv o tTritncoTroiy o/moius kai o Trgtv^ultgof, \nT\xc2\xaby otK.ov!ifj(,i\'J.v T\xc2\xabf KitlgUttt TTotu i7rt(nL.o7rocy jc*< o 7rgt<rBu]tgo( \neeTxvrcoiy xstflg^rrati o t7ri<rK67roe iTTi t9W B^ovoVj KstQi^irxt KAt o \n\nm2 \n\n\n\n126 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT, &C. \n\npointment was his inducement, nevertheless the ground \nhe assumed was the truth, and v^as supported by am- \nple proofs; it is also very clear that the opposition \nwhich prevailed against him, was not because he was \nan Arian, but because he espoused a plan of reform, \nwhich ecclesiastical policy could not tolerate." Had \nhe only borne his testimony against the clerical abuses \nof his day, and not actually withdrawn from the hier- \narchy, he might have escaped persecution. Then \nceasing to be an object of odium, he would have drop- \nped into oblivion, the common receptacle of the names \nof thousands, who have succumbed unto, or perished in \nopposing the ecclesiastical tyranny of the ages in \nwhich they lived, preferring a good conscience and \npoverty of spirit, characteristics of the saints, to the \nworldly policy, and personal aggrandizement of the \nhaughty successors of the despised fishermen of Ga- \nlilee. \n\nHooker*s justification (Eccles. pol. ill. 130.) of the sentence \nagainst Aerius on account of "his fault in condemning- the order of \nthe church, and his not submitting- himself unto that order," is pre- \ndicated upon, either the infallibility of the church, or her authority \nby which she can sanctify error. If a "madman," [MnviaJ\'MCt \nEpiph.] his madness lay in following- the Scriptures, and the first \ng-overnment of the churches; for as Stillingfleet observes (Ireni- \ncum 276,) **upon the strictest inquiry Medinas* judgment will \nprove true, that Jerom, Augustine, Ambrose, Sudulius, Primasius, \nChrysostom, Theodoret, Theoplylact were all of Aerius\'s judg- \nment as to the identity of both the name and order of bishops, \nand presbyters, in the primitive church." When Potter un- \njustly infers from the same facts, (Church Gov. p. 193,) that, \n"it was the received opinion in that age, that the order of \nbishops was superior to that of presbyters;" he should ra- \nther have said, that such superiority was, in that age, the \nlaw of the church established against the truth, and the word of \nGod. For the crime imputed to Aerius, appears neither to have \nbeen error nor fake doctrine, but schism,- a sin for which the church \nadjudges the minority in every ecclesiastical separation punishable; \nand the civil law, that party "which opposes itself to the religion \nof the state;*\' in the view of each, propriety of motives, and ac- \ncordance of doctrines and discipline with the word of God, are so \nfar from justifying, that the allegation has been in every other case, \nas well as that of the "madness" of Aerius, a confession of guilt. \n\n\n\nSECTION XIV. \n\nBasil the Great ; his advantages of education ; succeeded Aihanasius as head \nof the orthodox against the Arians \xe2\x80\x94 Like him, he exercised the clerical \npower gained by the canons. \xe2\x80\x94 He knew that a presbyter was originally the \nhighest ordinary officer. \xe2\x80\x94 Gregory of Nazianzum complained of ecclesiasti- \ncal distinctions as innovations, and shunned the convocations of bishops as \ncauses of evil, and attributes their consecrations to a love of superiority. \xe2\x80\x94 \nGregory of Nyssa was the brother of Basil, and accounted all who presided \nin the church to be presbyters. \n\nBasil the Great, was a native of Caesarea, in Cappa- \ndocia. Born about three years after the council of \nNice, he received the advantages of an education at \nConstantinople and Athens, as well as at Antioch in \nSyria. The same instructions matured Basil and Ju- \nlian for their different spheres in life. Basil became a \npresbyter, and whilst such, was elected metropolitan ; \nthis^ being then deemed the order of advancement. ^ \nAn ornament of the church,^ in eloquence he was \nsecond to no one.\'^ Left by the death of Athanasius \nat the head of the orthodox party, when Arianism \npossessing the government, reigned without mercy, \nhis firmness of faith and intrepidity of conduct, over- \ncame the pusillanimous Valens, and proved of signal \nadvantage to the cause. He presided through the \nshort but stormy period of about nine years, and died, \nA. D. 378. Placed at first over a numerous synod of \nbishops, he soon witnessed the dismemberment of his \ncharge. Five provinces arose out of Cappadocia. \nCanonical was the offspring of civil power, and was \n\na Socrat. Schol. lib. iv. c. 21. Greg-. Naz. Oper. vol. i. p. 785, \n\nb Txv TdL^tv Tou ^ufAATOi. Ibid. 336. \n\nc lug ticx.\\i<rtat.g o nod-fxai l^ma-iKtioi. Photius, 890. \n\nd Oy<r\xc2\xabvof Sivrt^a. Idem. 378. \n\n\n\n128 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nobliged, as yet, reasonably to succumb to it. Nyssa, \nthe charge of Gregory, his brother, remained ; but Na- \nzianzum, of the other Gregory, v^as assigned to Cap- \npadocia tertia. \n\nBasil, v^ho could deny himself every thing but eccle- \nsiastical pov^er, in a letter to Amphilochius, the metro- \npolitan of Lycaonia, relative to churches w^hich could \nbe claimed by neither of them, says :- " You yourself \nknov\\^, that of whatsoever sort they who preside are, of \nthe same kind will the habits of those who are govern- \ned generally be. Wherefore, it is perhaps better that \nsome approved person, if it be possible, be appointed \nto the government of the city, and allowed to manage \nall concerns upon his own responsibility ; only, if pos- \nsible, let him be a servant of God, a \xe2\x96\xa0workman not to he \nashamed, not looking after his own things, but those of the \nmany, that they may be saved." Over the small cities \nand little villages, instead of a bishop\'s seat, which they \nformerly respectively had, he thought there should be \nplaced &^occ!tay.\xc2\xa3voi, presiding clergy, and over the chief \ncity a bishop ; so that Isaurus, a seat of Arianism, \nmight be girded around, and that Basil and Amphi- \nlochius should afterwards ordain bishops as circum- \nstances might require. \n\nSuch were the ambitious views and artful contri- \nvances of one of the most pious, eloquent, and learned \nmetropolitans in the latter part of the fourth century, \ncommunicated to another of the same rank, who was, \nno doubt, also of the same mind. Zeal against heresy \nwas their plausible apology, thirst for domination the \nsecret spring, and the canons of the council of Nice \nthe basis of that authority, and the rule of its exercise, \nwhich they claimed and exerted in opposition to the \nword of God, and the express command of the head \nof the church, who had interdicted the claim of lord- \nship over his servants. \n\nIn his commentary upon Isaiah iii. 2, on the word \n** ancient" (ip? elder) he observes ; " Among the things \n\ne Basil, vol. iii. p. 422. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 129 \n\nthat are threatened, is also the removal of the elder, \nseeing that the advantage of his presence is not small. \nAn elder is he, who is dignified with the first seat, and \nenrolled in the presbytery, bearing the character of a \npresbyter ; especially, indeed, if he be an unmarried \nman, or if even, according to the law of the Lord,*" the \nhusband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused \nof riot, or unruly, he being not self-willed, not soon angry, \nneither given to wine, nor filthy lucre, but a lover of hospi- \ntality, and of the good ; sober, holy, just, temperate ; \nholding fast the faithful word according to doctrine, that he \nmay be able, by sound instruction, both to exhort and to \nconvince gainsay ers ; this is the elder whom the Lord \nwill take away from a sinful people."^ This elucida- \ntion of the character of a Jewish elder, in the words \nof Paul\'s description of a Christian bishop, evinces \nthat Basil knew that in the days of the apostles the \noffice was the same. The eloquent metropolitan, \nperceiving that the terms presbyter and bishop had \nbeen promiscuously used in the direction given to \nTitus, drops the latter name, and attributes the cha- \nracteristics enumerated w4th both to the presbyter, \nthat he might suitably represent the magnitude of the \ncalamity expressed in the prophetic denunciation.- \nFew in his day enjoyed or more valued clerical pre- \nferment; but its canonical origination, yet inchoate, \nwas then so far from being a matter of concealment, \nthat it was the vaunted basis of pre-eminence and \npower. The testimony of this bishop of bishops is a \ncandid confession, that, at the first, the occupant of \nthe highest seat in a church was a presbyter, and \nthat such were instructed in sound doctrine, and able \nto exhort and convince. This proof does not even \nsurmise the existence of presbyters of difl^erent kinds, \nand is, therefore, in utter exclusion of those of the \nimaginary inferior grade. \nIn his " Morals," he classes together in one chap\xc2\xbb \n\nf Titus i. 6\xe2\x80\x949. \n\ns Basil, tom.ii, p. 96. \n\n\n\n130 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nter, directed to the same object, the Scriptural cha- \nracter and duties of bishops and presbyters, taken \nfrom the epistles to Timothy and Titus, and places \nthem under the title of " What things are said con- \njunctly concerning bishops and presbyters.\'"* \n\nThe next chapter has the title, " Concerning dea- \ncons,"^ and details their first appointment from the \nacts of the apostles, and some of their moral qualifica- \ntions from the epistle to Titus. Thus he discovers his \nopinion, that there are mentioned in those Scriptures \nbut two offices, presbyters or bishops, and deacons. \nHad there been knov^^n in his day the supposed inter- \nmediate office of mute presbyters, some intimation of \nthem on this occasion might have been expected. But \nthe silence of non-existence then reigned on the sub- \nject of an order in the church of which no one had \nconceived an idea. \n\nGregory, bishop of Nazianzum, the son of the first \nof the name and office, was the friend and companion \nof Basil the Great, and was affirmed, but with doubt- \nful probability, to have been his senior. He studied in \nPalestine, at Alexandria, and afterward at Athens. \nNotwithstanding the preference attributed by Photius \nto Basil, the writings of no Christian father exhibit \nmore the luxuriance of imagery, and charms of elo- \nquence, than do those of this Gregory.\'" Sasima, over \nwhich he was at first appointed bishop, would be \ndeemed, in our day, an impoverished parish. His \ncomplaints were removed, but his sphere was still \nlimited, when, after his father\'s death, he was chosen \nbishop of Nazianzum. He went to Constantinople, \nA. D. 376, and four years afterwards was placed by \nTheodosius in the great church of that city, instead \nof Demophilus, who had been ejected for Arian prin- \n\n\n\nBasil, torn. ii. 491. \n\ni Hifi StAKovuv. Ibid. \n\nk Gregorius primum Sasimorum deinde Nazienzenus episcopus \nvir eloquentissimus prscceptor meus. Jerom. vol. i. cap. 117. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 131 \n\nciples, which appointment was confirmed by the first \ncouncil of Constantinople. \n\nThe piety of this father forbids us to think he would \nhave inveighed against ecclesiastical pre-eminence, if \nhe had thought the higher clerical orders of his day \nfounded on the sacred Scriptures ; yet he complains ; \n" How I wish there had been no precedence, m^osSpm, no \npriority of place, tojicrv rtpotlfxrials, no authoritative dicta- \ntorship, TfvfiavvixTj apovofjLta, that WO might be distinguished \nby virtue only. But now this right hand, and left \nhand, and middle, and higher, and lower ; this going \nbefore, and following in company, have produced to \nus much unprofitable affliction, brought many into a \nsnare, and thrust them away into the company of the \ngoats ; not only of the inferior class, but also of the \nshepherds, who being masters in Israel have not known \nthese things} To affirm, that the vahdity of ordinances \ndepends on the truth of the grace of him who admin- \nisters, is error ; but to acknowledge those to be of- \nficers in Christ\'s church who deny him and his sacri- \nfice, is to acknowledge men to be what they disclaim. \nSuch was the sentiment of Gregory relative to the \nArians ; for speaking of the succession of Athanasius \nto the seat of Mark in Alexandria, he observes: \n"Sameness of doctrine is sameness of chair, and oppo- \nsition of sentiments is also opposition of office, for the \none has the name, and the other the truth of the suc- \ncession.\xe2\x84\xa2 They only are of the church who are \nmembers of the body of Christ ; from them the rest \nare denominated, and where they are not, there is no \nchurch. In his apology to Procopius for not coming \nto a council at Constantinople, he thus expresses him- \nself: "It is my desire, if the truth may be told, to \nshun every convocation of bishops, because I have \nseen the termination of no synod advantageous, not \nproducing the removal of evils so much as the accu- \nmulation of them ; for the love of strife, and jeal- \n\n1 G.eg". Naz. vol. i. p. 484. \n\xe2\x84\xa2 Idem. vol. i. p. 377\'. \n\n\n\n132 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nousy of power, if you will allow me to write it, do even \nexceed utterance.\'"" In a letter to Philagrius, he \nsays : " We are worn out striving against envy and \nconsecrated bishops, who destroy the common peace, \nand subordinate the word of faith to their own love of \nsuperiority."" \n\nIn a description of the church at Byzantium, which \nhe calls the eye of the world, the chain by which the east \nand the west are connected, and the common empo- \nrium of the faith, he observes : " Behold the bench of \npresbyters, dignified by age and understanding ; the \nregularity of the deacons, not far from the same spirit ; \nthe decency of the readers ; the attention of the peo- \nple, as well in the men as in the women, equal in vir- \ntue."P. \n\nHere are presbyters, deacons, readers, and people. \nThis church cannot be presumed to have been defec- \ntive of any class of oflicers existing in other churches ; \nyet in it inferior elders found no place. Had such a \ngrade then existed, it is unaccountable, that in every \nenumeration they should have been studiously con- \ncealed. \n\nIn his twenty-sixth oration, he has said many things \nof the diversity of stations in the church, with eloquent \npersuasives to subordination, and contentedness with \ntheir respective allotments, but designedly in generals. \nIn his allusion to 1 Cor. xii. 28, he explains helps, \navtatj-^Eii, by cj^otfT\'atftat, whereby he meant those who \ntook care of weaker Christians, to counsel them, and \n\n^ Greg". N. vol. i. p. 814. ^X\'^ f^^^ ovreed u Sti takm^h ypcKfiuv, \nODO-Ti iTsrAVTct trvXhoyov <^vyuv i/zcri^KO^ceVi oti /unJ\'i/u.ioc avvoS\'QU Ttxot \ntiS\'ov ;\\^f\xc2\xbb\xc2\xabr\'rov, y-i^^i wa-tv KHitcev /uictwov icrx/i^victcy \xc2\xab Trpoa-QtiKHV. etl \nyap (pixoveiKiett kai Tpixetpxit et^^.* O\'xas /unn <^oprix.ov v7ro\\at.C>ic \novra y^u<^ovTet Kctt koyov KpHTToviz. \n\no Idem. vol. i. p. 823. Y.ix.fjii]x.cty.iv Aymi^oy-ivoi Trpo? tov <pBovov \n\nKAl TOUf UpOVC iTrta-KOTTOUSy TMV KOIVHV OfXOVOtctV J\'lCtWOVTAe KAt TCOV iSlCCV \n\n^iKovtiKiav TO Tii(7rt<moos TTupipycv 7roiofA.ivo?. \n\nP Vol. i. p.- 517; IcTe Tr^iT^vTipwv a-vviSpioy TToKldL Kcti fl-yv\xc2\xabf; \nTtn/jtitfA.tvaiv; StctKovaiv turet^iccvj ov Troppa tow avrov Trviv/mtrttv \nttyvaa-reev ivnor/AietVy \\aov <^ixo(a.aQiav, otrov 6V ctiJ\'pAa-iVf o<rov o-tt \n\nytl*l^t TUV CtptTilV 0/A.OTly.CLli. \n\n\n\nor CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 133 \n\nprotect them when persecuted ; and by governments^ \nxvjiEpvvj6eis, he understood c^atSoyoyta tfapxoj, those who \nadmonished persons addicted to sensuahty. To con- \nceive the idea, that these terms were used for lay \npresbyters, was left for a novelty to generations then \nfuture. That the office of Gregory the father, as \nbishop of Nazianzum, to which the son was afterwards \nchosen, was that of a ruling elder, or presiding pres- \nbyter, appears in his own words, when he styles him- \nself " a little shepherd, the president of a small flock, \n\nofotjiw;u o^tyoj, xao \'SioifivLOv fxtx^ov sS^Of^JT\'iyxcoj. \'"1 This is \n\nconfirmed also by his representation of Basil as a \npresbyter, and a co-presbyter with himself In a cir- \ncular, preserved in the works of his son, he says, that \n" he would prefer no one of all those who w^ere in \nhonor among them, to his son Basil, a presbyter most \n\nbeloved of God, \'tov \xc2\xae\xc2\xa3ov ^i^SiStatov vtov iqiiav Baffc^ftov \n\ncfr^ttrtpff/Svffpou."^\' Gr-egory the father, was an Ante- \nnicene bishop, and a witness of the clerical aggran- \ndizement introduced by the first Christian emperor; \nyet whilst he might approve the erection of a Christian \nhierarchy as a security against pagan persecution, he \nrepresents facts as they really were ; and has shown, \nthat Basil was no more than a presbyter when chosen \nto be metropolitan of Cappadocia. Also, in the next \nletter, which is supposed to have been written by the \nson, in the name of his father, calling him " our son \nBasil, a co-presbyter," he acknowledges himself to be \nsuch. When his son, the pious Gregory Nazianzen, \nfound himself an object of insidious envy with those \nof his own creed, he indignantly refused to retain the \nhigh office assigned him at Constantinople.\' In his \nplace Nectarius, a noble layman, was elected the first \nbishop of the east. Gregory\'s disgust has been patheti- \ncally recorded by himself in two poems.* Also, a \n\nq Greg. Naz. Opera, vol. i. p. 7^5. \n\nr Ibid. p. 786. \n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Socrat. Schol. lib, v. c. viii. \n\n* Carmen ix. \n\nN \n\n\n\n134 THE PRIMITIVE GOTERXMENT \n\nLatin translation of a lost paper appended to his \nworks, written perfectly in his manner, and generally \nreceived, exhibits with probability both his piety and \nchagrin. " Possess for yourselves honors and power, \nthings in your view of highest importance. I bid you \nadieu, that you may indulge your insolence, and divide \nby lot your patriarchates. Govern the world at your \npleasure, go from place to place, casting down and \nraising up, for these things are your delight. You \nmay go on, but I betake myself to God, for him I live \nand breathe, to him alone I look, to whom my mother \ngave me by vows before I saw the light, to whom I \nam closely bound, as well by dangers as endearing \nwatchfulness. To him will I consecrate the sincere \naffections of my soul, as far as they can be rendered \nhis, holding lonely communion with him alone," \n\nGregory, the brother of Basil, after having taught \nrhetoric, became bishop of Nyssa, in Cappadocia. \nThough commended for his fluency by the learned \nPhotius,^ he certainly indulged too much in allegory. \nThe excellency of style, strength of perception, and \neminency of piety, have not hitherto been appreciated ; \nprobably because he spake lightly of pilgrimages, and \nwas a married man. \n\nWe have seen that every church, at first, had its \npresbytery, the presiding member of which soon mo- \nnopolized the name of overseer. This parochial epis- \ncopacy, except in cities, continued till the council of \nNice ; but these elders were not laymen. The hum- \nble diocesan episcopacy, which had sprung up in cities, \nfrom a constant adherence to the rule that one church \nonly should exist in one place, was then adopted by \nConstantino as an engine of power, and made the \nbasis of a hierarchy, guarded by numerous canons, \nand placed in competition with the pagan priesthood, \nwhich it soon cast down. Attired in the sacerdotal \nrobes, and seated on thrones, the successors of the \n\n\xc2\xab TTOTctfAog Toov Koyav yvff(r\xc2\xbbs T^nyofios. Phot, Bibliothec. \np. 890. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 135 \n\ndespised Galilean fishermen at length became the \nrulers of kings, and the lords of the world. This pro- \ngress was retarded by ecclesiastical jealousies. Alter- \nnate persecutions restrained the Arians and the ortho- \ndox party, and delayed the full exercise of canonical \npower. Gregory Nyssen, from such, or better motives, \nthough a bishop, and the brother of his metropolitan, \nwrites as a pastor of a church, rather than a diocesan. \nThus he observes i^- \xe2\x96\xa0" That all should not intrude \nthemselves into a knowledge of the mysteries, but \nchoosing one from themselves, able to understand \n\ndivine things, aT^a scau^av^es f| icwtiov -tov ;t^p\xc2\xbb;crat io^ dsia \n\nSvmfitvov, they should submissively hear ; esteeming \nworthy of faith whatever they should learn of him. \nFor it is said, all cure not apostles, nor all prophets, but this \nis not now observed in many of the churches. In an- \nother place, speaking of his own ordination, he says :^. \n" To us has come the public ministration of the spirit- \nual supper, ri trii fivBV|xa^;l,xr^s scjT\'tatffcoj ^nitov^yia, whom it \n\nwould better become to participate with, than to com- \nmunicate to others." The feast here intended is that \nof the gospel, from the preaching of which he had \nhoped to be excused. \n\nThe proximity of Nyssa to the former residence of \nThaumaturgus, adds credibility to the account he has \ngiven of the ordination of that father by Phcedimus, \nwhich, he says, was in his absence, words being sub- \nstituted for the hand, c^tix^i^oi. This had always \nbeen the mode pursued in ordaining presbyters, who \nwere of one degree. When presbyters or bishops \nwere chosen, or succeeded, they were not re-ordained \nin the two first centuries ; and when canonical ordi- \nnation arose, it was not performed by imposition of \nhands, but instead of such imposition, the deacons held \nthe open gospels over the head of the party, who had \nbeen chosen by holding up hands.* \n\n*\xe2\x96\xa0 Greg. Nyss. Oper. vol. i. p. 220. \n\n^ Vol.i. p. 372. \n\n* Tfflv ^t SiaiKOYMf T\xc2\xabi Bust, uittyytXia. vri rut tou ^tt^orotovfAtifou \n\n\n\n136 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT, &C. \n\nHe has attributed too much to Stephen, and also \nstrangely erred in the adoption of the appellative sense \nof the word deaconship, w^hen he says i^ " Then Ste* \nphen, full of vi^isdom and grace, w^as called by the \nSpirit to the aid of the apostles. Let no one conceive \nfrom the v^ord deaconship, fto gtaxoj/ta? ovo^a\'tv, that he \ndescended belov^ the apostolic dignity, ^zvet^^vsiv o/ufov \n\xc2\xabapa -triv a7tos\'to%(,xvjv altar, seeing Paul acknowledged \nhimself a deacon, Staxovoi/, of the mysteries of Christ.\'"\' \n\nAfter an apostrophe to the aged Simeon, of whom \nhe had been discoursing, he turns to those who pre- \nside in the churches, and says : " Seeing to you, and \nto such as you, adorned with hoary wisdom from \nabove, who are presbyters indeed, and justly styled \nthe fathers of the church, the word of God conducts \nus to learn the doctrines of salvation, saying, (Deut. \nxxxii. 7,) Ask thy father, and he will show thee ; thy elders, \nand they will tell thee.^^ Here those who presided in \nthe churches, are denominated, without exception, \npresbyters ; and the official sense is clearly exhibited \nby an allusion to the appellative meaning of the term. \nBut neither episcopal superiority, nor clerical subor- \ndination, find a place. The latter had not indeed then \ncome into existence : and though the former every- \nwhere prevailed, and even in the writer himself, yet \nhis early impressions guided him to the truth, and his \npiety rendered him denied to the empty distinctions of \na perishing world. \n\nKji|>ax\xc2\xabc AViTTTvyfAivct KCLTi^ovvTuVi &c. Zonai*. p. 1002. Hippol. \nvol. ii. p. 249. \ny Vol. ii. p. 788. ^- Vol. ii. p. 890. \n\n\n\nSECTION XV. \n\n\n\nCyril of Jerusalem, renounced his ordination of presbyter, to he ordained by an \nArian, a bishop. Ambrose at first a lawyer. Compelled to become archbishop \nof Milan. The commentary on PauVs epistles is the work of Hilary the \ndeacon. His opinion of the angels of the seven churches. Acknowledges a \npresbyter to be Jiis co-presbyter. Disclaims the authority of an apostle and \nof an evangelist. Clerical bribery common in his day. \n\nCyril, bishop of Jerusalem, claimed a grade by ancient \ncustom * of high dignity ; that church also venerated \nby Christians ac a mother, obtained an exception in the \ncanons of the council of Nice, against the pov^er of \nthe Metropolitan of Cesarea. " Since custom has pre- \nvailed and ancient tradition, that the bishop in iElia is \nto be honored, let him have the privileges consecutive \nof such preference \xc2\xa3;t\xc2\xa37\xc2\xab f^yv axo7^ov9Ecav t^stc^y/yj? the pro- \nper dignity being secured to the metropolis."^ But the \npurpose of conforming the hierarchy, in the subordi- \nnation of its offices and the extent of their jurisdictions, \nto the imperial government, conceded to Jerusalem, \nthrough the indecisiveness of the canon, little niore \nthan the name of a preference. That Cyril v^^as made \ndeacon by Macarius, and afterwards ordained a pres- \nbyter by Maximus ; and that Acacius the Arian Metro- \npolitan of Cesarean in favour with Constantius, re-or- \ndained Cyril as bishop of Jerusalem, upon the stipulat- \ned terms, that he should first renounce his office as \npresbyter and officiate again as deacon, are facts too \nplainly testified to be resisted. This stipulation was \nunnecessary, if every ordination whereby a presbyter \nbecomes a bishop is a renunciation of his office as pres- \n\n* Tfit Ag^tttA \xc2\xab8\xc2\xab vide Council. Nic. can. iv. \nb Ibid. can. vii. \n\nn2 \n\n\n\n138 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nbyter ; but if the first office remains, then episcopal or- \ndination resting on canons and custom only, is merely \nvoid. If re-ordination after suspension or deposition \nis never to be performed, it follows that the episcopal \nis not a re-ordination, the authority of man being the \nfoundation of canonical ordination, whilst that of the \nHoly Ghost has authorized the other. The ordination \nof elders in presbyterian churches, must be either of \ndeacons, or of presbyters, or a nullity ; if it be that of \nscriptural presbyters, then as often as any such are af- \nterwards ordained pastors, there is an equally unau- \nthorized and merely human re-ordination. That Cyril \nwas not confusedly\'^ or impiously^ ordained bishop, has \nbeen argued from the language of a subsequent coun- \ncil which pronounced him " canonically ordained by \nthe bishops of the province."^ This opinion wa\xc2\xa7 found- \ned upon the validity of his ordination as presbyter, \nthough effected by an Athanasian bishop of Jerusalem, \nwithout the sanction of the Arian Metropolitan of Ce- \nsarea. Before the council of Nice, episcopacy was \noften defended by allusions to the Jewish priesthood, \nand their orders ; the shadow being identified with the \nsubstance, the obsolete sacrificial economy perpetuated, \nand the gospel ministry clothed with the rights and \nprerogatives of the Levitical hierarchy. But the can- \nons of that council, Constantine being at its head, be- \ncame the supreme law of the empire, and reasons of \nstate conspiring with clerical ambition, provided that \nbishops should have power and importance, propor- \ntioned to the grade of the cities over which they ec- \nclesiastically presided. Whether the provisory canon \nhad been violated by the bishop of Jerusalem, or of \n\n\xc2\xab Sacerdotio confusa jam ordinatione suscepto. Dissertat. de \nvita Cyrilli. c. v. 27. \n\nd Quorum Cyrillus, quum a Maximo fuisset presbyter ordinatus, \net postmortem ejus ita ei ab Acacio episcopo Cesariensi, et cseteris \nepiscopis Arianis episcopatus permitteretur, si ordinatione mMaxi- \nmirepudiasset; diaconusin ecclesia administravit; ob quam impie- \ntatem sacerdoti mercede pensatus. \xe2\x80\x94 Jerom. Chronico. \n\ne KavovictxflocTg TTetg* Tcey tTra^^tstt ^tl^oV^vuBiyret, Theod. liist. 1, \n\nV. c. 9. \n\n\n\nOP CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 139 \n\nCesarea, it being merely a human ordinance, and the \ndecision of the second council of no higher authority, \nCyril was in fact, not only a presbyter, but a ruling el- \ndeVf or president of the church at Jerusalem. \n\nIn the last of his catecheses we have the priest, the \npresbyters, and the altar, with subordinate deacons. \n" You have seen a deacon furnishing water for ablution \nto a priest and presbyters, ta tj^\xc2\xab xav toi^ n^esevts^ois \nencircling the altar of God. But he furnished it not \nfor bodily filth, for there is none, for we at first entered \niGi^siixsv the church, having no dirt on our bodies." Was \nthis holy water? \n\nIn his catecheses, the last five of which are denomi- \nnated mystagogic, those pecuharities of the Catholics, \nwhich the Protestants reject, are generally prematurely \nrecognised. The weight of these productions as his- \ntorical testimony is consequently very little; but since \nthey have no bearing on our subject, it is unaecessary \nto marshal the evidence of their corruptions. The \nletter to Constantius is a standing monument of his \nweakness. In the few remains of his other writings, \nnothing has been found to our purpose. The letter to \nAugustine concerning Jerom is certainly not his, for \nhe died about A. D. 386, whilst Jerom was living. He \nwas an imbecile, ambitious time-server, alternately or- \nthodox and Arian, as his interest led him. His piety \nmust be submitted to another tribunal ; but with us, \nneither his personal character, nor the genuineness of \nthe writings attributed to him, have competent support \nfrom his canonization. \n\nAmbrose was the son of a prsefect of Gaul, where \nhe was born about A. D. 340. Upon the death of his \nfather he was brought to Rome, educated, and became \na pleader of causes. Appointed governor of Liguria \nand Emilia, and attempting to quiet a tumult, which \nhad arisen upon the election of a successor to the bish- \nop of Milan, he was unexpectedly nominated and \nelected, and at length by the Emperor obliged to accept \nthe office. He was baptized, and within a week be- \ncame arch-bishop of Milan, A. D. 374, where he died \n\n\n\n140 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nabout 396. His w^orks consist of five tomes in two \nvolumes. The commentary on the epistles of Paul \nwritten by Hilary the deacon has already passed under \nreview ; the apology of David, and several other por- \ntions were the productions of others. \n\nThe bishopric of Milan adjoined that of Turin, the \nMilanese on the east, and the Piedmontese on the west, \nbeing divided by the river Ticino, a small branch of \nthe Po, in the great valley in which these two dioceses \nlay. The influence of the bishop of Rome, was ac- \nknowledged, disavowed, and re-established alike in \nboth, till the times of Charles the Great. \n\nAs their political government was the same, both \nbefore and after the partition of the Empire in 364, so \nwas their ecclesiastical of the same kind. They were \nequally Vallenses, inhabiting the same valley, and their \nreligion the same, both in the days of Ambrose and of \nClaude. And since no such sequestered primitive Chris- \ntians, as some have dreamed to have existed in that \nvalley, are once mentioned in the works of this wri- \nter, there is all the certainty that a negative admits, \nthat there were none. \n\nIn his commentary upon the words, "the seven \nstars are the angels of the seven churches," &c. in \nthe Apocalypse, he observes: "We ought therefore to \nunderstand the seven angels to be the rectors or pre- \nsidents of the seven churches,^ because angel means \nmessenger, and they who announce the word of God \nto the people, are not improperly called angels, that is, \nmessengers." \n\nA letter of Syricius^ to the church at Milan, and \nthe answer of Ambrose, signed also by a number of \nbishops and presbyters, clearly show the claim and ac- \nknowledgment of superiority in the bishop of Rome, \nwho is denominated not only pastor and brother, but \nLord. By another, Syricius appears to have written \n\nf *\xe2\x99\xa6 Septem igitur angelos, rectores septem ecclesiarum debemus \nintellig-ere," &c. \xe2\x80\x94 Igitur hoc, quod praesuli ecclesix Ephesi a Do- \nmino dicitur, &c. Tom, v. p. 183. \n\nE Tom. V. p. 90. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN- CHURCHES. 141 \n\nto Syrus, the presbyter of Ambrose,\'^ to reprove him \nfor inattention to his charge. Ambrose concurs, de- \nnominating Syrus brother and co-presbyter, " fratrem \nnostrum et compresbyterum Syrum." The expression \nconservitium, might have been used, if the canonical \nhad been original scriptural distinctions, for there v^as \nfellowship in their services ; but co-presbyter fairly im- \npHes, that the archbishop was still a presbyter, which \nwas strictly true, if he had been ordained such, be- \ncause the presiding presbyter, " 7t^o\xc2\xa357\xc2\xabj," is the very high- \nest ordinary officer named in the New Testament. \nAmbrose certainly had some view in which his lan- \nguage appeared to himself to be correct. But that he \nconsidered himself a lay presbyter is inconceivable. \n\nThat deacons served tables and instructed others in \nthe fourth century, may be inferred from these words: \n" The apostles did not esteem it best to leave the word \nof God and serve tables, but each is an office of wis- \ndom, for Stephen full of wisdom was chosen a deacon. \nLet him therefore who waits detail from him who \nteaches, and let the teacher invite the deacon. For \nthe church is one body though the members be differ- \nent, and necessary each to another."^ If deacons were \nthen teachers, what were presbyters who were ever \ntheir superiors ? \n\nAmbrose exercised, but with Christian humility, all \nthe powers, which, by the canons and customs of his \nday, he might claim ; but his interpretation of the \nScriptures relative to the offices of apostles and evan- \ngelists is very different from that which some have \nadopted in our day. " I do not claim the honor of the \nApostles, for who (had) this, but those whom the Son \nof God himself chose; nor the grace of prophets, \nnor the authority of evangehsts, nor the circumspec- \ntion of pastors ; but the attention and diHgence con- \ncerning the divine writings, which the apostles placed \nlast among the duties of the saints, I wish only to at- \n\n\n\nh Tom. V. 112, cum de conservitio nostro aliquos dirigis, &c. \n\xc2\xbb Tom. iii. p. 95. \n\n\n\n142 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\ntain ; for, snatched from benches of justice, and robes \nof government, unto the priesthood, I have begun to \nteach you, what I have not myself learned."^ He \nneither considered himself, though an archbishop, to \nbe a successor of the apostles, nor claimed the extra- \nordinary office of evangelist ; but why he confined his \nclaim to a part only of the pastoral office, is not dis- \ncernible, unless it may be imputed to his humility. \n\nIn his day, so soon after the erection of Constan- \ntine\'s hierarchy, bribery had commenced. This good \nman complains, "you may see every where, those \nwhom not merit, but money has advanced to the order \nof the episcopate ; a weak and ignorant populace, who \nhave called to themselves such a priest. If you strict- \nly inquire, who promoted them to be priests ? they \nforthwith answer : I have lately been ordained a bish- \nop by the archbishop, and given him a hundred shill- \nings, seeing I had deserved to have the episcopal grace, \nwhich, if I had not paid, I had not been a bishop to- \nday. Wherefore it is better for me to bring the gold \nfrom my purse, than lose such a priesthood. I gave \nthe gold, and obtained the episcopate ; I do not doubt \nthat I shall soon receive, if I live, the shillings which \nI love. I ordain presbyters, consecrate deacons, and \nreceive gold. Lo, the gold which I gave, I have already \nreceived in my purse. Wherefore the episcopate has \ncost me nothing."^ This representation of archbishop \n\n^ Ambr.Tom. iv. 1. "Non igitur mlhi Apostolorum gloriam ven- \ndico. Quis enim hoc, nisi quos ipse filius elegit Dei ? Non pro- \nphetarum gratiam, non virtutem Evangelistarum, non pastorum cir- \ncumspectionem; sed tantummodo intentionem et diligentiam, circa \nscripturas divinas op to assequi, quam ultimam posuit Apostolus \ninter officia Sanctorum \xe2\x80\x94 Ego enim de tribunalibus atque adminis- \ntrationis infulis ad sacerdotium raptus, docere vos ccepi, quod ipse \nnon didici.*\' \n\n^ "Videas, in ecclesia passim, quos non merita sed pecunis ad \nepiscopatus ordinemprovexerunt: nugacem populum et indoctum, \nqui talem sibi adsciverunt sacerdotem. Quos si percunctari fideli- \ntur velis, quiseos praeficerit sacerdotes, respondent mox et dicunt, \nab archiepiscopo sum nuper episcopus ordinatus, centumque soli- \ndo9, ei dedi ut episcopalem gratiam consequi meruissem ; quos si \nminime dedissem, hodie episcopus non essem. Unde, melius est \n\n\n\nOP CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 143 \n\nor bishops ordaining severally without the concurrence \nof their brethren of theirrespective grades,is at variance \nwith the canons of the council of Nice, butunless founded \non fact would have compromised the veracity of the \nworthy writer. The assumption of power is as common \nwith ecclesiastical as civil officers ; and, for various \nreasons, effected with much less danger of reprehen- \nsion. But in this instance the evil was of small mo- \nment, because there was only at most a violation of \na legislative provision enacted without authority, since \nneither the council nor emperor might erect offices in \nthe kingdom of Christ. \n\nHis classification of officers in a church perfectly \nagrees with those of his day, and fairly excludes the \npossibility of the existence of lay presbyters : " What \nGod requires from a bishop is one thing, that from a \npresbyter, another; and that from a deacon, another; \nand that from a clerk, another ; and that from a lay- \nman, even every individual whatsoever, is another."\xe2\x84\xa2 \n\n\n\nmihi aurum de sacello invehere, quam tantum sa^erdotium perdere. \nAurum dedi et episcopatum comparavi; quos, amem, solidos, si \nvivo, receptum me illico non difRdo; Ordino presbyteros, consecro \ndiaconos, et accipio aurum. Ecce aurum, quod dedi, in meo sa- \ncello recepi, episcopatum ig-itur gratis accepi." Tom. iv. p. 181. \n\nra "Aliud est enim quod ab episcopo requirit Deus, et aliud \nquod a presbytero et aliud quod a diacono, et aliud quod a clerico, \net aliud quod a laico, vel a singulis quibusque hominibus." Tom. \niv. 179. \n\n\n\nSECTION XVI. \n\nEpiphanius a weak and credulous writer ; intoxicated with clerical power. \xe2\x80\x94 His \ndetraction of Aerius. \xe2\x80\x94 His opinion of the difference between Ushop and pres\' \nhytery; contrary to Jerom\' s.\xe2\x80\x94 His notion, that different primitive churches \nhad different kinds of officers, without foundation, and contrary to evidence \nand facts. \xe2\x80\x94 He received the apostolical constitutions, hut shows they were \ndoubted. \xe2\x80\x94 Eusebius and Jerom say nothing of them; and they contain false \nhistory. \xe2\x80\x94 They profess to have existed in the life-time of Peter, and yet re- \nquire to read the gospel of John, which was written after Peter\'s death : \nand give, as officers, several who came into office after the death of the apos- \ntles. \n\nEpiphanius was born in Palestine, about the year , \n332, became metropolitan of Cyprus in 366, and died \nin 402. Though acquainted with five languages,*, \nhe was no proficient in Attic diction, the only test to \nwhich he is now subject. His creduhty might have \nbeen at least compatible with sincerity ; had not his \nconditional promise of a miracle, to the empress, ren- \ndered even this problematical. His invasion of the \ncanonical rights of John of Constantinople,^ sprang \nfrom his seduction by Theophilus of Alexandria, and \nboth from the inebriating influence of ecclesiastical \npower, disproportioned to his mental vigor. To prove \nheresies supposititious, which is the chief object of his \nwritings, catalogues of bishops are presented, who are \nassumed to have had the same authority, and to have \nheld the same faith, from the days of the apostles. It \nhad been usual to argue the genuineness of the gospel \nfaith from the identity of the doctrines retained by the \nchurch throughout the world. But, howsoever plausi- \nbly the antiquity of doctrines might be argued, from \n\n^ TltvTstyKaiTm. Jerom. \n\nb Socrat. Hist. lib. vi. c. 9\xe2\x80\x94 -13. \n\n\n\nth\xc2\xa3 primitive government, &c. 145 \n\nthe agreement of those churches, whose successive \npresidents, rtposaloils?, had,long before the days of Epipha- \nnius, monopoUzed the title of bishops, the assumption, \nnevertheless, that diocesan episcopacy had existed \nfrom the days of the apostles, and that there had been \na sameness of power, influence, and even of name, \nwas contrary to fact. Episcopal authority he identified \nwith the regal and sacerdotal offices of Christ, and \npreposterously founded it upon the promise of God, \nthat ChrisVs throjie should remain, that of his kingdom \nthere should he no end, and that he should sit upon the throne \nof David, " which kingdom he transferred unto, and \nbestowed, together with the priesthood, upon his ser- \nvants, that is, the high-priests of the church univer- \nsal.\'"^ \n\nSpeaking of xlerius, who has already fallen under \nconsideration, he says,\'^ that " He alleges, to the de- \nception of himself and his hearers, that the apostle \nwrites to presbyters and deacons, and not to bishops :" \nalso, that to a bishop the apostle says, " Neglect not \nthe grace that is in you, which you received by the \nhands of the presbytery." And afterwards, in another \nplace, the apostle addresses "bishops and deacons," \nso that the same person was a bishop and a presbyter. \nAnd being ignorant of the series of truth, and not con- \nversant in ancient histories, Aerius knew not that \nwhilst the proclamation of the gospel was a new thing, \nthe holy apostles wrote according to circumstances. \nWhere, indeed, ^ there w^ere bishops already constitu- \nted, he wrote to bishops and deacons ; for the apostles \ncould not immediately establish every thing in order. \nBut there was need of presbyters and deacons, since \nby these two, the business of a church can be accom- \nplished. Where, therefore, no one was found worthy \nof an episcopate, the place remained without a bishop. \n\nc To 0x(riXitov Tov AatC/tT fxiTd.</]\xc2\xbb<rdii tcut ^aigt<ra./uivii5 roif invrou \n\n!KKX>i<ri!tg. Hoer. 29. S. 4. vide Heb. v. 6. vii, 16, 25. contra. \nA Vide Sect. xiii. \n\xc2\xab Stilling-fleet reads /urn for u-tv. \n\n\n\n\n\n146 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nBut where there was necessity, and there were those \nwho were worthy of the office of bishop, bishops were \nappointed, and the numbers being few, and none be- \ning found among them to be constituted presbyters, \nthey were satisfied, in such places, with a bishop only. \nBut without a deacon there could not be a bishop.\'^ \n\nThe first charge against Aerius was, that he taught \nthat the apostle, in the third chapter of his first epistle \nto Timothy, in fact enumerates the qualifications, not \nof bishops of the fourth century, but of primitive pres- \nbyters and deacons. To which Epiphanius, in sub- \nstance, answers, that bishops and deacons, without \npresbyters, were ordained in some churches by reason \nof paucity of numbers. But if so, a single pastor and \nhis deacons was one of the earliest conditions of the \nchurch, which is not strictly correct, as we have \nseen. \n\nThe second was, that to prove the offices one, he \nrepresented Timothy (1 Tim. iv. 14) as ordained a \nbishop by the hands of a presbytery. To this the \nmetropolitan answers, that Timothy was not to reprove \nan elder f nor hastily to receive an accusation against such ; \nwhich caution implied, that he had an authority supe- \nrior to that of presbyters, to whom no such directions \nwere given. The truth was, that Timothy, ordained \nby a presbytery, was constituted by Paul an evange- \nlist, an extraordinary office, by virtue of which, like \nan apostle, he planted churches, and ordained presby- \nters or bishops, their ordination being the same. It \nhas been shown, that as the Ephori had a 3i^oi6tu>i, or \npresident^ who held the same office with his brethren, \nso in the presbytery of each church there was a presi- \ndenty rtgofffttoj ; consequently, as it was an inflexible rule \n\n\n\nf <tiQ^ii Si ill; eu.urov TTXcivnv \xe2\x80\x94 -nAt ovK otSsv TJiv amoKcvQiAV T^r \ndXnQiiAC ayvoho-ctc, Ka.1 l<j-l estate JixBvla.\'lcfts /un iVTv^cnVy on nou ovtgs \n\n10V KtfgVyfJLCf.TOQy TTgOC TCt V TT OTT ITT T OVT Ct iygCtC^iV itylOg UTTOCTTOKOt. \n\nOttov y.iv na-uv iTria-KOToi hSm. KarAO-Qivm, iygA<piv iTriocoTrot kai \n(flAKcvotc ov ya.g TravTo. iuBvg hSi/vuBmciv ot ctvoirloxot Ka.retarT\xc2\xbb<r<tt \nv^i^QuTiguv yctg iytvilo ;\\^ge/(X, xst; SictKovuVi Sia yap tov <fuo Tovrait \nTA iKKKtio-id-aliKA SuvAvro Trxh^ounQAiy &c. Hoer. 75. S. 5. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 147 \n\nthat but one church should be allowed in one city at a \ntime, there could, of necessity, exist but one primus \namong the presbyters, however multiplied. This \nofficer very naturally, therefore, in the second century \nand later, as converts multiplied, became more influen- \ntial, claimed higher authority, and monopolized the \nname of the bishop; a circumstance on which the \npolicy of Constantino seized, and, accordingly, by can- \nons of the council of Nice, availing himself of an im- \naginary power in the church, he erected a hierarchy, \nwhich exists to this day. \n\nThe third charge against Aerius was, that he said \nPaul considered (Titus i. 5 \xe2\x80\x94 7) the same persons \nbishops and presbyters, calling them indifferently by \neither name. To this he found no answer, except the \nassertion, that the order of bishops is to produce, by \nordination, fathers in the church, or presbyters to \nproduce sons by the washing of regeneration ; which \nis a mere begging of the question, and opposed by the \nfact of the ordination of Timothy himself by a presby- \ntery. Modern ingenuity has sometimes allowed the \nname bishop, in its appellative sense, to the presbyters \nof Titus ; but, as a name of office, to the ordainer. \nAnd this would be allowable, if a distinction of such \noffices could be shown by the Scriptures, or in the \napostolic age ; but the ruling elder was no more than \na presbyter ; and to account him less, was an absur- \ndity of more modern invention. \n\nThe argument just mentioned by Epiphanius, in \nsupport of an inequality between the bishop and pres- \nbyter, " that one is an order generative of fathers, for \nit begets fathers in the church ; and that the other, \nunable to produce fathers, generates children in the \nchurch, by the washing of regeneration,"^ has neither \nfoundation in the Scriptures, nor in the history of the \nearliest ages of Christianity ; for we have seen how \n\n\n\ng H (Jt.iv ydL^iTTl TruTigrtiy yivyririKH Tot^id -n-eiTtgiti ytt^ ytYVa. tv \ntKK\\ii<rttt: HcTs Trctri^eLs fx\xc2\xbb Suvct/uivn ytweiv, Stx T\xc2\xbbf tov Xot/Tgtt tta- \nxiyytvfo-tae rtjtVAytvvx th tKicKmrKj,. Hcer. 75, 84. \n\n\n\n148 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nepiscopacy grew out of the " ruling elder." But in \nhis day, though the bishop had all the powers of the \npresbyter, the presbyter was not allowed to do all that \nthe bishop might ; being prohibited by the canons of \ncouncils, which were the supreme laws of the empire. \nAccordingly, Jerom, his more learned cotemporary, \ncommenting on the third chapter of Zephaniah, attri- \nbutes to presbyters their original right of ordination : \n" Priests, who baptize and administer the euchari&t, \nanoint with oil, impose hands, instruct catechumens, \nconstitute Levites and other priests, have less reason \nto take offence at us explaining these things, or at the \nprophets foretelling them, than to ask of the Lord for- \ngiveness."^ If it be objected that Jerom elsewhere \nsaid, " What does a bishop, ordination excepted, that \na presbyter may not do ?"\' the answer is obvious : \nJerom, knowing that episcopal ordination was an ag- \ngression canonically adopted, confirmed by successive \ncouncils, and established by imperial authority, here \nspeaks of ordination as it then was, and by no means \nof its original institution, or the mode of its primitive \nadministration. He could not otherwise have affirmed., \nas he has done, that bishops are above presbyters rather \nby custom, than by the truth of a divine disposal; " magis \nconsuetudine quam dispositionis Dominicge veritate \npresbyteris, esse majores." He also affirmed, an apos- \ntle had plainly taught, thai presbyters and bishops were \nthe same, "eosdem esse presbyteros quos etepiscopos;" \nbut " that afterwards it obtained that one was chosen, \nwho might preside over the rest, to prevent divi- \nsion, lest each one, collecting to himself, might rend \nthe church of Christ."\'^ That there was but one ordi- \n\n\n\n^ Sacerdotes qui dant baptismum et ad eucharistiam Domini \nimprecantur adventum, fiiciunt olt-um chrisraatis, manus imponunt, \ncatechumenos erudiunt, Levitas et alios constituunt sacerdotes, \nnon tarn indigrientui- nobis haec exponentibus et prophetis vaticin- \nantibU\'S, quam Dominum deprecentur. Tom. v. p. 218. \n\ni \xc2\xab\xc2\xabQuidenim facit excepta ordinatione, episcopus, quod pres- \nbyter non faciat." Tom, ii. p. 624. \n\nk "Quod autem poslea unus electus est qui ceteris preponere- \n\n\n\nOP CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 149 \n\nnation for the presbyter and bishop until the Cyprianic \nage, has been made sufficiently clear in the former \nsections ; but to estabUsh that Jerom excepted ordi- \nnations from the powers of presbyters, merely with re- \ngard to the laws and practice of his day, and not as \neither original or rightful, it is only necessary further \nto observe, that in the same letter he has shown, that \n*\' at Alexandria, from the evangehst Mark, even to the \nbishop Heraclius and Dionysius (A. D.246) the presby- \nters called him bishop, who was one chosen from them- \nselves, and placed iii a higher grade, as an army makes \na general, or deacons choose from themselves one, \nwhom they know to be diligent, and call him an arch- \ndeacon."^ A secondary ordination had not then ob- \ntained, but the elders selected one of their number, and \ndenominating him bishop, they placed him in the chair, \n,which Jerom describes by the suitable terms, in gradu \nexcelsiori coUocare : in consequence of which, he acted \nas bishop, or rather as arch-bishop. This act of the \npresbyters was without apostolical warrant, either in \nprecept or example ; and certainly grew out of the \nappointment of a chairman, or Tt^ofsfco?, which was a \nmerely optional appointment, by presbyters, of one of \ntheir number to a necessary duty. The comparison \nof a general, discovers the manner of the election ; that \nof the arch-deacon, excludes the idea of diversity in \noffice ; and as he was still a deacon, the bishop was \nstill a presbyter. \n\ntur, in schismatis remedinm factum est; ne unusquisque ad setra- \nhens Christi ecclesiamrumpei-et." Epist. ad Evagriura. \n\n1 Nam et Alexandrise a Marco evangelista usque ad Heraclum et \nDionysium episcopos, presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in \nexcelsiori gradu collocatum episcopum nominabant; quomodo si \nexercitus imperatorem faciat, aut diaconi eligant de se quem in- \ndustrium noverint et archi-diaconum vocent." Ibid. \n\nAlso, Hilary the deacon, says, "Sed quia coeperunt sequentes \npresbyteri indig-ni inveniri ad primatus tenendos immutata est ratiot \nprospiciente concilio, ut non ordo, sed meritumi crearet episcopum. \nSect. xii. And Augustin speaks of the superiority of the bishop as \nthat which jam ecclesiae usus obtintiit, Sec. Isodore of Spain says, \nit was to prevent schisms by authority/. It was, therefore, human, \nand by no means primitive. \n\no2 \n\n\n\n150 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nThe method adopted by Epiphanius to support, as \noriginal, an imaginary diversity in office, between \nbishops and presbyters, by supposing the modes of \nconstituting the first churches to have been various; \nthat, in some churches, there were presbyters and \ndeacons, in others bishops and deacons, was not \nfounded in fact ; for the same identical persons were \ndenominated presbyters and bishops : the commission \nwas one, conferred by the same authority, in the same \nmanner, and for the same ends. \n\nThis passage has been brought t\'o prove, that it was \nbelieved, in the days of Epiphanius, that episcopal su- \nperiority over presbyters was estabhshed by the apos- \ntles. The imbecile arch-bishop of Cyprus, and his co- \ntemporary, arch-bishop of Milan, whose piety was \nmuch greater than his knowledge, may have thus \nquieted their consciences, but the episcopal power was \nthen well known to have been founded in aggression, \nand established by canons of councils and edicts of \nemperors. Yet in no instance were presbyters re- \nduced to the condition of laymen. \n\nThe representation already given"^ of the churches \nin Alexandria, while under their respective presbyters, \nat the head of whom was the president of the original \nchurch, is fully confirmed by Epiphanius. " They \nsay that he, (Arius,) a Lybian by descent, having be- \ncome a presbyter in Alexandria, presided, 7t^ota7a7o, \nover a church called Baucahs. For as many churches \nas are of the Catholic church at Alexandria, are un- \nder one arch-bishop; and over these, individually, \npresbyters are placed to administer to the ecclesiasti- \ncal exigences of the neighboring inhabitants."" \n\nThis writer is deemed the principal witness in sup- \nport of the eight books, denominated the Apostolical \n\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2n Sect. xlji. \n\n\xc2\xbb *Ao-/v Ai/lcv At/ivv Tu yyvu iv AXi^oLvSpiia. Si rrpfff j^t/ltpcv ytyotcret \n\nyoL^ iKKXHa-lOLl THS Kx(ioKl]c>1( HKKKHa-tSLC: IV AXi^oLvS^ilO\' VTTO (vst dpX\'*\' \n\n\'TrKrx.oTTov cv(ra.i,xa.i kccta iSiav TtfWTaf/f i7n1ila.yy.ivoi mi TrpiTJ^vltpot \n(f\'lxTxo- tnKKiKnuoliKAi XP*^^^ \'^\'^^ o/x<Tc^a)V, Har. 69. S. 1. \n\n\n\nOf CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 151 \n\nConstitutions. He observes : " The Audians bring as \nproofs the Constitution of the Apostles, being indeed \nwith many not accredited, nevertheless not to be re- \njected ; for the whole canonical order is comprehend- \ned in it, and nothing hostile to the gospel, nor to the \nadministration, canon, or faith of the church."" Af- \nterwards he says, " The church observes the feast of \nthe passover, appointed even from the apostles, in the \nStafaltf, constitution, ^-c.\'\'^ " And if it becomes us to \nrecite that of the 5cara|tj, constitution of the apostles, \nhow, &c."i He also says: "With respect to the \nbeard, the divine word and doctrine direct in the con- \nstitutions [iv tat? Staralfflt) of the apostles, not to cor- \nrupt it," &C.\'\' That there existed a book in the days \nof Epiphanius, known by the name that has been men- \ntioned, is a fair inference from his expressions. The \nsilence of Eusebius, and of Jerom, who was the friend \nof Epiphanius, avails nothing against this positive \ntestimony ; but when compared with the suspicions, \nwhich Epiphanius more than once has expressed, the \ninference is just, that they allowed them not to be gen- \nuine. The circumstance, also, that he never mentions \nthem in the catalogues of the sacred writings, evinces \nthat he did not believe them to have been written by \nthe apostles, whose inspiration extended to all they \nsaid and wrote, relative to the cause of Christ. \n\nThey have been mentioned in no passage in the \nsacred Scriptures, by none of the fathers, councils, or \necclesiastical writers of the first century f although \nthe things they contain must have been highly impor- \n\n\n\no E<? TCVTO Si 01 auTot AvStd-VOi vctpA^ifCJcri Tuv eiVO(rTO\\a)V SixlttPiVy \n6v(ra.v /Uiv roti ttoKKoi; iv at./u<ptXi)tlai) ctXKct cvx. ctScnifAov, Trcia-x yap tt \n\nctVT^ K^VOVIKH TSi^iC iJU<plpirsLt, itU.1 CvSiV TTADdL Ki^itpsty/UiVOV T\xc2\xab? TTliT- \n\nliCDCy ciSi T\xc2\xbbf nc.K.Kna-isia-\'liKng SiiKHtnax, k^i xstvoyo?, kai Trta-hai.\xe2\x80\x94- \nHcer. 70. S. 10. \n\nP Ibid. S. 12. q Hoer. 75. S. 6. \n\nr Hoer. 80. S. 7. \n\ns Vide Sec. vii. ante^ concerning \'\xe2\x80\xa2 The Apostolical Tradition,*\' \nreferred to Hippolytus, which identifies itself with the 8th book of \nthe Constitutions. \n\n\n\n152 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT, &C. \n\ntant on different occasions, particularly to Origen, \nTertullian^and Cyprian. In the Constitutions* there \nis a direction to read the gospel of John, but that gos- \npel was not written till after the deaths of Peter and \nPaul, and other apostles, in whose time and presence \nthese Constitutions claim to have been written. Simon \nMagus is asserted in the Constitutions,^ to have been \nbaptized by Philip the apostle, but the history of the \nActs shows that it was by Philip the deacon or evan- \ngelist. \n\nIn the Constitutions,\'\' the apostle Peter is made to \nspeak of Clement, as bishop and citizen of Rome, and \nalso of the heretic Basilides, and others. But neither \nwas Clement, bishop of Rome, nor Basilides known as \na heretic in the life-time of Peter. \n\nThey contain^ many names of bishops ordained by \nPeter, Paul, Mark, and others, several of whom must \nhave come into office after the days of the apostles. \n\nIf those books in the Greek language, which are \nnow called " The Apostolical Constitutions, by Cle- \nment," AtaTfayac -tcov aytcoj; ArtojT\'oTicov dta KTii^/xsvlo^, be the \n\nsame which Epiphanius approved, and the Trullian \ncouncil afterwards rejected, they are an argument of \nhis weakness and prejudices ; if they are different, \nthey merit no regard, and, under either aspect, they \nbecome a miserable specimen of human depravity. \n\n\n\nt Lib, vi. c. 7. " Lib. vi. c. 7. \n\n^ Lib.vi. C.8. w Lib. vii. C.58. \n\n\n\nSECTION XVII. \n\n\n\nDionysius, the Areopagite, was not the writer of the volumes, which hear his \nname; both things and terms are freely used in them, which existed not till \ncenturies afterwards. They may have been written in the fourth or fifth cen- \ntury. That the writer spoke falsely with respect to his age and time is cer- \ntain; hut wrote with more than ordinary talent. By what writers presbyters \nwere first accounted priests. The mode of ordination of a bishop in them \ndiffers from that in the apostolical constitutions. \xe2\x80\x94 John Chrysostom, his cha- \nracter. Correct as to the origin of episcopacy, but mistakes some Scriptures. \n\xe2\x80\x94 Isidore of Pelusium, a monk and layman; his letters laconic and severe. \nUses iTTia-KOTroi and ?rpoi<rla)C in the same sense. \n\n\n\nDionysius, the Areopagite, who heard Paul at \nAthens,* has been deemed by Nicephorus, Gregory the \ngreat, Baronius, and many others, the writer of the \nbooks which bear his name. According to these, he \nreceived a hberal education, and went into Egypt a \nlittle before the death of Christ, where he witnessed \nthat eclipse of the sun which happened at the cruci- \nfixion, when the moon was full. The writer affirms, \nhe was then in his twenty-fifth year ; he nevertheless \nappears to have survived Ignatius and Trajan. The \ngenuineness of these writings, which have received \nthe schoHa of Maximus, and paraphrase of Pachyme- \nras, in the Greek; and the annotations of Corderius in \nLatin, has been a matter of dispute through the last \ntwelve centuries. The reasons furnished by Baronius, \nwherefore they were not mentioned by Eusebius and \nJerom, are plausible ; and his opinion, that the Cle- \nment named in them was not Alexandrinus, is probable. \nBut his answer to the objection of Theodorus, pre- \nserved by Photius, that they exhibit an account of \n\na Acts xvii. 34. \n\n\n\n154 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nthose traditions which grew up in the church, by de- \ngrees and at distant periods, is unsatisfactory. Nei- \nther is it conceivable that these books, which so plain- \nly assert the doctrine of the Trinity, should never have \nbeen cited in the disputes with the Arians, nor that \nChrysostom, Ambrose, and Augustine, who mentioned \nthe Dionysius of Athens, should have concealed, if ac- \nquainted with, his writings. \n\nThese works are probably those of a Platonistic \nChristian, mystically but argumentatively written, in \ngood style, and with a free use of terms introduced by \nthe disputants of the fourth century. Some have \nimagined that Dionysius, not the Areopagite convert- \ned by Paul, but the patron of the Franks, who were \ndifferent men, of different periods, was ttie author of \nthese works. \n\nAbout the commencement of the fifth century we \nmay with probability place them;^ and supposing \nthem the works of an anonymous and disingenuous \nwriter, yet was he a man of more than ordinary ta- \nlents and information ; they are entitled to notice there- \nfore, subject to these quahfications. \n\nNot a solitary instance has been observed, rejecting \nthe captions, wherein this writer uses the words \ns7ti>6xo7ioi, Tt^sffjSvtE^oSf ^laxovo^, bishop, presbyter, or deacon; \nbut instead of them, tspa^x\'^i? ts^tv? and s^ftT\'ov^yoj, govern\' \nor of priests, priest and miiiister; le^a^zv? is a refinement \nupon apxoB^tvi not found in the New Testament: isptvs \nnever there occurs for an officer under the gospel, nor \n^tctov^yoi for the deacon. \n\nThe term priest does rarely, if in any instance, ap- \npear for an officer in the church of Christ, in Clemens \nRom., Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandr., Origen, \nGregory Thaum., Lactantius, or in either of the Hila- \nrys. Irenseus infers from Levi\'s having no inheritance \nbut the priesthood, that the apostles, forsaking the \n\n\n\nb Blondel and Lardner places them at A. D. 490. Pearson, 330. \nS. Basnage and Daille, 520. Cave, 360. And others at different \nintermediate periods. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 155 \n\nfields, became the priests of God. Tertullian argues, \nthat because Christ, is a high priest, those who are bap- \ntized into Christ, having put on Christ, are, according \nto the apocalypse, priests to God the Father. But nei- \nther of these writers has usually adopted the word \npriest for presbyter in his writings. Minutius Felix \nobserves, that Christians had neither temples nor altars \nexcept their hearts, nor images, nor purple, nor digni- \nties. Cyprian and Ambrose have used the terms priest \nand priesthood for the preaching office in the gospel, \nbut do not ordinarily make the substitution. \n\nThe principal and distinguishing character of the \nordination of a bishop, u^a^zv^i at the time of the writ- \ning of these books, appears to have been, " the impo- \nsition of the Scriptures upon hishead, which neither of \nthe lower orders received.