IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) ^, ^/. Zc ^ 1.0 I.I l^|2£ 12.5 «« ^ III 2.2 t li£ ill 20 U u ^ 18 US |||||_U III ,.6 <^1 ^' % "^/^i ^ Sciences Corporation i\ V^' ;\ '^q^ \ 4. - ^ 23 WfST MAIN STREfT WIsBSTER, N.Y. U5S0 (716) 873-4503 -?- .^^. CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/JCMH Coiiection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiquos Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibiiographiques *v, The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be biblioeraphicaily unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. V D n Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur ^, Covers damaged/ "^ I Couverture endommag6e I I Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurAe et/ou peiiiculde Cover title missing/ I e titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur □ Coloured inl< (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) nCcloured plates and/or illustrations/ Plai Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other materiaj/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, cos pages n'ont pas 6t6 fiimiss. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ 3e meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a it6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiquis ci-dessous. r~~| Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag6es □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqudes (T/r Pages detached/ I — I Pages d6tach6es ~^ Showthrough/ JlJ Transparence I ] Quality of print varies/ D Quality indgale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du matdriel suppldmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillei d 'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmdes & nouve-iu de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. Tl P' 01 fil O b( tt si 01 fil si 01 Tl si Tl w M di er b( rll re m This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est fiim4 au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 7 12X 16X 20X 26X 30X 24X 28X 32X The copy fUmed here has been reproduced thanks ^c >e generosity uf: National Library of Canada L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grAce d la g6n6rosit6 de: Bibliothdque nationale du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming con!ract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginttlng on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la netteti de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimte sont film6s dn commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont fiimis en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derniire page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole ~»> signif ie "A SUIVRE ", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmte d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul ctich6, il est fiimA i partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le ncmbre d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants iltustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 2 1 3 4 5 6 i» pf-^g; ^G "2- L V A RE.PLX TO i( THE APOSTOLIC CHDRCH. WHICH 18 IT?" OP PROFESSOR THOMAS WITHEROW, FB0FE8S0B OF GHUBCH HISTOBT IN MAQEE COIiLEOE, LONDONDERRY, BY \ THOMAS G. PORTER, INGUHBENT OF CBAIGHURST AND WAVERLEY, DIOCESE OF TORONTO. AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. ^^ TORONTO. PRINTED AT THE MONETARY TIMES OFFICE, 64 & 66 CHURCH ST. ^ MDCcqtyxvm. <-A. > f I r A REPLY '■■■ ^ '■■>';'• * TO "THE AFOSmiC CHURCH. WICH IS IT?" -,#> ^i^- OF PROFESSOR THOMAS WITHEROW, PBOFHBBO'Ab OF CHCRCH HISTORY IN UAQILL OOIiLSai, LONDONDERRY, i BT THOMAS G. PORTER, INOUMBBNT OF CRAIOHUBST AND VTIVKBLKY, DIOCEBS OF TOBONTC. AUDI ULTEBAM PARTEM. TORONTO : PRINTED AT THE MONETARY TIMES OFFICE, 64 & 66 CHURCH ST. MDCCCLXXVn. T ^^ 3//f > ^' > ^' JP^bitatton, TO THB PRESIDENT, PROFESSORS AND ALUMNI o* NASHOTAH THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, WISCONSIN, U. 8., THESE PAGES ABJ BE8PECTFULLT DEDICATED BY THE AUTHOB. HiULi0DAi) are bound to declare " ihe whole counsel of God" (d) to those committed to our charge, " aocordinfj to the proportion of faith," (e) not withholding or suppressing anything, but giving each part its due and proper place and prominence. Thirefore, the question for us to consider is which of these three systems or modes of ecclesiastical government possesses those marks which distinguished the •' Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth " (f) as they are set forth directly, or are indirectly referred to in the New Testament. I may here say that had I been making an " inquiry " on this subject, instead of an examination of yours, I should have proceeded in a different way to arrive at the truth than the course you have been pleased to pursue. I would take as a starting point thi rule of Tertullian, " whatsoever is from the beginning is true, and whatsoevi r comes later is false," (y). Aud also the rule of St. Vincentius of Lerins, " Whatsoever has been believed every- where, always and by all Christians is truly and properly Catliolic," (h). Of course the sense in which he uses the word Catholic is the same as that in which it is used iu the Apostle's Creed. These two rules would give me the principles upon which I would test the existing modes of Church order and government. I would then turn to that of which you are a Professor — Church History. With this before me, I would take up, let us say. Indepen- dency. This system I would trace back to the time beyond which it did not exist, or have anything to do with the Christian Church — that is the reign of Queen EHzabeth — or to come more definitely to the time, in A.D. 1581, when Robert Brown organized them into societies or ">ngregationB, and pronounced each to be independent (i). This system I ould then $et aside as being of too late an origin to be from the beginning or as being likely to present the Apostolic mode of government as maintained from the first ages of Christianity. I would then take up pkesbytkby, and in the light of Church history examine the system of Church government it maintains. Tracing this sys- tem back to its beginning, I find that it first originated from John Calvin, who was not bom till the A.D. 1509, and who, though never ordained him- self, composed an ecclesiastical system, as he said '' from or on account of tho necessities of the timeq," and established it in Geneva in A.D. 1541, and from there was introduced into Scotland by John Enox, but still it was 1500 years too late to be the ecclesiastical system founded by our Lord, and observed by His Apostles. (c) John i. 46. \cd) I. Pet. iu. 15. (d) Acts XX. 27. («) Bom. xii. 6. (/) I. Tun. iu. 16. ig) Adv. Haer § xxi. h) Gommonit. § iii. t) Vide Buck's Thoo. Diet. N. -"^E APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT? r I woald then i irn to prelacy, and apply the same test, and in the light afforded by the history of the Church, examine whether the three Orders now known us Bidbops, Priests, and Deacons, existed as recognised and essential parts of the Ministry of the Church earlier than the other two. I w^uld see whether there existed a nation, city, or country claiming to be Christian which recognized any less ihan these three Orders as being com- ponent parts of the Christian Ministry. I would examine the practice, the customs, and the history of every Christia i nation I could obtain access to, in order to learn if any of them had ever known of there having been less than these thrse Orders in Christ's Church — Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and if so, when the Order or Orders were introduced, the person or persons by whom they were int-oduced, and v)hy and where they were first introduced. Then if I was unable to find any author, witer, or historian who liad re- ferred to these Orders aa having been introduced after the Apostolic age, and if in the customs of every branch of the Church from J'-rusalem to India, from Bome to Malabar, from Britain to Constantinople, and Abyssinia, all were united in the observance and maintenance of these three Orders as being distinct and separate, yet essential Orders in the Ministiy, T woulc be compelled to accept their united testimony, and receive Prelacy as being the most likely to be lihe form of Church order and government established by our Lord and observed bv His Apostles. But here you may .emind me that this would not be an " Inquiry at the Oracles of God." I admit it, yet you must acknowledge that it woald be the best preparation for such an inquiry. It would be a clearing of the grouud of much irrelevant matter which only tends to hamper and blind, without being of the slightest help or use, and would also give us the key to the interpretation of many passages of Holy Scripture which on your mode ol proceeding must remain unexplained, or require to be explained away. But ot ttis more anon. Although this is an examination of your inquiry, and I must neces- sarily follow where and as you lead, yet I must be permitted to seek out and introduce such other principles and facts connected with the Apostolic Church as we can discover, or may arise, and use them also as tests by which to try tho present existing ecclesiastical systems. I purpose, D.V., stating your system of treating the subject in my next, and noticing a part of that treatment. I remain, &c. >' LETTER II. As stated in my first letter, I must follow your mode of treating this subject in seeking a solution of tho question — "Which is the ApoatoUc Church ?" AitoE- speak.ng of iba importance of the question, and having divided the existing forms of Church government into the three classes which we have agreed to call respectively Pbklacy, Phesryteby and Independrnov ; you then proceed (I.) To define the meaning of the word church. (II.) To show there must necessarily have been some form or system of govern- ment in the Apostolic Church. (III.) You endeavor to discover what were the chief principles of that govarament. These principles you define to be as follows : (1) That the office-bearers were choren by the people. (2) That the o6Sces of Bishops and Presbyters or elders were identical. (P) That in each Church there was a plurality of elders. (4) That ordination wiis th» act of the Presbytery — of a plurality of elders. (5) That the pi vilege existed of appeal tc the assembly of the Elders and *he right of govern- ment exercised by them in their corporate capacity. (6) That Church rulers did not rendw spiritual obedience to any temporal potentate or to THE AP08T0LTC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT? 9 4 > ' -t — i, ,1 any ecclesiastical chief ; in other words that Christ alone was the Head of the Charch. 'V. You then pressed to apply your tests to Prelacy, which by your theories you \veigh and lind wanting ; or, as you express it, is repugnant to the word of God {h) ; then to Indepoidenc^i with a somewhat similar result ; last of all you try Presbytery, and the result you state to be that " in doctrine " they (Presbyterians and ApostoUc Church) are exactly alike ; in worship " they are exactly the same, in government, all the maiu principles of the *• one are found in the other. There is no Church on earth of which the •• same statements can be made in truth. "Wo regard it, therefore, as put " beyond all reasonable doubt that of all the Churches iww exisiiruf in th9 '•tt yrld, the Presbyterian Church comes nearest to the model of Apostolic times. " That such is the fact every man who gives to the evidence hpre submitted, " that careful and unprejudiced consideration to which it is entitled, must " as 1 9 think be convinced" (i. ) To all of which, I, as a man who has given a careful and unprejudiced consideration to all the evidences it contains would simply say " Audi al- teram partem." I am sure you will give me ^.he credit of having fairly, and as nearly as possible in your own words, stated your position, so that nothing of import- ance has been overlooked. I do this that all who have not rrad your little work may know the plan you have adopted, and also see that I have fol- lowed you step by step through all its ramifications. MEANING OP THE WORD CHURCH. The Greek word ekklesia is used one hundred and fifteen times in the New Testament. Dr. Donnegan defines it to mean, first, " an assembly of the people of Athens convoked by heralds." next, " the place where they assembled," and then " in ecclesiastical writers, the Church in its general and particular sense." Pickering's definition is about the same. Green- field defines it as the calling togetb"'* of " any public assembly, a congre- " gation," and as " a Christian assembly, a Church." Buck in his Theo- logical Dictionary says, it is " (1) an assembly met about business whether " lawful or unlawful, (2) all Christians now on earth, (3) all God's people in " every age, (4) a congregation of faithful mec in which the true word of '* God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered, etc., and (5) any " particular body of Christians distinguished by particular doctrines, cere- " monies, etc, as Church of Rome, Greek Church, English Church," etc. Under thi., head you tell us, that while there are a variety of significations attached to the term, yet " it is never to be forgotten that when we come to " the interpretation of the Word of God, the variety of senses commonly at- " tached to the term is altogether inadmissible ; and would, if adopted, " darken and corrupt the meaning of Divine revelation. The word Church "in Scripture has al- ays one meaning, and one only — "m assembly of tht ^^ people of Ood — a Society of Christians. The Greek word ekklesia, in its " primai-y and civil sense, means any assembly called together for any pur- "pose (k) ; but in its appropriated and religiaus sense it means a Society of '• Christia^is, and is ^variably translated by the word — Church. Examine " the Scriptures from the commencement to the close, and you will find that "the word Church never has any other meaning but that which we have "stated. Let any roan who is disposed to dispute this statement produce, "if he can, any passage from the word of God, where the sense would be " impaired if the phrase society of Christians or Chrisfian assembly were sub- " stituted for the word Church. This we are persuaded would be impos- " Bible" (I). (/») Page 48. i) Page 60. (k) Acts xix. 32, (t) Pages 9 and lU. 10 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT? I am convinced, sir, that you did not foresee the results which n^ust necessarily flow from this challenge of yours. What results you may have expected to flow from it, is mora than I know, and what bearing it has upon the subject I cannot see. You give us examples. Col. iv. 15 ; Acts xi. 22, and 1 Cor. xii. 28. Granted that this phrase may be properly used in these passages. But virhen yuu tell us that in Acts vii. 88, in Heb. ii. 12, and in Psalm xxii. 22-25, we may understand and use the same phrase, I must confess to astonishment. Do you really mean that the Jewish Church was '*a society oj Christians, a Christian Church.'' What! sir. can it be possible that there was a Christian Church before Christ ? A Christian assembly ex- isting one thousand years before the birth of Him who founded it, and fjfter whom it was called. Do you really wish us to believe that there ex- isted for ages a Christian Church where there were thebe Orders in the Ministry, and that too appointed and commanded by God Himself! A *^ Society of Chriitians" reierte A to in God's word, i" which Divine Service was by His express appointment and direction, celebrated in accordance with a prescribed form. Where the eiders were all laymen, and who were ruled by a Hierarchy of High Priest, Priests and Levites. Where tlie of- fice-bearers were not chosen by the people. Where spiritual obedience was given to temporal potentates and ecclesiastical chiefs. A Christian Church where ecclesiastical robes, "those rags of Porary," were worn by those engaged in the service of the Sanctuary, and where there were images (on the ark), candles, incense and sacrifices, and all this, even to the smallest particular, arranged p»ud appointed by Divine Revelation 1 Surely you did not mean to assert all this. I am sure you will withdraw your challenge rather than accept tliose necessary results and conclusions, acknowledge your mistake and confess that ekklesia, Church, and its synonym Congrega- tion (compare Heb. ii. 12 and Psalm xxii. 22) do not always mean a society of Christians, a Christian Church. We know that it is used in connection with error and wrong. Would it not be strange to read Psalm xxvi. 5, as being " I have hated tlu Christian assembly (Ixx. ekklesia) of the evil-doers," or in Proverbs xxi. 16, shall we read " The man that wandereth out of the wav of understanding shall remain in the society of Christians, (ekklesia) of the dead." You may perhaps reply that the Jewish Church and the Chris- tian are in reality but one Church, under two dispensations ; that the Di- vine promises and covenants made to the one are contained in the other, and that under both dispensations it was the assembly of God's people, therefore a Christian assembly. I willingly grant all but the conclusion. The Church of God under the Mosaic or Jewish uispensation was the Jewish Church, and under the Chris- tian dispensation is the Christian Church, which terms are not interchange- able ; for i- you may truly and properly call the Jewish Church ' ' a societg of Christians" as you tell us en page 10 we may do, then with equal truth and propriety we may call the Christian Church of the present day a society of Jews. The same arguments which will prove Samuel, David, Isaiah, and John the Baptist to1)e Christians, will also prove that you and I are Jews, whica I do not think we are. The Christian Church is, it is true, the spiritual Israel, but they are no more a Jewish Church than the grafted branches of the Olive tree are the same as the natural branches, which were " cut off because of unbelief. ' Nor have we any righ^. to term any ona a Christian who has never received Christian Baptism, for we are expressly told that as many " as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ," (mn) or in other woids have become " Christians." We should therefore be very careful in our applving terms belonging solely to one dis- pensation, to the other, nor yet seek to be *' wise above what is written," in Holy Siripture we have no instance of its being done, or that any one, (mn) Gal. iii. 27. 1 !■ Ml. f I THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT t li no matter how pure and holy, was ever called a Christian before he became a " Disciple " of Christ by Christian Baptism. To my mind the word ekklesia — church and its synonym congregation, as '^jsed in Holy Scripture, means (1) an assembly met for any purpose (m) — (2) It means also the Jewish Church, or in other words the Church of God, under the Jewish dispensation, (n) — (8) It means Jtnore frequently and es- pecially the Church, or the Church of God, under the Gospel dispensation, either as a single oongi-egation, (o) as the place v/here such congregation meets, (p), aa being the number of congregations and believers in a city or country, (g), and also the whole body of baptized believers throughout the world — all the redeemed children of Christ, (r). But whenever this word or ios synonym is used in the Holy Scripture, it is always plain from the con- text in what sense it is to be understood and interpreted. This much, how- ever, I believe we shall agree upon, that wherever the Christian Church is referred to in God's word, whether as a single congregation, or as the whole mass of baptized believers on earth, it always means a society of those who "were called Christians first in Antioch," (s) who acknowledge but " one Lord," confess but " one Faith," are baptized with the " one baptism," w'^o rejoices in " one Hopo," and worship but " one God," (t), and may I also add, are governed bv but one form of Church government, to which point I will refer (D.V. ) in my next. I remain, «&c. i;-v;:..,;-;-;,,: LETTER III. .; . .,i :.,,■,-'. ^.-^ . The " Government of the Church " is the next head which comes before VLB for consideration. The Christian Church, as you say, is frequently repre- sented in God's word as a Kingdom, as e.g. St. Matt. iii. 2, xiii. 24-27 ; 3t. Luke xvi. 20, etc. Being a Kingdom implies that it is organized and regu- larly constituted, having, (1) a King, (2) Subjects, (3) Laws, and I will take the liberty to add here, (4) Ofl&cers, deriving their authority from the King. (1) The Head of the Church is declared to be a King by prophecy, Ezek. sxxvii. 22 ; by type lb. 25 ; Hosea iii. 5 ; by fulfilment of prophecy, St. Mat. xxi. 6, etc. The Head of the Body — the Church who is also Kin^ — is Christ, concerning whom it is said " Thy throne, God, is for ever and ever. A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Hhy Kingdom " (it) and again " of His Kingdom there shall be no end." (u) (2) The Subjects of the Kingdom are Baptized believers — all those who by the " one baptism," (w) " are all baptized into one Body," (x) which one " Body is the Church," {y) and in that "one baptism, have put on Christ," {%) That is, are thus made members of His Body, or Christians,, and subjects of His Kingdom. This I believe is the plain teaching of those passages to which I have referred. Indeed I do not see how any other (m) Acts xix. 32, 39 ; Psalm xxil. 17. xxvi. 6, &o. r)^ (n) Acts vii. 38 ; Heb. ii. 12 ; Psahn xxii. 22, 25, &o. (o) Col. iv. 15; Phile. 2. (!>) 1 Cor. xi. 22. {q) Acts xii. 1. and also in Acts ix. 31. where as you correctly remark, the true reading is the word church iuthe singular, (r) Eph. V. 25, 27. 29. (g) Acts xi. 26. (t) Eph. iv. 4. (u) Heb. i. 6. (v) Lnke ii. 33. (to) Eph. iv, 6. (a;) 1. Cor. xii. 18. (j/) Col. i. 18. (z) Gal. iii. 27. T 18 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH WHICH IS IT? interpretation can be put upon thenn withotit explaining away some and doing violence to others. (8) Tiie LAWS of the Kingi^om are not only the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, but also "the Faith once for all delivered to the saints." (a) This Faith, distinct from Holy Scripture, but proved and upheld by it, I believe to be " the form of soured words,' which St. Paul exhorted TimotL7 " hold fast," (b) and also " the things " which he had heard ftom St. Paul among many witnesses, and which he is told to '* commit to " faithful men who shall be able to teach others also," (c) I believe it also to be the " traditions " which St. Paul commandad the Thess'vlonians to " stand fast and held." (d) In fine I believe it to be that jformulary which all were required to confess and use in person or by proxy before they were admitted into the Christian Church by baptism, and which coming down to our own times is known as the Creed, the Belief, or in other words the Faith. The Church existed before the New Testament was written. All were required to "confess with their mouth" as well as " believe in their heart," (e) " the faith once for all delivered," before they could become christians by Baptism. This " faith" or " confession," or " form of sound words," must therefore have existed before the New Testament, and coeval with the Chris- tian Church itself ; yet as (*od is not the Author of confusion but of peace, both must agree and mutually explain and prove each other. (4) The Officers to administer and explain the laws and fulfil the duties of their offices in the Kingdom, uniler and by or with the authority of their Lord and King, committed to them for that purpose. These officers exercising that authority in the Kingdom of Christ, in accordance with His laws, constitute the governmental agents of the Kingdom, the instruments by whom the laws, penalties, etc., were enforced, the King's will made known and explained, and His bounties dispensed. To find out, as far as possible, and to define the principles of their ad- ministration — the systems by which they governed, and the number of distinct grades or orders among those officers, and to compare it with exist- • ing forms of Church govenment, was the object of your " Inquiry," and is the object of my examination of that inquiry. You may not agree with all I nave just said, although I (?annot see how it is to be denied, yet on these three points we are fully agreed, viz. : 1. That there was a form of government in the Apostolic Church. 2. That the system of Church Government in the Apostolic age was uniform in every place where the Christian Church was fully organizad, and 8. T'aat whatsoever system was observed by the Apostles, is binding npon "all those who profess and call themselves Christians." To the Apostolic Church we turn then, and endeavor to find in the in- spired records the leading principles v/hich mark its government, gathering up all the hints and references they contain regarding it, and then having digested and arranged them in order, apply them to the prevailing systems of Church government, and then leave the settlement of the question to your own axiom : " The modern Church which embodies in its government most " Apostolic principles comes nearest in Us goveruhcent to the Apostolic Church." (f) And here I cannot forbear quoting a, passage of your own in full, which clearly expresses the difficulties which meet us at the very threshold. " The Apostles writing to Christians who were themoelves members of "the Apostolic Church, and of course well acquainted with its organization, " did not judge it necessary to enter into detailed descriptions of the Chris- "tian Society. To do so would have been unnatival. They do occasionally (a) Jude, 3. ■'''- (ft) 2. Tim. i. 3. ' '-;>.■■• (c) 2. Tim. ii. 2. (d) 2. Thes. ii. 15, and iii. 6. "»• K -i . V ^t («) Rom. X. 10. 1 : ' . . (/) Page 10. * ; " - ^^ f y -^ s T V THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT? 18 ,^- - V: •^r .|^ "state facts bearing on Church government, and hint indirectly at prevailing " practices. These hints and facts were sufficiently suggestive and inteUigible *' to the persons originally addressed, but by us who live in a distant age, in a " foreign country, and among associations widely different, they are not so " easily understood," (g). How, may I ask, are these great difficulties to be met, arising, as they do, from lapse of time, difference of race, language, and customs, and I may add possible, and every probable bias towards the ecclesiastical system in which we may have been trained? What system of interpretation are we to adopt, by which these difficulties may be met and overcome ; at least the greater part of them ? The only rule you give us is, " by a thorough and unprejudiced examination of the Scriptures." {h) Even here another question arisec ; can we uivest ourselves of prejudice and partiality ? Will not our youthful impressions still cling to us, and so clog our examinations and darken our perceptions that while we think ourselves entirely free from all bias and partiaUty, we suddenly find we are Imuting for arguments, hints and references, with which we bolster up the system in which we have been educated, blind to every argument and interpretation which militates against it, no matter how clear to our opponents, and wonderfully acute in finding allusions to, nay positive proofs, of the correctness and truth of our system, in passages where our opponents can see nothing in our favor, or perhaps as containing positive proofs of the truth of their side of the ques- tion. As an illustration, let us take the texts relating to the Holy Com- munion. In all of them the Romanist sees proofs, plain and positive, of Transubstantiation ; the Lutheran of Cousubstantiation ; the Churchman sees in them, the proofs that the consecrated Elements are the sif^ns, " out- ward and visible," of a Eeal Presence; while the — well the Zui-nglian — that they are the signs of a real absence. And so with every school of thought, prejudice clings unconsciously but closely around us, and warps our judg- ment. We therefore need something more than the rule you have given us in order to bring that rule into actual use, i. e., we require some assistance external to the Book itself in order to make " a thorough and unprejudiced " examination of the Scriptures." The rule by which this may be done is by calling in the aid of Church history. You are a professor of this very necessai'y branch of theological learning, and must therefore know its use and value, not only in showing the rise of innovations and abuses in the Services, Doctrines, and Customs of the Church, but in bearing testimony to matters of fact in relation to existing customs and modes of government in the periods of which it treats, by collecting and arranging the statements of persons who lived in those times, in relation to these facts, and also the Practices and Customs of the Church contemporaneous with them. Here then the rules of Tertullian and of St. Vincent before referred to, are proven true. "Whatsoever is from the beginning istiuo, that v/hich comes later is " false ;" (i) and " Whatsoever has been everywhere e,lways, and by all re- " ceived, is truly and properly catholic." (J) And by applying these rules ' we arrive at the consensus patrum, the unanimous testimony and universal practice of the Primitive Church from the fourth century at least, back to the Apostolic age. This I b elieve to be the only way in which to obtain the true statement of all matters of fact and doctrine relating to the Apos- tolic Church, and the interpretation ot the obscure passages and hints and references to the teaching and practice of the Apostles in the New Testa- ment. As an illustration I may refer to the religious observance of the Lord's day, or first day of the week, instead of the Sabbath or seventh day of the week, by the Christian Church, The Jew, or the aeventh-day Bap- (p) P. P. 15 and 16. (A) P. 16. h) Tert. Preserip. Haer. § xxi. (7) St. Vinoeniins Commonit § iii. u THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH- — WHICH 18 IT 1 tist, may ask as our authority for so doing. We can show no command or injunction in Holy Scripture, appointing the first or abrogating the seventh day. We may, it is true, show that the Christians on several occasions " met together on the first day of the week," but our opponents will also show us that they were accustomed to meet on other days as well. We may also show that St. John " was in the spirit on the Lord's Day," but we oan furnish no proof positive from Holy Scripture alone, whether he meant Easter Day, the first day of the week, or indeed what day it was at all to which he applied this term. We must therefore turn to something external to the Bible, that will clear away the difficulties which surround the sub- ject, and enable us to arrive at a proper and true conclusion in regard to it. That external help and assistance to the interpretation of these obscure pas- snges is the same unanimons testimony and universal practice of the Primitive Church . Again, as to the matter of Infant Baptism. We have no express command to administer it, although allusions and hints are given which seem to both enjoin and prohibit it. Here also we are compelled to turn to the same consetisus patrum. The foregoing will, I believe, fully uphold me in bringing in this testi- mony, in the interpretation of all passages about which there may be any doubt, and in relation to any matters about which there may be any ques- tion. . „, . APOSTOLIC PBINCIPLB8. . Under this head you proceed to give us your conclusions as to the num- ber of office-bearers in the Apostolic Church, viz.: '* 1. Apostles ; 2. Evan- " gelists ; 3 Bishops, also called pastors and teachers; 4. Deacons." (kk) The means by which you arrive at these conclusions you do not state, further than that it is " from acsreful examination of the Scriptures*" I presume that the portions of Scripture which lead yon to these conclusions are Eph. iv. 11 : "And He gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and someJ^van- " gelists, and some Pastors and Teachers ;" and I suppose also 1 Cor. xii. 28 : " And God hath set some in the church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, " thirdly Teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, govern- " ments, diversities of tongues," compared with Phil. i. 1, where St. Paul addresses his epistle to the saints ' ' which are in Phillippi with the Bishops " and Dartcons, " and such other pa^^ages as refer to those two last Orders or offices. In referring to the above passages we can see that there was another class ot persons in the Apostolic Church besides those you have enumerated, viz.: -^Prophets," which in both of the above texts is placed next to the Apostles, while " Evangelists" is only found in one. It seems strange then that you should pass by the Prophets and introduce the others as a class of " office-bearers" in the Apostolic Church. It may have been an oversight on your part, as you pive no reason for excluding them, yet yoxir statement that "a< least" there were the office-bearers you have named, would lead me to infer that you were under the impression that " Prophets" ought to bo included, but for some reason had been passed over. Besides the Prophets 1 find reference to another class of persons in the Apostolic Church, viz.: " Elders," as in Acts xiv. 23, where the Apostles Paul and Barnabas are said to have " ordained them Elders in every Church ;" and again chap. xv. 23, " The Apostles, and Elders, and Brethren." Here then are the classes of persons distinguished from the laity, to be found in Holy Scripture, as existing in the Apostolic Church : 1. Apostles ; 2. Prophets ; 3. Evangelists ; 4. Elders ; 5. Bishops ; 6. Deacons. Hav- ing proceeded thus far, our next object will be to see if any of these classes are identical, and if .any of them are permanent Orders, or merely extraordi- nary and peculiar. (1 .) As to the Apostolic office, I fully endorse nhat you say in the first i > {kk} Pagfc 20. k ^ THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT'? 16 , paragraph of page 20, that it "included all the others; and a Bi top or " Elder had the right to act as a Deacon, so long as his doing so did i. )t im " pede the due discharge of duties peculiarly his own. A Deacon, on the " other hand, had no right to exercise the office of a Bishop, nor had a " Bishop any authority to take on him the duties of an Apostle. Each supe- " rior office included all below it." In this then we are fully agreed, that the Apostolic offick was s^iperior to the other two offices you have mentioned, because in it was contained the others, and that to that office pertained powers, privileges, and an authority which the others did not possess or enjoy. These, I think, may be sot down as Apostolic principles fully conceded by you, and accepted as such by me. What those superior powers and privileges are, we will refer to at the proper time and place. But my dear sir, when you tell us that this Apostolic office was but temporary, " necessary at the first establishment " of Christianity, but not necessary to be perpetuated," {k) I must enter my most solemn protest against any such assertion. By what right, or on what authority, do you take it upon yourself to wipe away with a single stroke of your pen, that which you have just before acknowledged to be the highest office in the Apostolic Church under Christ. Why can you assume that to be a fact, for which there is not a single statement, reference, allusion or hint, to be found in all God's Word, on which to found your daring assumption. If you can prove to me by the authority of Holy Hcripture, and the unani- mous testimony of the Primitive Church, or by either one or the other, that the Apostolic Office, as confirmed in their commission, has ceased and become obsolete, T will promise to give up and deny my mother Church, and become a Presbyterian. Do you tell me that because " the Apostles were witnesses " of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus," therefore their office has become void ? Then I will tell you that "about five hundred brethren at once," (I) were witnesses of the same thing. Have the brethren or laity of the Church ceased because of this ? Or do you mean to tell me that there were " about " five hundred " Apostles who at once were " witnesses " of the fact that our Lord has risen from the tomb, and beheld Him face to face ? Do you assume the Apostles' office to have ceased because they were "endowed " with the power of working miracles ?" So also »/as St. Stephen, the proto- martyr, who was only a Deacon, or of the most ii;;urior Order (m). Is it because the Apostles had the power of " conferrirr' the Holy Ghost by the " laying on of hands ?" So much the more reason why that office should be continued, for the " Laying on of hands " Is declared to be one of the " principles of the doctrine of Christ." (n) Was it because they were " the " infallible expounders of God's will ? " St. Luke, not one of the twelve, was also an infallible expounder of God's will, as was also St. Mark. Was it be- cause you believed them to be "Wif founders of the Christian Church?" They were not so, for Christ Himself was the Founder, and they were sim- ply the agents or officers by whom it was to be extended— in other words, upon whom it was founded or "built." (o) But if by founders you mean that they planted Churches in the different countries and cities, and made converts, I reply, so also did others, as for instance, St. Philip, the Deacon, who planted the Church in Samaria, (p) Why, sir, if the Apostolic office has ceased, then the Church of God has ceased, and all the promises so fully and lavishly made to that Church were simply so much empty air. When yoxi made this statement, had you the commission before you, which our (k) P. 20. (/) I. Gor. XV. 4. (m) Ae»^^H vi. 8. In) Heb. vi. 1-2. (o) Eph. ii. 20. (p) Acts vii. 6. 16 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT 1 Lord Himself gave to His Apostles on the evening of that glorious first Easter Day, or did Dr. Campbell's words, which you quote, come be^iween you and those Divine words which fell from the lips of our Risen Lord ? I much fear they did. To examine our Lord's words eatablishing the Apostolic office, and Dr. Campbell's words pretending to abolish it, and to compare the two, will be the object of my next letter. Till then permit me to subscribe myself, yours, &c. LETTER IV. I will now give the commission which our Lord gave to His Apostles, and then compare that commission with Dr. Campbell's words, which you quote as an authority for stating rhat commission to have ceased and become obsolete. St. Matthew's words are as follows : ' ' And Jesus came and spake unto " ihem sayinj. All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye ' ' therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, ' * and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : Teaching them to observe all " things whatsoever I have commanded you : and, lo, 1 am with you alway, " even unto the end of the world. Amen." (q) St. Mark's account is '' And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, " ..nd preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is bap- " tized shall be saved ; but he that balieveth not shall be damned. And " these signs shall follow them thai; believe ; in My name shall they cast " out levils ; they shall speak with new tongues ; they shall take up ser- " pen. i ; and if they drink ivny deadly thing it shall not hurt them ; they " shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." (r) While St. John's words are : " Then said Jesus to them again, ' Peace " be unto you : as My father huth sent Me, even to I se7id you.^ And when " He had said this. He breathed on them, and said unto them, ' Receive ye *' the Holy Ghost : Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto •* them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.'" (s) It will be observed that I have not quoted the passage from St. Luke which is sometimes looked upon as a commission to the Apostles. That it was not such will readily be seen from an examination of the passage, which is as follows ; " Then opened He their understanding, that they might " understand the Scriptures, and said unto y Baptism, become members of the Body of which I am the Ruler and Hoadl even so [with equal authority] send 1 you [to extend and perpetuate My Kingdom to all time.] Go yo therefore, [by the same au- thority] and teach all nations, [or make all nations My Disciples,] baptizing them in the name of the Fatlior, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo 1 am with you [and your successors iu their official capacity] alwags even to the end of the vmrld, [so that] whose soever sins you [or they in their official capacity] may remit, they are remitted unto them [by Me who came into this world to make an atoneme t for 'ns,] and whose soever sins ye [or they, in accordance with the laws of M> iCingdom] retain, they ar j re- tained." I am fully convinced that every part of this paraphrase is iu accordance with Holy Scripture, and when we remembcv that this commission was given to the Apostles alone, that no other body, Order, or class of the Disciples or Brethren were thus addressed, we must acknowledge that it was through them alone that any body, Order or class in the Christian Church can receive the power of binding 'T loosing. Is it to the Deacons that these words so expressive of continuity are addressed, " Lo I am with you always, even to the end of the world," or even to Presbyters? If these words were intended only for the Eleven whom He was then addressing, how are we to interpret them -how understand them ? If it was to the Eleven alone, are we to un- derstand that our Lord meant that the eleven Apostles were personally to continue "always, even to the end of the world," in this work of discipling the nations which He had given them to do ? Or are we to understand that at the death of the last Apostle, St. John, about the year of our Lord 100, came also ihe end of the world ?" Surely either of these interpretations would make simple nonsense of our Lord's solemn words. The end of the world has not as yet come, nor have the eleven Apostles continued at the work assigned in this commission to the present time. Now the Church of England, "Prelatic" though ft is, has given her Clergy a canon or rule which forbids them to " expound one portion of Scripture so as to be repug- nant to another," nor yet to be repugnant to itself, and I cannot understand how this passage is to be interp/eted without doing it violence other than expounding this as being their office, the Apostolic Office or Order with which He was to be "always, even to the end of the world," not their per- sons. And how any person in the face of this can say that this very Office was not intended to be perpetuated is more than 1 can see or understand. The Presbyterian Confession of Faith claims for their ministry "the power of the keys." (u) Through whom, or from whom, then, have they derived that power which was given solely to the Apostles, when you plainly inform us that the Apostolic office has ceased, and was not necessary to be perpetuated \ If the Apostolic Office has ceased so also has the power of the keys, of binding and loosing, and every other Ministerial function in the Church of G(jd. My dear sir, if you can show me a single passage of God's Word — one plain statement in Scripture, or in any of the Christian writers for the first 41M) years after Christ, which would lead any intelligent man io suppose that the Apostolic office has ceased or was intended to cease, you will gain a position in the Christian literary world which no man has ever yet been able to obtain, and which no man ever can obtain, for the simple reason that no such statement is made. In those later days, it is true, we often meet with the statement — the assumption, that it has ceased and was intended to cease. But like your statement of the same thing, not a single reason has been or ever can be assigned for the assumption which would not (u) Gonfes. Faith, o. xxx 2. mSm 18 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS ITI equally prove that the Church of God has also ceased and was intended to cease. It is true tli at there were extraurdinary powers, f^ifts, and privilcj^es pos- sessed by the Apostles, which were not intended t» be continued, as far as I can judge at least. One of these was their pertwnal appohdment by our Lord Jesus Christ. This, however, others pf)ssessed equally with them, as, for instance, the "Seventy" who were ''also" chosen and appointed by our Lord, yet they are never spoken of in Holy Scripture as being Apostles. The Apostles also had miraculous powers conferred upon them, yet we find that others even of the laity possessed the power of working miracles also, as St. Stephen and St. Philip, Deacons, (v) ; and Ananias, a disciple, and others, (w) The miraculous gift of tongues was possessed by the Apostles, yet others who were not apostles received it likewise, as e.r/., Cornelius the Roman centurion, and those who were with him (x); yet no man living or dead can say, or ever has said, that they were, on this account, of the Apos- tolic ofhce. And because these extraordinary powers and gifts have now ceased, we are told that the office of the Apostles has ceased also. As well might we say that because believers cannot now take up serpents or drink any deadly thing without hurt (ij), there are no believers on earth, in other words, no Christians. No sir, we need something more than the mere ipse dixit of any man to convince us that the Apostolic Order has ceased or was intended to cease ; no man can prove it to have ceased. They may, as you have done, assume it ; but you will permit me to remind you that assnmiiig a thing to be true or false, and pwHiKj it to be such, are two very different things. And proof, such as would be received in any court of justice in the civilized world, nev»r has been and never can be given for what you have so "'i ^ it n B if e il o 1 I the similitude of the army ot invaders and the civil governors appointed over the invaded territory, seems to be a happy one for the time beincf. But are there no provinces now to conquer for God and His Christ f Take before you the map of the world, and trace around all the nations, countries, king- doms and people, who now are Christian even in name ; then do the same to those who deny Him, and worship other gods, and you will see that what- you and Dr. Campbell call oxtraord'inar\i officers are still wanted, that the mvading army and their officers are still required, even if in the "conquered provinces " another class of officers were enough. The Presbyterians, to their honor be it said, are engaged in missionary labors — that is in " con- ** quering provinces which yet remain uncompiered." Why then have they done away with the '' ext.aordinary officers " required for this purpose, even though they afterwards established the ' ' ordinary " one in the places con- quered ? If Dr. Campbell's similitude bo a true one it follows from it that as long as " there remained any provinces to c(mquer," these "extraordi- "nary " officers would also remain. Or would you and Dr. Campbell wish UH to believe that the whole world — that all mankind — that every nation, kind- red, and tongue on this terrestrial sphere did before the death of the eleven Apostles, acknowledge the sway of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ? We must accept either one thing or the other as flowing from the Dr's. words, either there " are provinces to concjuer " now, and therefore requiring the agency of the extraordinary officers for the purpo"? of conquest because " the same agents and the same expedients are not pi^perly adapted to both," conquered and unconquered, or else that the Offices of these extraordinary officials have ceased because there were no more provinces to conquer. But all Miis is beside the question. Did I accept every word of the above quotation from Dr. Campbell, it would not prove that the Apostolic office was an '' extraordinary " office or an Order not intended to be perpetu- ated, nor would it prove it to any man who will take the Bible to be God's word. For how could he take that to have ceased which our Lord Himself declared He would be with '' always, even to the end of the world." When Dr. Campbell and yourself speak of "extraordinary Officers," do you not mean '* extroadinary gifts," as for instance prophecy, miracles, heal- ing, diverities of tongues, interpretation of tongues, etc., those miraculous and extraordinary powers conferred upon the Apostolic Church, but which were not confined solely to the Apostles. If so, then I will at once accept them, for these powers while given lavishly were not common to all, and yet they did not constitue an office or Order in the Ministry of the Christian Church, for as we have seen above, many of these powers were exercised by those who held different Offices or Orders in the Church of God. But to this we will refer more fully under the proper heads. Another objection to the continuity of the Apostolic Order in the Christian Church, is made by Presbyterian controversialists, which I will refer to in passing, viz.. That it is essential to the Apostolic office that those who possess it should be personally appointed by our Lord, to be wit- nesses of His resurreetion, the stress being laid on the personal appointment. It is true that you refer to their being witnesses of the ressurrection, but as we see in 1 Cor., xv. 6 ; there were '^ above five hundred brethren at once," who were witnesses of the same fact. The personal appointment by our Blessed Lord of the Twelve to that office, was certainly a glorious thing for them. It was something in which they might well glory, and for which they no doubt rejoiced with thankful- ness. But what we^wish to learn is this, was that persona? apjiointment necea- sary or essential to the Apostolic Office itself ? I am inclined to think not. If it was essential to the|,Order of Apostles that they should have ihiapersonal designation, we should certainly expect that no others save those who thus received it, would ever have the hardihood to assume that title nor yet permit it to be applied to them. And on the other hand all who were thuB appointed personally by our Lord to be witneflses, would be alao 20 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT 1 ipKo facto ApostleB. On examination we find that tiume who were not ApostloH were notwithstanding pcrHoiuiUy ajypninted to be '* mtne.HS€n of tht$e thhi(j*." Turning to St. Luke, xxiv. 13 ; we find that " two of them " not Ap'xtleB, remember, for one of them was named Cleopaa, went to EmniuuH and on their journey met the Lord, but did not know Him until He made Himself known in the " breaking of bread.'' (it) These two who wore not Apostles then returned to .Jerusnlom, and told the eleven Ajxistles that "the Ijord is risen indeed ; and ichile they thiin Hpalce, Je8U» " Himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them : ' Peace he " unto you. Thus it is written, and tlius it behoveth Christ to sniffer and to " rit>e fium the dead the third day ; and that repentance and remission of sins " should be preached in His name among all nations, bcitinning at Jeru- " salem ; nt thun jHr/tonnlly appointed by our Lord, who is called tin Apostle in Holy oripturo, and lo ! I have found one — beg pardon you have found it for me — on the 7th and 8th lines of pa^e 24 you speak of : "the two A pod lea Ii\KyAti\H and Paul." Who was Paul ? One who did indeed obtain a miraculous pemotial appoint- mtnt to that Office, while on the way to Damascus, (e) But who was Bar- NABAH ? not one of the Twelve certainly, for his name is not to bo found in any of the lists given in the Inspired Rocord. By turning to the con- cordance I find thut he is first mentioned in Acts, iv. 30, 87 ; where he is spoken of as Jo8E», a Levitb ; and as having been called by the A^jostles Barkabas. In Acts xiii. l.heis, with S'.. Paul — or Saul — and others spoken of as " cerhain Prophets and Teachers." 3t. Paul was not only a prophet and teacher, but he was also an Apostle, having been jicrsonaily and in a wonderful manner appointed such by our Lord*. BarnaVms therefore may have been an Apostle also. And indeed in chap. xiv. 14, they are both posi- tively and plainly affirmed to be such in the words, " which when the Apos- '' ties Barnabas and Paul had heard," &c. Here then is one who is called an Apostlt m Holy Scripture who was not one of the original Twelve. If there is one, it is enough to prove that the Apostolic Office did not depend epcclusively upon their appoiidment by our Lovd in person, as witnesses ot' His resurrection. Besides if there was one, there may have been two, or three, or even fouv. Let us see : In Acts xv. 22, we find a reference to two " chief men among the brethren," who were sent by the Council of Jerusalem, with the Apostles Paul and Barnabas to Antioch with the communication to the Gentile converts regarding circumcision. These iwc " chief men" were " Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas." As to what Judas this was, I can find very few commentators to agree. I am inclined to the opinion that he was an Apostle of that name, but having no positive proof of the matter I cannot assert him to have been such. We will turn therefore to Silas. Throughout the Acts he is spoken of as Silas, but in the Pauline Epistles is called Sylvanus. He with Timothy ^ero fellow-laborers with St. Paul. In his Epistles to the Thessalonians both are united with him in the super- scription : (f) " Paul and SylvanuH and Timotheus unto the Church of the "Thessalonians," &c., showing that the Epistle is from Sylvanus and Timotheus as well as St. Paul. In the second verse they say, " IVe give " thanks to God always for you all, and make mention of you in our pray- '' ers ;'' again, ('(/^ " As ye know what manner of men, ive were among you '' for your sake," and (h) " For thoy themselves shew of us what entering " in ive had unto yon, «&3." And again, in chap. li. 1, they say, " For your- ** selves, brethren, know our entrance in unto you," &c. ; in verse 2, " But " even after that loe had suffered before * * * iwe were bold in our God "to speak unto you ;" in verse 3, " For our exhortation was not of deceit ;" in verse 4, " But as ive were allowed of God to be put in trust of the Gospel, " even so ive speak ," and again in verse 5 thoy say : " For neither at any "time used we flattering words," &c. May I ask, sir, of whom are we to understand these words ; ive, us, our, to have been used ? What persons are referred to by them ? Evidently and undeniably they refer to the Paul, Sylvanus and Timotheus spoken of in the beginning of the Epistle. As we have found toho are here referred to, our object is now to find what they were ; this we can do in the very next verse : *' Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you nor yet of others when we (i.e. " St. Paul, Sylvanus and Timotheus) might have been burthensoine as the *' Apostles of Christ." (i) Here then in the plain, positive words of inspira- (e) Vide Oal. i. 1 and Acta ix. ( /) 1 and 2 Thess. i. and 1. (g) I. Thes. i. 6. \h) lb. 9. (t) lb. ii. 6. 1' 22 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH 18 IT? tion, we see Sylvanus, or Silas, and Timotheus, declared to be "Apostles of " Christ," equally with St. Paul, and in a place too where the Sinaic, the Vatican, an the Alexandrine MSS. agree with the Textns Receptus in acknowledgiiig them ta be such. Concerning this point there is no " various " reading " to throw a doubt upon the authenticity of the text. Thia, then, gives us two more Apoatles, not commissioned by our Lord in person, and enough to prove that there were more than the original Twelve. But still the objection may be urged, that St. Paul uses the plural we and us when speakmg of himself alone, anfl that in the same 2nd chapter and in the following one. 1 adtrit it ; yet where he does not include Sylvanus and Timotheus, and begins to speak of himself, he is careful to mark the transition by saying, ^' Even I Paul," to shew \yhat is noiv said is to be understood of himself alone. Besides, the use of the words " Apostles" and "souls" in the plu- ral precludes the idea that in the sixth verse he speaks of himself only ; would it not be strange indeed to hear him speak of himself as being , " Apostles," and us such, having the right to be burdensome to the Thessa- lonians / Or as haviiig "sortZs." (jj Had he intended to speak in his own person, he would evidently have said that " as an Apostle of Clirist he might " have been burd. nsome," hut certainly not his being "Apostles," nor yet would he speak of himself as having "souls." But were there any others who in the New Testament were called Apostles except those 1 have men- tioned ? Here you must permit me to relate a circumstance, perhaps I may call it an anecdote, in my own life : — As one of some eighteen or twenty newly- fledged "Juniors," I entered tho class-room of Systematic Divinity, in Nashotah Theological Seminary, to take our initiatory steps in that study. After the assignment of our studies, and the close of the preliminary Lec- ture, the Professor, good old Dr. W. Adams, held up a copy of the author- ized translation saying ' ' What is this ? " Of course we all said ' ' The Bible." "Well, gentlemen," said he, in his quiet yet pointed way, "I '' wish you all particularly to remember that the Bible was not loHtten by " King James in English, and then translated into Hebrew and Greek by " Moses and the Prophets, the Apostles and Evangelists." At this we were all loud in our disclaimers of any such idea. "Then if you do not think so," he replied, " try to make yourselves as well acquainted with the oiiginals, ' ' Hebrew and Greek, as you are with the English translation. " The above will not only shew the higher importance aiid authority of the oiiginal Grtjek of the New Testament, but will excuse my referring to Greenfield's Concordance instead of Cruden's, valuable though it is. The word " Apostolus," singular, and its plural, is used fifty-four times in the New Testament, and in fifty-one places is translated by the word Apostle, or its plural Apostles. Tlie threv, places where it is not so translated are — 1st. St. John xiii. 16 : "The servant is not greater than his Lord, " neither he that is stnt (' Apostolos,' Apostle) greater than he that sent "him." 2nd. II. Cor. viii. 23 : " Our brethren the me.;rent translation of the word in these three passages from all the others, it should clearly appear from the sense of the places, that an Apostle in his Official character was not intended. The word "Apostle" literally means one sent, a messenger. Synonymous with this word, or nearly so, is the word " Angel," used in the first, second and third chapters of Revelation. But this subject we will refer to more particularly again. Yet we may say that while in the first passage an ''Apostle" in his official character may not have been referred to, yet there is no proof that it was not ; for we may see that the word " Apostle" if used, would not in anywise destroy the sense, as "The servant is not greater than his Loid, neither thtt "Apostle than him that sent him." As to the second passage we may remark that there is nothing in the passage itself nor in the context, which would lead anyone to suppose that the persons spoken of were only the messengers of the churches. Of whom were they the messengers or what message did they carry ? We can find no reference to carrying anything to St. Paul, or to any other Apostle, yet in the original they are spoken of as " Apostles of the Churches." In the chapter or even in the epistle itself, ihere ia nothing to lead anyone to suppose that those referred to were anything less than Apostles, or that they did not hold the Apostolic Office. There is no reason why they should be referred to as mere earners or messengers. We may therefore speak of them as Apostles. As to the third passage, we may say that out of eight translations, six of them agree with tbe original in saying that Epaphroditus was the " Apostle " of the Philippians, viz.: Tindal's t'-anslation, the Bishop's Bible, that by Miles Coverdale, the German, the Italian, and the translation of Wm. Anderson of Kentticky. Therefore, in this matter 1 may use your own words to say that *' we must not allow a taulty translation to rob us of the testimony of Scrip- ture to ar important fact, " viz. , that Titus and the other brethren referred to by St. Paul, were Apostles, as was also Epaphroditus, even though none of them had the / "rsonal appointment of our Lord to that, the highest Order in the Christian Ministry. And to say no more on the subject ; by a reference to I Corinthians xv 5-7 we see that there were more Apostles than the origi- nal Twelve. " After that He was seen of Cephas, then of the Twelve." " After that He was seen of James, then of all the Apostles." Here the Twelve evidently did not constitute all who were Apostles ; in other words, there were more Apostles in the New Testament Church than those who are more especially distinguished as "the Twelve." I remain, etc LETTER V. 1 am inclineu to believe that in my last letter these two facts are fully established, viz. : (1.) That ihe Apostolic office was not intended to cease ; (I) Phil. ii. 25. (m) John xiii. 16. •MM u THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT? and (2. ) That in the *' nracles jf God " there ar«j several other persons spoken of as being Apostles than the original twelve. This, therefore, may be laid down as a principle of the Apostolic Church, — th*pre- " ter of oracular responses, or one who interprets the words of a person " under the effects of supernatural influence, — the chief priest of an oracle — " a soothsayer — a prophet — a forerunner or herald." Pickering in his lexi- con, defines it to be " an interpreter of the will cf God, or of oracles — a " prophet — a soothsayer —an interpeetbr. In the New Testament an " INSPIRED teacher — A PUBLIC SPEAKER— also a poet." Greenfield's defi- nition is as follows : — " in the Greek writers, an interpeter of the gods or of " those things which mantes utters as coming from the gods — the same as " mantles, one who communicates the responses of the gods — a prophet — one " who fortells future events. In the New Testament — a prophet — a person *' divinely inspired, to whom God reveals future things or events, and " spoken, kat'excihen, of the prophets of the Old Testament, (q) of the pro- " phetical books of the Old Testament, (r) In a genera' sense, an inspired " person who ie an interpreter of the Divine Will — a di/ine teacher, (s) ^' spoken of a false prop, et, (f) a prophet i. e. one who speaks from the im- " pulse of Divine inspirav /jn, and in a lofty energetic style, whether predict- " ively or not, (ti) a poet, bard, minstrel, the tffects of poetic genius being " anciently ascribed to inspiration, (v) And speaking of the feminine, he says, " a prophetess, derived from the Hebrew idiom, a female who has con- " eecrated hei-self to God, (w) a female who foretells future events, or per- " haps an inspired female teacher." (x) The word itself is derived from the words jiro and phemi, and means literally, to speak for, or in behalf of another, as wel} as to speak of a matter before it takes place. A prophet therefore, would mean in the literal and Scriptural sense, one who speaks, or acts for, or in behalf of God, whether that which he speaks or does is prediction or not, and so long as they speak or act in God's name, and by His t*uthority they are really, truly, and in a Serif tural sense, prophets. It is true that in the Apostolic age prescience, prediction, and many other extraordinary gifta were given lavishly by the Holy Spirit, and that not merely to the Apostolic Ministry, but to others as {n) Acts xxi., 8. (o) Eph. iv.. 11. (p) II. Tim. iv., 6. Iq) Matt, i., 22, ef at. (r) Mail, v., 17, et al. (») MaU. t., 41, et al. (t) II. Peter ii., 16. (u) Acts a!., 27 ; xxi., 10, et al. (v) Tit. i. U. (w) Luke ii. 36. (x) Bev. ii. 20. v-v-i :., Ik- ^T THE APOSTOLIC CHUHCH — WHICH 13 IT? 25 ,— ^— ~| t-^ '%n . „ ,,4. well ; aa e. g. the four virgin daughters of St. Philip, the Deacon and Evan- gelist, (y) " which did prophesy," But St. Paul in 1 Cor. xiv. 3, speaking of the prophetic office, says, " But he that prophesieth, speaketh unto men " to edification and exhortation and comfort." According to these words of St. Paul, we would judge that these three things, speuking for " edification, " exhortation and comfort," form the essentials of a Christian prophet ; nor is prediction here referred to, as being a necessary part of it. By turning to Acts XV. 32, we learn that " Judas and Silas, being Prophets also themselves, " exhorted the brethren with many words and confirmed them." Here also we find exhortation without prediction as forming a part of the prophetic oflice. In two instances only do we find one who held the Prophetic office speaking predictively (at least I can think of no others now). The first instance is where Agabus stood up "and signified by the Stnrit that there should be " great dearth throughout all the world, which c;uiie to pass in the days of " Claudius Caesar ;" (z) and again where the same person " took Paul's " girdle and bound his own hands and feet and said, ' Thus saith the Holy " Ghost, so shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this "girdle, and shall deliver him unto the hands of the Gentiles.' " (a) Yet we have no more right or authority from this, to say that prediction was a necessary part of the prophetic office, than we have to say ttiat the power to work miracles formed a part of the Diaconate, because St. Stephen " did " great wonders and miracles among the people." (b) From what we have said, I believe we may safely conclude that all those who in God's name, and by His authority, declare His will to dying men, and as His agents or cnbassadors ofifer the menns, t\nd point out the way of reconciliation, and also adminster the Sacraments and forbid or ad- mit to their reception, and who by the power committed to them by God, exercise " the power of the keys," and who also, as His accredited and duly appointed representatives, solemnly bless and pronounce absolution, are therefore, truly and properly, and in full accordance with the model laid down in Scripture, to be considered prophets. In this light I believe you will view the subject, for 1 learn from the Kingston News, Sept. 24th, 1875, that you delivered a lecture some years ago on "Three Prophets of our own," which was a sketch of the lives af Dr. Cook, (Presbyterian) Dr. Adam Clarke, (Methodist) and Dr. Carson (Baptist.) Your use of the word here fully bears me out in my position. For no other reasons could you apply the term prophets to them than those I have as- signed. In this light also I would look upon the office of Christian prophet, and also as being synonymous with that which you call Bishop or Elder. To understand it in this sense, will give us a fair key to the interpretation of Eph. iv. 11, and I Cor. xii 28, "Apostles, Prophets," etc., as referring to the first and second "Orders" of the Chriatian Ministry. Evangelist is the other " office-bearer " which you tell us was net in- tended to be perpetuated in the Christian Church. In order to judge cor- rectly in this matter, we must first learn what the office of an Evangelist is : and second, whether that office is, or was, an Order in the Christian Minis- try. That the Apostolic office was the chief one of all, the one in which all the others were contained, you have already acknowledged. That it was an Order which was intended to continue "always, even to the end of the ^' world," I think I have fully proven. That the office of Prophets Wad also «n Order in the Christian Ministry, or at least a term used interchangeably with other words (e.g., Episkopos and Preshuttros) to refer to an Order, I [y) Acts xxi. 8. (z) ;^ctBxi. 28. (a) Aotsxxi. 11. (b) Acts vi. 8. 26 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT 1 think I have also shown, and will speak of more fully again. But that the ofiicd or work of an Evangelist constituted an Order, or is used interchange- ably with any other word to refer to an Order of the Ministry, I must deny in toto. An Evangelist had certain duties or works to perform which were peculiar to that office or position. This all will admit. But I am bold enough to say that neither you, sir, nor any other man, can tind anything in Holy Scripture, nor yet in the ancient Ohristian writers, which would lead any one of ordinary abil- ity to believe that Evangelists were an Order in theMinistry of Christ's Church. Remember that there is a distinction, and a wide one too, between an ofl&ce and an Order ; for example, the moderatf.r of a presbytery has certain du- ties to perform, which the other members of that presbytery are not re- quired or entitled to fulfil. A missionary has also certain duties to fulfil which are distinct from those required of a parish clergyman ; yet I think you will agree with me in saying that neither of these offices constitute an Order in the Minietry. Yon tell us that " Evangelists were missionaries," (c) supposing they were Cwiiich, however, you cannot prove), are we therefore to conclude that all Presbyterian missionaries or moderators constitute another and distinct order in the Presbyterian ministry ? I am sure that you will not state that they do. In the "prelatio" Church of England, a missionary may be either a Bishop, a Priest, a Deacon, or even a Layman. T • hear any of these four classes of Christians spoken of as being missionaries would you conclude that * 'misHior.aries" must therefore form or constitute a distinct Order in the Ministry. I think not. You tell us, also, that Saints Philip, Timothy, and Titus, were Evange- lists. Now, in all God's Word, from the first of Genesis to the last of Reve- lation, there is not the slightest statement, reference, or hint, that Titus was an Evangelist, or supposed to be such. Even St. Timothy is not called such, but is onlj urged by St. Pan' to "do the work of an evangelist." (d) But granting th.it St. Timothy was an Evangelist as well as St. Philip, what does it prove ? Certainly not that Evangelists were an Order in the Christian Ministry, but rather a peculiar office, duty, or work, which any man, irre- spective of his Order, might hold and fulfil. St. Timothy was an Apostle, as we have already shown, and is called such in the plain words of Holy Writ, while St. Philip was only a Deacon, "one of the seven," (e) yet he was also an Evangelist. And not only do we find an Apostle and Deacon doing the " work of an Evangelist," but we also find laymen, as I am sure you will confess on my proof. The word Evangelist is formed from the Greek euaffgelizo, which means "to bring joyful news, announce glad tidings, to "proclaim the Gospel, to evangelize." (f) Turning 1o Acts viii. 1-'., we read, " And at that time there was a great " persecution against the Church which was in Jerusalem, and they w^ere all " scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria except the " Apostles, . . . therefore they that were scattered abroad " went everywhere preaching eitaggelizomenoi, i. e., acting a,B evangelists of " the Word." Here we find not the Apostles, but all the Church which was at Jerusualem, "except the Apostles," scattered abroad evangelizing or act- ing as EvangelNts. As all the members of the " Church which was at Jeru- " salem " were not in Holy Orders, we must conclude that laymen of that Church did "the work of Evangelists." It therefore follows a& a necessary consequence, that the office or " work " of an Evangelist did not constitute an Order in the Miniotrj' nf the Apostolic Church, but that it was an office, work, or duty, which an Apostle, a Deacon, or a Layman might fulfil, and had r.o more reference to Orders than the chairman of a mission board, or " <' ~* ^ •t -1 (c) Page 20. (d) II Tim. IV 5. (e) Acts xxi 8. (/) Greenfield in loc. - 1-' , THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT 1 27 n .'- ,» -♦ V ■■! the president of a tract society would be considered to be i.n Order of the Ministry now-a-days. That Evangelists were missiunaries in the modern sense of the word, tliat is, itinerating from place to place, I am sure neither you, nor any other person can prove. It may be assumed ; but assumption, you will remember, is no proof. We have just as much right, perhaps more right, to assume them to be settled over districts or congregations. That they were preachers of the Gospel, I think all will acknowledge ; but when we have arrived at this, we can go no further. We may therefore reason- ably conclude, that so long as there is a man to be found who declares or makes known to others " the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God," (g) so long will the world possess an Evangelist, no matter whether lie be Bishop, Priest, Deacon, or Layman, and that therefore Evangelists do not form an Order in the Ministry of the Church of God, neither in the Apostolic age nor since. In reference to your third kind of " office bearer " — the fourth accord- ing to my examination — I would simply say that I do not believe " Bishops," as used in Holy Scripture, to be identical with " Pastors and Teachers," but rather with "Prophets;" while I consider "Pastors and Teachers," to be identical with your fourth, but my fifth kind of office-bearer viz., " Deacons." ' On page 21 you tell us that " the Deacons had charge of temporal con- " cerns, and were intrusted v/ith the special duty of ministering to the neces- " sities of the poor." Now, in what sense we are to understand the words " temporal concerns," as here used by you, I am sure I do not know. Evidently you do not consider "the special duty of ministering to the "necessities of the poor" as being a "temporal concern," for this you "state to be a part of their duty as well as attending to temporal concerns." Now, sir, if you, or any person else, will inform me what " temporal " concern.