\'"^ But it was at this pe- \nriod accompanied by laying on of hands, which nei- \nther appears in the constitutions, nor in the Traditions \nof Hippolytus.*^ The present form of the ordination \nof bishops fell into practice at some later period, by \nthe mere omission of that which was the earliest but \nunauthorized ceremony, of holding the Scriptures \nover the head of a presbyter, when appointed to pre- \nside. \n\nIf imposition of hands is thought in our day to com- \nmunicate either gifts or graces, experience will prove \nthe reverse. And in the ordination of the ts^a^r/jj? it \nwas not originally a constituent. Ordination, even \nwhen rightful, confers neither knowledge nor purity ; \nand though at first followed by extraordinary gifts, it \nwas no doubt intended as an exclusion of persons un- \nqualified from the offices of presbyter and deacon. \nDesignations to presidency among presbyters w^ere \nvariously effected in different places. The duties were \nlong merely parochial, even after the name of bishop \n\n\n\ntTiSicric oux. i^ovToiv TCiiro Tftjf rt)^nyfVO\xc2\xbbY Tct.yy.ATU\'iU Vol. i, p. 364. \nd Vide p. 64 ante. \xe2\x80\xa2 \n\n\n\n156 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nhad been monopolized. We have already seen, that \ninstead of a jus divinum, diocesan bishops, as such, had \nno existence in the apostles\' days : and the tardy ad- \nvancement towards a secondary ordination show^s that \nthey knew that their legitimate authority was only \npresbyterial, whilst their episcopal superiority, being \nfounded on human appointment, was continued by cus- \ntom and supported by policy. Such is the history of \nthe n^osd\'tu)?, or ruling elder. \n\nIt has been often affirmed in our own day, that \nbishops are successors to the apostolic office. But the \nwriter of these books thought otherwise, and probably \nwrote the sentiments which prevailed at the com- \nmencement of the fifth century. He represents dea- \ncons as directed "by priests, priests, by archbishops, \narchbishops by the apostles and the successors of the \napostles."^ \n\nNeither in the Celestial nor Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, \nnor in any other of the writings ascribed to Dionysius, \nthe Areopagite, has there been found a word, a fact, \nor even a circumstance, which so much as excited the \nidea of a lay presbyter, or ruling elder, in the modern \nmeaning of those terms. \n\nJohn of Constantinople was born at Antioch, of \nChristian parents, but lost his father in childhood. \nHis first object was jurisprudence, which he exchang- \ned for the study of the Scriptures. Becoming a read- \ner, he discharged the duties with such acceptance that \nhe could escape episcopal ordination only by conceal- \nment. He retired a few years, afterwards was or- \ndained deacon, then presbyter. His eloquence, upon \nthe death of Nectarius, promoted him to the see of \nConstantinople, in 398. He was austere, choleric, dis- \ntant, arbitrary, and sometimes imprudent, yet pious. \n*" He died, in unjust banishment, in 407, at the age of \n\n\n\ne AtiTovgyoiy J\'i rcvroi^ ct ii^m, tt^ap^iti St tois li^ivcrt, St rots \n\'*S*S/t*\'f &/ ATTOiroXoi, Kcti oiTcev etTroa-roKav SiaSo^oi. Vol. ii. p. 113. \n\nf Vide Socrat. Scholast. lib. vi. c. 2\xe2\x80\x9419: \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 157 \n\n60. The name Chrysostom was conferred at a later \nperiod. ^ \n\nIn his homily on Ephes. iv. he places apostles first, \nprophets second, evangelists third; then follow pas- \ntors and teachers. These last he supposed to have \nbeen intrusted, some with a whole nation, and others \nto have been inferior. This archbishop of Constanti- \nnople appears to have made no claim to apostolical \nsuccession. Yet by virtue of canons of councils, he \nexercised the ecclesiastical power proportioned to the \ngrade of his metropolis. \n\nHaving recited 1 Tim. iii. S \xe2\x80\x94 10, he observes: \n"Having spoken of bishops and characterized them, \nsaying both what they should possess, and from what \nthey should abstain, and omitting the order of presby- \nters, Paul has passed over to the deacons. But why \nis this? Because there is not much difference. For \nthese also in like manner have been set over the teach- \ning and government of the church, and what things he \nhas said concerning bishops, the same also he intended \nfor presbyters ; for they have gained the ascendancy \nover them only in respect of ordaining, and of this \nthing also they appear to have robbed the presby- \nters."*^ The condition of the church could have then \nbeen better known to no one than to this primate; yet \nwhen discoursing on the Scriptures, he expressly al- \nlows government and doctrine to have been given \nequally and by the same means to presbyters and to \nbishops; that the latter had gained the ascendancy \nonly in ordination, which they had injuriously taken \nfrom the presbyters; for such is the force of Ttxsovsxtew, \nfollowed by an accusative. \n\ng ^guTovs mv yXscTTXv x,m to o-tou.h. lastvvxf o YLcota\'rAi\'rt- \nvovTToKiU)? iTTio-icoTroi. Photius, fol. 890. \n\nll T/ <f})T5T8; OTl OU TTCKU TO /UiO-OVy }CAl yj^ JCAt CLVTOt JlJ\'stO\'- \n\nKSLKiAv (i(rtv etvSiSiiyfAivoi Kxt TTPd^rctTictv rug iKicxna-tsLgi kai a Tri^t \ntTrttrx-on-eev UTrif T\xc2\xabtwT* kai TTipi Trgtrfiun^av et^/uoTTU. T\xc2\xaby yA^ \n^uporoviAV ju.ov)iv Avrav aiiJt/3s/S\xc2\xabx5t3-/, kai tovto ^cyoy ioKOuat \nTrhiiviKhiv Toyj TTfir^uTifou;. Vol. ix. p. 1574. \n\n\n\n158 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nHe appears to have rightly conceived of the iden- \ntity of the episcopal and presbyterial commission in \ntheir origin. Yet because by the canons of councils, \nvjrhich were the supreme law of the empire, an eccle- \nsiastical authority had been erected in every city pro- \npor]tional in dignity and influence to the magnitude of \nthe city, and the degree of civil power conferred upon \nit, this writer discerned that the cautious exercise of \nthe power of ordination was a matter of the highest \nimportance. For having spoken of a solemn charge \ngiven to Timothy, he observes, "After saying this, \n(Paul) introducedjhat which is above all things vital, \nand conduces to the preservation of the church, I mean \nordination, and says, *Lay hands suddenly on no \nman.\'"^ \n\nIt is obvious that bishops differed only in the power \nof ordination from presbyters, and had gained this af- \nter the first times, yet he has expressed a sentiment on \nPhil. i. 1. somewhat different. If presbyters were in \nthe days of Chrysostom equally as the bishops com- \nmissioned to preach and govern, they were not lay \npresbyters. \n\nUpon 1 Tim. v. 17. Chrysostom plainly shows that \nthe presbyters who ruled well were the same species \nof officers with those who laboured in word and doctrincj \nand observes, "That it conduces greatly to the edifica- \ntion of the church, that the Tt^oBatc^ta, rulirg presby- \nters, should be apt to teach."\'\' The "double honour" \nhe understood to mean not merely respect, but the pro- \nvision necessary to him who presides.^ He also thought \nthe portion was to be double, either to enable him to \n\n\n\ni E/TO. Tovlo itvoev o TTHvlav /uctxis-rct jcaigtailalov hv STrnyctyt, \nKcti fA^xiarlaL auvi^ii thv miiKusiuv to rav ^upoToviov, Hom. \nxvi . p . 1611. \n\nk n^oc iiDcAmrictc oiKcSofA.y)V nett TTdT^v a-vvhhn to SiSctKriKOUC itfetl \n\nXOVi TT^CiOTUlTclC- p. 1605- \n\n1 Tijunv ivldvBu THV BiPATTiidLv T^iyil Tiiv Tfflv (tvAyKAiav ^op\xc2\xbbyiu,y. \nIbid. I his comparison of the ^goea-ra? to him that leads in Uie \nchoir, fitly intimates the parity of office. \n\n\n\nOP CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 159 \n\nsupply widows and deacons, or because he presided \nluell. \n\nHe understood the grace of God which was in Tim- \nothy by the imposition of his hands, (2 Tim. i. 6,) not \nto be his office to rule and preach, but the influence of \nthe Holy Spirit. The imposition of the hands of the \npresbyters, he deems the giving of the commission, \nbut strangely and gratuitously affirms that Paul " there \nspeaks not of presbyters, but of bishops} That there \nwere no diocesan bishops, and that the same officers \nwere indifferently called presbyters and bishops at that \nperiod, are certain. Yet this evasion was not worse \nthan making Tt^^ajSvts^iov, presbytery, an office which \nCalvin favored, with some of the Latin fathers. The \nsame arbitrary interpretation of elders, Tt^tc^vte^ovs, he \nadopted on Titus i. 5, " he here means bishops,\'\'\'"^ Jerom\'s \nviews were contrary, and they are established by evi- \ndence. \n\nReferring to the passages in the letters to Timothy \nand Titus, he assigns his reason for such interpreta- \ntion in his first homily on the epistle to the Philippians. \n" To the co-bishops and deacons, what is this ? Were \nthere many bishops in one city] By no means; but \nhe thus denominates the presbyters, for they had hith- \nerto held those names in common ; the bishop was \nalso called a deacon," or minister-^^. He afterwards \njustifies such commutation of names of office in an- \ncient times, by the custom, in his own day, of bishops \nwriting to their " co-presbyters" and " deacons," and \nsupposes that in former times each was, notwithstand- \ning, distinguished by his proper official title. But how \ndestitute of proof this assumption was, we have al- \nready abundantly seen. Also, he acknowledges there \nhad not been either deacons or presbyters prior to the \n\n\' Qy ?rf^i7r^\xc2\xabr0vls^a)7 (^na-i ivlxuBu, ctX7^ct -rtgi iTria-x.O\'orav. 1 Tim- \n\nir. 14. \n\nm Touc iTriaKOvov? ivrnvQa. <p>i!ri. In loc. \n\n\xc2\xbb ^VViTla-KOTrOK Kf-t StOLKOVOl; Tl TOvlo ; fxldL( VOXiOii TTOkXOl tTTKT\' \n\nKOiroi tXTdty ; ovS\'u/u.ces etWAy towc \'nrg\xc2\xabo-/3t/7<^ovc oviui tjcetxta-t to7\xc2\xab ^-atg \nrtrnt iKotyufovy toic oyo/xAg-i kai StAx,ovoco frt^KOTrns txtytTo. In loc. \n\n\n\n160 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nappointment of Stephen and the other six, and has \ngiven it as his opinion on Acts vi.\xc2\xb0 that the commis- \nsion was of a special nature, and though their duties \nwere in the first instance ministerial, yet they were \ndesigned to be preachers, and did go forth as such. \n\nIsidore of Pelusium flourished in the first part of the \nfifth century, and having adopted the monastic life, \nhe directed letters to men of various characters and \nin different stations, even to the emperor himself \nSome officiously reprove in pungent language ; others \ntemperately answer the bishops, presbyters, and dea- \ncons, who sought his counsel. Being in no instance \nentire, they appear as extracts or abridgments, la- \nconically written. He avows the deliberate purpose \nof speaking freely, and causing men of no sensibility \nto blush for sin ; and if he should thereby suffer, it \nwould be with the prophets, apostles, and saints, an \nevent desirable for him who was one of the multitude, \n\nHis nameruus letters against simony show it to \nhave been then a common vice. He charges it on \nEusebius, the bishop of Pelusium, whom he admits to \nbe rt^oEcrfcoj, but denies that he, vz^aaOai, renders the spi- \nritual service of priest.*^ The early corruptions of the \nhierarchy are sufficiently evinced in his letters, which \naccord with the state of the church after the erection \nof diocesan episcopacy, and the general adoption of \nthe canons of the council of Nice into practice. He \nuses the words fTtKjxoTtoj, 7t^of$ifcof, and is^bv^, promiscu- \nously for the same office; but the last of these words \nmost frequently both for bishop and presbyter. Nor \nhas a presbyter been found in the volume, who was \nnot a priest. Deacons and readers are often men- \ntioned, but neither arch-bishop nor patriarch has been \n\n\n\no OSgy ot/7e SidiiiovaVi ovli vrgia-Qvli^uv o/^st/ to ovowet ttvut i\'uxo* \n\n\xc2\xa7<(70\xc2\xab<rotv ovloi Tov Koyov. Acts hom. xiv. \n\np Page 664. ^i p^ge 326. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 161 \n\nobserved. Yet he repeatedly assigns a pre-eminence \nto Peter above the other apostles. This work, though \nof small importance in the history of the church., is, \nnevertheless, by its numerous, brief, and often singu- \nlar expositions of difficult passages in the Scriptures, \nrendered highly interesting. \n\n\n\nSECTION XVIII. \n\n\n\nJerom ; his hirth, education, places of residence, employment, learning, and \ndeath. \xe2\x80\x94 Hits opinion of the changes which had obtained in the offices and \ngovernment of the church. \xe2\x80\x94 The ambition of presbyters produced the neces\' \nsity of transferring much of their authority to a president in each church. \xe2\x80\x94 \nThis was effected gradually, and by custom. \xe2\x80\x94 Jerom was contented with the \nchurch government established by canons of councils, which had the force of \nthe supreme authority of the empire ; his denial of the primitive^ or inspired \nright, was to take away the unjust defences of clerical improprieties. \xe2\x80\x94 His \nletter to Evagrius translated. \xe2\x80\x94 The church at Alexandria. \xe2\x80\x94 The expressions \nof Jerom on different occasions explained. \xe2\x80\x94 Tlie importance of maintaining \nthe succession of presiding presbyters, to exclude heretics ; but there was no \nre-ordination of presbyters till the Cyprianic age, or middle of the third \ncentury. \n\nJerom was born in the upper confines of Dalmatia, \nbefore A. D. 345. After preparatory instructions at \nStridon, and great progress in philology at Rome, lie \nwent into Gaul in quest of higher proficiency. Hav- \ning returned from Rome, where he had been baptized, \nhe proceeded to Antioch and Jerusalem. In Syria \nhe devoted four years to the prosecution of oriental \nlanguages. \n\nAt Antioch, he sided with Paulinus, by advice from \nDamasus, bishop of Rome, and A. D. 375 consented \nto be ordained presbyter, but not to serve as such. \nThus at liberty, he chose Bethlehem as his residence, \nwhence he visited Gregory Nazianzen at Constanti- \nnople. In 382, coming to Rome, he was detained by \nDamasus, to whom his knowledge of languages, \nthe Scriptures, and the world, seemed indispensa- \nble. \n\nUpon the demise of the bishop of Rome, he retired \nto his beloved Bethlehem, with a number of recluses. \n\n\n\nTHE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT, &C. 163 \n\nAfter visiting Egypt, he spent the residue of a long Hfe \nin retirement at Bethlehem with his chosen friends, \nand died about 420. \n\nDevoted to study ,^ and unrivalled in learning,^ he \nshared the esteem of the greatest and best f but as he \nneeded no emolument, he coveted no preferment in \nthe church. He acquiesced in the aggrandizement \nand influence of the ecclesiastical estabhshment, be- \ncause he thought the exercise of power necessary to \nthe government of the church ; but he would have the \nsuperior clergy to remember, that by the word of God \nthey were only presbyters, and that all higher author- \nity was founded only on custom. \n\nIn writing a translation and a commentary upon the \nScriptures, which were to continue to remote genera- \ntions, we naturally expect his most matured judgment; \nand, therefore, begin with his observations on Titus i. \n5, &c. " Let us carefully consider the words of the apos- \ntle : \' that you may appoint presbyters through the cities as \nI directed you;^ who, describing afterwards the charac- \nter to be ordained a presbyter, and having observed, \n\' If any he blameless, ?iot a polygamist,^ &c. then sub- \njoined, ^for it becomes a bishop to be blameless, as a stew- \nard ofGodA A presbyter is the same, therefore, as a \nbishop ; and before there arose, by the temptation of \nthe devil, preferences in religion, and it was said \namong the people, ^ I am of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Ce- \nphas/ the churches w^ere governed by a common \n\n\n\na ** Totus semper in lectione, totus in libris est." Sulp. Serv. \np. 506. \n\nb "In omni scientia nemo aiideat comparri." Id. 504. \n\n^ ** Plane cum boni omnes admirantur et diligunt." Id. 5C6. \n\nd \xc2\xab< Idem est erg-o presbyter, quietepiscopus, etantequamdiaboli \ninstinctu, studia in relig-ione fierent, et diceretur in populis; Ego \nsum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego antem Cepha : communi presbyterorum \nconcilio, ecclesiae g-ubernabantur. Postqiiam vero unusquisque eos, \nquos baptizaverat, suos putabat, non esse Christi: in toto orbe de- \ncretum est ut unus de presbyteris electus superponeretur ceteris, \nad quern omnis ecclesiae cura pertineret, et schismatum semina to!- \nlerentur. Hierom. Oper. torn. vi. p. 198. \n\n\n\n164 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\ncouncil of presbyters. But afterwards, every one es- \nteeming those whom he had baptized as his own, not \nChrist\'s, it was decreed, throughout the world, that \none chosen from the presbyters should be placed above \nthe rest, to whom the care of the whole church should \nbelong, and the source of all discord be removed. If \nit be supposed this is not the sense of the Scriptures, \nbut my own opinion, that bishop and presbyter are \none, and that one is the name of age, the other of of- \nfice, read again the words of the apostle to the Phi- \nlippians \xe2\x80\x94 \' Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to \nall the saints in Christ Jesus, who are at Philippi, with \nthe bishops and deacons, grace to you, and peace,"* &c. \nPhilippi is a single city of Macedonia, and certainly \nthere could not be in the one city many bishops, in \nthe present meaning of the term. But because at that \ntime they called the same persons bishops whom they \ncalled presbyters, on that account he spoke of bishops \nindifferently as of presbyters. This may still seem \ndoubtful to some, unless it be proved by another testi- \nmony. It is written in the Acts of the Apostles, that \nwhen he had come to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus, and \ncalled the presbyters of that church, to whom he af- \nterwards said, among other things, ^Attend to your- \nselves, and to all the Jlock over which the Holy Spirit hath \nplaced you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord, which he \nhas gained by his blood.\'\' And here observe more par- \nticularly, that inviting the presbyters of the one city, \nEphesus, he afterwards calls the same bishops. If that \nepistle which is written to the Hebrews under the \nname of Paul, be received, there also the care of a \nchurch is equally divided among many; forasmuch \nas he writes to the people, * Obey your leaders, and be in \nsubjection, for they watch for your souls, as rendering an \naccount, lest they may do this with sorrow ; siiice this is to \nyour advantage.^ And Peter, who derived his name \nfrom the firmness of his faith, speaks in his epistle, \nsaying, \' Wherefore the presbyters among you I intreat, \nzvho am a co-presbyter, and witness of the sufferings of \nChrist, who am also an associate in the glory which is here- \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 165 \n\nafter to he revealed ; feed the Lord\'s flock, which is amon:r \nyou, not from necessity but choice.\'\'^ \n\n"^ These things are recorded, that we may show, \nthat the ancient presbyters were the same as the bish- \nops, but by Httle and httle, that the roots of dissentions \nmight be torn up, the whole trouble was devolved on \none. Wherefore, as presbyters know that they are \nsubjected to him who shall have been placed over \nthem by the custom of the church, so the bishops may \nknow that they are greater than presbyters, rather by \ncustom than by the verity of the Lord\'s appointment ; \nand that they ought to govern the church in common, \nimitating Moses, who, w^hen he had it in his power to \npreside over the people of Israel, alone, selected seven- \nty, with whom he might judge the people.\'\'^ \n\nJerom imputes the origin of episcopacy, not to the \npreference of one apostle to another, in the church of \nCorinth \xe2\x80\x94 / am of Paul, &c. ; for no one of them be\xc2\xab \ncame superior in office to the rest ; but to the capri- \ncious favoritism of the people for particular preshv\' \nters, and to the ambitious efforts of those officers, who \naimed to promote themselves rather than to advance \nthe cause of Christ, which, he asserts, produced the \ngeneral consent, by little and little, to transfer the re- \nsponsibility of superintendence from the council of \npresbyters to a single presbyter in each church, for \nthe prevention of divisions. From his expressions, \n" Before \xe2\x80\x94 it was said among the people, I am of Paulf \n\n\n\ne Jerom has omitted iTria-KOTrowli; in 1 Pet. v. 2, but given it \nelsewhere. \n\n^ Hsec propterea, ut ostenderemus apud veteres eosdem fuisse \npresbyteros quos et episcopos, paulatim vero ut dissensionum plan- \ntaria evellerentur, ad unum omnem solicitudinem esse delatam, \nSicut ergo presbyteri sciunt, se ex ecclesise consuetudine ei, qui \nsibi praepositus fuerit, esse subjectos; ita episcopi noverint, se \nmagis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicje veritate, presby- \nteris esse majores, et in commune debere ecclesiam regere imitan- \ntes Moysen: qui cum haberet in potestate solus prsesse populo Is-. \nrael, septuaginta elegit cum quibus populum judicaret. Toni. ti^ \np. 199. \n\ng Tom. vi. p. 198. \n\n\n\n1 66 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nand I of Apollos" &c. v^^hich obtained at Corinth many \nyears before the death of Paul, it has been inferred \nthat the authority of the presbyteries was devolved \non bishops before the deaths of the apostles. But this \nquotation v^as a mere accommodation of Scripture \nlanguage to the evils of after times ; for he speaks not \nof the transfer of authority from many apostles to one, \nbut of that of the presbyters of a church to one of their \nnumber. When Clement wrote his first letter to the \nCorinthians, which all acknowledge genuine, they had \nno bishop, and this was a little before the death of the \nlast apostle. It has been also justly answered to the \nstrange inference, that the date of the letter to the Co- \nrinthians, which has been thus assigned as the time of \nthe introduction of episcopacy, was prior to the call at \nMiletus, to the letter to the Philippians, to the epistle \nto the Hebrews, and to the first epistle of Peter ; and \nthat Jerom wo^ild not have placed the introduction of \nepiscopacy at the period of the schism at Corinth, and \nthen proceeded to the argument for original presbyte- \nrial parity from four different facts, all of which must \nhave occurred subsequently to the time which he had \njust before assigned as the termination of such \nequahty among presbyters. Had Jerom said, that be- \ncause of this schism at Corinth, it was decreed in all \nthe world to devolve the power on one, the four in- \nstances which immediately follow, of the identity of \nthe presbyterial and episcopal ofhce, would have been \npalpable contradictions of himself Equally futile is \nthe position, that since there were neither synods nor \ncouncils to pass the decree which he mentions, Jerom \nmust have supposed it was ordained by the apostles. \nHis language fairly implies, that the decree was the \ngeneral adoption of the expedient, of the responsibihty \nof one presbyter, by the churches throughout the world ; \nwhich agrees with his representation of this change as \na custom, which came on gradually till it universally \nprevailed. Jerom\'s legitimate inference of original \nparity, from the identity of the commission, qualifica- \ntions, and duties, and the promiscuous use of tho \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 167 \n\nnames of presbyter and bishop, in the apostolic times, \nexcludes also the idea of an inferior order of presby- \nters in his day ; for otherwise his terms should have \nbeen restricted. The sameness of order in the apos- \ntolic age, which Titus was to estabhsh in all the cities \nof Crete, is clearly evinced to have then existed at \nPhilippi, Ephesus, Pontus, and at the place of the desti- \nnation of the letter to the Hebrew^s ; and it may be \npresumed, until an exception can be shown, in all \nother Christian churches. The opposition of the \nterms bishop and deacon is obvious, but none exists \nbetween the words bishop and presbyter, which may \nwell signify the same officer. And the omission of \npresbyters in Phil. i. 1, and of their qualifications in \nother letters, where those of bishops are given ; the \npromiscuous use of the terms, as well as the historical \nfact of the accumulation of the power of the Tt^oscnfa^, \nor ruling elder by general consent, all show that they \nwere at first identically the same. The inference of \nJerom, that since this preference of one was by the \ncustom of the church, and not by the appointment of \nthe Lord, that therefore the bishops ought to govern \nin common with the presbyters, w^as not only an ap- \npeal to their consciences, but the clear expression of \nthe opinion of this learned man, that episcopal pre-emi- \nnence was destitute of apostolical and Scriptural \nfoundation. From the words "imitating Moses, who, \nwhen he had it in his power to preside over the peo- \nple alone, selected seventy with whom he might \njudcre the people," an inconclusive argument has been \nelicited for a divine right in bishops, because Moses \nhad such right. But that bishops, otherwise than as \npresbyters, are destitute of such right, is the very \nthing which Jerom has proved from their Scriptural \nidentity, and confirmed by fact; founding modern \nepiscopacy on custom and general consent. He can, \nconsistently with himself, have meant no more by the \nexample of Moses, than that, if the Jewish lawgiver, \nwhose commission was immediately from God, so con- \ndescended in dividing his power, a fortiori, bishops \n\n\n\n168 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nshould remember the original administration, and that \ntheir pre-eminence was merely estabhshed by custom. \n\nThat Jerom was favorable to the three orders of \nclergy existing in his day, often appears in his works : \nso when he speaks of deacons as in the third degree, \nhe alludes to their condition when he wrote ; and so \nfar was he from desiring a change, that he affirmed, \n" The safety of the church depended upon the dignity \nof the high-priest." But that its original condition, \nwhen left by the apostles, was otherwise, he knew and \nhas shown. Against this, his catalogue of illustrious \nwriters is cited, where James, the author of the epis- \ntle, is said to have been ordamed (ordinatus) bishop of \nJerusalem by the apostles. The genuineness of this pas- \nsage has been often disputed, and standing among \nnumerous interpolations, it is probably a corruption. \nBut if received, it concludes nothing, because bishop \nmay be taken in its appellative sense, overseer, and \nthere may have been an understanding among the \napostles that he should remain there, having, with the \npresbyters, the oversight of that important station. \nBut if the apostle James was ordained a bishop by the \nother apostles, it was a mere nullity, if the offices be \nthe same ; if diverse, the apostles either exalted him \nto a higher office, for which they had no power ; or \nthey degraded him to an inferior, without a fault, and \nfor no purpose which he might not effect as an apos- \ntle.\'^ Also, if Jerom said this, he contradicted him- \nself. \n\nHis letter to Evagrius, treating of the same subject, \nmay be thus rendered : " We read in Isaiah, \' A fool \nwill utter foolish things.^ I hear that a certain person \n\n\'i That James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alpheus, \nwere the two apostles, and that James the less here intended, was \nnot such, is an opinion without credible proof, and opposed at \nmuch length by Jerom. But that there were two only, and that \nJames the less, the Lord\'s brother, was an apostle, and the same \nthat is called the son of Alpheus, and James the just, has been the \ngeneral opinion, and received by the church in every age. Auo \nSi ytyovcta-iv Taxo/So/ g/? o Suuio; \xe2\x80\x94 tlipoc Si o nctpAlo/unQus. \xe2\x80\x94 Clem. \nAlexand. Vide Gal. i. 19. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 169 \n\nhas broken out into such a frenzy, as that he would \nhonor deacons more than presbyters, that is, than \nbishops. For, since the apostle explicitly teaches \nthat presbyters and bishops were the same, what ca- \nlamity^ has this servitor of tables and widows fallen \nunder, that, swollen with self-importance, he may ex- \nalt himself above those, at whose prayers the body is \ndispensed and the blood of Christ. Do you ask proof? \nHear the testimony : \' Paul and Timothy^ servants of \nJesus Christ, to all saints i?i Christ Jesus who are at Phi- \nlippi, with the bishops and deacons.^ Do you wish also \nanother sample \'? Paul thus speaks in the Acts of the \nApostles, to the priests of a single church : \' Be atten- \ntive to yourselves and to the whole Jlock over which the Holy \nSpirit has placed (you) bishops, that you might govern the \nchurch of the Lord, which he has acquired by his blood.\'\' \nAnd lest any one may contentiously urge, that many \nbishops were in the same church, hear also another \ntestimony, in which it is most clearly evinced that \nthe bishop and the presbyter were the same : * For \nthis object I left you in Crete, that you might redress what \nwas defective, that you might appoint presbyters through \nthe cities, as I also gave you in charge. If any one is with- \nout blame, the husband of one wife, having faithful chiU \ndren, not accused of or not subject to excess ; for it becomes \na bishop, as a steward of God, to be above censure.^ And \nto Timothy : \' JVeglect not the grace that is i?i you, which \nwas given by prophecy, by the imposition of the hands of a \npresbytery.^ And Peter, also, in his first epistle, says : \n* The presbyters amo?ig you, I beseech, who am a copresby- \nter, and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker \nof the future glory which is to be revealed, to govern the flock \nof Christ, and to oversee it, not from necessity, but willingly \nbefore God.\'\' Which is more plainly called in the \nGreek, ^nifsxojiovvlii, superintending ; whence the name \nbishop is derived. Do the testimonies of such men \nappear to you small ? Let the evangelical trumpet \nsound, the son of thunder, whom Jesus greatly loved, \n\ni Quid al. quis patialur, &c. \n\nQ \n\n\n\n170 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nwho drank from the breast of the Saviour streams of \ndoctrines : * The presbyter to the elect lady and her chil- \ndren, whom I love in the truth.\'\' And in another letter, \n\' The preshyter to the most kind Gains, whom I love in the \ntruth,\'\' ^But that afterv^^ards one was selected who \nmight be set over the rest, was done in prevention of \nschisms, lest every one, drawing to himself, should \nrend the church. For also at Alexandria, from the \nevangelist Mark even to the bishops Heraclas and \nDionysius, the presbyters always named one, chosen \nfrom themselves, and placed in a higher grade, bishop. \nIn the same manner as if an army should make a com- \nmander, or deacons choose from themselves one \nwhom they may have known to be industrious, and \ncall him the arch-deacon. For what does a bishop \naccomplish, ordination excepted, that a presbyter may \nnot do ? The church of the city of Rome, and that of \nthe whole world, are not to be esteemed different. \nGaul and Britain, and Africa and Persia, and the East \nand India, and all the barbarians, worship the same \nChrist, and observe the same rule of faith. If the rea- \nson be sought, the world is greater than a city. \nWherever there shall be a bishop, whether at Rome, \nor Gubio, or Constantinople, or Reggio, or Alexan- \ndria, or Tanes, he is of the same importance and of \nthe same priesthood. ^ Neither the influence of riches, \nnor the humihty of poverty, renders him a greater or \nan inferior bishop. Moreover, they are all successors \nof the apostles. But you ask, How is it that at Rome \n\n\n\nk Quod autem postea unus electus est, qui cseteris proponeretur, \nin schismatis remedium factum est: ne unusquisque ad se trahens \nChristi ecclesiam rumperet. Nam et Alexandrise a Marco evang-e- \nlista usque ad Heraclam et Dlonysium episcopos, presbyteri semper \nunum ex se electum, in excelsiori gradu collocatum, episcopum \nnominabant: quomodo si exercitus imperatorem faciat aut diaconi \neligant de se, quern industrium noverint et archidiaconum vocent. \nQuid enim facit, excepta ordinatione, episcopus, quod presbyter \nnon faciat ? Tom. i. p. 264. \n\n1 Potentia divitiarum, et paupertatis humilitas, vel sublimiorem \nvel inferiorem episcopum non facit. Cxt^rum omnes apostolorum \nsuccessores sunt. Idem. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 171 \n\na presbyter is ordained upon the reconnmendation of \na deacon? Why do you propose to me the custom of \na single city 1 Why do you defend a rare occurrence, \nfrom which disrespect has arisen unto the laws of the \nchurch 1 The value of every thing is enhanced by \nscarcity. Pennyroyal is more precious in India than \npepper" Their fewness has rendered the deacons \nhonorable; their multitude has depreciated the im- \nportance of presbyters. Nevertheless, even in the \nchurch at Rome, presbyters sit, whilst deacons are \nstanding ; yet mischief increasing by degrees, I have \nseen, in the absence of a bishop, a deacon sit among \nthe presbyters, and in domestic entertainments pro- \nnounce benedictions on the presbyters. Let them \nlearn, who do this, that they act incorrectly, and let \nthem hear the apostles : * It is iinfit that, leaving the \nword of God, we should serve tables,^ They should know \nfor what purpose deacons were constituted. They \nmay read the Acts of the Apostles, and remember \ntheir first condition. Presbyter is a name of age, \nbishop of dignity. Accordingly, Titus and Timothy \nreceived directions concerning the ordination of a \nbishop and of a deacon ; concerning presbyters, total \nsilence is observed, because the presbyter is compre- \nhended in the bishop. He that is promoted is ad- \nvanced from the less to the greater. Either, therefore, \nout of a presbyter let the deacon be ordained, that the \npresbyter may be shown to be inferior to the deacon, \nunto whose grade he is advanced from that which is \nsmall ; or if out of a deacon a presbyter be ordained, \nhe should know, that though he be inferior in salary, \nhe is greater in priesthood. "^And seeing we know \nthat the apostolical traditions were taken from the Old \nTestament, what Aaron and his sons, and the Levites \n\n\n\nm Et ut sciamas traditiones apostolicas suraptas de Veteri Testa- \nmento, quod Aaron et filii ejus, atque Levitae in templo fuerunt, \nhoc sibi episcopi et presbyteri, et diaconi vindicent in ecclesia. \nIbid. \n\n\n\n172 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nwere in the temple, this let bishops, and presbyters, \nand deacons claim to themselves in the church." \n\nIn no city was planted by the apostles more than \none church ; this the Scriptural and subsequent his- \ntory of the church demonstrates. A presbytery ex- \nisted in every organized church, and no more in a city: \nconsequently, one presiding presbyter, who afterwards, \nby custom, for prevention of schisms, became the \nbishop, belonged to each church, and consequently to \nevery city in the age of Jerom. At the period of the \nforgeries, which bear the name of the pious Ignatius, \nparochial episcopacy prevailed ; but they betray igno- \nrance, who affirm that presbyters were then laymen, \nor that such a grade is an essential characteristic of \nthe Presbyterian church. Seven deacons were ap- \npointed at Jerusalem; no more were ordained at \nRome. This paucity, and the nature of their duties, \ncreated popularity, whilst the number of presbyters \ndiminished their importance. Dissentions arose be- \ntween these orders, and Augustine has recorded an \nappeal to the bishop of that metropolis, to decide be- \ntween them. Probably this letter was sought and \ngiven on that occasion ; or it may have been in de- \nfence of the bishop of Rome, who was persecuted by \na deacon of high rank. Though a presbyter, Jerom \nnever officiated as such, except in private lectures on \nparts of the Scriptures, but even these w^ere scarcely \ndelivered by him as an officer, either at Rome or \nBethlehem. \n\nThis letter could not have been the offspring of \njealousy, but of regard to the truth. His language is \ntemperate, his arguments rational, and his authorities \nthe Scriptures ; to these custom and expediency are \nsubordinated \xe2\x80\x94 canons he does not even name. From \nthe practice here mentioned of the church at Alexan- \ndria, after the death of Mark the evangelist, the exist- \nence of episcopacy from that period, which was apos- \ntolic, has been inferred. There could have been little \ndifference between the state of things in apostolic \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 173 \n\ntimes, and at the death of Mark. In both, the presby- \nteries had their ruUng elders or presidents ; upon them \ncustom, founded on consent, devolved the responsi- \nbility and superintendency of the presbytery, of which \nthe church at Alexandria furnished a proof. Jerom \nshows this was a human innovation; because that \npresbyter and bishop were originally the same office, \nand so regarded by Paul, Peter, and John ; also, by \nthe churches of Philippi, Ephesus, those of Crete, and \nother places ; each of which had been governed by \nthe common council of its own presbytery. The elec- \ntion of such a presiding presbyter at Alexandria, he \ndoes not refer either to antecedent apostolic precept \nor example, but expressly to the presbyters themselves, \nwhose election constituted the only disparity. Mark \nheld the high office of evangelist, and, as such, might \npreside in any church, especially of his own planting. \nIf he supplied the place of a president, in advanced \nage, after his death the presbytery of Alexandria, \nacting as others, must have chosen one permanently, \nthe growth of w^hose power afterwards kept pace \nwith the customs of other churches. The assertion of \nEutychius, A. D. 950, that the presbyters in Alexan- \ndria from the first ordained such bishop, is incredible. \nRe-ordination began in the Cyprianic age, and in Je- \nrom\'s day was performed only by bishops ; so also \nwas the ordination of presbyters. "What does a \nbishop, ordination excepted, that a presbyter may not \ndo V\' The first of these verbs denoted a present and \ncontinuous acting ; the second is of the same sort, but \npotential, and consequently expressing a future. To \nimagine this spoken by Jerom of early times, is, there- \nfore, obviously incorrect. When he wrote, every one \nknew that for presbyters to ordain was contrary to \nthe laws and canons of the church ; his proof of their \noriginal identity, from the fact that presbyters might \nnow perform all other duties of bishops, required the \nexception. But every mind perceives that the estab- \nlishment of the identity destroyed the originality and \n2q \n\n\n\n174 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nauthority of the exception. Any other interpretation \nwould unnerve his argument, produce self-contradic- \ntion, and conflict vv^ith the fact that Timothy was or- \ndained by a presbytery. The sameness of the office \ncould, therefore, never be reconciled with episcopal \nordination as in his day. The confession of such an \nexception, if it referred to apostohcal times, imme- \ndiately after showing that presbyters of themselves \nchose, and placed in his seat, and denominated the \nperson the bishop of Alexandria, would betray weak- \nness in the extreme. Although the presbyters of Al- \nexandria officiated in their respective places in the \ncity, they were rather a parish than a diocess, being \none church, whereof they, with their bishop, who was \none of themselves, constituted the presbytery \xe2\x80\x94 not a \nchurch session of mute elders \xe2\x80\x94 every presbyter had \nhis place of preaching in Alexandria. Had the pres- \nbyters, so chosen to preside, been ordained by presid- \ning presbyters of cities in Palestine or Syria, instead \nof being an example of the introduction of the custom \nof devolving the responsibility and oversight which \nhad belonged to the presbytery on one of their num- \nber, it would have proved the reverse, and contradict- \ned the position that presbyter and bishop denoted at \nfirst the same office. \n\nIt has been strangely alleged, that in the last sen- \ntence of the letter to Evagrius, it is plainly asserted \nnot only " that the hierarchy of the church is founded \non apostolic tradition, but also that the apostles had \nthe model of the temple in their view, and raised their \nplan of church government according to the Jewish \neconomy." The object of this letter was to show that \npresbyters were superior to deacons ; and one ground \nof the argument was, that presbyters were originally \nbishops, and that the difference between them in Je- \nrom\'s days had arisen by degrees, being founded \nmerely on the custom of the church, and having for \nits object the prevention of divisions. He must, there- \nfore, have designed no contrast in these words, be^ \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN- CHURCHES. 175 \n\ntween bishops and presbyters, but between them as \none order and deacons as the other. In hke manner, \nAaron and his sons were the same priesthood, and \nsuperior to the Levites, who served under them. No \nargument can be fairly drawn from the terms " apos- \ntolical tradition,^\' to make him inconsistent with his own \nposition, that the change arose from the custom of the \nchurch. For writing of Lent, he calls it an " apostoli- \ncal tradition," in a letter to Marcella.\'^ And against \nthe Luciferians, he calls it the custom of the church." \nHe has also shown, in so many words, that apostolic \nwas synonymously used for that which was anciently \nadopted by the church.? \n\nWhen Jerom speaks of bishops as successors of the \napostles, he cannot mean, as some imagine, that they, in \nthe modern sense, immediately succeeded them ; be- \ncause he has argued at much length and conclusively, \nthat the office was the same with that of presbyters in \nthe days of the apostles, and that the superiority they \npossessed in his day had arisen by the custom of the \nchurch, by Httle and little, to prevent schism. Also \nthe word successor is not comparative ; it measures not \nthe extent of power, but merely points out those ordi- \nnary officers who followed the apostles in the govern- \nment and instruction of the churches. The fanciful \nidea of episcopal successorship by divine right was repug- \nnant to the views of Jerom, who has unanswerably \nrefuted it by numerous Scriptural testimonies, and \ndemonstrated his meaning and consistency by assert- \ning equally of presbyters, that they were successors \nto the degree of the apostles.*i Iraeneus had set him \nexamples of each long before. \n\nn Secundum tradltionem apostolorum \xe2\x80\x94 jejunamus. Tom. ii. \np. 414. \n\nEx quo animadvertis nos ecclesise consuetudinem sequi. Tom. \nii. p. 424. \n\nP Unaquxque provincla praeceptu maj\'orum, leges apostolicas \narbitretur.\' Tom. i. p. 194. \n\n1 Qui apostolico gradui succedentes. Jerom, ad Heliodor. \nTom. i.p. 1. \n\n\n\n176 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT, &C> \n\nAs numbers increased, the presbyters served differ- \nent assemblies in the same city or parish, but still \nbelonged to one bench, over v^hich there w^as in each \nchurch a ft^osalios or presiding presbyter. These presi- \ndents were afterwards enumerated as successors from \nthe first planting of the churches. Thus not only were \nheretics excluded, but their innovations rejected, by \ndemanding an uninterrupted succession of teachers of \ntheir tenets. But that these successors of the apostles \ninherited their gifts, authority, or influence, or had \nany other ordination than that of their co-presbyters, \nprior to the Cyprianic age, has never been shown to \nus by credible testimony. His defence of presbyters \nagainst deacons, his use of the word presbyter with- \nout the imaginary distinction of preaching and lay \nelders, and his universal silence with regard to the \nlatter, evince that Jerom had no idea of lay presbyters. \nHe is, therefore, another witness against that novel \norder, of which not a vestige has been found in the \nfirst four centuries. \n\n\n\nSECTION XIX. \n\n\n\nAugustine\'s birth, profession, immorality, ManichcEism, and conversion. \xe2\x80\x94 \nApproved the canonical hierarchy , \xe2\x80\x94 Called the innovations titular distinc- \ntions. \xe2\x80\x94 Though a bishop confessed Ids inferiority to Jerom, who was a \npresbyter. Seniores were not presbyters, in his letters, but aged Christians. \xe2\x80\x94 \nSynesius ; his writings show that the church was governed in Cyrene ac- \ncording to the canons of the council 4)f Nice. \xe2\x80\x94 Sulpicius Severus testifies \nof a moral declension in the church ; and the fact that a layman was made \na bishop without censure. \n\nAuRELius AuGusTiNus was bora at Tagaste, in Nu- \nmidia, A. D. 354 ; taught rhetoric at Carthage, Rome, \nand Milan ; and being of dissolute morals, adopted the \nerror of the Manichees. Convinced by Ambrose, he \nbecame a Christian in his thirty-second year, and re- \nturned from Milan to his native city. Five years af- \nterwards he was ordained presbyter by Valerius, at \nHippo Regius ; and in 395 w^as received into the epis- \ncopate. Of his contemporaries, Ambrose died in the \nfourth century ; Chrysostom and Jerom in the fifth ; \nthe former he survived more than twenty, and the \nlatter about ten years. These with Nonnus, Syne- \nsius, Sulpicius Severus, and Paulinus, were deemed \northodox writers ; Socrates the historian, and Pela- \ngius, were of the opposite character. He died in Hip- \npo, in 430, whilst it w^as besieged by the Vandals. \nHis works are contained usually in ten tomes and a \nsupplement. His confessions constitute an edifying \nhistory of his early life, and of his views at different \nperiods. His retractations should be consulted with \nthe parts of his works which they correct. His know- \nledge of the Greek, deemed by himself defective, was \nobviously competent ; but he excelled in the Latin Ian- \n\n\n\n178 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nguage, and could not have been ignorant of the Pu- \nnic. His comparative proficiency in theology was \nunusual for so late a convert. Possessing a mascu- \nline understanding, his decisions were often too \nprompt, but readily abandoned for the sake of the \ntruth. His opinions were in high repute, and of great \nutihty at the Reformation, when also some of his er- \nrors were adopted. In ecclesiastical government, he \nprofessed conformity to the canons and customs of \nthe church. Thus when he nominated Eradius the \npresbyter, to become his successor, and obtained the \nvote of the people, he observed, that he had been or- \ndained bishop in the life-time of Valerius, contrary to \na canon of the council of Nice, but of which neither \nof them had had knowledge ; the reprehension he had \nreceived on that occasion, he wished Eradius to es- \ncape ; but the vote he caused to be recorded and sub- \nscribed by the people, and introduced the young man \ninto a portion of his labors.* \n\nThat the office of bishop was founded upon the cus- \ntom of the church, he acknowledges in a letter to Je- \nrom : " I intreat you to correct me faithfully when \nyou see I need it ; for although, according to the titular \ndistinctions which the custom of the church hath introduced, \nthe office of bishop may be greater than an eldership, \nnevertheless, in many respects, Augustine is inferior \nto Jerom."^ To suppose he meant hereby the aban- \ndonment of a known Scriptural superiority, and the \ndepreciation of a divine right into a mere titular pre- \neminence, is an impeachment of the piety of Augus- \ntine. The language, jam ecclesice usus obtinuit, is a plain \nacknowledgment, that episcopal superiority was not \noriginal, but merely founded on the custom of the \n\na Tom. n. p. 515. Epist. 110. \n\nb \xe2\x80\x94 <\xc2\xab Hog-o ut me fidentur corrig-as, ubi mihi hoc opus esse per- \nspexerls, Quanquam enim secundum hoiiorum vocabula, quae \njam ecdesia usus obti7iuif, episcopatus presbyterus major sit, ta- \nmen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est." Tom.ii. \nEpist. ad Hieron. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAJf CHURCHES. 179 \n\nchurch, and no prevention of the precedence due to \nJeroni for his distinguished learning and knowledge. \nHad Augustine\'s compliment been made at the expense \nof truth, it would have been also an imputation of ig- \nnorance and vanity to Jerom. That canonical dis- \ntinctions originated in custom, and were ratified \nby mere human authority, was then knowm; and \nw^hen truth demanded from the bishop an acknow^- \nledgment of his personal inferiority to the presbyter, \nit w^as fit, also, that he should w^ave the distinction \nwdiich custom had introduced in opposition to the \nword of God. \n\nHe has, on the question. Whether those charged \nwith false doctrines be in the church or not, discarded \nthe authority of the most venerable of the fathers, and \nthe obligation of the decrees of councils, and affirmed \nthat the question can be decided by the sacred Scrip- \ntures alone.^ But on the order of the church he sided \nw-ith Jerom, and, like him, acquiesced in its govern- \nment, apprehending no possible advantage from op- \nposing the customs of the church, the canons of coun- \ncils, and the law^s of the empire. The ecclesiastical \nadministration w^as not then a matter of controversy. \n" The bishops, who are this day throughout the w-orld, \nwhence sprung they ? The church herself calls them \nfathers ; she has borne them, and she has placed them \nin the seats of the fathers."^ He acted as a Christian \nshould do ; the church of Christ was then, and still is \nsuch, though the original form of government may \nnot exist in the world. The investigation of truth is \nrarely unimportant; but on these points necessary \nonly, when error w^ould unchurch those whom God \naccepts : or where primitive truth is denied, and its \nadvocates arraigned by the ignorant. \n\n\n\nc De imitate ecdesix. Chap. sxs. p. 5. \n\nd *\'Hodie, episcopi qui sunt per totum mundum, unde nati \nsunt? Ipsa ecclesia patres illos appellat, ipsa illos ^enutV, et ipsa \nillosconstituitin sedibus patrum." Tom. viii. p. 417. \n\n\n\n180 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nAn argument has been attempted for lay presbyters \nfrom an epistle which Augustine wrote to his church \nat Hippo,"" commencing with these words : " Dilec- \ntissimis fratribus, clero, senioribus et universse plebi \necclesiae Hipponenisis." \xe2\x80\x94 To the brethren greatly beloved, \nthe clergy,^ the elders, " and all the people of the church \nat Hippo.\'" The next epistle is directed to the same \nchurch, and begins with " Dilectissimis fratribus, \nconclericis, et universse plebi." \xe2\x80\x94 To the brethren most \nbeloved, fellow clergymen, and all the people, &c. These \ntwo letters were written to the same church, conse- \nquently the same officers and people were addressed \nin both. The two first terms, \'\xe2\x96\xa0^ dilectissimis fratribus, ^^ \noccurring in each salutation, may have been intended \nof all the worshippers, or of the clergy only. Clero \nthe clergy, in the one epistle, corresponds to conclericis, \nfellow clergymen, in the other, senioribus, the elders, ex- \npressed in the first, are included in the uinverscz plebi \nof the second. The conclericis of the second being \nprecisely equivalent to the clero of the first, of which \nthe senioribus being expressed, constituted no part, \nthere elders could not have been implied in the con- \nclericis. If they were not of the clergy, they were not \nofficers ; because had they been such, they must have \nbeen treated with disrespect, either by a total omis- \nsion, or the including of them in the plebi. Jf they \nwere not officers, the term senioribus was taken appel- \nlatively, in that letter in which it occurs, and meant \nnothing more than the aged men of the congregation, \nwho have been often thus distinguished, because of \ntheir experience and gravity; but are nevertheless \nreally a part of the plebs, or common people. This \ninterpretation is also corroborated by the circum- \nstance, that senioribus, not presbyteris, is used ; the latter \nbeing the ordinary official term, and the other gene- \nrally appellative; a discrimination which, though \n\n\n\ne Tom. ii. p. 661. Eplst. 139. \n\nf Clerus has been improperly translated a \'* clergyman." \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 181 \n\nneglected by Tertullian and Cyprian, is carefully fol- \nlowed by Optatus and Augustine, who observes, \n" Omnis senex etiam presbyter, non omnis presbyter \netiam senex."^ \xe2\x80\x94 Every old man is an elder, not every \nelder also an old man. These seniores, who sometimes \noccur in the Christian w^riters of Africa, are in no \ninstance to be deemed of the clergy, they administered \nno ordinances, never sat as presbyters, and neither \nexcommunicated nor restored ; but were placed after \nthe deacons, and consulted merely for their know^ \nledge and prudence, or introduced because of their \ninterest^ The captions of these letters of Augustine \nare conclusive proof, that the seniores of w^hom he \nspeaks were not clerical, and so not even on an \nequality with deacons, and consequently, upon no con- \nstruction, the Tt^osalalss, ruling presbyters of the New \nTestament, or any officers in the gospel churches. \nThat these were never such in the churches of Africa, \nmay be fairly also inferred from the omission of them, \nboth in the enumeration of the officers of a particular \nchurch,^ and in the catalogues given in the councils \nof Carthage, where they are thus enumerated : bishop, \npresbyter, deacon, subdeacon, acolyth, exorcist, reader, door- \nkeeper, and chorister.^ If such a class of officers as \nseniores had existed next after the deacons, they must \n\ns Tom. iv. p. 99, \n\n^ Vitringa (de Synag*. 115) has written fully on this subject, \nand denies that the seniores plebis were eithev?r^i^0uhe,oi t\xc2\xbb?\xc2\xabhxx\xc2\xbb- \n(Tixi, ov7r^ci<7-\'la!ic7rgia-/3i>ligoi ; and says, tbey were merely yi^ovltct \nand no part of the ecclesiastical body to whom the care and the \nministry of the church were delivered. Casanb on distinguishes \nbetween seniores urbium and seniores ecclesiarum ,- these last, he \nsays, were quadamtenus ecdesiasiici, yet laid Sind gtiardiani templo- \nrum. Bingham (lib. ii. c. 19_) considers the seniores of Augustine, \nOptatus, and the papers appended to the latter, to have been men, \nwho, for their years and faithfulness, were intrusted to take care \nof the goods of the church, but neither lay elders nor Trgiafivligoi. \nBut modern opinions are inadmissible evidence. \n\ni Contra Cresconium, Lib. iii. c. 29. \n\nk Concil. Carthag. iv. *\'Episcopus, presbyter, diaconus, sub- \ndiaconus, acolythus, exorcista, lector, ostarius, psalmista." \n\nR \n\n\n\n182 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nhave been enumerated in such catalogues, but nothing \nof the kind has occurred. Augustine describes the \norders of his day in Africa, which no one better knew, \nin the same manner.^ " A higher order contains in \nand with itself that which is less, for the presbyter per- \nforms also the duty of the deacon, and of the exorcist, \nand of the reader. Also, that a presbyter is to be un- \nderstood to be a bishop, the apostle Paul proves, \nwhen he instructs Timothy, whom he had ordained a \npresbyter, what kind of a bishop he ought to create ; \nfor what is a bishop but a primus presbyter, that is, a \nhigh-priest, and he calls them no otherwise than his co- \npresbyters and co-priests, and may not the bishop \nalso call his deacons his fellow servants ?" But he \nhad immediately before professed not to know by \nwhat law, hy what custom, or what example, " the deacons \nwere made equal with presbyter s,^^ ^^ presbyteris ministros \nipsorum pares,^^ " as if deacons were ordained from \npresbyters, and not presbyters from deacons." \n\nThe expression, Pere^rinus presbyter et seniores ecclesice \nmusticancB regionis, &c."^ have been alleged in proof, \nthat the church in the city Mustica had not only a \npreaching presbyter, but lay elders also ; and, conse- \nquently, that here is at least one example of the exist- \nence of elders, such as are formed in some of the \nPresbyterian churches. But this semblance of an ex- \nample of lay elders in an ancient church, is too slight \nto sustain an examination. The distinction made be- \ntween Peregrinus and the seniores ecclesim was, that he \nwas a presbyter and they were not presbyters: if not \n\n1 \'\xe2\x80\xa2 Major enim ordo intra se et apud se habet et minorem, pres- \nbyter, enim diaconl ag-it officium et exorcistse et lectoris. Presby- \nterum autem intelligi episcopum, probat Faulus apostolus, quando \nTimotheum, quern ordinavit presbyterum, instruit qualem debeat \ncreare episcopum. Quid est enim episcopus, nisi primus presbyter, \nhoc est summus sacerdos. Denique non aliter quam compresby- \nteros liic vocat, et consacerdotos suos, numquid et ministros con- \ndiaconos suos dicit episcopus. " Tom. iv. 780. \n\nm Tom. vii. p. 270. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 183 \n\npresbyters, consequently not the ruling elders of the \nNew \'Testament, for these were presbyters, n^otoluflii \nji^srj^lB^ot. Being neither presbyters nor deacons, and \nno intermediate grade ever having existed in the \nchurch, these sejiiores consequently had no office. \nAlso, if they were not presbyters, the word seniores \nmust necessarily be understood in its appellative sense, \nold men ; and the whole expression, senim-es ecclesice, can \nmean no more than the aged men of the church. This pas- \nsage describes the prosecution of a petition before the \ntribunal of the prsetor at Carthage by the presbyter \nPeregrinus, and the senior members of the church at \nMustica, against Felicianus, who detained possession \nagainst the sentence of an ecclesiastical assembly, \nwhich pronounced him a heretic. That the aged mem- \nbers, in w^hom the possession at least, and it may be \nthe legal title of the church had been vested, should \njoin w^ith a presbyter in such petition, was naturally \nto be expected ; and no more is here expressed. \n\nThe state of the church in North Africa, excluding \nEgypt and Cyrenaica, was, in the days of Augustine, \nvery different from that of other countries. As every \ncity had its bishop, so every parish was a diocese, and \nevery pastor a bishop. The episcopate of Carthage \nhad the superintendence of Africa, and the bishop of \nHippo Regius, instead of Cirta, (Constantina) for the \nmost part next to the Metropolitan of Carthage, had \nprecedence over those in Numidia ; but in the Mauri- \ntanias, and generally in Africa, this depended upon \nseniority in office, and not upon the civil dignity of \nthe city, as in other parts of the empire. \n\nThe greatest respect was paid to old men, both \namong Jews and Gentiles. Polybius observes, that \namong the Lacedaemonians under the regal authority, \nall things which respected the commonueallh uere transact- \ned by and with the concurrence of the old men.^ The \n\n7ro\\7liixY. Polyb. Hist. lib. vi. p. 681- \n\n\n\n184 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nChristian churches also adopted a wise conformity to \nsuch usages. To be consuhed w^as the claim of the \naged, when their interests were concerned, in religious \nas well as in civil matters of importance. Thus in the \n" Gesta Ccecilianiet Felicis" usually bound up with Op- \ntatus, mention is made of episcopi, preshyteri, diaconi, \nand seniores \xe2\x80\x94 seniores meaning not officers, but aged \nmen of the common people. Nevertheless these se- \nniores, though divided from presbyters by the inter- \nvention of deacons, have been brought as examples \nand proofs of lay elders, and identified with those who \nare in the New Testament denominated ruhng presby- \nters ; but who really were and have been shown by \nmany testimonies to have been those presbyters who \npresided, one in every church, and who, after the days \nof the apostles, received by custom gradually the \npower, name, and dignity of bishops. The mistake is, \nhowever, exposed by what follows : " Adhibete con- \nclericos et seniores plebis, ecclesiasticos viros." \xe2\x80\x94 Call \nthe clergy of every sort, and the seniores of the common peo- \nple, who are members of the church. Here conclericos in- \ncludes the presbyters, deacons, and sub-deacons, \nwhilst the seniores are plebes, or common people.\'^ \n\nSynesius was chosen and ordained bishop of Ptole- \nmais in Pentapolis, when a layman. He wrote in ele- \ngant style, but rather as a philosopher than a divine. \nHis discourse delivered A. D. 398 before the emperor \nArcadius, and several epistles written in the first of \n\no That clero et senioribus should have been translated ** to the \nclergyman and elders," more than once in support of the American \nPresbyterian government, is by mistake. Clero et senioribus mean \nthe same with clerids et senioribus. Clerus is never clergyman, this \nis clericus, but clergy ; and the term comprehended at that period, \nwhat it still does anrong Episcopalians, presbyters, deacons, &c. ; \nconsequently, senioribus meant a portion o^ plebis, common people ,\xe2\x80\xa2 \nand was still further restricted by the terms ecclesiasticos viros, \nchurch members, not ecclesiastics ; ^ ^ ecclesiastical ?nen" in our lan- \nguage is a phrase equivalent to clerical, and an obviously unfair \ntranslation of ecclesiasticos viros, which intended no more than men \nof, or connected with, the church. \n\n\n\nor CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 185 \n\nthe following century, still remain in Greek, his own \nlanguage, Cyrene, his native city, having been colo- \nnized from Greece. He distributes the officers of the \nchurch into the Levite, the presbyter, and the bishop, \n%.ivilriit n^\xc2\xa3(s^vli^oi x<xi crttffxortcfj.P The latter of whom he \ndenominates the priest of a city, his office a priesthood, \ntB^oavprjv,\'^^ and speaks of the election of a bishop, at^f cfcwj \ntnoaxoTiov,^\' and of the imposition of the hand,* where- \nby the party is manifested a presbyter, x^K^ jt^BajSvls^os \naTtsSaSsixlo.