**'* of the Church constituted the duties of Deacons, save that of " ministering to the necessities of the poor" I shal! be very thankful . I am perfectly sure that in "the oracles of God" thero is nothing which wr^id point out, refer to, or hint at any " temporal concern" of the Church, save that of collecting or distrbuting the alms of the Church tux being the special duty of the Deaconn I fear that in making this statement you have had the practice of the Presbyterians in your mind's eye rather th in the statemer.ts of " the oracle of God" before your bodily eyes. The first reference -./e have to this Order of the Ministry is in Acts vi., viz. : " And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, " there arose a murmuring c,i the Grecians against the Hebrews, because " their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve ' ' called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said. It is not reason " that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, " brethren, loo): ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the " Holy Ghost and wisdom, whon we may appoint over this business. But " we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the Ministry of the " word. And the saying pleap^*^ the whole multitude ; and they chose Ste- "phen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip,. and Pro- " chorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte " of Antioch : Whom they set before the Apostles ; and when they had " prayed they laid their hands on them." (h) From this account we learn that the Deacons had " the special duty of ministering to the necessities of the poor ;" but to read your little tract, a person would be led to believe that this duty " and temporal concems"^ were the sole duties of their Order. If you mean to assert this, then I must say that Holy Scripture refers to other things as being performed by Dea- cons as such, and they were not ' ' temporal concerns" either. The fii^t of these is Preaching. The qualifications required in a Dea' (g) Mark i., 1. (h) Acts vi. 1-6. 28 THE ^POSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT? con opecially point to this conclusion. They were not only to be men pos- sessing all the ordinary virtues, but they were also to have a strong " testi- moni/' that they were " full of the Holy Ghost " and of wisdom," and "holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience," and thus " pur- " chase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which •*isin Christ Jesus." ("i^ In full accordance with these requirements, we find the newlv appointed Deacons acting. St. Stephen, we are told, was "full of faith and power." (j) And that he ^reached is evident from the acts of his persecutors, for '^they were not able to resist the wisdom and " spirit with which he spake. Then they suborned men which said we have "heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God," and we learn also the charge thus brought against him in the words : " This " man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and "the law." ijo) St. Philip, who was "one of the seven," we are told, "went down to " Samaria, and preached Christ and the Kingdom of God." (k) And from Samaria we learn that he went to Azotus, from whence he " preached in all " the cities until he came to Csesarea." (l) That Deacons were empowerd to baptize is also shown by the action of Philip the Deacon, for we are told thas he " baptized " those who believed in Samaria, and also the eunuch of Ethiopia, (m) This much, then, we may say is fully shown in " the oracles of God," viz. : That Deacons not only attended to "the necessities of the poor," but they also "preached" and " Baptized," and, besides, that there are no temporal concerns connected with the Church of God which they were required to a' tend to as a part of their duty, office, or Order, save those I have referred to. If you can find any such '^temporal concerns " referred to Holy Scripture as an essential part of the office of a Deacon, I would thank you to point them out. My reasons for identifying the office of a Deacon with the *' Pastors and " Teachers " spoken of by St. Paul in Eph. iv. 11, are as follows : The word paimeii,, pastor or shepherd, means not only a shepherd or herdsmen, but also ' ' % protector, guide, one who has the care of others, and provides for " their welfare." (»i) You have very correctly stated, as quoted above, that a part of the duty of a Deacon was " ministering to the necessities of the " poor," as such, then, they were the poimems or pastors of the poor com- mitted to their charge, in having the care of them, and in providing for their welfare. And not only did they minister to the " temporal necessities of the " poor," but to their spiritual necessities as well, ir as we have seen above they were Ministers of the Word, in preaching, and also in administering Christian Baptism, thus feeding those committed to their charge with the food convenient for them, and therefore were Teachers as well as Pastors. The office of Elder or Presbyter will come under consideration at the examination of your "second principle." Another "office-bearer," which neither of us has referred to as yet, is that of " Angei,." This office is spoken of by St. John in Rev. i. 20 etc., where he speaks of the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia. This office I purpose noticing in my next, till then, I remain etc. (t) Compare Acts vi. 3, and 1 Tim. iii. 9-13. ( j) Acts vi. 8. (jo) Verse 13. (k) Acts viii., 5-8. (I) lb. V. 40. (m) lb. 36-38. (n) Greenfield in loc. , - ^ > P"^ THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT? LETTER VI. * m ;{»■'■■ The subject which cornea up for consideration in this letter is : " Were " the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia a distinct Order in the Christian " ministry, or was the word used interchangeably with others to signify an "Order?" In the first chapter of Revelation we have the account of St. John's appointment by our Lord to write to " the seven Churches which are in " Asiar ; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto " Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea." (n) In the second and third chapters we have these seven letters or epistles in full. Yet they are no< addressed to the "Churches," but to the Atujels of these Churches. " Unto the Avgel of the Church of Ephesus write." ** Unto the Angel of the Church in Smyrna write," etc. (o) The first idea we would receive on reading these Epistles is, that these " Angels " are individuals, not a body or collection of individuals, for in each Epistle the address is in the singular number : "To the Angel of the " Church of Ephesus," a 'l so of all the rest. " I know thy works " are the emphatic words addressed to each of these " Angels," and they are each commended or warned according to these works. " I know thy works, thy " labor, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them that are evil. " * * Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee because thou hast left " thy first love," etc. (p) "I know f/iy works and tribulation, and poverty, " but thou art rich. * * Fear -.lone of those things which thou shall suffer " * * Be thou faithful unto f'.eath, and I will give thte a crown of life." (q) " I know thy works, that thou art neither hot nor cold, I would thoti wert " either hot or cold, so then because thou art lukewarm and neither cold nor "hot I will spew thee out of my mouth," etc. (r) Let any man of even ordinary intelligence read these Epistles, and judge of their contents as he would judge the contents of any book, and I am convinced he will have the impression that each Epistle was addressed to an individual in each of these Churches who held a position or office in each Church called Angel, who by the office they held were the responsible representatives of their several Churches. It is true that the substance of these Epistles is for the people or Churches of which they are the Angels, as well as for themselves personally,, and therefore He uses the plural number when speaking c.f the people, as e.g., "The devil will c&st some of you into prison." (s) "In those days " wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among yon " (t) ; " and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." («) From these passages we see that our Lord in speaking of or to the body of the people uses the plural number ; we may, therefore, reasonably conclude that He would also have used the plural in speaking of or to the Angels if by that title He intended the body of the Clergy in these Churches. It ia objected on the other hand that the Angel of the Church at Thyatira is addreBaed in the plural, and would therefore imply that the word "Angel" is to be understood of a body of Clergy or Ministers. The passage is as follows : "But unto you (plural) 1 say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine," etc. (v) Here the plural you is supposed to mean the " Angel" of the Church in Thyatira, and that by "the rest in Thyatira the people are referred to and intended. To this we may reply, that both. (n) Rev. i. 11. (o) lb. ii. 1-8 et al. (p) lb. ii. 2-4. (q) Vs. 9-10. (r) lb. iii. 16-16. (8) lb. ii. 10. (t) V. 13. (m) V. 23. (v) lb. ii 24 30 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT? the Sinaitio and the Alexandrine manuscripts agree in omtting the word — "kai," and — in this passage, so that the correct rendering of it would be, " Btit unto you, the rest of Thyatira, I say," or " But I say unto the rest of "yon in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not " known the depths of Satan, as they speak ; I will put upon you none other " burden ! ' So that the plural you does nc'> refer to the "Angel," but to the people, or at least " the rest of " them who had not been seduced by "that woman Jezebel which calleth herself a prophetess." From all of which we must say that " the Angel of the Church of Thyatira " was a single individual in tliat church, not a body of Clergy or any other body of men ; and so of the otliers. That these individuab called " Angels" possessed supreme authority in their several churches is evident from the epistles being addressed to them personally, while the subject matter was for the whole body of the people composing the several Churches, and also from the authority and power which these epistles recognize as inherent in, and belonging to, the Angel. Thus the Angel of the Church of Ephesus is commended becavise hn exer- cised liis j\idicial authority in trying "them which say they are Apostles, and are not," and proving them liars (iv) ; and the Angels of the Churches of i.*ergamos and Thyatira are condemned because they did not exercise the same judicial authority — the one in that he permitted among his flock, "them that hold the doctrine of Balaam," and "also them that hold the " doctrine of the Nicclaitanes (x); and the other "Because thou suflFerest that ' ' woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce my " servants, (y) Here then the Son of God Himself recognizes these Angela as possessing the chief power, the supreme judicial and spiritually coercive authority in their several Churches, in commending one for exercising it, and blaming the others because they did not exercise it. Dr. Bowden imagines some Presbyterians as suggesting that the Angel of the Church of Sardis oc- cupied an analagous position to that of the Moderator of a Presbytery. His remarks on this are so forcible that I cannot forbear quoting them here. " When our Lord blamed and threatened the Angel of the Cnurch of "Sardis might he not have said, ' Lord why blamest thou me ? I have no " more authority in Thy Church than any other Presbyter. We do every- " thing as Thou well knowest, by plurality of votes, and those Presbyters " who wish for a majority for the purpose of beginning the work of reforma- " atio!< have not yet been able to obtain it. I need not tell Thee that I am " no more than the Moderator of the Presbytery, appointed to count their "votes and keep order. Upon what dictate, then, of reason- upon what " principle of justice am I to be blamed for the defects and corruptions in " the Church. As a Moderator 1 have no relation to the Church. My rela- " tion is entirely to the Presbytery, and there I have but a cast- ing in vote. What then can I do ? Why am I addressed particular, and threatened with excision unless I repent ? " For my personal faults I humbly beg forgiveness, but I cannot possibly " acknowledge any guilt as the Governor of the Church, when I bear no " such character. Might not the Angel of Sardis have addressed Christ " with the strictest propriety in this manner, and does not this show how "utterly inconsistent your scheme of Church government is with these " epistles. You might as well attempt to reconcile it with them as to recon- " cUe a republic with a Monarchy." (z) I think we may acknowledge the same, and say that " the Angel" ^aa the supreme officer in each respective Ci.urch, and was possessed of supreme administrative authority. That the office of Angel was that of the Apostolic — that they were of the Order of Apostles, I believe for the following reasons, viz : -.. (m) lb. ii 2. (aj) Vs. 12-15. (y) V. 20. (2) Letters, Vol. 1, p. 117. THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH 18 IT 1 31 )^i - ^ I. Because as we have already seen, (a) the Mrords Angel and Apostle both mean *he same thing — each signify "one sent — a messenger," and both are translated snch in the New Testament, the word " Angel," however, much more frequently. We have, therefore, as much right to call "the "Angel of the Cluirch of Ephesua" "the measenoer of that church," as to translate " Epaphroditus — your apostle," as " your messenger," (h) or " our " brethren, the Apostles of the Churches" as the " messengers" of the Churches, (c) This would lead me to believe the office of Apostle, and that of Angel to be identical. II. Because these Angels possessed the supreme power and authority in their Church, and had under them that Order of the ministry known in Holy Scripture as " Bishops or Elders," as had the Apostles. This is proven in the case of the Church of Ephesus, which years before this time had a number of " Elders or Bishops" duly appointed in it, and Deacons as well, (il) and what was the case in Ephesus we may reasonably believe to be the case in the other six Churches also. Therefore as the Angel '"s made personally responsible for these Orders as well as for the laity, we must believe him to be superior to them, as you state the Apostles were. III. Because as a fact an Apostle did hold the chief authority in the Church of Ephesus. I have already shown that St. Timothy was an Apostle. That he was appointed in charge of that Church, by St. Paul, and possessed authority to rule and govern It — to ordain, and to excommuni- cate, I do not believe will be questioned by any who will read the two Epis- tles addressed to him. He would, therefore, very properly be held in some degree responsible for the character of the Church committed to his charge. Then by comparing his office of Apostle, and his authority and responsibility as such with those of the Angels of the seven Churches, I, at least, am compelled to believe that Angel, as here used, is but a synonym for Apostle, and that both were intended to refer to the highest Order in the Christian Ministry, viz.. Apostles, There is a lapsus pennce in my first letter which I wish to correct here. In speaking of the origination of PresbytTianism with John Calvin, I say, "who though never ordained himself, composed an ecclesiastical system, "etc." What 1 should have said is, '• who, though it is very doiibtful, that " he was ever himself ordained, etc." My authority for making this state- " ment in reference to Calvin's never having been ordained is as follows: In the first place Chapin, in his " view of the Primitive Church" (e) posi- tively states that Caluin "never was in Priest's orders.'" The references he gives for this statement are, " BezVs Life of Calvin." "Spon's History of "Geneva," "ol. iii. page 243, cited in " Bayle, Hist, and Crit. Die, vol. ii. "p. 264 — "Loti, History of Geneva, vol. iii. page 41 in Bayle," and " Maim- " bourg's History of Calvinism." Beza certainly would be sufficient testi- mony to decide the matter, ius he was th intimate friend" and colleague of Calvin. My second reason for considering him unordained, or at least only as sub-deacon, is founded on the following facts : Calvin was bom iix A.D. 1509, in Noyon in France. In 1521 he received an appointment in the cathedral in that place, i. e., when he was about twelve years old. This un- doubtedly created a desire for the study of theology, for while his father's command was for his studying law, his own inclination was the study of theology ; he therefore studied both, He afterwards held the benefice of Manteville, which in A. D. 1529 he exchanged for that of Pont I'Eveque, that is when he was but twenty years old, and thei'efore too young to be ordained ; and Du Pin says that " he possessed these benefices without (a) Vide letter iv. (b) Phil ii. 24. {c) I Cor. viii, 28. (d) Acts XX. 1-7, and 1 Tim. iii. 8-12. (c) Chapin's Prim. Church, p. 408 sa THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT 1 " being in ecclesiastical orders," and it was about this time that hu f^ave up his preferments, and applied himself to the stiidy of aw. The reason for his giving up the Church for the law, of course T do not know ; but it is hardly to be supposed that after he had givon up the Church, he would have received ordination in the Church of Rome, liesidea it was when he was about twenty-three years old (circ. 1532) that he met Melchoir Volmar, Professor of Greek, in Bourges, by whom he was converted to the principles of the Reformation, when he neither tvould nor could have been ordained in the Church of Rome, (f) After that time I can find no reference to his receiving any ordination save that of his election and appoint- ment by the magistrates and people of Geneva to be their preacher and Pro- fessor of Divinity, which of course did not constitute him a Minister of God, but only an agent of the people. These reasons lead me to conclude that it is very doubtful if John Calvin, the founder of the Presbyterian system, ever was himself ordained to minister in the Word and Sacraments. However, if I can be shown ivhen, where, and by ic/iow he was ordained, my doiibte will be happily removed. Till then they must remain. In my next letter I propose to examine your " first principle ot Popu- lar Election, in which you say "that in the Apostolic Church the office- bearers were elected by the people. Till then 1 remain yours, etc. LETTER VIX. Wo now come to the examination of your " Firbt Principle," in which you declare it to be a principle of the Apostolic Church that '^*he office- " bearers tcere elected by the people." (g) " All offices in the Christian Church," you tell us, "take origin from " the Lord Jesus." This is very true, and I think you will agree with me in saying that no man has the right to take upon himself the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments in the Church of the Living God, except he be duly commissioned as such by the Lord Jesus Himself. There is no truth more frequently referred to in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, or more fully enforced, than the necessity of a duly nppointed Ministry in order to the true and proper reception of the means of Grace such as Baptism, Public Prayer, Preaching, and the Holy Communion, (h) We will both agree, therefore, on this point, viz. : That every man who Ministers in Holy Things must be duly commissioned by the Great Head of the Church to act in this Ministry ; otherwise his ministrations are not only mvalid, but to say the very least presuTnptuout. When God commissions men to speak or act in His name He does so in one of two ways : either Mediately or Immediately. If it be immediately, then he addresses the persons thus chosen directly, and iu that case gives them the power of working miracles or of prophecy, or both, thus attesting that the person sent is duly commissioned by Him to teach some particular truth or fulfil some particular mission. Of this class were Moses, Aaron, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah and the twelve Apostles. Even our Blessed Lord Himself came with His mission and authority duly attested by the mighty works which He did openly and before the eyes of men. But if it be Mediately, then the person is commissioned by some per- sons whom He has appointed to that office with power to transmit that authority which he intends to be perpetuated ; or it may be, by confining the powers and the authority to the members of some family and their descendants. Thus in the Patriarchal dispensation the Priesthood was (/) Vide Murdock's Mosheim, Vol. III., page 168, note. (g) P. 25. (h) Vide Confes. Faith xx^. 3 ; xxvii. 4, xxviii. 29 ; and Catech. 108, 166, 158, .159, 160, &c. J I S\ THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT 1 33 formed of the first-born out of each family. In the Mosaic diRpensation the Priesthood wns constituted by succession, or from father to son ; wJiile in the Gospel dispensation the priesthood is successive by a solemn ippoint- ment or Ordination by those who are duly qualified to transmit it or through whom it is transmitted to them. As for instance, St. Paul ordained Timothy and Titus, with power to transmit that authority to others. Therefore no man can claim to he a Minister of Christ except he has derived his oommis- sion in one or the other of these two ways. Indeed this matter of the true transmission of authority was considered of so much consequence by the " ancient fathers " of the Presbyterians, that the Westminster Assembly of Divines in a work published un(fer their auspices, entitled " The Divine Right " of the Ministry of England," declares as follows : " The receiving of our " Ordination from Christ and His Apostles, and the primitive Churches, and " all along through the apostate Churq^ of Borne, is so far from nullifying our " ministry or disparaging of it, that it is a great strengthening of it, when it " shall appear to all the world that our ministry is derived to us from Christ " and His Apostles by mccession of a ministry continiied in the ('hurchfor sixteen " hundred ?/«tri fi"ld of blood. For it is written in " the Book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolaLe, and let no man dwell " therein ; and his bishoprick let another take. Wherefore of these men which " have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and " out among us ; beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day " that He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness witn •' us of His resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, " who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, •' Thou Lord which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two " Thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this Ministry and Appstleship, " from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. " And they gave forth their lots ; and the lot fell upon Matthias ; and be was " numbered with the eleven Apostles." (k) In reference to this passage you say, " But let it be particularly observed " that while Peter explained the necessary qualifications and the peculiar " duties of the office ; the appointment of the persi ii did not rest with Peter, " but with the men and brethren to whom the address of Peter was directed." In this connection please turn over to pages 88 and 89 of your pamph- let, and read them over, and then tell us why you say that the " men and brethren," — that is the laity — had all to do in the appointment or election of Matthias, yet in reference to the Epistle from the Council of Jerusalem you try to affirm that they had nothing to do with it. Now, sir, why had they all to do, in the one case, and nothing whatever to do in the other ? How- ever, my present object is to examine your " proof " cases for asserting popular election to be a principle of the government of the Apostolic Church. But before we examine the te ' . to find out who the *' men and brethren " were wnom St. Peter addressed, it i necessary to premise : That this action of the Apostles took place betwriu the Ascension of our Lord and the first Whitsunday, and therefore befoj ; they were " endued with that power from on High," (n) which had been promised by the Lord and Master ; before that Holy Spirit of Truth was sent so as to " guide them into all truth." (o) Their commission was not yet sealed by that Holy Spirit of God which they had been assured would come upon them, and for whose outpouring they were even then *' tarrying in Jerusalem," and which was " to abide with them forever." (p) Their action, therefore, can hardly be looked upon as a proper precedent for the practice of the Church in all after ages. Indeed, the fact that they left the election or appointment to God's decision, casting lots, would be enough to show us that it was not to be taken for a precedent, otherwise casting lots must ever be " ah Apostolic principle," in each and every elecnon or appointment to the Christian Ministry, in order to the {k) Acts i. 13-26. (l) Page 23. (n) LtAe xxiv. 49] \o) St. John xvi. 18. (p) Luke xxiv. 49, and John xiv. 16. y^. , i «^. THE APOSTOLIC CHl'RCH — WHICH 18 IT? 36 validity of their onliiiatiui), whicb iH a principle I tliink you will hardly maiiitiiin. The "men and brethrtn " iiddreaHed by St. Peter you evidently oonrnder to be the " disriplen, the number of whoHe names together were about an hundrod and twenty." / do nut, and for the following reaHons : Turning to my Greek Testament I find that it does not say *' men and brethren," as in our Ell^li8h version, but andres ((dvlphd, that is, " brothermen," or, " ye men who lire especially my brethren" an expression continually used in the Greek lanRunge m orations or direct addroHses, as e.y. the address of Clearchus to bis soldiers, " andres straf iota i." (ij ) TheHc words ofClearclius were addressed W'f * . to his soldiers, and do not necessarily include the camp-followers. So also the andren adclphoi of St. i'eter do not ncjessarily include the disciples in the midst of whom he stood, and "the number oi whose names together was " about an hundred p,nd twenty." To my mind the passaf^e itself shows, and that most conclusively, that St. Peter was md addressing the body of the disciples, but the rest of the eleven Apostles. Hear his words. In speaking of the fall of the traitor Judas he says, "for he was numbered with hh, and obtained part of this " ministry." Now iiHth whom was Judas numbered ? Evidently with those whom St. Peter was'directly addressing — that is the Apostles ; for Judas was not num- bered with the body of the disciples, neither did all the persons then present take part in the Ministry " from which Judas by transgression fell," for they were not all Apostles. It is therefore perfectly clear from this that St. Peter did not address the brethren of the laity, but those who were peculiarly his brethren — the Apostles — with whom he was numbered, and part in which Ministry he obtained. ' Another expression he makes use of confirms me in this view. It is where he speaks of those from among whom the new Apostle was to be cho- sen, " wherefore of these men which have companied toith us," dfeo. It is here the laity begin to appear. Had he been addressing " the people " as you tell us he was, would he not have said " wherefore from among yourselves elect " one," &c. But no; it is "wherefore of these men" that is, not "these " men " he is addressing, but " these men " whom he is not speaking to at all, but which have companied with us, i.e., with those he was directly addressing. Therefore from the plain bearing of the language used, we must acknowledge that this address of St. Peter, while delivered in the presence of the whole body of the disciples, was to, and intended for his brethren the Apostles solely, to direct them to ordain one from among " these men " then around ' them, to that Ministry and Apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, and which you and Dr. Campbell would have us believe " was not *' intended to be perpetuated." That portion of the sacred text, therefore, which you have placed bo con- spicuously in small capitals, " They Appointed two," simply refers to the action of the colleagues of St. Peter, viz., the Apostles — not that of " these " men " — the laity who were present but who took no part in the work of electing an Apostle in the place of the traitor Judas. We may therefore endorse the saying of an abler man and a better than either of us — one too, p who was not by any means a " Prelatist " — Grotius, who in his work on Church Government entitled " De Imperio Summ^rum Potestatiim circa ■" ** Sacra Commentarius Posthumns," says: "It is strange to me how some " have persuaded themselves that Matthias was elected to the Apostolate by *' the people, for in St. Luke's account I can discover no vestige of it." (r) So much for your first case in .support of " Popular election," for by the plain wording of the text itself, it is evident that " The People " did not elect " Matthias to be a minister — a bishop — an Apostle." (q) Anab. lib. i. c. 3. Grotius, " De Imper. Sum.," chap. x. see. 9. 36 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH 18 IT? , The next case you bring forward in support of this question of popular election in the \postolic Chmch is that recorded in Acts xiv. 23. "The " authorized version," you csay, " represents the two Apostles, Barnabas and •* Paul, as ordainiiuj Elders in every Church, whereas the true meaning of " the word in the original is ' to elect by a show of hands,' a fact now " admitted by the best expositors. We must not allow a fpulty translation " to rob us of the testimony of Scripture to an impoitant fact — namely, that " the Elders of the New Testament Church were appointed to office by the " popular vote." (s) The reference to the "best expositors" which you give us is " See Dean " Alford on the passage.'' I fear we are all too ready to call those who seem to agree with us on any point " the best expositors.'' But as some of " the " best expositors," might I ask you to examine Hammond's notes on this very text, and also Suicer's remarks on the word itself (t), and compare them with " Dean Alford on the passage." You know that " in the mouth " of two or three witnesses every v/^ord shall be established," and if you will but examine all the " best expositors " extant, I am sure that you will find very few, if any, of them sayitig that in this passage the people " by a show of iiands " in a popular election did elect the Elders in every Church, as you would have us believe, but rather that it was the act of the Apostles Barnabas and Paul. But let us turn to the passage itself. " And when tbey had ordained •' them Elders in every Church, and had prayed with fasting, they com- " mended them to the Lord on whom they believed." The word here trans- lated " ordained" you tell us, should be rendered " to elect by a show of " hands." The word in the original is cheirotonesantes, formed from cheiro- toneo, which Donnegan defines as fellows : — " to stretch forth the hand — to " vote in an assembly by extending the hand, h.e')ice with an accusative, to " elect, to choose." Pickering's definition is " to raise up, and extend the " hand — to vote, to sanction by a vote — to elect, to choose ; " but Greenfield defines this word as follows : " To vote or choose by holding up the hand ; " to choose ; appoint by vote, select, ordain, appoint, constitute." And now, sir, turn to your Greek Testament and read the passage itself in the original carefully and critically, and when you have done so, please say who are there represented as raising up or stretching out the hand to elect, choose, appoint, constitute or ordain the Elders in every Church I Is it the people, or is it the two Apostles, Barnabas and Paul ? Now if the rules of grammar may be applied to this passage — if the words mean anything, or if we are to take the passage as it reads, then the clear evidence of the place itself is that it was the act of the Apostles, Barnabas and Paul, not the work of the people. Is it not clearly to be observed that the cheirotonesantes, the holding up or stretching out the hands to elect, constitute or ordain the Elders, was tbo act of the very same persons who are spoken of in vs. 22-23, as " confirming " the souls of the Disciplea " and " exhoriimj '' them, and who also " com- " mended them to the Lord in whom they bulieved." You must acknowledge that the persons who did any one of the above acts — " confirming," " exhorting," " commending," did also stretch out the hand U ordain the Elders ; and if the holding out of the hands to elect the Eldert, or the electing "them by a show of hands," was the act of the peoph, as you would have us believe, then we must also say that the people " confirmed the souls of the Disciples," and that it was the psople who " exhorted them to continue in the faith," and it was the people also who " commended them to the Lord in whom tbey beUeved." But, as you must now be aware, the passage has no reference to the acts of the people, but of Sts. Paul and Barnabas. Indeed, the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters, and part of the fifteenth, are simply an account of the laborn and acts of wJ-f (g) Page 24, (t) Suicer, TheBanmB Eco., in verba chtirotoneo. v#S THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT? 37 these two Apostles, a declaration of what they did, not what tlo- people — the laity of the Church, did. It was the Apostles Barnabas and Paul who, hav- ing preached the Gospel in the city of Derbe, "and had taught many, they " (Barnabas and Paul, not the people) returned again to Lystra and to Icon- " ium and Autioch confirming the souls of the disciples and exhorting them " {the peoj>le, not Barnabas and Paul) to continue in the faith, and that we " must through much tribulation enter into the Kingdom of God. And when " they (the same Barnabas and Paul, not the people) had ordained (i.e., " stretched forth theii hands ordaining, constituting, etc.) Elders in every " Church, and had prayed with fasting, they (i.e., Barnabas and Paul) com- " mended them (i.e., the newly-ordained Elders and the assembled people) to " the Lord on whom they (all) believed." This ia the sense of the ppb ^ principle of the ApostoUc Church, why should that principle be (y) II Cor. viii 20, 21. (z) Tract. Theo. (Oenev. 1588) vol. iii. ep. 83, p. 307. 40 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH WHICH IS IT? 8v t aside or never once referred to, ip every other allusion to the ordination of either " an Apostle, a Bishop, a Minister," in all God's word ? Would not St. Paul have informed Sts. Timothy and Titus that they were not to " ordain " Elders or Presbyters, nor yet Deacons by their own authority, that he had not left them in Ephesus and Crete to do this : but that they (the Presbyters or Deacons) were to be " elected by a show of hands," and that their appointment, etc., was of no value without this the great prerequisite of popular election ? (a) From what has gone before we lind, therefore, that " popular election " was not a principle of the Apostolic Church, and that the very cases which you bring forward in proof of your position, are declared by the colleapue of the Founder of the Presbyterian polity to be " nothing to the purpose," and that no vestige of the principle can be discovered in Holy Scripture. I will proceed in my next to examine your " second principle." Till then I remain, etc. <*> LETTER VIII. We now come to the examination of your " second principle," which you state to be that " in the Apostolic Church the offices of Bishop and Pres- byter were identical." Had you expressed this a little differently, there would not have been the slightest necessity for me to say a word on the sub- ject. Had you even expressed it as Mosheim does, Frafecti ecclesiw dice- bantur vel Presbyteri, etc. The rulers of the Church ^ere called either Pres- byters or Bishops, for it is evident that both te/ms were used promiscu- ously in the New Testament to designate the same class of persons ; (b) or had you even adopted the words of the infidel, but painstaking Gibbon, which you quote, I would not have objected in the slightest, for they state in correct language, the well-known fact that the Order in the Christian Min- istry, now known as Priests or Presbyters, is referred to in the New Testa- ment, under both terms of Bishop and Presbyter, i.e., the two names are applied indiscriminately to the one Order. We uvist remember, however, that tivo offices cannot be identical, otherwise they would not be two but one office, e.g., two men cannot be identical even though they may possess similar names, form, features, and clothing ; yet any man is identically the same'man, though he may have a dozen aliases, and been continually changing his attire. This., therefore, I fully accept as true, that in the Apostolic Church the terms Bishop and Presbyter or Elder, were applied interchangeably to the one Order, which is now known as Priests or Presbyteni. Another point, how- ever, you have totally failed to recognize, in this connection, viz., that there was another Order superior to, and distinct from the Presbyter-bishop, ii I may so t "m him, called Apostle. On page 20, you acknowledge both the distinction and superiority of the Apostolic Order, and in Letter iv, I have shown its permanency ; that it was intended to continue "aituai/s, even to the end of the world." In them we find the highest, most supreme Order, while in Presbyter-bishops we find the second Order. The first (\ ^eris kv.ownby tLe title Bishop, the second by the term Priest or Presbyter. But you will reply, I have proven that, " in the Apostolic Church, the offices of Bishop and Presbyter are identical." (c) My dear sir, you have proven nothing of the kind, you have simply been expending your time in showing what never yet was denied that I know of, viz., that Presbyters in the New Testament are called Bishops and Presbyters interchangeably, and you then proceed t I (a) Vide Ep. to Tim. and Titus. (b) Hist. Eocl. S'sec. i. pars. ii. 8. (c) Page 28. THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH WHICH IS ITt 41 fit I to aesuiue that (d) the Bishop of London belongs to the same Order as those called Bishops in the New Testament, and so arrive at the sage conclusion that he is nothing more than a Presbyter— in other words an usurper. But let us examine the scriptural statements in reference to this Order of Presbyter-bishopa. That they were distinct from and inferior to the Apostles, it is unnecessary to prove, as you have already acknowledged it. That they were an Order in the Christian Ministry, is also needless to provj. That the Order was intended to be permanent, is implied in the words of St. Paul to St. Timothy, " If any man desire the office of a Bishop, (i.e., a Presbyter) he desireth a good work." (e) It is implied also in the fact that they u.e associated in ecclesiastical acts and decisions — as for instance in the Council of Jerusalem, "The Apostles and Ei,deri> and Brethren greeting, ^c." {ff) — with the Order of the Christian Ministry — the Apostles — which have their permanency assured by the express words of our Divine Master Himself. And here I would ask you to particularly remember that neither the Presbyters nor yet the Deacons have the permanency of their Orders so clearly a'^d fully assured in the plain words of Scripture as have the Apos- tles. That these Presbyters or Elders were Ministers of the Word and Sacraments is plainly shewn from the qualifications required of those who desired that good work. Thus he must " be apt to teach," (/) and one who " ruleth his own house well," {g). He is also said to be " a servant of God," (/i), and as such is required to hold fast the faithful word as he hath been taught that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and conduce the gainsayers," (i). It was also their duty to take heed to themselves, " and to the flock {poimnioi) over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers, " (i. e.. Bishops episcopoxis) to feed (jmimainein) the Church of God which He " hath purchased with His own blood," (j.) From what has gone before, therefore, we learn this much, viz. : 1st. That Presbyters were also called Bishops in the New Testament ; 2nd. That these Bishops, Presbyters or Elders constituted a separate and distinct Order in the Christian Ministry ; 8rd. That this Order was permanent ; 4th. Thrft the members of this Order were inferior, and subject to the Order called Apostles ; 5th. That they were Ministers of the Word and Sacraments: and 6tb. That they were superior to the Order of Deacons, and consequently the second Order in the Ministry of the Ap^ostolio Church. And now, sir, let us return to the examination of the fact — for it is a /act — of the community of names as applied to the one Order ol Presbyters or Elders. Through this community of names as used in Holy Scripture, you seek to confuse the minds of the illiterate upon a subject on which it should be your object to enlighten them, viz.. This community of names in iho Holy Scripture, as applied to the Order of Presbyters does not exist now, but that the term Bishop refers to one Order, and the title Presbyter to an- other. Doing this you would only be doing your duty, for as a matter of fact, there is as much diflference between a Bishop and a Priest or Presbyter of the present day, as there was between the Apostles and Presbyter-bishops of old, or St. Timothy and the Elders of Epaesus. Now, your words are these ; " If the offices of Bishop and Eld-^r were quite distinct — if a Bishop " were an office-bearer, bearing rule over a number of Elders, [i. e., Presby- " ter Bishops] it does seem strange that no passage of Scripture speaks " at the same time of Bishops and Elders." (k) Now, sir, where do you (d) P. 31. (e) 1. Tim. iii. 1. (ff) Acts XV. 28. (/) 1. Tim. iii. 2. (g) ih 5. (ft) Titus i. 7. (t) lb. 9. {j ) Acts XX. 28. (k) Page 26. «<■* 42 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT ] find anj reference to " a bishop (i. e., Presbyter-bishop) bearing rule over a " number of Elders (i. e., Presbyter bishops) ? ' Of course you find none in Scripture. Why then do you drag in this a^iparetUly outside idea ? I will tell you. You find in Prelacy a certain Order or class of Church officers called Bishops ; you find also that these Bishops exercise jurisdiction and authority over the Order you call Presbyters or Elders, and desiring to give them a qwieius in passing, would seek to make us believe that the '* Bishops" of the present day, and those called " Bishops" in the New Testament, Tbe- long to one and the same Order, hence you say, " if a Bishop v ere an office- " bearer bearing rule over a number of Elders, it does seem strange that no " passage of Scripture speaks at the same time of Bishop and Elder." M; dear sir, you are a " Professor of Chinch History." As such, therefore, I as! you : Is it strange ? Bo'ng a Professor of Church History, you must have heard of Theodoret, Bishop {not Presbyter-Bishop) of Cyrus. Concerning him, Mosheim says, ^^ Fast Nunc Theodordus, Cyri episcopus commemorandus " est, etc. After him (i. e. , Cyril of Alexandria) Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, " must be mentioned, an eloquent, copious and learned writer, whose merits "in evriy branch of theological learning ai-e by no me""9 to be con- " temned ;" (?>i) and Murdock, a learned Presbyterian, says of him, " He " was frank, open-hearted, ingenious, had elevated views and feelings, was " resohite and unbending, yet generous, sympathetic, and ardently pious. " His learning was great, his genius good, and his productions the best of " the age." [n) In one of these productions Theodoret inlorms us : ^Hasde " nun, etc. Those now called Bishops were anciently called Apostles, but as " time passed on, the name Apostle was restricted to those who were more " especially Apostles (i. e., the Twelve,) and the rest who had formerly the " name Apostles were termed Bishops ; thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of "the Philippians, Titus of the Cretans, and Timotay of the Asiatics." (o) This pious historian and Bishop knc/ as well as either you or I, that in the Holy Scriptures the terms Bishop and Presbvter were applied interchange- ably to the Order known in his days and in ours, as Priests or presbyters. He knew also, what we as Christians should know, that from the Apostolic age, down, a Priest or Presbyter was never called a Bishop. Therefore, fear- ing that " iinlearned and ignorant men" might be confused or Aisled, he proceeded to explain the reason why Bishops are not now called Apostles, nor Priests styled Bishops. His object was not to confuse, but tD naake plain. Theodoret was born A. D. 386, in Antioch, and died Bishop of Cyrus (i. e., Apostolic-Bishop), in A. D. 457, being aeventy-one years of age, and thirty-seven years a Bishop. And the ancient writer under the name of Ambrose refers to the same fact, (p) Again, Hugo Grotius, who was certainly no prelatist, can tell us in his comment on Acts xi 18, " Qui Apos- " tolorum Hierosolyr.ns erat w miinere fungabattir quo postea Episcopi ideoque " Preshyterns co)t,vocabat , etc. The one of the Apostles who was at Jeru- " salem did that which the Bishops afterwards performed, and called to- " gether the Presbyters ; except perhaps this James was the Lord's brother, " not the Apostle (i. e,, James, the brother of John) but the Bishop. ' Again, " Quceri potest cum tarn antiquum qnoque, ttc. As the office of " those who presided over the Presbyters by a certain perpetual dignity was " to ancient and also approved by Christ Himself , it may be asked by what " name was that honor callod before the common name of Bishops began to " be applied peculiarly to this presidency, which Jerome thinks happened " abont the eighth year of Nero ? The ancient fathers think that these chiefs " of the Presbyters were called Apostles." • " The Revelation shows that the name of Angel was anciently given to (m) Hist. EcoL, p. 207. (n) Murdock's Mosheim, vol. 1, p. 330. (o) Comment, in I Tim iii. (p) Bingham's Orig. lib. ii. c. ii. 1. K7;ai THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH lb IT 1 45 ^ l\ " >iim who afterwards b ^jan to be called Bishop." " By this name Justin " Martyr calls the Bishop in his second apology." (q) With these facts of Church History before us, I ask again, is it strange that in Holy Scripture there is no passage speaking of Bishops and Elders or Presbyters ? Is it strange that the New Testament does not refer to the fact that the title Bishop was separated from the second Order or Presbyter- Bishops and applied solely to the first Order or Apostks, when we know thit it occurred ajter the close of the Canon of Scripture ? It would be strange indeed if the fact wtre at all referred to in Holy Writ. The beginning of the change we can find in Scripture, as e.g., we find the Apostles or chief rulers of the seven Churches of Asia (r) termed not Apostles but Angels, a different word, yet with an almost identical meaning. This, then, is the substance of the matter. Those who are now called Bishops were originally called Apostles. After the death of the Twelve those who were ordained to succeed them in the government of the Church being inferior to them in the working of miracles ; and not being personally attend- ant on our blessed Lord, although possessing all their ordinary powers and privileges, yet in their humility did not consider it proper to be called Apostles, but dividing the names hitherto applied interchangeably to the second Order, they left to the Presbyters the name Presbyter, and they them- selves were called Bishops. This, therefore, completely refutes your second principle, " that the offices of Bishop and Presbyter wpre identical," for the office or Order composed of those now called Bishops is identical with that known and referred to in Scripture as Apostles, while that now known as Priests or Presbyters is identical with the Order ol the Christian Ministry spoken of in the New Testament under the names of Presbyters and Bishops indiscriminately. This point is still further substantiated by the fact that while in Scrip- turt the terms Bishop and Presbyter are promiscuously used in connection with the second Order or Presbyters, in the post-Apostolic age, the titles Ai^ostle and Bishop are used interchangeably to indicate the first and highest Order, or that now known as Bishops. Thus — St. James, the Lord's brother, was not one of the original Twelve, i.e., he was not James the son of Alpheus, nor yet James the son of Zebedee and brother of John. He is however positively stated to be an Apostle by St. Paul in the words, " But " other of the Apostles saw I none save James the Lord's broth$r." (s) That he possessed chief authority in the Church at Jerusalem is shown not only in the passage just quoted, but also in Gal. ii. 9, where St. Paul places him before St. Peter and St. John. It is also implied in Acts xxi. 17, 18, where we are told that on the arrival of St. Paul and his company in Jeru- salem " the brethren received us gladly, and the day following Paul went in " with us unto James ; and all the elders were present." Why speak of James more especially, or indeed why go in to him at all if it were not a recognition of his authority as chief ruler of the Church in that city. But in Actti XV. it is more clearly evinced, for there we find him presiding at the council of Apostles and Elders, and authoritively pronouncing judgment in the words, *• Wherefore my sentence is that we trouble not them which from *' the Gentiles are turned to God " (t) ; notwithstanding this, by the unani- mous testimony of all the early Christian writers, St. James was the first Biship of Jerusalem. Hegesippus, who wrote about A.D. 160, quoted by Easebius (u), informs us that " the Jews, after Paul had appealed to Caesar, " and had been sent by Festus to Eome, foiled in the hope of trapping him " in the snares they had laid, turn themselves against James the Lord's " brother, to whom tlie Episcopal seat at Jerusalem was committed by the (g) Grotins De imperio sum., &c., j. xi., sec. 7. (r) Rev. ii. and iii. («) Gal. i. 19. (() Acts XV. 19. (u) Eusebius Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. o. 23. MK 44 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT? "Apostles." Again, Clement of Alexandria, who wrote about A.D. 198, as quoted by the same Eusebins {v), in the sixth book of his Stromata says, '' Peter and James and John aiter the ascension of our Saviour, though they " had been preferred by our Lord, did not contend for the honor, but chose " James the Just as Bishop of Jerusalem ;" and in his seventh book he thus identifies this James : " Paul also mentions the Just in his Epistles." But •' ' other of the Apostles' says he ' saw I none save James the Lord's brother J' " The Apostolic Constitutions which are ascribed to Clement of Eome bring in the Apostles as saying, " Concerning those whom we ordained Bishops in our " lifetime, we make known to you that they were these. James, our Lord's "brother, was ordained by us Bishop of Jerusalem, etc." And so also by Jerome, by Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Ambrose, and a great many others — all unite in calling St, James the first Bishop of Jerusalem, even though he is called an Ajtostle in the Scriptures. Epaphroditus is another who is called an Apostle in Holy Scripture (w). " Messenger" it is rendered in the authorized translation, but it is, as you are aware, ''Apostle, Apostolus," in the original. Jerome, who wrote about A.D. 374, in his commentary on Gal. i 19, refers to this fact in the words, *' Faulatim tempore precedente et alii ab his quos Dominus elegerat ordinati •' sunt Apostoli sicnt ilk ad Philippenses sermo dederat dicens: necessarium ex- "istimavi Epaphroditum, etc." By degrees, as time passed on, others were or- dained Apostles by those who had been chosen by the Lord, as the passage to the Philippians declares : " 1 thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, ' ' your Apostle, " while Theodoret in commenting on the same passage states as a reason for his being called an Apostle that be was entrusted with the Episcopal government as being their Bishop. To come more distinctly to the matter, Clement, Bishop of Rome, '"a companion and fellow -laborer" of St. Paul (x), is called " Clement the Apostle" by Clement of Alexandria (y). Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, is called "Apostolos, Episcopos, Apostle and Bishop, by Chrysostom ; and Eusebius, in speaking of Thaddeus being sent by St. Thomas to the Prince of Edessa, calls him "the Apostle Thaddeus," while Epiphanius calls both St. Mark and St. Luke Apostles. These refer- ences are but a few of many which give us the assurance that the title Bishop was separated from the second Order and applied solely to the first. 1 might say much more upon this subject, but consider that enough has been said to refute your second principle, and instead, to establish this, viz.: That the Orders or Offices inth< Christian Ministry now knoien as Bishops and Presbyters are not identical, bat distinct and separate,the Order of Bishops being identical with those known as that of Apostles in the Scriptures, ivhile the Order of Presbyters is identical ivith that held by those who have both the names Bishop and Presbyter applied to them in the New Testament. In my next I purpose examining your third principle. Till then, I remain, etc. LETTER IX. Your " third principle " is thus stated : " In bach church thfrb was A PLURALITY OP ELDERS " (z). To maintain this to be a principle of govern- ment in the Apostolic Church you bring forward Acts xiv 23, xx 17, and Phil, i 1. Before entering upon the examination of these texts it is neces- sary to recall what has gone before. We have seen, Ist, That the Apostolic Order also called Angels ivas a permanetit Order in the Christiaii Church (a). {v) Lib. ii. c. 1 (tr) Phil, ii 25. (x) Phil, iv 3. {z) Page 32. (a) Vide Letters iii, iv, vi, vii, viii. (t/) Clement Alex. Strom., lib. iv. \ THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH 18 ITI 45 ha 2nd, That the Order of Apostles rras superior to all the other Orden in the Ministry (6). 3rd, That the Order known in the New Testament as Bishops and Presbyters or Elders, and sometimes as Prophets, is the next highest Order in the Apostolic Church, and was intended to be permanent (c). 4th, That Holy Scripture cannot be expected to take cognizance of facts that occur after ti'Q close of the Canon (d). 5th, That after the close of the canon of Scripture the title Bishops was separated from the second Order— that of Presbyters or Elders — and universally applied to the first or highest Order, that of Apos- tles (e). 6th, That the designation or appuintment of persons to any of the Orders of the Christian Ministry did not depend upon their election by the people or Laity (/). 7th, That the Order now known as that of Bishop is identical with that of Apostles in Scripture (g). 8th, That the Order now called Priests or Presbyters, is identical with that referred to in the New Testament, under the titles of Bishops, Presbyters or Elders and sometimes Prophets, (h). These things being borne in mind will enable us to under- stand what follows, and prevent any confusion of Orders to arise on account of the confusion of names and titles as read in Holy Scripture. That this confusion of names should not produce a confusion of ideas on this subject, may be illustrated by the following, which I find ready to my hand, and will quote here : " One irregularity in regard to the application of names is "particularly worthy of notice. The word "S:.bbath" is applied in Scrip- " ture to only the Jewish day of rest; by very common use, however, it " means the Lord's Day. Now ' the Sabbath ' is abolished by Christianity, " and the observance of it discountenanced (i), yet ministers of the Christ- " ian denominations are constantly urging their Christian flocks to keep 'the " Sabbath.' Does any confusion of mind result from this confusion of " names ? We suppose not. All concerned understand that ire Scripture " the word means the Jewish Sabbath, while out of Scripture the same word " is applied to the Christian Sabbath. Let the same justice be done to the " word ' Bishop.' In Scripture it means a Presbyter properly so called. " Out of Scripture, according to the usage, next to universal of all ages since " the Sacred Canon was closed, it means that Sacerdotal Order, higher than "Presbyters, which is found in Scripture under the title ' Apostle.' When "A Christian teacher who enjoins the observance of the day which he calls " ' the Sabbath," is asked for his New Testament authority, he has to ex- •' elude all the passages which contain that word, giving them a different ap- " plication, and to go to other passages which do not contain it ; and he ar- " gues that he seeks the thing and not the iMme, And when we Episcopa- "lians are asked for inspired authority for 'Bishops,' we do the very " same ; we give a different application to the passages which contain " that word, and build on other passages which teach the fact of Episcopacy *' without that appellation " (j). But to return. The first passage you refer us to as a support of your third principle, is Ac*s xiv 23, ' 'And when they had ordained them Elders in " every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the " Lord, in whom they believed." With the authorized translation you declare yocrself dissatisfied, and therefore favor us with one of your own, in the following : " And when they had chosen for them by suffrage, " Eiders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended "them to the Lord, on whom they believed. " Your use of this passage I have referred to before {k), and will now examine more fully. You will of Vide p 20 of your Tract, and Letters iii, iv, vi, vii, viii. Vide p. 21 of your Tract and Letters v and vii. (d) Letter vii. ( ^ than one, why did you not tuke the case of " Nyniphas, and the Church which ia in hin house" ( p) or that of Philemon and " tin' i'hureh in thy houne" (q) and show us that in these Hingle conKiegatious there were more than one Elder (PreHhytor-bishop) in each of tliem. You would then be doing Nome- tbing to the purpose — something far better than constructing an argument upon an isolated passage in the Acta, which if accepted would cause the in- spired writer to state what was not true. And the question still remains to be proven, " Was there a plurality of Elders in each congregation in the Apostolic Chinch ? Every probability is that there wan not. Elderit we know there wore in Ephesus, but it is not stated that there were not congregations also. This we do know — that there was but one Apostle (now called liishup) in charge of the Ephesian Church, viz., Timothy. And before you again call the large, populous, and extensive city of Philippi " a contemptible town on the outskirts of Macedonia," you ought to read the aiticles " Philippi" and " Philippians" in Smith's liible Dictionary, vol. ii., pp. 887-848 inclusive. One mutter I must refer to be- fore I close ; you say, " One Bishop is thought sufficient even for London, *' where professing Christians are numbered by millions, whereas — a con- " temptible town on the outskirts of Macedonia had a plurality of Bishops. " Paul in writing to that Church addresses his epistle to the Bishops and " Deacons." (m) Here, you should have given us the reason xiihy St. Paul does BO. It was because Epaphroditus, their Apostle, (v) was himself the bearer of the epistle. And here in this very epistle we have the Ministry of the Philippian Church in its three orders most clearly and distinctly presented to our view : Ist, Epaphroditus, the Apontle of the Church at Philippi, possessing exactly the same ecclesiastical powers and authority as the Bishop of London, and that of Londonderry also, no more, no less, and having under him and sub- ject to his control, — 2nd. The Bishops {i. e., Presbyters or Elders) holding the same order and having the same powers and privileges as those held by the Priests (Presbyters or Elders) under the control and jurisdiction of the two Bishops I have named, neither more nor less. While 8rd, — The Deacons here mentioned were of the same Order and submitted to the same restric- tions as the Deacons oi the prelates mentioned. Nor in all the epistle, nor indeed in all the New Testament, is there a single passage to be found to maintain your third principle, and I can say without fear of contradic- tion that in the Apostolic Church there was not a plurality of Elders to EACH congregation. I remain, etc. LETTER X. My Dear Sir, — Let us glance again over the ground we have passed in Letter IX. We see that St. Paul in writing his epistle to the Church at Philippi, sent it by the hands of Epaphroditus the Apostle [i.e. Bishop) of this Church, and addressed to the Bivhops {i.e., the Presbyters or Elders) and the Deacons, thus recognizing the existence of three orders in the ministry of the Apostolic Church. We have seen also that although there were J?Wer», ; * also called Bis/iO|)8, both in this Church and that of Ephesus, yet there is ^ not the sligfhtest hint in the New Testament to lead us to suppose that there was not also a separate and distinct congregation for each separate Presby- i ter or Elder. These facts, therefore, completely destroy your third principle. We will therefore turn to yoxir fourth, which you state to be "that in the " Apostolic Church ordination was the act of the Presbytery — of a " plurality of elders :" {w). Ordination you define to be " the solemn ip) Col. iv. 15, {q) Phill. 2. (u) Page 31. (v) Phil. ii. 23. (w) Page 34. 48 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IH IT 1 " (leBignntion of a perBon to ecclesiastical office witb [or rather by] the lay- ing on of hands ;" (a) I make the above correction on the authority of the Presbyterian " Form of Church Government," published in Glasgow, 1848, with the " Confession of Faith, <&c, :" " Every minister of the word is to be ordained hy imposition of bunds and prayer, with fasting, hy those preaching Presbyters to whom it doth belong." (6) That is to say, they were to be ordained liy the laying on of hands, hy prayer, with tasting, and hy those to whom the right of ordination belongs. Please bear the distinction between by and viith in mind, as I purpose referring to it again. The " laying on of hands " is declared to be one of the " principles of the doctrine of Christ," (c) and was used in conferring both ordinary and ex- traordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit {d) in the miraculous healing of the sick (e) in commending persons to the grace of God; (/) and it was also UBCv^ in the solemn investment of persons to ministerial functions in the Church of God, (j/) and this laying on of hands in Ordination was always considered as not only conveying jur/.«/iof ion, but also as conferring the gilts of the Holy Spirit for the fulfilment of the work of the ministy to which the person was then set apart. You must acknowledge that all power and authority is vested in the great Head of the Church. From Him came the original commission to the Ministry of the Christian Church in the words : " AH power is given unto Me both in Heaven and in Earth ; go ye, there- " fore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and " of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things " whatsoever I have commanded you ; and lo ! I am With you always, even " to the end of the world." {h) This may be called their jurisdictional com- mission, the whole earth was to be their Diocese, and the discipling o' 1 nations their ministerial work. While that as given by St. John was thi ferring upon them indelibly their ministerial character in the words, " '. " be unto you, as my Father hath sent Me even so send I you ;" and when " He had said this He breathed on thom and said " Receive ye the Holy '• Ghost, whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them, and " whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained." (i) The ambassador of Christ, therefore, does not derive his official character from the men of the world, nor yet from professing Christians in the Church, but from our Lord Jesus Christ Himself through th") Order He established to transmit and per- petuate it to the end of the world. Indeed, it would be hard to find in all human transcactions a more explicit appointment of particular men to a par- ticular office, or a more distinct conveyance of authority and power for the fulfillment of the duties connected with that office than is found in these solemn words of our Lord to the Apostles whom Ho had chosen. And the inspired writers when speaking of this Ministry refer to it as the gift of God, thus, " the ministry which I have received of the Lord Jesus," (j) " God bath " committed to us the ministry of reconciliation. Now then we are ambas- " sadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in " Christ's stead be ye reconciled to God." {k) Again it is stated that the gift of the Apostles, Prophets, &o., for the work of the Ministry, &o., was from Him " Who hath ascended far above all Heavens," (/) namely, Christ. And our Lord in His own words states the same thing, " Ye have not chosen Me, («) page 32. (b) page 360. (c) Heb. vi. 1-2. {d) Acts viii. 17 ; ix. 17 ; xix. 6. (e) St. Mark xvi. 18 ; Acts xxviii. 9 (V) Acts vi. 6 : M'im, iv. 14. II. Tun. (h) St. Matt, xxvii. 18-20. 'i) St. John XX. 21. Acts XX. 22. 2 Cor. V. 19-20. Eph. iv. 10-11. (/) Acts xiii. 3 i.6. xiv. 26. m ' THE APOSTOMC CHURCH — WHICH 18 IT 1 i^ i I but I have ohoRon you and ordained you, that ye should go and brinjf forth fruit; and that your fruit Hhould remain, (m) The Elders of Ephesus, thouijij undoubtedly ordained by St. Paul, are stated to have been made Overseeru of the Church by the Holy Ghost, (n) St. Paul also in speaking of the ordination of Timothy calls it " the gift," (o) •' The gift of God ; ' (p) and what gift was that ? It was the gift of the Holy Spirit conferred by the laying on of hands at his ord'nation. But to return. The instances you adduce from Holy Scripture in sup- port of your fourth principle are from 1 Tim. iv. 14 ; Acts xiii. 1-3, and Acts vi. 6. In reference to the first you say : " The Apostle exhorts his son in " the faith to employ to good purpose the gift of the ministry that had been " conferred upon him. He intimates that this gift had been given b- pro- " phecy — that is, in consequence of certain intimations of the prophets who *' were numerous in that age of spiritual gifts, making him out as one who " would bo an eminent minister. He adds that the gift was conferred loith '^ thelaijinrj on nf the hands of the Prpshytery — that is by the presbyters or " elders in their collective capacity. The words of the Apostle are : ' Noglect '* not the gift that ia in thee which was given thee by prophecy with the " LAYING ON OF THE HANDS OF THF, PRESHYTERY.' ThesO WOrds are dcoi- " eive as to the parties with whom the power of ordination is lodged." Before I enter upon the examination of this passage I woiild ask you to turn to page 18 of your tract and read it through carefully. You there con- denm the practica of those writers who " select some one of our modern " churches which happens to be a favoi ■ , delineate its characteristic fea- " tures and then proceed to show that ' ly are a reflection of the pattern " presented in the word of God." And you state as a reason for your '* grave objections" that it " produces the fatal impression that the writer ** has determined in the first place that his view of the subject is right and ** then goes to Scripture to search for proof of it." And you continue : " Besides, it affords opportunities for viewing passages of Scripture " apart from their connection, and tempts writers to quote in their favourite " texts, the sound of which only is upon their side." Your plan of procedure you state to be "to examine the Holy Scripture with a view of ascertaining " from them the various facts that bear on the government of the Apostolic " Church. We will produce the passages, contemplate them in their imme- " diate connection, unfold their meaning, and try if by their aid we can " arrive at great principles." The itahcs are mine, and I have used them simply to call your attention more especially to the fact that those who dis- claim the mode you so gravely object to are still tempted " to quote in their " favourite texts the sound of which only is on their side." You say you will " produce the passages," yet in this case at least you have not produced all the passages. One very distinct and important passage you have totally ignored from the beginning to the end of your work, namely, 2 Tim. i. 6, where St. Paul says to " liis son in the faith " : " Wherefore I put thee in '* remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God that is in thee by (dia) the " putting on of my hands." How are we to reconcile these apparently con- tradictory statements of St. Paul that St. Timothy was ordained " ^vith the " laying on of the hands 'of the Presbytery," and also that it was " by the " putting on " of his hands ? The distinction between the words meta *' with " and dia " by," as used in these two passages, is best seen by referring to the lexicon. According to Greenfield, dia when used with a genitive, as here, signifies " through, by, by means of, irith," referring to the means or instrument, while meta signifies " with, together with," thus denot- ing concurrence. Therefore, in the place wliere " the presbytery " is spoken of the preposition meta, denoting concurrence, is used, while in the other, (m) St. John xv. 16. (n) Acts XX. 28 (o) 1 Tim. iv. 14. p) 2 Tim. i. 6. 50 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS 1T1 where the imposition of St. Paul's hands are referred to, the preposition dia, signifying the efficient or instrumental cause, is used, thus showing most conclusively that no matter what may bo the meaning of the words " vnth •' the la^ang on of the hande of the presbytery," it was '* hy " the laying on of the bands of St. Paul as the instrumental cause or means that " ;he gift of *' God " referred to in the passage was conferred upon St. Timothy. St. Paul therefore was the prime or efficient agent in the ordination, while the act of *' the presbytery," whatever it was, was simply in concurrence with, together with St. Paul. There is also another mode of reconciling tbeae two passages, viz., that "the presbytery " here spoken of was not apresbyteiy ia the modern sense at all, that is, a body corporate of elders or presbyters, but denotes ^ i V" /;-■-■■■'/-'■ V LETTER XII. '■■-'•■'' --■■;•"; Your " sixth principle" now comes up for consideration. This prin- ciple you define to be " that Chnst is head uver all things to the Church.'' (a) That our Lord Jesus Christ is the great Head of the Church ; that He is '* the blessed and only Potentate, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords," (6) and that ".God has given Him a Name that Is above every name, that at the '•name of Jesus every knee should bow, both of things in heaven and of "Jthinga in ea''th and of things under the earth, and that every tongue should *• confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father," (c) is considered by the Church of England not the sixth but the fundamental principle of Christianity. At every service, in every Collect, and in every act of devotion, this fundamental principle is most clearly enunciated. In all her prayers where evil is deprecated it is *' through Jesus Christ our Lord" that is, our Master, Ruler or Head, she teaches us to do so. Is good to be supplicated, she teaches us so to do " through the merits and media- " tion of the same Jesus Christ our Lord." When we lift our voices in hymns of adoration, this is the glorious ascription of praise she puts in our mouths : " Thou art the King of Glory, Christ ! Thou art the everlasting Son of the *' Father. When T/iom hadst overcome the sharpness of death Thou didst " open the kingdom of Heaven to all believers. Thou sittest at the right '* hand of God in the glory of the Father. We believe that Thou shalt come " to be our Judge. We therefore pray Thee help Thy servants whom Thou " has redeemed with Thy precious blood. Make them to be numbered with " Thy saints in glory everlasting. Lord save Thy people and bless Thine '* heritage. Govern them and lift them up forever, &c." (d) And again when with humble and contrite hearts we bow before the throne of God, she teaches us in the words of her matchless Litany to acknowledge the same truth : " We sinners do beseech Thee to hear us, O Lord God, and that it " may please Thee to rule and govern Thy Holy Church Universal in the right " way," and in the very next petition we pray that He who thris rules and governs His own Church and peo2)le would also be pleased to bless and pre- serve " His servant Victoria, our most gracious Queen and Governor." And in the offices for Baptism, Matrimony, Ordination, and the Burial of the dead, from the beginning of the Christian hfe till we enter on the dark val- ley of the shadow of death, we are continually and repeatedly taught that He " who only hath immortality" (e) is the Governor, Ruler, and "Head over all things to the Church which is His body." (/) That you should go (a) FaRe 43. (b) 1 Tim. vi. 15 and Rev. xxi'. 14. (c) Phil. ii. 9-11. d) TeDeum. ^M ■ • «) 1 Tim vi. 16. ' f) Eph. i. 23. .?V./'c">.'.-J.