^ His representations accord with the estab- \nlished order of the ecclesiastic administration of his \nday, and shows that among the Greek Christians in \nAfrica, the church was governed at that period ac- \ncording to the canons of the council of Nice. \n\nSeverus, of the Sulpician family, a presbyter of \nAgen on the Garonne in France, wrote an outhne of \nhistory, sacred, Jewish, and Christian, from the crea- \ntion unto the end of the fourth century ; the life of \nMartinus ; three epistles, and three dialogues ; and is \nsupposed to have died about A. D. 420. His style \ndiscovers advantages in his education. His judgment \nof characters and historical facts might have escaped \ncensure, had his creduhty in monkish legends known \nany bounds. Speaking of the military guard, directed \nby the emperor Hadrian to be constantly kept at Je- \nrusalem, he observes, that until that period, " the \nchurch had no priest at Jerusalem, except of the circumci- \nsion," and that " then first Mark, of Gentile extraction, was \nmade their bishop"^ Priests, Levites, altars, sacrifices, \nand other words proper to Jewish and Pagan worship \n\nP SynesiiOpera, p. 213. Epist. 58. \n\n<l ti^ivc rug TToXicec. Ibid. p. 198. \n\nI- Page 222. \n\ns T\xc2\xbbf (Tc-j^u^oc. Page 223. \n\nt Page 222. \n\na " Hierosolymx iion nisi ex circumclsione habebat ecclesia \nsacerdotem" \xe2\x80\x94 " turn primum Marcus ex gentibus apud Hierosoly- \nmam episcopus fuit." Sulpicii Severi Sac. Hist. lib. ii. S. 45, \np. 364, 365. \n\nr2 \n\n\n\n186 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nwere not introduced till after the days of the apostles, \ninto the Christian church ; and sacerdos, here promis- \ncuously used w^ith episcopus, at its first introduction, \ndesignated only the presbyter, which the occasional \ninsertion summus, by this writer, to distinguish the \nbishop, still viewed as the primus presbyter, plainly \nevinces. \n\nWhen comparing the state of the Christian church \nin the time of the ten years persecution, under Diocle- \ntian and Maximinus, he observes, that martyrdoms were \nthen much more eagerly sought by glorious deaths, than \nepiscopal sees are now coveted by depraved ambitio?i r a \nclear evidence of the moral declension of the church \nin a single age after the establishment by Constantine \nof that episcopal government, which had been intro- \nduced by custom, founded in the expediency described \nby Jerom. \n\nIn the history of his own times, he mentions the \nfact, that Priscilianus made a layman, bishop of Abila. \n\xe2\x80\x94 "Priscilianus etiam laicum episcopum in Labinensi \n(abilensi apud Hieron.) oppido constituit.""^ Nor was \nthis objected against him by the orthodox. In the \nwritings of Sulpicius there is micntion of bishops, pres- \nbyters, arch-deacons, deacons, sub-deacons, readers, \nexorcists, but not a solitary instance of any such of- \nfice as that of a presbyter, who was a layman. \n\nSynesius resided on the east side of North Africa ; \nSulpicius in the west of Europe ; the former under the \ngovernment of the Greeks, the latter that of the Ro- \nmans; the first was a gentleman of estate, the other a \nnobleman ; the one a philosopher, the other an histo- \nrian ; and, when converted, the former a bishop, the \nlatter a presbyter; both were acquainted with the \ngovernment of the Christian church, and both have \n\n\xe2\x96\xbc " Multoque avidius turn martyrla g-loriosis rnortibus quareban- \ntur, quamnunc episcopatus pravis ambitionibus appetuntur.*\' \nIbid. p. 368. \n\nw Idem. lib. ii. S. 63, p. 422. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 187 \n\nrecorded their views ; yet neither a word, nor a hint, \nhas appeared in the works of either concerning lay- \npresbyters, or any ?uch officer in the Christian \nchurch. \n\n\n\nSECTION XX. \n\n\n\nJohnCassian; his progress and writings. \xe2\x80\x94 Socrates, Sozomen, and TkeO\' \ndoret, ecclesiastical historians, u^iose writings describe the government of \nthe Christian church from the council of Nice, or commencement of the \nreign of Constantine the Great. \xe2\x80\x94 The establishment of Christianity, and \nthe power given to ecclesiastical officers for its safety, every one then \napproved. \xe2\x80\x94 The introduction of the Gospel into India in the days of Con- \nstantius and Athanasius, is testified by them all, and by Ammianus, and \nwas in the fourth century., and must have been diocesan episcopacy. \n\nJohn CASsiAif, after leaving a monastery at Bethle- \nhem, and visiting others in Egypt, v^as ordained a \ndeacon by Chrysostom at Constantinople.* Thence \nhe v^ent to Rome, and finally to Marseilles, where he \nwas made a presbyter, and resided till his death, A. D. \n440. The Greek was probably his native language, \nbut he appears in Latin.*^ He wrote Instructions for \nMonks, in twelve books ; Conferences with Egyptian \nEcclesiastics ; and of the Incarnation, in seven. These \nwritings incidentally, but correctly, describe the gov- \nernment of the church, at that period, as episcopal ; \nyet express an opinion, that the first state of the \nchurch was monastic, and all things common, and \nthat the latitude given by the council at Jerusalem was \nbecause of Gentile infirmity. But when, even from \nthis, the church had degenerated, some, possessing \nthe fervor of the apostles, left the cities, and retired \ninto private situations, who are thence called Monks, \nAnchorites, Eremites, and Ascetics. \n\na Ue Incarnatione, lib. vii. c. 31. \n^ Collatio i. c. v. p. 219. \n\n\n\nTHE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT, &C. 189 \n\nAn ahbas was the head of a monastery, and if it wsis \nremote from a city, or very Jarge, he w^as usually a \npresbyter, that he might administer the sacraments. \nBut sometimes vain glory suggested clerical prefer- \nment, and a desire of the office of presbyter, or dea- \ncon. Each of these v^^as then a cleiical grade f the \noffice of presbyter v^^as consequently undivided, and \nthat of a deacon being also clerical, the possibility of \nan inferior presbyter is excluded. \n\nSeniores, in the writings of Cassian, mean either ab- \nhates, or the monks, who are intrusted with the care \nof the noviciates,*^ except when taken for the Chris- \ntian fathers, never ecclesiastical officers, for he deemed \nit an important maxim, that a *\' monk should by all \nmeans shun the bishops ;" which he said he could not \nalways rehearse without confusion, for he had not \nbeen able to escape their hands.\xc2\xae \n\nSocrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, wrote eccle- \nsiastical histories of the same times, beginning in the \nreign of Constantine the Great, and terminating about \nthe times of Theodosius the Younger. Their concur- \nrent testimony evinces the continued influence of the \ncanons of the council of Nice, established by the au- \nthority of the Roman emperor ; which, with various \nmodifications, are still the fundamental laws of the \nCatholic ecclesiastical government; and have been, \nand probably always will be, unceremoniously en- \nforced, wherever her physical means have extended or \nshall be supplied. These historians are competent, but \nnot always credible witnesses, even of the things which \noccurred in their own times ; for great allowances \nmust be made for the ignorance, credulity, and depra- \nvation of the people, and the arts and ambition of a \n\n\n\ne **Nonnunquam vero clerlcatus gradum, et desiderium presby- \nteri vel diaconatus innuitit." Scil. Cenodoxia, lib. xi. c 14, p \n\nirs. \n\nd Lib. xii. c. 14, p. 193. Col. i. c. 22, p. 325. \ne Lib. xi. c. IB, p. 181, de institutis. \n\n\n\n190 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nclergy, v^ho maintained their establishment by the vigi- \nlant exercise of their new^ authority, and the substitu- \ntion of monkish legends and fraudulent devices, in \nthe place of the simplicity of the gospel, and its saving \nti\'uths. \n\nSocrates v^^as born at Constantinople,^ in the reign \nof Theodosius the First. After a liberal education, \nhe studied and professed the law, and wrote his history \nin seven books. \n\nCanonical ordination, introduced, as we have seen, \nwithout either Scriptural precept or apostolical exam- \nple, could neither enlarge nor Hmit the office of pres- \nbyter ; its essence was the same, the ordainers being \nstill presbyters. Also, the ambition of preachers ren- \ndered convenient, custom established, and civil au- \nthority confirmed, a diocesan form of government ; but \nneither were the essentials of the church of Christ \nthereby destroyed, nor have presbyters gained; \nwhether considered as bishops or priests, for lay pres- \nbyters as yet had no existence, a particle more or less \nof legitimate Scriptural power than had been at first \ngiven to them. As members of the social compact, \nthey may receive and bear its authority ; and as of- \nficers of civil society, they ought to be respected; but \nwhen they claim, hold, and exercise municipal oflices, \nby a divine right, because the office of presbyter is of \nsuch nature, their pretensions are absurd, and where \ntheir discernment justifies the charge of disingenuity, \nwicked. \n\nAt that period, no prudent Christian would have \nrefused to abide by those canons of councils, which, \nbeing the supreme law of the empire, secured the peo- \nple from Pagan persecution under which they had \ngroaned so long. Also, the high respect entertained \nfor the canon law, at the first, appears by many ex- \namples. When the church at Constantinople were \ntold that Proclus, whom they had elected, could not \n\nf Socrat. lib, v. c. 24. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 191 \n\nbecome their head, because a canon had forbidden \nthe translation of a bishop,^ they submitted without \ncomplaint. But on the next vacancy, it having been \ndiscovered that no such canon existed, they, after \ntwenty years, re-elected the man of their choice, who \nbecame their bishop.^ Also, the fact, that the bishop \nof Rome was deemed to have passed the bounds of \npriestly order in punishing the Novatians,^ clearly \nshows, that the pubHc knew that the civil was to \nbe merely auxiliary unto, not superseded by, eccle- \nsiastical authority, in the application of force. It was \ndeemed also a departure from rules, though highly \nexpedient, that Silvanus, bishop of Troas, should ap- \npoint a layman to try those causes, which the clergy \nhad been, before that period, authorized to decide.\'\' \nThis could not then have been a novelty, had lay pres- \nbyters previously existed in the church. Nor have \nwe, in all the seven books of Socrates, discovered so \nmuch as a word, or hint of the existence of such an \noffice, whilst bishops, presbyters, and deacons, fre- \nquently occur, and always in the character of clergy. \nHermias Sozomenes, a native of Palestine,^ cotem- \nporary w^ith Socrates, wrote nine books, and dedicated \nhis history to Theodosius the Younger. \n\nThis writer presents neither a vestige of the long \nsought office of a subordinate presbyter, nor of any \ndiversity among presbyters, except the surrender of \nthe exercise of a portion of their authority to one of \ntheir number, then exclusively denominated bishop. \nThe excellency of his style challenges our regard to \nhis sense of terms. For bishop, he uses, pi omiscuously, \n\ntrtKJxoTtoj, 7t^o57a7\xc2\xbb7J,\xe2\x84\xa2 7t^O\xc2\xa3a7cof,^ ^yoTj^UEi\'Oj," and rt^ooTatjta, \n\nand ertiaxofir;, as convertible terms.P It would have \n\n\n\nS Lib. vii. c. 36. Ji Ibidem c. 40, \n\ni Lib. vii. c. 11. k Lib. vii. c. 37. \n\n1 Sozom. Hist. lib. v. c. 15. \n\nm \n\nn \n\no Lib. vi. c. 32, P Lib. viii. c. i. \n\n\n\nSozom. Hist. lib. v. c. 15. \n\n^iipolovijTii T\xc2\xbbf ct\\^ic;)(i\'jBV iy.itXiicrictc 7rgc3-7\xc2\xab7\xc2\xaby. Lib. ii. c. 19. \n\nTtif TT^ciTlcf^i rcov ix.KKii(J-saiv. Lib. vi. C. 4. \n\n\n\n192 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nbeen unaccountable, had Paul intended, by the very \nsame word, a subordinate lay presbyter,*^ which other \nwriters have adopted to distinguish the bishop. But \nthe Apostle, and every Greek reader of his letter, un- \nderstood by it, the presbyter who presided in the \nchurch or presbytery. And this ruling elder was the \nman in every church, who, according to Jerom, re- \nceived, by a general custom, and became accounta- \nble for, the exercise of the higher powers of the pres- \nbytery. That each church, with few exceptions, still \nhad, under the Nicene establishment, its presbyters, is \nabundantly evinced. Thus, instead of the confessions \nof lapsed professors made to the presiding presbyter, \nin the presence of the witnessing multitude of the churchy \nas in a theatre,\'^\' the duty was assigned to one of the \npresbyters in every church. At Alexandria this \nchange did not obtain, for it had been there the cus- \ntom, and still was when Sozomen wrote, for each pres- \nbyter to have his own chai\'ge, over all of whom one \nwas the bishop ;^ and as each presbyter preached in \nin his own place, so the bishop also alone in his, the \narch-deacon reading the Scriptures.\' \n\nOther diversities also existed; in some provinces \nthere was a single bishop, in others, bishops were con- \nsecrated in the villages^ sv xco/xac^ STiK^xoriou te^ovovvlat.^ \n\nAlso, the custom in Rome of having only seven dea- \ncons, was not followed in all places."" \n\nTheodoritus, a native of Antioch, was, at seven \nyears of age, received, for the sake of education, into \na monastery, and afterwards instructed by Theodore \nof Mopsuesta, and Chrysostom. From the episcopate \nof Cyrus, a remote city of Syria, which he had reluc- \n\nq 1 Tim. v. 17. \n\nr aif tv &ix1^a> vTro /uct^lu^t rce 7r\\\xc2\xbbQit1nc iKKKnaiAi. Sozom, lib. \nvii. c. 16. \n\n\xc2\xbb E/vst/ ycte^ iv oiKi^itvJ\'gitctiQog KctQATrt^ k^i vvv ivoc ovlog rou Kctlat, \n\'n-Avlav iTrta-KQTrou, Tr^i^^uli^ovc iSia ra.( i>tKK)i<rixs Kxji^in kai ror \nIV avIaic kaov a-vvAytiv. Lib. i. c. 16. \n\nt Socrat. lib. v. C. 22. U^ta-Buli^of iV ctxi^AvS^HA ou 7r^o;o-/ui\\it, \n\na Sozom. lib. vii. 19. v ibidem. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIANT CHURCHES. 193 \n\ntantly accepted, he was translated to Antioch, after- \nwards deposed by a council, and finally by another \nrestored to his former see, where he died A. D. 457. \nHis principal works are his commentaries upon the \nPentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Psalms, Canticles, &c. \nall the prophets but Isaiah, and all the epistles of Paul; \nan ecclesiastical history in five books. He wrote also \ndialogues, sermons on Providence, letters, and on \nseveral other subjects. His piety is unquestionable, \nhis talents above mediocrity, his style charming, and \nyet, however strange, his credulity was disgusting and \ncontemptible. \n\nNo where is more clearly seen than in his history, \neither the influence upon civil government which ec- \nclesiastical pohty can maintain, when legally estab- \nlished; or its tendency, from the venality of ambi- \ntious ecclesiastics, to become an engine of oppression, \nor an instrument of power in the hands of princes. \nJulian sought sanctuary in it as a reader,^""; whilst in \nhis heart an idolater,"^ and an enemy, for he interdicted \nthe teaching of poetry, rhetoric, and philosophy to the \n*\' Galileans.\'\'^\' Nor could he have had any aim, in \nrecalling to Antioch, Alexandria, Italy, and Sardinia, ^ \ntheir banished bishops, but to procure favor with the \nChristians, whose numbers he feared. Accordingly \nas an emperor was pagan, Arian, or orthodox, he \ncontrived to countenance idolatry, or to introduce \nbishops of his own creed, but generally with caution. \nAll parties courted power, and by it Pagans and Chris- \ntians, without other argument, asserted their claims. \nYet was it a posing question, which a presbyter of \nEdessa offered to the Prefect, who was directed by \nValens to support a bishop of his own appointment: \n"Whether the emperor received the dignity of priest- \nhood with the imperial commission."-\'*\'^ For this he \n\n^- Theod. Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. c. 2. \n\n-^ \xe2\x80\x94 Exta rimabatur adsiclue, avesque suspiciens. \xe2\x80\x94 Ammian, \nMarcell. lib. xxii. c. 1. \n\n7 Theod. lib. iii. c. 7. z Lib. iii. c. 4. aa Lib. [y, c. 16. \nS \n\n\n\n194 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nsuffered ostracism by the edict of Valens, who, like \nJulian, hated the Christians, and, like him, fell by the \njust vengeance of heaven. This discrimination was \nconfessed also by Valentinianus, when he said to or- \nthodox bishops soliciting a convention of the clergy, \nwhom, nevertheless, he favored, that it was not law- \nful for him, a layman, officiously to interfere.^^^ In \nlike manner, Theodosius, to whom Gratian had trans- \nferred the East after the death of his uncle, when Am- \nbrose directed the emperor, by a deacon, to stand \nwithout among the laity, ^^for that the purple constituted \nemperors, not priests,^^ took the station assigned him, \nand expressed his gratitude for the reproof "^^ The \nefforts of Theodosius were exerted to reduce the re- \nmaining idolatry w^hich Julian had revived, and Va- \nlens, after the death of Jovian, had partially, at least \nre-revived. From that time the hierarchy established \nby Constantino^\'^ remained immovable amidst the \nconvulsions of the eastern and western empires, and \nthe paralyzing influence of Arian and other heresies ; \nand may be said, under all the revoktions of modern \ntimes, still to exist. \n\nIn his commentaries we find no lay presbyters, and \nno discrimination between those who rule, and those \nwho labor in teaching.^^ He even makes them the same \npersons.*"^ In one place, he supposes they that were \nover them,^^ were those who offered up prayers ; in \nwhich he agrees with Justin, who says, the president, \n^^o\xc2\xa3o7co?, offered up the eucharistic prayers. He ac- \nknowledges that presbyters are intended, in the writ- \nings of the New Testament, where bishops are named ;\'\'^ \n\n1j^ E//.0/ fjL\'cV y.il\'Jt. y^ctou Tilctyfjuvu) ov QifAic rotAvlu. TroWTr^ttyfAtvuy. \n\' Sozotnen. lib. vi. c. 7. \n\ncc Thedd. Hist. Eccles. lib. v. c. 18. \n\ndd Idem. lib. v. c. 20. \n\nee Theod. 1 Tim. v. 17. Heb. xiii.7. \n\nff Idem. Heb. xiii. 17. \n\ngg Idem. Thess. v. 12. \n\nhh Idem. Phil. i. 1., 1 Tim. iii. and Titus i. v. 7. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 195 \n\nbut he supposes a higher order existed ; and accounts \nEpaphroditus to have been the apostle of the Phihp- \npians. But Paul denominates him only their messen- \nger to bring him supplies. Titus he places over Crete, \nand Timothy over the churches of Asia ; and thinks \nthe same rules which were given to presbyters, were \napplicable to those of such superior rank, w^ho after- \nwards took the name bishop exclusively, and left the \ntitle apostle to those w-ho were " truly\'^ such. But \nthis unsupported conjecture of a primitive ordinary \noffice, superior to presbyters in every church, of \nw^hich no one has ever shown a syllable of proof, badly \naccords with w^hat he has said on Titus, first chapter, \nof the " custom" that there should be one bishop, and a \nplurality of presbyters in each city. \n\nThe introduction of episcopacy in India, show^n in \neach of these histories, is substantially the same. \nMeropius, a Tyrian philosopher, following the recent \nexample of Metrodorus, went wdth his tw-o nephew^s, \nEdesius and Frumentius, into India in pursuit of know- \nledge- Having explored the country, they thought to \nreturn in a vessel. Landing in a port of India for re- \nfreshments, they were seized, the philosopher slain, \nand the youths made captives. -They served the king \ntill his demise, and remained with the queen during \nthe minority of his son. Frumentius sought out Ro- \nman traders there, wdth whom, and some natives, he \nworshiped. Emancipated, they returned together \nunto the Roman borders, when Edesius w^ent home to \nTyre, Frumentius to Alexandria, unto Athanasius. \nHe show^ed him the prospect in India, w^as oi\'dained \nbishop, and, returning by sea, successfully planted the \ngospel in India." In the first apology of Athanasius to \nConstantius, he complains that the emperor had writ- \nten to Atzanias and Sazamas, the governors of Auxu- \nmis, to send Frumentius, w^hom Athanasius had or- \n\n\n\n" Socrates, lib. i. c. 19. Sozomen, lib. il c. 24. Theod. Hist. \nEccles. lib. i. c. 23. \n\n\n\n196 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\ndained, to George, bishop of Alexandria, to be tried, \nor instructed ; and requires that the people and clergy \nshould become Arians, and if any disobey, they must \nbe put to death. If this be the same Frumentius, \nAbyssinia was the India in this history, for Auxumis \nis a city eastward from the head of the Nile, and to- \nwards the sea. But there are reasons against that \nsupposition. Admitting that a colony of the Indi set- \ntled in Africa, and were still called by that name ; yet \nthe country to the south-east of Persia at the period \nof those wTiters was, and still is, India.\'^^ Also, the \nyouths appear to have gone from Tyre unto, and re- \nturned from, India by land. Neither of the historians \nmention Auxumis, or appear to have thought of Abys- \nsinia. They allege, there was a king in India not sub- \nject to the Romans, but the letter of Constantius is \naddressed to two governors, and requires them to act \nin a style suitable to their being his subjects, confer- \nring upon them the dignity of Roman citizens. So- \ncrates speaks of the India to which Bartholomew came, \nand evidently had on his mind the account given by \nEusebius," who says, that Pantaenus had visited the \nplace to which Bartholomew went, and had found a \nHebrew copy of Matthew\'s gospel there ; neverthe- \nless, Socrates asserts that the Christian religion did \nnot enlighten them before the time of Co?istantine. Also, \nSozomen testifies, that the priesthood had this its begin- \nning in India^\'\'^ The two first of these historians dis- \ncriminate between a nearer and an ulterior India, \nand evidently confine these occurrences to the nearer ; \nalso, according to Socrates, Meropius visited the same \nregion of the Indies, which Metrodorus had then late- \nly traversed. But Metrodorus was, on his return, \nrobbed, or feigned himself to have been robbed, \nby Sapor, king of the Persians, which act Constantine \n\nlik Athanasii Opera, p . 20. \nJl .Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. v, c. 20. \n\n\xe2\x80\xa2^1" >l^\xc2\xabv (Ta n-sr^A IvSoig lieaxrvJulAuinv i<r-j)(^iv ei^\'}(^}iv. Sozom.llb, \nii. c. 24. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 197 \n\nresented and made it a matter of accusation, which \ncontinued such in the reigns of Constantine and Ju- \nlian.^ The return of Metrodorus from India must \ntherefore, have been through Persia; and the route \nof the young men being the same, the India, here \nmentioned, certainly lay in the East, and was not \nAbyssinia. These and other reasons seem conclusive, \nthat the accounts are of two Frumentius\'s, and if so, \nthen the period of the commencement of episcopacy \nin India, is fixed to have been in the fourth century ; \nwhen episcopacy, as estabhshed by the canons of the \ncouncil of Nice, was prevalent every where. \n\n\n\n^^ \xe2\x80\x94 " Expeditionem parans in Persas \xe2\x80\x94 ad ultionem prseterito- \nrum vehementer elatus est." \xe2\x80\x94 Scil. Julianus Ammian Marcell. lib. \nxxsii. c. 12. Non Julianura, sed Constantium ardores Parthicos \nsuccendisse cum Metrodorl mendaciis avidius acquiiscit.\xe2\x80\x94 Idem. \nlib. xxF. c. 4. \n\n\n\n2s \n\n\n\nSECTION XXI \n\n\n\nLeo succeeded Sixtus; his claim of Roman superiority because they poS\' \nsessed the ashes of Peter; and might expect his favor still. Leo at- \ntempted as civil authority failed to view the ecclesiastical power founded upon \ndivine right, and having argued Peter\'s higher commission, supposed his \napostolical authority still to remain, and to he devolved on the bishop of \nRome. But the first councils established the dignity and authority of the \nsees by those of the cities in which they were. To secure the canons of the \ncouncil of Nice against the repeal attempted in later councils, he supposed \nthem inspired. His claim of appellative jurisdiction rejected by the bishops \nof Africa. Actuated by pride and intolerance, Ids high talents and jjopidar- \nity gave him great ad.vantages in establishing the papal throne, which it was \nhis chief aim to accomplish by every means, wrong and right. Although he \nfailed in the East and Africa, yet he succeeded m bringing the heathen in- \nvaders of the Empire in Europe all under the spiritual power of thebishop of \nRome. \n\nLeo, denominated the Great, after having exercised \nthe office of archdeacon of Rome during the term \nof twenty years, was elected successor to Sixtus the \nthird, A. D. 440. His works are in the finest style of \nLatin ; of the Greek his knowledge was defective. ^ \nPossessing unusual qualifications in point of know- \nledge, influence, experience and eloquence, he evinced \nby his uniform conduct a disposition to extend the pa- \npal jurisdiction, equally by courtly address or daring \nenterprise, truth or falsehood, right or wrong, to the \nutmost extreme. \n\nHaving claimed and held an unscriptaral superiority \nto the presbyters of Rome,^ and thereby the closest in- \n\na \xe2\x80\x94 injimgo \xe2\x80\x94 utuniversa facias \xe2\x80\x94 in Latinumtranslata, utin nulla \nparte actionum {scil: concilli Chalcedonensis) dubitare possimus. \nLeon: ep. 90. \n\n1> Etius, ab officio archidlaconaUis per speclera provectionis (sci/. \n\n\n\nTHE PRmiTIVE GOVERNMENT, &C. 199 \n\ntimacy with the pontificate, through a term of twelve \nyears prior to the elevation of Sixtus,his talents being \nalso occasionally had in requisition by the Emperor, in \npromotion of the public weal, he must have concurred \nin the craft and violence displayed by that bishop in \nretaining the diocess of Illyricum, contrary to a canon \nof the council of Ephesus of 441.^ \n\nBecause Rome was declining, the empire divided into \ntwo, and the enemies of both increasing in numbers, \npower, and military skill, it was attempted by Leo to \nrender the claim of ecclesiastical precedence more \npermanent, by founding it on sacred authority. The \nsuperior dignity of the Roman see was therefore al- \nleged to have arisen from a higher commission given \nto the Apostle Peter, whose bones, left in that metro- \npoKs, perpetuated the right of supreme authority, \nwhatsoever might be the diversity of the merits of the \nbishops in the seat itself Peter being ever an apostle, \nand still having by an ubiquity of presence the pastoral \ncare of the whole church, has a more special regard \nfor his favorite church where his body sleeps, and in- \ntercedes for them by his prayers in heaven.^ And \ntherefore the representative of Peter has precedence \nof all bishops in the church\xc2\xae universal. Such dialecti- \ncal skill had not been attained by the bishops of the \nfirst general council of Nice, for they confirmed by \ntheir canons the jurisdiction of the bishops of Alexan- \n\nad presbyteratuni) amovetur. Leon. op. 133. Qui primus fuerit \nministrorum et a Pontificis latere non recedit, injuriam putat si \npresbyter ordinetur. Hieron. ez. 48, \n\nc Council Ephes. can. vii. \n\nd \xe2\x80\x94 cui ter dixit "pasce oves meas:" quod nunc procul dubio fa- \ncit, 8c mandatum Domini pius pastor exeQuitur, confirmans nos co- \nhortationibussuis, et pro nobis orare non cessans. Leon. op. p. 4. \nSi autem banc pietatis suae curam omni populo Dei, siciit creden- \ndum est, ubique prsetendit, quanto magis nobis alumnis suis opem \nsuam dig-natur impendere, apud quos, in sacro beatse dormitionis \nthoro requiescit. Ibidem. Etsi enim diversa nonnunquam sint \nmerita prxsulum, tamenjura permanent sedium. Idem, p, 137. \n\ne \xe2\x80\x94 cunctis ecclesise rectoribus Petyi forma praeponitur. Leon, \nop p. 3. \n\n\n\n200 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\ndria, Rome, Antioch, and Jerusalem, over the same re- \ngions respectively, which they had gained by ancient \ncustom/ Nevertheless higher objects than the heresy \nof Arius convened the first oecumenical council ; and \ntheir decrees, established by Constantine as the su- \npreme law of the empire, effected, as he had designed, a \nChristian establishment instead of the Pagan, and con- \nformed to its features; in which the diocesses of the \nempire had their patriarchs, the capitals of the pro- \nvinces their metropolitans, and the cities their suffra- \ngan bishops ; the grade of civil authority in each of \nthe cities becoming the standard of the jurisdiction of \ntheir bishops ; which hierarchy has been, as far as the \nrevolutions of the nations would allow, continued into \nthis day. The second general council did therefore \ndecree, "that the bishop of Constantinople should have \nthe birthright of honor, next to the bishop of Rome, \nbecause she is New Rome." Also the council of \nChalcedon, in number the fourth, which consisted of \nmore than six hundred bishops, and in which Leo ap- \npeared by his legates, have shown this same ancient \nopinion of the origin of the dignity of the church of \nRome, alleging that the precedence given to that \nchurch had been because the city was imperial,^ and \nthat they, for the same reason, gave equal privileges \nto the holy see of New Rome, that is of Constantino- \nple.*^ The councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Chal- \ncedon, had consequently no idea of the divine right \nwhich the bishops of Rome have claimed, to sustain \nan authority likely to decay with the declension of the \ndignity of their city. The jurisdiction given to the \nSee of Constantinople by the council of Chalcedon, \nover Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, and the bishops of \nthose diocesses, who were among the Barbarians, was \nviolently resisted by Leo, but ineffectually, because \n\nf Cone. Nic. can. v\'l. and vii. Ittetp^Aiet iByi-cvlo <rvvnSis i<rlt^. \n\ng Cone. Chalced. can. xviii. Sia lo ^xa-ixivnv lnv ttokiv. \n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\xc2\xab Cone. Chalced. can. xviii. rce uvlci a-^oTrcfi Kivov/uivoi \xe2\x80\x94 Krct \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 201 \n\nfounded on the known rule, that upon a division of a \nprovince the bishop of the new metropoHs took rank, \nand power, as a metropoHtan. Thus, in the diocess \nof Thrace, the suffragan of Byzantium had become \nthe archbishop of Constantinople, to the exclusion of \nthe exarch of Heraclea, when Constantino made it the \nseat of his empire. At length also the metropolitans \nof the respective diocesses of Pontus and Asia fell \nunder the bishop of New Rome. \n\nThese things Leo pronounced uicked attempts, "ausus \nimprobos," but to the decrees of the council of Nice \nhe ascribed the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.\' Ac- \ncordingly the canons of the six hundred and thirty \nbishops convened at Chalcedon by the authority, and \nratified by the decree of the Emperor, are to this hour \nheld, by the western church, to have been w\'holly void \nof authority, except as to matters of faith,^ because \nrejected by this haughty prelate, w^ho chose to consi- \nder the canons of the council of Nice incapable of re- \npeal.^ \'- Yet Leo found no scruples in entertaining, and \nencouraging appeals to himself under the canons of \nthe council of Sardica, although expressly contrary to \nthe fifth canon of the same council of Nice, which \nhad given the jurisdiction in such cases to the provin- \ncial Synods. Whatever enhanced the power of the \nRoman see, was therefore valid and every thing of a \ncontrary nature void. Both the cunning and disin- \ngenuousness of this bishop were opposed, w^hen hav- \ning ambitiously besought the Emperor, that his "vicars \nshould preside," in the council of Chalcedon, "because \nhe learned, not without sorrow, that some of the bre- \nthren were not able to retain Catholic firmness, against \nthe violence of misrepresentation,"\xe2\x84\xa2 he imprudently \n\ni \xe2\x80\x94 quas per 218 antisiites Spiritas Sanctus instituit. \xe2\x80\x94 Leon, \nep. 79. \n\n^ Zonaras. p. 92. Binnius Partis xi. c. vi, \n\n1 Si quid usquam aliter quam illi statuerunt, praesumltur, sine \ncunctatione cassatur. Leon. ep. 80. \n\nm Quia vero, quidam de fratribus (quod sine dolore non didici- \n\n\n\n202 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\ndemanded of the council, in his letter to them, pre- \nsuming upon the Emperor\'s conceding it, that they \nshould consider him to preside, by those who were \nsent immediately from the apostolic seat, and to be pre- \nsent in his vicars;" thus claiming from the bishops the \nright of presiding over the council, as the prerogative \nof his see, at the time he was asking the very same \nthing, as a favor from the Emperor, and thereby ac- \nknowledging the right to be in him. Nevertheless the \nEmperor, remembering no doubt the outrages of the \ncouncil at Ephesus, saw it to be proper, to direct his \nown representatives to hold the first places, and the \nlegates the second, except during the trial of Dios- \ncorus, from which the imperial commissioners had \nbeen instructed to retire. \n\nIn Christianity, knowledge being practical, and truth \nholy, they are not possessed so long as the heart is \nadverse ; but, in common estimation, orthodoxy is \nattainable by the disingenuous, and the name of high \ntheological proficiency becomes the reward of the \nambitious. Leo\'s letter to Flavianus exhibited the \nviews of the incarnation generally entertained by the \nbishops of the fourth council, and was both an evi- \ndence of ingenuity, and an instrument of popularity. \nNevertheless, some of them, alleging that it approached \ntoo near to the error of Nestorius, refused it ; until his \nlegates consented to anathematize that heretic. It \nwas not, therefore, adopted by the council, from any \nidea either of the infallibility, or authority of Leo ; and \nits general reception in both empires, chiefly resulted \nfrom the acquiescence of the council of Chalcedon in \nits correctness. To secure its adoption by the council, \nhe gave it great publicity. He sent it to the bishops \n\nmus) contra turbines faisitatls non valuere catholicam tenere con- \nstantiam, praedictum \xe2\x80\x94 vice mea Synodo convenit praesidere. Leon. \ncp.69. \n\nn Qui ab apostollca sede directi sunt, me Synodo vestra fraternitas \nexistimet pr3esidere, qui nunc in vicariis meis adsum. Leon, \nep. 87. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 203 \n\nof Gaul, that their approbation might accompany it in \nthe East, but their answer came too late. The ac- \nknowledgment, that it contained the expression of \ntheir faith, which they had received from their fathers, \xc2\xb0 \nhad neither been sought, nor made, if the bishops of \nRome had been then deemed exempt from error. Yet \nhe replied, when " the holy Synod had amputated from \nthe church" the errors against w^hich he had asked \ntheir influence, " that it had been by his humble writ- \nings, supported by the authority and merit of his Lord, \nthe most blessed apostle Peter."P By such flourishes, \nfor which that saint would have blushed, could they \nhave reached Paradise, did Leo claim the authority of \nPeter, knowing that his office terminated with his life, \nand that he was neither the head of Christ\'s church, \nnor present with it, and that he had derived from Pe- \nter not a particle of authority, more than Paul and \nother apostles had given to each of the six hundred \nand thirty bishops who composed the council. \n\nIn his excellent, but craftily designed letter to the \nbishops of Mauritania Cgesariensis, after reciting that \nmany had been chosen from the laity to the episcopal \noffice, he is pleased to say : " We permit them to hold \nthe received priesthood, without prejudice to the apos- \ntolic seat, and the decrees of our predecessors and \nourselves, which contain the salutary enactment, that \nno one of the laity, though supported by numerous \nvotes, shall ascend to the first, second, or third degree \nof the church, before he has arrived at that favor \nthrough the legal steps."^ Such laws, being merely \nhuman, and founded only in convenience, may be \n\n\n\no \xe2\x80\x94 Recog-noverunt fiJei suae sensutn, et Ita se semper ex tradi- \ntione paterna tenuisse. Leo Opera, p. 127. \n\nP Sancta nunc Synodus (humilitatis nostrae scriptis, auctoritate \nDomini mei beatisimi Petri apostoliet merlto roboratis) araputavit, \n&a Idem. p. 329. \n\nR Leon, epist 1. \xe2\x80\x94 Ex laicis ad officium episcopale delecti sunt. \nSacerdotium tenere permittimus, non prsejudicantes apostolicre \nsedis statutis, &c. \n\n\n\n204 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nsuspended by those who made them : but had they \nbeen divine, he must have arrogated a power of dis- \npensation never given to a mere man. His excessive \nindulgence proved, nevertheless, inadequate to secure \nto him the jurisdiction which he aimed to exercise \nover the churches in Africa ; they rejected his authori- \nty, held him bound by the canons, and would, by no \nmeans, suffer appeals to be carried to the bishop of \nRome. \n\nAfter a long peace, the approach of Attila, the ter- \nror of both empires, drove the irresolute Valentinian \nthe Third, from Ravenna to Rome, where it was re- \nsolved to send an embassy to meet the monarch of the \nHuns. Leo and two others were selected to negotiate, \neach eminent for rank, talents, experience, and ad- \ndress. The clerical appearance, deportment, and elo- \nquence of the bishop are said to have produced a sen- \nsible impression upon the barbarians ; with which also \nhis own peculiar circumstances co-operated to give \nsuccess. His subjects were not universally idolaters, \nfor many Christians had been carried away by the \nGoths from the Roman provinces in the latter part of \nthe fourth century, from whom they had gained some \nknowledge of the gospel. From these, Ulphilas had \ndescended, who had translated portions of the Scrip- \ntures into their language, and been held by them in the \nhighest estimation. \n\nWith Genseric, the king of the Vandals, though a \nChristian, Leo was less successful. Invited by the \ninjured Eudoxia, from the coasts of Africa, he crossed \nto the Tiber, and sacked Rome fourteen days, without \nopposition. The bishop acted a noble part, going \nforth with his clergy to meet him, he saved much eS \nfusion of blood, but only obtained milder terms for the \nsuffering citizens. Wealth, not territory, was the ob- \nject of the invader, who possessed accurate informa- \ntion of the weakness of the Romans, and the confusions \nof the councils of the men who were in power. Though \na barbarian, yet professing to be a Christian, he could \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 205 \n\nhave designed no injury to the church/ These em- \nbarrassments of the empire were, in each instance, by \nthe vigilance and address of Leo, rendered ancillary \nto his purposes of enlarging the authority, and extend- \ning the power of his own ecclesiastical monarchy ; \nwhich, it is probable, both Attila and Genseric per- \nceived to be as capable of enhancing, ultimately, their \nown influence, as that of the Roman empire. \n\nLeo evinced characteristic adroitness in filling va- \ncant sees with men prompt to subserve his designs, in \nextending his own influence by intimidating some, and \ngaining the favor of others ; and in removing out of \nhis way, men who were conscientiously inflexible. \nEven the patriarch of Constantinople, his greatest rival, \nwas under his direction, so long as Flavianus lived, \nwhom he ruled by friendship ; but over his successor, \nAnatolius, he could not maintain the ascendency ; he, \nnevertheless, gained some verbal concessions from \nhim, not an abandonment of jurisdiction, by his in- \nfluence on Marcian and his empress. He gave ready \naudience to complaints against patriarchs, metropoli- \ntans, and inferior bishops, thereby extending his juris- \ndiction, under the pretext of administering justice. \nHis favorable standing with the emperors, both of \nRome and Constantinople, which he so industriously \ncultivated, and his unremitting communications with \nthe eastern bishops by letters and messengers, were \nadvantageous to the cause of orthodoxy against the \nheresy of Eutyches and Dioscorus; but all were in- \nsuflicient to secure to the Roman see any authority in \nThrace, Asia, Palestine, and Egypt, whatever may \nhave been alleged by modern writers to the contrary \nnotwithstanding. The supineness of the wretched \nValentinian the Third, allowed, during his feeble reign, \n\nr Genseric was an Arian, and persecuted the orthodox bishops \nin Africa with relentless fury. He took away the g-olden table and \ncandlesticks which had been broug-ht to Rome from the temple of \nJerusalem; and also the spoils of pag\'anism belonging- to the capi- \ntol. \n\nT \n\n\n\nt06 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nample scope to the ambition of this bishop. Aries was \nthe eye of Gaul, and her bishop, because the exarch of \nthe seven provinces of Narbonne, wsls a Mordecai to \nLeo. Hilary, the envied rival, had deposed Celido- \nnius from the episcopal grade. The discarded bishop \nreceived countenance, and v^as allowed to officiate at \nRome. Hilary also came to the capital of the empire, \nand, after visiting the tombs, called on Leo, and com- \nplained, that bishops deposed in Gaul were allowed to \nexercise their ministry at Rome ; but whilst he alleged \nit to be scandal, he said he did not come to accuse. \nAfter affirming the propriety of his own conduct, and \ndisregard of the menaces of Leo, he returned to Aries ; \nbut sent a priest and two bishops to Leo, with suitable \ninstructions. The answer which he received from the \nprefect of Rome, insinuates that Leo was governed \nby pride, and actuated by intolerance. Leo well \nknew that he could not canonically receive the com- \nplaint of Celidonius, but he was determined to subju- \ngate the see of Aries. The success of the African \nchurches, in combatting his claim of appellate juris- \ndiction, had probably excited him to efforts more vio- \nlent in extending his jurisdiction in Europe. But the \nunrelenting cruelty which he practised against the in- \ngenuous and excellent Hilary, because he opposed the \nunjust extension of the power of the Roman see, is not \natoned by the canonization of the name of Hilary. \nAnd it excites disgust to see Leo pronouncing the \nmemory of him blessed,* when out of his way, whom, \nwhilst living, he had reviled, in his letter to the bishops \nof Vienne, as the vilest of men. \n\nAt the commencement of this century, the Roman \nempire was severed into two. Before its termination, \nthe Western fell wholly into the hands of the barba- \nrians. The Ostrogoths possessed Italy, the Huns \nPannonia, the Franks Gaul, the Visigoths Spain, the \nVandals Africa, and the Saxons England. The poHcy \n\n8 Defuncto Sacrx memoriae Hilario. Epist. 50. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN" CHURCHES. 207 \n\nof Leo aimed to secure to the bishop of Rome the ec- \nclesiastical pre-eminence which had been incident to \nthe imperial purple as Pontifex Maximus, but nominal- \nly abandoned by Constantine, and the Christian empe- \nrors. His efforts in the Eastern empire, and in Africa, \nwere fruitless. In the West, his successors, following \nhis steps, ultimately prevailed. The barbarian chiefs, \nwell knowing the power and influence of the Christian \nclergy, even among their own tribes, wilHngly trans- \nferred to them the same profound respect which had \nbeen yielded to their idolatrous priests. Thus each of \nthe kingdoms which arose in, and superseded the Eu- \nropean portion of the Western empire, not only adopt- \ned and established the Christian religion, but with sur- \nprising passivity subjugated themselves to the usurped \nauthority of the hierarchy of Rome. \n\nOur purpose being to ascertain the primitive gov- \nernment of the Christian church, as it was left by the \napostles and evangelists ; and, in order to the right \ninterpretation of the sacred word, first to know from \nfacts the additions which have been made since their \ndays, that we may exclude them from any part in such \ninterpretation, it is unnecessary to continue an unin- \nterrupted investigation of its history, lower than unto \nthe period when the Western church was fully estab- \nlished in Europe. \n\n\n\nSECTION XXII. \n\n\n\nSeparatists from the Western church prior to the Protestant Reformation. \xe2\x80\x94 \nThe Piedmontese were in the Latin church in 817. \xe2\x80\x94 Their archlishop^ \nClaude, lived and died in connexion with the Catholics. \xe2\x80\x94 Had bishops, after \ntheir separation, who were denominated Seniors or Ancients. \xe2\x80\x94 Perrin was \na follower of Waldo, and incredible as to historical facts before Jiis day. \xe2\x80\x94 \nTJie Waldenses of Bohemia and Moravia preferred the doctrines and wor- \nship of the Eastern church, but were obliged to yield to the persecutions of \nthe Latin. \xe2\x80\x94 Their seniors or elders were superintendents or bishops in the \nmodern sense. \xe2\x80\x94 The Waldenses of France were the followers of Peter \nWaldo and others, who adopted the ancient discipline of the evangelical \nchurches in the valleys of Piedmont. \n\nHad this people, prior to the Reformation, an order \nof ecclesiastical officers, who were mute presbyters, \nor lay elders ? This is the subject of the following \ninvestigation. \n\nThat a secluded Christian people had inhabited \neither the valleys of the Alps, or the forests of Ger- \nmany, from the days of the apostles, without connex- \nion either with the Roman or Greek church, has been \noften asserted, but never shown. The people of Pied- \nmont, and those of Bohemia, have, with justice, \nclaimed an existence, respectively, prior to the time of \nWaldo. His followers flying from persecution in the \nsouth of France, have often found sanctuary with \nboth; and all of them have been persecuted under \npapal bulls made against the Waldenses. But whilst \na similarity of doctrines obtained among them, they \nlived under different civil and ecclesiastical govern- \nments; their creeds, articles, confessions, and disci- \npline, though in substance aUied, were not identically \nthe same. To escape the confusion w^hich exists in \n\n\n\nTHE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT, &C. 209 \n\nthe histories of the Waldenses, this name must be used \nonly for the followers of Waldo, amalgamated as they \nare with the orthodox of Albi, and the consideration \nof them postponed to the successive accounts of the \nPiedmontese and Bohemians. \n\n\n\nTHE PIEDMONTESE. \n\nPiedmont, named from the valleys of the Alps, ^ \npede montium, was subject to the Lombards, from the \nyear 568, until 774, when Charlemagne destroyed the \nmonarchy. It constituted a part of the German em- \npire from that period until its dismemberment in 888. \nFrom thence till 919, all Italy was in confusion. In \n936, Otho conquered Italy, and the valleys of the Alps \nremained under German princes till 1137, when they \nbecame the property of the house of Savoy ; who were \ncounts till 1416, dukes till 1713, and afterwards, by \nthe acquisition of Sicily, kings till 1796. \n\nIn these valleys the gospel was planted at an early \nperiod ; and being a frontier of Italy, their rehgious \ngovernment was that of the peninsula. But remote \nfrom the vortex of corruption, they tardily received \ninnovations. They were still a constituent part of the \nLatin church in the year 817, and subject to the reli- \ngious government of that age, which was episcopal. \nClaude, in 815, had been promoted to be arch-bishop \nof Turin, the principal city of Piedmont, by Lewis the \nMeek, the son of Charlemagne and emperor of the \nWest. But whilst Claude submitted to the ecclesias- \ntic supremacy, he denied the orthodoxy of the Pope. \nIn the council of Frankfort, 794, he had been active \nagainst image-worship, and had seconded the empe- \nror\'s wishes to bring over pope Adrian the First from \nthe errors of the second Nicene council of 786. \nWhen, in 823, this excellent man was accused of inno- \nvation, because he ordered the images to be cast out \nof his churches, he declared, " that he taught no new \n\nt2 \n\n\n\n210 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nsect, but kept himself to the pure faith." The truth \nwas supported during his Ufe, in Piedmont, against \nthe corruptions of the Latin and Greek churches. He \nhved and died the arch-bishop of Turin, in full con- \nnexion with the Catholic church. Nor did the Pied- \nmontese depart from the communion of that church, \n" so long as she did not attempt to force them to em- \nbrace her errors." The Piedmontese churches were \nepiscopal before and during the hfe of Claude, His \nfollowers were persecuted by his successors in office, \nbut not immediately ; for Claude lived nearly to the \ndismemberment of the German empire, after which, \nthe political confusions of Italy presented some defence \nagainst persecution, till the conquest by Otho. As \nthis period was long before Dominic and his inquisition, \nit is not probable that the principles and doctrines of \nClaude produced a separation before the middle of the \ntenth century. Sir Samuel Morland, who was sent by \nCromwell to the duke of Savoy, in 1658, to mitigate \nhis persecution of the Piedmontese reformers, has ob- \nserved, that Claude left the lamp of his doctrine to his \ndisciples, and they to their successive generations in \nthe ninth and tenth centuries. The precise era of their \nseparation from the Catholic church, we have not \nfound ; but no persecution appears to have been sus- \ntained by them under the German princes to whom \nthey were subject, till 1137. If, indeed, that oldest \ndocument, which is furnished by Perrin, and by Mor- \nland, purporting to be a confession of their faith in \nfourteen articles, and which they place at 1120, were \nso old, that would prove a separation, before they came \nunder the house of Savoy. But though in 1146, they \nwere persecuted, and some of them fled into Bohemia, \nthere is neither proof nor probability shown, that \nthose articles were four centuries before the Reforma- \ntion. The twelfth was made against the doctrine of \ntransubstantiation, which we should not expect before \nthe council of Lateran, in 1215, or at the earliest, in \n1160. The ninth, expressly against the error of pur- \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAX CHURCHES. 211 \n\ngatory, which would seem to have been unnecessary, \nbefore the council of Florence, in 1438. When these \narticles were made, they, no doubt, had still their \nbishops and priests, as there is not a word in them \nconcerning church government. The followers of \nClaude must have retained episcopal ordination. The \nmonk Rainerus names Belazinanza of Verona, and \nJohn De Luggio, as eminent bishops of the Waldenses \nabout 1250 ; and is quoted by Perrin, as having writ- \nten of the Piedmontese, in his account of heretics, that \n" they had a greater bishop, and two followers, whom \nhe called the elder son, and the younger, and a deacon; \nthat he laid his hands upon others, with sovereign \nauthority, and sent them where he would, like a pope." \nThis Perrin denominates an " imposture." But the \nmonk relates things of his own day, and his means of \nknowing the truth w^ere better than those of Perrin. \n\nThe latter w^as averse to episcopacy, wished to \nrepresent the Piedmontese and the reformers in \nFrance, as the same sect ; and has actually concealed \nthe episcopate of Stephen, the last bishop of the Aus- \ntrian Waldenses. What Perrin has gleaned in oppo- \nsition to Rainerus, rather supports him. He says, \nfrom Morel and Masson, of Provence, who were divid- \ned from the Piedmontese only by the mountains, and \nwere more nearly allied to them than those of Dau- \nphine : " The money that is given us by the people is \ncarried to the aforesaid general council, and is dehv- \nered in the presence of all ; it is then received by the \nancients, and part thereof is given to those that are \ntravellers, or way-faring men, according to their ne- \ncessities, and part thereof unto the poor." These aTi- \ncienis were clerical men, and the seniors, or bishops, \nwho ordained their preachers, like Stephen, the last of \nthe Austrian Waldensian bishops, from whom the Uni- \ntas fratrum now hold their succession. The name bish- \nop was generally substituted by some other word, as \nsenior, superintendent, or perhaps guide, and leader ; \nbut was understood by Rainerus. The way-faring \n\n\n\n212 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nmen, who received an annual support from the p\'66ple, \nthrough the hands of these bishops, were the travelling \npreachers whom they sent "where they thought \ngood," to different and distant places in the countries \nof Europe, who were persecuted every where under \nthe name of Yallenses, and afterwards as Waldenses. \nWhat the form of the ecclesiastical government of the \nPiedmontese came to be, is uncertain. Their preachers \nwere called barbes and pastors. Their guides or \nleaders, if they were not the same with the ancients or \nbishops, were laymen of prudence, to direct the peo- \nple, who lived under a Catholic and persecuting civil \ngovernment, whose fury they were often obliged to \nshun by fleeing to the mountains. \n\nThe assertion, that " the office of ruling elders as \nretained in their churches, is recognized in a number \nof places in Perrin," we cannot find supported, and be- \nlieve to be founded in mistake. One place has been \npointed out in his works, (ch. 4, p. 49,) to show that \nthere was a synod, in which ministers and elders con- \nvened, " lo/ig before the time of Luther." But it \nproves to have been after the deaths of Luther, Me- \nlancthon, Bucer, Zuinglius, Peter Martyr, and Cran- \nmer. We do not wonder that such mistakes should \nhave been made, in reading the confused story of John \nPaul Perrin. He never lived either under the civil \nor ecclesiastical government of Piedmont ; he was a \nfollower of Peter Waldo ; lived at Lyons, and dated \nhis works in 1618. He is a loose writer, without any \ntalent for discrimination, and his credibility has lately \nbeen, and perhaps deservedly, impeached by the Rev. \nWilliam Jones. \n\nMorland mentions a manuscript dated in 1587, \nseventeen years after the synod last spoken of, which \nspeaks of annual councils, and of one, at which there \nwere one hundred and forty barbes ; but no elders are \nsaid to have been present. We have found no synods \namong them before the Reformation. On the 12th \nSeptember, 1532, after the Augsburg confession had \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN" CHURCHES. 213 \n\nbeen made, and the protest signed, and after the peo- \nple of the valleys knew that, the Waldenses of Dau- \nphine and Provence had sent their pastors, George \nMorel and Peter Masson, into Germany, to confer \nwith CEcolampadius and Bucer, they held a general \nmeeting at Angrogne, to hear the letters of those re- \nlormers, and then entered into articles accordant with \nthe doctrines of the Reformation. But even there we \nfind no mention of ruling elders or lay presbyters. \nThe intermediate unscriptural order did come in at \nthe Reformation, but we have found no trace of it be- \nfore it. The resort to the history of the Piedmontose \nto prove lay presbyters, appears, therefore, to be ^.n- \ntirely unavailing. \n\n\n\nTHE WALDEXSE5 OF BOHEMIA AXD MOrxAVIA. \n\nIn the ninth century, the ambition of the rival pon- \ntiffs of Rome and Constantinople, occasioned efforts \nto be made by both the Western and Eastern churches, \nto plant the gospel under their respective standards \non the banks of the Danube. The sister of the king of \nthe Bulgarians became, whilst a captive at Constanti- \nnople, a Christian. He sent thither for missionaries, \nand obtained Cyril and \'Methodius, Pastors, also, \nafterwards went from Rome into Bulgaria. The at- \ntempt of the Roman see in the tenth ceatury to render \nthe Bohemians subject to their ecclesiastical govern- \nment, produced resistance and persecution ; but their \nritual was at length received upon the express condi- \ntion, that it should be m the Sclavonian language. In \nthis century, evangelic p1 impressions were made on \nthe Hungarians, Dalmatia^vs, Polanders, Danes, and \nothers. The duke of BoheiPiia, Bolislaus, was a Chris- \ntian of the Latin church ; his daughter, the wife of the \nduke of Poland, persuaded her husband, about 965, to \nbecome a Christian. But idolat/y prevailed near the \nsouthern shores of the Baltic. In Pomerania, Chris- \n\n\n\n214 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\ntianity was not tolerated till the arms of Otho had \nprevailed in 1126. The people of Bohemia were \naverse to the Romish rites, preferring those of the \nEastern church, but in the twelfth century their zeal \nbegan to succumb to persecution. In 1146, some of \nthe Vallenses, fleeing from Roman persecution in \nPiedmont, sought refuge among them. That Peter \nWaldo died in Bohemia in 1179, is not supported. \nThe Bohemian Christians, whilst with the Greek \nchurch, can, with neither reason nor propriety, be sup- \nposed to have had lay presbyters, for none such are \nfound in that church ; and so far as the influence of \nthe Latin church prevailed with them, it could have \nhad no tendency to produce an office, equally foreign \nto its principles, and unknown in its government. Du- \nring the reigns of the native kings of Bohemia, which \nterminated in 1305, and until the reign of the emperor \nCharles the Fourth, which began in 1346, the corrup- \ntions of the Western churches had been generally \nadopted in Bohemia. The great number of orthodox \nprofessors, said to have been in Bohemia in the four- \nteenth century, must be misrepresentation. The \nCatholic errors were afterwards resisted by the pious \nconfessors, Conrad Stickner, John Militsh, and Mat- \nthew Janowsky, all of whom died near the end of the \nfourteenth century, and by John Huss. The latter \nadopted the doctrines of WickHff*, was burned in 1415, \nand is accounted the founder of the society of Unitas \nfratrum ; but the name and compact of union obtained \nnot, till after the middle of the fifteenth century. \nThese have been called also Waldenses, from their \nunion with those of Austria. These being episcopal, \nthere was still neither place for, nor the existence of, \nlay presbyters.* In 1432, the council of Basil satisfied \n\n\n\na Postea iidem, scilicet Fratres Bohemiy seu Unitas fratrum cum \nreliquis quibusdam Waldensium, in confiniis Moraviac et Austria \nag-entibus, conjung-endt, unitate inter eos ac confoederatione inita. \nUnde commune Bohemis Fratribus Waldensium nomen," &c. \n\n\n\n\xe2\x96\xa0-f \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 215 \n\nthe Calixtins, who contended only for the cup, and \nterminated the war which followed the death of Huss ; \nbut his other followers, the Taborites, were not recon- \nciled. In 1438, popery gained the ascendency, by the \nestablishment of the Austrian line over Bohemia and \nHungary ; and the termination of the Greek empire \nby the Turks, in 1453, prevented further efforts to re- \nturn to the Greek church. Being cut off from ordina- \ntion both from the Roman and Greek churches ; in \n1467, the Brethren obtained episcopal ordination, for \ncertain men chosen to be seniors, superintendents, or \nbishops, from Stephen, who was the last bishop of the \nAustrian Waldenses, (Vallenses,) and was burned at \nVienna in 1468. \n\nThis excellent, evangelical, and persecuted people, \nhad more respect for sound doctrines, than scrupulous \ncorrectness in the matter of church government. Their \nprejudices have always been for the episcopal govern- \nment, even whilst groaning under the oppressions of \ndiocesan episcopacy. From the commencement of \ntheir new episcopate, which was about fifty years be- \nfore the Reformation, they had eight kinds of officers ; \nelders, almo?iers, i?ispectors of buildings, ministers, aco- \nluths, (candidates for the ministry, who read homi- \nlies,) deacons, who preach, presbyters, or priests, wha \nadminister ordinances, and bishops, whom they denomi- \nnate seniors.^ The confession of faith, which this. \n\n\n\n** Patet veneratas eas ecclesias suos eplscopos, vel super-atten- \ndentes, primos cum ord\'mis turn potestatis prserog-otiva; scalara \nministerii suis gradibus distinxisse," &c. Frederici Spanhemii \nHist. Christ Seoul, xv. Lemma vii. \n\nb Perrin, p. 64, says: "At the time when the doctrine of John \nHuss was received and entertained there, the ministers, elders, and \nProtestants of Bohemia say," &c. And in p. 66, speaking- of the \nmartyrdom of the Austrian Waldensian bishop Stephen, he calls \nhim "an elderly man." In p. 19, he says, Aldeg-onde relates, that \n** There was a certain man called Bartholomew, born at Curcas- \nsone (in France) who founded and g-overned the churches in Bul- \ngaria, Croatia, Dalmatia, and Hung-ary, and ordained ministers,\'* \n&c. Perrin must have known, that these elders and clergymen \n\n\n\n216 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\npeople first presented to Ladislaus in 1508, and pre- \nsented amplified, to Ferdinand in 1535, and which \nreceived a preface from the pen of Luther, does men- \ntion " elders^" but expressly as ordainers of ministers, \nwho were, therefore, the seniors before mentioned. \nTheir elders, who were inferior to the almoners and \ninspectors, were laymen, not presbyters. If their dea- \ncons were preachers, their presbyters, who were of a \nsuperior order, could not have been laymen ; if also, \nboth were inferior to their seniors, being ordained by \nthem, these were their bishops. It is very strange \nthat a proof of the imaginary order of lay presbyters \nshould be attempted to be brought from a church, \nwhich held, and still holds, not only the presbyters, \nbut the deacons of the apostolic times to have been, \nby the nature of their offices, preachers of the word. \n\n\n\nTHE WALDENSES IN FRANCE. \n\nThe south of France was the country of the Wal- \ndenses, properly so called. A few of the persecuted \nfollowers of Claude, the Vaudois, Vallenses, or Pied- \nmontese, had fled over to Provence, and enjoyed \npeace. Among these, Joseph preached with success ; \nand in Languedoc, in the twelfth century. The Jo- \nsephists were prior to Waldo. Peter Bruis taught in \nthe same strain, in the latter place, in 1130, and was \nburnt at St. Giles. Henry was the successor of Bruis. \nTheir followers were called Peter Brussians, and \nHenricians. In the same region, Arnold, and Esperon, \na priest, in the same century, opposed the errors of the \nRomanists. All who held the\' doctrines of these re- \nformers, and who lived near Albi, were called Albi- \n\n\n\nwere bishops, but writing a century after the Reformation, he \nwishes to cast a veil over the government of those churches. What \nconfidence can be placed in such a writer? \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 217 \n\ngenses ; a name, by which all of this faith, who lived \nwestward of the Rhone in France, were called, as \nothers on the east of that river were distinguished by \nthe name of Waldenses.