-^;..;; ^6 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT? to the trouble of proving this universally i<.dmitted fact is sometbiug I could not at first understand until I read your " application of the tests," where your object is then unmasked and stands confessed in the charge you bring against the Church of England of having denied her Lord and Master, re- fused Christ as her Divine Head, and -'n His stead erected an idol of her own imagining in the person of the reigning monarch. When you speak of this matter in connection with the Independents you say, " The Headship of Christ was a principle of Apostolic times. In- " dependents, we are happy to say, acknowledge this principle in all its in- "tegrity." {g) Concerning your own denomination you say : "IntheApos- " tolic Church the Lord Jesus alone was King and Head. This is a truth •• acknowledged by all Presbyterians and practically acted upon by all, except " a very few, who, owing to their connection with the State, have been " charged with a virtual departure from the principle. All Presbyterian ♦' Churches rank among their most cherished as well as distinctive principles " that Christ aione is King and Head of His Church." {h) But when •' Prel- " acy" in the person of the Church of England is referred to you say : " In " our Protestant EstabUshmeut the monarch is, by Act of Parliament, head " of the Church, and to the Pang or Queen, as the case may be, the 87th " article informs us that ' th<3 chief government of all estates of the realm, " whether they be ecclesiastical or civil in all causes doth appertain,' whereas *' in apostolic times the Church had no Head but Jesus Clu*ist." (i) I must confess, when I read these paragraphs I have quoted, and saw the fearful charge of blasphomy and idolatry you thus brought against my Mother Church, I felt " tho old Adam" working within me and tempting me to say hard things in reply, but, thank God, I remember the words which that Holy Mother pats in my mouth, and therefore refrain : •' That it may please Thee to forgive our enemies, persecutors and slanderers, and to turn their hearts, we beseech Thee to hear tw, good Loi'd." (j) And in seeking to fasf-en this impious charge upon the Church of Eng- land you quote part of article xxvii. In quoting part of the article why did you stop at the word " ajipertain ?" Perhaps it was too voluminous and you could not afford the space, or it may be that you did not have the article before you, and simply took the part you quote, from Dr. Campbell, or Dr. King, or some other of the controversial writers whose works you quote from. Whatever may have been the cause, I will quote the article in full, and also one of the "injunctions" to which it refers : ^ , •• ARTICLK XXXVII. OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE. ' ' '• "The Queen's Majesty hath the chief power in the realm of England and other her dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth apper- tain and is not, nor ought to be subject to r,ny foreign jurisdiction. Where we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief government, by which title we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended, we give not to our prnces the ministering of God's word or of the Sacra- ments, the which thing the injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify ; but that only prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly princes in Holy Scripture by God Him- self; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by Ood, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers. The bishop of Home hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England. The laws of the realm may punish Christian men with death for heinous and grievous offencies. It is lawful for Christian men at the commandment of the Magistrate to wear weapons and serve in the wars." (3) P. 51. (ft) P. 55. i ^ (i) P. 47. (j) Litany. V THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT 1 67 «■ ; f U r The following is one of the injunctions of Elizabeth (A. D. 1559) re- ferred to above. It is entitled " An admonition to simple men deceived BY MALICIOUS." " The Queen's Majesty being informed that in certain places of the realm, sundry of her native subjects being called to ecclesiastical ministry of the Church be by sinister persuasion and perverse construction induced to find some scruple in the form ot an oath, which by an Act of the last Parliament is prescribed to be required of divers persons for their recogni- tion of their allegiance to Her Majesty, which certainly never was meant, ^wr by any equity of words or good sense can be tliereof gathered : Would thai all her loving subjects should understand, that nothing was, is, or shall be meant or intended by the same oath, than was acknowledged to be due to the most noble kings of famous memory, King Henry VIII., Her Majesty's father, or King Edward VI., Her Majesty's brother. And further. Her Majesty forbiddeth all manner of her subjects to give ear or credit to such perverse and malicious persons which most siniaterly and maliciously labour to notify to her loving subjects how by words of the said oath it may be collected that the kings or queens of this realm, possessors of the Crown, may challenge authority and power of ministry of Divine ser- vice in the Church, wherein her said subjects be much abused by such evil- disposed persons. For certainly Her Majesty neither doth nor ever will chal- lenge any authority that has been challenged and lately used by the said noble kings of famous memory. King Henry VIII. and King Edward VI., which is, and was. of ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this realm ; that is under God, to have the sovereignty and rule over all manner of persons horn within these her realvus, dominions and co^mtries, of what estate, either ecclesiastical or temporal, soever they be, so as no other sovebeion POWER SHALL OB OUGHT TO HAVE ANY SUPERIORITY OVER THEM. And if any person that hath conceived any other sense of the form of the said oath shall accept the same oath with this interpretation, sense or meaning. Her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such in that behalf, as her good and obedient subjects, and shall acquit them of all manner of penalties contained in the said Act against such as shall peremptorily or obstinately refuse to take the same oath." Now, sir, when you quoted part of article xxxvii. , why did you not ^ive the whole which fully explains the very portion you quote, and declares that the Church of England gives to the monarch " that only prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly princes in Holy Scriptures by God Himself ." If you took the part you quote at second-hand, before you made the application of it you do, you should have referred to the place itself, when you would have seen that the fearful and impious charge you bring against the Church of England and Ireland was most unfounded. And if the whole article was before you, and you willingly and intentionally omit- ted it, then the only conclusion we can arrive at is one I should be sorry to charge you with, namely : that knowing the truth you eupprpssed it, and only quoted sufficient to give you some slight colour for bringing a charge you knew to be absolutely false. And, further, if the 87th article of the Church of England and Ireland does dethrone our Lord Jesus Christ as the Great Euler and Head of his Church upon earth, and in His sdead erects the reigning monarch to be such, why did you not state the same thing of the Presbyterians; and instea^d of saying ^' All 'Presbyterian churches rank among their most cherished as well as distinctive principles that Christ alone is King and Head of His Church," you should have quoted from the authorized standards of the Presbyterians the following words : " The Civil Magistrate " may not assume to himself the admin istration|of the word and sacraments, " or the power of the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, yet he hath authority, " and it is hi9 duty to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the *' Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and " heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship a/nd disciplirhe 68 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS ItI 41; > " prevented or reformed, and all theordlnancea of Qod duly settled, administered " aiul observed. For the better effecting wliereof he hathpower to call Synods, " to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them, be " according to the word of Qod." (o) Surely this is as strong language as ever was used by the standards of the Church of England and Ireland. Here in the plain words of their own acknowledged standards the Presbyter- ians declare — and adopt the declaration into a Confession of Faith — that the monarch is the fountain of authority. (I). For the '♦ preservation of peace and unity in the Church.'' (II.) For the " keeping of the truth of God pure and eqtire." (III.) For the " suppression of all blasphemies and heresies." (IV.) For the " reformation or prevention of corruptions and abuses in " worship and discipline." It also declares ihat the reigning monarch is to take order, that (V.) " All ordinances of God are duly settled, |administered and obsery- " ed." It also confers upon him (VI.) " The power to call synods and to be present at them ;" and io show still further that he is supreme even over the Synods, it is for him (VII.) " To provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according " to the word of God." And not satisfied with even this, the same stam^ards further declare that " Infidelity or difference in religion doth not make void the magistrate's jiist and " legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him, FROM WHICH " ECCLESIASTICAL PERSONS ARE NOT EXEMPTED." (6) Therefore, if words are to be taken as signs of ideas, and have any established meaning, the ideas conveyed in the above extracts are that aU those supreme powers and jurisdiction in spiritual things are conferred upon the reigning monarch, be it King or Queen, by the Presbyterians, no matter whether that King or Queen be a Presbyterian, of a different religion, or even an infidel ; while the Church of England positively declares that she recognizes in the monarch no other authority, power, jurisdiction or prero- gative ecclesiastical than " that only prerogative, which we see to have been given *' always to all godly Princes in Holy Scripture by God Himself." But you will retort is not the monarch " by Act of Parliament head of "the Church." (c) No doubt you mean the Act passed in the twenty-sixth year of Henry VIII. C. 1., although you refer to that of 37 Henry VIII. 0. 17. This Act which is too voluminous to quote here I purpose giving at the end of these letters, when it may be judged according to its merits, (d) But I must protest most emphatically figainst the Church of England being held accountable for the Acts of the Parliament of England. The Church has enough to do to answer for herself instead of having to bear the onus of either the Parliaments of Henry, of Mary, of Elizabeth, or even of the Long Farliament. And the Church of England declared Henry VIII. to be the head of the Church only " so far as the law of Christ would allow." "Ecclesise Anglicanffi protestorem unicum et supremum dominum, et quantum per Christi leges licet, supremum caput " (e) So that the Church of England, notwithstanding her connection with the Stale, cannot be charged with a denial of the great principle that Christ alone is the Head over all things to- the Church, the blessed and only Potentate, the Kino of Kings and Lord of Lords. The Presbyterian standards, then, recognize and teach the heai'lship of the Civil Magistrate, not merely in externals but in things that are purely spiritual, viz., in doctrine, discipline aiid worship over and above their Synods, (a) Presby. Confes.'Faith, c, xxiii., 34. (6) Confes. Faith, xxiii.', 4. (c) p. 47. Id) See Appendix A. (e) Act. Convoc. Cantab., Feby. 11, 1631. THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT? ff» II' for, we see above, that it is his or her province to judge whether '* the things " transacted in them, (the Synods,) be according to the Word of God." On page 40 you tell us " It is a distinctive feature of the Apostolic Gov- " enment that Church rulers did not render spiritual obedience to any tem- '• poral potentate or to arnr , ecclesiastical chief," and then on page 46 you apply this as follows : " No person can be received into the Ministry of that " C5hurch (Church of England) till he subscribe this article — * That the " King's Majesty under God is the only supreme governor of this Realm, " and of all other his Highness' Dominions and Countries as vkU in all " spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal ' " (/) The play you make on the word '* spiritual " is rather amusing, and the confusion of mind you fall into concerning it reminds me of a circumstance which I will relate m passing. Once upon a time, in the north of Ireland, there lived a little boy, and that little boy was one day poring over the columns of the "Derby Standard." While thus engaged he came across a paragraph referring to an act that had been passed some time previously, about which it was said •that Her Majesty by and with the consent of the Lords spiritual and tern- ' poral was pleased, etc' ' Lords spiritual and temporal ! • What were ' they ?' he asked. As there was no one :aear, just then, to answer this little boy's query, he ran away to his school dictionary and turned over to the word " spiritual" and found the meaning as there given, to be " relating to " the spirit, heavenly." He then turned uver to the word " temporal" and found it there defined as "existing for a time, not eternal." Then after a long cogitation of the matter, viewing it on every side, this little boy arrived at the very grave conclusion that " Lords temporal " were a kind that wore Lords only for a tim^, and that the *' Lords spiritual " must bt' heavenly Lords or Lords to all eternity. However, that little boy as he grew older learned better : he found that the word spiritual was used in very many cases in reference to things belonging to this life and of a temporal nature. And that same little boy, when he came to man's estate, finding a similar confusion of ideas existing in your mind in relation to the same word, would seek to aid you to get rid of it as he did, for that little boy was myself. Being a " Professor of Church History " you will, of course, be acquainted with the history of the Church in Great Britain, and will be able to correct me if I am wrong in what follows. From the very first establishment of Christianity in that Kingdom we find that the Bishaps were admitted into, and formed a part of the " Wittenagemot " or great Council of the Na- tion. This is shown by the dooms, decrees, or laws themselves, e.g., '* In the reign of the most clement King of the Kentishmen, Wihtroed, in the fifth year of his reign, the ninth indiction, the sixth day of Eugem, in the place which is called Berghamstyde, where was assembled a deliberative convention of the great men, there was Birhtwald, Archbishop of Britain, and the aforementioned King, also the Bishop of Rochester, etc." Again, "Ine by God's grace. King of the West Saxons, with the council and with the teaching of Cenred my father, and of Hedde my Bishop and of Eor- cenwold my Bishop, with all my Earldom and the most distinguiK d Witan of my people, etc," The ordinance of King Ethelstan bears testimony to the same thing. " I, Ethelstan King, with the counsel of Wclfhelm Archbishop and of my other Bishops, make known to the Reeves, etc." Again we are told " King Edmund assembled a great synod at London dur- ing the Holy Eastertide as well of the Ecclesiastical as of the Secular de- gree" (King Edmund's Institutes). Again, " This is the ordinance that the King of the English and both the Ecclesiastical and Lay Witan have chosen and advised." (Laws of King Ethelred) (a). These extracts are enough to show that the Bishops were at all times members of the great National Council. And we know that the Bishops and also the heads of religious (/) Canon 36 is here referred to. (a) Thome's " Ancient Laws and iDStitutesof England," London, 1854. <0 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT 1 oommunitioB holding their temporalitieu directly from the Crown, formed a cunstituent branch of the National Councils held by William the Conqueror and his successors. The Bishops, however, did not sit in these councils upon any feudal principles, but because they were the representatives of the Church and Keligion itself, as is shown by both Hallam and Hody. Hallam says " The Bishops of William's age were entitled to sit in his Coupcils bv the general custom of Europe and by the Common Law of England which the conquest did not overturn." ib) And Hody, as quoted by him, states the matter thus : " In the Saxon times all Bishops and Abbots sat and voted in the State Councils or Parliament as such, and not on account of their tenures. After the conquest the Abbots sat there, not as such, but by virtue of their tenures as Barons, and the Bishops sat in a double capacity, as Bishops and as Barons (c). To distinguish these representatives of the Church and BeUgion from the other branch constituting these councils, which was composed of the Earls and Barons, or Lay peerage of England, they were called spiritnal or ecclesiastical Lords, while the others wbre termed temporal or secular Lords. And as at these Councils many matters of an ecclesiastical nature were defined and made coercive, and as these questions did not come under the cognizance of the common Law of the Kealm, the Kings of England at different times appointed and constituted Ecclesiastical Courts composed of Bishops and Clergy, or their representa- tives, to try, examine, and adjudicate upon these matters. The questions that were referred to these Courts were of three classes, viz. : 1. Those which relate to the true worship and service of Almighty God. 2. Those which have reference to legitimate descent and inheritance. 3. Those which relate to the morality of the nation at large. Lord Chief Justice Coke thus speaks of these Courts : " Observe (good reader) — seeing that the determin- ation of heresies, schisms and errors in religion, ordering, examination, admission, institution and deprivation of men of the Church (which do con- cern God's true religion and service) ot right of matrimony, divorces and general bastardy (whereupon depend the strength of men's descents and in- heritances) — of probate of testament, and letters of administration (without which no debt or duty due to any dead man can be recovered by the com- mon law) ; Mortuaries, Pensions, Procurations, Beparations of Churches, Simony, Int jst, Adultery, Fornications, and Incontinency, and some others, doth not belong to the common law — how necessary it was for administra- tion of justice that His Majesty's Progenitors, kings of this realm, did by public authority authorise Ecclesiastical Courts under them, to determine those great and important causes ecclesiastical (exempted from the jurisdiction ol the common law) by the king's laws ecclesiastical ; which was done orig- inally for two causes. 1. That justice should be administered under the kings of this realm within their own kingdom, to all their subjects, and in all causes. 2. That the Kings of England should be furnished upon all occa- sions either foreign or domestical, with learned professors as well of the ec- clesiastical as temporal laws." These Courts were and are to the present day known and referred to as spiritual courts, and the causes which come before them are and were called spiritual causes. Therefore, when it is de- clared that " the king's majesty under God is the only supreme governor of "this realm, and of all other his highness's dominions and countries, as well "in all spiritual orlecclesiastical'Jhings or causvis as temporal," it simply refers to those causes which came before the spiritual or ecclesiastical courts for trial, which causes, I am sure you will ^dm.it in most cases, were not of a \ery spiritual nature in themselves. And when you say that ' be fountain of jurisdiction in the Church of England is the monarch for the time being" (d) do you really understand the matter ? Do you not confound Orders with Jurisdiction, and the differ- ^t* » i ' {b) Hallam's " Middle Ages," c. viii, part iii. (c) Hody's " Treat, on Convoo.," p. 126- (d) Page 45. THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT 1 61 !. ent kinds of jurisdiction, in a confused mass ? To prevent any confusion on this subject I will take the liberty of explaining tue difference between the two. Orders is the term used to designate that power and authority committed by the Lord Jesus Christ to the Ministry of His Church, to preach the word and administer the sacraments in His Name. Ecclesiitstical Juris- diction, which cannot exint without Orders, is the power and autliority by which "the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints" (e) is defined and de- clared, the openly vicious are excommunicated, the penitents absolved, and b^ which all those functions are discharged which are necessary to preserve and perpetuate the Church as a distinct and corporate body to tne end of the world ; and there are two kinds of jurisdiction, generally called internal and external. Internal jurisdiction is that by which the minister of Christ exer- cises, by virtue of his Orders, "the power of the keys" and by his persuasions, wholesome counsels and godly admonitions, convinces the consciences of men, Und thus leads them to the obedience of God's laws, and punishes them for their disobedience by spiritual penalties, such as excommunication, &c. While external jurisdiction is that by which men are (impelled to obedience by external penalties, such as fines, imprisonment, &c., and this form of juris- diction must be conferred upon the Church by those with whom it rests — the civil magistrate — before it can be exercised by her in the person of her ministers. And neither Orders, nor Internal Jurisdicfion was ever assumed, or attempted to be assumed, by any christian monarch that ever sat upon the throne of England. But external jurisdictiuii — the power to compel hy secular penalties, the obedience of his subjects to either ecclesiastical or civil laws was, and is the prerogative, not merely of tlio monirchs of England, but of all civil magistrates, for it is by the law of God that " kings reign and princes decree justice." (a) When, therefore, the usurped jurisdiction of the Boman Bishop, in the realm of England, was restored to its rightful owners, it devolved so far as it was interiml upon the Bishops, and so far as it was external or coercive upon the king, auil upon those with whom he was pleased to place it. If the king was pleased to delegate that coercive power in whole or in part upon the Church, you certainly have no right to assume that all jurisdiction flows from the Crown. I have been thus particular to explain this matter, as it is a question that has confused others as well as yourself. Indeed the Puritans made it one of their charges against Archbishop Laud that he had said ho received his jurisdiction from God and Christ, contrary to an Act of Parliament ih), which says " Bishops derive their jurisdiction from the King." But the brave old Bishop promptly and decisively replied to his trulucent judges. ** That " statute," he says, " speaks plainly of jurisdiction in foro contcntioso and '• places of judicature, and no other. And all their forensical jurisdiction, " &c., all Bishops in England derive from the Crown. But my Order, my call- " ing, my jurisdiction in foro conscientice, that is from God, and by Divine and " Apostolic right " (c). Of what has gone before — this is the sum : that our Lord Jesus Christ in the commission which He gave to His apostles conferred i;pon tliem Orders and inf rnal jurisdiction, but not external, and if any of them or their success- ors ever exercised external jurisdiction it was conferred upon them by those to whom coercive power was committed by God Himself, viz., Kings and the rulers of the earth. We have now examined all your principles and found them wanting, excepting the last, and that, as we see, was falsely applied. In my next I purpose noticing what you say in reference to Ruling Elders, and afterwards to apply to " the oracles of God " anew, to see if we can find some real prin- ciples, in relation to the government of the Apostolic Church, and apply them, as tests to existing ecclesiastical systems. I remain, &c. ie) (a) ifi) c) St. Jude 3. Prov. viii. 15. 26 Henry VIII. c. 1 is here referred to. Wharton's Troubles and Trials of Laud. 63 TUB AP08TCMC CHURCU — WHICH IS IT ? LETTER XIII. The object of the present letter is to examine your statements in refer- ence to " Ruling; Elders." On page 52 you assure us that " there are two departments in the office •* of the Elder — that of teaching and that of ruling ; but the office itself ia one." Again, you tell us " Teaching and ruling, as we have already stated, are dif- " ferent departments of the same office, and while there can be no doubt tluit " those appointed to the office h'Xve, in the abstract, a right to fill both departments, " yet in practice it is found more convenient and beneficial for the people " that each elder give most of his attention to that department whose duties " he is best qualified to dirioharge. All elders, being bishops, have an equal •' right according to the Scriptures to prectch, baptize, administer the Lord's " Supper, and ordain ; but these duties it is arranged to devolve on one of the " elolers, called by distinction the Minister who is specially trained to his " work, and is by general consent admitted to possess most gifts and attain- " ments, and who, in consequence, is the best qualified to make these ordi- " nances edifying to the Church, while the majority of the elders only rule, ** visit the sick, superintend Sabbath-schools, conduct prayer meetings, and '• make themselves useful in other ways. Presbyterians, therefore, maintain *♦ a plurality of elders in every church ; and, hs it was in apostolic days, it is " customary among them for elders to rule who do not labor in word and «' doctrine." (a) Permit me to take breath after that. The italics, of course, are mine. I assure you, sir, that I read the above twice through ere I could believe my eyes that you have asserted Presbyterian ruling elders " in the abstract " to have a right to preach as well as rule ! Presbyterian ruling elders to be of the same office or order as the preaching elder or minister. Presbyterian ruling elders " being bishops, have an equal right (with the minister) accord- " ing to the Scriptures to preach, baptize, administer the Lord's Supper and " ordain." The wise man says "there is nothing new under the sun," but I fear this position of yours is something new. Do you not know, Sir, that you contradict the standards of your own Presbyterian body, in thus pretending to confer these powers upon the ruling elders, which confine all these things to the preaching Presbyter ? " Ruling " Elders," says the American Presbyterian form of Government, " are pro- " perly representatives of the people, chosen by them for the purpose of exer- '* cising government and discipline in conjunction with the Pastors or Minis- " ters." (b) The same is also stated by the Cumberland Presbyteriau " Form Presbyterial Government," word for word, (c) And the Scotch form Presbyterial Government states plainly that these ruling elders occupy an analogous position to that of the Elders of the people in the Jewish church, which we know were laymen. It says : " As there were in the Jew- ^' ish Church Elders of the people joined with the Priests and Levites in the " government of the Church, so Christ, who had instituted government and *« governors ecclesiastical in the Church, hath furnished some in His Church " beside the Ministers of the Word, with gifts for government, and with com- " mission to execute the same when called thereunto, who are to join with " the Minister in the government of the Church, which officers reformed " Churches commonly call Elders." (d) You also contradict some of the ablest writers of the Presbyterian body, both ancient and modern, who say that ruling elders are lay elders or laymen, and chosen to represent the laity — as Baxter, of England, Dr. Campbell, of Scotland — who, by the way, you quote so often, and Drs. Wilson, of Philadelphia, and Miller, of Princeton, (a) (b) (c) (d) Page 53. Confes. Fnith and Form Govt., Philadelphia, no date, p. 413. Cumber'd. con. Faith and Form Govt., p. 207. Westmiu. Con. Faith and Form Govt., Glasgow, 1843, p. 362. ^tr i THR APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IB IT 1 63 aod a large number of American PreHbyterians, who all represent these "elders" us Luy elders, and as not possessing the powers you have been pleased to confer upon them. And you must confess tiiat these men were just as capable of knowing what ruling elders are, and what they are not, aa either you or I. Dr. Miller, who had been reading the epiRtles of St. I^atins, and see- ing the many references ho makes to the liishop, the PrcnhyterH, and the Deacons, and wishing to make ruling elders appear as the Presbyters of Ignatius, says that in the appointment of these ruling elders " the iu)f, mak' " iruj the impoaitiim ufhimds a cunatitiient part of it, is chargeable with an ** omission, which, though not essential, and therefore not a mutter for which " it is proper to interrupt the peace of the church, yet appears to mo to be *' incapable of a satisfactory dofence, and wliich it is my earnest hope may " not much longer continue to be, as I know it is with many, a matter of '* serious lamentation " : {«) And Baxter, in the preface of his five disputations of Church govern- ment, says : " That the greater part, if not three for one, of the English " Presbyterian ministers were as far against lay elders as any Prelatist of " them uU," And again, as quoted by Dr. Chapman in his book of ser- mons : " I dislike their order of lay elders, ivho had no ordination or power to " preach or to administer the sacraments ; for though I grant that lay elders " or the chief of the people were often employed to express the^ eople's cmisent " and preserve their liberties, yet these were no church officers at all nor had " any charge of private oversight of the flocks." (f) However, I have not yet done quoting Presbyterian authorized stand- ards. In " the first bnik of discipline " of the Scotch Presbyterians which was "prepared by Mr. John Winram, Mr. JohnSpottiswood, John Willock, " Mr. John Douglasse, Mr. John Bow and John Knox, and presented to the " Nobilitie Anno 1560, and afterwards subscribed by the Kirk and Lords," I find the following remarkable statement in reference to ruling elders and deacons, viz. : " Elderis and Deaconis — Men of the best knowledge, judgment " and conversatioun sould be chosin for Elderis and Deaconis. Thair elee- '* tion sal be zearlie quhair it may be convenientlie observit. How the votis and " suffrages may be best resavit with every manis fredome in voting wo ieif to " the judgement of everie particular kirk." " It is not necessair to appoynt " ane publick stipend for elderis and deaconis seeing thei ar cluinged zearlie " and may wait upon thair awin vocatroun with the charge of the kirk." (g) Evidently these " ancient fathers " of Presbyterianism did not consider "ruling elders" as "in the abstract," possessing the same official powers as the minister or preaching presbyter, or if they did, the annual change would soon have left no male laity in any of their congre- gations, as all would become either ruling elders or deacons in course of time, and not a very long time either. It may seem strange that a hum- ble missionary of the Church ot England, in the backwoods of Canada, should point out historical errors in the published work of a Presbyterian " Professor of Church History in Magee College, Londonderry," and in re- lation to the history of his own " Church." But strange things do happen " now and then." Looking at this matter in another light we may further observe the utter fallacy of your position. On page 54 you tell us that " office bearers were set apart to their distinct spheres of duty in the Apostolic Church vdth the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. The Presbyterian Church in its several branches is the only one known to us that carries this scriptural principle invariably into practice." But you omitted to tell us what body of Presbyterians, in any of its branches, invariably sets apart or ordains its ruling elders " with the laying on of hands of the Presbytery." When or («) Miller's Essay on Ruling Elders, p. 79. (/) Life of Baxter, 140. (g) Ane schort somme Ist buik Discip. 7. 64 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT? where, then are the three things whinh, you tell us, (a) constituted the outward form of ordination — " fasting, prayer, and ihe laj/ing on of hands" — used in "'the soloran designation" of ruling elders to their " permanent" ofl&ce? The laying on of hands is not used in the appointment of ruling elders to oflSce among the C amberland Presbyterians, (b) nor y^t among the American Presbyt<:%ians either in "north" or "south" branches. Among them the laling Elder is inducted into office 61/ prayer, '^vithout the laying on of hands, and with no reference to fasting, by the minister, and not by the presbytery ; while the Scotch " form of Prcsbyterial government," which,. I believe, is observed by both Irish and Canadian Presbyterians, does not contain the slightest hint that liiey are to be set apart by any ceremony whati,oever. From rage 259 to 265 inclusive, all oloselj printed duodecimo pages, it treats of ordination, its doctrine and power, yet all it says has reference solely to preaching Presbyters and not one ^ord as to the ordina- tion, setting apart or " solemn designation" of Kuling Elders to their office. This, sir, would be simply inexplicable if what you state be true, that Teach- ing Elders and Ruhng Elders only hold " different departments of the same office." Again on page 58 you say : " No Elder of any kind is a layman, but an ecclesiastica. office bearer ordained with the laying on of the hands of tho Presbytery." From v/hat I have quoted above from Presbyterian standards this statement of yours is not founded on fact; and not being "set apart with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery" ^^^hese Ruling Elders can- not be of the same office as the Teaching Elders who were thus designated, nor can they pobsess " in the abstract" the same official powers. I fear, sir, that your mind must have been in a state of abstraction when you penned what is found on pages 58 and o4. But yc u cannot allow these Ruling Elders of yours to pass without some show of scriptural authority for their exioteuce, so you continue : " Any ULiprejudiced person may see from 1 Tim. v. 17 that the office of tho " Eldership divided, itself into two groat departments of duty in primitive " times, even as at present. * Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy " of double honor, especially they who laboi in the word and doctrine.' " Then after giving a quotation from a " Dr. King" you add: "We are " tempted thus to insert the true exposition of this celebrated passage, of ' * which we have been often charged by our opponents as giving interpreta- " tions the most grotesque and extravagant." And hew do you knoiv that what you insert is the true exposition ? Is your " Dr. King" an infallible Presbyterian Pope, so that 1m " exposition of this celebrated passage" is the only true one ? Since infalhbility has spoken ex cathedra and given us " the true exposition," it is of course our duty to let it be known. It is as follows : " Those words could suggest to an unbiassed reader only one mean- " ing, that all Elders who rule well are worthy of abundant honor, but es- " pecially those of their number who, besides ruling well, also labor in word " and doctrine. Of course the passage so interpreted bears, that of the eld- " era who rule well only some labor in word and doctrine — that is, there are " ruling elders, and among these. Teaching Elders, as we have at the pre- " sent day." Before noticing tho above "tiue exposition" permit n?e to remind j">u that the published standards of the Scotch, Irish, Canadiau, " North" and " Si uth" American Presbyterians, and of the Cumberland Presbyterians, r.-jd every Presbyterian writer who treats, of tne subject, all unite ir, declaring that the Ruhng Elder is as distinct from the office ol Preaching Presbyter as id that of Deacon, while many of them dec lure that there is no scriptural authority whatever for their exist- er?". , yourself anil '' Dr. King " to the contrary notwithstanding. And these writers ground their objection tc them upon the fact they are not and never i^erc oruained " with the laying on of the haud» of the Presbytery." In (a)'P. 32. (b) Vide form Govt. p. 230. THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT 1 65 speaking of these two classes of Elders, they always refer to them as hold- ing distinct and separate ojices, whether they look upon the office of the Rul- ing F.hlpr as scriptural or not. in lljf^ passage which you quote, there U undoubtedly a distinction of some kind referrf ri to ; but is it a distinction of dtdy or office ? I would say most undoubtedly nut. It is rather a distinction oi' personal labour or energy, i.e., being Jcborums in preaching, and not being so. Now it certainly does no violence to the words nor to the construction of the sentence, nor yet to any other part of Holy Scriptures, to interpret it as follows: "Let the Pres- '* byters that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour, especially if " they labour much in preaching the Word and in propagating sound doc- ** trine." Nor is there the slightest ground in the passage itself on which to found your dual office of preaching and ruling elders. This is the opinion of your own Dr. Campbell, whose ecclesiastical lectures you have made such good use of in your little work. Speaking of tlie preaching and ruling elders as having the same name, he says : " The distinction is too considerable " between a pastor and a lay elder, as it is called, to be confounded under one " common name." " And a, dubious not to say forced exposition of a single ''passage of Scripture is rather loo small a circumstance whereon to found a dis- " tinction of so great conscqiience." And referring to the word " especially ^' in your " celebrated passage " he says : " It is not intended to indicate a differ- " ent office, but to distinguish from others those who assiduously apply them- " selves to the most important as well as the most difficult part of their office, *• public teaching ; that the distinction intended is, therefore, not official but *' personal ; that it does not relate to a difference in the powers conferred but " solely to a difference in their application ; it is not to the persons who have " the charge but to those who labour in it " (c). And when St. Paul instructs Sts. Timothy and Titus as to the character of those whom they were to ordain elders in Ephesus and Crete, "Apt to " teach " was one of the essential qualifications required of all of them — they were all required " by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince " the gainsayers." But while all were thus required to teach, exhort and convince, yet there were some who were more laborious, more assiduous in this, than others. And permit me to "ay, that your distinction of elders into those who teach and those who rule, can never be made out — at least such is the opinion of the generality of Christian writers, whether they be Papist, Protestant, or Presbyterian. On page 59 you say farther : " There are ih. our Church Courts no lay " representatives, no lay elders, a name which ignorance invented and male- " volence has preserved in order to bring the office into contempt and disre- "pute." Surely, Sir, you did not intend to charge Richard Baxter with ignorance or with malevolence, yet we see above that he called them Lay elders. Was it the ignorance of Drs, Campbell and Guise, ond a host of other . Scotch Presbyterians, which led them to call them by the same name ? "Was it the ignorance or malevolence of American Presbyterians, which caused tliem in their^" Confession of faith," and in their writings, to term these ruling elders Lay elders, or that they were properly the representatives of the people or laity. Or was it the iguarauce or malevolence of " Rev. Charles Buck " which caused him to pen the following?: "In the Scottish Church every regulation of " public worship, every act of discipline, and every ecclesiastical censure, " which in other Churches flow from the authority of a Diocesan Bishop or " from a convocation of the clergy, is tlie joint work of a certain number of " clergymen and laymen, acting together with equal authority, and deciding " every question by a plurality of voices. The Laymen who thus form an " essential part of the ecclesiastical courts of Scotland are called Ruling " Elders " (d). (c) Dr. Campbell, Eccles. Lect. vol. 1 p. 178. (d) Buck's Theolog. Did. Art. Presbyterian. <6 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHIC'; IS IT? And in his article on the word " Eldeb " he quotes Dr. Guise on this same passage (I Tim. v 17), assaying: "That the Apostle intends only Preachiitg Elders, when he directs double honor to be paid to the elders that rule well especially those who labor in the word and doctrine ; and that the distinction lies, not in the order of officers, but in the degree of their diHgetice faithfuhiess and eminence in laboriously fulfilling their ministerial work, and so the emphasis is to be laid on the word labor in the word and doctrine, which has an ' especially ' annexed to it." On this matter of Euling Elders, we see, you contradict the best and ablest of your own Presbyterian writers, and even the Presbyterian stand- ards the world over. We may therefore cast your argumentation aside as unsound, and declare that Presbyterians do not preserve a plurality of Eld- ers (Presbyters) in every distinct congregation. We are also authorized in stating that your interpretation "of this celebrated passage," ia forced and dubious, and in the words of the late Dr. Wilson, a Presbyterian preacher of Philadelphia, U.S., conclude, that " Every effort to discover even the exist- " ence of lay elders or of any inferior grade of Presbyters has totally failed ; " neither has there been a single word of such a diversity, nor the idea cfsuch an " officer, in any Church. If such a class of men had existed in the Apostolic " Church it could not have escaped detection. Tf the Scriptures had been un- " derstopd by the Apostles and Evangelists to warrant it, the grade must have " existed and would certainly have appeared. The conclusion is consequently " undeniable, that those who find Lay Presbyters in the New Testament have made ^' a discovery of that, of which the inspired men who wrote it never entertained an " idea (a). And not only do Presbyterians themselves deny to ruling elders the powers you ascribe to them, but many of them object to their existence alto- gether, as a part of their form of government. Bishop Sage quotes Chamier, Salmasius, Blondel, Ludovic Capellus, Moyses Amiraldus, and many others, as opposed to them, and says that " the whole tribe of Belgic Remonstrants {all keen parity men) declare against ruling elders in their confession of faith :" (Vindication, etc., p. 178). And if we turn to the Christian world we can see that of all those who are named with the Christian name, ninety- nine out of every hundred in their ecclesiastical judicature recognize no such body of men as ruling elders, English, Irish, Latin, Gallican, Greek, Russ- ian, Armenian, Coptic, Indif , and Abyssinian ; all these Churches declare by their practice, customs, usages, and observances, that they know of no such order or body of men as these ruling elders ; and all these, combined with able men among the Presbyterians, and even the Presbyterian stand- ards themselves, condemn your idea that ruling elders are not Laymen, or that they possess the powers " in the abstract " of preaching, baptizing, or- daining, or administering the Lord's Supper. We are justitied, therefore, in stating " ruling elders " to be " a fond thing," of which no trace can be discovered in Holy Writ, nor in the practice of the Apostolic Church, nor for fifteen centuries afterwards, in any Church. I remain, etc. LETTER XIV. My present object is to turn to the Holy Scriptures and see if we can there find some of the principles which really entered into the constitution of the Apostolic Church. The mode by which I intend to conduct my " inquiry at the oracles of God" is this: I shall endeavour to find and clas- sify all the names and titles found in the New Testament which are applied to the office-bearers in the Apostolic Church, in order to find if aiy of them are used interchangeably, and thus see how many Orders existed lu (a) Wilson's Prim. Gov't Christ. Oh., p. 68. THE APOSTOUC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT? 67 that Church. Then I shall endeavour to show how many classes of office- bearers were extraordinary and not intended to be perpetuated, and also if there were any which were ordinary and perpetual. Then, if more than one Order in the Ministry of the Church is found to be perpetual, to see in what they were distinguished from each other, and in this way, endeavour to bring out the distinctive principles which entered into the polity of that " Church of the Living God " as shown forth in the Holy Scripture. Then lest these principles should bo, after all, but the product of my own imagi- nation, or the result of prejudiced interpretation of God's word, I shall appeal to the universal practice of the Primitive Church from the Apostolic age down to the meeting of the Council of Nicea in A. D. B25, at which time it is universally admitted that " Prelacy " was the only system of Church government then in existence. To this mode of procedure I think you can urge no valid objection. For you will readily observe that in the interpretation of Scripture our early religious education in the system in which we were trained will, and must warp our judgment and influence our views : that our interpretation cannot he Hnprejudiced even though we may earnestly endeavour and believe our- selves to be impartial. Therefore the only hope we have for a settlement of questions of difference such as exist between us, is an appeal to the uniform practice of the Primitive Church as shown forth in the records of Church History. The fact that you are a *' Professor of Church History " assures us at once that the Church has a history — that the Church did not cease to exist with the death of St. John, the last of the twelve, about A.D. 100, but was continued in Faith, Orders and Sacraments, just as it had existed before. Therefore, if any change in the poUty of the Church took place, we must expect history to tak", notice of the fact, and inform us when, where, and by whom, the change was made ; for otherwise it would not be history. To " the oracles of God " we turn, then, for testimony, and the first thing that must attract the attention of the thoughtfii.l reader of the New Testament, is the continued and repeated references it has to the types and prophecies of the Old Testament and their fulfilment in the person and Church of our blessed Lord. All through the Gospels every peculiar cir- cumstance in His Life, Sufferings and Death, is referred to as a fulfilment of phophecies contained in the Old Testament, as e.g., His birth, la) the flight into Egypt, (b) His dwelling place, (c) His sufferings for our sakep, (d) His last words on the Cross and the parting of His garmsnts, (e) and His death and the piercing of His side, l{f) and His burial and lying in the grave " three days and three nights." (g). And through the Acts and Epistles, the circumstances and vicisiludes of , the Jewish Church are continually referred to as types and shadows of the Christian. St. Stephen shows that the reception of the Gentiles into the covenant was prefigured by the Tabernacle of witness which God had appointed, and " which also our fathers thai came after, brought with " JeEJS (Joshua) into the possession of the the Gentiles, etc." : (h) And St. Paul in his Epistles, especially that to the Hebrews, shows that the vrhole Jewish economy was but a shadow of the good things to come ; that the sacrifices, oblations and priesthood were so many types of the new or Christian covenant, and even, that as the Lord had appointed and provided for the maintenance of the Jewish priesthood, so also had He cared for the : (a) St. Matt, i., 22-8. (6) Ibid vii., 15. (c) Ibid 23. (e) St. John xix., 28-4. (/) Ibid 34-7. (g) St. Matt. lii., 40. (h) Acts, vii., 46. (d) Ibid viii., 17. 68 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT 1 Christian Priesthood, (i) and we are also to observe that when speaking of the Priesthood he does not say that it has been destroyed or done away with under the new dispensation, but that it had been ehanged, viz.: "For th0 " Priesthood being chaiiged, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law." (i) Seeing then that " the Law is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ," (k) and that the Jewish Church in its services and order was but an adumbra- tion of the Christian, we will turn '* to the Law and to the Testimony" and examine its polity and constitution as a type of the constitution of the Christian Church. On examination we find that in the Church, under the old or Mosaic dispensation^ there was a Priesthood instituted by Almighty God Himself, as we may see from the command which He gave for their consecration, viz.: "And thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door " of the Tabernacle of the Congregation and wash them with water. And «' thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him and sanctify " him that he may minister unto Me in the Priest's office, and thou shalt '• bring his sons and clothe them with coats, and thou shalt anoint them as " thou didst anoint their father, that they minister unto Me in the Priest's " oflJce." (I) They were, therefore, the duly accredited and appointed agents of God to the people, blessing and pronouncing pure those whom He had cleansed, and offering to Him tlio sacrifices and oblations which He had ap- pointed for their purification. We see also that this Priesthood was to 'be perpetual, to continuo while the dispensation itself should last, for it is de- clared that '-their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood " throughout their generations." (m) And this P ' 3Sthood we find to be composed of three grades or orders, not a parity of ministers — that the Jewish Church was governed by a Hitr- archy of High Priest, Priests and Levites — not by a body, of Presbyters of equal authority "met in Session, Presbytery, Synod, or General Assembly." The High Priest was distinguished by the peculiarity and richness of his holy narments, and also by the fact that there were certain sacred rites and services which he alone could fulfil. He alone possessed the authority to enter once a year into the Holy of Holies on the great day of Atonement, ' to sprinkle the blood of the sin-offering on the Mercy seat, to make an atone- ment for livnself and all the congregation of Israel. Other matters, not necessary here to enumerate, were also peculiar to the High Priest- {n) The priests also had their peculiar duties of sacrifice and oblation, holding a lower position than the High Priest, yet higher than that occupied by the Levites. The distinction between these three orders is thus shown in the words of Holy Writ : " And the Lord said unto Aa^-on, Thou and thy sons, ■*' and thy father's house with thee, shall bear the iniquity of the Sanctuary, " and th(3U and thy sons with thee shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood. " And thy brethren also of the tribe of Levi, the tribe of thy father, bring " thou with thee, that they may be joined unto thee, and minister unto thee; •' but thovi and thy sons with thee shall minister before the Tabernacle of " Witness, ami they shall keep thy charge and the charge of all the Taber- •' nacle ; only they shall not come nigh the vessels of the sanctuary and the * •* altar, that neither they nor ye die." (o) From this we learn that they were all appointed Ministers of the Sanc- tuary, yet each in his proper place and order, and each having their appro- priate sphere of duty. (t) 1 Cor. ix. 13, 14. ( j) Heb. vii. 12. (fc) Gal. iii. 24. (I) Ex. xl. 12-15 and Lev. vUi. (m) Ex. xl. 15. (n) Lev. xxi. 10, &c. (o) Numb, xviii. 1-3. W- : ^ THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH 18 IT 1 69 u. ■ ^ This priesthood was also sacred — it was holy to the Lord, and it was also exchisive, for no man dare take this honour to himself save he to whom it pertained, or who was called of God as was Aaron. That some did seek to usurp the priesthood and to bum incense before the Lord, we learn from the inspired Record. The ofl&ce of the High Priest, Aaron, was the glittering prize coveted by Eorah, Dathan, and Abiram. Not content with the posi- tion to which they had been appointed in the congregation, they sought to exalt themselves unto the priesthood also, crying to Moses and Aaron : " Ye *' take too much upon you ye sons of Levi, soeing all the congregation are " holy every one of them, and the Lord is among them." But signally and terribly did Almighty God vindicate the sacred character and exclusive authority of the hierarchy He had appointed. While the " two hundred " and fifty princes of the assembly famous in the congregation, men of " renown," were in the very act of their sacrilegious and rebellious offering, " there came out a fire from the Lord and consumed the two hundred and " fifty men that offered incense." Even such of the people as upheld them in their enterprise were not permitted to escape, for they, and all that per- tained to them, went down alive into the pit, the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them, and so they perished from among the congregation, (a) Thus did God vindicate the authority of His own appointed priesthood, and condemn the madness of tliose who would take upon themselves to min- ister in holy things w'thout Divine sanction. Aaron alone had authority to perform the office of the High Priest, and his successors after him, and the males of the house of Levi alone were authorized to perform the inferior ministerial duties. It is not necessary here to refer to the numerous instances in which God visited in judgment the sin of those who assumed to themselves the functions of the sacerdotal office without being " called of God as was *' Aaron." Saul, Jeroboam, and Uzziah, all learned with bitterness of spirit and in anguish of heart, that " to obey was better than to sacrifice ; and to " hearken than the fat of rams." Seeing then, that the Jewish Church and priesthood was a type of the Christian Church and priesthood, as St. Paul used the exclusive and sacred character of the former to prove the same of the latter, in the words : " And " no man taketh this honour unto himself but he that is called of God as " was Aaron ;" (bb) and as the Jewish Church was governed by a priest- hood of three Orders — High Priest, Priests and Levites — we may therefore reasonably expect that three Orders would constitute the Christian priesthood. This conclusion "s strengthened by the fact that in prophecies concerning the Christian Church, and of the reception of the Gentiles into that Church, God declares that He "will take of them for Priests and for Levites," (6) a term continually used to designate the whole Jewish priesthood. Against this it may be urged, that as the priesthood was changed from the Aaronic to the Malchisedeckian in the person of our Lord, Who " is a " Priest forever after the Order of Melchisedec ;" therefore we have no right to conclude that because we find three Orders in the Ministry of the taber- nacle and temple there must necessarily be the same number of Orders in the Christian Ministry. To this 1 would reply : That of the priesthood under the patriarchal dispensation we can know but little, yet even the little we do know, leads us to believe that there were gradations of order there also. The first-born is acknowledged to have been a priest in each family, and where the father was a priest, as in the case of Abraham and Isaac, we must naturally suppose that as Isaac was subject to his father in nil things, so he would be also in his priestly character. That both Abraham and Isaac offered sacrifices, builded (a) Vide Numbers xvi. (bb) Heb. v. 4. (b) Isaiah Ixvi 21. i 70 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT ? z' altars, and called upon the name of the Lord — that is, exercised the priestly office— we learn from Holy Writ, (c) Here then we find two priests and one superior to the other ; and in the person of Melchisedec, King of Salem, we find another " priest of the Most High God " still higher in authority, and recognized as such by Abraham himself, for he paid him tithes (d). So that even in the patriarchal dispensation, we find grades of Order in the priest- hood as well as in the Mosaic. And notwithstanding the change of the priesthood, we have seen above that throughout the whole New Testament, the Jewish Church and priesthood are continually referred to as types and shadows of the Christian Church and priesthood ; and we have also seen that Isaiah in prophecying of the Christian ministry calls them by the very names applied to the Jewish hierarchy. We are therefore fully justified not only in applying the term 'priesthood to the Christian ministry, but also in expecting to find that ministry to consist of three Orders answering to the High Priest, Priest and Levites of the Jewish Church. As to the propriety of applying the term " priesthood " to the Christian ministry 1 know you will agree with me, as I find that the Presbyterian Con- fession of Faith and form of Government maintains the same thing, where it says, "That the ministers of the gospel have as ample a charge and commia- "sion to dispense the word as well as other ordinances as the Prie8t»and " Levites had under the law, proved, Isa. Ixvi. 21, and St. Matt, xxiii. 34, " where our Saviour entitleth the officers of the New Testament whom He " will send forth by the same names as the teachers of old," and again, *' where ' * under the names priests and levites to be continued under the Oospel, are <' meant evangelical pastors, who therefore are by office to bless the people." (e) But here it may be asserted that the Christian Church and priesthood is not organized after the model of the Jewish Temple service and priesthood but after that of the Synagogue. This assertion, which is often made, and indeed so often that it is begun to be believed by some, I purpose to examine in passing. The assertion that the Christian Church is organized after the model of the Synagogue, is simply an assertion, and not founded on fact, for the fol- lowing reasons : CI.) Because in 7iot a single instatice is the SyvMgogue or its service referred to by any of the inspired writers of the New Testament as in the least degree typifying the Christian Church or Ministry. The Temple, the Priesthood, the Sacrifices, and even the whole Jewish nation, are spoken of as types repeat- edly. Not being infallible, I may have overlooked something, but if so I am open to correction. (2. ) Because the Jewish Synagogue had no rites or ceremonies of a mys- tical or sacramental character. The Jewish Church had, and the Christian Church also has. Circumcision constituted the initiatory right of the Jewish Church, and Baptism occupies the same place in the Christian. The Pass- over in the Jewish Church commemorated the deliverance of the children of Israel from the bondage of Egypt, and also pointed forward to that pure " Lamb of God that taketh awu/ the sins of the world " : and in the Chris- tian Church the Sacrament of the Holy- Communion is a commemoration of a far more glorious deliverance which He who is our true paschal Lamb has wrought out for us from a far more fearful bondage. " Christ our Passover **is sacrificed for us, therefore let us keep the feast " (/), " For as often as e eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do show forth the Lord's death till e come " (g). The Synagogue, as such, possessed nothing of the kind. (3.) Because the Synagogue was not a Church at all, but a mere volun> (c) Vide Gen. xii. 7, xiii. 4, and xxvi. 25. (d) Gen. xiv. 19, and Heb. vii. («) Presbyn. Form Govt. Glasgow, 1843, article " Pastor," p. 350. (/) 1 Cor. V. 7, 8. (g) 1 Cor. xi. 26. u THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IS 1 71 /• tly ne w^e nd lat >8t- ;he nt. 3Bt, H I' tary association — a purdy human institution — yet for a good and picas pur- pose. A Church is aDivinelyinstituted Society caUed out of the world, and with its members united tijgether by federal rights to its Divine Founder, and pos- sessing duly authorized agents, ambassadors or representatives, having the commission of their Divine Master to perform the ceremonies and to ad- minister the seals of the covenant according to His appointment. Until the Church is thus called out of the world by God it can have no existence, for the Church can no more call itself into being than a man can call himself into the world ; and those who were thus called out of the world were brought into the Church as completely independent of themselves as in their natural birth. The Greek word ekklesia is applied to the Church because it means to call or summon out, and the Hebrew word qahal is used in the Old Testament because it means the same thing: (Vide Gesenius on Qahal). In this sense the Jewish Church was called out from among the nations of the earth to be God's pe- culiar people, and were bound together by the federal rites, the Temple serv- ice and the Priesthood of Divine appointment. So also the Christian Church is called out of the world into the Kingdom of Grace, and the members are bound together by the Church services, the Sacraments, and the Priesthood, which are also of God's appointment. The Synagogue, however, possessed nothing of the kind ; it had none of these marks, nor was it called out as they were. The terms ekklesia and qahal are never applied to it either in Old or New Testaments, if referred to at all in the former, but sunagoge and WAjed, each signifying to come together, to assemble, and used meto- nyraically for the place of meeting, or as we would say nowadays, "a meet- ing-house." The Synagogue and its service seems to be an outgrowth of the practice introduced by Ezra, after the return from the captivity, of reading the Law in the ears of the people (n). Afterwards, they associated them- selves in companies or assemblies, to meet together at stated times to hear one of their number read and expouud the Law and the prophets. As they could not always meet in the open air for this purpose, a building was neces- sary, and thus they progressed until they were completely organized, with buildings, ritual, and officers, as we find them when the New Testament story opens. Yet this service, while it was intended for, and did fulfil a pious purpose, was not of Divine appointment, nor was attendance upon it obliga- tory. It was merely a voluntary association of pious men met together for mutual improvement in the study of God's Law. The Syimgogue, therefore, was no more a "Church" of Divine appointment than a Sunday-school of the present day is such. How unlikely, then, how improbable that "the Church of the Living God, which is the pillar and ground of the truth," (b) should have been organized by its Divine Founder after the pattern of a purely human institution? The Christian Ministry may have titles and terms applied to them in Holy Scripture which were used to distinguish the rulers of the Synagogue. Yet we have no more reason on this account, to assume that the Church was formed after the model of the Synagogue than we have to state that it was organized after the civil polity of the Greeks and Romans. For the Athenian supervisors of cities were called episcopoi kai phiilakes, i.e.. Bishops and Oiutrdians ; and Cicero tells us that he had been appointed by Pompey, the Overseer or Bishop of Campania and the whole sea coast (c). It is to the Jewish Church, then, that we must look for types and shad- ows of the Christian Church, for they are each of Divine institution, and not to the Synagogue, which was a merely human one. We have seen, then, that the Jewish Church possessed a Ministry of three Orders. We have seen also that the Jewish Church is recognized in the (a) Vide Neh. viii. (b) I Tim. iu 15. (c) Ad Atticum i. 7. 72 THK APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT ? Word of God to be a type uf the Christian Church, and consequently that the Jewish Priesthood was a type of the Christian Ministry. Therefore, we may justly and properly expect to find a Ministry of "three Ordets" present- ' ed to our view in the New Testament History of the Apostolic Church. Let us turn then to the New Testament and trace the history of the rise and final establishment of that Church as there presented. And, first, we find Jkscs the great " Shepherd and Bishop of our souls," " the Apostle and High Priest of our profession," presenting in His Person and Office a coun- terpart of that held by the Aaronic High Priest. In the Twelve we see the antitype of the Priests, while the ' Seventy ' are found to hold a position analagous to that held by the Lovites. To make the matter still clearer, we may see that the Apostles ven advanced to that high Order by three appointments or Ordiiiations. First, we have their separation and appointment to be " fishers of men" (a). That as such they possessed the authority to preach and baptize, we learn from a comparison of St. John iii. 22, and iv. 2, where we read : " After these things " came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea, and there he tarried " with them and baptized." " Though Jesus Himself baptized not, but Hia " disciples." We find also that they thus acted before John was cast into pris- on, (e) To proclaim the kingdom of Gud and to baptize, or admit men into that kingdom, formed their first commission. Subsequent to this, that is after the imprisonment and death of John, we find that the Twelve received another commission which is thus recorded : " Verily I say unto you, what- soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven " (/), thus having their Min- isterial functions enlarged by receiving the authority to declare absolution and to refuse it, which necessarily includes the administration of the Holy Communion ; which indeed is recognized as existing in the Twelve at the institution of that " Holy Feast." Finally, we have the highest powers of the Apostolate conferred by our Lord after His resurrection, in the words : " All power is given unto Me in Heaven and in Earth : Go ye, therefore, teach all nations. Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you ; and lo I am with you always, even to the end of the world." (g) Thus He conveyed to them supreme power to govern His Church and Kingdom, and to perpetuate it even to the end of the world, as His Father had sent Him. And after our Lord's ascension we find in the New Testament history of the Church, the Aj>ostle3 holding the position of chief rulers in the Church of God upon earth. And the first ofiicial act we find recorded of them is their "numbering" (appointment) of one to take the place of the traitor Judas, (h) This certainly would not lead us to suppose that their Order was intended to pass away and become extinct. Then in the sixth chapter of the Acts we find them ordaining — not a new Order remember, but a new class of persons to an Order already estab lished, viz.. Deacons, (i) These seven were elected from among the prose- lytes and believing Hellenistic Jews because these same persons or classes of persons had* claimed that ^' their widows were neglected in the daily minis- tration," or distribution of goods consequent upon their having " all things common." These seven, while they are not once termed Deacons in Holy Scrip- ture, are yet generally acknowledged to have been such, and as such I am willing to recognize them. (d) St. Matt. iv. 19. (e) St. John iii. 24. (/) St. Matt xviu; 18. (g) St. Matt, xzviii. 20. (h) Acts i. 15-26. ' (t) Ktd« Letter V. .( ■ \ THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH 18 IT ] 73 ■-*- The names applied to the ofiiue-bearero in the New Testament other than the two referred to above are Prophets (I Cor. xii. 28 and in many other places) ; Evangelists (Eph. iv. 11 and in two other places) and Angels, spoken of in Rev. ii. and iii. All these different names and offices I have examined before, and will not repeat what I have there said. Suffice it to say that in Letters iii. iv. and vi. I have shown that those called Angels in Rev. ii. and iii, poHsessed the same office and belonged to the same Order as those called Apostles, which Order I have proven to be the highest in the Christian Church under Christ and to be permanent. Those called Presbyters or elders, and sometimes bishops, I have shown to be the second Order in the Christian ministry, and also to have had the title prophet applied to them (a), as they speak for or in behalf of God. This Order I have also shown to be permanent. Evangelists I have shown to be not an Order in the ministry, but a work or duty which any person with due ability might, could, and did, perform irrespective of his Order (6). The Order of Deacons I have shown to be the third Order in the Chris- tian ministry, and that it is, and was, intended to be permanent. I have also identified them with the Pastors and Teachers referred to in Eph. iv. 11 (c). Besides those three Orders, I lind reference to miraculous gifts and powers which were givon in the Apostolic age in order to fit and prepare the persons sent, for their arduous duties as Ministers of the Church of God. But these gifts and powers must be regarded as extraordinary and not intended to be perpetuated. This is provtn by the fact that these powers do not now exist. If they had been intend' d for continuance in the Church, God would have provided for their existence and preservation. Therefore, in the words of St. Paul, we may state the ordinary and permanent Orders of the Christian Ministry to be as God hath set or constituted them : " First, "Apostles; secondarily. Prophets; thirdly. Teachers," and as extraor- dinary powers not intended to be perpetuated, "after that miracles, then "gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues" (d). And as a fact, we find that those miraculous and extraordinary powers and gifts ceased soon after the death of St. John, about A.D. 100. In the New Testament history of the Church, therefore, we find the Christian Ministry to consist of three Orders, answering to the High Priest, Priests and Levites of the Jewish Church, but known in that inspired record as Apostles, or as the word in two instances is translated. Messengers, who possess an authority, jurisdiction and office identically the same as those termed Angels in the Book of Revelation ; then Presbyters or Elders, also called Bkhops and Prophets ; and then Deacons, also referred to as Pastors and Teachers. The three Orders in the Apostolic Church v ere commonly known as Apostles, Presbyters or Bishops, and Deacotis ; but are now called Bishops, Priests and Deacons. The reason for the change of name in the first Order I have already given (e). The analogy between the Christian Ministry and the Jewish is borne out by the facts of the case, and so clear and distinct was this, that St. Clement, " whose name was in the Book of Life " (f), in his epistle to the Corinthians, written about A.D. 70, that is during the Apostolic age, ap^ilies to the Ohristian Ministry the very names which distinguish the Jewis^i Ministry. Speaking of the offerings and oblation as being of Divine appointment, and (a) Fide Letter V. (b) Ibidem. (c) Ibidem. (d) I Cor. xii. 28. (e) Vide Letter viii. (/) Phil. iv. 3. •k THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT ? showing that they are to be presented at the proper times and by the appointed persons, ho says, "To gar archiorei idiai leitourgiai dedomenai eisin, etc. For to the High Priest belongs his peculiar services, and to the Priests their proper place is appointed, and to the Levitcs belong their appro- priate ministries (diakoniai or Diacotuite), while the Layman is restricted to that which belongs to the Laity " (o.t(/ the laying on of hands. Consequently they are not, and cannot be Scriptural Deacons ; for wo have seen that tliey were 80 ordained. These niei: tlien, have no more right to the name Deacon than have the Cliurchwardens of an English parish, whose duties are exactly sim- ilar. To show still further that these ao-called deacons are not and were not, at their fird appointment, considered to be Ministers in the Church, I will quote from "the Fir.sf Buik of Discipline" drawn up by " the Ancient Fathers " of Presbyterianism where we are plainly told that both ruling elders and deacons were to be elected yearly, viz. " Men of the " best knowledge, judgment and conversatioun sould be chosin for elderis " and deadonis. Thair election sal be Zearlie ([uhair it may be convenient- " lie observit '- * * It is not necessair to appoyntane public stipend for " elderis and deaconis seeiiuj thei ar changed Zearlie and may wait upon " thair awin vocatioun with the charge of the kirk." (h) It is evident then that these " deacons " like the '• ruling elders " were simply a temporary arrangement made by Mr John Winram, Mr. John Spottiswood, John Willcock, Mr. John Douglasse, Mr. John Row and John Knox in 15G0, to please the people, by giving them, through these their lay representatives, which were changed ye.arly, an opportunity of handling the fimds that had been devoted to Church uses, and thus induce them to accept the new eccle- siastical reyime which these six Johns had imported from Geneva. The declaring these two offices to be "perpetual " in the Second book of Discip- line wab clearly an after-thought. The Scriptural Deacons, then were ordained. We know also that it was their duty to minister to the necessities of the iX)or, but other "secular " duty" or " temporal concern " 1 know not as belonging to the office of a Deacon ; nor can you find such either. It will be remembered, also, that the Seven spoken of in Acts vi. aie not once called Deacons in Scripture, but as I remarked before, I am willing to recognize tiicm as such. However, where Deacons and their (qualifications are referred to in Scripture by their appropriate title, we can find not a single line, reference or hint that " serv- " ing tables " formed any part of their duty whatsoever. The portion of Scripture where their office is treated of, is as follows : " Likewise must the "Deacons be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy " of filthy lucre, holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscicjice, and let " them first be proved, then let them use the office of a Deacon, being found (e) n. Cor. V. 20. (d) !.L Got. vi. 4. (e) I. Cor iv. 1. (/) Psf!*! 