\'\' These were so called from \nPeter Waldo, a layman of talents, learning, and piety ; \nwho abandoning merchandise at Lyons, began to \npreach the gospel in 1160. His success produced the \nanathema of pope Alexander the Third, against him \nand his followers. These fled over the Rhone into \nProvence, into Piedmont and into Germany, and Wal- \ndo, after three years concealment, fled into Picardy, \nand afterwards to other places. They who took re- \nfuge in Piedmont, were denied, by the house of Savoy, \nthat toleration, which the natives of the valleys en- \njoyed, holding similar doctrines. The Waldenses, in \nthe south of France, multiplied in concealment. \nFrom 1305 to 1362, Avignon was the seat of rival \npopes, by which circumstance they were greatly ex- \nposed. In 1380 and 1393, ihey were furiously perse- \ncuted. In 1478, Lewis XI. directed letters to the gov- \nernor of Dauphine for their relief, but in 1484, those \nwho inhabited the valley of Loyse, were almost literal- \nly exterminated by the arch-bishop of Ambrun. The \noldest confession of faith of this people, may be found \nin Bray\'s Perrin,*^ and in Sir Samuel Morland^ in dif- \nferent English translations, in twelve articles. It was \nfurnished by Du Molin, and had been made at some \nperiod before the Reformation, but how long after the \ndeath of Waldo, is not known. The fifth article alone \ntouches the subject of government ; is opposed to the \nCatholic hierarchy, but neither elders nor presbyters \nof any kind. A paper, which Sir SamueF denominates \n" The ancient discipline of the evangelical churches in \nthe valleys of Piedmont," Perrin,^ who was a Wal- \n\nc The Pauliclans were called also Albig-enses, because con- \ndemned by a council held at Albi in 1176. \n\nd P. 2. b. 1. c. xiii. p. 24. e Page 37\xe2\x80\x9439. \n\nf Pa^e 72. S Book v. c. vii. \n\nU \n\n\n\n218 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\ndensian, gives as " The discipline under which the \nWaldenses and Albigenses Hved." It is allow^ed by \nboth to have been several hundred years before the \nReformation. In it purgatory, transubstantiation, \nextreme unction, and confirmation, are all rejected. \n\nThe opinions of these historians of facts passed be- \nfore their day, are little to be trusted \xe2\x80\x94 their docu- \nments alone are valuable. In this discipline are con- \ntained, in the second and fourth articles, these v^ords: \n" Amongst other privileges which God hath given to \nhis servants, he hath given them this, to choose their \nleaders, and those who are to govern the people, and \nto constitute elders in their charges, according to the di- \nversity of the work, in the unity of Christ, which is \nclear by that saying of the apostle in the epistle to \nTitus, chap. 1. For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou \nshouldest set in order the thinq^s that are wafiting, and or- \ndain elders in every city as I had appointed thee.\'\'^ In ar- \nticle 5, "Rulers and elders are chosen out of the peo- \nple, according to the diversity of the work in the unity \nof- Christ," &c. Perrin omits the catechism, which \nconstitutes the fourth article. In Bray\'s translation, \nthese things are thus rendered : " Amongst other \npowers and abilities which God has given to his ser- \nvants, he hath given authority to choose leaders to \nrule the people, and to ordain elders in their charges, \naccording," &c. "We choose among the people \nrulers and elders according to the diversity of their \nemployment, in the unity of Christ." Perrin also gives \nfrom " book of the pastors, George Morel and Peter \nMasson," the same who were sent from Provence into \nGermany to consult the reformers in 1530, the like \naccount: "Amongst other powers which God hath \ngiven to his servants, it belongs to them to choose \nguides of his people, and elders in their charges, accord- \ning," &c., ut supra. By elders in their charges, must \nhave been intended pastors, who were elders in the \nScriptural sense. They certainly had pastors, because \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 219 \n\nMorel, Masson, and Perrin were such, and the flocks \ncould have been the charges of no others. The quo- \ntation from the epistle to Titus, which is a direction to \nordain elders, brought as an authority for the office, \nalso evinces the correctness of this construction. \nThe terms, constitute and ordain, used with elders, \nand not with rulers and leaders, discover an additional \nproof, that the elders w^ere the preachers or pastors of \nthe churches ; and that such leaders and rulers, being \nneither said to be constituted, nor ordained, were con- \nsequently not elders of any kind, except in the appel- \nlative sense. The single question on these passages \nmust be, w^hom, or w^hat must we understand by the \n" leaders, and those who are to govern the people ;" \nwhich is Morland\'s translation of " Regidors del poble," \nthe words of the discipline. Perrin\'s copy, or transla- \ntion, has been rendered by Bray, " leaders to rule the \npeople;" and the expression of Morel and Masson \nare translated " guides to the people." These were, \ntherefore, under every view, evidently laymen, chosen \nto advise and support the people, under the dread- \nful persecutions to which they were so often sub- \njected. The same kind of prudent men w^ere selected \nalso among the Piedmontese, for the same purpose. \nIf Perrin and Morland be each correct in their title \nprefixed to this discipline, then the Waldenses ob- \ntained it from the Piedmontese. Neither in the val- \nleys of the Alps, nor in France, had the pious presby- \nters, who were ordained over their congregational \nassemblies, w^isdom or experience sufficient to guide \nsuch multitudes, under the pressure of persecutions \nscarcely second in malevolence, fury, and cruelty, to \nany that have been in the world. Unless the elders, \nmentioned in the passage quoted by them, w^ere \npreachers, Titus ordained none in Crete ; by elders, \ntherefore, pastors must have been understood; and \nthey seem to have availed themselves of the other \ngeneral terms, as an authority for the choosing of \n\n\n\n220 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT, &C. \n\nguides, to set in order things which zvere wanting ; and \nsave them from that extermination, which the anti- \nChristian hierarchy ever meditated, and unremittingly- \npursued ; for in later times the edict of Nantz suffered \nthe scion to grow^, only that, by the nefarious revoca- \ntion of that statute, it might be the more effectually \nextirpated. \n\n\n\nSECTION XXIII \n\n\n\nOF OFFICES ANB ORDINATIONS. \n\nTlie Jewish and gospel dispensations commenced witli immediate inspi- \nration. Legal toleration had been granted to Hie Jews, in the exer- \ncise of their own religion, it was necessary that the apostles should \nteach, baptize, and ordain as they did, but they claimed no priesthood, and \nordained officers for the churches they erected, bishops or presbyters, one \nbench for every assembly, and deacons. Matthias^ Paul, and Barnabas. \nThere are no evangelists in the history of the church, except the first extraor- \ndinary preachers. The reception of the evangelists depended upon the re- \ncommendations of the apostles. Testimonies of Polycarp, Clement, Justin^ \nIrejuBus, Clement of Alexandria, Teriullian. Letters assigned to Ignatius, \n"Apostolical Tradition.\'\'\' Firmilian, Cyprian, SfC \xe2\x80\x94 Ordinary officers were \npresbyters and deacons, and there were but two ordinations. The ordination \nwhich now constitutes a modern bishop, originated in gradual custom,first \nwithout hands, then with, and now rests upon canonical authority, and is no \nwhere found in the word of God. \n\nThe Mosaic economy terminated with the death of \nChrist, who was a minister of the circumcision. After \nhis resurrection, he commissioned eleven apostles, to \ngo and disciple all nations. They were to testify the \nthings, which they had seen and heard; and reveal the \ntruths, which should be suggested to their minds by \nthe Holy Spirit. Such is the basis of all present au- \nthority for evangelizing the world. But it no more \nfollows, that any regular preacher has the commission \nof an apostle to govern the general church, than that \nhe possesses the gifts of such. For as none can be \nstrictly apostles, that is, immediately instructed and \nsent by Christ, so none possess, either their inspiration \nand general authority, or their extraordinary power. \n\nUnder the theocracy, commissions were by conse- \n2u \n\n\n\n222 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\noration, with imposition of hands.* The apostles be- \ning Jews, and tolerated in the Roman empire only as \nsuch, were guided by the Spirit to baptize, teach, and \nordain, in the modes to which they had been accus- \ntomed. But they neither claimed, nor exercised a \npriesthood, nor considered ordination as an apostohcal \nprerogative, but merely as a duty, incident to the \ngreater work of discipling and teaching. \n\nWhilst many justify innovations on the ground of \nexpediency, not a few have thought, that a right has \ndevohed upon the church, through the apostles, of go- \nvernment, discipline, and dispensing ordinances. The \npresent prevailing forms of ecclesiastical government, \nhaving originated since the days of the apostles, do re- \nquire some such vindication ; for certainly there is nei- \nther apostolic precept, nor example for any ordination \nin a particular church, except those of bishops and dea- \ncons ; and if bishops and presbyters be the same office, \nthe additional ordination, whether of the diocesan bish- \nop, or the lay presbyter, finds no authority in the w^ord of \nGod. But if the church possess the right to create new \nofficers, and to transfer to them the government, and \nrite of ordination, this exceeds the claim of infaUibility, \nit is to legislate in the place of God. \n\nMatthias was elected, separated by lot, and numbered \nwith the apostles, but was neither personally sent by \nChrist, nor ordained by imposition of hands, being an \napostle only in the appellative sense, as was Barnabas. \nThe first ordination was of seven deacons in the \nchurch at Jerusalem, chosen by the people, and set \napart by prayer, and imposition of the hands of the \napostles, there being as yet no presbytery. When the \nprophets and teachers of the church at Antioch, prayed \nand. imposed their hands on Saul and Barnabas, they \nseemed raiher to have given a testimony of their con- \ncurrence to a mission, or apostleship, likely to awaken \n\na Num. viii. 10. xxviii. 18, \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 223 \n\nprejudices, than to have ordained them to an office. \nTimothy was ordained probably to be a presbyter, by \nthe "laying on of the hands of a presbytery," who had \nbeen ordained for an individual church. Imposition \nof hands might designate, and publicly recognise per- \nsons ; but it neither transmitted virtue, nor authority ; \nnor defined duties. Paul\'s commission was, conse- \nquently, neither enlarged, nor restricted by the mission \nhe received at Antioch. Nor was Timothy\'s office of \nevangelist, which was an extraordinary commission \nto aid the apostle of the Gentiles, produced by the act \nof a presbytery in his ordination to be a presbyter. \n\nThe primitive churches when duly furnished, had \neach its presbytery and deacons ; and of necessity in \nplanting churches, ihe apostles and evangelists did, \nwhen alone, respectively ordain presbyters in those \nwhich were new.\'\'\' But afterwards the presbytery of \nevery such church ordained successors to themselves, \nand also deacons, not by communicating any virtue, \nwhich they had derived mystically from the apostles \nor evangelists ; but by assigning them, in the discharge \nof their own duty, with the consent of the people, a \nshare in the government and service of the church. \n\nThe validity of offices in the church of Christ, is \nindependent of the internal call. But both ordainers \nand ordained, should have reasonable grounds to be \n\nt> Paul and Barnabas returning\' to the churches which they had \nplanted; "ordained presbyters for them In every church," ;ts/po- \nTovna-AVTis Si <tvrci? rrpicrJiuTipcvs ;c5tTst \xc2\xa3x.;tx\xc2\xbb(r/stv with prayer and \nfasting. The Greeks used x\'^iporovio) for electing- by lifting* the \nhand. But Paul and Barnabas could not have thus voted, being \nbut two, yet the act was theirs. ETrirtQu/ui is the expression for \nimposing hands. More must have been intended by ^\'\'tpoTovMo-aivriSi \nthan simply that they appointed; it must mean that they set them \napart to the office of presbyters, for that was the effect, and such \nis expressed to have been the office, and it was with prayer and \nfasting". Although ^upcTovice implies not necessarily, either voting \nby lifting the hand, or ordaining by imposing the hand, for it is used \nfor constituting Moses a ruler, and Aaron and his sons priests, by \nGod himself; yet it is probable that Paul and Barnabas did ordain \nby imposition of hands. \n\n\n\n224 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nsatisfied of the truth of this grace ; which is no more, \nthan the ordinary change of heart or disposition, with \na conviction, that it is the duty of the party to preach \nthe gospel, and that he has the requisite knowledge, \nlearning, talents, and soundness in the faith, to render \nhim useful. The authority of the officers of the church \nis derived through the apostles, who received their \ncommission from Christ in person, and were directed \nby the Holy Spirit, to provide teachers for the churches, \nin the manner they have done. If the case of Mat- \nthias, who received tTtcaxoTiT^v, an oversight, be not an \nexception, the apostolic authority and gifts were pecu- \nliar to those, who were commissioned by Christ after \nhis resurrection; and the nearest approximation to \ntheirs was the office of evangelist, which was also ex- \ntraordinary and evanescent. No evangelists appear \nin the history of the church after the deaths of those \nwho were cotemporaries of the apostles ; nor do any \nother officers, except those of individual churches, for \na century after the death of John, who died the last \nof the apostles. The first interpretation of a rule is \ngenerally and justly supposed to be the right one; the \nfirst condition of the churches establishes the only or- \ndinary offices of the New Testament to have been \nthose of the presbyter, called also bishop, and of the \ndeacon ; and the only ordainers, except the apostles \nand evangehsts, appear to have been the presbyteries \nof the respective churches. The presbyter, who pre- \nsided in each, denominated in the Apocalypse, the an- \ngel of the chuich, was consequently thus ordained, and \nto the same office with his brethren. Also, if the sa- \ncred word be alone competent to prescribe and define \nlegitimate powers, and rightful commissions of officers \nin the church of Christ, there is to this day no higher \ngrade, than that of presbyter ; and no one inferior to \nthe deacon ; neither is there rightful ordination, but \nby presbyters. These may pray for the Holy Ghost \nto breathe upon those, on whom they put their hands ; \nbut have no power to communicate that blessing ; and \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 225 \n\nthat a moral virtue should proceed from the hands of \nany, who now ordain, is no more to be believed, than \nthat the water in baptism should either physically, au- \nthoritatively, or mystically remove guilt. Words may \ninvest authority, but "so send I you," did neither trans- \nfer the Mediator\'s commission, nor constitute the dis- \nciples priests. The apostles were embassadors of God \nas well as witnesses of Christ ; and being in all their \nw^ork inspired of God, they w^ere directed to appoint \nevangelists to plant churches ; and ordain presbyters \nand deacons to teach, govern, and serve them. But \nwhen such were designated by ordination, the gospel \nwas their law, or rule of conduct ; and to this day, no \npower is communicated to supersede such rule, but the \nrightful offices and ordinances remain the same. \n\nTitus, Timothy, and other evangelists, inferior in \nrank and gifts to the apostles only, went forth to the \nwork; connected permanently with no particular \nchurch or churches, they superseded, during their \nstay, the ordinary officers in places already furnished, \nand ordained presbyters and deacons in those which \nwere destitute. The works of the apostles procured \nthat precedence and respect, to which their inspiration \nw^as entitled; the evangelists were chiefly regarded, \nbecause they spoke, and wrote the truths preached by \nthe apostles ; but no officers were left, when these were \nremoved, except those connected with individual \nchurches. Parochial and diocesan bishops, archbish- \nops, primates, patriarchs, and popes, have all proceeded \nfrom presbyters, without any other scriptural ordina- \ntion, than that, by which they may have been consti- \ntuted presbyters. When convenience, or pohcy, had, \nafter a lapse of time, introduced the rule, that no or- \ndination by presbyters should be valid, unless performed \nin the presence of the primus presbyter, called for distinc- \ntion the bishop, the laying on of the hands of Paul, \n2 Tim. i. G. with those of the presbytery, 1 Tim. iv. 14, \nwas adopted as an argument to justify the novelty. \nBut in still later times, Timothy, then deemed to have \n\n\n\n226 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nbeen a bishop, appeared to have been ordained only as \na presbyter, because in the third century presbyters began \nto be excluded from the ordination of a bishop. To \navoid this difficulty also, and escape an opposition to the \nword of God, the presbytery, expressly so called, \nwhich ordained Timothy, was imagined to have been \na council of bishops ; "Because,\'* says Chrysostom, \n" mere presbyters had no power to ordain a bishop ;" \na petitio principii worthy of the golden-mouthed father. \nBut Jerom makes this occurrence an argument to \nprove presbyters and bishops to have been the same ; \nfor Paul had not Barnabas with him, at the time he re- \nceived Timothy. Also there were no councils of bish- \nops, except the presbyteries, in the respective churches. \nThe case of Timothy, when he had been by modern \nrules, degraded from the office of evangelist to that of \nbishop, was still encumbered with remaining objec- \ntions ; for no hands ought to have been imposed, either by \nPaul, or the presbytery, upon him to make him a \nbishop; this being proper, by the apostolical canons, \nonly to presbyters; the canons requiring, in the case of \nbishops, the holding the Scriptures over the head of \nhim, who is to be ordained bishop, during the conse- \ncrating prayer. The canons, although a forgery of \nthe fourth century, are evidence of the customs of their \nday, and do by this circumstance embarrass also the \nmoderns^ who suppose it an omission, although the rea- \nsons against such omission are conclusive. Timothy \nhad been ordained by the presbytery of his church, in \nthe absence of Paul. Afterwards Paul took him, as \nsuitable help with him, and with his own hands, as \nusual, conferred the gifts necessary to an evangehst. \n\nThe letter of Polycarp, of high credibility, describes \nthe officers of the church at Philippi only as presbyters \nand deacons. In the inspired letter of Paul to the same \nchurch, the officers are addressed as bishops and dea- \ncons ; the terms presbyter and bishop being as yet used \npromiscuously, the same office is obviously intended \nby both. Valens had fallen into error, and the letter \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAX CHURCHES. 227 \n\nof Polycarp, recognising the authority of the presby- \nters over their co-presbyter, and representing him as \nhaving been " made a presbyter among them,\'"\' clearly \nenough shows that the apostolic church atPhilippi was \nunder its own presbyters, W\'ho exercised the powers \nof ordination and excommunication. This being the \nfirst testimony after the apostles, and by one who lived \nwith them, is decisive. \n\nThat the same w^as also the precise condition of the \nchurch at Corinth, when Clement, of whom Paul \nspeaks, wrote from Rome his only undisputed letter to \nthem, is obvious from its language : " Let any one \namong you, who is generous \xe2\x80\x94 say if the division is on \nmy account \xe2\x80\x94 I go w^here you please, and will do what \nthe multitude shall appoint, let the flock of Christ en- \njoy peace alone, with the presbyters, rtp\xc2\xa3aj5v7spav, who have \nbeen appointed over it."\'^ Of these he speaks as having \nthe gifts of sjttdxoTty^?, the oversight.^ \n\nWhen Justin Martyr wrote his two apologies for the \nChristians, which w^as within fifty years of John, there \nwere only presbyters, w^hereof one in each church \nwas 6 rtpo\xc2\xa3(j7wj scil. rtpE(j,3v7fpo^, the presiding (presbyter) \nwho administered the eucharist, and deacons who car- \nried it to the people. Ordination was of course per- \nformed at that period, by presbyters only. \n\nNear the end of the second century Irenceus w^rote \nagainst heretics, and relied chiefly on the certainty of \nthe sameness of doctrines, by referring to the succes- \nsions of bishops in the primitive churches, but whom \nhe expressly represents as presbyters, presiding among \ntheir brethren. Such were Soter, Victor, and others in \nthe catalogue of Popes, whom he terms rtpBo^vlspoc oc \nTtpoylavls^, and if they were only presiding presbyters, their \nbeing also styled bishops, amounts not even to a pre- \nsumption, that there had been a secondary ordination. \n\n\n\nc clement, epist. i. c. 54. \n\n^ Tst SaipA T\xc2\xabf i?riTKi7nii, c. 44. \n\n\n\nii28 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nClement of Alexandria places bishops in honor before \npresbyters, because they occupied the Jirst seat, rtpco7oxa- \n\xc2\xa9fSpta, in the presbytery. Nevertheless, he makes but \none order above deacons ; also the ordination to the \noffice of presbyter he mentions, but nothing of any \nsubsequent ordination. He lived into the third cen- \ntury. \n\nTertullian, of the first part of the third century, \ngives the same representation of things at Carthage. \nHe distinguishes bishops, presbyters and deacons ; the \npresbytery was still of one church, and denominated \necclesiastici ordinis consessus. He speaks of one order \nonly.\xc2\xae The idea of the bishop was still that of a pre- \nsiding presbyter, for he denominates him prmsideiis, an- \ntistes, Eind summus sacerdos ; and mentions no ordina- \ntion of such, but to make him a presbyter. \n\nAt no earlier a period than the first of the third cen- \ntury could the letters attributed to Ignatius have been \nwritten. They describe the bishop of an individual \nchurch as occupying the first seat, rtpoxaOT^fj^svov ; and a \npresbytery of preachers with deacons. But they dis- \ncover no ordination, to remove a presbyter to the \nhigher station of a bishop. \n\nThe ^\'Apostolical Tradition" ascribed to the Hippoly- \ntus of the third century, being the same substantially \nwith the eighth book of the supposititious ^\'Apostolical \nConstitutions," represents a bishop and presbytery to \nhave been in each particular church, and details mi- \nnutely their respective investitures in office. The peo- \nple, presbytery, and the neighbouring bishops, convene \non a Lord\'s day, to set apart the person previously \nchoseji by all the people. A bishop asks the presbytery \nand the people, if this is the person whom they desire for a \nPresident, ov ailcyvvlat no apxovla \', and they consenting, \nit is again asked of his character. After the third con- \n\ne DifFerentiam inter ordinem et plebem," &c, Tertull. v. iii. p. \n119, \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 229 \n\nsent, silence being made, " One of the first bishops, to- \ngether with two others, standing near the altar, the \nrest of the bishops, and the presbyters, praying in si- \nlence, and the deacons holding the divine gospels opened \nover the head of him, who is ordained, let him say to \nGod." Then follows the prayer. The ordination of \na presbyter is with imposition of hands, and is described \nin these words. " When thou, O bishop, ordainest a \npresbyter, do you yourself put the haiid upon the head, the \npresbytery standing near thee, and the deacons ; and \npraying, say," &c. The prayer to consecrate the \nbishop, discovers, that he is to have the power of bind- \ning and loosing. The prayer, accompanied with the \nimposition of hands on a presbyter, expresses, that he \nis to edify the church by the w^ord ; and those for the \ndeacon, deaconess, and subdeacons, which follow, \nspeak only of service ; and are also with the imposi- \ntion of the hands of the bishop. \n\nPresbyters having been from the first, ordained by \nimposition of hands ; the appointment of one of these \nto preside, which was not by a second ordination, con- \nferred on him nehher a new order, nor office, and the \nceremony of ordination w^as rightly excluded. It \ncould not have been an omission for it is supplied by \nneither Hippolytus, nor the Constitutions. It cannot \nbe implied, as some have alleged, because the idea of \nimposing hands occurs in neither, till they arrive at \nthe scriptural ordinations. As the bishop and presby- \nter was then known to be the same office, originating \nin one ordination, the innovation w^ould have been of- \nfensive ; also the holding the Scriptures over the head \nwas sufficiently distinctive. The ceremony of con- \nducting the bishop unto, and seating him on his chief \nseat, is minutely described in both ; and that points us \nto the origin of this canonical ordination. From apos- \ntoUc times some mode of designation of a presbyter \nto the_^r5i .9ea^ .tpco7oxa6f5pttt, must have existed. That \nit was deemed an ordination before the third century, \nis supported by no proof, but excluded by the isolated \n\n\n\n230 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\ncondition of the individual churches, the subjugation \nof Christians to the Pagan estabUshment, the hmited \npowers and actual services of the bishops or presidents, \nas vv^ell as by the introduction of the ordination w^ith- \nout imposition of hands. Thus although the pov^ers \nof the primus presbyter had accumulated through all \nthe second century, especially in the larger cities, it \nwas not before the middle of the third, that the desig- \nnation to such presidency over his fellow presbyters, \ndenominated by Jeiom, "in gradu excelsiori colloca- \ntio," was considered as a second ordination. Then \nthe influence of bishops, though parochial, became \nenlarged by consultations, and frequent communica- \ntions, and the monopoly of the rite of ordination, un- \nder the pretext of preventing discordances among \npresbyters. Also the existence of one church only in \na city, enhanced the authority of the bishops of the \nlarger cities ; where the presbyters, however numer- \nous, constituting the presbytery of a single church, ex- \nercised their talents, except in Alexandria, under the \ndirection of the presbytery, over w^hich the bishop \npresided. The power of ordaining, and not his own \ncommission, distinguished the parochial bishop. Had \nthe canonical ordination commenced so early as the \nsecond century, bishops would have discovered their \nclaims to the heritage, at a period prior to that assign- \ned to the fact by veritable history. The division of \nordinary grades into three, must have commenced with \nthe re-ordination of presbyters to constitute them \nbishops ; but the supposition, that this existed in the \napostles\' days, is not only entirely gratuitous, but per- \nfectly chimerical. \n\nWhen ordinations by presbyters had been generally \nsuperseded, their original powers were not forgotten. \n"The elders," says Firmilian, "preside, who possess \nthe power of baptizing, imposing the hand, and or- \ndaining."^ They also sat in the first annual councils, \n\nf **Ubi prscsidvint majores natu, qui et baptizandi, etmanum im- \nponendi, et ordinandi possident potestatem," Cyprian, epist. 75, \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN- CHURCHES. 231 \n\nin Asia Minor. "Every year, we, the elders and the \npresidents meet in one place, to dispose of the things \ncommitted to our care."^ Even at Carthage, Novatus, \nwhom Cyprian calls his co-presbyter,^ ordained Feli- \ncissimus a deacon, without the permission or know- \nledge of his bishop,\' w^hich was neither declared void, \nnor immediately subjected to censure. Giegory Thau- \nmaturgus, Phidimus, and Alexander, each ordained, \nand each had received but one ordination.^ Nor have \nwe found prior to the Cyprianic age, the ordination of \nany one to be a bishop, who had been previously a \npresbyter. \n\nAmbrose the metropolitan of Milan, Nectarius of \nConstantinople, Eusebius the successor of Bazil, Euche- \nrius bishop of Lyons, Cyprian of Carthage, and Philo- \ngonius bishop of Antioch, are thought to have been \nlaymen when ordained to be bishops. Athanasius \nbishop of Alexandria, Csecilianus of Carthage ; Agapi- \ntus, Vigilius and Felix, bishops of Rome, and Hera- \nclides bishop of Ephesus, were never presbyters, ex- \ncept as bishops, having passed from the order of dea- \ncons to that of bishops. These and such examples, \naccruing soon after bishops and presbyters had been \nestablished by canon law to be distinct orders, accord \nwith the fact that there had been from the first no or- \ndination, except of the deacon and presbyter. \n\nConstantino could not as a Christian, receive with \nthe purple, the Pagan supremacy of Pontifex Maximus; \nbut he established, instead of idolatry, the Christian \nchurch, by adopting the canons of the council of Nice \nas the supreme law of the Roman empire. Thus the \nordinations of presbyters and deacons, according to \nthe usages adopted in the different provinces and king- \n\n\n\n-g Per sing-ulos annos, senlores et proepositl in uniim convenimus \nad disponenda,\'\' &c. Ibid. \n\nh Epist. 15. \n\n\xc2\xbb **Diaconum nee permittente me, nee sciente \xe2\x80\x94 constituit." \nEp\'st. 52. Vide a later instance, Cassian 267. \n\nk Greg^or. N/ss. 2 vol. 979. idem. 99g;. \n\n\n\n232 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\ndoms, were legalized; and in imitation of the idola- \ntrous priesthood, a metropolitan was erected over \neach province, and his approbation was thenceforth ne- \ncessary to every ordination of a bishop within his ter- \nritories. The system of ecclesiastical government \nthus established, was somewhat multiform, because it \nhad been removed from the apostolical plan in differ- \nent degrees and various particulars, in the remote pro- \nvinces and countries. But subsequent councils devised \nnumerous canons, to reduce the different customs of \ndistant churches more nearly to a common standard. \nThus ecclesiastical authority, substituted by the laws \nof the empire in the place of the Pagan, though at first \nexcusable as a defence against persecution, has, by \nworldly policy and priestcraft, grown into a hierarchy, \nwhich at different periods has proved an engine, even \nsurpassing the former, in violence and blood. \n\nThe ascendency gained by the presiding presbyters \nin the churches, furnished, to civil and ecclesiastical \npolicy, a ready expedient for the substitution of a Chris- \ntian, in the place of a Pagan priesthood. Yet was it \nwell known, that the ordination of the bishop and of \nthe presbyter was originally one and the same. Hilary \nthe deacon, observed on 1 Tim. iii. "After the bishop, \nhe, Paul, subjoins the ordination of the deacon. Why,, \nunless because the ordination of the bishop and pres- \nbyter is the same?\'^\' Aerius affirmed they differed in \nnothing; the order and the honor were one; the bish- \nop imposes hands, and so does the presbyter.\'" Basil \nan aspiring metropolitan, acknowledged, that the \nthings written by Paul to Timothy, and Titus, were \nspoken conjunctly to bishops and presbyters. Also his \nfriend Gregory, who for a time was archbishop of \n\n1 Post episcopum dlaconi ordlnatlonem subjicit, Quare, nisi \nquia episcopi et presbyten una ordinutio est? Ambros. torn, \niii. 272. \n\nm \xe2\x80\x94 oj/cTgy Si\'JLXKitllf.i ovlo; <Tovliv juiA yap i^liv Ts-.^/f, ksli (jaa \nTifxvi-, p^iipi8ilii \xe2\x80\x94 \xc2\xa37r;!rxi?r&f, ahKct kai o TrpiT&Jlipcg. \xe2\x80\x94 Epiphan. \nlib. iii. vol. p. 906. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 233 \n\nConstantinople, "wished there had been no first seat, \npriority of place, or tyrannical dictatorship;" showing \nthat he esteemed the precedence adventitious. It is \nprobable, that the peculiar disposition of Aerius, and \nthe disappointed views of the pious bishop of Nazian- \nzum, may have occasioned such expressions; yetw^ere \nthey not the less founded in truth. Chrysostom ob- \nserved,"" that bishops w^ere superior to presbyters only \nin ordination. And Jerom asks, "w hat does a bishop, \nordination excepted, which a presbyter does not." \xc2\xb0 \nThey both speak of ordination, as it was in their own \nday, resting upon custom, and canons, established as \nlaws of the empire, and not of ordination, as it had \nbeen left by the apostles. The former, in his flourishes, \noften accommodated the Scriptures to the usages of \nhis own day ; whilst the latter, equally favorable to \necclesiastical power, but of more extensive learning, \nand knowledge of history, has disclosed the same view \nof these things, which the truth still exhibits; "that a \npresbyter was the same as a bishop, and that the \nchurches were governed by a common council of \npresbyters, but afterwards it was decreed throughout \nthe world, that one, chosen from the presbyters, should \nbe placed over the rest."? The evidence of these \nthings has survived to this day ; the numerous elForts \nto destroy it, and establish the contrary, notwithstand- \ning. If the oflices were one, they required but one \nordination. \n\nThe sum is, that w^hen the extraordinary officers, the \napostles and evangelists, passed away, they left only \n\nn Horn. 1 Tim. iii. 8. \n\n\xc2\xb0 Epist. 85. ad Evagrium. \n\nP *\'Idem est ei-go presbyter, qui et episcopus \xe2\x80\x94 communi pres- \nbyterorum concilio ecclesiae gubernabantur. Postquam vero in toto \norbe decretum est, ut unus de presbyteris electus superponeretur \nceteris."\xe2\x80\x94 Hieron. op. Tom. vi. 198. The *\' decretum est" he \nexplains by "eonsuetudine."\xe2\x80\x94 p. 199. Augustine refers the su- \nperiority also to custom \xe2\x80\x94 "ecclesia" usus obtinuit, episcopatus \npresbyteris major sit. Tom. ii. Epist. ad Hier. He also asks \n"Quid est enim episcopus, nisi primus presbyter ?" Tom, iv. 780. \n\nv2 \n\n\n\n234 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT, &C. \n\npresbyters and deacons in the churches : the duties and \npovv^ers of v^hom were perspicuously detailed in the \nNew Testament. Ordinations were consequently of \nthose two kinds only, both of which were to be per- \nformed by the presbyters of the churches respectively. \nOrdination communicated no gift, virtue, or right ; but \nmerely designated the person as solemnly appointed to \nthe work attached to such office in the sacred word: \nneither the truth nor the efficacy of the gospel, nor the \nvalidity nor utility of its ordinances, depending upon \neither the internal call, or the external commission. \nBut although the ordination, which now adds the epis- \ncopal authority to the office of a presbyter, and is sup- \nposed to confer on the bishop the sole right to ordain, \nis merely founded on custom, and supported by eccle- \nsiastical canons, and imperial decrees; and not by \nscriptural authority ; and notwithstanding the ordina- \ntion of lay elders is a still more modern invention, and \nwholly unknown to ancient Christians, yet may salva- \ntion be obtained, and the gospel faithfully preached \nunder any form of church government. \n\n\n\nSECTION XXIV \n\n\n\nTHE INTRODUCTION OF LAY ELDERS BY CALVIN. \n\nNo instance of a lay presbyter occurs in the history of the church before \nthe Reformation. \xe2\x80\x94 They had no place among Catholics. \xe2\x80\x94 The Culdees \nof Scotland and Ireland were Catholics. \xe2\x80\x94 The Syrian Chiistians were \nepiscopal, and were planted in the fourth century ; the Vallenses or Pied- \nmontese, the persecuted Bohemians and Moravians, and Waldenses of \nFrance, v^ere all Catholics, and as really Episcopalian as the Eastern \nand Western churches. \xe2\x80\x94 They were introduced by Calvin as a compro- \nmise, under the name of inspectors, and quasi presbyters, as a check upon \nthe clergy ; but reaUy to secure a majority on the Protestant side, in their \nnew consistory at Geneva, where the Catholic clergy had defeated his efforts \nto reform, by their numbers. \xe2\x80\x94 How the expedient was successively adopted \nin other cantons, France, Netherlands, Scotland, and finally in America, \nin 1788. \xe2\x80\x94 But still many churches deny any scriptural warrant, and do as \nthey always have done, choose and ordain deacons, and call them elders. \n\nWhen they who compose, execute the laws, their \nown practice, under the rules they have indited, is the \nfairest criterion of interpretation. If lay presbyters \nhad no existence in the first ages, commencing in the \ndays of the apostles, and extending through four cen- \nturies ; there is more than violent presumption, there \nis the strongest negative evidence, that they rest nei- \nther on precept nor example, in the church of Christ. \n\nThe government of the Christian church, from the \ndeath of the last apostle, unto that of the first Leo, \nafter whom no change obtained, until the Reforma- \ntion, has been detailed ; that of the Waldenses, par- \nticularly investigated ; and the common mistake \nwith respect to their government exposed. They \nwere covertly episcopal, though, after Claude, not \npapal ; but never presbyterial, prior to the Helvetic \nabjuration of popery. \n\n\n\n236 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nThe Culdees, Colidei, worshippers of God, of Scotland \nand Ireland, the Scotia of ancient writers, have been \npassed in silence, because modern ideas of them rest \nonly in vague traditions and opinions. The Celtic \nlanguage had no alphabet. The Scots have no his- \ntory, written within a thousand years of the Christian \nera ; and little can be ferreted out of foreign authors. \nA sentence is found in Tertullian, and another in \nProsper ; both uncertain. Gildas of England, A. D. \n560, represents them as episcopal. The earliest pe- \nriod assigned to the gospel among them by Bede of \nof 730, was, when it was every where episcopal. \nTheir oldest historian w^as an arch-deacon of St. An- \ndrews, in the eleventh century ; their second was of \nthe thirteenth. Both are lost. Hector Boethius, quot- \ned by Blondel and Selden, has been convicted by \nLloyd of disingenuousness. The credulity of these \nwriters, as well as of Buchanan and Knox, is on this \npoint visible. Let their veracity remain unimpeached ; \nbelief is not knowledge, and neither can their offer, \nnor could our reception of it as testimony, make it \ntruth. The Culdees who were removed from Aber- \nnethy to St. Andrews, were monks ; and such were \nthose at Armagh in Ireland. They may have been \nclerical, since in each place they elected arch-bishops; \nbut they were Catholic, for they appealed to Rome. \nColumba, also, the apostle of thePicts, was, according \nto Bede, " a monk in priest\'s orders," and planted \nmonasteries in Ireland and Britain. \n\nThe Syrian Christians, the Culdees, and the Wal- \ndenses, were all of episcopal origin. Old men have \nlived in every age, whose prudence and experience \nhave been brought into requisition ; but of presbyters \nwithout authority to preach, neither a word nor an \nexample is found, from the demise of the last apostle, \nunto the Reformation in Switzerland; they neither \nexisted in the original form of government, nor in the \nsecondary, which was parochial episcopacy ; nor in \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 287 \n\nthat which absorbed the rest, the diocesan, which be- \ncame, so far as we yet know, Hterally Cathohc. \n\nSuch was Christendom until the period of the Refor- \nmation. The Eastern church speaks for itself. Rome \nhad been sacked in 1527, and the pope captured; also, \nCharles V. as well as Francis I. had defied the enmity \nof the court of Rome ; nevertheless, they were both \nintolerant Papists, and maintained and enforced \nepiscopal government. In England, the power of the \npope had been aboHshed by parliament in 1532, yet the \ndoctrines and ecclesiastic government, in other re- \nspects, remained the same. James V. then reigned \nin Scotland, and died in 1542, a devoted Catholic, \nleaving his kingdom under papal administration. The \nReformation commenced in Germany in 1517. The \nprotestation of Saxony, Hesse, Anhalt, and fourteen \ncities, against the violent measures of the diet at Spice, \nwas signed in 1529. The Augsburg confession was \nmade and condemned in 1530.. The Protestant de- \nfensive league was entered into at Smalkald in 1531. \nBut it was the papal, not the episcopal government, \nthat had as yet been renounced. In Switzerland, in \n1308, three cantons confederated: they afterwards \nsubdued two others, and placed them on equal terms. \nIn 1332, Lucerne acceded to the confederacy. In \n1353, Berne and Zug joined them. In 1383, they \nsustained themselves against the duke of Austria. In \n1471, they received the Grisons. In 1481, Friburg \nand Soleure, in 1501, Basil and Schafthausen, and \nin 1513, Appenzel were admitted. In the battle of \nNancy, they defeated and slew Charles the bold. \n\nFrom 1526, when Zuinghus,\' the Swiss reformer, \nwas excommunicated by a Catholic diet, unto the au- \ntumn of 1531, when his death w^as achieved, he offer- \ning himself a victim in defence of liberty of conscience \nand the cause of the Reformation, the cantons of Zu- \nrich and Berne, with the towns of Basil and SchafT- \nhausen, maintained an unremitting struggle against \n\n\n\n238 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nthe intolerance of five Catholic cantons, which thoser, \nwho were neutral, were unable to repress. But al- \nthough Zurich and Berne, and Basil, and Schaffhau- \nsen, had abolished popery, and church temporahties \nwithin their territories, they had neither removed the \nsubordination of ministers, nor created new offices in \nthe church. At length, peace was restored, because \ntheir existence as free states was at last seen to depend \nupon their confederacy; and each was to adopt and \nmaintain its own form of government, both civil and \necclesiastical; and public safety to be bartered away \nno more for religious predilections. \n\nCalvin, passing by Geneva, in August, 1536, on his \nway northward, was importuned by some of the \nclergy, who were favorable to the reformation, to re- \nmain, and aid them in preaching, and to become a \nreader in divinity. \n\nThe season was favorable, the rulers and people \nhaving been exasperated by the conspiracy of their \nbishop with the duke of Savoy against their liberties ; \nwho, being chargeable also with crimes of a private \nnature, bad fled away a few months before. Although \nthe preachers of Geneva, as well as Calvin, and all the \npeople, were Catholic, they were not, in fact, under \nepiscopal government ; and their submission to their \npastors rested merely on persuasion. Of the six min- \nisters of Geneva, two only were favorable to the doc- \ntrines of the reformation, and confidants of Calvin ; \nthe rest being licentious, and inclined in heart to \npopery. But a majority of the people were, from ob- \nvious motives, haters of ecclesiastical fraud, sensuality, \nand oppression. In this state of vacillation and licen- \ntiousness, Calvin adopted the expedient of preparing \nan outline of doctrine and discipline, to be sworn to \nand subscribed, as an antidote against popery. The \nobligation of an oath to adhere to the rules and doc- \ntrines advised by a minority of the ministers, was a \nperilous, but decisive measure. Nevertheless, it was \ntaken by a majority in the summer of 1537. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 239 \n\n\' In the next year, Farell, Calvin, and Corald, aiming \nat a stricter discipline, declared they could not ad- \nminister the supper to people so irregular, and discor- \ndant among themselves. Advantage was immediately \ntaken by the Catholics, and, within two days, a gene- \nral council having been convened, they voted, that \nthose three ministers should leave the city. \n\nCalvin went to Zurich, and afterwards to Strasburg, \nwhere he became the pastor of a French church. \nCorald died. Farell retired to Neufchatel, and never \nconsented to be again a minister at Geneva. Not- \nwithstanding his exile, Calvin answered the letter of \nthe bishop of Carpentras, written against the Reforma- \ntion at Geneva ; but would not hear the recantations \nof the Genevese. He refused to become a cypher \namong colleagues, and a people incompetent to dis- \ncriminate betw^een the discipline of Christ and papal \ntyranny.^ He attended by appointment the confe- \nrences at Worms and Ratisbon, with Melancthon and \nothers. Interest had been made in behalf of Geneva, \nand he was there pressed by the heads of the Reforma- \ntion to return to that canton, as a thing indispensable. \nHe yielded, upon condition he should not be interrupt- \ned in ecclesiastical discipline.\'^ Accordingly, in Sep- \ntember, 1541, he resumed his labors at Geneva, still \nsubject to the claims of Strasburg, as Viret was to \nBerne, but the canton soon obtained his release. His \ncolleagues professing reconciliation, and reaching out \nthe hand, were suffered to remain ; yet were they an \nincumbrance, possessing neither zeal nor learning. \n\nTo secure the ascendency of himself and Viret \nover their co-presbyters, was the first necessary ef- \nfort. " I detailed," he says, " to the senate my labor ; \n\na \xe2\x80\x94 "Locum sine ulla auctoritate teneam? Quid enim faciemus? \nUnde sumemus exordium, si res collapsas velimus instaurare? Si \nverbum fecero quod displicuerit, mox sileutium imperabunt." \nCalv. epist. 12. \n\n^ \xe2\x80\x94 *\' Suo ipsl judicio obstricti erunt, ne reclament amplius, aut \nquicquam ad ordinem nostrum turbandum moveant." Epist. 25. \n\n\n\n240 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nI showed them that the church could not stand, unless \na certain form of government were appointed, Such \nas is prescribed to us in the word of God, and was ob- \nserved in the ancient church. I then touched certain \nheads, whence they might understand what I wished. \nBut because the whole matter could not be explained, \nI begged that there should be given us those who \nmight confer with us. Six were appointed to us. \nArticles will be written concerning the whole govern- \nment of a church, which we shall afterwards lay be- \nfore the senate."^ \n\nThe colleagues of Calvin and Viret " openly assent- \ned, because they were ashamed to contradict in mat- \nters so public," but they secretly persuaded the sena- \ntors not to abandon their power. They sought to \n" escape that discipline and order which they could \nnot bear," and to " weaken the authority of the \nchurch."\'^ \n\nBefore this proposition, no canton in Switzerland \nhad, so far as is known, even the idea of a lay officer \nin the church, but every presbyter and every deacon \nwas a preacher of the gospel. This reference was, \nnevertheless, not wholly without a precedent; for, in \n1532, a committee had been appointed by parliament \nin England, half laymen and half ecclesiastics, with \nHenry VIII. at its head, to dec de upon certain eccle- \nsiastical constitutions, which were alleged to involve \ntemporal rights, and subject them to spiritual cen- \nsures. \n\nThe committee at Geneva reported; laws were \nprescribed; and a constitution instituted by the Gene- \nral Council, on the 20th November, 1541. The con- \nsistory was to contain a double number of laymen, \nchosen annually ; that is, at first it consisted of the six \nministers, two laymen from the lesser senate, or coun- \ncil of twenty-five; and ten from the greater, or \n\ne Epist. 50. d Epist. 54. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES, 241 \n\ncouncil of two hundred ; one of the Syndics presid- \ning.^ \n\nThat Calvin did afterwards attempt to justify the \nreception of lay presbyters, from the authority of the \nScriptures, his writings evmce. It is perfectly clear, \nnevertheless, that it was adopted at first by him as an \nexpedient for reducing the church at Geneva to a \nstate of discipline, which should secure the reforma- \ntion at that place. He probably preferred the name \nconsistory, because the judicatory w^as composed of \npresbyters and laymen ; for since ordination is by lay- \ning on of the hands of the presbytery, if those laymen \nwere members of a presbytery, then they must impose \nhands, and give an authority which they possessed \nnot. As if apprehensive, also, of the impropriety of \ndenominating men presbyters who had received no \nordination, he called the-m Inspectors ; and such they \nreally were, not as sometimes it is explained, of the \nmorals of the people, but evidently of the designs of \nthe clergy, whose bishop had, within one year before \nthe arrival of Calvin, committed treason against the \ncanton, from a desire to bring them back to the chains \nof popery. \n\nSoon after he had gained a consistory, Calvin \nwrites, "Now we have a judgment of presbyters, such \nas it is, and a form of discipline, such as the infirmity \nof the times could bear."^ \n\ne \xe2\x80\x94 "Non solos verbi ministros sedere judices in consistorlo; \nsed numerum duplomajorem, partim ex minori senatu, ex deLectis \nsenioribus esse, ut vocant, partim ex majore diligi, ad hsec unum \nfere ex syndicis prsesidere." Epist. 167". ^\'Deliguntur quotannis \nduodecem seniores; nempe ex minori senatu dno, reliqui ex ducen- \ntis, sive sint indig-enae sive ascriptitii cives. Qui probe et fideliter \nmunere suo perfuncti sunt, loco non moventur; nisi, &c. Ante- \nquara ab electione sua sedeant, eorum nomina publice eduntur, ut \nsiquis cos indlg-nos cog-noverit mature denunceat. " Epist, 302. \nSouthey, in \'\'The Book of the Church," 2d vol. p. 293, says, \n** Calvin himself" was \'\'perpetual president;" an error perfectly \nin character for a mere compiler. \n\nf "Nunc habemus qualecunque presbyterorum judicium, et \nformam disciplinae qualem ferebattemporum infirmitas," Epist. 54. \n\nw \n\n\n\n242 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nThe presbyters here intended were the preachers, \nfor he then thought of no others, and represents that \nhe had succeeded in obtaining a tribunal, in which the \nsentence of a presbytery might be judicially given, \naccording to the original mode of ecclesiastical trials \namong the early Christians; nevertheless, he qualifies \nhis representation by the words " such as it is," not \n" such as they are," for the judgment to be rendered \nby the presbyters would be under the control of the \nduplicate rates of lay members in the consistory. Of \nthis Calvin had, nevertheless, no reason to complain ; \nfor what could he have effected without laymen, when \nthe major number of the clergy were really Catholic, \nand hostile to a reformation, in doctrines, discipline, \nand manners? They had caused his banishment, when \nhis clerical minority was greater. They were secretly \nopposed to his return ; and even at the time of their \npublic gratulations, resisted clandestinely the new \ngovernment, " as rigid, tyrannical, and contrary to the \npractice of the other churches, which governed with- \nout such articles." \n\nThe people were suspicious, for they had learned \nby experience to be jealous of clerical power, and \nwere disposed to weaken it,^^ alleging that " Moses, a \nsecular prince, had prescribed to Aaron, and David to \nthe priests." So arduous was the work of reforma- \ntion at Geneva, that Calvin declared that without \nViret he could not preserve that church.\'^ \n\nIn 1553, a question arose upon their articles of \nagreement; the senate claiming an appellative juris- \ndiction in all causes decided by the consistory ; but \nthe original intention was rnerely to secure, in certain \ncases, the intervention of civil authority. One Ber- \ntelier had been suspended from the communion by \n\n\n\n? \xe2\x80\x94 "T.aici \xe2\x80\x94 in poteslate poslti, si quando possint) nos, qui \nyerbo prosumus, auctoritatemque nostrara labefaclare. Epist. 47. \n\nl\xc2\xbb *\' Si me Viretus auferatur prorsiis peril, nee hanc, ecclesiam \nsalvam relinere potero." Epist. 39. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 243 \n\nthe consistory. He complained to the senate, who \nheard the reasons of the sentence, and confirmed it. \nWithin half a year, he applied to them again for res- \ntoration. Calvin was again heard. But the senate \nrestored the offender. Calvin declared that he pre- \nferred resignation to compliance. \n\nThe senate of Geneva, in compromise, asked the \nadvice of the senate of Zurich, on three questions: \nthe first was concerning excommunication ; the se- \ncond, w^hether it could not be exercised in some other \nmanner than by a consistory? and the third was for \nadvice how to act. To these it was answered by the \nother senate \xe2\x80\x94 "That they had heard of the consisto- \nrial rules of the church at Geneva, acknowledged \nthem to be pious, and near to the prescript of the \nword of God ; and, therefore, could not advise a \nchange, especially at that period."^ That the pastors \nof the Protestant churches at Zurich, Berne, Schaflf- \nhausen, and Basil, considered themselves to be deeply \nInterested, at that time, in supporting Calvin, and ob- \ntaining the approbation of their sena^tes., appears by \ntheir letters. \n\nIn 1554, he observed \xe2\x80\x94 " That the conflict was over, \nand peace restored ; after the church at Geneva had \nfluctuated, like Noah\'s ark upon the waters," yet that \nhe was still apprehensive." That when invited into \nthe public assembly, he had freely forgiven every one \nwho had repented; but that he, being but one of the \nconsistory, did not arrogate the right of representing \nthe church."\'^ \n\nCalvin prevailed to establish an order of govern \nment, as nearly approximating the original form, as \n\n\n\ni \xe2\x80\x94 \'* Audlvisse nos de legibus ecclesix consistorialibus, et ag- \nnoscere illas pias esse, et accedere ad verbi Dei prsescriptum: \nideoque non videi-i admittendum, ut per innovationem mutentur, \nhoc pratsertira seculo," &c. Epist. 165. \n\nk \xc2\xab\' Tandem hue ventum est, ut inter se omnes reconciharen- \ntur," \xe2\x80\x94 "Acris erat dimicatio,\xe2\x80\x94 brevi tamen rursus certaiidum \nerit." Epist. 171. \n\n\n\n244 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nthe dissolute morals, and fixed prejudices of the Gene- \nvege against ecclesiastical tyranny, would allov^. \n\nOf the original parity of presbyters, Calvin could \nnot have been ignorant ; into that state the church of \nGeneva had providentially fallen by their abandon- \nment of papal authority, and by the flight of their \nbishop. Of a re-establishment of episcopacy no one \nappears to have thought ; nor did there occur a sylla- \nble about an inferior order of presbyters. He could \nhave seen nothing of the kind in any Christian writer \nbefore his day.^ The introduction of laymen into \nthe church of Geneva, thus originated, not from a \nprevious design to introduce an inferior kind of pres- \nbyters, but from the exigencies of their condition. \nThe success of the expedient, led others in similar \ncircumstances, to the adoption of the same measure. \nCould they have so far counteracted the influence \nof the customs then prevalent, as to have separated \nthe idea of a preacher from that of a deacon, and dis- \ntinguished their coadjutors by this name, instead of \nthat of inspectors, they had not erred: but dropping \nthat office into practical oblivion, the next effort ap- \npears to have been, to justify what they had done ; \nand as this task naturally devolved upon the inventor, \nso no man was better quahfied to essay its accom- \nplishment, than Calvin. \n\nThe first imitators of his consistorial government, \nwere the neighboring cantons. He claimed his own \n\n\n\n1 In his Institutes he speaks of but one order. Lib.iv. c. iv. 1. \n*^ Ex or dine presbyterorum partim eligebantur pastores et doc- \ntores: reliqua pars censurse morum et correctionibus prxerat.^* \nBut in his commentaries, which he wrote in 1556, he says: (1 Tim. \nV. 17) \xe2\x80\x94 " Sane expopulo dehgebantur graves et probati homines, \nqui una cum pastoribus communi consilio et authoritate ecclesia, \ndisciplinam administrarent, ac essent quasi censores moribus cor- \nrigendis." "Hunc morem Ambrosius absolevlsse conqueritur," \n&c. Ambros. Oper. torn. iii. p. 276. But the writer (Hilary \nthe deacon) is speaking only of old age, in both sexes as honora- \nble; and that, both in the synagogue and church, nothing was wont \nto be done without the advice of the Seniors. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 245 \n\ninvention, when a church sought his advice, upon the \nform they had taken from him."" The clergy of \nBasil desired the same defence, which Calvin had \nmade the condition of his return to Geneva. After \nthe experiment had proved successful, Schaffhausen, \nZurich, and Berne, adopted forms of church govern- \nment of a kindred nature. \n\nThe Scottish reformer visited Geneva in 1554, and \nbecame a disciple of Calvin. Among the exiles \nboth at Frankfort and Geneva, Knox used, " The or- \nder of Geneva." \n\nIn 1559, he left Geneva for the last time. In 1560, \nhe was appointed, with others, to report in writing a \nbook for common order and uniformity in religion, \nfor the church of Scotland. \n\nIn January following, the first book of discipline \nwas approved conditionally by the Secret Council, \nand adopted in practice in the church, but was never \nformally established by an act of parliament. The \nsuperintendents were temporary officers, subject to \nthe presbyteries, and without the claim either of dig- \nnity or permanency; the form was, therefore, mainly \npresbyterian, but rejected imposition of hands in or- \ndination. In 1562, the session of Edinburgh contained \ntwelve elders, and sixteen deacons ; the latter of \nwhom were allowed to teach. The first was super- \nseded by the second book of discipline, which restored \nimposition of hands in the ordination of preachers, and \nreduced deacons to their original duties. The second \nwas agreed on by the General Assembly in 1578, and \nwas, as well as the assembly itself, established by act \nof Parhament, at Edinburgh, in June, 1592. Thus \nwas the office of lay elders brought from Geneva to \nScotland. \n\nWhether Calvin " aimed at nothing else than ren- \ndering the government, discipline, and doctrine of Ge- \n\n\xc2\xbb\xc2\xbb "Certe nimix esset impudentize, idipsum improbare in vobis, \nquo nos tanquara bono et salutari utimur." Epist. 55, \nw2 \n\n\n\n246 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nneva, the mould and rule of imitation to the reformed \nchurches throughout the world," as Mosheim alleges, \nit is not necessary here to affirm ; but that his learn- \ning and talents rendered his example in church gov- \nernment conspicuous, and gained him an influence in \ndistant countries co-extensive v^^ith the Reformation, \nis certain. \n\nGeneva and Lausanne, from their contiguity to \nFrance, so greatly influenced the work of reforma- \ntion in that kingdom, that so early as 1550, the re- \nformed societies of that country were generally in \ncommunion with the church of Geneva, and had \nadopted the doctrines of Calvin. The Gallic confes- \nsion, exhibited to Charles IX. in 1561, thus expresses \ntheir views : " We believe, that the true church ought \nto be governed by that discipline which our Lord Je- \nsus Christ has decreed ; namely, that there should be \nin it pastors, presbyters or seniors, and deacons ; that \npurity of doctrine may be preserved, vices restrained, \nthe poor and others in affliction provided for," &c. \xc2\xb0 \nIn that same year, Charles IX. wrote to the council \nof Geneva, complaining of their having received and \nfostered the enemies and disturbers of France. \n\nCalvin and his colleagues were for that cause sum- \nmoned before them. They acknowledged, that the \npastors of the canton had sent pious men to regulate \nthe churches in France, but upon their solicitation, \nand not to sow trouble. Also, Calvin professed \nhimself ready to answer before the king ; but the \nmatter v/as not prosecuted further. Nevertheless, his \nletters show an extensive influence upon the reforma- \ntion in France. \n\nIn the next century, when the subject of church \ngovernment was better understood, the churches \nwere left by the acts of the synod of Charenton in \n1645, to their choice on the subject of elders. "We \n\nn D. XXIX. \xe2\x80\x94 \'*In ea sint pastores, presbyteri she seniores, et \ndiaconi," &c. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAJf CHURCHES. 247 \n\nagree the office of deacon is of divine appointment, \nand that it belongs to their office to receive, lay out, \nand distribute the church\'s stock to its proper use, by \nthe direction of the pastor, and the brethren, if need \nbe. And whereas divers are of opinion, that there \nis also the office of ruling elders, who labor not in \nword and doctrine, and others think otherwise, we \nagree, that this difference make no breach among \nus."