21. (g) Acts vi. 8. (h) Ane schort eomme of Ist Buik of Discp., sect. vii. THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT? 81 " blameless. Even so must their wives bo grave, not slanderers, sober, faith- " fill in all things. Let the Deacons bo the husbands of one wife, ruling *' their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office " of a Deacon well, purchase to themselwes a good degree and great boldness in the ^* faith which is in Jesus Christ." (i) Certainly there is nothing here said about " temporal concerns" or even of their " serving tables." All points directly to ministerial functions similar to those exercised by Presbyters, but in an inferior degree ; to both orders belong spiritual functions. There is a co- incidenc<» of phraseology in St. Paul's words in speaking of these two orders which I can hardly consider as unintenticmal. Speaking of Presbyter- bishops, he says, " If any man desire the office of a Bishop he desireth good " work." Then, as if pointing back to that expression when speaking of the Deacons he says, "They that have used the office of a deacon well, purchase to themselves a good liegree." Now what was that ''good degree " whicli the Deacons purchased to themselves if it was not the "good work," the higher, more excellent degree of the Presbyterate ? How, also, could these Deacons acquire " great boldness in the faith '' by using their office well, if preaching or the proclamation of the faith did not constitute a part of their office ? If the words mean anything they imply that by faithfully fulfilling this duty of preaching the word while they were Deacons, they iicrpiired proficiency and were enabled to discharge the same duty with " great boldness" when they obtained the good work of the Presbyterate which they thus purchased to themselves. It is therefore as clearly to be adduced from Holy Scripture as anything can be, that Deacons as such were Ministers of the Word, were preachers of the Gospel yet with less authority and in an inferior degree to the Presbyter-bishops. And, as a matter of fact, we find one of the Seven both preaching and administering the sacrament of Baptism, shortly after his ordination to the Diaconate, viz.: Philip, who "went down to Siunaria and preached Christ " unto them, and wlien they believed Philip preuchini; the things concerning " the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, " both men and women, (j) And while it is not stated that St. Stephen baptized, yet it cannot be said that he did not ; for it is not stated that he " served tables " either. We are justifietl, therefore, in supposing that he did both, for it cannot be denied that ho did the one any more than he did the other. However, all that the inspired Record states concerning him goes to show that he was using his "office of a deacon well" and acfjuiring "great bnlduess in the faith." The false witi asses brought this cliarge against hit : " This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against " the law, for we h.ive heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall des- " troy this nlace and shall change the custonu which Moses delivered us." (k) They were true witnesseas that he proclaimed Jesus of Nazareth to them, but false witnesses that his words were blivsphenions. Therefore we hive cuine to this as a principle in the constituti m of the Apostolic Church that Deacons were ordained by the laying on oi hands o spirit^Ml funA^tion^ in tlie Church of God, and that these functions were preacliitKj the word and baptiz- ing those whom they might convert to the knowledge of the truth. And by turning to the history of the Church in the post Apostolic age, we find that this principle was fully recognized and acted upon. This may be seen from the passages I have quoted in letter xvi., and which it is unne- cessary to repeal here. 1 will add, however, a few ([notations from tlie Apostolic Canons which, while they were not composed by the Apostles, are yet a compilation of rules and regulations governing the Church from a very early age, perhaps, about the time of St. Polycarp. (i) 1 Tim. iii. 8-lH. (j) Acts viii. 6-12. (k) Acta Ti. 13-14. 82 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS 1X1 " Let a Bishop be ordained by two or three Bishops." (l) " Let a Presbyter and Deacon be ordained by une BislMp." (m) " We ordain that the Bishops have power over the goods of the Church, " and to administer to those who need by the hands of tlie Presbyters and •* Dcaconay (n) And at the Council of Eliberis in Spain about A.D. 3i)6, it was decreed that '' Presbyters and Deaanui are forbidden to give the communion to those " who had grievously offended without the Bishop's leave.'" (o) While Canon 77 rerjuires that those " Baptized bij a Deacun be afterward confirmed " by Ibe Bishop." These, witli what has gone before, proves beyond a doubt that Deacons were urdaintd to spiritual functions in the Church, and as such possessed the Y>()Wir to })ri:arh am\ baptize, that they not inily "serve tables," but were also interior Minist(rs of the Word and Ordinances. As to the third pait of the work of the Ministry, viz., exercising " the power of the keys ;" all are agreed that the Apostles possessed it. I grant also that this power was possessed by the Presbyters, but subject to Apos- tolic control and final decision. In other words, the Apostolic Order pos- sessitl tliis power in its fulness, and they exercised it througli the Presbyters subject to tlieni. This I nuiintain on the following authority of God'e Word: In 1 Cor. iv. 11)-21, we find St. Paul threatening "the Corinthians with this "power." and of coming to them with a "rod" which he would personally exercise upon the evildoers. Again, in chapter v. 3-5, we see the sentence of excommunication declared, judged, determined by the Apostle and no doul)t executed by the Presbyters of that Church. And in 2 Cor. ii. 6-11, we have the remission of ecclesiastical penalties granted by the same Apos- tle " in tlie person of Christ," in other words, by virtun of the authority tonferred upon him as an Ajjostle by Christ Himself. The Presbyters no •loubt forgave and he ratified that forgiveness, " To whom ye forgive any- thing. I forgive uIsd." 'I'liat the Corinthian Church possessed Presbyters at this time is evident from the fact that the Holy Communion was adminis- ti red amongst them which retjuires one Presbyter at least. Yet the I'l-es- bv ters did not possess supreme disciplinary authority, for we aee that their list! of "the power of the keys" required the ratificatitm of an Apostle ere tiio judgment was final. In the case of the Ejthesian Church we know that tliere were Presbyteni itM're, (7) yet the supreme disciplinary authority was vested, not in the body ci I porate of Eldeis, but in St. Timothy their Apustle, or, as the Order is now c.ilk'd, their liiahn}). (r) The same also is true of Titus and the Cretan Church. That this principle tvas continued in the Primitive Church is proven fmm most of the authorities I have quoted before, and is further maintained by the following; Can(m b'J, of those called Apostolic, reads: "Let the " Pnsbytcra and Desjons do nothing without the consent of the Bishop, for ' /(( him are counuitted the people of the Lord and from him an account of " their souls will be required." And in the Council of Aries in Gaul held in A. 1). 314, at which there were present three British "Mshops, two Priests 111 (I a Deacon, it was ordered "That the Presbyters be sidiject to their " Bishop and do nothing without his consent." (s) In the Council of An- cyra held A. D. 316, after declaring that all those Presbyters and Deacon* u ho 1) ad offered to idols during the persecution be deposed from their (J) Canon 1. (m) Canon 2. (n) Canon 41. (o) Canon 32. (q) Vide Acts xx. 17. (r) Vide Epistles to Timothy. {») Can. 19. 1, 1 * - THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT 1 83 Ministerial office, adds, " Nevertheless the Bishop may rcinatate them if he " 8»(-s that their repentance is sincere, for this poiver is vested in the " Hlnhois" it) Presbyter bishops then are subject and inferior to Apostolic bishops in their Ministerial authority, just as the Deacons are inferior to the Presbyters in the Ministry of the Word and Ordinances. As to the fourth division of the work oi vho Ministry, viz., the power of " laying on of hands " in Confirmatioa and Ordination, I would say that wiiile Presbyterians rofognizo its propriety in Ordination they deny Cotifir- ination to be aa Apostolic rite altogether, althougl) kouio who observe a Pres- byterian form of government (as the Lutherans of Germany) both receive and practice it. It is, therefore, my duty to show in the first place that it was an Apostolic custom, and secondly that it was administered by the Apostolic or Episcopal Order alone, and thirdly to show that it has always been observed and practised in the Church of God. In the eighth chapter of Acts, we liavf the account of Philip the Dea- con, " one of the sevtn," going down to Samaria and preaching Christ unto thera, and of his baptizing those who believed. Then from verse 14 we read — " Now, when the Apostles which were in Jerusalem had heard that Sam- " aria had rec(nved the Word of God, they sent unto them Peter and Jtihn, " who, when they were come down, prayed for them that they might receive " the Holy Ghost (for as yet He was fallen upon none of thera, only they " were baptized in the name oi' the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they th.eir hands •' upo :„ihem, and they received the Holy Ghost, (u) Wiiat then is the teaching of this portion of God's Word ? In the firat verse of this chapter we learn that oh account of the great perseLMiiiou then carried on against the Church in Jerusalem they were all scattered abroad tbr'Mighout the regions of Judea and Samaria except the Apostles, and that tk^ . who were thus scattered went everywhere as Evangelists of Ihf H'urd. Vttiong them was Philip, " one of the seven," who went dv>wn \o the city of Samaria and preached Christ unto thera ; and as an evidenc* >>t, or t*>»ti- mony to his authority to preach Christ, and > baptize, w» see tliat he possessed tliv power of working miracles, " for aiu-leau spirua crj lug with " loud voii th«t »<>><> by one who had the power ot working i«irft<.')es, yet thort. was ^^«lH«»thrag still lacking, some- thinji aaoi'e was reqw-t^Hi in ordei t.> complete their Christia i pr.fession, and that which they lack d Philip could not confer up.>n them, even though he possessed miraculous powers. None but an Apos^'e could u«e " the layiof; " on of hands," else why !<)hi.v«Ui it be necossavy t\> send SS. Peter and ,toha frona Jerusalem to Saw^am tor this purpose ? Therefore, to confirm and ratify lh<' work begun bv St. Philip the Deacon, the two Apostles " laid " theii hands hjknw thf'ui ' (both meia Mid women, hence ft eould not be In Oifj^ifmiti^yn) " a^^A they reoeived t!i^ Holy Ghost." ^or in Ais ti^^ onljk- iiwtance recorded in " the oriwlee of Oo4 " of the laying on ^ hands ^w »» \p«.>8tle to the newly baptized. Turning t Acts xix., we ivad " \ik1 tl came to |vv*s that while ApoUos was .u Corinth, " Paul having p«s**»<^ through s he t^Y*"" coast* came to Ephisus, and find- ♦' ing certain I^wC'i)^'*. he said unt*^ them : have ye received tJie Holy Ghost *' since y« Whwvwl * And they said unto him : We have not so much as " heard whether there be ;in\ Holy Ghi\st. Aiul No said unto them : Unto " what then wore ye baptizea ? And thej said, Vuto .J^n's baptism. Then •' sftid Paul, John verily baptized with the ba{itisiu *>t repentance, saying " unto the people ';hat they ah^'ild believe on rtiiu that is on Christ. When '* they heard this, they wen baplized in the i*(Mue wf the Lord Jesus. And *' when P»nl had laid Mf hands upon th>eni he Holy Ghost cnme upon them, s t) Canons "^ \^^ 'v 84 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT ? " and they spake with tongues and prophesied." (v) In this case, and pro- bably also in the other, the gift conferred was accompanied with exttaordin- ary and miraculous powers, yet they must be considered as special additions to the ordinary gift of the Holy Spirit for the ratification and confirmation of their baptismal covenant. This is clearly shown by the question of St. Paul to these Disciples : " Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed 1 " which proves that there was an established form, a ceremony instituted for the purpose of conveying the ordinary grace and assistance of the Holy Spirit to those who had received Christian baptism ; which form and cere- mony we find him using, viz., " the laying on of hands ." On page 82, you rtfer to these two passages, and tell us that the imposi- tion of hands there used was to confer " spiritual grace," which is true. But if by the word "spiritual " you mean (as you seem to teach in the same paragraph) only extraordinary gifts, I must be permitted to disagree with you. The Apostolic aga was emphatically the age of miracles. Everything in the Christian Church or system was more or less miraculous. Even Faith, the great means of our justification, was the instrument by which the early Christians wrought miracles, and miracles were also declared by our Lord Himself, to be the signs or evidences of their having the true fuith. " And these signs shall follow them that believe, in my name shall they cast " out devils, they shall speak with new tongues, they shall take up serpents, " and if they drink any deadly thing it slial) not hurt ihem, they shall lay " hands on the sick and they shall recover." (rr) You will readily admit that these signs do not now " follow them that believe." Yet, I trust, you will not, therefore, conclude that faith in our Lord Jesus Christ has perished from the earth, nor yet that because these signs have ceased as accompani- mL'uts of faith, that it is no longer a necessary requisite to our justification. Even so, we have no right to cast aside an establ shed rite and custom of the Apostolic Church — the Laying on of hands in Confirmation, simply because in that age extraordinary gifts were also given with the ordinary one of the strengthening, ratifying, sealing and confirming influence of the Holy Spirit, which extraordinary powers have now ceased. Besides, if this " laying on " of hands " was only for the purpose of conferring miraculous powers, why could not St. Philip have imparted it, who certainly had the power of work- ing miracles ? Why was it necessary for St. Peter and St. John to go down to Samaria in order to impart it ? The answer is obvious. Tlie Apostolic rite of laying on of hands, commonly called Confirmation, was a custom and observance distinct from that of Ordination, for it was conferred upon both men and tvomen, and in every instance on record it was performed or administered by an Apostle 07dy. The command to St. Tim- othy to " lay hands suddenly on no man," (x) if it does not refer solely to Confirmation, at least iuclndes it. Here also we find this power vested in one belonging to ths Apostolic Order, for, as we have seen before, St. Tim- othy is called such in Holy Scripture, (y) But was this Apostolic rite continued in the Church after the Apostolic age, and was it administered under the same restiictions ; that is, was it the privilege alone of those who succeeded to th. ordinary powers and authority of the Apostolic order ? or was it conferred also on the Presbyters ? We will refer to the testimony of the early Christian writers for the truth of this matter. For the quotations in this part I am indebted to the Rt. Rev. C. T. Quintard, D.D., Bishop of Tennessee, who for many years has been my personal triend, Plowever, I have taken the liberty of making a few of them more full, and luiiy say also that most of them I have verified by a personal examination of the works of Terlullian, St. Cyprian, St. Cyril, St. Pacian, Eucebius, &o. (v) Acts xix. 1-fi. (w) St. Mark xvi, {x) I Tim. V. 2a. (y) Vide Letter IV 17-18. ^' ■H THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT? 85 "T Tertullian, Presbyter of Carthage, born iu Carthage in A.D. 160, says : " Likewise in baptism itself the act is carnal — that we are dipped in the " water ; the effect spiritual — that we are delivered from our sins. Naxt to " this the hmid in laid upon us calling it,pun and inviting the Holy Spirit through ^' the blessing. • * * But this also cometh of an ancient mystery wherein " Jacob blessed his grandsons born of Joseph, Ephriam and Manasseh, his " liands being laid upon their heads." (a) Again " the flesh is sealed that the " soul may be defended; tlie flesh is overshadowed by the imposition of hands " tluit the soul may be illuminated by th« Spirit." (b) St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage from A.D. 248 to 258, refers to this rito incidentally in describing the matters which engaged the attention of the Council of Carthage, viz., Baptism as administered by the heretics, and says : " L'liey who have been washed without the Church and among heretics and " schismatics have been tainted by the defilement of profane water ; when " they come to us and the Church which is one, ought to be baptized in that " it sufliceth not to lay hands on them that they may receiv$ the Holy Ghost " unless they receive also the baptism of the Church." (c) Again, in speak- ing of the same subject in another place, he says: "For they who " believed in Samaria had believed with a true faith ♦ * • * ♦ " nud had been baptized by Philip the deacon whom the same " apostles had sent. Wherefore inasmuch as they had obtained the " legitimate baptism of the Church, it was not fitting that they " should be baptized again, but only what wai lacking was done by Peter " aud John, namely, that prayer being made for ihem with laying on of " hands, the Holy Spirit shoidil he invoked aiul poured upon them, which 7iow " also is done among us. Those baptized in the Church being brought to the " bishops of the Church, and by our prayer and laying on of hands they receive " the Holy Ghost and are perfected with the seal of the Lord." {d) And in showing the inconsistency of Stephen and the Roman clergy in recog- nizing the validity of heretical and schismatical baptism, aud yet refusing to rec'ignize their confirmation he says, " Or if they attribute the effect of " baptism to the majesty of the name ; so that they who are wheresoever " aud howsoever baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, must be deemed to "be renewed and sanctified; why should not hands be by them, laid on the " persons baptized in the name of the same Christ, for the receiving of the Holy " Ghost ? Why does not the majesty of the same name avail in the laying " 0)6 of hands, which they contend hath availed in the sanctification of bap- " tism ;" and again '• Moreover a person is not bom, by the laying on of " hands when he receives the Holy Ghost, but in baptism." (e) Cornelius, Bishop of Rome hold a council in that city in A.D. 251, at which the schismatic Novatian and his adherents were condemned. In sending an account of this council to Fabian, Bishop of Antioch, and speaking of Novatian, Cornelius says, " Who aided by the exorcists when attacked " by an obstinate disease, and being supposed at the point of death, was *' baptized by aspersion in the bed on which he lay ; if indeed it is proper to " siiy that one like him did receive baptism. But neither when he recovered " from his disease did he partake of other things which the rules of the " church prescribe, nor was he sealed (in confirmation) by the bishop. But " as he did not obtaiii this how could he obtain the Holy Ghost ? " (f) DioNYSius, Bishop of Alexandria A.D. 232-248, of whom Moshein says, " that the Ancients used no flattery when they styled him Dionysius the " Great," wrote an epistle on baptism to Stephen, Bishop of Rome, of which Eusebius gives the following account, " To this Stephen, Dionysius wrote (a) De Bapt. 7 ard 8. (b) De Resur. Garnis 8. (c) Epist. ad Steph. 1. (d) Epist. 73, ad Jubiano 8. (e) Epist. 74 ad Pompei, 7 and 8. (/) Epist. ad Fabio in Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. vi. 0.43. 86 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS 1t1 n " the first of his epistles on baptism, as there was iio little controviTsy " whether those turning from any heresy should be purified by baptism ; as " the anciant practice prevailed with regard to such, that they shouhi unly " have imposition of hands with prayer," (g) Optatus, Bishop of Milevi in Africa A.D. 866, writing against the Donatists says, " Christ descended into the water, not that in Him wlio is " God was anything that could be made purer, but that the water (of biip- " tism) was to precede the future Unction (confirmation) for the initiating, " ordaining and fulfiling the mysteries of baptism." {h) St. Jerome, a Presbyter of Palestine and a distinguished Biblical scholar of the same century, in speaking of this apostolic Rite says, " I Vi^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) J/, .^''•^^ <■ ^° A% %^ / .< ^ % t 1.0 Hi ^ I.I us 1^ 2.5 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.25 1 1.4 ||.6 . 1 4» ► Va V] ^m o^ .^V /^/ O^^ w Photographic Sciences Corporation # m, sj .^♦v "^ <> i\ 4v ^ ..^ 4^> '^ &' m THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT? stances which took place in their own times, ard of which they were per- fectly competent to judge. Were yon writing on the subject of the Divinity of our Lord, you would have no hesitaticm to quote from the celebrated letter of Pliny, a h'lathen, to the fact that the early Christians "sang hymnft "to Christ as God ; " nor vet that passage of Josephus, a Jew, to the fact that thf man Jesus, " if, indeed, to be lawful to call Him a man," " was the "Chnst." Surely, then, Christian writers ought to be as credible witnesses concerning the order and organization of the Christian Church, especially as they bear testimony to facts with which they were personally acquainted. My object in this letter is to arrange the principles which we have found to exist in the constitution of the Apostolic Chur<-h, and then to apply them to the three modes of ecclesiastical polity which we have agreed to call " In- dependency," " Presbytery," and "Prelacy" The first main principle of the Apostolic Church was that our Lord Jesus Christ was its Head, that He was "Head over all things to the Church, which is His body." im) The seconci principle was that under Christ there was a permanent Ministry composed of three Orders : the first order known and referred to ^n the New Testament as Apostles, messengers or angeh!, bat in after .ages known as Bish"PS ; the second order aa Presbytehh (elders) bishops, and prophets, but now known as Priests or presbyters ; the third order called Dea- cons, andalsc^ pastors undteachers, now distinguished by thename Deacons, (n) The third principle was that to the highest Order alone belonged the right and prerogative of laving on of hands whether in Ordination or in Confir- mation, and also the chief or supreme authority to exercise the power of the keys : in other words, in this order all ecclesiastical powers and prerogatives were vest'^d and flowed through them, (o) The fourth principle was tliat the second Order, ufider the control of the highest Order, possessed the power of the keys and authority to preach and administer the Sacraments of our Lord's institution, (p) The tTfth,— That the third )r lowest Order of the Ministry, by virtue of their ordination, had the authority to preach, baptize and otherwi'»e assist the other orders, tq) The sixth, — The Christian Ministry, being "Ambassadors for God," " Ministers of Christ," and ' Stewards of the Mysteries of God," must have derived, and did derive, their authority as such from God, and not from the people to whom they were Ambassadors, (r) In applying these principles I shall invert their order and begin with the sixth principle, and proceeding backward to the first, apply them to each form of ecclesiastical polity, and then leave the settlement of the question to your own axiom, " The modern Church which emhodies in its government ^^ most apostolic principles, comes nearest in its government to the Ayostolic Church. {$) We will commence ^ith your own body, the Presbyterians. Presbytery. This system maintains, as we have &een, that there is but one order in the ministry of the Word and Sacraments, called Presbyters, to whom, in their corporate capacity beh^ig all the prerogatives of tlie Christian Min- istry, with full powers to ordain and to exercise the power of the keys. In applying the sixth principle to this system 1 am bound to say that in all their standards of doctrine and discipline, except 1st book Discipline, it is distinctly and clearly maintained that the Ministry of Christ must derive (m) (Eph. i. 23, v. 23, and Col. i. 18) (Vide Letter xii.) (») (rtde Letters iv., v., vi, and vii.) {o) (Fifif Letter xvi.) {p) (K»de Letter xvi.) (g) (Kidt' Letter xvi.) , (r) (Kid r THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT? 9» a proven from the inrariable practice of the Church of England, the United States, and Canada, and by the express declaration of the ' ' Preface to the " form and manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating Bishops, Priests " and Deacons." That the Church of England recitmises and maintains beyond all con- troversy that our Lord Jesus Christ is head over all things to the Church — that He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords — 1 have already proven, (w) and that she teaches and acts in accordance with this principle is evident in every service she engages in, by every solemn act which she performs and , by every ordinance she administers, doing all in His nami>, by His authority '^ and through the ministry ivhich He appointed Nor does the act of paWidw .>it (x) which declares the King to be the head of the Church of England contradict this in the least degree. That act simply recognised in the King of England in opposition to all foreign potentates, especially the Popes of Rome, a visitorial power or authority viz., that it rested with him and not with them to visit, repress, redress, re- form, order, correct, restrain, and amend errors, heresies, »fec., while by the act of the church even this authority was declared to belong to the King "only so far as the law of Christ would allow." Nor did King Henry the viii. himself, consider that the title " head of the Cliurch of Enghind " con- ferred upon him any purely spiritual powers whatsoever, as may he se^n from his letter to the clergy of the Province of York (A.D. 1533^ on this very sub- ject, and which I append to those letters for the benefit of "slanderous folk" whose minds are offended by this title as applied to him, and iu which he very severely censures and chastizes those who strain the words to make them imply what those who first used them never intended. , We find, then, on minute and patient examinaticm, that the six main principles of government that were by inspired men established in the Apos- tolic Church are all recognized and practically carried out, not by Indepen- dency, nor yet by Presbyterianism, but by Prelacy alone — by that very Church of whose order of government yon so boldly " infer that v,hile that Church may be entitled to great respect as a human system maintained by Act of Parliament, and numbermg in its ranks many estimable people, at the peril of excommunication, we feel bound to declare our con- viction that the government of the Church of England is repugnant to the Word of God." (y) As you are a Professor of Church History, of course you would not have made the above sweeping assertion without being prepared to show what ''human" being organized the "system," and when and where he did so. Permit me, then, to ask you, for the beneht of th(J8e who are not professors of Church History, at what time, in what place, hy ivluit person was this *' human system" organized ^ We know no other system or body claiming to be a Church of Christ than that you thus vilify, of whose form of ecclesiastical government the same statement can be made without departure from the truth. I remain, etc. LETTER XVHL Mt Dear Sir, — My work is drawing to a close, and before I ta'.d leave of you I will ask you to glance back with me at the ground over which we Lave passed in this examination of your " Inquiry at the oracles of God as " to whether any existing form of Church Government is of Divine right," (w) Vide letter xii. (xl 26 Henry viii., Char (y) pp. 47 and 48. 1. n THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT? 60 as to recall a few of the slips, inaccuracies, mistakes, etc, I have pointed out in your little work. 1. In yonr definition of the word Church I have pointed out yonr sad mistake in >,'iving tlie following challeufje, for any man to " produce, if he " can, any passage from the word of God where the sense would be impaired " if the phrase Society of Christians or Christian Assembly were substituted for ♦' the word Church " (a). I have given three passages where the substitution is ;il)snlutely incorrect, and tivo where it would produce the merest non- sense (b). 2. On page 16 j'ou tell us that " it is proved quite possible by a thorough *' and unprejudiced examination of the Scriptures to discover the main prin- " ciples that entered into the constitution of the Apostolic Cluirch." While agreeing with this proposition, I have shown that your examination of Scrip- ture in reference to the ordination of St. Timothy if unprejudiced was cer- tainly not thorough (c). 3. On p'lge 20, where you enumerate the office bearers in the Church, you drop from the list Prophets, although mentioned much more frequently than that of Evangelists which you introduce. While you completely ignore the existence of the Angels of the Seven Churches of Asia (d). 4. On same page you assure us that the Apostles and Evangelists were but temporary, and " not intended to be perpetuated," yet furnish no proof for your daring assumption. I have^jrowH both by the plain words of Holy Scriptures and by that of which you are a professor — Church History — that the Order of Apostles was intended to be, has been, and will be perpetuated *' Always, even to the end of the world '' {e) ; and that Evangelists did not con- stitute an Order in the Ministry of the Apostolic Church, but was a certain work or sphere of duty wliich either Apostle, a Deacon, or even a Layman might and even did fulfil (/). I will also add here that the American Presbyterians condemn your statement as is proven by the fact that they have a special form for the Ordination of Evangelists (h), 5. On page 21 you say that " the Deacons had charge of temporal " concerns and were entrusted with the special duty of ministering to the '• necessit'3s of the poor." I have shown that "ministering to the necessi- " ties of the poor " was tho only " temporal concern " pertaining to the office of a Deacon as set forth in the Holy Scriptures. I have also proved that Deacon- as such both Preached and Baptized and were thus identified with the Pastors and Teachers referred to in Holy Writ Qi). 6. On page 22 you state that " the Apostles were the only office bearers " chosen during the lifetime of the Lord." I have proven that he " appointed " other Seventy also (i). 7. In the same letter I have shown that you contradict Mosheim, when you state that " hitherto (i. e. before tho election of the Seven recorded in " Acts vi.), the Twelve had attended to the wants of the poor." ( j) Mosheim gives reasons and authorities for his position, you give and can give none for yours. (a) P. 10. (6) Vide Lettter 11. (c) Letter IX. (d) Letters III., V. (e) Letters m., IV., VL, VH., VHI., &c. (/) Letter V. {g) Form Govt. p. 449. (h) Letter V. (i) Letter yil. (;■) page 24. / THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH WHICH IS IT? 96 1 1 X e Ell le i- 36 %i kh rg 3d m in m or 8. On page 24 you say, *' In the Apostolic Church the people appointed Mattliias to be a Miuinter — a Bishop — an Apostle. " On the contrary, I have proven from the wording of the passage and even from iu interpretation by able non-prelatists, th.it the people did nothing^ of the kind — that it was the act of the eleven upobtles alone to appoint " the two." 9. Your interpretation of ;he word cheirotonetMhtes, as used in Acts xiv. 23, I have shown to be incorrect, and that it was the act of the Apostles Barnabas and Paul, not (d the people. 10. The cause of the appointment of the Seven I have shown to be not the act of the people as you wish to make it appear, but that of the Apostles themselves, •' as is proven by the words "Wherefore brethren, look ye out ".among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, ^^ ivhom we may appoint over this business,''^ Thus your first principle "that " the office-bearers were ek cted by the people " is proven to be no princi- ple of the government of the Apostolic Church, (fc) On page 20 you say that TituH was an " Evangelist." I have shown that he is not once called such in the New Testament. (/) 12. Your second principle, as you express it on page 28, " The offices of Bishops and Elder were identical." I have shown it to be absurd, for no two offices can be identical any more than two men can be identical, (m) I have also proven that the Order now called Bishops were in the New Testa- ment called Apostles, and that the Order now known as Priests or Presbyters have the names Bishop and Presbyter or Elder applied to them interchange- ably, (n) 13. Your third principle " that each church there was a plurality of " elders " I have shown to be something which you neither did nor could prove, and that without fear of contradiction we might say that iu each church there was no< a plurality of elders, (c) 14. In the same letter I have shown that you contradict yourself when j'ou Ray Barnabas and Paul " appointed Elders in every church." (p) as you tell us just before, that these very elders were appointed to office by the popular vote, {q) 15. 1 also showed that the passage would not bear the stress you lay on the word " every " without making the inspired writer state what was not true. 16. I have shown also that you betrayed a slight ignorance of ancient history when you called the large, wealthy and populous city of Philippi " a contemptible town on the outskirts of Macedonia, (r) 17. I reminded you that in order to maintain your third principle it is necessary to prove that in the church of Ephesus and of Phillipi there was but a single congregation, or else that in the church " in the house " of Nymphas Philemon or of Aquila there was a plurality of elders. All this however, you must fail to do. (s) 18. Your fourth principle, viz., "that ordination was the act of the " Presbytery," I have proven to have no foundation in Holy Scripture, {t) 19. I have shown that in quoting I. Tim. iv. 14, and omitting II. Tim i. 6, you seem to have fallen i' to the temptation you refer to on page 18, that is "to quote in " your "favourite texts the sound of which only is on" your " side." 20. I have nko shown thai according to the teaching of John Calvin, the inventor of the Presbyterian syetera, the word " Presbytery " as used in I. Tim. iv. 14, does not mean a body corporate of Elders, but simply the office to which St. Timothy was ordained by St. Paul. 21. The circumstance recorded in Acts xiii. 1-8, which you regard as an (k) Letter vii. (n) Letter viii. (q) p. 24. , , (I) Letter v. (o) Letter ix. (r) p. 13. (to) Letter ip) p. 30. («) Letter ix. vm. (0 L"tter X. 96 THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH — WHICH IS IT ? Ordination, I have proven to be none whatever, and even granting it to be one, that it can afford no precedent for ordination by a Presbytery, and therefore no support to your principle, (u) 22. The third case which you bring to maintain this principle, I have proven to be nothing to the purpose, (v) 23. Your fifth principle, which you state to be " the privilege of appeal " to the assembly of Elders, and the right of government exercised bv them '• in their corporate capacity," 1 have proven to have no foundation in Holy Scripture, and that the very case you bring tc support it establishes the con- trary. That the Council at Jerusalem cannot by the greatest stretch of the imagination be made to appear either a Session, a Presbytery, a Synod, or a General Assembly, (ic) 24. In the same letter I have shown that if this Council at Jerusalem establishes any precedent for Courts of Appeal in the Church, it is that of making an appeal from suburban churches to the Bishop with his Council of Presbyters, or from the Church of one city to the Metropolitan or chief city of a ouuntry, or to a General Council of the Church. 25. Your sixth principle, " that Christ alone is Head of the Church," I have shown to be the fundamental principle of Christianity, and fully, taught and acted upon by the Church of England, (x) 26. I have pointed out the iniquitous nature of the charge you have brought against the Church of England, in stating that she makes the reign- ing monarch the head of the Church in opposition to our Lord Jesus Christ. 27. I also remarked upon your positive unfairness in giving a mutilated quotation from Article XXXVII., and omitting to give the very portion which fully explains what you quote. 28. Although you are a Professor of Church History, I took the liberty of pointing out to you the meaning of the word " spiritual " as used in many Acts of Parliament, Pubic Documents, and Canons of the Church. 29. I have also shown that the Confession of Faitli of the Westminster assembly of divines places supreme judicial authority in the hands of the Civil Magistrate in matters of Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship, over and above their synods. 