\xc2\xb0 \n\nCalvin\'s discipline spread from France to the Neth- \nerlands. For these churches, when scattered by per- \nsecution, held a synod at Emden in 1569, at which it \nwas agreed \xe2\x80\x94 " That in the French congregations, the \nGeneva catechism might be held ; and in the Dutch, \nthat of Heidelberg." Also, they declared that, " No \nchurch shall have, or exercise dominion over another, \nand no minister, elder, or deacon, shall bear rule over \nothers of the same degree ;" which is Calvin\'s order. \n\nThe first presbytery erected in England, was con- \nvened in 1572, when eleven elders were chosen, and \ntheir proceedings were entitled, " The orders of \nWardsworth ;" imitating the style of the order of the \nchurch at Geneva. \n\nThese Presbyterians chiefly consisted of exiles, \nwho had returned from Geneva, Frankfort, &c. to \nEngland, after the death of the bloody Mary ; and \nconformed more nearly to the order of Calvin than \nKnox w^as able to do ; having neither Synods nor a \nGeneral Assembly. The Independents, whether origi- \nnating in England in the end of the sixteenth, or in \nHolland early in the seventeenth century, and at \nwhatsoever period they adopted their charitable regu- \nlation, that neither the adoption nor rejection of the \noffice of lay elders, should make any breach among \nthem, have certainly, so far, yielded to the influence of \nthe polity of Calvin. \n\nIn the Presbyterian church in the United States, a \n\no Quick, p. 472. Third synod, &c. ch. xiii. s, 5. \n\n\n\n248 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nsimilar compromise has obtained ; and every congre- \ngation is at liberty to have elders, or deacons, or both ; \nand to elect them in their own way. The ordination \nof whom is without imposition of hands, because it is \nso in Scotland ; and Knox omitted the rite because he \nobserved it w^as so at Geneva ; or the novelty of such \nan ordination, like that of a presbyter, to constitute \nhim a bishop, might have produced the delay in its \nadoption, lest suspicion and investigation should have \nbeen awakened ; and the authority and previous ex- \nample should have been demanded. In which event, \nthe one could no more be supported than the other. \nIf they be presbyters, they should receive ordination \nby a presbytery. But we charge them as deacons, \nand they do the work of such. Yet even thus, the \nmode of their ordination in the Presbyterian church \nmerits a revision. \n\nIt has now fairly resulted from this investigation, \nthat a special form of ecclesiastical government was \nadopted by the Genevese at the Reformation ; not \nbecause it was found by Scriptural precept or example \nto have been the original apostolic scheme ; but be- \ncause the nearest approach to the true one, which the \npeculiar circumstances of the canton, and the exigen- \ncies of the times would admit. The learned and pru- \ndent reformer has shown, that he did wish a presbyte- \nry, but a consistory w^as all that he could obtain ; for \nthe reformation of the canton was seen to be imprac- \nticable, unless his party could have the ascendency in \nclerical councils; and this was impossible, w^ithout the \nintroduction of laymen. Yet this design was not \nprominent ; they were associated as inspectors of the \nconduct, and so as a defence against the wiles of the \necclesiastics. \n\nHad Calvin justified the expedient by the necessity \nof the case, he would have betrayed his design, and \nprevented others from the benefit of his example ; but \nhe gave ease to his conscience, and plausibility to his \nconduct, by seeking a defence from the Scriptures. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 249 \n\nAnd his opinion was readily adopted, because eccle- \nsiastics, a few reformers excepted, were every where \ninimical to the Reformation, and disposed to rivet the \nchains of papal despotism. It was natural, therefore, \nthat "the pattern on the mount," as it has been called, \nwhich had proved so successful at Geneva, should be \nfollowed by others, and become a similar defence \nagainst ecclesiastical fraud and oppression. \n\n\n\nTO J. L. \n\n\n\nThe argument from the Scriptures has not yet ar- \nrived; matters of fact, accruing since the sacred \nrecord, have been the inquiry. Hilary\'s words were \nadduced only as testimony of the state of the church \nthen present : his opinion of things prior to his time \nwould be mere hearsay. When we take up the holy \nWord, it wih speak for itself; no interpreter can be \ntrusted, but Hooker will not be forgotten on Rom. xii. \n7, 8. The fathers are miserable commentators; \nHilary not excepted, though without lawn-sleeves ; \nyet are they, from the necessity of the case, competent \nwitnesses of facts, which were under their own sight \nand hearing. \n\nHilary the Younger, represented the same kind of \nseniors to be in every nation, and in the synagogue, \nwhich were in the church ; (Ambros. tom. iii. p. 276 ;) \nthey were consequently not officers. Also, by censur- \ning, not the omission of an office, but that pride, \nwhich, by neglect of consulting the old men, suffered \nthe custom to become obsolete, he supposed the seniors, \nof whom he spoke, still to exist, who were, of course, \nlaymen. J. L. admits, that these seniors were " not a \nthird order in the church," and J. P. W. asks no more. \nThat " these elders \xe2\x80\x94 were the deacons," J. L. is at \n\n\n\n250 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT, &C. \n\nliberty to prove, if he can; could he be successful, the \ndiscovery v^^ould be some excuse for all of us in the \nPresbyterian church, who ordain and charge men as \ndeacons, because the w^ord is so ; and afterv^ards call \nthem elders, because such is the custom. \n\nWhat J. L. demands has been already shown.P The \nexaltatio7i of servants, Biaxovov, to the office of teachers ; \nand the v^isdom of Calvin in obliterating, rather than \ndegrading, deacons ; v^^hen, availing himself of the an- \narchy of his canton, he placed laymen as inspectors, hut \nreally for protectors, in his consistory, have already \npassed in detail. \n\nP ** Aiuicovot StSoua-iv iKAo-roD n-av TTdtpovlav jUiJctXei^uv etTro <tov \ni;)(^Apt(r1)iQivloc dplov,\'^ &c. Justin Martyr, Apol. i. \xc2\xa7 86. By the \nsynod of Ancyra, A. D. 314, it was decreed, that those deacons \nwho succumbed to persecution, should not uplov yj ttoth^iov ctv!t<psgiiv \nIt Kiipva-a-iiv, &c. Canon II. *\'Diaconi ergo ordo est, accipere a \nsacerdote et sic dare plebi." Ambros. torn, iv. p. 779. \n\n\n\nSECTION XXV. \n\n\n\nThe priiflltive state of the church having heen sought from credible vntnessesqf \ntJie facts, tmthout regard to their opinions, or hearsays; and the changes \nviarhed from the commencement of the second to the termination of the fifth \ncentury, and having seen the successive introduction of parochial and dioce- \nsan episcopacy, the canonical ordination and human authority of the latter, \nand the creation of quasi presbyters by Calvin, we are prepared better to un- \nderstand the New Testament by the rejection of these novelties. But bishops \nare by some supposed to be the successors of the evangelists, and Timothy is \nmade bishop of Ephesus. \xe2\x80\x94 Flow Timothy received authority and for what \npurpose. An evangelist before he came to Ephesus. He was left by Paul \nat Ephesus, the last time Paul was there, Timothy having returned thither af- \nter Paul\'s first letter to the Corinthians. Timothy left Ephesus after or- \ndaining presbyters there, and came to Paul in Macedonia, before his return \nto Jerusalem arid first imprisonment. The first letter to Timothy was before \nhe left Ephesus to go to Paul in Macedonia, and instructed him in choosing \nand ordaining the presbyters. He accompanied Paul to Jerusalem and \nRome, where he was during the Apostle\'s first imprisonment. The second \nletter to Timothy was written during the second imprisonment, and disco- \nvers Hiat Timothy was not then at Ephesus; it calls him to Rome; and it \nno where appears that Timothy ever returned to Ephesus after ordaining \nthe elders there. \n\n\n\nThe facts in the history of the church, which might \naid us in deciding upon the nature of the offices men- \ntioned in the New Testament, having been investigat- \ned ; we are prepared to inquire into the written word, \non the matters of church government. Ahhough the \nparticular form is but a mean to an end, and of no vi- \ntal importance ; yet it is expedient to defend the cause \nwhich God honors, against those exclusive pretensions \nwhich have been founded in usurpation.\' \n\nTwo things having been established; that episco- \npacy, whether parochial or diocesan, was not in exis- \n\n\n\n252 THE PRIMITIVE GOVEENMENT \n\ntence at the commencement of the age which next fol- \nlowed the days of the apostles, but arose afterwards \nstep by step ; and that lay presbyters were never heard \nof till necessity drove Calvin to the expedient ; they \nought to have no place in the interpretation of the \nNew Testament. \n\nBut it so happens, that the conformity in duties be- \ntween the diocesan bishop and the apostle and primi- \ntive evangelist ; and the contrast of the oversight of \nan individual church by its presbyters, with an episco- \npate in after ages ; are now adopted as arguments to \nprove, contrary to the verity of facts, that diocesan \nbishops are actually the successors in, office of the \napostles and evangelists, and not of the presbyters in \nthe churches. Thus Timothy and Titus are exhibited \nas scriptural examples of bishops, though never once \ndesignated by that name in the sacred records. Titus \nis described by Paul as his ^^ partner\'\'^ and ^\'fellow-la- \nborer,"^ Of Timothy he also speaks, as his \'\'fellow- \nlaborer,\'" and an "evangelist."^ Their work appears \nto have been to ordain bishops, in the sense of presby- \nters. Timothy was invested with an office, "by prophe- \ncy with the imposition of the hands of the presbytery." *^ \nAnd in another epistle, Paul speaks of the "gift of God \nwhich was m him by the imposition of his hands."^ These \ntexts, we have seen, were differently understood in \nsuccessive ages, according to the progressive advances \nof episcopacy.^: \n\nThis commission was given him before Paul had \nvisited Ephesus, and without relation to the people of \none place more than another. It was in its nature uni- \nversal, extending alike to the whole church, and con- \n\n\n\n^ Koivavo? i/uo? Kctt g/f vjUAs ervvipyof. 2 Cor. viii. 23. \n\n1) "Epyov TToiiia-ov iuctyfiXKrlou. 2 Tim. iv. 5. \n\nc A/* 7r/>o<$\xc2\xab7s/*ff juilct iTTiQiiTicoi TBov X^\'?\'^^ 7rpi<r0uliptov. 1 Tim. \niv. 14. \n\nd ^cipia-fxct Tou Qicuy o ii/]iv iV (roi Six ths iTTiQio-ias "rav X^^P^^ \nfjiov. 2 Tim. i. 6. \n\ne Vide Section xxiii. \n\n\n\nOP CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 253 \n\nferring every power necessary to planting, watering, \nand governing the churches, wherever he should \ncome, if not superseded by the presence of an apostle. \n\nThe office was like those of apostle and prophet, \nextraordinary and unconnected with any particular \ncharge, Ephes. iv. 11. But in whatsoever church he \npreached, he could as evangelist ordain pastors, or \nbishops, or there was no propriety in the caution, "lay \nhands suddenly on no man." This office was superior \nto that of "pastors even teachers." \n\nEvangelists w^ere not personally instructed and com- \nmissioned by Christ ; nor had they the extraordinary \ngifts in equal extent, nor the unerring assistance, or in- \nspiration of the apostles, for the writings of Mark and \nLuke were received upon the authority of Peter and \nPaul. \n\nThat Paul and Timothy were together at Ephesus, \nand that Paul left him there when he went on some oc- \ncasion into Macedonia, may be plainly inferred from \n1 Tim. i. 3. "I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, \nwhen I went into Macedonia." The time to which \nthere is here an allusion is the more easily ascertained, \nbecause the apostle is recorded to have been twice \nonly at Ephesus; on the first occasion, he merely \ncalled on his voyage from^ Corinth and Jerusalem ; on \nthe second, he went from Ephesus into Macedonia, ac- \ncording to the words of the epistle. \n\nThat Timothy was left at Ephesus, when Paul, ex- \npelled by the riot, went into Macedonia, obtains satis- \nfactory proofs. Before he wrote his first epistle to \nthe Corinthians, Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into \nMacedonia, but he himself remained in Asia for some \ntime. Acts xix. 22. 1 Cor. iv. 17. xvi. 10. In the first \nletter to the Corinthians, which he wrote at Ephesus, \nand sent by Titus to Corinth, he mentioned his purpose \nof coming to them, but not immediately ; of which \nLuke also informs us. Acts xix. 21, and desired them, \nif Timothy came to them, 1 Cor, xvi. 10, 11, to con- \n\nX \n\n\n\n254 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nduct him forth in peace, that he might come to Paul, \nthen at Ephesus, for he looked for him, with the bre- \nthren. When he closed that letter, he was expecting \nTimothy\'s return, which that letter might also have \nhastened. Paul remained at Ephesus, on this visit, the \nspace of three years. Acts xx. 31. There is therefore \nno reason to suppose, that he was disappointed in his \nexpectation of the arrival of Timothy from Corinth at \nEphesus, before he went into Macedonia; and if so, \nhe might have left him there, as he at some period \ncertainly did. 1 Tim. i. 3. He had intended to go by \nCorinth into Macedonia, 2 Cor. i. 15, 16, but changed \nhis mind and went by Troas thither. 1 Cor. xvi. 5 ; 2 \nCor. ii. 12, 13. Whilst in Macedonia, he wrote his \nfirst letter to Timothy, for he proposed to him to re- \nmain at Ephesus until he should call there on his way \nto Jerusalem. 1 Tim. i. 3; iii. 14, 15. The words im- \nply, that Paul might tarry some time ; and that he did \nso before he went into Greece, is fairly implied in the \nexpression, "And when he had gone over those partSs \nand given them much exhortation, he came into \nGreece." Acts xx. 2. Timothy was advised, solicited, \nor besought (Ttapsxa-KTjcsa) to abide still at Ephesus, which \ngave him liberty to exercise his discretion, but several \nmotives must have influenced him to go to the apostle. \nThe enemies at Ephesus were numerous and violent; \nTimothy was young; his aflfection for Paul ardent; \nthe request of Paul that he should abide at Ephesus \nwas not peremptory ; and Paul told him he expected \nto tarry a long time. Also Timothy had been, from \ntheir commencement, familiarly acquainted with the \nchurches in Macedonia and Greece. Accordingly we \nfind Timothy in Macedonia when Paul wrote his se- \ncond epistle to the Corinthians. 1 Cor. i. 1. The \napostle went from Macedonia into Greece, Acts xx. 2, \nas he had promised in that letter, chap. xiii. 1, and \nabode there three months. Acts xx. 3. Timothy was \nwith him at Corinth, for he sends his salutations to the \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAJf CHURCHES. 255 \n\nRomans, Rom. xvi. 21, in that famous epistle written \nfrom thence.*" \n\nThat there was sufficient time for Paul to have writ- \nten from Macedonia to Timothy at Ephesus, and for \nTimothy to have spent some months at Ephesus, before \nhe came to Paul in Macedonia, appears from the time \nhe waited for Titus at Troas, 2 Cor. ii. 12, 13, his de- \ntermination not to go to Corinth till he could do it \nwithout heaviness, 2 Cor. ii. 1, his distress in Macedo- \nnia before Titus arrived, 2 Cor. vii. 5, and his success \nin raising charities for the saints in Judea, 2 Cor. viii. \n2, 3 ; ix. 4. He had intended to tarry at Ephesus un- \ntil Pentecost, 1 Cor. xvi, 8, but went sooner. Acts xx. 1. \nHe passed on to Jerusalem at another Pentecost, Acts \nXX. 16; all which time he was in Macedonia, except \nthree months. Acts xx. 3. \n\nThat Paul expected to spend so much time in Ma- \ncedonia, and Greece, may be collected from his inti- \nmation 1 Cor. xvi. 6, that he might spend the winter \nwith the Corinthian church. The apostle\'s purpose \nof saiHng from Corinth was disappointed by the insid- \niousness of his own countrymen; he therefore went \nup into Macedonia again, that he might pass over to \nTroas with his companions. Timothy was among \nthose who crossed first. Acts xx. 3, 5. Paul\'s disap- \npointment in saiHng from Corinth, and his wish to \nreach Jerusalem by Pentecost, prevented the call he \nintended at Ephesus, 1 Tim. iii. 14, 15, but he landed \nat Miletus, and sent for the elders of the church at \nEphesus. \n\nThe directions of the apostle in the third chapter of \nthe first epistle to Timothy, fairly imply that he had \nleft the church at Ephesus, according to his usual prac- \ntice, without officers ; for he gives this evangelist not \na new commission, he already had power to ordain, \nbut instructions as to the choice of bishops, that is pres- \n\nf Compare Acts xviii. 2, with Rom. xvi. 3. Tide Acts 19, xviii. \n26.1 Cor. xvi. 19. \n\n\n\n256 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nbyters, and deacons. These had been comphed with \nbefore he landed at Miletus. Acts xx. 17. This record \nof the existence of elders at Ephesus, compared with \nthe directions given to Timothy, not only renders it \nprobable that Timothy had ordained them, but fortifies \nthe presumption that the first epistle to Timothy was \nwritten in Macedonia, before this visit to Jerusalem, \nand consequently before his imprisonment. \n\nThe language "I going (rtopstjo^aro?) into Macedonia, \nbesought thee to abide still at Ephesus," did not form a \npermanent connexion between Timothy and Ephesus. \nAt the very greatest extent, the instructions given in \nthis letter w^ere of a continuance only till Paul should \ncome to him (aw^ ipz^i^^^^) 1 Tim. iv. 13; iii. 14. But it \nis certain, that Timothy did not remain at Ephesus, \ntill Paul passed on his way to Jerusalem. \n\nThe second epistle of Timothy wall prove itself writ- \nten by Paul when a prisoner at Rome; and at least es- \ntablishes the absence of the evangelist from his spirit- \nual father, at the time it was written. But he was at \nRome in the time of the first imprisonment, as has \nbeen proved by his having been joined with Paul in \nthe letters to the Colossians, Philippians and Philemon. \nDemas and Mark were also there in the first imprison- \nment, Col. iv. 10.4, but absent at the writing of the se- \ncond to Timothy. 2 Tim. iv. 10, 11. \n\nIt is therefore an error to suppose it to have been \nwritten before the epistle to the Colossians, Philippians, \nand Philemon, during the first imprisonment. Also in \n2 Tim. iv. 20, Paul tells him, Erastus abode at Corinth; \nbut this needed not to have been told to Timothy, if \nPaul meant that Erastus abode at Corinth, when he \nwent to Jerusalem, and so to Rome, for Timothy \nwas then with him, and must have known the circum- \nstance, had it been so. In Hke manner he says, ibid. \n"Trophimus have I left at Miletum, sick." But Tro- \nphimus was not left at any place on the voyage to Je- \nrusalem, for he was there and the occasion of the jea- \nlousies of the Jews. Acts xxi. 29. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 257 \n\nThese two facts, compared with this, which appears \nin the epistle, that it was written by Paul a prisoner at \nRome, afford sufficient certainty, that there was a se- \ncond imprisonment when this letter was written. \n\nBut it by no means follows, that Timothy was at \nEphesus when the second epistle was written. This \nought not to be assumed, but shown. If Timothy was \nthen at Ephesus, w^hy should he have been told. "I \nhave sent Tychicus to Ephesus?" 2 Tim. iv. 12. He \nmust have arrived at that place before the letter, and \nthe fact could have been then known. Also Tychicus \nneeded no introduction to Timothy. Had Timothy \nbeen at Ephesus, Paul would not have sent him to \nTroas, for articles he had left there. It appears more \nprobable, that Timothy was, at the time the epistle wag \nsent to him, at Troas, or in the neighbourhood of that \nplace. The salutations will not establish the destina- \ntion of the epistle. Onesiphorus resided in Asia, but \nthe particular place of his abode is not known. He \nhelped Paul both at Ephesus, and Rome. Also Aquila, \nwho had resided at Rome, at Corinth, at Ephesus, and \nagain at Rome, was a native of Pontus, on the margin \nof the Euxine. Trophimus, whom Paul had left at \nMiletum, was an Ephesian. Acts xxi. 29. Miletus \nwas near Ephesus, and Timothy would have known \nthe facts, unless Miletum in Crete was the place. \n\nIf Timothy was not at Ephesus when the second \nletter was written to him, there is no evidence of his \nbeing in that city, after Paul\'s first imprisonment. But \nif he had been at Ephesus, he must have then left it, \nthe letter calling him to Rome, and the sacred records \nspeak not of his return to that city. The second epis- \ntle assigns to Timothy no other duties than those pro- \nper to his general office of Evangelist ; and bears no \nrelation to a particular oversight of any church or \nchurches. \n\nSome writers suppose that Paul, when he landed at \nMiletus on a subsequent vovage to Jerusalem, left Ti- \n2x \n\n\n\n258 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nmothy with the elders of the church at Ephesus, "to \ngovern them in his absence." But nothing of the kind \nwas spoken on the occasion ; and instead of a tempo- \nrary absence, Paul assured the elders they should "see \nhis face no more." In 1 Tim. i. 3, it is not said, "when \nI went to Jerusalem," but expressly, \'\'I besought thee \nto abide still at Ephesus, when I went iiito Macedonia,^\' \nAlso it has been asserted, that the apostle, having \nplaced Timothy at Ephesus prior to his first imprison- \nment, \'^wrote both his epistles to Timothy while a pri- \nsoner at Rome." But Timothy was with Paul at \nRome during a part of the first imprisonment, for he \nis joined in the Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, \nand Philemon. Salutations also might have been ex- \npected in the first epistle to Timothy, had it been writ- \nten from Rome,as in those to the Philippians,Colossians, \nPhilemon, and the Hebrews. He was indeed absent \nfrom Rome during a part of the time of the first im- \nprisonment, but Paul expected his return, Heb. xiii. 23, \nand so far was he from hoping to come unto Timothy \nshortly, as expressed in 1 Tim. iii. 14, he promises, if \nTimothy come shortly to Rome, with him to visit the \nHebrews. Also it seems strange, if Timothy had been \nat Ephesus when the epistle to the Ephesians was sent \nby Tychicus, Ephes. vi. 21, that no notice whatever \nshould have been taken of the beloved youth. \n\nAnother hypothesis is, that Paul, when the Jews de- \nterred him from sailing from Corinth, and he deter- \nmined to go through Macedonia to Jerusalem, be- \nsought Timothy to abide still at Ephesus ; to which, \nwhen Timothy agreed, he went forward to Troas, \nwith Aristarchus and the rest; and whilst waiting \nthere for Paul, Timothy received the first epistle from \nthe apostle, written in Macedonia. But this is a de- \nparture from the correct meaning of the passage, \nwhich is that Paul besought Timothy rtpoffjunvat, to con- \ntimie or remain at the place where Timothy was at \nthe time he was Jius entreated. Those who went be- \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 259 \n\nfore with Timothy to Troas are represented to have \naccompanied Paul into Asia. Acts xx. 4, 5. This cir- \ncumstance renders it an improbable supposition, that \nPaul should write so long and important a letter to his \nfellow traveller, whom he must overtake in a few days; \nand wholly unaccountable, that he should say in the \nletter, 1 Tim. iii. 14, 15, "these things write I unto you, \nhoping to come unto thee shortly ; but if I tarry long," \n&c. That Paul should have thus purposed to come to \nTimothy unto Ephesus, but really at Troas; and in a \nfew weeks afterwards, without any apparent cause for \na change of views, should have said at Miletus to the \nelders of the church of Ephesus, "I know that ye all \nshall see my face no more," Acts xx. 25, exhibits a \nfluctuation approximating versatihty. If Timothy was \non this occasion left with the officers of the church at \nEphesus, and especially, if he was to be thenceforth \ntheir diocesan bishop, it is strange that not a word of \neither of those circumstances should have been men- \ntioned to those elders. But so far was the apostle from \nmentioning their subordination unto, or support of the \nauthority of young Timothy, that he enjoins them; \n"take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock over \nwhich the Holy Ghost hath made ymi sTivaxoHov^ bishops, \nto feed the church of God," &c. But as not a word is \nsaid of leaving Timothy at Miletus so it is improbable \nthat he should have parted from Paul there, because \nhe appears to have been of the company of the apos- \ntle, when he arrived at Rom.e, where he is joined with \nhim in the letters which have been mentioned. \n\nOthers allege, that Paul visited Ephesus after his \nfirst imprisonment, left Timothy there, went into Ma- \ncedonia, and from thence wrote to him his first letter. \nThey build upon the circumstances, that whilst at Rome \nhe had written to Philemon to prepare him lodgings at \nColosse; and that he had told the Philippians, by let- \nter, he trusted he should shortly come to them. \n\n\n\n260 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nThis opinion is much more respectable than either \nof the former ; and aUhough several of the fathers have \npositively asserted, v^hat is incompatible w^ith it, that \nPaul went into Spain, after his first imprisonment, ac- \ncording to his purpose expressed Rom. xv. 28, yetf \nhowever credible tJhese holy men were, their conjee* \ntures deserve often but little regard. That Paul was \nat Philippi after his imprisonment is probable, because \nhe left Erastus at Corinth. 2 Tim. iv. 20. Also he may \nhave been at Colosse, if he left Trophimus at Miletus ; \nbut the place was Miletum. ibid. He entertained a \npurpose subsequent to those, of visiting Judea with \nTimothy. Heb. xiii. 23. This may have been first ac- \ncomplished, and Timothy left in the neighbourhood of \nTroas, where he remained till the second epistle was \nsent to him. But if these purposes were effectuated, \nwhich is matter of uncertainty, there is not a word to \nprove even an intention to visit Ephesus. The letter \nto the Ephesians neither mentions Timothy, nor any \ncoming of Paul. But Tychicus, a faithful minister of \nthe Lord, and companion of the apostle was named as \nsent to them. Ephes. vi. 21. To the Ephesians Paul \nhad said, that he knew they should "see his face no \nmore," and it is no where shown that he did. The \nsupposition that nevertheless Paul afterwards went to \nEphesus with Timothy, left him there, with the request \nto tarry till he should return to him, and then went into \nMacedonia, and wrote his first epistle to Timothy, is \nentirely gratuitous and without the least reason appear- \ning in any exigencies of the Ephesian church ; which \nhad had three years of Paul\'s labors,and had been after- \nwards long blessed with the regular administration of \nthe ordinances by pastors of their own, besides help \nfrom Tychicus, and perhaps others. \n\nIf Paul constituted Timothy bishop of Ephesus, it is \nan affirmative, and ought to be proved. But Paul tells \nthe presbyters of Ephesus at Miletus that the Holy \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 261 \n\nGhost had made them bishops (ETnaxoTiovi) of that church. \nThose elders had previously received the powers \nwhich were necessary to ordaining others; on \nTimothy a similar presbytery laid their hands at his \nordination. If this circumstance will not show that \na presbytery could have ordained an evangelist, an \napostle not being present, because evangehsts were \nextraordinary officers of a higher grade ; yet it must \nprove that a presbytery have some powder to ordain. \nThey were the highest fixed officers in a church, and \nthe power of ordination was necessary to their succes- \nsion. They could not have been appointed coadjutors to \nTimothy, in the ordination of themselves. And it does \nnot appear they were ordained before the riot, when \nhe was left at Ephesus. If thus there were no officers \nin that church when Paul left it, the direction to Timo- \nthy, who was an evangelist, to ordain bishops, that is, \nelders in Ephesus, was to do no more than his duty ; \nwhich, when accomplished in any church, gave such \nbishops, or elders, power to continue the succession. \nIf the presbyters of particular churches had not the \npower of ordination, there has been no succession in \nthe church of Christ since the deaths of the apostles \nand evangelists ; for their offices expired with them \nand there were no officers of a higher order. The \noffice of Timothy was given to him prior to his \nvisiting Ephesus. The duty assigned him was af- \nterwards declared to be the work of an evangelist. \n2 Tim. iv. 5. His appointment to Ephesus was tem- \nporary, being limited, at the farthest, to the time when \nPaul should come to him; but an earlier period of its \ntermination was evidently left to his discretion, which \nhe exercised by coming to Paul into Macedonia. \nThus there was a disruption of the connexion, if any \nhad been fixed; but none such was intended; the \nepistle was neither a commission, nor an ordination, \nbut a mere letter of instruction ^ directing him in the \n\n\n\n262 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT, &C. \n\ndischarge of his high and important office of evan- \ngelist. \n\nIf Timothy returned to Ephesus from Rome, \nwhich is not recorded in the Scriptures, and died \nthere, it will not establish that he ever exercised, \nor had any other office, than that of an evan- \ngelist. \n\n\n\nSECTION XXVI \n\n\n\nTITUS WAS ALSO AN EXTRAORDINARY OFFICER, AND NOT A BISHOP \n\nOF CRETE. \n\nHe toas PauVs attendant or evangelist, before the Gospel was carried to Crete. \n\xe2\x80\x94 Apollos IS named in the epistle to Titus, but as they first saw Apollos on \nPauVs last visit to Ephesus, it was written after that visit. \xe2\x80\x94 Every move\' \nment of Paul, from the riot at Ephesus unto his first imprisonment, is given, \nand events show he did not leave him in Crete before he went to Pome. \xe2\x80\x94 His \nletters from Rome discover that Titus was not with him during his first im- \nprisonment, and of course he could not have left him in Crete on his return \nfrom Rome. \xe2\x80\x94 Titus had been with Paul at Jerusalem, but after separating \nfrom Barnabas, he was no more with Paul till his second visit to Ephesus ; \nprobably he was sent with the letter to the Galatians, and met Paul at Ephe- \nsus on his last visit there, from whence Paid sent him to Corinth, and he \ncame to Paid in Macedonia, and vms sent back to Corinth. \xe2\x80\x94 At some \nperiod after his first imprisonment., they may have gone to Crete ; and Titus \nbeing left there, received this letter as a discharge from thence, when a substi- \ntute arrived. \xe2\x80\x94 He was at Nicopolis one winter with Paul ; and the Scrip- \ntures leave him in Dalmatia. \n\n\n\nWhexY Paul and Titus first went to Crete, before \nany church had been planted on the island, Titus must \nhave been an attendant upon Paul, and a preacher, \nwithout any relation unto, or connexion with, the Cre- \ntans. Some have been of opinion, that Paul, after his \nliberation, sailed from Rome into Asia, and taking \nCrete in his way, left Titus there. But it does not \nappear, that Titus went to Rome with Paul, when he \nwas carried a prisoner to be tried by Caesar. Nor \ndo any of the letters written from Rome, during that \nimprisonment, to the Ephesians, Colossians, Phihp- \npians, or Philemon, mention Titus, or even imply that \nhe was at Rome. On the contrary, his presence with \n\n\n\n264 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMEN-T \n\nPaul is excluded by Colossians iv. 11, " These only are \nmy fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God, which \nhave been a comfort unto me;" and Titus is not \nnamed as one of them. \n\nThat Paul purposed to visit Colosse, soon after his \nliberation, appears from his letter to Philemon, ver. 22. \nBut the bespeaking of lodgings there would have been \npremature, if it had been intended consequent upon \nthe arduous labors of planting churches in Crete. The \nepistle to Philemon preceded the letter to the Hebrews ; \nin that, Timothy was joined ; in this, he is mentioned \nas absent ; " with whom if he come shortly," xiii. 23, \nPaul promised to see those to whom the letter was \nsent. He had gone, probably, to Philippi, Phil. ii. 19. \nThis purpose of visiting Judea was, therefore, after \nhis direction to Philemon to procure him lodgings at \nColosse. Accordingly, some have imagined, that \nPaul went, with Timothy and Titus, to Crete, where \nhe left Titus, and proceeded to Judea, returned \nthrough Syria and Cilicia, tarried some time at Co- \nlosse, wrote from thence to Titus in Crete to meet him \nat Nicopolis, came to Ephesus, left Timothy there, and \nproceeded to Macedonia. But neither does Titus ap- \npear to have been with Paul at Rome, during his im- \nprisonment, nor is there the least evidence that such a \njourney was ever undertaken or accomplished. It \nwas the opinion of Pool, that Paul left Titus in Crete, \nwhen he touched there a prisoner, on his passage to \nRome. But as Titus is not named in the enumeration \nof either of the companies who left Macedonia for \nJerusalem ; nor mentioned in the history of their go- \ning to, remaining at, or coming from Jerusalem ; nor \nspoken of in the account of the voyage, two years \nafterwards accomplished from Csesaria to Rome, this \nopinion seems unfounded. It does not even appear, \nthat Paul landed at Crete on that voyage. \n\nMany have thought Paul, at or prior to the period \nof his separation from Barnabas, sailed with Silas and \nTitus from Cilicia to Crete, and returning to the \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN" CHURCHES. 265 \n\nAsiatic continent, left Titus to perfect the settlement \nof the churches. But there is no hint of such a thing \nin the Acts or any of the Epistles. Yet the native \nlanguage of Titus was that of the inhabitants of Crete. \nAlso, Titus, who was in years and office older than \nTimothy, and- commanded more respect, must have \nbeen as competent for that service, as he was to settle \nthe differences in the Corinthian church, or to preach \nthe gospel among the rude inhabitants of Dalmatia. \nBut conjectures are as unprofitable, as endless. Paul \ntook Titus to Jerusalem with him and Barnabas, when \nthe exoneration of Gentile converts was determined, \nGal. ii. 1, and though a Gentile, he was not required \nto be circumcised, ver. 3. But we cannot collect \nfrom the Scriptures, that Titus was with Paul from \nthe time of his separation from Barnabas, during all \nhis travels through Asia, Macedonia, and Greece, his \nsubsequent voyage to Jerusalem, and return through \nthe Asiatic churches ; nor until he came to Ephesus, \nwhen Apollos, from Corinth, met him at that place \nBut Titus was then at Ephesus, for Paul sent him \nthence with his first epistle to the Corinthians. He \nmight have been previously sent with the epistle to \nthe Galatians, and when Paul came to them, have \ngone down with the apostle and his company to \nEphesus. \n\nThere is also great difficulty in ascertaining when \nthe epistle to Titus was written. Some place it before \nthe imprisonment of Paul, as Lightfoot, Lardner, and \nother learned critics. But though we will neither \nmark the precise time for Paul\'s going with Titus into \nCrete, nor the particular winter which they spent to- \ngether at Nicopohs after the recall of Titus from that \nisland ; yet it appears to be correct to assign them, \nand the writing of the epistle to Titus, which was not \nfrom Nicopolis, Titus iii. 12, to a period after the apos- \ntle\'s enlargement at Rome,, and prior to his return. \n\nFrom the direction. Tit. iii. 13, to bring Apollos, \nPaul was then acquainted with him, but he was not \nY \n\n\n\n266 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nprior to his second coming to Ephesus, (Acts xviii. 24 \n\xe2\x80\x94 28. xix. 1. 1 Cor. xvi. 12.) It is certain, therefore, \nthat the epistle to Titus was not v^^ritten before that \nperiod. From the apostle\'s arrival at Ephesus until \nthe termination of his first imprisonment,^ there was \nno possibility of leaving Titus in Crete, Tit. i. 5, ex- \ncept he landed a prisoner there on his voyage to Rome, \nand had Titus then with him, neither of which ap- \npears. \n\na This portion of the apostle\'s labors, being* usually misrepre- \nsented, may be understood by any who will open unto the follow- \ning" proofs: \n\nFrom Ephesus, Pavil, having sent Erastus and Timothy into \nMacedonia, Acts xix. 22; 1 Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 10, wished Apollos to \nreturn to Corinth, 1 Cor. xvi. 12, to settle the discord, 1 Cor.i. 10 \n\xe2\x80\x94 12, but he refusing, Titus was sent with the first epistle to that \nchurch, 2 Cor. ii. 13, vii. 6 \xe2\x80\x94 13. Paul remaining- at Ephesus three \nyears, Acts xx. 31, Timothy must have returned to him, 1 Cor. \nxvi. 11, where he left him, 1 Tim. i. 3, after the riot. Acts xx. 1, \nand went to Troas, expecting to meet Titus, 2 Cor. ii. 12. Al- \nthough he found an \xe2\x80\xa2\' open door\'* there, ibid. 12, he went into \nMacedonia, ibid. 13, and whilst \' \'going- over those parts," Acts \nXX. 2, Titus came to him, 2 Cor. vii, 6, and Timothy also? for he \nis joined in the second epistle to the Corinthians, c. i 1, with \nwhich Titus was sent back to Greece, 2 Cor. viii. 18. Then Paul, \nwho had intended to have gone by Corinth into Macedonia, 2 Cor. \ni. 15, 23, went from Macedonia into Greece, and abode three \nmonths, Acts xx. 2, 3, and there wrote his letter to the Romans, \nRom. XV. 25, 26. His design of going from Corinth to Judea, 2 \nCor. i. 16; Uom. xv. 31, by Ephesus, 1 Tim. iii. 14, iv. 13, being \nprevented by the Jews, Acts xx. 3, he went through Macedonia \nto Troas, ibid. 4, 5, sailed past Ephesus, called at Miletus, Acts \nXX. 16, 17, and came to Jerusalem, Acts xxi. 17. There being \napprehended, he was sent to Cxsarea, and remained two years in \nprison, till Festus came into office. Acts xxiv. 27, who sent him \nby sea to Italy, Acts xxvii. 1. The company touched at Crete, \nActs xxvii. 8, but left it, ibid. 13, 21, were wrecked on Mileta, \ndelayed three months, ibid, xxviii. 1, 11, and arrived at Rome, ver. \n16, where Paul remained a prisoner in his house for two years, \nver. 30. Here he wrote his epistle to the Philippians, Colossians, \nand Philemon, in which Timothy is joined. He also sent, at this \ntime, his letter to the Ephesians by Tychicus, Timothy having \nprobably gone to Philippi, Phil. ii. 19, is not named; but was ex- \npected when he wrote to the Hebrews, Heb. xiii. 2, 3, a little be- \nfore hlo enlargement. It is, therefore, also clear, that Paul had \nnot written his letter to Titus prior to his discharge at Rome. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 267 \n\nTitus was appointed to discharge an important \nduty, when Paul sent him to Corinth, with his first \nepistle to that church, to rectify the disorders of a con- \ngregation, which possessed high advantages for lan- \nguage, science, and polished manners, and in which \nno officers appear to have been appointed. He was \nsuccessful, and met Paul in Macedonia, to communi- \ncate the particulars of the affairs at Corinth. Being \nsent to them with the second epistle, he was follow^ed \nby the apostle in person. This confidential service, \ncompared with the circumstance, that no such apology \nwas written in behalf of Titus, as of Timothy, affords \nsome ground to presume, that Paul had previous ex- \nperience of the prudence and fidelity of Titus. \n\nThe epistle to Titus expressly limits his service in \nCrete to the arrival of a substitute, who was to be sent, \nTitus iii. 12; it can never, therefore, let us suppose it \nto have been written when it may, prove a permanent \nconnexion between this evangehst and the churches of \nCrete. \n\nAs Titus was to ordain elders in every city, it may \nbe inferred, there were none until constituted by him, \nthis being one of the things left undone, ta \'KuTiovla, \nTitus i. 5, To suppose there were, is also to conflict \nwith his practice of first planting, and afterwards or- \ndaining. But when this work had been performed, or \nprogressed in by him for some time, he was to \nmeet Paul at Nicopolis. Those whom he had ordain- \ned, and others, whom Artemas, or Tychicus, might \nafterwards commission as elders, continued, it may be \nfairly presumed, the succession of their ordinary \noffice, as every where else. \n\nIf it could be proved, that Titus died in Crete, it \nwould no more establish that he was bishop of Crete, \nthan his death at Corinth or at Dalmatia, where the \nScriptural record leaves him, (2 Tim. iv. 10,) would \nhave evinced that he was bishop of either of those \nplaces. \n\nThe verb translated " appointed," (Tiius i. 5,) is \n\n\n\n268 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nnever once used in the New Testament in the sense \nof, to ordain to an office ; but was in this instance \ndesigned to refer Titus to the particular directions \nPaul had given him, when he left him in Crete. The \napostle gave him no new commission ; he was to ex- \nercise the office, which he already had, towards any \npeople to whom he was sent. \n\nThe apostles received an extraordinary commis- \nsion, which may be said to have virtually contained \nall the offices, which have been legitimately distin- \nguished by the church since the day of Pentecost ; and \nthus they were the predecessors of all other church \nofficers. This high commission was necessarily limit- \ned to them, (2 Cor. i. 15. Gal. i. 12. 1 Cor. ix. 1.) And \nthere is little more propriety in bringing the apostolic \noffice down to a level with that of presbyters or bish- \nops, or of elevating the latter to the grade of the for- \nmer, than of supposing every governor an alderman, \nor every alderman a governor of a state, because com- \nmissioned by such. \n\nTitus exercised an office evidently inferior to that \nof Paul, for he went and came, preached, planted \nchurches, and ordained bishops according to the di- \nrections of the apostle. He attended upon his person, \nand did the work of an apostle, in subordination to \nhim. So far as appears from the New Testament, \nhis work was not fixed, or stationary, more than that \nof the apostle; but it as far exceeded that of a modern \ndiocesan bishop, as this does that of a bishop in the \ndays of the apostles. \n\nThe practice of Paul was to carry the gospel into \nstrange places, collect worshiping assemblies; and \nafterwards to return and ordain elders of those who \nhad some experience. Pursuing the same reasonable \ncourse, he first collected churches in Crete, left them \nworshiping assemblies, and having given instructions \nto Titus to ordain such as were fit to be officers in the \nchurches, he left him to accomplish what the apostle \nwould have done, had he tarried longer, and gone \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 269 \n\nthrough those congregations a second time. Thus \nthe churches in Crete were furnished, as other places \nwere, with presbyters, or bishops, who could after- \nwards continue a regular administration of ordi- \nnances, by commissioning others of the same order in \nsuccession. \n\n\n\ny2 \n\n\n\nSECTION XXVII. \n\n\n\nTHE FIXED STATE, AND ORDINARY OFFICERS OF THE PRIMITIVE \nCHURCHES. \n\nUnder the spiritual dispensation of the gospel, the extraordinary officers were \nthe apostles, to confer gifts and teach hy means of the inspiration of sugges- \ntion ; the evangelists, to plant and water churches ; prophets, with occasional \ninspiration to explain the Scriptures. \xe2\x80\x94 The gifts are described, 1 Cor. xii. \n28; Rom. xii. 6 \xe2\x80\x94 8; Ephes.iv. 11, 12. \xe2\x80\x94 Officers qualified to administer or- \ndinances, succeeded the extraordinary gifts, and churches, which were Chris- \ntian societies, were substituted for the synagogues. \xe2\x80\x94 But two orders or kinds \nwere adopted\xe2\x80\x94 presbyters, who were called also pastors and bishops, to teach, \nordain, administer baptism and the cuchanst, and to govern, and deacons to \nserve. \xe2\x80\x94 Among the presbyters, a bench of which was at first in every church, \nand but one presbytery in a society or city, there was one who presided, de- \nnominated TrpoicrTacy angel, and by other names ; yet the ordination was not \ndifferent from that of the rest. \xe2\x80\x94 The first change was by a gradual transition \ninto pastoral or parochial episcopacy, afterwards into diocesan \xe2\x80\x94 2Viis was \nestablished by the council of Nice .^ and at length produced papacy. \n\nTo acquire just views of the government of the \nchurches of the apostles\' days, it is proper to abandon \nall ideas of later changes, and retain only that know- \nledge, which Jewish believers had, prior to the descent \nof the Spirit upon them on the day of Pentecost. \n\nThe Mosaic dispensation terminated with the rend- \ning of the vail of the temple, Christ having been a min- \nister of the circumcision\'* to fulfil the law, the sacrifices \nof which were to be superseded by his own. The \nseventy disciples could not have been oflicers of the \nkingdom then to come ; but, like those of the Baptist, \n\na Rom. XV. 8; vide Matt. xv. 24, xx. 28; Matt. x. 5. viii. 4, \nxxviii. 19. \n\n\n\nTHE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT, &C. 271 \n\nthan whom \'\' the least in the kingdom of heaven" was \ngreater, (Matt. xi. 11,) they were only Jews. The \ntwelve received a commission, just before the ascen- \nsion, to be executed after the descent of the Spirit. \nPrior to such inspiration, they had neither the wisdom \nnor power requisite. It is no impeachment of the \nverity of the record to say, that the appointment of \nMatthias to the apostleship was equally unauthorised, \nas the desire of a temporal kingdom. Acts i. 6, both \nof which facts have been recorded. On the day of \nPentecost, Peter saw, with a clearness to which he \nhad been a stranger, the design of the death and of \nthe exaltation of Christ, the nature of his kingdom, and \nthe importance of the gift of the Spirit ; (chap. ii. 4, 23, \n4, 34, 5.) The apostles were themselves baptized by \nthe Holy Ghost, and afterwards, by virtue of their \ncommission, initiated believers with water, ver. 38, \ninto a society in which all things were common, chap\xc2\xbb \ni V. 3.2. Yetbelonging to the stock of Israel, they attend- \ned at the temple and the synagogues, (chap. v. 42, vi. \n9,) but commemorated, on its own day, the resurrec- \ntion of Christ, in private assemblies. (Acts xx. 7. 1 Cor. \nxi. 20.) Their increase of numbers soon required the \ndesignation of seven men, of spiritual gifts, and wis- \ndom, to serve tables. (Acts vi. 1 \xe2\x80\x94 5.) Stephen exer- \ncised his gift of teaching, ver. 8, 10. Philip viii. 12. \nAnanias ix. 10, and other saints, when dispersed by \npersecution, also preached, (viii. 4,) and baptized, \n(ver. 16.) Saul, arrested, received the word of wis- \ndom from Christ ; his sight by the hands of Ananias, \nwith initiation into the church by baptism, and an in- \ntroduction to the apostles by Barnabas, a Levite of \nCyprus. The restoration of Eneas and Tabitha, the \nvisions of Cornelius and Peter, and the gift of tongues \nto the Gentiles at Csesarea, were also suited to the dis- \npensationofthe Spirit. The enlargement ofPeter,Paul, \nand Silas, and of all the apostles from prisons ; the spi- \nritual guidance of Philip, Peter, and especially of Paul in \nhis travels ; the gifts furnished by the hands of the apos- \n\n\n\n272 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nties to their fellovi^ laborers, the evangelists, and the \nchurches ; the impulses of the prophets ; the justness, \nconsistency, and purity of the doctrines, which were \nfree from all mixture of error, and by immediate sug- \ngestion to the apostle, with their testimony, lives, and \ndeaths; the judgments which fell on Ananias and Saphi- \nra, and Elymas, and other things ; also, the power, \ninfluence, and opposition of the Pagan establishment ; \nthe learning, eloquence, and pride of the philosophers; \nthe jealousy and hatred of the Pharisees and Saddu- \ncees, contrasted with the imbecility of the apostles, \nevince the fact and the necessity of a supernatural \ndispensation of the gospel.^ \n\nThe prophets who came from Jerusalem, (Acts xi. \n27,) whose inspiration was occasional, and those men- \ntioned chap. xiii. ] , appear to have been inferior only \nto the apostles. (Eph. iii. 5.) By some of these the \nHoly Spirit directed Barnabas and Saul to be separat- \ned, not ordained, for they were inspired teachers, to \npreach the gospel in distant places ; the former being \na suitable companion for the apostle, in the island of \nhis nativity. They went as Jews to the synagogues \nand families of their own nation, but in the power of \nthe Spirit ; whilst a different religion might have ex- \nposed them to persecution, and to the effects of that \ndiscrimination which Gallio humanely refused to re- \ncognize. \n\nBy the same Spirit the apostles were able to vindi- \ncate their own authority, and competent to vouch for \nthose whom they took to their aid, in promulgating \nthe gospel, and establishing societies. (2 Cor. viii. 23.) \nIn the accomplishment of this work, ordination was \nno more required, than in the preaching of John and \nhis disciples, or of the seventy sent forth by Christ; \nor in the case of him who cast out devils with the \n\nb Vide Acts i. 8, ii. 33, viii. 15, 29, x. 19, 44, xi. 12, 15, xiii. \n2, XV. 8, xvi. 6, XX. 28; 1 Thess. i. 5; Gal. iii. 3\xe2\x80\x945; 2 Cor. iii. \n6\xe2\x80\x949; Heb.ii. 4. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 273 \n\nmaster\'s approbation ; or of Apollos, both before and \nafter he became a Christian ; no law of the former \ndispensation, nor custom in Israel, being against their \npreaching. A renunciation of their ancient customs \nmight have offended the Jews to whom they came, \nand forfeited the national right of toleration. \n\nWhen attending on the seventh-day worship, they \nprophesied and taught in the synagogues; on the \nLord\'s day, they cultivated spiritual knowledge, com- \nmemorated his resurrection, and by degrees over- \ncoming their Jewish prejudices, they prepared for \nthat separation, which the destruction of Jerusalem \nwas soon to consummate. \n\nAs ordination was neither required nor expedient \nin planting the churches, so it is not affirmed of an \napostle, a prophet, an evangelist, or a teacher, but all \nreferred to gifts ; unless Timothy be an exception ; \nand in making him such we have hesitated ; for w^hy \nand when the hands of the presbytery were laid on \nhim; and whether Paul joined, the relations be- \ning in different epistles, and without reference to each \nother, do not discover. He may have been chosen \nand ordained a presbyter, and afterwards circumcised \nand gifted by Paul as a helping evangelist. Apollos \npreached as a Jew without ordination at Alexandria \nand Ephesus; and as a Christian at Corinth, before he \nhad seen either an apostle, an evangelist, or a pres- \nbyter. The laying of hands on Paul and Barnabas, \nwas after the apostleship of the former ; not like the \nimposition by Peter and John, (Acts viii. 17,) for the \nconferring spiritual gifts as apostles, not after the man- \nner of Paul, who imposed his hands on Timothy as an \napostle. The attempts to locate Timothy and Titus, \nhave been showm destitute of a support ; so long as \nthe residence of an apostle, or evangelist, at any \nplace, became expedient, his authority was still gene- \nral and extraordinary. As no preacher of the gospel \ncan be shown to have been ordained by imposition of \nhands, except as a presbyter, and unto a particular \n\n\n\n274 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nehurch, the contr.iiy we have no right to assume \nagainst fact, utihty, and Jewish examples. The three \ncelebrated texts must now be tested. \n\nPaul wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians before \nhis second visit ; that church being left, as all others \nwere, in the first instance, without officers. They \npartook of the supper as other churches on every \nLord\'s day, after the manner of a passover. That \nthey had received spiritual gifts, appears; (chap.xii.8.) \nThey had seen an apostle in Paul, a prophet in Silva- \nnus, a number of evangelists, and witnessed various \ngifts, as heaUng, and tongues : but however desirable \nthe gifts, the apostle declared to them " a more excel- \nlent way ;" for sanctifying influences change the soul, \nand prepare for heaven. \n\nThe terms evangelist, presbyter, pastor, bishop, and \ndeacon, in their official sense, never occurred in this \nepistle. With respect to the terms, helps, avlari-^siiy <^ \nand governments, xvj^spvi^asii, they are not elsewhere \nfound in the New Testament. Being abstract, and \nplaced among extraordinary " gifts," expressly so de- \nnominated in verse 31, they could have signified no- \nthing else to a people to whom had been dispensed \nonly spiritual things.*^ Nor does evidence exist, that \nany officer of a Christian church was ever called by \neither of those names. That interpretation which \nmakes helps, deacons, and governments, lay-elders, is \nnot only conjectural and gratuitous, but preposterous ; \nfor it places the order of deacons before that of pres- \nbyters. \n\nThose " strangers" from Rome at the feast of Pen- \ntecost, who received the Holy Spirit, it may be pre\xc2\xbb \nsumed, carried home the gospel to the metropolis; \nand the opposition they experienced from their bre- \n\n\n\nc 1 Cor. xii. 28. \xe2\x80\x94 Uga^ov a.7rc,;loKavi, SiJlipcv 9ry5o<f\xc2\xbb7a?, Tpilov \nd la 7rpciyiu:t\']it ciKovo/uiiv Tviv/ualiKA, Chiysostom in loc \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 275 \n\nthren, procured the exile of all the Jews from Italy. \xc2\xae \nWhen, by the death of Claudius, their banishment \nceased, Paul addressed them from Corinth. Urbanus, \nlike Titus, was ^fellow-laborer, avvspyo^. \n\nBut of presbyters or deacons at Rome, or of the \nvisit of any one who might ordain them, there is not \na word at the period of the epistle. But they appear \nnot only to have partaken of the extraordinary gifts, \nxaptsfiaia,, W\'hich, during their banishment, they had \nwitnessed in the churches planted by the apostles, but \nto have been in danger of vanity in the exercise of \nthem, (Rom. xii. 3.) On which account, they were \nadvised to consider themselves as members of the \nsame body, the church ; as necessary to each other ; \nand possessing gifts for the common good. These \nare distinguished into two kinds, prophecy and ministry, \njtf>opr^l Slav and 8iaxovLav.^ Their attendance on the Sab- \nbaths in the synagogues ; and on the Lord\'s days, in \nat least four private houses, is unquestionable. In the \nsynagogues, as Jews, they might all prophesy, yield- \ning precedence to priests and Levites, and exercise \ntheir spiritual gift, Ttpo^jyTaa, by rightly expounding \nsome portion of the Ofd Testament to the synagogue \nworshipers. The caution given by the apostle, (Rom. \nxii. 6,) was in this to go nothing beyond their measure, \nor contrary to the scheme of the gospel. When assem- \nbled as Christians alone, they had to accomplish a \nservice, Siaxovoav, in the discharge of which, any of them, \nfor they had no officers, might exercise his ;i;apKyjua. \nAs in the synagogues, prophesy, Ti^o^yp^ia, a sudden \nsuggestion of truth to the mind by the Spirit, must \nhave been that gift, which was most suited to awaken \n\n\n\ne Sueton. Claud, c. 25. \n\nf Rom. xii. 6 \xe2\x80\x94 8. E;^ov\'76C tfs ^apia-fMcl* \xe2\x80\x94 eili 9rpi<p),1itAV, x.u]a \nT\xc2\xabv AVst-XoyiAV rug TriT-lift);\' ifli Siakoviav, tv t\xc2\xab SittKCviA\' ttli o SiSa.^- \n\nKeeV, iV TH SlJ^\'JiCKAKlU.\' ifli O TTAfdOtAXCCV iV rH TTSLpsLltKilO-ir fJiila.S\'t- \ncToyf, \xc2\xaby dTTKCT-Zlf O TrpOlO-lAjUiVOC iV a-TTOvS^\' iXiUV, iV lKoipCTi)li. In \n\n1 Cor. xii. 4, 5, ;:^\xc2\xabp/3-^*7a are distinguished from J\'lAx.ovtai, as gifts \nfrom their application. \n\n\n\n276 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nand instruct the Jev^s ; so the ministry, Siaxovta, was \nin its various branches more properly their Christian \nduty, when convened in their own evangeUcal wor- \nship. In the Biaxovia, in ver. 7, 8, five species of gifts \nwere exhibited, not in the abstract, but by five partici- \nples. We have neither any warrant from the gram- \nmar of the language, to refer a part of the specifica- \ntion to prophecy ;^ nor from the circumstances of the \ncase, to suppose that the writer intended an anticipa- \ntion of the two ordinary offices, which they were af- \nterwards to receive, in common with all the fixed \nchurches, for no such description could be necessary \nto those who were acquainted with the government of \nthe synagogues. The same diversity of gifts existed \nat Corinth, whence he was writing ; except that \nwherever there was an apostle, there was also the \nword of wisdom, and power of conferring. There all \nmight, for they had no officers, prophesy, and employ \ntheir extraordinarv gifts, if without confusion. (1 Cor. \nxiv. 3, 5, 31, 39.) " \n\nTheophylact understood rifioialafisvog in the sense of \nTtpoalali^, a succourer, (Rom. xvi. 2,) and explains it by \n^otj^av. Thus the sense would be, let him that gives \nhis substance, ixsladoSovs, do it with simplicity of heart, or \nliberality, and he that succours, rtpocalaiA-svos, the distressed, \ndo it with diligence. This judgment being by one \nwhose native language was the Greek, deserves high \nregard ; but other Greek writers, for the most part, \nunderstood by 7tpots7a^\xc2\xa37 ^j, either presiding, as the pri- \nmus presbyter, or acting as patrons to straiigers ; but in \n\ng Tlf>o<i;>i)liifi\\s distinguished from SiSdiXi^, in 1 Cor. xiv- 6, com- \npared with the miraculous gift of faith, 1 Cor. xiii. 2, and was to \nbe abolished as well as the gift of tongues, ibid. ver. 8. Also, \n\'7rpQ<p}fl(tt are enumerated in Ephesians, iv. 11, before evangelists, \nthen follow J\'lSa.cnc\'XKoi. To arrange, therefore, SiScta-nm under \n7rfio0>iliict, in Rom. xii. 6, 7, is also to confound Scriptural distinc- \ntions. But (^icmovidi is of extent sufficient to include the five spe- \ncies of ministry which follow it; vide 1 Cor. xii. 5; Rom. xi. 13; \nCol. iv. 17; Acts vi. 1 \xe2\x80\x94 4; 1 Cor. iii. 5. And to it does the speci- \nficaticn naturally belong. \n\n\n\nor CHRlSTlAIf CHURCHES. 277 \n\nthe sense of an inferior presbyter, we have found no \nexample in any commentatoi prior to the Reforma- \ntion. \n\nWhen the epistle to the Ephesians was written, they \nhad presbyters, or bishops, and probably deacons. \nTo them, therefore, he could w^ite, both of the extra- \nordinary gifts, and the fixed officers. \n\nHaving exhorted the Ephesian Christians to peace, \nand spoken of the chm\'ch as one body, (chap. iv. 3, 4,) \nand of each member as a partaker of the grace par- \nticularly given to him, (ver. 7,) he alleges, that Christ \nhad ascended to heaven, that he might confer all the \ngifts that should be necessary to the promulgation of \nthe gospel, and the planting of the churches, (ver. 8, \n10.) He o-ave, gifts f not ordinations, some to be apostles, \nsome to be prophets, and some to be pastors and teachers, \n(ver. 11.^ ) All of these were conferred for the pre- \nparing of the saints unto the ministry, unto the building \nof the church; (ver. 12.) The extraordinary gifts \nnecessary to planting the church are here first ex- \npressed, and the design of them w^as, Ttpoj tov xala^lirj^ov, \nio prepare saints, not merely for preaching, but for the \nduties of the fixed state, f c? spyov StWovtaj, an expression \nwhich well includes both of the ordinary offices ; and \nlest his meaning, with regard to the design of these \npreparatory gifts, should be mistaken, he adds, ftj \nocxoSoiA,rfV tov (Siofialo^ -tov Xptf7oi;^ and to cxprcss that \nthe settled state of the church, when gifts might cease, \n\n\n\n1\xc2\xbb Ephes. iv. 11, 12. Ka; avlog iS\'ooKi, tov; /uiv, <^?rocroKcvc, \nTOUiSii 7rpo<p}nAC, Tou? Si, evAyyi\\i(rlsLg, tgv^Si, TToi/utiVdn jtctt SiS\'xa-- \nK^tKovg, Trpog rov Ku.l:tf]ia-fA.ov rcev ttyim, ne tpyov Sixkovi^c, ei; oikoSo- \n\n^\xc2\xabV TCU (TCOfXitloi TOV XptcloV. \n\ni Ver. 12 has been deemed exegitlcal of SiSu;kokovc only, and \nexpressive merely of the preparation of holy men for the g-ospel \nministr)-\'. ^ But this is to mistake the usual discrimination of these \ndistinct gifts, vide Acts xiii. 1; 1 Cor xii. 28, and to destroy the \nargument of the apostle, who, in ver. 12, shows the design of the \ngifts of the Spirit to have been to plant a church, of which he \nwishes the Ephesians to be found peaceful members. \n\nz \n\n\n\n278 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nhad not then arrived, he subjoins, (ver. 13,) ftf^rpt icaHw \n\nItjdcofisVf &LC^^ \n\nApostles were inspired in all things necessary, hav- \ning the w^ord of wisdom. Prophets had also an extra- \nordinary gift, being guided to interpret the word of \nGod truly ; this is the word of knowledge. Evangelists \nwere equally extraordinary teachers, having faith in \nwhat they heard, and aided the apostles in preaching \nand planting churches. The labors of these were tem- \nporary and general; their inspiration was not sug- \ngestion, but superintendence. \n\nThe term ^^ pastors" which is not used in the letters \nto the Corinthians and Romans, is correlative,\' and sup- \nposes a flock ; but not necessarily an official connex- \nion, nor a flock to every shepherd, for in Acts xx. 28, \nPaul had charged the presbyters of the Ephesian \nchurch, when they met him at Miletus^ to take heed \xe2\x80\x94 \nto the Jiock in which the Holy Spirit placed them bishops, \nto feed the church, Ttoi^aivuv tr^v sxx^\'^&cav. This charge to \nthe elders of Ephesus plainly identifies the duties im- \nplied in the words pastor and bishop, although the first \nis not expressed. In like manner, he avoids in this \nepistle, as if with design, the names presbyter and \nbishop, although he certainly knew this class of of- \nficers existed in that church. \n\nBefore the ordination oi fixed ofiicers, there must \nhave been numbers who acted as pastors, who, like the \napostles and the rest, were not the ordinary officers \nwith whom particular churches were afterwards fur- \nnished, but to prepare the way for them, rtpoj xalaplic^ov. \nThe appointment of church officers, ft? \xc2\xa3^yov Staxovia^, \nfurnished no argument for the truth of the cause, to \nbe compared with the extraordinary work of the Holy \nSpirit in the promulgation and planting of the gospel \nby the irresistible gifts of Chiist. \n\nThe history of facts evinces, that the extraordinary \nstate of the church and the work of the Spirit, for \n\nk Vide Hoogeveen, p. 97. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 279 \n\nwhom the apostles waited at Jerusalem, and by whom \nthey were endued with power from on high, according \nto promise, (Luke xxiv. 49,) were intended to gather \nconverts and plant churches ; during which dispensa- \ntion of the Spirit, the apostles needed no other au- \nthority or voucher either for themselves or their as- \nsistants.^ But it was important that the churches \nshould be provided with officers publicly designated, \nand with distinguishing ordinances, for their future \ngovernment and continuation, when the extraordinary \ngifts should cease. They were, accordingly, for this \ncause, every where in due time, furnished with of- \nficers from whom, in succession, the church will con- \ntinue till the end of the world. This fixed state of the \nchurches is that which demands our next, chief, and \nfinal attention. \n\nEvery one discerns that baptism and the supper \nwere in names, modes, administrations, and subjects, \nconformed to ancient rites. The gradual substitution \nof the Christian synagogup, (Jam. ii. 2,) for the Jew- \nish, among those who stiLi vetained attachments for \nthe old order of things, as well as for meats and days, \nproduced a similarity of worship and officers. \n\nBut modern synagogues greatly differ from those of \nthe first century."^ In the synagogues, priests and \n\n* The opinion of the modern Greek church, that Paul was or- \ndained by Ananias, is contrary to the instructions g"iven unto, and \nprofessed by him. Saul\'s sight was to be restored, and he was \nto be received by baptism. The idea of Seldtrn, that he was or- \ndained as a scribe in the synagogue, and that he bore the same \nrank when a Christian, is possible, so far as regarded the Jews, \nbut not necessary. The separation of Saul with Barnabas, who \nhad brought him from his proper woik, when the Spirit", who \nseems to have guided all his apostolic movements, sent him back \nto his duty, was too late for an ordination, had any been proper. \nPaul, who best knew, rested his commission as an apostle on the \nwords of Christ; and the Spirit given by his hands was the distin- \nguishing proof of his apostleship. Gal. i. 12; 2 Cor. xii. 12; Acts \nxix. 6, viii. 15. \n\nm Vitringa (*\' De Synagoga") has enumerated some striking \ndifferences in lib. ii. c. 4. He has also shown from the Jerusalem \n\n\n\n280 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nlevites had precedence, but as the worship was mo- \nral, not ceremonial, they might serve without the \ndress necessary in the temple, and no Israelite was \nexcluded from any of the offices, of what tribe soever, \nor from reading in the synagogue, without bearing \nan office. Thus it was the custom, \xc2\xa3tco9os, both of \nChrist and Paul to officiate in the synagogue ; (Luke \niv. 16, Acts xvii. 1 \xe2\x80\x94 7;) and no where in the New \nTestament are presbyters called priests, or deacons \nlevites ; on the contrary, Christ alone is the priest, \nand all the officers of the Christian church are to him \ndeacons, that is, ministers or servants. \n\nNo denomination of Christians is now perfectly \nconformed in officers, government, and worship, to \nthe churches which were planted by the apostles and \nevangelists, nor is it important that they should he. \n\nThat presbyters and deacons, the former to over- \nsee and teach, the latter to aid them in the eucharist \nand the tempoi^al concerns of the society, are useful in \nevery church, are matteris^pf fact. That among the \npresbyters, ajirst among e^^^^als, primus inter pares, an \nangel, president, or bishop existed, o>f the same ordi- \nnation and order, whose power advanced afterwards \nfrom a single church to cities, provinces, kingdomsf> \nand the Christian world, has been shown in detail. \n\nCaution must be exercised, not to confound names \nof officers with the appellative senses of words. Peter \nand John denominate themselves 7i^B^^v%pob, elders, in \nallusion to their age ; for apostles are distinguished \nfrom elders, (Acts xv. 6.) Private men were a7io{lo%oh, \nmesse?7gers, of a particular church, (2 Cor. iii. 23,) not \napostles of Christ, (Gal. i. 12, ii. 8.) The apostles were \n\n\n\nTalmud, the Gemara, and other Jewish writings, that in the an- \ncient synag-ogues the 3n and \xe2\x96\xa1"\'DJiD were of the same order, and \nwere called Q\'ljpr, elders, whilst the D^Jm were v7r>ipi]eti, dea- \ncons. In exact correspondence we find the ordinary officers, \noriginally fixed in the respective churches, to have been the Trpoea-- \n7a?, and other oTrttmcfroi, or Trpio-fiulipoi, all of the same order j and \nthe SiAnovoiy subordinate. \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 281 \n\n8iaxovoi, (1 Cor. iii. 5,) servants of Christ, not the dea- \ncons of particular societies. The first fixed officers \nof the churches who were generally seniors in age or \ngrace, were designated by the name elders, Ttpss^vlspoo, \nthat is, LD\'JpT,^ but were not always old men. By \nvirtue of their commission, they were overseers, \n\xc2\xa37ic?xo7toi, bishops, in particular churches.\xc2\xb0J They were \nappointed to feed and rule the flock, but are named in \nno instance as ordained officers, jtotfxsvsi, pastors.^ The \npresbyter who presided in the worship and govern- \nment of each church, was the Ttposolio^, president, or \nruHng presbyter.^i, But the president was at the same \ntime one of the elders, or bishops of the same church, \nby virtue of the same ordination, and had no other, \ntill he became the bishop of the Cyprianic age. \n\nIf there were two kinds of elders, there were also \ntwo kinds of bishops; because elders and bishops \nwere the same officers.\'\' When the duties were va- \nrious, and the elders numerous, prudence must have \nassigned to presbyters respectively different employ- \nments. A number of them in the same church, w^as, \nin the early days important, not only because of per- \nsecution, but for the arduous work of instructing the \nGentiles, both in public and private. Had one presby- \nter only been fixed in each, their continuance by suc- \ncession would have been obviously too precarious. \n\nn Acts xiv. 23, XX. 17 i Titus i. 5; James v. 14; 1 Tim. iv. 4; \n1 Peter v. 1. \n\no Acts XX. 28; Titus i. 5\xe2\x80\x947; James v. 14; Phil. i. I5 1 Tim. \niii. 2; iPet. v. 2. \n\nP Acts XX. 28, i7ri<r}(.o7roug Trci/uaciviiv, 1 Pet. v. 2, Troi/uAVctli \xe2\x80\x94 \niTTicaoTrcvvlic for CD^Dj"i3 of the synagogue, is from ojns, pascere or \ngubernare, and is equivalent to sTrKnoTrot. The Hebrew idiom is by \nboth apostles here carried into the Greek. \n\n^ 1 Tim. V. 17, the ;r^ogc7a? of the TrpicCvnptov answered unto \nthe m of the n-\'DJ-ro. He was probably the angel in each of the \napocalyptic churches. \n\nr That elder and bishop, 9r/)\xc2\xab?5t/7f/)oc and e7ricx.c7ro(j designated \nthe same officer, may be seen by comparing Acts xx, 17, with \nver. 28; also Titus i. 5, with ver. 7; also 1 Peter v. 1, with ver. 2, \nin the Greek ; the translation conceals it. \n\n2z \n\n\n\n282 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nThe duties of elders and deacons were not the \nsame. Had there existed mute elders in the apostolic \nchurches, deacons would have been unnecessary. El- \nders must "feed the church," (Acts xx. 28,) and \nshould he " apt to teach ;" but this was not expected of \ndeacons.^ \n\nThat there were but two orders of officers in the \nchurches, may be shown by the addresses and letters \nto them. Thus Paul and Timothy, writing to the \nPhilippians, address " all the saints in Christ Jesus, \nwho are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." \n(Phil. i. 1.) If elders inferior to bishops, had existed \nin that favorite church, it is unaccountable, that they \nshould have been omitted, and the deacons named. \nThe first letter to Timothy was framed evidently with \nsuch views. That evangelist received no directions \nabout the ordination of ruling elders, his business was \nto select suitable persons, and to ordain them as bish- \nops ; and others, of different quahfications, as deacons. \nThe same two orders, elders to preside and to preach \nthe gospel, and deacons to help them in other duties, \nwere to be ordained by Titus, but not two sorts of \nelders. \n\nPeter, (1 Epist. v. 1 \xe2\x80\x94 5,) addressing the presbyters \nof the dispersion, makes no distinction between them, \nbut supposes them clothed with the same office and \npowers ; and equally charges all and every one of \nthem: "Feed the flock," Ttoi/xavals \xe2\x80\x94 Ttoif^viov, act as pas- \ntors to the flock " of God, which is among you, taking \nthe oversight," STicsxojioovl^?, exercising the office of bishops, \n" not by constraint, but willingly." Without excep- \ntion, the elders, Ttpsaj^vlspov, were all bound to feed and \n\n\n\ns Justin Martyr, Apol. 1, p. 127. \xe2\x80\x94 ^lamovoi SiSctoin iKcigln rm \n\xe2\x96\xa0Trapovlaiv /mrd.xa/iiiv atto <tov iu^^^ctpiglnQivlcc ctflov, &c. This was \nwithin forty years of the apostle John, So in the Apostohcal Con- \nstitutions, which are later, (c 13, p. 405,) it is said, \'\xe2\x80\xa2 O cTs J\'la.Kovoi \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. 283 \n\ngovern the flock, " noiiio.vo.ls \xe2\x80\x94 HoifivLov,^^ as bishops, " stuo- \n\nxoTiovvle^J^ \n\nPresbyters must have differed in their gifts, graces, \nand talents ; some were best quahfied for governing, \nothers for exhorting and comforting, others for teach- \ning the church ; that each should exercise his particu- \nlar powers, was the dictate of prudence. \n\nBut this diversity by no means affected the identity \nof the order, the mode of ordination, the nature of the \noflice, or the obligation of its duties. \n\nNo where do we find, in the history of the Acts of \nthe Apostles, any but the one order of presbyters. \nPaul and Barnabas ordained elders in every church, \n7i;p\xc2\xa3cf,3i)7fpor? xa7a fxxXj^tfcav, (Acts xiv. 23,) without any \ndistinction of kinds. There appears to have been but \none class of them at Ephesus. Paul sent for the elders \n\nof the church, ixslsxa\'Asaalo \'tovi Ttpsai^vlspovs fTj^ \xc2\xa3xx%7j6iai. \n\n(Acts XX. 17.) They came to Miletus ; if any of them \nhad been tiling elders, in the modern sense of those \nterms, it is not discernible with what propriety he \ncould have charged them, without discrimination, to \ntake heed to the flock, in which the Holy Spirit had \nmade them bishops, srtiixoTtov?, and noif^aivsiv, to act as \nshepherds to the church. \n\nThe question, so far as regards ruling dders, freed \nfrom embarrassment, rests upon a single passage of \nScripture. " Let the elders who rule well, be counted \nworthy of double honor, especially they who labor in \nword and doctrine."\' These words express a di- \nversity in the exercises of the presbyterial office, but \nnot in the office itself If i"^ can be shown that there \nexisted two kinds of officers, called by the common \nname, presbyters, this Scripture may be then under- \nstood to relate to them. But the text alone will never \nestablish such distinction, because it can be literally \nunderstood of various duties of the same order. Pres- \n\n\n\nt 1 Tim. V. 17. O/ KAXati Trpoic-lccli? 7rpia-0v1ipot StTTKy,; TlfAHi \n\n\n\n284 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT \n\nbyters advanced in life, grave in deportment, and of \ndistinguished prudence, v^ere fitted to preside ; others, \nif of more ready utterance, and of competent know- \nledge, were best qualified to teach. The passage \nshows that some presided, that others labored in word, \nand that the honor, or rather reward, was to be \nproportioned to their efforts, not according to grades, \nand orders never mentioned in the Scriptures. Pres- \nbyter, as an officer of a church, means in every other \npassage in the New Testament, a bishop, in the ancient \nsense of the term, and there is no reason to infer from \nthis text, a new sort, never heard of till the Reforma- \ntion. If there be any priority, it is a precedence over \nthe presbyters themselves ; for the?tpofo7cojv^as he who \npresided amongst the Ephori, among whom was parity ; \nor who governed a kingdom, and accordingly Chrysos- \ntom thought him both, Ttocyyyjv and8i8a6xa%oi, a pastor and \nteacher. So far is the word ruling, riposaliolei, from signify- \ning a subordinate class of presbyters, that Justin Mar- \ntyr, within half a century of John,^\' makes use of that \nidentical word repeatedly, to mark out that presbyter, \nwho gave thanks and dispensed the elements at the sa- \ncramental supper to the deacons, to be carried to the \ncommunicants. The presbyters, who presided, ?tpo\xc2\xa3j- \n7co7f^, on the most solemn occasions, blessing the ele- \nments, deserved double reward ; but especially those, \n(jtaUila oc, who performed the chief labor in preaching. \n" All the saints salute you fia-Kifla 5c ot, but chiejly they \nthat are of Caesar\'s household." (Phil. iv. 22.) Who \nwould imagine that the saints of Caesar\'s household, \nwere of a different kind from others ? Their labors \nmight be different, but they were equally saints ; \n^Q,7.iifa only expresses that their salutations were either \nmare earnest, or presented to peculiar notice. \n\nIf a single proof of the existence of a distinct order \n\nu Apol. 1. p. 127. \'Eu^itpicrln<rA)i\'los Se rov Tr^citrlaloc, &C. \nPage 131. \xe2\x80\x94 O Trpoiiloos Sia. Koycv tuv vovQ-igiAr \xe2\x80\x94 aiflog 7ro5<fii)elitt Kcti \noivos \xc2\xbb*/ vSceP, \n\n\n\nOF CHRISTIAX CHURCHES. 285 \n\nof ruling elders can be shown from the Scriptures, it \nis sufficient. But they show, that two orders only \nwere constituted by the apostles, presbyters or bishops, \nand deacons. \n\nThe form of government at present used in the \nPresbyterian church has retained the alternative ; the \nchurches have their election of two, or of three or- \nders, and thus give to neither side just ground of of- \nfence. In it we cheerfully acquiesce. These out- \nhnes of the reasons upon which three orders have \nbeen refused, in, we believe, a majority of our church- \nes, have been reluctantly given ; but the confident \nstyle of several recent pubhcations, of opposite senti- \nments, has rendered the defence of our own opinion, \nand that of our fathers, a duty. The question is ex- \ntremely simple. Did such a distinct intermediate \norder exist in the apostolic churches? Until it be \nshown, either by fact or Scripture, w^e may safely \nadopt the negative, both as to the lay presbyter, and \nthe diocesan bishop. But we have found nothing for \neither, except hearsays, opinions, and some forged \nwritings. \n\nThe presbyter in each society, with a president at \nits head, passed into the pastoral form, or parochial \nepiscopacy, by degrees scarcely perceptible. The \nulterior transition into diocesan episcopacy, followed, \nas the necessary result of the restriction of each city \nto one set of church officers ; and so long as promo- \ntion was exposure to persecution, power accumulated \nwithout jealousy. \n\nAfterwards when Constantine substituted the Chris- \ntian for the Pagan hierarchy, of which he was, by \nvirtue of his office, the pontifex maximus, the church \ndid not so much acquiesce in the change, as exult at \nthe establishment of Christianity. The western por- \ntion advanced by slow, but certain, steps unto papal \ndomination. It was not till the Reformation, that the \nground-work was laid of those various forms of \nchurch government, which at present appear among \n\n\n\n286 THE PRIMITIVE GOVERNMENT, &C. \n\nprotestants. They were deemed then to be, as they \nreally are, of minor importance ; and, in fact, received \ntheir characteristic features, less from the diversity \nof the hypotheses of the reformers in different coun- \ntries, than from the political circumstances of the res- \npective nations. They av^^aken research, v^ithout \ndividing the faithful ; and w^hat right views can ob- \nscure, perfection will eventually obhterate, \n\n\n\n"LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS." \n\n\n\nThe following numbers were first published in the **Philadel- \nphian," of the year 1828, as answers to some remarks under the \nsame title, which appeared in the *\' Church Register." \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \nNumber I. \n\n\n\nThis title is taken from the Church Register. It, at \nthe same time, points to the cause, and expresses the \nsubject of our inquiries. The alternative being ten- \ndered, "Prayer may be called the making known of \nour wants to a superior being, and our desire to be re- \nlieved from them; or, it is "the offering the heart to \nGod;" we accept the latter, because neither angels \nnor glorified saints can help us, or become mediators. \nTo the objection, that " the Omniscient knows our wants \nlong before they existed," the anonymous writer an- \nswers in terms suited to his own creed. We prefer to \nsay the author of all good governs with equal particu- \nlarity in the kingdoms of providence and grace : in \nboth he adopts means, among which are often the du- \nties assigned to moral agents. Their liberty, being \nessential to their responsibility, is secure ; whilst their \nvoluntary actions are constituents of the general \nscheme of events. If the prayer of faith be thus \na mean to ensure a promised blessing, the grace is \ncertain, and consequently the duty ; and the purpose, \nthe fore-knowledge, and the event are equally sure, \nwhilst the duty of praying is not the less incumbent ; \nand as in every other case, absolute contingency is \nwholly excluded. \n\nWhen he says that "private prayer, is that pouring \nout of the heart, w^hich holds the soul in rapt commu- \nnion with spiritual things ;" and afterwards that "this \n(order) is best effected in public prayer by the use \n\n2A \n\n\n\n290 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nand adoption of one general form ; we feel no other \nconcern, than that the writer would carry his private \ndevotion to the pubhc sanctuary. But when we ob- \nserved, by the second number, that the aim of the wri- \nter was to show that, "the Jews used precomposed and \nset forms of prayer in their public religious worship ;" \nand that such was "the practice of our blessed Re- \ndeemer, and after him, of his disciples;" the two num- \nbers were seen to be perfectly in character for their \nvehicle, and illy suited to a hemisphere, where liturgies \nare not rejected by dissenters, but by the mass of the \npeople. \n\nPrayer being the offering up of the desires to God, \nit is accomphshed with or without words ; in words \nwhich are our own, or another\'s ; or printed or written. \nThere ought, therefore, to be " no degradation, no \nwant of piety, no proof of alienship," imputed to any \nindividual, or denomination, for using "prayers pre- \ncomposed," nor have we heard of any such thing ; \nbut if the ancient Jews and the first Christians used a \npublic liturgy, it would seem that we, who have none, \nmust be the aliens. We have therefore a conceded \nexcuse for parrying this charge by examining its sup- \nports. \n\nThe first is taken from Exodus xv. the song of Mo- \nses and the children of Israel by the Red Sea; "the \nwords and tune of -which were arranged and known \nbefore all the people joined in it; and therefore it is a \nset form." This would have been in point, had the \nquestion been of singing Psalms. It would also have \nbeen relevant, if the lawfulness of set forms in prayer \nhad been denied. But in proof of the use of "pre- \ncomposed and set forms of prayer in public worship" \nof the Jews, its bearing is not easily discerned. \n\nAlso that the words were previously "known by \nthem all" we are unable to infer from the circum- \nstances. Printing had not been invented \xe2\x80\x94 the song \nconsists of nineteen verses, and the thousands of Israel \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 291 \n\nwere numerous. We read that "Miriam answered \nthem;" and her answer, so far as given, was the first \nsentence which Moses sang. It is possible, therefore, \nand seems to us probable, that those who knew the in- \nspired words, sang by sentences, and others responded. \nThe argument from a particular and extraordinary \noccasion to a universal practice is inconclusive; as \nmuch so as if it should be asserted, that Presbyterians \nfollow in their worship a hturgy, because they sing the \npsalms of David. \n\nThe second proof is brought from Deuteronomy, \nxxi. 7-&. The answer to be taken of the elders of a \ncity next unto the place of a homicide, where the \nmurderer is not found. "Our hands have not shed \nthis blood, neither did our eyes see ii. Be merciful, O \nLord, unto thy people of Israel, whom thou hast re- \ndeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of \nIsrael\'s charge." "This is a prayer," \xe2\x80\x94 " given as a \nform-," \xe2\x80\x94 "a precomposed prayer." So is every oath, \n"so help me God." This was an oath of purgation, \nwhich was appointed by law to be taken by the elders \nof a city, under such circumstances, to clear them- \nselves of the murder. But it w^as "precomposed by \nGod" himself. Yes, the theocracy was his, and he \ncreated the law. But it constituted no part of a hturgy, \nand can prove none. And if it w-ere, it w^ould only \njustify a prayer book of divine inspiration, but such \nnever had existence. \n\nThe next argument is drawn from the benediction, \nNum. vi. 24, 25, 26, given to Aaron and the priests \nto be officially "put \xe2\x80\x94 upon the children of Israel." \n"That it is a form cannot be questioned." It is a form \nof a benediction, and was in force under the Jewish \ndispensation. It is neither obligatory now, nor is it \nevidence of the existence of a Jewish liturgy, but af- \nfords a presumption of the contrary. \n\n"The song of Deborah and Barak, Judges v. affords \nanother evidence in favour of the use of set forms on \n\n\n\n292 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS* \n\npublic occasions, in the earliest period of the Jewish \nchurch." But this was on a special occasion, and \nproves not a general practice ; and if it did, it extends \nto psalms, not to a liturgy. But the book of psalms, \nmade long afterwards with few exceptions, evinces \nthat such a composition had not been previously given \nthem. Also a song given by inspiration to the Jezos will \nnot justify a palming an uni?ispired prayer book upon the \nchurch of Christ. In singing it is scarcely possible, \nthat the duty should be accomplished without the use \nof precomposed forms ; but for prayer no such neces- \nsity existed ; thus when " Ezra blessed the Lord, the \ngreat God; all the people answered amen, amen, with \nlifting up their hands; and they bowed their heads, \nand worshipped the Lord with their faces to the \nground." If their hands were up, and their heads \nbowed, and their faces were to the ground, they must \nhave uttered amen, amen, without prayer books. \n\nStill further, this writer thinks set forms of prayer \nreceive a " testimony" from David\'s appointing "the \nLevites to stand every morning to thank and praise \nthe Lord, and likewise at even." This language leads \nthe reader only to the idea of singing praises. But \nhad it expressed, with equal clearness, prayer, there is \nnothing upon which to found an opinion, that any \nprayers were written. We have never found a " tes- \ntimony" of any other prayers offered at the temple, \nexcept on an extraordinary occasion, than those which \neach man offered alone. We have authority enough, \nthat the law was read, and that the levites " gave the \nsense and caused them to understand the reading" \nwithout recurring to Josephus. He was a Pharisee, \nand not more credible than the traditions collected \nin the Talmud, against which we have the caution of \nChrist himself If this writer will look into the He- \nbrew prayers now used in the synagogues, he will \nfind prayers for the dead, and other proofs in abun- \ndance that they are of modern date. \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 293 \n\nThere follows a sentence, in language inferential, \nbut in sentiment unjustly caustic. "All which proves \nthat they, although in their religious polity guided by \nGod himself, left neither the manner, the subject, nor \nthe words of their public service to the wild and varied \nimaginations of their priests, \xe2\x80\x94 though separated by \ndivine appointment for God\'s worship ; neither to the \npractice or observance of private judgment, and indi- \nvidual opinion." They, the Jews, left neither, &lc.1 Did \nthey prescribe to the priests? Where is the proof? If \nby public service be meant the duties of the priests\' of- \nfice, these were not prescribed by the people, but in \nthe ceremonial law, which neither contains, nor re- \nquires the reading of, public prayers. If " their" im- \nply other priests, we answer there is no priest under \nthe gospel, but Christ himself If "wild and varied \nim.aginations" be a stroke aimed at extempore public \nprayers, it is premature, for it has not been yet shown \nthat God has required set forms. The concessions \nthat prayer is "the offering the heart to God," and that \nit may be without written expressions w^hen in private, \nwarrant the conclusion that forms are presented to \nplease men, not God. "Wild and varied imagina- \ntions," appears to be a designed imputation upon us, \nwho use no forms, and w^ere its source not an indivi- \ndual, would justify recrimination. We have not for- \ngotten the objections which our forefathers made to the \nprayer book, and feel prepared to vindicate at all times \ntheir justice. If "private judgment and individual \nopinion" must be taken away from our prayers, how \nare they "the offering the heart to God?" And if this \nbe absent, words are not prayers. But w^e are respon- \nsible to God only, and fallible man has no right to re- \nstrain the prayers of his fellow men. \n\nWhat this writer shall yet effect, remains to be seen, \n\nbut in the Old Testament he has not found a solitary \n\nproof, that in the ordinary worship of the ancient Jews, \n\nthey offered joint prayers. They had their hours of \n\n2a2 \n\n\n\n294 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nprayer, and made many and long prayers, differing in \n"the manner, subjects and words," for whilst one drew \nnear and thanked God, that he was not as a pubhcan \nthen in his view, the publican stood at a distance, and \ncould only say, Lord be merciful to me a sinner. But \nneither the pharisee, nor publican brought a written \nform, or opened a book ; nor do we find a priest, either \nin parable or fact, at any time to have interfered with \nthe prayers of the people. \n\n\n\nNumber II. \n\n\n\nPrayer is a personal duty, which one man cannot \ndischarge for another. Those who claim superior \nknowledge, should pray for us, but not prescribe our \nprayers. If inspiration has left us to the expression of \nour own desires, uninspired men may not restrict us \nto the adoption of theirs. Go*d demands our hearts, \nand not the reading of forms ; which may be lawful \nfor him who thinks them such, but not to him who \ndoubts their propriety. As in joint prayer, by the \nmental adoption of so much as we approve, we make \nit our own ; so in written forms, that only is our \nprayer, which the heart offers up to God. That by \nforms the weak may be led and profited, is freely con- \nceded; also, that he who leads in the public duty, \nmay provide a form, is allowable, though rarely ad- \nvisable; but that any should presume to alter the pub- \nlic worship which God has appointed, by the intro- \nduction of a system of prayers, which he has neither \nmade nor authorized, is, to say the least, of extremely \ndoubtful propriety. That we question the testimony, \nor disregard the authority of the Scriptures, except \nwhen they favor our preconceived ideas, is a charge \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 295 \n\nwhich does no honor to the anonymous writer in the \nChurch Register, and we hope destitute of support. \nIn the temple service, there were men appointed to \nsing, and their psalms were necessarily preconceived; \nbut that the prayers, except mere benedictions^ were \nsuch, should be proved. We know only that each \nprayed by himself; except in extraordinary cases, \nwhen the prayers were new, and suited to the oc- \ncasion : such were those of Solomon, Asa, Jehosaphat, \nHezekiah, and Ezra.^ If they accommodated their \nprayers to their wants, why should not we ? If in their \ndarker dispensation they had no liturgy, in the modern \nHmited sense of that word, why should we, under the \nlight of the gospel, be restricted from expressing the \ndesires of our hearts ? \n\nThat the Saviour worshipped in the synagogue and \nattended in the temple, and fulfilled all righteousness, \nas a " minister of the circumcision," unto his death, is \ncertain. But that therein he found and used a liturgy, \nis begging the question. If Dr. Lightfoot could have \nrestored it, we should have rejoiced to use it, so far \nas the change of dispensations would allow, and would \nnot consent to exchange it, for all the uninspired \nones that have been since contrived. But that there \nwas no such thing, can be made as clear as a negative \nwill admit. \n\nHe gave a form to his disciples at their request, as \nJohn had done to his. This was suited to ihe Jewish \nworship, in praying for the coming of the " kingdom," \nwhich, according to Daniel, " the God of heaven \nwould set up," and in asking " nothing in the name\'^ of \nChrist ; but was never used by the apostles, or first \nChristians in public, so far as known to us. It was \nsoon, nevertheless, adopted for baptized persons, and \nrefused to catechumens. We modify its meaning, and \nprize it, making it our pattern, and, in some instances, \n\na 1 Kings vlii. 22; 2 Chron. xiv. 11, xx. 5; Isaiah xxxvii. 15, \n16; Ezra ix. 5, 6, 7. \n\n\n\n296 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nadopting its words as a form. But we cannot affirm \nwith this writer \xe2\x80\x94 " When ye pray, ye shall say, was his \npreface and command, by which we are to under- \nstand, that on all occasions of prayer, whatever else is \nused, this must not be omitted." We think this was \nthe preface, or introduction, of Christ\'s answer to the \nrequest of his disciples, but not the preface of the \nprayer itself, otherwise it must still be offered up with \nthe prayer. The preface, or introduction, of *the \nprayer, seems to us to be, " Our father who art in \nheaven." Nor do we view it as a command, for then \nno other prayer could be offered. Also, this writer \nmakes the Saviour to assert in general, what he spoke \nunder peculiar circumstances. "Lord teach us to \npray, as John also taught his disciples. And he said \nunto them, when ye pray, say," &c. (Luke xi. 1, 2.) \n" Teach us to pray," was equivalent unto. Give us a \npattern of prayer. This meaning is the same as when \nhe said, (Mat vi. 9,) " after this manner pray ye." \nThe plural was used in the prayer, because the an- \nswer given by the Saviour, and his address on the \nother occasion, were in each instance, to more than \nto one person. \n\nThe Lord\'s prayer " is a sanction for set forms, in \nthe public service of God, practised as it was by the \nJews, the Saviour, and his apostles, which rebuts all \nreasoning." That a single prayer made under the \nMosaic dispensation, and suited to it, given to indi- \nviduals without any reference to public worship, and \nbefore any authority had issued for preaching the gos- \npel, should be a sa?iction for a public liturgy in the \nchurch of Christ, is a position which " rebuts," that is, \ndrives back, " all reasoning." In Matthew vi. the Sa- \nviour directs to the closet, and when the door is shut, \nto pray in secret, rather than ostentatiously, as the \nPharisees, to make prayers in pubHc, which being to \nbe seen, were long and individual, not joint. When \nafterwards his disciples asked for a pattern, and he \ngave the same to them, there was not a word to show, \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 297 \n\nthat either they or he intended this for public worship. \nThe writer having failed in showing, that the Jews had \nany pubhc form, of course his inference, that the Sa- \nviour had used the same, is wholly without foundation; \nand his conclusion, that the apostles pursued a form, \nbecause their master did, is consequently a groundless \nsupposition. \n\nThat joint worship is expressly required, and may \nalso be argued from "oneness of profession, doctrine, \nand object," in other words, one faith, one hope, one \nbaptism, one God, and Father of all, is freely and uni- \nversally admitted ; but union in prayer by no means \nrequires, that there should be written forms ; for where \ntwo or three determine to convene to pray touching \nany thing, though their object be the same, their peti- \ntions may be according to their respective views, or if \none prayer be offered, in which the rest unite, it may \nbe expected to be new, and suited to the occasion, not \nin language composed without reference to the parti- \ncular case. \n\nTo "offend on one point is to be guilty of all," when \nan offence is committed with knowledge, because it is \na denial of the authority of the lawgiver; but to con- \nclude all in guilt, who conscientiously prefer to pray \nwithout the use of unauthorized forms, does indeed \n"rebut all reasoning." Neither the ancient Jews, nor \nJesus Christ, nor his apostles have been, or can be \nshown, to have used a liturgy, or system of written \nprayers ; nor were such public forms in use in the \nfirst Christian churches ; when, therefore, we offer the \ndesires of our hearts in the language which our minds \nsuggest, we follow the example of Christ, his apostles \nand the primitive churches. \n\nOf the lawfulness, or even expediency of using \nforms of prayer, we make no dispute, and often re- \ncommend them. But we deny, that any authority to \nintroduce them into Christian assemblies can be fairly \ndeduced either from precept or example, of Christ or \nhis apostles ; and that they were either necessary to \n\n\n\n298 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nthose who were inspired, or at all important to the \ndischarge of the duty of public prayer. \n\nIn the early persecutions, the books of the Chris- \ntians were sought after, and burnt; but no books of \nprayers, the Scriptures and utensils only are men- \ntioned. Thus the argument against the use of written \nprayers, from a total silence, is equivalent to that \nagainst images. The most learned amongst the ad- \nvocates of written forms, assert that every church \nwas left to its own creed and form of prayer ; and \nthat afterwards the churches of a district agreed to a \nconformity among themselves. The first is proved by \nSozomen, who asserts this of a church which arose \nfrom another ; but he was in the fifth century. The \nlatter is supported by the words of the council of Mi- \nlevis, in which Augustine sat ; but it extended only to \na portion of Africa, and was adopted as a precaution \nagainst Pelagianism. \n\nThat amen was spoken aloud at the end of prayers, \nappears from the New Testament ; this Jerom, in his \nday, the cotemporary of Augustine in the fifth cen- \ntury, compared to the thunder of heaven.^ The sur- \nsum cord a, raise your hearts, has been referred to the \napostle James, by Cyril of Jerusalem, but too late, for \nhe died A. D. 380. No mention of public forms of \nprayer was made in the first centuries, unless the \nLord\'s prayer, the benediction, and sacramental \nwords be exceptions. Justin Martyr, A. D. 140, de- \nscribes to the emperor, the worship of a Christian as- \nsembly, in which the presiding presbyter prayed " ac- \ncording to his ability." Tertullian, in the beginning \nof the third century, says, in his Apology for Chris- \ntianity, " We look up to heaven with hands expanded, \nbecause pure ; with heads uncovered, because we are \nnot ashamed ; finally, without a monitor, because, \nfrom the heart we pray for rulers \xe2\x80\x94 army \xe2\x80\x94 senate \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n\n\nb "Ad similitudinem celestis tonltru, amen reboat." \xe2\x80\x94 Prxf. \nadGalatas. \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 299 \n\npeople \xe2\x80\x94 the world." Basil, in the fourth century, ad- \nvises how to pray ; to begin with addressing God, " as \nmuch as you can," in the words of Scripture ; then \ngive thanks ; then confess ; then offer your petitions. \nHe prepared not a liturgy, but hymns to be sung in \nalternate verses ; a practice which was in early and \ngeneral use. Much error has been incurred, by tak- \ning several w^ords which expressed hymns to signify \nprayers. The centuriators themselves were thus de- \nceived. That in the fifth century, " scarcely two \nprayed alike," is affirmed by Socrates, the historian, of \nhis own age. Gregory the First, instituted "the \nwhole institution of the mass," and how much it re- \nsembles the Pagan worship, it is painful to behold. \nPope Adrian, A. D. 796, confirmed the use of Grego- \nry\'s, against a false one, called the mass of Ambrose. \nSuch is the origin of that liturgy, which the pious \nwriter in the Church Register deems it sinful to neg- \nlect. \n\nBeheving that liturgies, confirmations, festivals and \ncanonical ordinations as manifestly rest upon merely \nhuman authority, as do image worship, prayers to \nsaints, and prayers for the dead, we feel, nevertheless, \nno disposition to dispute with those who follow them. \nSelf-vindication is our only aim ; for when it is assert- \ned that the liturgy is commanded of God, and that we \nare guilty of the whole law for neglecting this duty, \nwe stand impeached, either of the ignorance of those \nthings, which we, who teach others, ought to investi- \ngate ; or of that, which is far worse, of disingenuous- \nness. We doubt not the conscientiousness of this \nwriter, but we do question the correctness of his infor- \nmation ; yet, at the same time, acknowledge the duty \nof investigating the truth ; and profess our readiness to \nadopt his prayer book, so soon as he shall make it \nclear, that we ought so to do. Custom may have ren- \ndered a form important to him ; to us it would prove an \nincumbrance. The Searcher of hearts needs not our \nwords to know our desires; our prayers may ascend \n\n\n\n300 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nin the unformed language of breathings of submission \nand of gratitude ; yet words, without utterance, may- \nbe advantageously conceived for ourselves, or used \nfor others ; but then they must be spoken or written. \nIn like manner, we adopt the prayers of others by as- \nsenting and joining mentally ; or by aspirations with- \nout uttering a single word ; or by following in words, \nor by adding our amen. We may offer written \nprayers in the same manner ; but when long familiar, \nthey neither awaken nor engage the attention in such \nmanner as those which are suggested by the imme- \ndiate reflection of our minds on the things we express, \nor are uttered in the striking language of another\'s \nthoughts. In the view of a holy God, neither style \nnor sentiment, but the temper of the mind ; i^ot the \neloquent address, but the humbling sense of his ma- \njesty and our nothingness, of his mercy and our \nwants ; not the profession of a dependence on the \nmerits of Christ, but the affiance of the soul upon the \nonly mediation, either expressed with the utmost sim- \nplicity, or breathed from a devout heart, constitutes \nprayer. Imperfections, worse than of diction, exist \nin all our services. Defect of erudition is a matter of \nminor importance. The prayers of Indian Sarah, in \nhunger and rags, are as acceptable as those read from \nthe splendid folio of a cathedral, by the archbishop of \nCanterbury in lawn sleeves. When the fire of love, \nglowing in the language of artless simphcity, engages \nand carries the hearts of the people ; and every soul, \nrapt in the exercise, rises to the very foot of the \nthrone ; heaven and earth are brought together; even \nspectators are awed into silence and consternation. \nWhen do such effects follow the reading of a litur- \ngy? After long observation, an obscure expression \nhas rarely occurred in our public prayers ; they have \nbeen obviously conformed to the truth, and often to \nthe language of Scripture ; the style, the manner, the \nsentiment were all adapted to the worshippers, whilst \nthey who uttered them, evidently realized themselves \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 301 \n\nin their approaches to God, as joining with all Chris- \ntians of every denomination, the general assembly of \nsaints, whose names are written in heaven. To pray \nis the duty, and not to conflict about the mode. If \neach is accountable for himself, each should be at \nliberty to choose without censure ; also, charity de- \nmands, that every one should be left to the full r**- \nsuasion of his own mind. \n\n\n\nNumber III. \n\n\n\nThat the lawfulness of composing and using a \nform may be justified by circumstances, is no more \ndoubted by us, than the lawfulness of teaching the ig- \nnorant how to pray. Had this been the question, the \nproofs and arguments of the writer in the Church \nRegister, would have been relevant. But his pro- \nfessed object is, to show that the adoption of a liturgy, \nand the reading of prayers in public, are duties ; and \nfinding no command either in the Old or New Testa- \nment of any such things, he attempts to establish them \nby the occasional joint prayers of the ancient Israel- \nites, the sacerdotal benediction, and the Lord\'s prayer; \nall of which being far less than a liturgy, in the pre- \nsent use of the term, fix the blame of neglecting such \nimaginary duties as much on them as on us. To \nprevent his asserting, that he has " proved" that the \nJews." used a set form," we have neither power nor \ninclination. .But if he can show, that the ancient \nJews had, beside psalmody, a written form of prayer^ \nmore than the benediction, then has he countervailed \nthe evidence, tHat every man offered his own prayer, \nexcept in joint addresses on extraordinary occasions,, \nand has found what a learned bigotted dignitary of ^\xc2\xbb^\'\xc2\xab \n2B \n\n\n\n302 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nown church must have escaped, who tells us in a very \nuseful work, that, " neither of these," the stationary \nmen of the temple, and the worshipping people of Is- \nrael, " had any pubUc forms to pray by, nor any pub- \nlic ministers to officiate to them therein, but all prayed \nin private by themselves, and all according to their \nown private conceptions \xe2\x80\x94 and so continued to do, all \nthe while the public sacrifices were offering up both \nmorning and evening." He says the truth, and that \nthey had no liturgy may be rested in with as much \nconfidence, as any negative not mathematical. But \nwe hold him not to the concessions of his party, for \nwe admit no opinions where evidence only is re- \nquired. \n\nWe are surprised, that we should be put to the ne- \ncessity of asserting, that because the ancient Jews did, \non some extraordinary occasions, join in prayer to \nGod, it by no means follows, that in their temple-ser- \nvice they continually joined in public prayers. This \ndefect wholly destroys the writer\'s superstructure of a \npresumption, that Christ and his disciples used a set \nform of prayer. That the Saviour did authorise joint \nprayer, and that it is our duty, under the gospel dis- \npensation, no one denies : but^so far is this fact from \nsupporting his argument for a liturgy, that the circum- \nstance of his expressly enjoining this duty strengthens \nthe position, that even joint prayer had not been either \nhis, or their previous custom. The proofs brought \nfrom the second and third centuries, that Christ had \n" taught his disciples how to pray," by no means es- \ntablish, either that the apostles, or that the Christian \nchurches in the days of the apostles, used it as a public \nform. That it was in the second century rehearsed \nin public, which we now do, is no more- a proof, that \nthe churches then had, and read a liturgy of written \nforms, than the same fact proves, the Presbyterian \nchurches in our day have written prayers, which they \nread in their public service. \n\nThis writer cannot show us, that any apostle, or \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 303 \n\nany church in the first century, ever used the Lord\'s \nprayer as a form, so much as once. A mere possi- \nbUity is no proof; and were this fact granted him, it \ncould not sustain his argument ; for, that it was law- \nful, is no evidence that it was necessary. We do not \ndeny, that the giving of the prayer was a permission \nto use it as a form, though given merely as a pattern ; \nbut we think it was not commanded, because the Sa- \nviour\'s words so understood exclude every other \nprayer. \n\nIf it were allow^able for us to put the issue of the \npublic cause, upon the question, whether any one of \nthe ten early writers, mentioned in his fourth number, \nhas asserted that the church had a liturgy or form of \npubHc prayer, more than w^e have stated in our last \nnumber, we should not fear to do it; notwithstanding \nthe Christian church, from obvious causes, outstripped \nthe synagogue in its early imitation of the temple-ser- \nvice. If all he can prove, extends only to the Lord\'s \nprayer, and the words of Christ in appointing the two \nordinances, then let every thing be cast out of the \nprayer-book, except these, and the dispute is terminat- \ned. But the cause of truth demands, that neither \nhearsay evidence, nor the mere opinions of any age, \nor uninspired writer, should be received ; and the an- \ncient fathers are credible witnesses only of the facts \nw^ithin their own knowledge respectively. \n\nIn the prayer of the disciples, (Acts iv. 24 \xe2\x80\x94 3],^ \n" they all lift up their voices with one accord ; consequent- \nly," he observes, "they all prayed the same thing, \nW\'hich they could not have done, had it not been pre- \nviously set in order and drawn up." " Could not" one \nhave spoken it, and " all" the rest repeated after him ? \n" Could not" one have thus prayed, and " all" the rest \nhave " lifted up their voice," amen, amen, "with one \naccord ?" When, in verse 31, " they were all filled with \nthe Holy Ghost, and they spake the word with bold- \nness," it is equally just to say, " they all" spoke " the \nsame thing, which they could not have done, had it \n\n\n\n;^4 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nnot been previously set in order and drawn up." Here \nthe argument for reading prayers and sermons, stands \nsupported by the same circumstances and words, and \nno doubt they may be affirmed of the apostles with \nequal truth. Let this mode of expression be tried in \nother passages. "In Acts 1, 10, 11," "two men in \nwhite apparel stood \xe2\x80\x94 and said, the men," &c. Did \nthe two angels use aprecomposed set form of address? \nPeter\'s speech, ch. iii. 12 \xe2\x80\x94 26, is, in ch. iv. 1, referred \nto John as well as himself, in similar language, " and \nas they spake to the people." In each instance the \nact of the one having the concurrence of the other, \nwas, with the utmost propriety, referred to both. Did \neach elder, (ch. iv. 6, 7,) ask the same question of \nPeter and John? Afterwards (ch. v. 29) the answer of \nPeter is considered as the answer of the other apos- \ntles. " Then Peter and the other apostles, answered," \n&c. But this prayer (ch. iv. 24) " was previously set \nin order and drawn up !" There was no time for it ; \nPeter and John " being let go, they went to their own \ncompany, and reported all that the chief priests and \nelders had said unto them ; and when they heard that, \nthey lift up their voices with one accord, and said," \n&c. It was the sudden effusion of their hearts ; if \nthey had appointed any of their number to retire and \ndraw up a form of prayer, worthy of the occasion, \nlest the impressive circumstances should induce them \nto betray more zeal than knowledge ; instead of the \nfeeling here described, the record would have been a \nlifeless form, and the worship a species of calculation \nbordering on hypocrisy. But " they were all iilled \nwith the Holy Ghost ;" what need could there be, in \ntheir state, to " set in order and draw up" a prayer ? \nAfter all, if we could believe this pious writer\'s con- \nstruction of the passage, this special case would be no \nproof, either of the existence of a public liturgy at the \nperiod, or that a form of prayer was used in the ordi- \nnary worship of the apostles. \n\nBecause prayer was made without ceasing of the \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 305 \n\nchurch unto God for " Peter," who was imprisoned, \nthe writer supposes, that it was, in all probabiHty, in \nstrict unison with the custom of set forms. But until \nsuch custom has been proved, no such probability exists. \nWhen the Presbyterian churches agree to pray for \nsome object, no one infers, that they " agreed upon \nbefore hand, a set form ; nor would the doing this, on \na special occasion, be a ground even of probability thsii \nthey used a public liturgy. Upon such probabilities, \nnevertheless, this writer has attempted to erect a de- \nmonstration of an ancient Jewish hturgy, founding it \nmerely upon these instances, in which the people, upon \nextraordinary occasions, offered up a joint prayer, \nwhich he presumes was preconceived and written, \nalthough, at all other times, they prayed like the \nPharisee and the Publican, each by himself. Neither \nis that which is occasional common, nor is joint \nprayer necessarily preconceived, written and read. \n\nThe desire of establishing an ancient Jewish liturgy, \nled Dr. Lightfoot to suppose the eighteen benedictions \nto be that liturgy ; although destitute of proof suf- \nficiently ancient, and carrying on their face, that they \nwere written since the dispersion, and when thero \nwas neither temple nor sacrifice. \n\nJustice is desirable in all things ; to deduce sweep- \ning conclusions from imbecile and unsupported pre- \nmises, is unjust. This writer is safe in point of cha- \nracter, because his name is concealed : and the inter- \nrogative mode of his inference is probably a designed \nsalvo for his conscience, when he says : " Coupling \nthe evidence of the general use of the Lord\'s prayer \nby the apostles, with the strong testimony of the in- \nstances recorded in the Acts, can any one doubt of the \nauthority of set forms 1 rather, can any one doubt of \nthe necessity of them?" There has been no evidence \nof the general " use of the Lord\'s prayer by the apos- \ntles," no, not a solitary example of any such thing, nor \ncan this writer produce one. The " testimony of the \ninstances recorded in the Acts," we have seen proves \n2 b2 \n\n\n\n306 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nnothing more, than that the disciples joined in prayer, \non particular occasions : but of their using a form in \nthose instances, not a word is said, and even the pro- \nbability in each case is excluded by the circumstances. \nConsequently, the " coupling" them together must be \nprecisely the addition of two noughts. But the writer\'s \nfirst inference is the " authority of set forms;" If he \nmeans that they may be lawfully used,to this no one ob- \njects ; let every one use them who chooses ; and we \nhope many do with real devotion. But if he intends by \nthe phrase, that it was either the precept or practice of \nChrist or his apostles, to pray by set forms, what he \nsays is perfectly gratuitous. His second conclusion \nfrom his unsupported premises, is the " necessity" of set \nforms. There not having been a single instance \nshown, either of the use of the Lord\'s prayer, or of \nany other set form by the disciples, the inference ought \nto have been, that they are not necessary. Prayer is \nthe offering up of the desires of the heart, and why \nmay not every one, who knows how to express his \nthoughts on other subjects, speak his wants to God? \nNevertheless, he who has never cherished any desires, \nexcept those which were previously written for his \nuse, and has been taught by this writer, that an at- \ntempt to pray without a set form would be presump- \ntion, and a want of humility, may feel a necessity of \nsuch aid ; and let him have it free of censure. But \nwe are said to " neglect" the use of forms, " from ig- \nnorance of the Scriptural authority of such custom." \nIgnorant as we are, we shall not be also luigraleful to \nthis writer, if he will show us, where the Scriptures \nexhibit such a custom ; and promise to give no more \n" vent to our own words" in public prayer, when he \nshall evince set forms to have been "the ordinances \nof Christ, and the practice of his apostles." \n\nThe zeal of this unknown writer was the most pro- \nbable cause of his astonishment, when he asked: \n" What a stretch of pride it is in man possessing only, at \nthe utmost, the ordinary operations of the Spirit, to \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 307 \n\nsuppose, that he can safely practise that, which the \nfully inspired of God in the earhest and freest impulse \nof inspiration, under the gospel covenant, did not \npractise !" The " ordinary operations" are the " more \nexcellent way," and preferable to gifts. There is \nsome singularity, also, both in denominating them in- \nspiration, and in supposing them compatible with a \n^^ stretch of prided But waiving these things, we ap- \npeal to the writer\'s own conscience, and ask, how he \ncould assert, that the apostles *\' did not practise" ex- \ntemporary prayer, when he has in vain attempted to \nshow a single proof that they ever used a form ? The \nimputation of a " stretch of pride" cast upon every one \nwho prays in public, without a precomposed form, \nmust extend with equal justice to every one, who \npreaches as did the apostles, without writing; and \nalso to every man, who ventures to walk alone when \nhe might use crutches. \n\nThe charges oi pride and ignormice, we are, because \nfallen men, less able to parry, than the arguments for \na liturgy ; and to recriminate by showing, that the use \nof forms in praying and preaching is some evidence \nof both the flaws, might wound the feehngs of the \nwriter, if he should be, as we suppose he is, both a \nChristian and a gentleman. But why should it be " a \nstretch of pride \xe2\x80\x94 to suppose that we would safely \npractise" extemporary prayer, if we have spent as \nmuch time, labor, and expense in obtaining knowledge \nand language, as we ought to have done ? And why \nshould we aim at a character for correctness, which \nis impossible to human nature ? We apprehend no \ndanger; and think we have followed as closely the \nexamples of Christ and his apostles, as they who read \nor rehearse every word. If we should sit down \nto compose a prayer, and think God not to see what \nwe are doing, till we have prepared it, and appear in \nthe public desk to read it, we disparage his perfections; \nbut if he sees us, in all our deliberations upon what we \nwill say, and what withhold, we have gained nothing \n\n\n\n308 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nin point of safety. If by the terms, " safely practise,*^ \nthe writer had respect to the approbation of men, \nwhich we can scarcely imagine, such argument for \nforms is contemptibly puerile, and the apprehensions \nof danger idolatrous. \n\n\n\nNumber IV. \n\n\n\nTo serve the writer under this title in the Church \nRegister, we will concede any thing that is true ; and \nwill cheerfully admit, that if any part of the worship \nunder the Mosaic dispensation was not typical, and \nhas not been removed by the gospel, it still continues : \nand that thus, not only the right of children to be re- \nceived by circumcision into the church, whose parents \nwere members, not being taken away, and baptism \nnow evidently occupying the place of circumcision, \ninfant baptism is plainly justified ; but also the apos- \ntles were left both for the mode and subjects of bap- \ntism, almost entirely to their previous Jewish customs. \nAt his reasoning for the baptism of females, because \nsalvation is offered to all, of which he thinks they only \nare capable, who have been admitted by baptism into \n" the state of covenanted grace," we hesitate ; because \nbaptism, although a sign only of passing from a sinful \nto a holy state, and not the change itself, either of na- \nture or of state, was anciently confounded with and \ncalled regeneration ; yet as it cannot produce on the \nmind a mechanical effect, irrespectively of its own \nchoice ; so when Christ distinguished between being \nhorn of the water and of the spirit, his words certainly \ndid neither imply, that the one birth was the same as \nthe other, nor that the one was the cause of the other. \nThis doctrine, like his liturgy, with its confirmation, \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 309 \n\ncanonical ordination, and many other things, should \nhave been, at the Reformation, abandoned as human \ninventions. \n\nPrayer is the common duty of Jew and Gentile, and \nin its natui;e personal, whether public or private, being \nthe language of the heart, and the mode consequently \nunimportant. Among the distinguished people, the \nemblem of Divine Majesty rested on the mercy-seat ; \nthere he put his name ; from thence blessed the wor- \nshippers. The priests, as mediators, offered the morn- \ning and evening sacrifices, and burned the incense be- \ntween the mercy-seat and the people, " who were pray- \ning without." (Luke i. 9, 10.) The incense of the \npriests and the prayers of the saints, are often asso- \nciated in the Scriptures. (Exod. xxx. 67 ; Ps. cxli. 2, \nxxxviii. 2 ; Rev. v. 8, viii. 3, 4.) The sanctuary, the \npriests, and the incense were types, (Heb. ix. 24,) but \nnow Christians may draw near with boldness to the \nthrone of grace. (Heb. iv. 14, 16, x. 21, 22.) The \nSovereign of the Universe is the object of prayer. He \nmay have mercy upon whom He will ; but He will \nmaintain the honor of his rectoral government, and \nextend his mercy only through Christ. The work of \nthe priests was not to speak the petition of the people, \nbut to act as typical mediators ; and whilst they were \noffering sacrifices, and burning the incense of the \nmorning and evening, the people at the temple, in the \nsynagogues, in the streets and market places, in their \nclosets or in foreign lands, were praying with their \nfaces towards the mercy-seat. Nevertheless, if it can be \nshown that there was a liturgy under the former dis- \npensation, in public use in the temple, we are as ready \nto receive and use it, with suitable modifications, as \nwe are to sing the Psalms of David. But if the truth \nreally is, that each appeared and prayed in his own \nwords, and considered that the public sacrifices might \nafford him the advantage of procuring acceptance for \nhis requests, he asked for himself, not in preconceived \nwritten forms, but whatsoever he thought he most \n\n\n\n310 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nneeded. In like manner, when a few Christians aro \nassembled, the presence of God is promised to their \nworship ; and whether one utters a prayer, or many- \npray in succession, the prayer is still necessarily seve- \nral, for each adopts what suits his views, and adds \nwhat he chooses in mental aspirations, unembarrassed \nby set words ; and that God, who sees the heart, will \nanswer the prayer of faith. If it be a printed form, it \nis equally prayer, by those who offer it up, making it \ntheir own, but not otherwise. \n\nAq argument predicated upon the want of a prohibi- \ntion of set forms, is but a waste of words, unless it be \nfirst shown, that such forms had previously existed. \nTo the challenge given by the writer in the Church \nRegister, " to adduce one instance that contains any \nallusion to such prohibition," we answer, we will take \nup the gauntlet the moment he shows " the custom of \nusing set forms in the pubhc worship of the Jews," \nprior to the Christian era; and we shall be satisfied, \nif he can show precept, example, or even an allusion \nto a written liturgy in the Scriptures : and common \nsense dictates, that no -prohibition can be reasonably \nexpected, of that which had no previous existence. \nThe amount of his argument seems to be, that every \nthing not prohibited is lavdul; which will justify the \nteaching for doctrines the commandments of men. \nWe shall never object to their using set forms of \nprayer, who prefer to do so : but we censure the de- \nnominating any thing the command of God, which is \nof merely human appointment, and pronounce it to be \nwill-worship. It is probable, that neither Aaron, nor \nJeroboam, designed to change the object of worship ; \nthey introduced only other signs of the divine pre- \nsence. But their innovations invaded the divine pre- \nrogative, and were treason. Liturgies having neither \nprecept, nor example under either dispensation, fall \nunder the same censure ; and although they may be \nused innocently by those who are accustomed thus to \nworship, for prayer is the desire of the heart ; yet \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 311 \n\nwhen introduced either by civil or ecclesiastical au- \nthority, as the command of God, who has commanded \nno such thing, it is an error like his, who said, " these \nbe thy gods, {meaning the singular,) Oh Israel, which \nbrought thee out of the land of Egypt." We are \nforced to these representations, that this pious writer \nmay see, that it is neither insincerity nor pride which \nprevents our confessing such practice to be " Scriptu- \nral and apostoHc," but a perfect conviction that it is \nneither ; and a persuasion that it ought not to have \nl)->5n introduced. If prayer, even when joint, be per- \nsonal aim several, and strictly the application of a \nchild to a &!her in every instance, the unrenewed \nnever pray; for ev\'^^T one who asketh receiveth, and \nthey who receive not, hd\'ve not asked. When prayer, \ntherefore, is defined the otlt^rng up the desires of the \nheart, it must be understood only of holy desires ; \notherwise it is an abomination, and these exist only \nin the justified. More may agree in their petitions, \nbut there is not so much one prayer as a concert of \nprayers, which are as numerous as the beheving wor- \nshippers. \n\nThe fifth number presents also an argument, novel \nto us, and ingenious \xe2\x80\x94 " among the diversities of gifts \n\xe2\x80\x94 there is no mention of the gift of praying ;" whence \nhe infers that the necessity of it was prevented by the \ncustom, " of offering up congregationally their prayers \nin a pre-composed and set form." This is a fine ex- \nample of the non causa pro causa, the assignation of a \nwrong cause. Gifts were distinguished from grac \nthose might exist wheie the party was still an enemy, \ngrace only where the disposition was changed. So \nfar as prayer consisted of words or sentiments, it \nmight be a gift ; but more strictly, prayer is the offer- \ning up of the desires of the heart, under which aspect, \nit is moral, not physical, of grace not by gift, and ordi- \nnary not extraordinary. The nature of prayer, there- \nfore, and not the use of forms, prevented the enumera- \ntion of prayer among the gifts, which were bestowed \n\n\n\n312 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nunder the administration of the Spirit, in planting the \nchurches. But this advocate of the divine authority \nof hturgies, thinks his argument derives " weight from \nthe apostle\'s injunction \xe2\x80\x94 not to pray in an unknown \ntongue, because the people could not say amen, to such \nprayers :" and he infers, " neither can they say amen \nto prayers uttered by the ministers extemporaneously ; \nbecause they are to know what they are praying for, \nand how they are praying, which men in general can- \nnot do, when any person, though inspired, is prayinp^ \nfor them in words and sentiments which are his o^^, \nand unknown to others before they are utter^^;" jf \ninspired, it is scarcely discernible how the wards and \nsentiments should be his own. Al^o, in public, which \nis joint prayer, the speaker does not usually " pray \nfor them" who hear, but uses the first person plural \nBut that the prohibition to pray in an unknown tongue \nshould aid the cause of liturgies, it must be presumed \nthat the church of Corinth had liturgies in different \ntongues, and that the apostle meant to restrict them to \nthe use of those only which the people could under- \nstand. What would the CathoHcs say to this ? But the \ndesign of the apostle was to correct, and prevent the \nabuse of gifts; and particularly the vanity of praying \nin the words of an unknown language. The gift of \ntongues was important, that strangers might hear the \ngospel; but public prayers should be spoken in the \ncommon language, that every one might make them \ntheir own by their amen, and do the very thing of \nwhich the writer has said, "neither can they say \namen to prayers uttered extemporaneously." \n\nAnother argument adduced is, that " as all things \nare to be done decently and in order, so the best way of \ninsuring that decency and order, was, that all should \npray with one mind and one mouth, which could only \nbe done congregationally by the adoption of prayers \none and the same, and known and understood by all." \nThis precept of decency and order was used by Bel- \nlarmine to estabhsh the whole service and ceremonies \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS* 313 \n\nof the church of Rome; and is as valid for the whole \nas It IS for a part ; and this writer is as much bound \nby It to receive the popish ritual, as we are to adopt \nftis. Our ideas of decency and order are probably \ndiverse. He thinks decency and order impossible in a \ncongregation where all rise up to pray, and hear in \nprolound silence the words of him who leads, and lift \nup in aspirations his petitions, adding what breathings \nthey choose, in the name of Christ, to the throne of \n^Toct whom they thus approach with the confidence of \nchiiJ^^^J to a father. To us, probably through desue- \ntude, wnCr. we hear the reader\'s words echoed back \nfrom every coY^^^\' of the church, in every possible \ntone, loud and soti, harsh and smooth, hurried and \nslow ; and our ears are not more offended with dis- \ncords, than our eyes by a confusion of countenances, \nsome gay and absent, others hanging upon the lips of \nthe speaker, and others fixed upon their books, which \nof the two modes of worship is most favorable to de- \ncency and order, appears not doubtful. Nor is there \nwith us any uncertainty, either about the time or \nmanner of the introduction of liturgies, as we hinted \nin our second number. We not only have all the \ncertainty that a negative admita, that none of these ^ \nwritten forms existed in the first ages of Christianity; \nbut also evidence, that they came in at a period when \nthe church had become greatly corrupted. The simi- \nlarity which the liturgy advocated by this writer, bears \nunto the Latin Catholic liturgy, shows its origin ; and \nthe clerical sentiment of the day was no doubt ex- \npressed by a learned doctor of the estabhshment, \nwhen he said, " As to our churches prescribing a litur- \ngy of set forms of prayer and administration of sacra- \nments, and other public offices, it is easy to show, that \nsymbolizing with the church of Rome is so far from \nbeing culpable, and much more from being a just \nground of separation from our church, that it is highly \ncommendable." Yet we do not think, and therefore \ncannot say of ours, that it is the only mode in which \n2C \n\n\n\n314 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nworship can be rightly offered; and were surprised, \nwhen we read in the Church Register, that to "pray \nwith one mind and one mouth;\' can " only be done \ncongregationally by the adoption of prayers one and \nthe same, and known and understood by all. We \nhad thought any mode sufficient in which the desire \nof the heart can be offered ; but if one mouth be essen- \ntial, how can many be one ? . r ,i \n\nAn argument is drawn also from the meaning ol the \noriginal word rendered " order," in the passage r^^ \nScripture last cited; which, he thinks, denotes a. pj,g_ \nvious arrangement and setting in order ; \xe2\x80\xa2P^\'gnce, he \nasks, if Paul may not have referred .