30. While the Church of England recognizes in the Civil Magistrate " that only prerogative which we see to have been given to all godly princes in Holy Scripture by Ood Himself, (b) 31. I have proven that you contradict the public standard of your own body in reference to " ruling Elders." (c) 32. I have proven that in the opinion of learned Presbyterians your " true exposition " of I. Tim. v. 17, is a forced and dubious one. (d) These, sir, are a few of the slips, mistakes, &c., which I find in your little work, and I trust you will pardon me for pointing them out. How- ever, that my letters are free from defects I cannot hope, as they were written at a time when mental anxieties and bodily weakness, combined with the cares of a parish of some two hundred square miles in extent, pressed heavily upon me and cauPi'-' frequent interruptions. Yet at the same time I am willing that you should examine my work, as I have done yours, by the word of God, and where you can point out errors of argument, doctrine, or of fact in my letters, I can assure you of a ready withdrawal, and an assertion of the truth as may be shown forth by you or those who may act for you. I remain, sir. Very truly yours, THOS. G. POETEE. Hillsdale, Ont,, June 29th, 1877. (u) Letters X. and XI. (x) Letter XII. (6) (v) Letter X. Letter XII. (c) (w) Letter XI. Letter XIII. (d) Letter XIU. »1 ^ M I I t [i ^ APPENDIX. APPENDIX A. / ■^ ACT 26, HENRY VIII., C. 1, A. D. 1534. An Act containing tlic Iling's Hij^hnesH to he supreme htad of the Church of England, ard tn have authority to reform and redress all errors and heresi<:;6 and abuser in .he same. Albeit the King's Majesty justly and rightfully is, and ought to be, the su- preme head of the Church of England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this realm in their convocaions ; yet nevertheless, for corroboration and conlirma- tion thereof, and for iccrease of virtue in Christ's religion within this realme of England, and to express and extirp all errors, heresies and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same: be it enacted by authority of this present Parliament that the King, our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors. Kings of this realme, shall to taken, accepted and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicans Ecclesire, and shall have and enjoy annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realme, as well the style and title thereof, as ail honors, dignities, pre-eminences, jurisdiction, privileges, authorities, immu- nities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity of supreme her.-^ of the same Church belonging and appertaining ; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offences, contempts and enormities whatsoever they be, which, by any manner, spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may law- fully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained or amended most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of peace, unity, and tranquility of this realme, any usage, custom, foreign laws, foreign authority, prescription, or any other thing or things to the contraiy hereof notwithstanding. . ^ . , -'■. -- ; ;..= APPENDIX B.- >:-^ ANE SCHORT SOMME OF THE FIRST BUIK OF DISCIPLINE. I. Doctrine.— The word of God onlie,quhilk is the New and Auld Testament, sal be taught in everie kirk within tiiis realme, and all contraire doctrine to the same sal bo impugnit and utterlie suppressit. We aflirme that to be contrarious doctrine to the word, that man has inventit and imposed upon the consciences of men be lawis counsalUis, and constitutions, without the expresse command of Godis word. Of this kynd are vowis of chastitie, disgysit apparell, superstitious oWnervatiouu of fasting dayis, difference of meatis for conscience saik, prayer for the dead, call- ing upon Sanctis, v/itli sic nther inventiouns of men. In this rank ar holie dayis inventit bo men, sic as Christimcs, Circumcision, Epiphania, Parificatioun, and utheris fond feastis of our ladie : with the feastis of the Apostilliw. Martyris, and Virgins, with utheris quhilk we judge utterlie to be abolisheit furth of this realme, because they have ua assurance in (iodis word. All mainteinaris of sic abomina- tions suld be puuishit with the civlll sword. The word is sufficient for ovc salvation, and theirfoir all thingis neidfull for us ar conteinit in it. The Scriptures sal be red in privie houses for removing of this gross ignorance. II. SucramcntU. — The sacramentis of necessitie are joynit with the word, quhilk are twa onlie, — baptism( aid the tabill of the Lord. The preaching of the word man preceid the ministratioun of the sacramentis. In the dew administra- tioun of the sacramentis all things suld be done according to the word, nothing being addit, nor zit diminisht. The sacramentis suld be miuisterit efter the order of the Kirk of Geneva. All ceremoneis and reittis inventit be men suld be abolish- eit, and the simpill word foUowit in all poyntis. 98 APPENDIX. The uiiuiRiratioun of the HacranieutiH in iia wayis suld be givm him in qu^iais moiitli Uod has not ])nl the word of oxhortatioun. In the niiniHtratioun of the tabill Huni conifortul)il placefi may be red of the Scriptiirefl. III. Idolatrie, — All kynd of idolatrie and monumentis of idolatrio Huld be abolishit, hIc aH places dedicat to idolatrie and relickis. Idolatrie is all kynd of worshiping of Uod not conteinil in the word, as the mess, invocatioun of saiuctis, adoratioun of iniHKes, and all utlur sic thingis inventit bo man. IV. The Minixtrii'. — No man suld enter in the miuiBtrie without ane lawfull vocatioun. The lawfull vocatioun staudcth in the electiouii of the peopill, examin- atiouu of the ministric, and admissioun be thamo baith. The extraordinar voca- tioun haw ano utner consideratioue, seing it is wrocht only be God inwartlie in menis hartis. No minister suld be intrused upon any particular kirk without thair consent ; hot gif oiiy kirk be negligent to elect, than the superintendent witli his couusall Buld provide ane qualift it man within fortie dayis. Nather for raritie of men. necessity of teiching, no for any corruptione of time, suld unable personis be admitted to the miuistrie. Better it is to have the rowme vaikand than to have unqualitiet personis, to the sclauder of the niinistrie and hurt of the kirk. In the raritie of qualifiet men we suld call unto the Loid, that he of his gudnes wald send forth trew laboreris to his harvest : the kirk and faith- full magistrate suld compel] sic as have the giftis to take the office upon thamc. Wo sould consider first quhidder God has geven the giftis to him quhame we wald choise : for God callis no man to the miuistrie quhame he armes not with necessarie (i ' ftis. Personis not^d with infamy, or unabill to edifie the kirk be helsome doctrine, or of ane corrupt judgment, suld not be admittit nor zit reteiuit in the ministrie ; the Princeis pardon nor reconciliatioun with the kirk takis not away the infamie befoir men : thairfoir public edictis suld be set furth in all places quhair the per- sone is knawin, and strait charge gevin to all men to reveill gii thay knaw ony cap- ital f^ryme committit be him, or gif he be sdanderous in his life. Personis proponed be the kirk sal be examinated publicklie be the suj)crinten- dant and brethren in the principal kirk of the diooie or province. Thay sal geif publick declaratione of thair giftis, be the interpretatione of some places of Scrip- ture. Thay sal be examinated openlie in all the principall poyntis that now ai' in controversie. Qulicn thay are approvin be the judgment of the brethren, thay suld mak sindrie sermones befoir thair congregations afoir they be admittit. In thair admissicn, the office and dewtie of miuisteris and peopill sould be declarit be sum godlie and learnit minister. And sua publiclie befoir the people sould they be placeit in thair kirk, and joinit to thair Hock at the desire of the samein : uther ceremonies except fasting with prayer, sic as laying on of hands, we judge not nocessair in the institution of ministerie. Ministeris sa placeit may not for their awin plesure leve thair awiu kirkis, nor zit thair kirkis refuse thaim, without sum wechtie causis tryit and knawin : but the General Assemblie for guid causes may remove ministeris fiom place to place with- out the consent of the particular kirkis. ISic as ar preichers alreddie placit, and not found qualifiet efter this forme of tryall sal be maid reidaris : and sa for no sort of men sal this rigour of examination be omittit. V. Vicif/o/tx.— lieidaris are hot for a time, till, through reiding of the Scrip* tures, they may come to furder knawledge and exerceis of the kirk in exhorting and explaining of the Scriptures. No reider sail be admittit within twentie-ane zeiris of age, and unless thair be ane hope that be reiding he sail schortlie com to exhor- tiug. lieiders fund unabill, efter tua zeiris' exerceis, for the ministrie, sould be removit, anduthers als lang put in thair rowme. No reider sal attempt to minister the sacramentis uutill he be abill til exhorte and perswad be helsum doctrine. Reideris a landwart sal teiche the zouth of the parochinis. Ministeris and reide'is sal begin evir sum bulk of the Auld or New Testament, and continow upon it unto the end ; and not to hip from place to place as the Papistis did. VI. Provison for Miiiinteris. — The ministeris' stipend sould be moderated that nether thei have occasion to be caiafull for the warld, not zit wanton nor insolent onywise. Thair wyfis and children sould be sustenit not omie in thair time, but also after thair death. VII. Kldcri:' and DeacouU. — Men of the best knawledge, judgement, and con- H- I. APPENDIX. 99 t versatioun soukl he cliosia for eldcris ai.'d deacon iw. Tluiir clrction sal bi- zeiirlie, qnbair it may ho convonientlie obs«rvit. How tlio vottiH and Hntlfraj,'tH iimy l>e best resavit witli ovorie nianiH fredonio in vottinq, wo leif to tbe jtid^'t'uiciit of evorie particular kirk. Tbei sal bo publiclie a«linittit. and admonisbod of tbair oflico, and also tbo peopil of tbair dntio to them, at tbitir first admisnion. Tbair oilico is to awsist the ininiHtcriH in thoir cxocution 'of diKcipline in all grit and weif];btio matteris. Tb(! olderiH sal watcho upon all menis miinorlH, roli- gionn, and conversatioun, that ar within thair charijo ; c(»rri;ct all licontiouH loveris, or else accuso them bcfoir tbo scsKioun. Tbei Hould tak beid to the doctrine, diligence, and behavior of tbair mininter . and bis househald ; and gif neid be, admonishe and correcto tbanie acordin^lie. It is undcct'.nt for ministeris to be bnirdit in ano ail-houso or tavorne, or to hant mekil the court, or to be occupiet in counsel of civill iitTiiiris T])e office of dcaconis is to gadder and distriijuto tbo almos of the pniro accord- ing to the (.'.irectione of sessione. The deaconis suld aKsist the asscmblio in judge- ment, and may reid publiclie gif neid reciuyris. Eldoris and deaconis, being judges of utber menis maneris, man witli tbair househald leve godlilie, and be subject to the censure of kirk. It is not necessair to appoynt ane publick stipend for elderis and deaconis, sein thai ar changed zearlie, and may wait upon tluiir awiu vocatiouu with the charge of the kirk. VIII. Siiprriiitfiidftitin. — The necessitie, nominatioun, examination and insti- tution of Buperiiitendcntis, ar at large contisnit in the Buik of Discipline, and in monie tbingis doc agrie with the exuminatioun and admission of ministeris. Prin- cipal! townis sal not bo spoiizeit of tliair ministers to be appointed superintei'dentis. Suporintendentis ainis admittit sal not be changed without grit causeis and consid- erationis. Superintendentis sal have their awin special kirkis besyde the common charge of ntheris. Tbei sal not remaine in ane phice untill thair kirkis be provydit of ministeris or reideris. Tbei sal not remaine abone twentie dayis in ane place in thair visitation till tbei pass throw thair boundis. Thei sal preiehe tbemselfis tbryce in the weik at the leist. Quban thei come hanie again to thair awin kirk, thei man be occupyit in preiching and edifieiug of the kirk : tbei sal not remain at thair clieif kirk abone thrie or four monethis, bot sal pas aganc to tbair visitatioun. In tbair visitation thei sal not onlie preiehe, but als examine the doctrine, life, diligence, and behavior of tlie ministeris, reideris, elderis, and deaconis. The sail consider the ourder of the kirk, the maneris of the peopil, how the puire r.r provi- dit, how the zouth ar instructit, bow the discipline and policie of the ki/k ar keipit, how heinous and horribil crymis ar corrected. They sal admonish, and dress tbingis out of ordour, with thair counsel as thei may best. Superintendentis ai subject to the censure and correction not onlie of the synodal conventioun, bot also of thair awin kirk and uther within tbair jurisdic- tioun. Quiiatsumevir crime deservis conectione or depositione inony uther minis- ter, the same deservis the lyke in the superintendent. Thair stipend wald be considerit and augmentit abone uther ministeris, be rea- sone of thair gritt charges and travell. IX. Dincipliiie — As no common-welth can bo governet without executione of gude lawis, na mair can the kirk be reteined in puritie without discipline. Discip- line standcth in the correctioue of these tbingis that ar contrarie to Goddis law, for the edefieing of the kirk. All estatis witbni the realme ar subject to the discipline of the kirk, als well rouleris and preicheris as che common pcopill. lu secreit and privie faultis the ordour prescrived be our Maister suld be ob- served, quhairof we neid not to wrj'to at length, seing it is largelie declared in the Buik of Excommunication.* Befoir the sentence proceid, labour sould be takin with the giltie be hisfreindis, and public prayer maid for his conversione unto God. Quhen all is done, the min- ister sould ask gif ony man will assuir the kirk of bis obedience, and gif ony man promeis, than the sentence sal stay for that time. Gif eftor publick proclameingof thair namis they promeis obedience, that sbouid be declarit to the kirk (juha hard their former rebellione. The sentence being ainis pronounced, na mcoiber of the kirk sould have com- panie with thame under pain of excommunicationo, except sic personis as are exemit *The Book of Excommunicatioa was written in the year 1367 ; so this summary was "Hot written till some time afver.^ 100 APPENDIX. be the law. Thair children houIiI not be rcHavit to baptiwrnd in thair uaiuo, hot bo sum member of the kirk (juha sal promeift tor the ohildren, and detaiBt th«' parontifi impiotie. Comittarin of horribil uryniiH worthies of death, gif tlie civill Hword wpair thom, ihei Houhl bo haldciiWH dcid t<> xin, and curBt'd in thuir factiH. (lif (Jod move thair liartis to repentance, the kirk cannot deny tharae concilia- tione, thair repentance behiR tryed and fund trew. Home of tho ohleriH Hould reeavo sic perHo.iiH publicklie in tho kirk in taken of reconciliatione. X. Miiriapi'. — PerwoniH under cnir of utheris Ral not mary withont thair con- sent lauchfiillic rcipiyrit. Quhcn the purentiH and ntheriH ar hard ami stubburn, than the kirk and ma>{iHtratis sould enter in thu parentis rowme, and di'cerne upone the eqnitie of the eauH without nITectioiic. Tho kirk an-> schuils ar the seid of the ministrie, diligent cair suld be taken over thame that thny be orderit in reli, ■ 'lui and conversatioun according to the word. Everie town sould have ane scliiii.'-maister, and a landwart the minister or reider suld teich the childrein that cum to thame : Men sud be com- peliit be the kirk and magistratis to send thair bairnes to the sehulis. Pure nienis children suld be helpit. XVI. Universitun. — Thei universities suld be erectit in this realme, Sanot Andros, Glasgow, and Aberdein : Thair ordor of })roceiding. provision, and degreis, with tliair reidc^ris and ofHceris, ar at length declarit in the Buik of Discipline ; hovr mony eollegis, how mony classes in everie college, and quhat suld be taucht n everie class, is thair expressit. .A contribntioun sal be maid at the entrie of the studentis for the nphalding of the place : And ane sufficient stipend is ordeinit for everie member (/f the universi- tie according to thair degrie. XVII Rnttig of the Kirk. — The haill rentis of the kirk almsit in Papist"'^ gal be referrit againe to the kirk, that thairbe the ministrie, schulis, and the pm aay be meuteinit witliin this realme according to thair first institutioun. Everie man .suld be sufferit to leid and use his c^viu teithis, and nocht man suld leid ane uther manis teithis. The uptrmest claithe, the cors-present, the oleirk-meill, the pascht offeringis, teithe-ale, and haill uther sic thingis, suld be dischargit. The deaconis suld tak up the haill rentis of the kirk, disponing thame to the ministrie, the schulis, and puir within thair bounds, according to the appointment of the kirk. All Freavies, Noneries, Cliantereis, Chapelanreis, Annualrentis, and aii thingis dotit to the bospitnlitie, sal be reducit to tlie help of the kirk. Merehantis and craftisnien in burnh suld contribute to the HUj)port of the kirk. XVII. BtiriiiU. — We desire that buriall be sa honourablic handlit that the hoip of our resurrectioun may be nurishchit ; and all kynd of superstitionc, idola- trio, and quhatsumever thing proceideth of the fals opinione, may be avoided. At the buriall nether singing of psalmis nor reiding sal be nsit, leist the peopill Rould be nurischit thairbe in that auld superstitione of praying for the dead : But this we remit to the judgement of the j)articular kirkis with advyce of the miuisteris. All superstitioun being removit, miuisteris sal not bo burdeuit with funeral ser- monis, seing that daylie sermouis are sufficient aneuch for mmistering of the living. Buriall sould be without the kirk in ane fine air, and place wallit and keipit hon- ourabllie. XIX. Repairing of Kirkis. — The kirk dois crnve maist earnestlie the Lordis '^^ '■3^ 102 APPENDIX. thair r.ssiHtance for hastie prepairing of all parocli kirkis, qnhair the peopill suld convene for the heiring of th« word and resaving of the pacramentis : Thin ropar- atiouii sou'd not onlie be in the wollis and fabrick, bat alse in all thingis neidfuU within, for the peopill and c'ecenr'os of the place appoyntit for Godia service. XX. Punixhment of Profauf.ris of the Sacrament is. — We desire strait lawis to be maid for punischment of tharae that abuse the saciamentia, als weill the minis- teris as reideris. The haiie saeramentis ar abusit quhen the minister is not lauch- fuUie callit, or quhen they are gevin to opin injuvareis of the treuth or to profane leiveris ; or quhen thay ar ministerit in an privie place without the word preiehit. The exempils of Scriptures do plainlie declair that the abusers of the sacramentis, and contemneris of tlie wor'', are worthic of deith. This our judgment for reformationn of the kirk sal beir witnes, baith befoir God and man, quhat we have cravit oi the nobilitie, and how they have obeyit our leiving admonitiounis. Thus far the Buik of Diaeipline quhilk was subseryvit be the Kirk and Lordis. APPENDIX C. Letter of King Henry VIII. to the Clergy of the Province of York, Anno 1533, toucli- inij his title of Supreme Head of the Church of England. llioHT Reverend Fathers in God, — Right trusty well-beloved, we greet you well, and have receiveci your letters dn* a at York, the sixth of May, containing a long discourse ol ycur mind and opinion concerning such words as have passed the clergy of the Province of Canterbury in the proeme of their g'^ant made unto us, the like v/hereol should now pass in that province. Albeit ye interlace such words of submission of your judgment and discharge of your duty towards us with humble fashio'i and behaviour, as we cannot conceive displeasure nor be miscontent with you, considering what you hnve said to us in times past in other matters, and what ye confess in your letters yourselves to have heard and known, noting also the effect of the same, we cannot but marvel sundry points and articles which vi^e shall open unto you as hereafter followeth. First, ye have heard, as ye say ye have, the said words to have passed in ihe (Jonvocation of Canterbury, where were present so many learned in divinity and law as the Bishops of Rochester, London, St. Asaph, Abbots ol Hyde, S. Rennet's, and many other , and in the law, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Bath ; and in the lower house of the clergy so many notable and great clerks whose persons and learning you know well enough. Why do ye not in this case with your self as you willed us in our great matter conform your conscience to the consciences and opinion of a great number. Such was your advice co us in the same our great matter which now we perceive ye take for no sure counsel for ye search the grounds not regarding their sayings. Nevertheless, forasmuch as ye examine their ground causes and reasons, in doing whereof ye seen rather to seek and examine that thing which night disprove their doings then that which might maintain the same. We shall answer yo.: briefly, without long diseourse, to the chief points of your said letters. Wherein taking for a ground that words were ordained to signifie things and cannot therefore by sinister interpretation alter the truth of them, but onely in the witg of per r erne pe- ov» th it tvould biinde and color the «a»K' ; by reason whereof, to good men, they signifie that thsy mean, or?ely doing their office ; and to men of worse sort, they oen'e for malntoinance of such meaning as they would imagine : so in using words we ought onely to regard and cousidar the expression of the truth in convenient speech and sentences, without overmuch scruple of super-preverse inter- pretations, as the malice of men may excogitate ; wherein both overmuch negligence is not tc be ccmm(.'rt((ed and too much diligence is not onely by duily experience in men's writings and laws shewed frustrate and void ; insomuch as nothing can be so oleerly and plainly written, spoken, and ordered, but that subtile wit hath been able tc scbvert the same ; but also the Spirit of God, which in His Scriptures taught us the contrary, as in the places which ye bring in and rehearse : — if the Holy Ghost had had regard to that whicli might have been perversely construed of these words. "Pater major Me est," and the other. "Ego et Pater unum sumus," there should have been added to the first " Humanitatis," to the second, " Substantia." And wherefore doth the Scripture call Christ " Primogenitum " whereupcu. and the adverb " dcnec " was maintained the errour " contra perpetuam Virginitatem Mariae?" Why ha^^e we in tiie Church S. Paul's Epistles, which S. Peter writeth to have been the occasion of errours ? Why did Christ speak many words whidh APKENDIX. 103 the Jews drew " ad calunjuium," and yet reformed them not? As when He said. " Destruite lemplum hoc, " Sc, meaning of His body ; whore " templum " with them had another signification : and i uch other hke ? There is none other cause hut this : " Omnia quie scripa sunt, ad aostram doctrinam scripta sunt." And by that learning we ought to apply and draw words to the truth, and so to understand them as they may signifie truth and not so to wrest them as they should maintam a lie. For otherwise, as hereticks have done with the Holy Scriptures, so shall all men do with familiar speech ; and if all things shall be brought into familiar dis- putation he that chall call us " Sunrsmum et anicum dominum" by that, means — and as goeth your argument — miglit bo reproved. For Chiist is indeed " Unicus Dominus et Sunremus," as we confess Him in the Church daily, and now it >s in opinion that " sancti" be not mediators, the contrary whereof ye affirm in your letters, because of the text of St. Paul, " Unus est Mediator inter Deum et Nom- inem." And after that manner of reasoning which ye use in the entry if any man should say " this land is mj own, and none hath right in it but 1," he might be reproved by the p.,alm " Domini est terra." For why should a rtutn call " tcrram aliquum" only hin, whereof Qod in the chief Lord and Owner. Why is it admitted in familiar speech to call a man dead, of whom the soul, which is the chief and best part, yet liveth ? How is it that we say this man or that man to be the founder of this Church, seeing that in one resj^ect God 11 only Founder ? We say likewise that ho is u good man to this Church, an especial benefactor ; that the Church is fallen down when the stones be fallen dowu, the people preserved and living ; and in all this manner of speech when we hear them it is not accustciued nor used to do as we do, that is to say, to druir the word " Church" to that fvuie wlierein the speech may be a He, but to take in that wherein it signirieth truth. Which accustomed manner, if ye had followed, you should not have needed to have labored so much in the declaration of the word " Ecclesia" in that significa- tion wherein it is most rarely taken and cannot without maintenace of too mani- fest a lie be applied to any man. For taking " Ecclesia" in that sense ye take it, St. Paul wrote amiss, writing to the Corinthians, saying, " Ecclesia Dei qua' est Corinthi," for by your definition, " non circumscribitur loco Ecclesia." In the Gospel, where Christ said " Die Ecclesifp" must needs have another interpretation and de.'inition than ye make " de Ecclesia" in your letters ; or else it were hard to make complaint to ail Christendom, as the case in the Gospel requireth. " Sed est candidi pectoris verba veritat: eccommodarc, ut ipsam rcferre (quod eorum officium est) non corrumpere videantar. ' Furthermore tlie lawyers that write " Ecclesia fallit et fallitur," what blasphemy do they afiinu if that definition should I,e given to " Ecclesia'' which you write in your letters. Wherein albeit ye write the truth for so far, jet forasmuch as yt- draw that to the words spoken of us, to the rei)robation of them, yet ye shew yourselves contrary to th(> ti aching of Scripture and] rather in- cliued, by applying a divers definition, to make that a lie which is truly spoken, then ' genuiuo sensu, addita et cnndiJa interpretatione " to verifie the same. It were " nimis absurdum " for us to be called "caput Ecclesia' representaus Corpus Christi mysticvim, et Ecclesiie qua' sine ruga est et macula, quam Christus Sibi sponsi'm elegit, illius partem vel oblatum acciperc vol arrogare." And, therefore, albeit "Ecclesia" is spoken of in these words touched in the prwme, yet there is addi'd " ot Cltri Anglicani," which words conjoined ri strain, by way of interpreta- tion, the word "Ecdesiam," and is as uiucli as to say, tlie Church, that is to say the C/enjy of Emjlund. Which manner of speaking, in the law ye have professed, ye many times find, and likewise in many other places. But proceeding in your said letters after, ye have shewed Christ to l)e " Caput Ecclesia'," ye go about to show how He divided His power in earth after the dis- tinction " ten'.poralium et spiritualium," whereof the one, ye say. He committed to princes, the other " Sacerdotibus " For Princes, yi; alledge te.^ts which show and prove obedience due to princes of all men without diutirwtiou, be h' Prient Ch'rk, Bishop or Layman, who inak<' together the Church : and albeit your own wor.smake mention of temporal things, wherein ye say they should be obeyed, yet tlie texts of Scrip*nre which ye alledge, having the general words "Oljedite et subdite estote," contain no such words whereby spiritual things s>iould be excluded; but whatso- ever appertaineth to the tranquility of man's life is of necessity included, as the words plainly import ; as /ou also confess; wherefore "gladium portat princeps," not only against them that break his commandments and laws, but against him also that in any wise breaketh (iod's laws ; for we may not more regard our law than God's, nor punish the breach of our laws, and leave the transgi-ession of God's ■■* < ^ rwfr ^ 104 APPENDIX. laws unreforiued; so as all spiritual tbiugs, by reason wbtn-eof may arise liodily trouble and inquietude be necessarily included in princes' power; ^nd so provetb the text of Scripture by you alledged ; and also the doctors by you brought in, con- Arm the same. After that ye intend to prove, v'hicli no man will deny, the ministration of spiritual things to have been by Christ committed to priests, to preach and miuistor the Sacraments [and] to be as physicians to men's souls ; but in these Scriptures neither by [leg. be] spiritual things so far extended, as under the colour of that vocabule [theyj be now-a-days; nor it proveth not, that their office being never so excellent, yet their persons, acts and deeds should not under the power of the prince bj' God assigned whom they should acknowledge as their head. The excellence of the matter of the office doth not always, in all points, extol the dignity of the Minister. Christ who did most perfectly use the office of a priest, " et nihil aliud quam vere caravit ani- mas," gainsaid not tl)e authority of Pilate upon that ground ; and St. Paul execu- ting the office of a priest, said " Ad tribunal Ciesavis sto, ubi me judicari oportet;" and ccmimanded likewise, indistinctly, all others to obey princes ; and yet unto those priests, being as members executing that office, princes do honor, for so is God'3 pleasure and commandment; wherefore, howsoever ye take the words in the proeme, we indeed do shew and declare that priests and Bishops preaching the word o' God, ministering the sacraments according to Christ's laws, and refreshing our people with ghostly and spiritual food, [we] not only succour and defend them for tranquility of their life, but also wioh our presence ; and also do honor them as the case requireth, for so is God's pleasure ; like as the husband, thoug' . he be the head of the wife, yet saith St. Paul " Non habct vir potestatim sui corporis, sed mulier,"' and so is in that re.spect under her. And having our mother in cur realm, by the command of (rod we shall honour her ; and yet they for the re.spect of our dignity shall honour us by God's commandment likewise. And the Minister is not always the better man, " sed cui ministratur ;" the physician is not better than the prince because he can do that the prince cannot, viz., " curare morbum." In consecration of Archbishops, do not Bishops give more dignity by their ministra- tion than they have themselves ? The doctors jo bring in taking for their theme to extol priasthood, prefer it to the dignity of a prince, after which manner of rea- sonii;,; it may ho. called '• Dignius imnerare affectibus, quam populis ;" and so every good man In consideration of every dignity to excel a king not living so perfectly as he doth. And why is a Bishop ))etter than a priest seeing and considering, in the matter of their office " Episcopus etiamsi administret plura, non tamen administrat majora." Emperors' and princes obey bishops and priests as doers of the message of 'Jhrist, and His ambassadors for that purpose; which done " statim fiunt pri- vati," and in order and qiiietness of living acknowledge princes as head. For what meant Justinian the Emperor to make laws " dc Episcopis et clericis." and such other spiritual matter if he had not been persuaded "ille essecuram Ecclesiae a Deo mandatum ?" This is true, that princes be " Filii Ecclesinj." that is to say, "lilius Ecelesiie " which ye define ; "vherewith it may agree, that they be neverthe- less " H.iprema capita " of the congregations of christian men in their countries ; Uke ns in smaller number of Christian men " non est absur- dam vocure superiores capita," as they be called indeed, and may be called- " primi et siipveiui" in respect of these counvries : and why else doth the Pope suffer any ottu r beside himself to be called Archbishop, seeing that he himself, indeed, challengeth to be " Friuceps Apostolorum et Episcoporum,'' in Peter's stead, which the name of an Archbishop utterly -denieth but by addition of the country they save the sense : whereunto in us to be called " Ecclesia; Anglicana)," yet [li'g. ye] at the last agree, so that there were added " temporalibus;'' wliich addition were superfluous, considering tha- men being here themselves eartiily and temporal [we] cannct be head and governor to things eternal nor yet spiritual ; taking that word spiritual not as the common speech abuseth it but as it signifieth, indeed, for "Qu.^ spiritn aguntur, nulla 'eg.; astringnrertur ;" as the Scripture saith " Quaj Spiritu Dei aguntur, liliera sunt." And if you take " spiritualibns " for spiritual men, that is to say priests, clerks, their good acts and deeds worldly ; in all this both we and all other princes be at this day chief mnl heads, after whose ordinance either in general or ui particular they bo ordered and governed. For leaving old stories and considering the state of the world in our time, is there any convocation where laws be made for the order of our clergy but such as by our authority is assembled ? And why should not we say as Justinian said, " Omnia nostra facimus. quibus a nobis imperitur auctoritas ,'" Is anyBishop made but he submitteth himself to us. »j •"i 'I V oilily )vetli ,con- u APPENDIX. 105 -I ,' V and aoknowlegeth himself as Bishop to be oar subject ? Do not we give onr license and assent to the election of abbots ? And this is concerning tho persons and Iftws spiritaal. As touching their goods, it is all men's opinions learned in the laws " extra controversiam," that debate find controversie " of them appertaineth to our occasion and order. But as for the living of the clergy, some notable offences we reserve to onr correction, some we remit by our sufferance to the judges of the clergy; as murther, felony and treason, and such like enormities, we reserve to our examination, other crimes we leave to be ordered by the clergy, not because we may not intermeddle with them, for there is no doubt but as well might we punish adultery and insolence in priests, as em- perours have done, and otber princes at this day do, as ye know \s ell enough : so as in f '1 these articles concerning tho persons of priests, their laws, their acts and order of living, forasmuch as they be indeed all temporal, and concerning this pre- sent life only, in these we (as we be called) be indeed in this realm " caput ;" and because there is no man nbo\e ua here, be indeed " supremum caput." As to spir- itual things, meaning by them the Sacraments, beiiiR by God ordained as instru- ments of efficacy and strength, whereby grace is, of His infinite goodness conferred upon His people, forasmuch .is they be no worldly or temporal things, they have no worldly nor teirporal head but only Christ that did institute them, by Whose ordi- nance they be ministered here by mortal men, elect, chosen and ordered as God hath willed, for that purpose, who he the clergy ; who for the time they do that, and in that respect, " tanquam miuistri versantur in his, quae hominum potestati non sobjiciuntur ; in quibus si male versantur sine scandalo, Deum ultorem habent si cum scandalo, hominjm cognitio et vindicta est." Wherein, as before said, either the prince is the chief doer this authority proceed'eth to the execution of the same ; as when by sufferance or priviledge the prelates intromit themselves therein ; wherefore in that which is derived from the prince in the beginning why should any obstacle or scruple be to call hiin head from whom it is derived. Such things as although they be amongst men, yet they be indeed " Divina, quoniam y contrary Behaviour and Contempt of any of our Subjects, we shall be induced to make alteration therin. First we doo all Persons to understand, that of our own naturall Disposition (through Godd's (iooduess) we have been always desirous to have the obedience of all our subjects of all Sorts, both hygh and low, by Love and (not) by Compulsion ; by their owne yelding and not by our enacting. , • « » It remayneth furder to be considered (which is by diners most frequently im- pugned) what we have don to give Occasion of Offence and slanderouss Reports in the ordring of our Reaime and People, to cause them to lyve ui the Peace, Service of God, and in the Profession of Christian Relligion ; of which Matter because the erteruall Policy of our Reaime by Lawes differeth from other Countreys (as always there hath ben in such Things a Difference) occasion is sought, specially from forrayn Parts, to deprave this Part of our Government, and conseijueutly by secret troubling tlie weake Consciences of our People with Untruths, to withdraw them from obedience of us and our lawes; yea from all divine service of God, con- trary to their naturall Birth and Duty towards God and their naty ve Contrey. And in this part wa wold it were indiftirently understand, that what so ever is untruly reported, by Words orWrytyngs malicooss and seditious I'ersons, we know no other Authority, either given or used by us, as Quene and Governour of this Realm, than hath ben by the Laws of God and this Healme alwayes due to our Progenitors Soveraynes and Kinges of the same ; although true it is that this Author- ity hath ben in the Tyme of certen of our Progeuitons, eome hundred years past, as by Lawes, Records and Storyes doth appere (and specially in the Reigne of our noble Father King Henry VIII) more elerely recognized by all the Estatis of the Reaime, as the lyke hath ben in our Tyme ; without that therby we do either challenge or take to us (as malicious Parsons do untruly surmise) any superiority to ourself to defviie, desydo. or determyn any Article or Poynt of the Christian Faylli or Relligion, or to chang eny antient Ceremony of the Church from the Forme before received and observed by the Catholick and Apostolick Church, or the use of any Fuuction belonging to any ecclesiasticall Person bein^; a Minister of the Word and Sacraments in tlie Church. But that Authority which is yi< Ided unto us and our Crown consisteih in this : that, considering we are by Goddes Grac, the Sovereign Prim e and Queen, next under God, and all the peopl( in our Reaime arc immediately borne subjects to us and our Crown and to none else, and that our Reaime hath of long Tyme past receaved the Christian Faytb, we are by this .^.uthoritie bound to direct all Estates, being subject unto us to lyve in the Fayth and the Obedience of Chiistian Relligion, and to see the Lawes of God and man, which are ordayned to that end, to be duly observed, and the offeufes against /^., . the same duly punished, and consequently to provyde, that the Church maybe governed and taught by Archbishops, Bishops and Ministers, according to the ec- clesiasticall auncient PoUycy of this Reaime, whom we do assist with our Soverayn i.i . Power, i j i -m ■ni j y ii i g iii w ii i«u», i » i ii] i "^**^" '«i*^,^ I %\ i > t «♦