^o an "order \nwhich had been prescribed]" His. v^jterrogations imply \na doubtfulness, which it is to b/^s credit not to conceal \nHis perplexities demand commiseration. But he as- \ncends to no higher authority than the opinions of a \nmodern German lexicographer, which merits no an- \nswer. A writer of his own church, understanding this \nsam6 word to signify a rule or canon, has used it as an \nargument against allowing toleration to our fathers ; \na favor we do not ask; and has observed in the true \nspirit of these times : " We must not break God\'s com- \nmands in charity to them, and therefore we must not \nperform public services indecently and disorderly, for the \nsake of tender consciences." Thank heaven, those \ndays are past. \n\nThat " the church of England," meaning, we sup- \npose, in America, " holds fast the form of sound \nwords" in " articles of belief," and " modes of wor- \nship," is matter of gratulation with this writer, in \nwhich we also partake ; for we think her articles are \nsound in the main, and of her modes of worship \nwould make no complaint. That much piety exists \namong her evangelical members, we are happy to \nhave no doubt ; of the rest, we presume not to judge ; \nbut possessing kind feelings to the denomination, as a \nbranch of the church of Christ, we wish never to say, \nor write a word against her government or ritual ; \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 315 \n\nbut the same uncharitable spirit, which, by passing an \necclesiastical ostracism, disgusted and exiled our \nfathers, has followed us in our retreat with its old, ig- \nnorant, and unfounded monopoly. To vindicate the \ntruth is a duty easy, all that is necessary to us \nbeing merely to disclose the facts of ancient history, \nwhen the unadulterated cause of the gospel wiH re- \ncommend itself \n\n\n\nNumber V. \n\n\n\nWhilst the Christian reads the Psalms of David \nwdth self-application, pleasure springs from the reflec- \ntion, that he reads the word of God ; yet in almost \nevery Psalm wc pass by things which we do not lift \nup to the throne of grace. To these set forms of in- \nspiration none object ; but their first design was praise. \nHad the apostles left us set forms of prayer, as they \nmust have been also inspired, they w^ould have fallen \ninto general use. If the author of Liturgical Conside- \nrations, in the Church Register, could have shown \n" the use of set forms, by the apostles," " it matters not \non how few occasions," we should have gladly re- \nceived them ; but whether a solitary instance has ap- \npeared, an impartial public can judge. His supposi- \ntion, that apostolic practice w^ould continue to A. D. \n120 or 130, is reasonable; and we concede still more, \nthat though he has not shown, that the apostles used \nset forms of prayer in public, yet if the churches in \nany short period after their day, did in fact use such \nforms, then must they have been in use in the times of \ninspiration; and we follow his researches on this \npoint with impartiality. \n\nIn Clement, who is first adjured, we have the utmost \n\n\n\n316 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nconfidence. But what in his letter could have invited \nthe appeal, baffles conjecture. The Greek word \n" liturgy" does occur at each of the places cited, yet \nthis writer\'s prudence has rendered it worship and service. \nThe church at Corinth had existed long under those, \nwho by the extraordinary gifts and guidance of the \nSpirit, planted the first churches; and this letter being \nwritten before the destruction of Jerusalem, they \ncould have had presbyters but a few years. The ob- \nject of the letter, being to cause them to receive agaijn \ntheir presbyters, whom they had rejected, it is evl/jent \nthey had been averse to church order. To t nis Cle- \nment presses them as the ordinance of God. " Where, \nand by whom he wills things to be accomplished, he \nhas ordained, in his sovereign pleasure: that all things \npiously done unto well pleasing, might be acceptable \nunto his own will." He then refers them to the ser- \nvices (liturgies) of the temple, appointed to the high \npriest, and the rest of the priesthood, alleging that lay- \nmen were there restricted to their own duties. Im- \nmediately he observes, "let each one of you brethren \npraise God in his own sphere, living in a good con- \nscience, each not exceeding the prescribed rule of his \nservice, with reverence." Again he refers them to \nthe worship at Jerusalem, and argues the greater guilt \nof the Christians at Corinth, from their greater know- \nledge. The church was therefore not to continue \nwithout presbyters, nor their duties to be invaded by \nthose, who had not been appointed to them. The de- \nsign of Clement is clear, and his reasoning forcible, \nbut we discern not even the most remote allusion, in \neither passage, to the use of set forms in worship. \n\n"Polycarp exhorts the Phihppians to return to the \nword, that was delivered from the beginning, watching \nunto prayer.\'\'^ This advice of Paul, Cyprian observes, \n"shows that they can obtain from God, what they ask, \nwhom God sees to be watching in prayer^ They re- \ncommend an importunity like that af the Canaanite, \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 317 \n\nwho would receive no denial, and are rather an argu- \nment \'against, than for set forms of prayer. \n\nThe expressions "one common supphcation," "one \ncommon prayer," "your joint prayers" in the letter \nascribed to the pious Ignatius, and which are a blot \nupon his memory, imply no necessity, that the pray- \ners should have been written and read; for if one led \nthe worship, and the rest united, the prayer was one, \njoint, and common. In this mode the unlearned could \nunite as well as those who could read. If prayer \nbooks had been then the order of the day, the cum- \nbrous machinery could not have escaped notice. \nThese "powerful" prayers were of single congrega- \ntions, for though those spurious letters were written \nlong after the death of the martyr, and when episco- \npacy had commenced in its parochial form; yet even \nthen, liturgies in the sense of written prayers, were \nunknown. Evidence to procure belief, should flow \nfrom pure fountains, but the writer of those letters \nthough unworthy of credit, had not anticipated litur- \ngies. \n\n"Tertullian does not notice in his apology any \nchange." Unless liturgies had been introduced in his \nday, there was no change, that could have accrued on \nthis subject; but we have seen, that they were intro- \nduced long afterwards. "Besides the use of the Lord\'s \nprayer, and the psalms, he mentions the subject of \ntheir constant supplications, from which we may infer \nthat there were additional forms used by the Christians, \nbesides that perfect one, given by our Lord himself." \nAlthough the repeated exhibition of the Lord\'s prayer \naffords a fair presumption that there was no other pat- \ntern given by him, yet this writer thence infers the ex- \nistence of more. Also, because Tertullian mentions \ndifferent subjects of prayer, he presumes the prayers must \nhave been written and read; but as none such have been \nshown to have then existed, and no public forms to have \nbeen then in use, except the rehearsal of the Lord\'s pray- \ner, the presumption is precisely the reverse, and the infer- \n2c*2 \n\n\n\n318 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nence against him. Christians were persecuted, because \nthey would not offer to the gods sacrifices for the\' Em- \nperor; Tertulhan alleged that they could not apply to \ngods unable to afford help, but that they prayed to the \nAlmighty for the Emperor ; and to estabhsh the truth \nof what he said, he referred his enemies to the Scrip- \ntures which required Christians to pray for their ene- \nmies, their persecutors, and for Emperors, and for all \nwho were in authority. Apol. c. 31. If Christians had \nthen used written forms of prayer, they must have \nbeen produced as the best evidence, but his reference \nto the Scriptures, to prove the principles of Christians, \nevinces that they had no forms, which they could bring \nin defence. \n\nCyprian is next adduced ; "whose evidence is still \nmore explicit, when he warns Christians, not to babble \ntheir prayers, in unpremeditated, or disorderly words; \nneither to use a tumultuous or confounding loquacity, \nand earnestly exhorts his flock, to take care their hearts \nand voices go together in prayer." We suppose the \npassage, here spoken of, to be, "non ventilare preces \nnostras inconditis vocibus, nee petitionem commendan- \ndam modeste Deo, tumultuosa loquacitate jactare : \nquia Deus non vocis, sed cordis auditor est." If the \npeople, who were here reproved used only a written li- \nturgy, it is impossible, that they should have been guilty \nof babbhng, disorderly words, and tumultuous loqua- \ncity: but these improprieties might readily have oc- \ncurred in the secluded assemblies of zealous, perse- \ncuted Christians, where many successively led in \nprayer ; and especially, if they spoke aloud their amen, \naccompanied with pious effusions. Cyprian confirms \nthis view by proposing immediately in the same para- \ngraph the example of Hannah ; whom he affirms to \nhave been a type of the church, who spoke not with her \nvoice hut with her heart, \xe2\x80\x94 and obtained what she sought. \nShe certainly prayed without a written form, and the \nchurch was advised to pray as she did. This "evi- \ndence is still more explicit," for it substitutes among \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 319 \n\nthe people mental, in the place of vocal prayer. But \nbecause the writing is on the subject of the Lord\'s \nprayer, which in the third century was publicly recited \nby memory, it may be thought, that he reproves the \ndisorderly rehearsal of this aloud by the people; it \nmust be remembered however that the accusation was \nof loquacity, which implies that they used their own \nwords. \n\n"Gregory Thaumaturgus A. D. 270, composed or \ncompiled a liturgy for the use of the churches in Cap- \npadocia, w^hich continued to be used without any va- \nriation till the time of Basil about one hundred \n\nyears after." We are sorry to see this hackneyed \nallegation here presented with absolute positiveness, \nnotwithstanding the notoriety of the numerous objec- \ntions. If we suppose it to be Basil\'s, it is hearsay evi- \ndence, and not nearer to its time than a century; but \nit is contradicted by his sixty-third epistle, in so many \nwords, wherein speaking to themi of Gregory Thau- \nmaturgus, he says, " you have preserved nothing." \nThe evidence is allowed by Erasmus, who translated \nthe piece, and by others, to have been in part, or \nwhole, a forgery in the name of Basil: and this opinion \nwas not founded merely upon diversity of style ; but a \nfalsehood, of which that writer was incapable. But \nthe w^ords " they have not added any practice, word, \nor mystical type, besides w^hat he had left them," do \nnot speak that he had left them a liturgy. If the piece be \ngenuine, it is a defence of Basil for varying the form of \nthe doxology ; and in the whole of it we can find no- \nthing, which concerns forms or liturgies, and the Greek \nterms rendered -word, mystical, and type are each, in \nother parts of it, plainly used for the doxology. It is, \ntherefore, and we believe justly denied, " that there \never was such a thing in the world as Gregory Thau- \nmaturgus\'s liturgy," and w^e assert with much confi- \ndence, that we know not a particle of proof of any \nsuch thing. \n\n" Eusebius A. D. 315, in his life of Constantine \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n\n\n320 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nrecords even a form appointed by the Emperor to be \nused by his foreign soldiers." The first Christian \nEmperor being by the laws of the en\'^pire the pontifex \nmaximus, was entitled to prescribe to the heathenish \npart of his army their religious rites ; and might frame \nthis short prayer accommodated to " saint, to savage \nand to sage," wherein the sovereignty of God -only is \nmentioned, without other titles, and not a word either \npeculiar to Christianity, or offensive to heathens \nis found. This was furnished to all in the Latin, \nthat they might read and be prepared to rehearse it ; \nand on Sunday they paraded in an open field, when \nupon a signal given, they pronounced these words and \nno more. It was probably intended by the Emperor \nin one sense, and understood by his pagan soldiers in \nanother. That it should be written was absolutely \nnecessary, otherwise they could neither judge of, nor \nuse it. It was rather a profession of allegiance, corir \ntaining prayers for the Emperor and his family, than \nan act of worship. This is the first form made to be \nused as such in public, which the writer has found, \nand this was designed for, and rehearsed only by pa- \ngans, not by a Christian church. The residue of the \narmy rested on the day, and without any hindratice re- \nsorted for worship to the Christian assembhes. This \nsingular compromise of Constantino, is no proof, that \nthere existed a liturgy of written prayers, even at that \nperiod, which was read in the churches. \n\n" He," Constantme, " also speaks of appeasing Christ \nby sacred prayer, and frequent litanies, as a mode of wor- \nship well established." The theology of this passage \nwas in character both for Constantino and Eusebius ; \nfor neither of them had right views of the mediatorial \ncharacter. The English word lita?iy means a form of \nsupplication ; the Greek word litany meant supplication \nitself; frequent is not in our copy. The reasons which \nprevented the anglicising the word liturgy in Clement, \nshould have excluded the English word litany here. \nThis oversight is aggravated by the use of italics. \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIOXS. 321 \n\nBut we forbear; either disappointment may have ex- \nasperated real ; or the writer begged the question un- \nguardedly; yec j.nstice to our cause demands, that we \nshould say, what ev\xc2\xabLry discriminating mind will dis- \ncern, that the Greek words afford not a shadow of \nproof of any w-ritten forms of prayer w^hatever. \n\n"Gregory Nazianzen testifies of \xe2\x80\x94 Basil that the \nappointment of prayers was among his remarkable \ndeeds." If forms had existed under both dispensa- \ntions, and if his wonder-working predecessor had left \na liturgy, from w^hich the people never swerved in \nact, word, or inystic type, \'tis difficult to perceive how \nBasil\'s appointment of prayers should be a remarkable \ndeed. But his prayers were sung ; and how Basil pro- \nmoted the alternate way of singing, may be seen by \nhis own account of it, in his sixty-third epistle. \n\n" This father also records that Julian the apostate, \nin his endeavor to subvert Christianity, designed to \nform his pagan rites of worship like those already \nestablished by the Christians, and that he intended to \ninstitute a form of prayer.\'\'^ The subtle designs of Ju- \nlian we admit, and have admired the wisdom and pru- \ndence of his advices to pagan priests, but a " form of \nprayer" was not that, which Gregory Nazianzen \nmeant, or Julian intended. That the original w^ord \nmeans also hymns in ancient writers, has been often \nabundantly shown. Also the words I\'endered farm \n(literally, type in part) were designed to express partial \nresemblance. Julian knew, that the Christian assem- \nblies were much occupied in, and highly delighted \nwith their alternate psalmody, and he wished some- \nthing of the kind, to render paganism popular, and \nbalance this advantage, possessed by the Christian \nworship. \n\nWe have now followed the writer in the Church \nRegister to the fourth century, and if we could from \nthence date the commencement of written public \nforms of prayer, so many w^ere the corruptions of the \nchurch at that period, that they would deserve no \n\n\n\n322 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nmore regard, than if they had commenced in th^ pre- \nsent age. But to justify the representations we gave \nin a former number, we will consider the next proof, \nwhich derives much plausibility from the modern \nsenses of some of the terms. \n\n" In the council of Laodicia a canon was arranged \nthat the same liturgy of prayer should he used at the ninth \nhour and in the evening. This council was called \nabout A. D. 310, principally on account of an innova- \ntion, which some persons were disposed to make by \noffering up their own prayers one part of the day, and \nthose which they had received from their forefathers \non the other." The original word is liturgy, which to \ntake in its modern sense is begging the question. This \nmeaning ought first to be shown to be as old as that \ncouncil; but it then meant any service of a public na- \nture. The Greek word liturgy occurs Acts. xiii. 2. \nRom. XV. le, 27. Philip, ii. 17, 30. 2 Cor. ix. 12. Heb. \nviii. 2, 6. ix. 21, but no one ventures to prove by the \nGreek of those passages the existence of set forms of \nwritten prayers. Also the word in the canon rendered \nprayers, is the same that we mentioned as often signi- \nfying psalms or hymns, and so it was understood by \nsome of the Greek writers upon this canon. But \nagainst these things this writer has provided a de- \nfence, by giving us the design of the council in mak- \ning this canon ; yet it is all perfectly gratuitous ; until \nhe has proved, what he has alleged, he has done no- \nthing. We might also introduce, if opinions were any \nthing, that of a Greek historian, who says on this ca- \nnon, what is more feasible, that there were afternoon \nhymns sung, but the people used others as vespers, or \nevening songs, in their meetings to prevent which the \nsynod determined, that the afternoon praises should \nalso be used in the evening. They designed probably \nto restrain irregularities, and promote devotion. And \nthe canon which precedes it, and which provides, that \ntwo hymns or psalms should not follow in immediate \nsuccession, favors the opinion. This council was in- \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 323 \n\nconsiderable, is omitted by some, its date very uncer- \ntain, its authority nothing, and some of its canons a \nreproach. The thirteenth removed from the people \nthe choice of their ministers; the fifteenth prohibited \nany in the church from singing, except those who \nwent into the gallery of singers. Yet it may be some \nevidence of the condition of the churches in the pro- \nconsular Asia at that time, and does show, that either \nin their praises, or prayers, the people were restricted \nby the clergy assuming an authority not their due. \nBut long afterwards, the third council of Carthage \ngave their approbation of some prayers, and directed \nthat the people should also use those, which were col- \nlected by the wiser sort ; and they express their object \nto have been to exclude errors in faith. These things \nevince a gradual progress towards the public use of \nwritten prayers, and are consequently wholly irrecon- \ncileable with the opinion, that the church had a liturgy, \nin the modern sense of the word, from the days of the \napostles. \n\nCavilling against the expediency of set forms could not \nbe, when neither a tongue nor a pen had been moved. \nNor could we err from " the example prescribed by \nGod, practised and sanctioned by our Saviour and his \napostles, and persevered in by the Christian church," \nif there was neither such example or practice. Were \nthe arguments of this writer as strong as his confi- \ndence, his labors would appear to more advantage, \nbut he cannot expect us to believe without, or contrary \nto evidence ; if such he has, he will oblige us by put- \nting his finger upon a single fact, that will show a pub- \nlic liturgy or set form to have been used in the church, \nin or soon after the apostolic age ; for when we read \nof the effect of sinning upon a single point, we fear to \ntrust that theology, which supposes any crime not so \nheinous as to exclude from salvation. \n\n\n\n324 liturgical considerations. \n\nNumber VL \n\n\n\nThe professed object of the seventh number, under \nthis title in the Church Register, is to show, "what \nthese forms and prayers were \xe2\x80\x94 employed in the\'* an- \ncient "public worship." To special instances of writ- \nten prayers, both national and private, in the Old Tes- \ntament, the attention of the reader has been called ; \nthat psalms were sung in the temple, even statedly, no \none denies ; also, that in the synagogues the Scrip- \ntures were read, and sometimes explained, is known \nto all who read the gospels. The first Christians were \nJews, worshipped in the synagogues on the Sabbaths, \nin their own assemblies on the Lord\'s day, and were \nconsidered and tolerated by the Roman government \nonly as Jews, the worship of the first churches must \nconsequently have nearly conformed to that of the \nsynagogues ; if this writer therefore can show a litur- \ngy of the synagogue, in the apostles^ days, he will do \nmuch. \n\n"From the Mishna we learn that eighteen collects, \nor benedictions were used, which are ascribed to \nEzra, the chief of the great Sanhedrim." \n\nThe Mishna is a compilation of those traditions, \nwhich Christ censured. After the destruction of Je- \nrusalem by Titus, the Jews were again subjected to a \nsecond destruction ; their losses in public men and \nschools, and the scattering of the people into other \ncountries, are the reasons assigned for the writing of \ntheir traditions. This labour was accomplished by a \nRabbi, whose name is still fresh with them ; and was \ncalled the Mishna ; the date whereof is placed by \nuniversal consent between A. D. 150 and 200. The \ncredit of the book is nothing, except with the sect, \nwho receive its fables. The Mishna, diflfering from \nother writings of the ancient Jews on the origin of the \nbenedictions, a comparison has been made by Vitringa. \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 325 \n\nThe evidence, that Ezra wrote the benedictions, comes \ntoo late, and is not only at best a mere hearsay, but \nwholly incredible. Had the benedictions existed from \nthe days of Ezra, they must have been unwritten till \nthe Mishna, which consists of things previously un- \nwritten. If such traditional prayers were possible, and \ncould have existed ; why are they not mentioned in \nthe New Testament? But they can tell their own age. \nWe read in one of them ; "dwell in the midst of Jeru- \nsalem, thy city, as thou hast promised, and build it \nquickly in our days, with a building, that shall continue \nfor ever." In another it is said \xe2\x80\x94 "bring again the le- \nvitical ministry into the temple of thy house, and ac- \ncept quickly, with love and good will, the sacrifices of \nthe Israehtes, to be consumed with fire, with their \nprayers," &c. Thus do the benedictions themselves \nshow, that they were written, when the Jews had nei- \nther city, nor temple, nor sacrifices. That they were \ncomposed since the dispersion, is evident from these \nwords ; "call us by the sound of the great trumpet to \nour Hberty, and lift the standard, to which all our dis- \npersion may be gathered from the four regions of the \nearth to our own land." Also when they ask; "let \nthere be no hope to the apostates from religion, let all \nheretics suddenly perish, how many soever they be. \nMay the kingdom of pride be eradicated, and suddenly \nbroken in our days," they must have intended by apos- \ntates and heretics Jewish Christians, and by the proud \nkingdom the Roman empire. The sacrifices of the \ntemple were of divine authority, until the death of \nChrist; and they still, though improperly, continued \nwhen the epistle to the Hebrews was written ; and also \nwhen Clement wrote the letter, cited in our last num- \nber. But as long as the city, temple, sacrifices, and \nlevitical ministry remained, these prayers could not \nhave been offered. Not only is it absurd to suppose, \nthat either Christ, or his apostles, or the primitive \nchurches ever did, or with propriety could hav^ offer- \ned these prayers ; but there is no evidence, upon \n\n2D \n\n\n\n326 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nwhich to found even a probability, that the Jews them- \nselves offered them, until after that dispersion, which \nfollowed the second destruction of the Jewish people. \nIt is asserted that these benedictions, "formed their \nprincipal prayers, and the remainder probably were \nmade up of the precatory parts of the psalms." As \nit is certain, that the eighteen benedictions were never \noffered in prayer in the temple, for then the people \nmust have spoken falsely, because the prayers do \nthemselves say, that there was neither temple, nor sa- \ncrifice, nor priestly services ; so the probability that, \n"the remainder, were made up of the precatory parts \nof the psalms," is destitute of proof, unless singing be \ncalled reading. In the synagogues they were no doubt \nread with the other Scriptures ; but in the temple the \npsalms were sung by the order of singers. \n\nThe "hours of prayer" were those in which the \nsacrifices were offered, and the incense burned, and \nwhilst the priests were thus occupied, prayers were \nthe business of the people, who "stood without," as \nthey did at the time of the vision of Zacharias, each \npraying for himself like the pharisee and pubhcan. \nThe Jews did often at their meals each ask a blessing \naudibly for himself; and with propriety, if all prayer \nbe in its nature several andpersonal,even when joined \nin by others. \n\nWe are again told that, "In the apostolic writings \nwe read of no prohibition against the use of establish- \ned forms." True : nor are they mentioned at all, be- \ncause they had no existence. "It becomes therefore \nthose, who are a form to themselves, to show their \nreasons, why they reject this custom." There was no \nsuch custom among either Jews or Christians till the \nperiod when the church was corrupted ; and this cir- \ncumstance is a good reason for rejectiiig forms. They, \nwho were a law to themselves, were heathens ; and we, \nwho are a form to ourselves, are also left to \'\'^uncovenanted \nmercy;^^ but are nevertheless able to show, both the \nreason of our hope, and also reasons for rejectifig writ- \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 327 \n\nten forms of public prayers. We liave many special \nreasons for objecting to the forms used both by the \nCatliolic, and Episcopal churches, which we must \nshow if compelled. We have oth:r general ones; \nwe find in experience no need of them ; and doubt \ntheir utility in pubhc worship; out of the abundance \nof the heart, the mouth can speak. If ministers be \nincompetent to lead v/ithout such help, they are unfit \nfor their office. Forms restrict devotion, cramp the \ndesires of the heart, and by long famiharity become \ndead and insipid ; they have also an unhappy tendency \nto supersede a mental intercourse with God> and to \nrender men contented with external homage. But \nabove all we think, that no uninspired men have a right \nto saddle the church of Christ with a set of words and \nphrases, to which the desires, confessions, and peti- \ntions of the people, must be confined in public wor- \nship. \n\nThat universals cannot be deduced from particu- \nlars, is not less a rule in morals, than in reasoning ; \nbut the promise of success given by the Saviour to \nthe prayer of two or three, who have agreed to ask \nfor some common object, though described as a spe- \ncial case, and left by him optional, is incautiously by \nthe unknown writer converted into a general rule, and \nmade a duty. From hence also he has inferred, that \n\xe2\x80\x94 "every prayer uttered extempore in the congregation, \nmust be unknown to the community, till it is offered, \nand cannot therefore be considered as the joint and \nagreed prayer of the persons met together for public \nworship." It cannot be a duty in every case to agree \npreviously on the object for which we are to pray ; \nalso it is not necessary, to the agreement implied in \nChrist\'s language that the very words of the prayer \nshould be previously ascertained. Nor does the Sa- \nviour\'s language require that the agreement be even \nprevious to the prayer ; if the same petitions, or even \ndesires, are offered by different persons, his design is \nfulfilled. \n\n\n\n328 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nTo pray with the understanding is an apostolic ad- \nvice ; whence he also argues the necessity of written \nprayers, because, \xe2\x80\x94 "certainly no one, except the per- \nson who is the organ of the prayer, can fulfil the apos- \ntle\'s direction to pray with the understanding." So \noften as men take the language of Scripture in other \nthan its original sense, they must mistake the truth. \nThis writer uses the word "understanding" for a pre- \nvious knowledge of the words of the prayer ; but the \napostle meant by it a knowledge of the subject matter, \nand of the propriety of asking at the time of uttering the \nprayer. "How shall the unlearned say amen \xe2\x80\x94 seeing \nhe understandeth not what thou sayest," because pray- \ning in an unknown tongue. It is not necessary that \n"the organ of prayer" should previously know the \nwords he is to use. The most affecting, fervent, and \nbest prayers, which believers ever make, are without \nprevious arrangement, or preparation, except an effort \nto obtain a humble composed frame of mind. He \nwho speaks, and they who hear, and join with the \nheart in such prayer, do, in the sense of the apostle, \npray with the spirit and the understanding] also. \n\nBecause the Roman Christians were divided about \nweeks and days, the apostle prayed God to grant them \na sameness of views, that they might unanimously with \none mouth glorify God, Rom. xv. 6. This is made an \nargument for written prayers, because o?ie mind and \none mouth, \xe2\x80\x94 "could not be, if they did not use prayers \ncommon to all." But the apostle prayed, that God \nwould give them the same views, and not a written \nform ; for he concluded, that with this gift their words \nwould be sufficient. The Corinthian church having \nbecome discordant, the apostle advised them to speak \nthe same thing, and he perfectly joined together in the same \nmind, and the same judgment, i Cor. i. 10, "which is an \nexpress injunction for unity of worship and unity of \nfaith; the first of which is preserved by established \nprayers, known before, and agreed upon by all; and \nthe latter by a form of belief, or creed, assented to by \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 329 \n\nagreeing Christians." When any thing is enjoined, \nwhatever is necessary to such obedience is also com- \nmanded; but every thing which might promote the \nend is not also enjoined. If forms may be thus justified, \nso may images, because they enliven devotion: in hke \nmanner, an establishment, supported by an inquisition, \nsince they produce unity of faith, must be lawful. \nThe creed foisted in, we suppose either to be the apos- \ntles, which no one of them ever saw; or that of \nAthanasius, made after his day, both of which are in \nthe main good, though of no authority ; but how the \nrehearsal of a creed can be an act of worship, must \nbe left to him to decide, w^ho can so happily prove that \nthe words of the apostle require the things. \n\nIn \'Spraying always with all prayer and supplication with \nthe Spitif^: \xe2\x80\x94 the word rendered supplication exactly an- \nswers to the term litany; "and it has great force," in \nthe words "m every thing by prayer and supplication with \nthanksgiving.^^-^\'Jn this passage we have a direction \nfrom the apostle to use in our public service, prayers, \nlitanies and thanksgivings." What force can this wri- \nter intend, except in support of a litany in the sense \nof the compilers of the prayer-book? Unless it be "a \ndirection from the apostle" how to make the prayer \nbook, these quotations are wholly irrelevant. Thus \nunderstood, his argument is level to the meanest capa- \ncity. The apostle has inculcated, besides prayer, \nwhich means "that mode of addressing God, which in \nthe people\'s name is offered up by the minister, and \nresponded to, with amen, by them," also, the duty of \nsupplication ; but the Greek word for "supplication, ex- \nactly answers to litany;" therefore he has given "di- \nrection" to make a litany. The writer\'s pious zeal for \nhis prayer book probably prevented his discerning, \nthat he used the word litany in a sense not intended \nby the apostle; yet the effect is, that his argument is \nworth nothing. \n\nThe professed design of this number was to consi- \nder, "what these forms and prayers were, in their pub- \n\n2d2 \n\n\n\n830 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nlie worship;" but the total failure, both with regard to \nthe Jews, and primitive Christians, is a practical proof \nof the weakness of his cause. \n\nWhen the desire of Truth, or the propriety of self- \nvindication leads the unprejudiced to investigate the \norigin of liturgies, they will be found to have arisen \nlong after the days of the apostles; first in individual \nchurches, and then to have obtained in larger districts, \nas a merely human contrivance professedly to exclude \nerror; and afterwards to have been continued as a \nmaster-piece of policy to perpetuate innovations, and \nsupersede the sacred text. \n\nThough to confess guilt, of which we are not \nconscious, to ask for blessings whereof we feel no \nneed ; and to give thanks for spiritual operations, of \nwhich we are not the subjects, be insincerity, and there- \nfore guilt ; yet because written prayers, when ortho- \ndox are lawful means of instruction, there ought to be \nno censure for those, who use them ; but to represent \nthem as an ordinance of God, is to depart from facts, \nand to censure unjustly those who reject them ; to re- \npel such attempts is a debt we owe to truth, to the dis- \ncharge of which, we desire only her evidence. \n\nTo pray is the highest privilege, and most important \nduty ; and he is the happiest who has a heart always to \npray ; the cultivation of such a frame is the best course \nwe can pursue in life. To the unrenewed, who never \npray, no mode can supply their defect of disposition ; \nbut the child by adoption will not be prevented from \nhis delightful work; whether the public prayers be \nwritten, or spoken, he will make them his own, and \nadvance from strength to strength, until he reaches \nthat mount, where prayer gives place to praise. \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 331 \n\n\n\nNumber VIL \n\n\n\nThe subject of the eighth number is declared to be, \n" The forms used in the church in all ages." By \n*\' forms" the writer must intend, in this place, modes \nof worship, of whatsoev^er kind ; otherwise his first \nScriptural proofs^ have no bearing upon his subject. \nHis error in styling Timothy bishop of Crete, is as in- \nnocent in effect, as it was in intention; for, not abid- \ning at Ephesus, the youth followed his spiritual father \ninto Macedonia, and never appears to have returned. \nBut he ought not to have been degraded from an \nevangelist, we mean not the modern unscriptural \nsense of the term ; he had the extraordinary superin- \ntendence of the Spirit, and was subordinate only to the \nguidance of apostles. \n\n" I exhort, therefore, that Jirst of all, supplications, that \nis, litanies,"*^ &c. That is, litanies? neither is the \nGreek word here litanies ; nor does the Greek word \nlitany at all mean litany in the present sense of the \nword ; nor consequently, can any argument thence \narise for writing what are called litanies in prayer- \nbooks. " This injunction comprehends a complete \nanalysis of what should constitute the precatory part \nof public worship." There is nothing of any " form \nused in the church" of Ephesus, the exhortation rather \nimplies that there was none. So far from a direction \nto use a liturgy, the language shows them for what \nthey are to pray ; the prayer was therefore unwritten. \nIf this writer\'s liturgy is conformed to the parts and \nkinds of prayer here described, yet the apostle knew \nnothing of written liturgies, nor does the passage re- \nquire, or even contemplate, any such thing. \n\na Col. iii. 16, ir, iv. 2, 3. 1 Thess. ii. 11, 12. \nb I Tim. u. 1, 2. \n\n\n\nS32 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\n" Holdfast the form of sound words \xe2\x80\x94 refers to a formu- \nlary of faith, as a creed ; or a form of prayer, as a \nliturgy. Here then is authority for the repeating of \ncreedsJ^ " Hold fast,^^ literally have, possess, or retain^ \nis not to " repeat." The " sou?id words," were not \nwritten, for the apostle adds, "which thou hast heard \nfrom me." They were to be retained, not in letters, \nbut " in faith and love." The adjective " sound," means \northodox, excluding time and progressive action ; the \noriginal is the participle healing. " Sound words," \nmean a scheme of salutary doctrines, not a " form of \nprayer, as a liturgy." But the writer has not a word \nin the passage to help him to carry back a creed, a \nliturgy, and a canonical bishop to the days of the \napostle ; they all arose long afterwards. Creeds were \nfirst made by individuals, then by councils. The pri- \nmus presbyter, by increase of power, became a paro- \nchial bishop, like the Presbyterian pastor ; and after- \nwards a diocesan. Forms of prayer were introduced \nfor the prevention of heresy, first in particular church- \nes ; this power the councils afterwards regulated, and \nthus rendered forms provincial. Could the construc- \ntion of this text, attempted by this writer, be estab- \nlished, and the assumption, that episcopacy, either \nparochial or diocesan, did then exist, which is contrary \nto historical verity, he would have accomplished an \nanticipation of the existence of creeds and liturgies, \nof episcopal jurisdiction, and of the monopoly of this \nright of the respective churches, several centuries ; \nall of which things fell in gradually afterwards. But \nin such construction of the text, every word of the \napostle is taken in a sense which he did not intend \n\n" In Hebrews x. 22, there is an intimation of pre- \nvious absolution, and preparatory cleansing." He \nwho comes to Christ by faith finds absolution, but \nneither in this, nor in any other passage of Scripture, \nis there " an intimation of previous absolution." Sa- \ncerdotal is an infringement of God\'s prerogative, who \nalone can forgive sin. That the act is declarative not \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 333 \n\nauthoritative, ministerial not judicial, softens the error, \nyet may it delude an immortal soul with a false pass- \nport to heaven. Absolution prior to the twelfth cen- \ntury was matter of prayer; afterwards it assumed \nthe form of a sentence passed. By " absolution and \npreparatory cleansing," may have been intended that, \nwhich, according to the council of Carthage, pre- \nserved by Cyprian, accompanies baptism w^hen per- \nformed by ministers, not, in their view, heretical. In \nthe first canon of that council we read, " It is fit that \nw^ater be first purified and sanctified by the Spivit, \nthat it may be able by its ow^n baptism to w^ash away \nthe sins of the man w^ho is baptized." In the forms of \npraj\'er vindicated by this writer, we accordingly read, \n" Sanctify this w^ater to the mystical washing aw.ay \nof sin." That water should wash aicay sin, is indeed a \nmystery, for a physical cause then produces a moral \neffect, that which is not contained in itself That by \nwashing away of sin is not meant the guilt of sin, ap- \npears by his eleventh article, " w^e are accounted \nrighteous before God, only for the merits of Christ;" \nit must be understood consequently of the pollution; \nbut the purification of this, is expressly referred to the \nHoly Spirit in the thanks prescribed in the same forms, \n" that it hath pleased thee" the Father, " to regenerate \nthis infant w4th thy Holy Spirit." Thus, therefore, \nwe are taught, by the same /orm^, both that the water \nand the Spirit remove moral pollution ; but how, the \nwriter can best show. That baptism is an absolution, \nor pardon of sin, is an old opinion ; but to gain our \ncredence, better proof is required than the canon of a \nfallible council. Yet its continuance in the church, as \nif a true doctrine, may have been effected by the in- \nfluence of written forms. Such a fact argues much \nfor written hturgies, with those who hold the doctrine \nof baptismal regeneration ; but it must have an oppo- \nsite tendency in the view of those who reject the doc- \ntrine, with as little ceremony as they do the written \nforms. \n\n\n\n334 LITURGICAL COi\\SIDERHTIONS. \n\n^^ Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for \nanother.\'\' In this there is a mutual and general con- \nfession, as well as a mutual and general prayer en- \njoined." That auricular confession was unknown to \nthe ancients, that public confessions were required \nonly for public offences, and that private confessions \nwere optional, aie points, in which it is presumed we \nhave no disagreement with the writer. We may, \nnevertheless, not understand this passage in the same \nmanner. The language appears to us to describe \nmutual private confessions of our weaknesses, that we \nmay obtain advice, and aid each other by joint \nprayers ; and instead of a presumption favorable to \nwritten, or precomposed prayers, we discern rather \nan impHcation of prayers suited to the particular trials \nof such persons. \n\n" I pass now to the fathers, from whom the same \ninstances, which have served to prove the use of set \nforms, may be advanced as authorities for the forms \nthemselves." Yet is there not a single instance of a \nwritten prayer produced, except the Lord\'s prayer. \nThe singing of psalms he could easily show. We also \nuse psalms and the Lord\'s prayer, and have no objec- \ntion to the creed ; but do not use it in worship. As \nno early example has been, or can be produced, of a \nliturgy, in the modern sense of the term ; nor a fact \nmade to appear in opposition to the representation we \nhave repeatedly given, of the manner of the introduc- \ntion of set forms, it is unnecessary again to pass \nthrough the same things. The only liturgy in this \nnumber, said to have existed, is that of Gregory Thau- \nmaturgus, which we have seen was only a doxology, \nfrom which Basil in Arian times departed. The other \ntestimony of Basil regarded psalmody. Now he is \nintroduced saying, " When the people have confessed \nthemselves unto God rising up from their prayers, they \nbetake themselves to psalmody ;" which may be com\' \n\nc James v. 16. \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 335 \n\npared with Basil on the thirty-seventh psalm, when \nhe observes : " I do not make confession with my Kps \nto be seen of the world ; but inwardly in my heart, \nwhere no eye sees ;" whereby it will appear, that he \nmust have meant secret, or at least unwritten prayers. \nHis proofs, he thinks, "agree in this point, the ne- \ncessity of public, common, and unanimous, therefore, \nprecomposed prayers." Thus does he concede, that \nhe has so far failed of exhibiting " forms used in the \nchurch in all ages," that he has no otherwise proved \n" precomposed" prayers, than as such are to be in- \nferred from the necessity of " pubhc," " common," \nand " unanimous prayers." We suppose the prayers \nin our churches to be "pw6/ic," for all hear them; \n" common" for every one, who chooses, makes them \nhis own, using the same petitions, or mentally saying \nas he thinks fit; and ^^ unanimous," for all the wor- \nshippers, in adopting the same expressions, and hav- \ning the same ideas, have, as nearly as possible, one \nmind; yet the confessions, petitions, and thanksgivings \nmay be those which occur to the speaker without \npreparation, or even a single ^^precomposed" sentence. \nIf prayers may be thus public, common, and unani- \nmous, without being precomposed, the argument of \nthe writer has failed ; and by his own representation, \nhe has produced no proofs of the use of forms in the \nfirst ages of Christianity. \n\n\n\nNumber VIII. \n\n\n\nEvery man\'s conscience testifies, he is to account \nfor himself; and thus evinces his right to choose and \nact. As those, who are allied in sentiments will in- \n\n\n\n336 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\ncline, so they have a right, to associate for mutual \nimprovement. If a single church may justify itself to \nmen, on the foundation of the natural rights of its mem- \nbers, so may denominations. And so long as these \nrespect the natural rights of each other, a diversity in \ndoctrines, or modes of v^orship, constitutes no just \nground of complaint. In America our natural rights are \nguaranteed by the authorised expressions of the social \ncompact; and nothing is to be apprehended from \nthose, v^ho hold, "That the church hath power to de- \ncree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controver- \nsies of faith." Were we to hold this, in opposition to \nthe natural right of freedom from physical constraint \nand restraint, we could neither justify the reformation \neffected by our fathers, nor claim liberty of con- \nscience, nor preach the gospel. Thus understood the \nchurch is infallible, and reason an empty name. When \nthe equivocal term, " the church," is interpreted as ex- \ntending to all denominations of Christians, the article, \nhowever defective of support, has lost its ofFensiveness. \nThey who receive it in a peculiar sense, being ortho- \ndox to themselves, claim to be the only church of \nChrist, and can join with no others in the efforts of \nthe day. Under this construction our fathers groaned ; \nto us, the claim is as innocent, as that of the man who \nthinks the world his own. \n\nIn the ninth number of" Liturgical Considerations" \nin the Church Register, the respectable writer \xe2\x80\x94 " ana- \nlyzes the constituted forms used in the public service \nof the church of England." His views, on many \npoints, no otherwise affect others, than as they imply \na censure. After the " exhortation" in the morning \nservice, he introduces the "confession," affirming, \nthat " it comprises all those things, which each person \nindividually, and each society collectively has need to \nconfess." Perhaps, nevertheless, when the pious wor- \nshipper has returned to his closet and his knees, he \nmay feel the propriety of some further confessions. \nHe speaks " of the blessings promised by the Saviour \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 337 \n\nto all those who repent;" bat the " confession" itself \nmore correctly represents the promises to be of God, \n" declared unto mankind in Christ Jesus our Lord." \n\nThe " absolution," in the first form, is the priest\'s \nclaim of " power," and profession of compliance with \na commandment to pronounce the penitent forgiven : \nin the second, the language is precatory, but spoken to \nthe people. To each they say, " amen ;" but not as a \nprayer, because it affirms no address to Deity. The \npropriety of the " confession" is clear, but of the " ab- \nsolution" problematical. If we should after the morn- \ning prayer, which always contains a confession, \nspeak, on every Sabbath, of the power given us to de- \nclare all those forgiven, who have confessed their sins ; \neither the people would suppose us vain of our office ; \nor think their own confessions of great account. Since \nthe heart is known to God, humility seems to require, \nthat our imperfect services should be left with Him, \nunder a conviction that they merit no good. But, \n" the sincere Christian having repented and confessed," \nreceives " the declaration of pardon in God\'s name and \nwords." Although neither the profession of Christi- \nanity, howsoever sincere, nor the reading or rehears- \ning of the morning service is any certain proof of re- \npentance ; yet does this language imply it ; and if \nherein the writer accords not with the book, which he \nexplains, it is unaccountable, that a ministerial absolu- \ntion should have been made a part of the daily ser- \nvice. The Latin fathers of the middle ages considered \noral confession, or even a groan, to amount unto re- \npentance, " Si ingemueris salvaberis.^^ But if evangeli- \ncal repentance be something vastly different ; and if \nmany of the pious preachers, who use these forms, do \nnot intend to declare an absolution of sin to every one \nwho made the confession ; nor to account this repent- \nance; why should this service continually exhibit an \ninsufficient repentance, and force ministers to pro- \nnounce a forgiveness of sin, which they do not believe \nthey have a right to absolve. But the book is con- \n2E \n\n\n\n338 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIOXS. \n\nsistent with itsdf, for the justification supposed to be \nconferred by baptism, rests also upon a verbal profes- \nsion and promise. \n\nBecause the " absolution" closes with the name of \nthe Saviour, the writer observes ; " that there is not one \nprayer in the church service, which does not depend \nentirely for its hope of acceptance with God, upon \nthe alone merits of Christ." This claim is something, \nfor Christ is the way to the Father, directs us to ask in \nhis name, and through him alone we have a rational \nhope. But bold assertions ought not to have been sub- \nstituted for matters of fact, against an objection so \nold. Whilst we congratulate the writer for his ortho- \ndoxy in believing, " that all prayers, whatever they \nmay be, and all services, should be done in the name \nof the Lord Jesus ;" we observe in the forms he would \ninculcate, in numerous places, prayers offered to the \nMediator as such, and not to God ; and we see not how \nthese are offered through the Mediator unto God. Thus, \n"O Lamb of God, who takest avv^ay the sins of the \nworld, have mercy on us ;" either addresses Christ as \nMediator, or as God : on either interpretation, it is not \na prayer to God, through Christ. If it be replied that \nChrist is God, we answer it is true ; and as such he is \never an object of worship in and with the Father ; but \nas Christ he is not God, but the a?ioinied, that is com- \nmissioned of God in a subordinate character. As Me- \ndiator he is also our priest, through whom we approach \nthe Father in our prayers, relying upon his sacrifice ; \nand our prophet directing us by his word to come in \nhis name. Though present with his people, it is only \nas God, his human nature has ascended and will re- \nmain in heaven until he comes to judgment. If his \nsoul and body were here, the human nature could not \nhelp us, for it could be only in one place at a time. \nBut the writer observes, ^\'TheLamh of God is set before \nour eyes of faith, and with words of fervour we sup- \nplicate him to take away our sins. The wounded spirit \nfinds comfort in communing with God in various \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 339 \n\nprayers and supplications." But it should be remem- \nbered there is one object of worship, and no more ; \nand on this point, we are allowed no variety in our \nprayers. Jesus as a man does not hear us. "The \nLamb of God," expresses two distinct ideas. When \nthe "Lamb \xe2\x80\x94 is set before our eyes of faith," he is the \nground of our acceptance with God, but the sacrifice \nis man not God : let the fervour of our wounded spirit \nbe what it may, we are to worship God only; and in \nthe way which he has prescribed, and in no other. \nThe expressions, "Lord have mercy; " "Christ have \nmercy," so repeatedly echoed from the minister and \nthe people, as to become mere sounds, were taken from \nthe popish forms, not from the word of God. They \nnot only destroy the solemnity of public worship but \nare theologically incorrect ; for neither may we ap- \nproach general mercy without a mediator, nor put the \nmediator as such on the throne of God ; his place is \nonly on the yight hand. \n\nThe ^\'Gloria PatrV\' is a very suitable conclusion of \nthe praises, but the frequent repetition of it, in the same \nservice, by the western churches, and especially those \nuseless words, "as it was in the beginning, is now, and \never shall be," which were added long afterwards, \nseems rather intended for pomp, than devotion. \n\nThe ^^ Gloria. i?i excelsis" so far as the angel\'s words \nextend, is suited to particular occasions, and was sung \nat Christmas, on communion seasons, and also as a \nmorning hymn. We have not found it in use before \nthe fourth century. In the word of God we find no \none praying after the manner of the residue of this \nprayer. The Lord\'s prayer was directed to the Father \nas God, and so the first clause of this might have been \nunderstood, notwithstanding the perplexing similarity \nof its terms, which scarcely admit of intelhgible dis- \ncrimination; but the second clause is directed solely \nto the Son ; at the close, the Third Person is distinctly \naddressed, and the writer denominates the whole "a \njoyful recognition of the blessed Trinity." We havo \n\n\n\n340 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nno dispute with him about the doctrine of the Trinity, \nwe allow each person to be God, but not each to be a \nGod. They may be named in succession, as in the \nbenediction ; yet are they one God, and one essence ; \neach may be named alone as comprehending deity, \nbut then the other persons are not excluded. In the \n*^ Gloria in excelsis" the Son is not worshipped merely \nas God, but as mediator. "Thou who sittest at the \nright hand of God, have mercy upon us." The Son, \nas God, is above being exalted; it is the glorified hu- \nman nature of Christ which is placed at the right hand \nof God, which means promoted to the highest created \ndignity. Mercy comes to man through him, but it is \nfrom God himself, and to him should we apply for \nmercy through this glorified intercessor. "For thou \nonly art holy, thou only art the Lord," are exclusively \naddressed to "Christ." Christ is I^ord, but he is so to \nthe glory of God the Father, for his regal authority being \nsubject to him, who put all things under him, must not \nexclude the sovereignty of the three \xe2\x80\x94 one God. Many \npious believers offer up this ^^ Gloria in excelsis^^ with \nright feelings ; and God, we hope, accepts the hom- \nage ; we would not cast a straw in the way of such ; \nbut truth is in order to holiness; and when we are \ncharged with sin for not joining in such worship, we \nmay be permitted to show our reasons in the fear of \nGod. \n\nThe Lord\'s prayer is again to be spoken by all. The \nfrequent repetitions of the pater nosier were a commu- \ntation for the ancient severities of penance, or so \nmany days of fasting, and were received from those, \nwho were not able to buy off their penance by alms. \nEvery protestant rejects, with merited contempt, not \nonly indulgences, but the more ancient discipline of \npenance. With these things in our view, and the Sa- \nviour\'s express prohibition of vain repeiitio?is, why \nshould we repeat again and again, the same petitions, \nin the same service? At first this prayer was not used \nin pubhc, then it was not allowed to catechumens, af* \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 341 \n\nterwards it was used without restriction, and finally, \nin the seventh century, a council decreed its use on \nevery day by the clergy, on pain of deposition, because \nof the petition, "give us this day our (/a% bread;" \nbut the word " daily^^ should be " necessary ; " the root \nof the original word having been mistaken. \n\n" After these," the prayer and the collect, comes the re- \ncital of the commandments by the minister, the am- \nbassador of God, from the altar, which is always in a \nsituation elevated above the body of the church." \nPriesthood, altars and sacrifices were types, and \nhaving been fulfilled, they were taken away and the \nsubstance of all has passed into the heavens, conse- \nquently no authority exists under the Gospel for any \nof these things. \n\nThe " commandments" are of the same utility, as \nwhen given ; to these, therefore, we have no objection. \nWhen read from Ebal and Gerizim, in the hearing of \nthe contiguous tribes, the scene was solemn, by express \ncommand, and never repeated. Where are gospel \nministers required to imitate this, and to consider \nthemselves authorized to personate the great God in \nreading his law? Their embassy is peace. We \nhave also some objection to the prayer-book version \nof these commandments ; " wherefore the Lord blessed \nthe seventh day" is no part of the fourth command- \nment. The Jews foisted the word " seventh\'\'^ into the \nSeptuagint to enforce their seventh-day worship, but \nthe Hebrew, and the Samaritan texts have " sabbath" \nand not *\' seventh," at that critical place, where the \nchange perverts the whole commandment ; the origi- \nnal design of which was to require one seventh of our \ntime, and not the observance of the seventh day of the \nweek. According to the prayer-book, the fourth com- \nmandment is repealed, but according to the twentieth \nchapter of Exodus, it binds the Christian to observe \nthe Lord\'s day, as much as it did the Jews to keep the \nsecenth. \n\n2e2 \n\n\n\n342 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\n" Last of all comes the Nicene creed, &c." We \nquestion neither the propriety, nor the truth of the \ncreeds, if allowed our own interpretation of them; but \ndeny their authority. Also we doubt the propriety of \nmaking them a part of the devotions of worshipping \nassemblies ; and of requiring the common people to \nsay, they contain their faith. If they do not under- \nstand the expressions " God of God, Light of Light, \nvery God of very God, begotten, not made," &c. how \ncan they believe them? Such language would lead \nthe uninstructed to the idea of two Gods. When in \nthe council of Nice it was objected, that the light, \nwhich was from the sun, was not the sun; it was ne- \ncessary to admit, that the idea of abcision must be ex- \ncluded. \n\nAfter all, if our brethren prefer the use of such \nforms, they shall have them without our censure; \nbut justice dictates the same extension of charity to us. \nHad the unknown but pious writer made himself bet- \nter acquainted with our exceptions against written \nforms, and with the reasons for our mode of worship, \nhe would have withholden his censures, and saved us \nthe painful necessity of parrying one, among the nu- \nmerous attacks made upon us in the Church Register, \n\n\n\nNumber IX. \n\n\n\nThe tenth and eleventh numbers, under this title, \nin the Church Register, exhibit a second time the \nwriter\'s arguments in support of the morning service. \nNeither with that service have we any concern, nor \nwith those who use it, except sincerely to desire their \nedification and comfort. To their forms we have \nneither right nor disposition to object ; it is only be- \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 343 \n\ncause criminated for the neglect of them, that we \ncomplain ; and esteem it our duty to deny, that they \neither rest upon Scriptural authority, or primitive ex- \nample. But on those two points, we have been, in \nthese numbers, ingeniously anticipated. The order \nof the morning service is pursued, the facts are dis- \ntinctly named, a single text of Scripture is given in \nsupport of the general duty ; custom is then alleged, \nand names of witnesses are given, but no testimony \nis brought. The observations of the writer follow ; but \nhis conclusions, being without premises, preclude all \nexamination. So far as the writer depends upon his \nformer representations, w^e offer nothing more, than \nthe answers already given. With respect to his pre- \nsent positions, no issues having been tendered, no \nproofs submitted to investigation, no censures directly \ninflicted, and his main object appearing to be the pro- \nmotion of piety, in which we bid him God speed, little \nis required from us, though we differ toto coda from \nmany of his views. \n\n\n\nTHE ABSOLUTION. \n\n^^ Scripture authority. * Whosesoever sins ye remit, \nthey are remitted.\' St. John xx. 23. \n\n" Custom. That this was a practice of the primitive \nchurch, we learn from St. Chrysostom, St. Augustine, \nSt. Cyprian, and all antiquity. \n\n" Observation. The. absolution is a declaration of \nGod\'s pardon to sinners upon their repentance \xe2\x80\x94 pro- \nnounced to them by his ministers, &c." \n\nPeter received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, \nthat is, authority to open the gospel, that he might, \nafter the death of Christ, first preach the glad tidings \nboth to Jews and Gentiles. Thus he observed, (Acts \nXV. 7,) that " a good while ago" at the conversion of \nCornelius, " God made choice among us, that the Gen- \ntiles, by my mouth, should hear the word of the gospel, \n\n\n\n844 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nand believe." The authority of his doctrine is also \nmentioned, "whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth* \nshall be bound in heaven, and w^hatsoever thou shalt \nloose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." The same \nlanguage he afterwards used to all the apostles. The \nterms binding and loosing were adopted by the Jews \nfor pronouncing things forbidden or lawful, as has \nbeen often shown ; accordingly, both in Matthew xvi. \n19, and xviii. 18, the neuter is used, because doctrines, \nnot men, were introduced. Or, if in the latter, disci- \npline be meant, it comes to the same thing, for if the \napostle in the exercise of it produced either true re- \npentance, or the opposite effect, the moral character, \nand consequently the real state of the party would be \ndiscovered. \n\nIn like manner the words in John xx. 23, " whoseso- \never sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and \nwhosesoever sins ye retain, are retained," are to be \nunderstood. For when they received the inspiration \nof suggestion, what they thus uttered from him, whe- \nther doctrinally or judicially, was the word of God. \n\nIn respect to custom, we allege, that remission is \nstrictly of guilt, that is, of obligation to punishment ; \nthis is, to treat a sinner as if he were righteous, or to \njustify, in the sense of the Scriptures, which is the act \nof God only. Absolution by apostles was not the ex- \nercise of " power," but the revelation either of doc- \ntrinal truths, or of a sentence of God discovered to \nthem. That any man, since their deaths, has possessed \nthis inspiration of suggestion, we ought not to beheve \ntill it is proved. That the early Christians had no idea \nof the forgiveness of sins by any mere man, is evinced \nby the frequent use made by the writers of the first \ncenturies, of the fact of Christ\'s having forgiven sin, \nto prove his divinity. \n\nTo the observation of the writer we can, in this in- \nstance, have no objection; for, omitting the word \npower, he has rendered the absolution a mere " decla- \nration." A power in ministers to forgive sins is the \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL COXSIDERATIOXS. \n\n\n\n345 \n\n\n\nobvious sense of the words in the service, but as this \nis not the view of the writer, we are free from impu- \ntation for not adopting it. \n\nTHE SHORT PRAYERS OR RESPONSES. \n\n" Scnpture authcnity. \' Continue in prayer,\' (or ac- \ncompany one another without ceasing in prayer.) \nColossians iv. 2." \n\nFor " continue in prayer and watch in the same," he \nsubstitutes " accompany one another without ceasing \nin prayer," rightly omitting the and, and restoring the \nparticiple; nor do w^e complain of the changing of \nthe places of the verb and participle ; but the sense of \nthe word translated " icatching,\'\' is not " accompany \none another." This mistake is unaccountable, unless \nthe Greek word for u\'atchi?ig, being almost the same \nwith the Latin for ajlock, they have been inadvertently \nconfounded. The Greek is, \'\' continue in prayer \nw^atching in it ;" or, persevere in prayer, keeping your \nattention awake in it. The word for prayer is also \nused for a place of prayer, but not in this passage, be- \ncause it is joined with thanksgiving. \n\nOf the thundering amen, and alternate praises, \nenough has been shown ; other responses were adopt- \ned afterwards, probably because of the ignorance of \nthe darker ages ; but that they are duty, and necessary \nto public prayer, cannot be shown. Prayer is a speak- \ning to God, and consequently excludes, so far as we \nare occupied in it, conversation wdth each other. \n\n\n\nTHE CREED. \n\n\'\xe2\x80\xa2 Scripture authority. \' Hold fast the form of sound \nwords.\' (2Tim. i. 13.) \n\n" Custom. TertulUan affirms the use of creeds in all \nchurches. \n\n\n\n346 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\n" Observation. No wonder then that the apostohc in- \njunction should have been adopted in all the churches.\'* \n\nThat Paul refers Timothy to any thing written* \neither for him, or the church at Ephesus, by the ex- \npressions " hold fast the form of sound zvords,^\' we have \nshown to be excluded by the original terms, and also \nby the circumstance, that such truth was to be retained \n*\' in faith and love." Thus one of the premises being \nremoved, the conclusion is without support. \n\nWhen the first churches were planted, they remain- \ned under the occasional instructions of the extraordi- \nnary teachers, till persons were found quahfied in \npoint of knowledge to teach, and of prudence to gov- \nern the society. If division arose, they were kept \nwithout officers longer, as at Corinth and Rome. \nThe persecution at Ephesus rendered presbyters neces- \nsary soon after the departure of Paul. Every fur- \nnished church aimed to continue the same doctrines \nwhich they had received from the apostles and evan- \ngelists, and they afterwards appealed to each other, \nas witnesses of those truths, against heretical innova- \ntions ; but had there existed a common creed, it would \nnot have been concealed by the early writers. The \nletters of the apostles succeeded to the high authority \nof the writers, and were to the churches better than \ncreeds. Their utility against heresies we admit, and \nhave shown their inception ; but hesitate upon the \npropriety of a public recital of them in worship, for \nreasons assigned in a former number. \n\n\n\nLET us PRAY. \n\n" Scripture authoritij. \' Exhorting one another.\' (Heb. \nX. 25.) \n\n" Custom. The deacon in ancient services was wont \nto call upon the people often, \' Let us pray vehemently,^ \n* nay, still more vehemently.\'\' " \n\nThe propriety of a notice to pray, requires no proof, \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIOXS. 347 \n\nespecially in the view of those whose prayers are \nwritten. * Let us pray vehemently,^ nevertheless, forms \nsome contrast with such expressions as "keep thy foot, \nwhen thou goest into the sanctuary ;" " let thy w^ords \nbe few ;" " Lord, be merciful to me a sinner." When \nprayers become a task, and repetitions are made a \npenance, devotion has ceased. Importunity should \nbe the offspring of humility, and uttered with reve- \nrence and godly fear ; prayer is not the labor of the \nlips, but the breathing of a holy soul. \n\n" The prayer for the President and all hi authority, ^^ ac- \ncords with the duty of every one, but the duty extends \nnot to the writing and reading of such prayer ; yet a \nprinted form might be a protection to the characters of \nsome, and a check to the political propensities of \nother ministers. Nor is this the only instance in \nwhich forms might prove a relief, for the extempore \nmode is liable to numerous abuses. Some prayers \nare grossly adulatory, others give vent to private re- \nsentments ; some are almost wholly doctrinal, others \nequally catch at the praises of men by their style or \nmanner ; some exhibit the speaker, with a few like \nhimself, saints of the highest order, possessed of full \nassurance, praying for the sinners among the audience, \nwho, of course, are not to join in the prayer ; whilst \nothers repeat, like schoolboys, moral sentiments, pain- \nfully charged upon their memories; some describe \nDeity as rigorously just, without mercy, and others \nappeal to general mercy only, giving encouragement \neven to the impenitent. That such abuses obtain, \nought not to be concealed ; they furnish, nevertheless, \nno reason for our rejection of the original mode of \npublic prayer ; but if any, for the prevention of such \nevils, resort to written forms, we are-more culpable, \nif it be a fault to use them, than they. \n\nBut prayers written with care, and revised, may \nstill be imperfect ; thus the words, \'\xe2\x80\xa2 We beseech thee, \nthat we, w^ith all those that have departed in the \ntrue faith, may have our perfect communion," &c. in \n\n\n\n348 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nthe excellent burial service, are manifestly a prayer \nfor the dead, but contrary to the intentions of those \nwho use it. \xe2\x80\x94 " Who has knit together thine elect in \none communion and fellowship, in the mystical body \nof thy Son," &c. including all the glorified saints, \nmight not escape the censure of being too doctrinal, \nif spoken by a Presbyterian. \xe2\x80\x94 " Bless and sanctify \nwith thy word and Holy Spirit these thy gifts and \ncreatures of bread and wine" \xe2\x80\x94 " Sanctify this water \nto the mystical washing away of sin" \xe2\x80\x94 " Who hast \nvouchsafed to regenerate these thy servants by water \nand the Holy Ghost, and hast given unto them for- \ngiveness of all their sins" \xe2\x80\x94 are petitions which we \ncannot understand or cannot receive, and in which, \nfor these reasons, if there were no others, we ought \nnot to unite. Nor could we pray for the " manifold \ngifts of the apostles, and grace to use them," because \nthe gifts have ceased ; and if we had them, they might \nprove temptations. \n\nIf our prayers are at best imperfect, and if all the \nmodes be subject to abuse, and the reasons for and \nagainst forms be numerous and various, it is probably \nbest, that there should exist churches, differing in their \nmodes of worship, equally without censure : but, es- \npecially, those who follow form.s, have no right to \njustify themselves upo7i the grounds assumed by this writer. \nThe experiment has evinced a total defect of proof, \nthat his liturgy is founded either on commandment, or \nprimitive practice ; an event which might have been \nforeseen ; for others, with higher advantages, have \nalso failed in the attempt to establish the same things. \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 349 \n\nNumber X. \n\n\n\nWhilst the pious writer under this title, in the \nChurch Register, as well as every other member of the \nrespectable denomination to which he belongs, possess- \nes the unquestionable right of worshipping in the forms \nwhich please themselves, this right should be exercised \nwith justice to others. We make no complaint be- \ncause they believe in the divine authority and antiquity \nof their ritual. But when they publicly assert their \nforms to have been founded upon the command of \nGod himself, and supported by the examples of Christ, \nthe apostles, and first churches; and charge us with \nguilt, who reject them; the matter of fact, that no \nsuch precept and examples have existed, is our de- \nfence, and justice prompts to deny the charge. \n\nIn the morning service "the next form of prayer to \nbe considered, is the litany, or general supplication." \nThe proofs marshalled establish, what no one doubts, \nthe propriety of general supplications. Also that the \nGreek word litany means supplication, is admitted. \nBut "the litany" to be supported, is a. particular collec- \ntion of prayers distinguished by that name. Yet neither \nis a word of evidence brought for preconceived forms, \nnor an example given of a dialogue of prayers, like \nthis, in sixty-three petitions and answers. But, instead \nof a justification of its subject matter, the writer has \ngiven a panegyric on this portion of the service. \n"The litany begins with an earnest, and solemn invo- \ncation of each person separately for mercy." Here \nare three addresses to the divine persons, as to three \ndistinct beings ubiquitary, omniscient and able to show \nmercy. The Scriptures exhibit one divine being, one \nobject of worship, not tritheism ; a plurality indeed in \ndeity of some kind, which we call personal, is essential \nto the scheme of redemption, But this litany contains \n2F \n\n\n\n350 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS* \n\nthree supplications to three distinct beings, and is the \nworship of three Gods separately. The following sup- \nplication to the "trinity," a word never to be used in \nworship, because not in the Scriptures, will not remove \nthe objection. This word, taken to mean three and \none in different respects, although it be not its natural \nforce, is the best we can frame. But we are not able \nto discern, why the very same petition for mercy \nshould be first offered to each person individually, and \nthen to the "/r:"m7^" as such, unless it be under the per- \nsuasion, that there are three beings, who think and act \nsometimes severally and sometimes conjunctly. We \nare taught to pray to the Father as God, asking for \nthe sake of Christ, under the sanctifying influences of \nthe Spirit ; we know of no other way prescribed in \nthe sacred word. The residue of the litany, about \nfive-sixths of the whole, is directed to the Mediator \nand Son, and is consequently a plain departure from \nHis own direction to ask the Father in His name. \nStephen and Ananias had visions of Christ, and ad- \ndressed him. The worship of Christ by the church in \nheaven and on earth, was also a vision. Doxologies \nand benedictions naming the persons together as one \nGod and thus calling upon the name of Jesus are obvi- \nously proper. The addresses of Polycarp in his letter, \nand at the stake, were also to one God, though the \nFather and Son are named. The letter of the church \nof Smyrna speaks of him as an object of worship, \nbeing the Son of God. Justin Martyr told the Emperor \nin behalf of the Christians, "we worship God alone." \xe2\x80\x94 \nThat the orthodox Christians, before the Arian heresy \nevery where held the divinity of the Son, and called \nupon his name with the Father is undeniably true. But \nthat they offered distinct petitions and prayers to the \nMediator, we have never found. Praises for the work \nof each in redemption are not liable to the same objec- \ntions ; yet those of which Pliny speaks, could not be \njustified, if they were directed to the man Jesus "as \nGod" to the exclusion of the Father and the Spirit : \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 351 \n\nbut that testimony was evidently mere hearsay, and \nfurnished by one wholly ignorant of Christianity. \n\nThis is "a recognition of the blessed Trinity." \nTrue ; but though our belief and our worship be inse- \nparable, we ought not by using unscriptural forms and \nlanguage in our public worship, to place stumbhng \nblocks in the way of the weak. Such a Htany instead \nof preventing, may produce unitarianism. \n\nIt carefully recognises also three orders, bishops, \npriests, and deacons; but of priests as officers in \nChrist\'s church, distinct from bishops, no one ever read \na word in the New Testament. Considered as a hu- \nman institution, we ought to be convinced, that it was \nrightfully introduced, before we venture to offer it in \nprayer to Him who claims the prerogative of legislat- \ning for his own church. \n\nNext is introduced the "prayer or collect taken from \nthe liturgy of Saint Chrysostom, and is therefore very \nancient." This prayer appearing in the morning and \nevening service, and in the Jitany must be a favorite. \nThis writer, known during his life by the name of John, \nwhose dignity was according to that of the city of \nConstantinople, being their bishop, was born in the \nfourth and died in the fifth century, and long after his \nbanishment and death was canonized, an honor if such \nit be, withholden from many whom God had inspired. \nAs the denomination do not acknowledge this power \nin the Pope, we know not why it should be so often \nadmitted in the saintships of the prayer-book ; and are \nsorry to perceive this contagion spreading among our \nown, caught from the English Testament; we shall \nbetter know who have been saints, when the sentence \nof the final judge shall decide the question. We find \ndays assigned to St. James, St. Peter and others ; and \nalso to "St Michael and all angels," except we presume \nthose who have fallen. But why angels should be \ncalled saints, and since we protestants neither worship \nthem, nor ask their help, why they should continue to \nhave a place among our devotions, are things to us \n\n\n\n252 LirURGICAL CONSIDERATlOJTSr. \n\nnot very clear. As we neither worship Chrysostom, \nnor acknowledge his authority, especially in praying \nfor the dead ; nor esteem a prayer the more, because \nmade by him, and no better than others, there seems \nto be no reason for honoring him with the name of a \ngolden mouth in a protestant prayer-book. A "collect \ntaken from the liturgy of Chrysostom?" There is no \nliturgy of ChrysostOQi; that which bears his name was \nnot his. On this very account the learned Bingham \nwent through the tomes of Chrysostom in search of \nvestiges of a liturgy. He found the Lord\'s prayer, \nthe evangelical hymn, the words of institution of the \ntwo sacraments, the salutation and the benediction. \nHe has turned the exhortations of the deacons into \nwhat he cddls bidding prayers; but they are not prayers, \nfor they are spoken to the worshippers, not addressed \nto Deity, who is spoken of in the tliird person. His \nproofs taken in their connexions respectively, from the \nGreek homihes of Chrysostom, establish not the use of \na liturgy at Constantinople at that period. But if they \nhad gone so far, that fact at so late a period would not \nhave furnished the least authority for a precomposed \nliturgy. \n\nThe unknown writer next presents to us the canoni- \ncal year, commencing with "the advent," and with de- \nvotional pathos describes the progress of his ritual in \nthe nativity, circumcision, epiphany, lent, good Friday, \nEaster, ascension, and whitsuntide: thus making the \nwhole year a succession of anniversaries of the events \nof gospel history. Though it was a happ}^ substitution \nfor pagan observances, the occasion has long ceased, \nand of these numerous feasts, fasts, and holy days, the \nposing question now occurs, "who hath required these \nat our hands?" Certainly God hath not, and no other \nhath a right. But self defence is our only aim, we wil- \nlingly leave others to their own convictions. \n\nThe doctrine of the Lord\'s supper as explained in \nthe twenty-eighth article, as well as in our Confession \nand catechism, follows loo nearly Calvin\'s trimming \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 353 \n\nunintelligible scheme of eating and drinking spiritually. \nIn the edition in the time of Edward the sixth, it is \nrightly expressed ; that, " the body of Christ cannot be \npresent at one time, in many and divers places." The \nbread and wine remain unaltered by prayer, and can \nnever produce any new physical effect, nor operate as a \ncharm; they may become signs and seals. The article \nrightly affirms, that, " the sacrament of the Lord\'s \nsupper was not by Christ\'s ordinance reserved, carried \nabout, lifted up and worshipped." But the commu- \nnion service, though it does not affirm a change of the \nsubstance of the bread and wine, yet contains a con- \nsecration of them, by which they are blessed and \nsanctified in such a sense, that if more bread and \nwine be necessary, the consecration must be repeated, \nand if there be a surplus, the "minister shall return to \nthe Lord\'s table, and reverently place upon it what re- \nmaineth of the consecrated elements, covering the \nsame with a fair linen cloth ;" and " it shall not be car- \nried out of the church, but the minister and other \ncommunicants shall immediately after the blessing, \nreverently eat and drink the same." These things were \nprobably designed to prevent superstition, yet seem \nto imply some effect wrought upon the elements, \nwhich is wholly incomprehensible. \n\nHe argues for commencing the communion with \nthe Lord\'s praj^er from " the propriety of engaging" \nGod^s favor with this prayer, which his own beloved \nSon gave us as a never failing spring of grace and \nhelp. Where such views exist, the frequent repeti- \ntion of that prayer is as excusable, as if it were be- \nlieved, that the repetition of it a number of times \nmerits the greatest blessings. This is to waive the \nnecessity of faith, and of that grace, which produces \nit ; and to treat the perfect, and therefore immutable \nGod, as a subject of motives. That Christ gave that \nprayer, " as a never failing spring of grace and help," \nis neither fact nor sound doctrine. That the commu- \nnion service, at an early period, should commencQ \n2f2 \n\n\n\n334 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nwith that prayer is very natural ; for public "worship \nbegan with reading the scriptures; next followed a \nhomily, exhortation, or discourse; the deacons then \ndictated petitions to the catechumens and penitents, \nand immediately after imposition of hands on the peni- \ntents excluded them, because deemed unfit to say, \n"Our father," &c. Silent devotions succeeded, followed \nby a public prayer ; in which the Lord\'s prayer, being \ngenerally known, would first occur, as the privilege \nof those present, then followed the communion. The \nnineteenth canon of the provincial council of Laodicea \nmay be taken as the course of worship, in use at \nleast in Asia Minor, after Justyn Martyr, and prior to \nthe council of Nice; but it neither mentions a pubhc \nliturgy, nor affords a proof of written forms. \n\n\n\nNumber XI. \n\n\n\nSeveral things in the fourteenth number of this title \nin the Church Register, appear exceptionable, but our \nobject is neither censure nor criticism, but merely de- \nfence of truth. When the writer asks, " May we not \nthen justly admire such arrangement, and be encou- \nraged with the fact, that we worship the Lord in the \nbeauty of holiness ?" the use of the liturgy in public \nworship, seems to be identified with the heauty of holi- \nness: yet the 110th Psalm was not prophetic of pre- \nconceived forms, but of the spiritual worship of gos- \npel times. \n\n" May we not then say of the church service that \nit is at unity with itself?" As the service here spoken \nof belongs to "the church," there is no other. This \nexclusive claim unchurches every other denomination ; \nand those who make it, are at unity with themselves, \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 355 \n\nwhen they refuse every evangelical coalition and \nact, correspondent unto every effort of the day. some- \nthing of a kindred nature, that the church may retain \nits integrity without danger of commixtures; but for \nwhat ulterior purpose, we are unable to discover. If \nall others be out of covenant, it is strange that any \nthing good should originate with them, and be found \nworthy of imitation. The last number of the Church \nRegister admits this representation, by publishing as \ntrue, though from a Presbyterian, " that the evangeli- \ncal party" in England, " are more rigid in their pecu- \nliar notions of church government, and more disposed \nto talk of Episcopalians as the church than the anti- \nevangelical." Of this matter we profess to know \nnothing, except that whilst the Philadelphia Recorder \nhas treated us as fellow Christians, the Church Regis- \nter has, from its commencement, in alternate strains \nof transatlantic superciliousness, and querulousness \nagainst evangelical men and measures, spoken against \nPresbyterians and " evangelical" Episcopalians, in \nterms which cannot fail to rouse to self-defence. Thus, \nwithout ceremony, in one of his last numbers, he cha- \nracterises " Presbyterianism" by what he represents it \nto be " in Canada ;" where there are those " who neg- \nlect baptism, rather than have that rite performed by \nan Englishman in holy orders." " Presbyterianism in \nCanada" still groans under the intolerance of "the \nchurch," w^hilst conscience, as in every former age, \nrefuses to yield to compulsion. " Presbyterianism" \nevery where admits the validity of Episcopal baptism; \nbut no where approves the papal appendages attached \nto it in the prayer-book. Suppose a bigoted Cana- \ndian, present in Philadelphia, should answer the editor \nby alleging, that he had heard his pastor in Scotland \nsay, that to require sponsors to affirm in the name of \nthe child, that it believes and promises, when it is \nphysically incapable of both ; to consecrate the wa- \nter; to mark the forehead with it transversely as a \ncross ; and to have a bishop to finish by confirmation, \nassuming the apostolic extraordinary power of the \n\n\n\n356 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\ngift of the Spirit, what the presbyter had begun by re- \nmoving sin by baptism, are all human inventions, and \non that account to be rejected ; what would the editor, \nwho is "in holy orders," reply? The justice of the \nimputation cast upon the Canadian, must depend upon \nthe truth and weight of his answers. \n\nNo doubt he would say, that so long ago as the be- \nginning of the fifth century, the bishop of Hippo al- \nleged in defence of this practice " that sacraments \nwould not be such, if they bore not the simiHtude of \nthe things of which they are sacraments" \xe2\x80\x94 " as the \nsacrament of the body of Christ is in some manner his \nbody, so the sacrament of faith is faith, therefore to \nanswer that an infant believes, who is incapable of \nbelieving, is to answer that he has faith, because he \nreceives the sacrament of faith." But the false an- \nswer must be given before the child is baptized, for it \nconstitutes, by its terms, the condition upon which the \nchild receives baptism ; otherwise, if nothing but the \neffect of baptism is meant according to Augustine, the \nquestion is useless and absurd. But the right of in- \nfants to baptism, whose parents are in covenant, de- \npends neither upon stipulations in behalf of the infant, \nnor upon the faith either of the parent or child, or \neven of the administrator of the ordinance, but upon \nthe will of God ; for in the Old Testament he has ex- \npressly given them the right, which has never been \ntaken away ; and in the New, has pronounced them \nholy or set apart to himself, in cases where they would \nhave been excluded by the customs of the Jews. \n\nThe editor might also say to the second objection, \nthat the consecration of the water by prayer, the \nHoly Spirit being supposed to descend from heaven \nupon it, may be found to have been believed at the \ncommencement of the third century. Afterwards in \nthe consecration, the water was sapiently marked \nwith the sign of the cross ; and in the days of Augus- \ntine, the blood of Christ was supposed present with \nthe water, as in the eucharist. \n\nWith respect to the sign of the cross, he might re- \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 357 \n\nply, that in early days, the persecuted Christians sig- \nnified their profession to each other by secretly cross- \ning themselves. That this had been added to baptism \nbefore the middle of the third century, is shown by \nCyprian; and that it was in constant use afterwards, \nby Augustine, Jerom, and others. \n\nWith respect to confirmation, he could say, that at \nthe commencement of the third century, when a per- \nson was baptized, unction, imposition of the hands of \nthe presbyter, with prayer for the Spirit, immediately \nfollowed. But when the presiding presbyter had ob- \ntained a canonical ordination, a monopoly of the title \nof bishop, and a control in almost every thing, he also \nassumed the right of imposition of hands and chrysm, \nwith prayer for the Spirit, confirming the baptisms of \nthe presbyters. Thus Jerom speaks of the custom of the \nbishop\'s imposing his hands, and of invoking the Holy \nSpirit upon those, whom presbyters and deacons had \nbaptized. Also, that it was decreed by a council, that \ninfants were not to be confirmed, except by the bishop, \nor by his direction. Baptism being thus severed from \nthe anointing, or in the Latin church, imposition of \nhands denominated confirmation, each was by a coun- \ncil of Carthage termed a sacrament or mystery. It \nwas not, however, till the eighth or ninth century, that \nconfirmation was withholden from infants as soon as \nbaptized. And that on these grounds, at present, con- \nfirmation is a distinct rite, peculiar to the canonical \nbishop. \n\nTo all these things, the despised Canadian Presby- \nterian might rejoin, that they arose since the apostles\' \ndays, and were human contrivances. \xe2\x80\x94 That confirma- \ntion, so far as an aping the extraordinary powers of \nthe apostles, was absurd, and that the church had \nneither power to decree a canonical ordination, nor \nto introduce a new sacrament. \n\nWhy should " Presbyterianism in Canada" be held \nup to censure for that self-preference, which is a dis- \ntinguishing characteristic of " the chuich" in Phila- \n\n\n\n358 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\ndelphia? The hardy peasant of the north had the \nsame right still to " love the church of Scotland," and \nto " carry his children forty miles over the snow" for \nbaptism, as the editor of the Church Register had to \nlumber the mails in every direction with his preference \nof " the church service above all others." Such pre- \ndilections for either of these denominations are of no \nimportance, except as they may, by affecting the con- \nscience, become injurious. The only probable mean \nof removing them is the calm investigation of the truth \nwhich ought to and will prevail, when the names and \ndistinctions about which the potsherds of the earth are \nstriving, shall have drooped into merited and eternal \noblivion. \n\n\n\nNumber XII. \n\n\n\nAnother translatlantic writer is introduced by the \nChurch Register, in support of the same cause, to \nwhom, because of his dignity, we seem bound to pay \nour respects. He asks, "with what feelings of confi- \ndence can a congregation have recourse to prayer, \nwhich has been accustomed to hear, that a decree has \nalready, before the foundation of the world, gone out \nfrom God, by which the final destiny of every man is \nirrevocably doomed, and indeed that such is the ne- \ncessary consequence of the undeniable foreknowledge \nof Deity?" "The real conclusion, and the practical \nevil of the doctrine of the election meet together." \nThese sentiments, being not more an imputation on \nthose, who teach according to the Westminster Con- \nfession, than those who have adopted the articles con- \ntained in the prayer-book impose no necessity of self- \nvindication upon "us, that does not equally fall upon the \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CO?fSIDERATIONS. 359 \n\northodox of his own church ; nevertheless their con- \nnexion with that which follows them precludes our to- \ntal silence. \n\nIf the object of worship does not know future things \nand actions, he must be growing wiser progressively, \nis consequently imperfect, and, by the voice of reason \nand revelation, not God. But if perfect, his know- \nledge, which must be therefore perfect, is also in other \nrespects wholly unlike that of his creatures. Our \nideas originate from things, and imply their previous \nexistence ; but things all spring from the great first \ncause, and are the effects of his power accomplishing \nhis previous purposes; the divine knowledge thus wholly \ndiffers from human, ours consisting of the pictures of \nthings, whilst things are the images of his knowledge^ \nand nature, grace and glory constitute a stupendous \nscheme present in all its parts to the divine mind in \nhis eternal purposes. The decrees of God are not \nacts, but such purposes, and immutable like himself, \nbecause founded in wisdom which is perfect. \n\nBut it is complained that thus ^\'the final destiny of \nevery man is doomed.\'\' Infinite knowledge sees the end \nfrom the beginning, and it sees also every mean that \nconduces to the end. With respect to men, it discerns \nall the iniquity, which is to bring the final doom or con- \ndemnation upon the impenitent. When this shall be \nrevealed to all at the judgment, every rational crea- \nture will see and approve ; and if it shall be then \nright to condemn the reprobate, it could not have been \nwrong to have purposed from eternity to do that, \nwhich shall then be seen to have been just. \n\nThat the eloquent bishop, from whom the excerpt is \ntaken, should pronounce "</ie doctrine of election\'\' \xe2\x80\x94 "a \npractical evil," whilst the seventeenth article of his \nchurch declares it to be "full of sweet, pleasant and \nunspeakable comfort," is somewhat strange. The \nframers of the articles saw no relief for the guilty, \nbut in the sovereignty of God ; whilst the prelate has \neither a higher opinion of human rectitude, or ima- \n\n\n\n360 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\ngines the moral governor less scrupulous of his honor. \nBut that God has given lav^s, and appointed a judg- \nment ; that he v^ill sustain the honor of his rectitude, \nneither making any to account for what they did not \nreceive, nor punishing any but for their sins ; and that \nevery man possessed of the ordinary natural faculties \nof a man, is conscious of a freedom from constraint \nand restraint, are indisputable facts. But if the govern- \nment he has erected be perfect, and the contrary is an \nunworthy supposition, there can be no reason for the \npardon of sin to prevent a failure of justice; accordingly \nwhat is so called is really a justification, for which \nprovision has been secured by the Sovereign of the \nUniverse in the original constitution, that is, in the \neternal purposes, on which the government is founded. \nWhy then should the bishop of Winchester take away \nour only hope? In other words, why should he con- \nceal the sovereigjity of God, in which high but rightful \ncharacter only he could have purposed the erection of \nhis moral government, the scheme of redemption, and \nthe salvation of fallen men, and upon what terms \nhe pleases. On him as sovereign there can be no \nclaims, for he is wholly independent, yet in this char- \nacter alone can we approach him in the attitude of \nprayer; whilst we know that in his gifts of grace and \nglory, as well as in those of his providence, he may \ndo with his own as he pleases ; and have his word that \nwhen we are fit to receive, he is ready to give, for \nthat every one who asketh receiveth. The seventeenth \narticle must have been written under a full view of \nsuch trutlis. \n\nBut if a decree has gone forth before, there can be no con- \nfidence in prayer. There would be no just ground of \nconfidence, if there existed no connexion between \nmeans and end; if all was uncertain; if an imperfect \nand mutable being guided the universe, liable to be \nswerved by a thousand petitions hourly addressed to \nhim, ready to subject the dictates of wisdom and the \ndemands of justice to the importunities of the selfish, \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 361 \n\nand ever disposed to surrender the public good to pri- \nvate advantage. The decrees of God are not reveal- \ned to us, and can be no rule of our conduct, either in \nmatter of providence or grace. If we pray in faith, \nhe has thereby given us a pledge ; but if we have not \nfaith, our duty to confide is not the less, because suc- \ncess is not promised. The purposes of God include \nthe means as well as the end, consequently either is as \nsure as the other. The same objection lies with re- \nspect to the gifts of providence ; in ploughing and \nsowing and every other work the success ever depends \nupon him, without whom a sparrow descends not to \nthe ground. If the confidence, which is destroyed by \nthe idea of a perfect government, consists in a depen- \ndence upon the excellence of our prayers, the purity \nof our desires, or the merit of our services, it is best \nthat it should be destroyed. That confidence of a \nworshipper, whic\'i is taken away by a belief in the \nimmutability of the divine purposes, which are always \nright, is a false hope resting upon some imaginary \nprevious failure on the part of the divine vigilance or \npurity. It is an astonishing fact, that Dr. Sumner pre- \nfers to worship a God, whom he can change by his \nprayers ; yet such change must be either for the bet- \nter or the worse ; if for the better, he chooses to wor- \nship an imperfect God ; if for the w^orse, we dread to \nspeak the consequences. There is no other alterna- \ntive, for a change, neither for the better nor the worse, \nwould argue defect of wisdom. This view of prayer \nwe should not expect from a bishop of Winchester. \nProtestants address one who knows them altogether, \ntheir ways, and thoughts, and destinies. We do not \npray to inform our Maker of that which he knew not ; \nnor wish to change him, who is perfectly wise, and \nalways does what is best. We desire to fall in with \nhis purposes, submit to his will, acknowledge his gov- \nernment, and bring our hearts into unison with the \ndispensations of his providence and grace. To ex- \npect to reveal to omniscience, what he knows not; to \n2G \n\n\n\n362 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\ndesire to change purposes, which are the wisest and the \nbest, and therefore immutable; and to conceive of the \neternal Sovereign, as if he were a frail mortal are \nmental exercises the reverse of moral purity as well \nas correct theology; and have a direct tendency to \ndestroy, rather than to estabhsh confidence in Chris- \ntian devotions. \n\nIt is also the opinion of this bishop of bishops, that \na congregation should not customarily hear of decrees. \nBut if God possesses perfect wisdom, and all his ac- \ntions accord with purposes of such character; if his \npower effectuates his designs and he always sees the \nend from the beginning; if every prophecy is a reve- \nlation of his purpose, of his foreknowledge, and of the \nconsequent certainty of the accomplishment, there can \nbe no reason for the concealment of such perfections. \nYet if these be erroneous representations, and if there \nbe neither purpose, knowledge, power, nor other per- \nfection; nor any certainty, then ought they neither to \nbe heard nor uttered. It would then also follow, that \nthere is no God, and that atheism, being truth, should \nbecome the order of the day. Such tremendous con- \nclusions neither can Dr. Sumner, nor the editor escape. \nThey suppose Presbyterians to believe, that God has \narbitrarily and irreversibly determined, that men shall \nor shall not be saved without any respect to their faith \nor obedience ; but we abhor such a doctrine as much \nas they can; and hold that whenever a man has been \nelected to salvation, such salvation can only be attain- \ned in a way of holiness; and that when a man is ap- \npointed to destruction, he cannot be lost, but by his \nsins. Even Christ\'s exaltation, which they will ac- \nknowledge was absolutely decreed, could not have ob- \ntained, unless he had performed the terms upon which \nit was suspended. The assistance, which his human \nnature received from the divine, does not alter the \ncase; because it was but a mean, and also decreed-. \nIn a similar manner an absolute purpose, called a de- \ncree of election to glory, may comprehend at the same \ntime events depending on voluntary agency, and those \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 363 \n\nspiritual aids, which shall secure the repentance, faith, \nand holiness, without which the party could not be \nsaved. When these duties are not performed the \nparty may blame himself, and justly perish in his sins; \nthere being in him no defect of power, but only of dis- \nposition, spiritual aid denominated grace would be a \nmere gift not debt, an act of sovereignty not justice, \nsince the party was not forced to sin. Though it is \nthus undeniable, that events may he absolutely decreed, and \nbe therefore certain, which depend on the intervening conduct \nof moral agents, who are free; yet is there a portion of \nour fellow Christians, who would limit the perfections \nof God himself, rather than admit, that predestination \nand election, though implying no more than the cer- \ntai?iiy of divine purposes, can be reconciled with the pos- \nsession of the liberty necessary to moral agency. \n\nThat the most precious doctrines may be abused \nand thus become practical evils, and that this of elec- \ntion has been often perverted to the hardening of re- \nprobate minds, is matter of lamentation. But instead \nof denying the perfections of God, and his rightful \nsovereignty we ought to discriminate between this and \nhis rectoral government ; and while we point out with \nclearness, the natural powers and liberty we possess \nas moral agents, and for the right use of which we \nare, and ought to account, it becomes us to acknowledge \nour guilty alienation, and aversation of heart\', which \nsome call a moral inability, and our need of these \nsanctifying influences, without which we shall go on in \nsin, and fall under the deserved sentence of final con- \ndemnation. But as often as men can be brought to \npray for such aid with the heart, and right views, they \nare the subjects of the grace they ask. \n\nAs God is perfect, he can have no accession of \nknowledge, or change of purposes ; what he does, he \ndoes, for ever; nor can he be at a loss to accomplish \nhis designs, for all things are his, and under his direc- \ntion, and every heart at his disposal. Nothing there- \nfore can be more unreasonable, than to suppose, \nthat the infallible certainty of an event excludes the \n\n\n\n364 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nvery means which are appointed by God himself to \nrender such event finally sure. \n\nAll goodj and all evil that is physical, are from God; \nbut moral evil is a negative idea, and requires no pos- \nsitive cause. To bestow good impUes a purpose, and \nthe Scriptures call it when the good is future an elec- \ntion. As a mean of saving a guilty world redemp- \ntion has been provided, and is offered to all even the \nworst. If any were hindered and repelled, the positive \nrefusal might be ground of complaint. If non-elec- \ntion be a decree, it is a decree not to decree, which is a \nnegative idea, and not an act : nor is the permission of \nsin a decree, for to permit is not to hinder, and a mere \nnegation. No excluding decrees exist, nor are they \nimplied in election. The purpose to punish those, who \ndeserve to suffer for their sins, is as just as to do the \nthing, when the trial has been passed. This is all the \nreprobation we hold; and these truths, we think, ought \nto be heard by every congregation, and if they become \npractical evils, upon them rests the blame, who abuse \nthem. \n\n\n\nNumber XIIL \n\nBabtismal regeneration is the subject, presented by \nthe excerpts in the Church Register, for our present \nreflections. \n\nThose apostolic addresses, in which whole churches \nare denominated members of Christ, buried with him, in \nbaptism, the spiritual circumcisioji, and temples of the Holy \nGhost, are alleged by Dr. Sumner to have been \n" founded on the principle that the disciples had been \nbrought, by their dedication to God in baptism, into a \nstate of reconcilement with him, had been admitted to \nprivileges which the gospel calls on them to improve. \nOn the authority of the example, and of the undeniable \npractice of the first ages of Christianity, our church \nconsiders baptism as conveying regeneration." And af- \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 365 \n\nterwards he observes, that " the preacher of special \ngrace must, consistently with his own principles, lead \nhis hearers to look for some new conversion, and expect \nsome sensible regeneration. This brings him to use \nlanguage in the highest degree perplexing to an ordina- \nry hearer." \n\nThe members of the churches thus addressed, had \ncertainly been baptized, and having, by that rite, been \nreceived into visible communion, there was a pre- \nsumption, that their professions, which had been deem- \ned credible, were true. It was, therefore, of course, \nfor the apostle to treat them as saints. That their \ndedication in baptism was prima facie evidence of their \nbeing in a state of reconcilement, may be admitted ; but \nthat such reconcilement was the effect of baptism, by \nno means follows. \n\nThe ancient and apostolic condition demanded of \nthose w^ho sought baptism, was, if thou believest thou \nmayest ; and the credible profession of such faith, gave \nthe adult the right to be baptized. But he that helieveth \nthat Jesus is the Chnst, is born of God. It follows that \nevery adult, before he received baptism, was deemed to \nhave been regenerated. Now that regeneration should \nhave been the previous qualification for the reception of \nan adult into the visible church by baptism ; and yet \nhave been the consequent spiritual blessing to be con- \nveyed to the party by the same baptism, is an obvious \nrepugnancy. \n\nThese texts, nevertheless, and many others, do es- \ntablish that a change of some kind is wrought by the \nHoly Spirit upon those who are really united to Christ. \nSome think, that the powers of the soul are strengthen- \ned ; others that knowledge is communicated in some \nsuch manner as that by which the prophets and apos- \ntles received the suggestion of ideas and words ; but \nif regeneration consisted in the reception of new pow- \ners, or new light, or any thing which the unbeliever \nis physically unable to accomplish, then is he an ob- \nject of pity, not the subject of just blame. But it is \n2g2 \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nthe heart which is alienated ; a change of disposition \nis that which is wanting ; this consequently must be \nthe regeneration which the Spirit effects, wheieby the \nman becomes a member of Christ and an inheritor of the \nkingdom of heaven. \n\nThat baptism is a " sign of regeneration" is correct- \nly observed by bishop Chase (Church Register, vol. iii. \np. 181) to be not only the language of the 27th article, \nbut of the Westminster Confession, and Cambridge \nand Saybrook platforms. But if, as he asserts, the \nfirst " dissenters\'^ went with " the church" in the sense \nentertained of the " efficacy of this holy sacrament," it \nwas certainly not in that which the bishop holds. We \ncannot suppose that the learned bishop does not per- \nceive, that to account baptism a sign and even a seal \nof regeneration^ is vastly different from the position that \nevery one who receives such sign or seal, receives \nwith it that change of nature, heart, or disposition, which \nthe dissenters mean by regeneration. \n\nHowever " uninformed" we may be, we never mis- \nreport of his church, that they hold the final conserva- \ntion of the truly regenerated, and however " far, very \nfar" it be from the worthy bishop to hold that doctrine, \nas he confesses, we are very sure, that he will hold it, \nif ever he understands the Scriptures correctly. If \nwe were to impute to " the church" any of several \nsystems of doctrines, we should be in danger of " mis- \nreporting," for we are as much at a loss to know \nwhat they hold, as the Earl of Chatham, who said to \nthe bench of bishops in the house of lords. My fathers, \nwhat are you ? Your articles are Calvinistical, your \nliturgy Papistical, and your sermons Arminian. My \nright reverend fathers, what are you ? \n\nAccording to the bishop of Winchester, his <* church \nconsiders baptism as conveyi?ig regeneration," conse- \nquently baptism is not regeneration. When he repre- \nsents us as perplexing our hearers by " leading them to \nlook for some new coiiversion, and to expect some sen- \nsible regeneration," he considers the regeneration, \nwhich he thinks is conveyed by baptism, to be a " con- \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 367 \n\nversion," but insensible; and by affirming that they \nfollow ancie?it example and practice^ we are enabled to \ndiscern a striking similarity; for it was in ancient \ntimes beheved, that the Spirit descended upon the \nconsecrated water, and by it, in some way, regenera- \nted the soul of the person baptized. \n\nIn the New Testament, regeneration is sometimes \ntaken in a figurative sense for baptism, bor?i of the wa- \nter ; at other times for the reformation of the life or \npractice, born of the zvord ; it is also used for the resur- \nrection, approximating its classical sense ; but passing \nby these, the two bishops appear to agree in using the \nterm to express the spiritual change, born of the Spirit; \nwhich they suppose to be conveyed into the soul by the \nHoly Ghost, by means of baptism ; and because it su- \npersedes what Dr. Sumner denominates a new conver- \nsion, preached by dissenters, there is no room to ques- \ntion, notwithstanding the difference we make between \nregeneration, as an immediate effect of the Spirit, and \nconversion as a consequence, that their ideas nearly \naccord with our own, as to the effects of the spiritual \ninfluence ; for we are as far as Dr. Chase from sup- \nposing any to be wholly renewed. \n\nThe question about which we differ, seems, there- \nfore, merely to be, whether baptism is the mean of convey- \ning the spiritual blessing. \n\nBaptisms among the Jews were external purifica- \ntions; such were thc\xc2\xab3e of John, and of the disciples of \nChrist, before his death. The dispute which the \nPharisees had about purifying, must have regarded \nthe propriety of their using this ceremonial rite. \n\nWhen a proselyte was received to the Jewish reli- \ngion, circumcision, baptism, and a sacrifice constituted \nthe ceremony of introduction. And when it became \nexpedient that Christians should receive some distin- \nguishing badge of membership, baptism, in the name \nwhich the Saviour appointed, without circumcision \nand sacrifice, was the rite which he provided. \n\nAlthough any great change might be denominated \na regeneration, yet the idea of a new birth w^as pro- \n\n\n\n368 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nbably derived from the Jews, who considered a prose- \nlyte as born again, not as having a new soul, but as \nadopted among the children of Abraham. The Sa- \nviour used the same phrase to signify to Nicodemus \nhis need of a spiritual change ; but when he could not \nmake the transition, from the idea of naturalization to \nthat of a spiritual regeneration, the Saviour distin- \nguished between a being born of the water and of the \nSpirit, \n\nPaul also discriminated between circumcision and \nthat of which it was the sign ; and contended that \nGentiles might have the circumcision of the heart, \nwhilst destitute of the badge. So we think regenera- \ntion may obtain before, at, or after baptism ; that the \nsign may exist with, or without the spiritual change ; \nand that it may become also a seal to the unrenewed, \nwhensoever they are afterwards born of the Spirit. \n\nTo limit regeneration to the washing with water, \nappears to us without authority ; and to make it the \ncertain effect of an external rite, is nearly allied to \nmysti7:ism. How water applied to the body should \nconvey spiritual influences to the soul, and change the \ndisposition, is beyond the reach of reason and science, \nand as it receives no support from the Scriptures, we \ncan only assign it the character of a charm. Were \ndissenters thus to make water-baptism, which is a physi- \ncal act, to be the infallible medium of a spiritual ef- \nfect, they would, however uninformed, be justly charge- \nable with exposing the cause of Christ to the derision \nof the enemies of the gospel. \n\n" The preacher of special grace must, consistently \nwith his own principles, lead his hearers to look for \nsome new conversion," &c. True, for though Dr. \nSumner would confine the Spirit to influence by the \nmedium of water, yet the tenth article of his church \npoints to another regeneration, which he improperly \ndenominates some new conversion. Pelagius held no \nother grace than Providence and pardon. Semi-Pela- \ngians admit spiritual aid, but free-will must begin the \nchange. That article opposes them both, by the \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\n\n\n369 \n\n\n\nwords, " Grace of God by Christ preventing us, that \nwe may have a good will, and working with us when \nwe have that good will." This is precisely the doc- \ntrine of those stigmatised as preachers o^ special grace \nby the bishop ; and also the identical regeneration \nwhich is not conveyed by water. This doctrine may \nbe perplexing to hearers in the diocese of Winchester, \nbut we suspect it is much better understood in the \nstates of America than the baptismal regeneration. \n\nWe are sorry that the phrase special grace, with \nwhich Dr. Sumner too justly upbraids us, ever came \ninto use; yet no more is meant by it than by the \nwords quoted from the article. Also, if the Arminian \nperversion denominated common grace, an imaginary, \nuniversal, resistible, inefficacious influence, had not \nbeen introduced, the term special could not have ap- \npeared as its contrast ; thus the blame justly recoils \nupon those of his ov^^n faith. \n\nBut when the term special grace, being equivalent to \ngrace simply, is taken to signify that influence of the \nHoly Spirit by which the soul is regenerated, in other \nwords, the heart or disposition is changed and progres- \nsively sanctified, no inconvenience can spring. The \nwork of the Spirit in regeneration, in which man is \npassive, ought to be distinguished from conversion, in \nwhich man is active, in turning/rom sin by repentance to \nGod by faith in Jesus Christ. Accordingly the Scrip- \ntures consider sanctification to commence in regenera- \ntion ; but conversion, or turning from sin in the exer- \ncise of a holy disposition and a corresponding deport- \nment to God, are man\'s duty, though the fruits or \neffects by which the new birth is to be known. \n\nAs the outward circumcision made a child of Jacob \na Jew outwardly, and without the circumcision of the \nheart, he was not one inwardly, or really an heir of \nspiritual blessings; so to be horn cf water only, renders \na man merely a member of the Christian church, and \ngives him a title to its privileges. Consequently, until \nhe is horn of the Spirit, that is, regenerated or baptized \nby the Holy Ghost, he is not adopted, justified, sancti- \n\n\n\n370 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\nfied, nor will he be found to be an inheritor of the \nkingdom of heaven. Paul had been circumcised on \nthe eighth day, but not in heart, till on the way to \nDamascus, nor baptized till afterwards. \n\nThat the word regeneration may be taken either \nfor a being horn of the water, horn of the word, or horn of \nthe Spirit, we have admitted ; but neither can it justly \nbe infeired from the words, "except a man be born \nof the water and of the Spirit," nor from the connexion \nin which they occur, that the One birth is either the \nimmediate effect of the other or its necessary concomi- \ntant. On the contrary we are cautioned by an apos- \ntle against any reliance on water-baptism in the mat- \nter of salvation, " not the putting away of the filth of \nthe flesh, but the answer of a good conscience." \n\nThere has been, too long, a disposition among our \nown to depreciate the talents God has given to man, \nto restrict his freedom in the exercise of his faculties, \nand to make him a machine. On the other hand the \nchurch, though sufficiently orthodox in her articles, \nhas, in her teaching, gone into an opposite extreme, \nand either magnified human power with Pelagius, re- \nferring all to moral suasion ; or supplied its supposed \ndefects with Arminius, by imagining grace to be given \nto all, and exhorting only to improve it ; or by sup- \nposing every one to be regenerated by baptism, and \nbrought into a state of reconcilement, taught them \nto expect no other regeneration, nor to look for a new \nconversion. Thus in the Spirit\'s work of regeneration, \nthough Jesus Christ, comparing such influence with \nthe invisible air, has said, " no man knows whence it \nCometh," the bishops of Winchester and Ohio, sup- \nported by their liturgy, say. We know whence it Com- \neth, for it is conveyed hy the water in haptism. \n\nIt has been argued, that if baptism be " attended by \nno real grace," there is no henefit and the sacrametit is \nnullified, for it is not even a sign of regeneration, \nsince so many after baptism live profane and unholy \nlives. The unscriptural word sacrament, which signi- \nfies mystery, may thereby lose its original intention, \n\n\n\nLITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. 371 \n\nbut the truth is that this melancholy fact] of subsequent \nimpiety is proof, that the water does not regenerate \nthe soul ; yet impenitency cannot hinder that baptism \nshould remain a sign to accuse and stare the baptized \ninfidel, at every step of his career in wickedness, and \nthe abused benefits redounding from church member- \nship may become an additional source of eternal \nmisery. \n\nIt is asked, "are \xe2\x80\x94 the doctrines of efficacious grace \nand its necessary consequence, final perseverance, to \nbe supported in spite of the Scriptures?\' We reply, \nthe term "perseverance" which we are ashamed to see \nin the Westminster Confession, bears too close an affin- \nity to Arminianism, to be found in such sense in the \nScriptures ; but we use cojiservation in the sense attri- \nbuted by the ancient divines, as well as Dr. Sumner, \nto perseverance, as its substitute ; and acknowledge \nwith him, that it is the necessary consequence of effica- \ncious grace ; for if it be not efficacious, and if there \nbe any good, that comes neither mediately nor imme- \ndiately from God, but springs from man, then is man \nindependent, and God has ceased to be supreme. Nev- \nertheless the divine supremacy and man\'s dependence \nin the most unrestrained exercises of his will, appear \nin the Scriptures almost in every page. And it is by \nthis grace, which thus conflicts with the liturgy, that \nthe saints are kept unto salvation. \n\nIn our simplicity, we had thought regeneration a \nchange of heart, a new and right spirit given by God \nimmediately, and that what he does, he does forever ; \nbut the amiable bishop of Ohio affirms that his church \n"finds no such regeneration in the Holy Scriptures, \nshe holds to no such in her articles, expositions, or rit- \nual solemnities" \xe2\x80\x94 and admits no other than "a regen- \neration by water and the Holy Ghost." That is, ac- \ncording to Dr. Sumner, baptism is that which conveys \nregeneration ; but the Scriptural expression is gram- \nmatically %orn of the water and*^ born "o/" the spirit.\'\'^ \n\nThis doctrine naturally leads men to believe, that \n\n\n\n372 LITURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS. \n\ndivine power has no effect in man, but only towards \nhim ; provides moral means, but sends no immediate \ninfluence; that man is possessed of moral ability as \nwell as physical powers; and consequently that human \nagency, and self-sufficiency supercedes the necessity \nof immediate spiritual aid. But if that divine influ- \nence, which the prophets foretold of the Gospel era, \nand for which Jesus Christ taught his disciples to look \nand to pray, has no actual existence, who will receive the \nreport? Will the natural ma?i receive the things of God, \nexcept the arm of the Lord be made bare? Will the carnal \nmind lay aside its enmity? Does the Ethiopian change \nhis skin, or the leopard his spots? \n\nBut such questions are superseded by this doctrine, \nwhich teaches that every one who has been baptised, \nis regenerated. "When," says the bishop of Ohio, \n"does the regenerated state of man comm-ence? If \nwords can be so framed as to give a plain answer, \nthey are those of the apostle, when we are baptised into \nChrist \xe2\x80\x94 "for as many of you as were baptised into \nChrist, have put on Christ." The worthy bishop will \nexcuse us for saying, that this passage will not prove, \nthat the inward spiritual grace, always accompanies \nthe outward visible sign ; because its sense is fixed by \nthe context. Gal. iii. where Christ is contrasted with \nMoses, and the Gospel with the law for the purpose of \nopposing the liberty of Gospel against the bondage of the \nlaw; so that this text means no more, than, that they \nwho came out of the water of baptism, and put on \nother clothes, also put on the profession of Christ, and \nwere no longer bound to the ceremonial observances \nof Moses. \n\n\n\nFINIS. \n\n\n\nDeacidified using the Bookkeeper process. \nNeutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide \nTreatment Date: Sept. 2005 \n\nPreservationTechnologies \n\nA WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION \n\n1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive \nCranberry Township, PA 16066 \n(724)779-2111 \n\n\n\n'