A COMMENTARY 0 N Ecclesiastical Government; In whieh Apostolical Succession is confuted, and the Presbyterian Church (xovernmepit critically set forth arid vindicated. BY WALTER M. M'GILL, MINISTER OP THE GOSPEL. KNOXVILLE, TENN., PRINTED AT THE REGISTER OFFICE* 1850. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1850, By Walter M. McGill, In the Clerk's office of the District Court of the Eastern District of Tennessee. PREFACE. " We have again to fight the battle for all that we hold dear."—Choules. The author of the Commentary at first thought nothing needful prefatory; the work itself detailing facts and the reasons they ap¬ pear. More recently he has thought from the following reasons that the work should have the advantage of an introduction. The reasons above hinted are: 1. That in nearly all the works the author has examined on the subject of Eccl. government, theology has been amalgamated with it as if one (the former) depended on the other, (the latter;) that is, that certain set order of doctrines must necessarily accompany a certain form, and vice versa. This is then the argument. We have a scriptural doctrine, therefore our government is scriptural too. While who does not know that a Calvanist might be Episcopal in gov¬ ernment or an Armian a Presbyterian, as to church polity 9 There is no reason or revela¬ tion which we have discovered that authorises a man to usurp the rights of his fellow under the pretext that he is orthodox in matters of faith, but every thing to the contrary. The iv PREFACE. author of the following work has therefore en* deavored, while he has shown the necessity of the spiritual presence of Christ in a church, to keep clear of the peculiarities of creeds in dis¬ cussing his subject. 2d. The fact that the Presbyterian church government has been misrepresented before the American churches and American people, calls for a defence on the part of Cumberland Pres¬ byterians as one branch of the great Presbyte¬ rian family. We, as an humble member and minister of this branch in common with others, (some of whom have already advanced and sustained their defence,) the Old and New School Presbyterian Seceders Covenenters, feel it our duty to speak out and claim it as our privilege to be heard in behalf of the form of government we have adopted. Do any doubt whether we have occasion to defend? If so let him read Drs. Wainright and Potts' controversy in 1844. Also, the Meth- Pldist ^Episcopalian, and a discourse by C. Col¬ lins, A- M., President of Emory and Henry Col¬ lege, preached at the Meth. Ep. Church, Ma¬ rion, Va.,Dec. 1848. The author of this work may be permitted to remark that the last part of Mr. C.'s dis¬ course attempts a false interpretation of "the powers of the keys," with regard to the author¬ ity guarantied and exercised by Presbyterians. Mr. C- it seems will have it that we are Ro¬ man Catholics in this, in its true light, only governmental or disciplinary power exercised PREFACE. V indeed by his own beloved episcopacy. 'Tis true he alludes to Presbyterians of different faith somewhat, but as our government is known to be the same are not this and all other ^aspersions similar equally intended to effect us? The following work will be of utility to those who are not acquainted with a general and also correct view of the points at issue between Pres¬ byterians and Episcopalians. It analyses gov¬ ernmental first principles, and quotes largely the Fathers and the scriptures cm disputed points and practical duties. "The whole system of high church episcopa¬ cy is supported by arguments so similar to those used to support Popery, that the celebra¬ ted treatise of Dr. Barrow against the suprem¬ acy of the Pope, might be applied in great part by a change of persons, the bishops for the Pope with equal effect to the destruction of the one as of the other."—Powell (Wesleyan minister.) To our Congregational or Baptist brethren we would say, let us (we differ not radically) ever maintain the right of suffrage—equal rights. Choules in Neal's History (ed. 1844) says "the descendants of the Pilgrims have been 6om- pelled to fall back upon * # * the faith of their fathers"—hear him—rtthe claims of pope¬ ry, prelacy, and priest-craft have been urged upon them and their children. A comparative handful (as yet) * * * gravely deny that our solemn gatherings make christian churches; * * * and as for our holiest feasts, they stig-^ vi PREFACE. matize as blasphemous mockery of a lay sacra¬ ment." Again in all episcopal churches confirma¬ tion or its equivalent is practised in some or other form; that is, the person desiring ad¬ mittance to church privileges must wait the imposition of a bishop's hands before fully ad¬ mitted. "The wrangling Popish divines * * * impiously teach that confirmation is certain perfecting and consumating of baptism as if those were to be counted only half christians who are baptised only and not confirmed; whereas the apostle testifies that we put on Christ in baptism."—Ravanal, (as quoted by Powell.) The rite of confirmation in the English church (says Powell Sue. p. 199) differs from the Popish one in this, that it is not called a sacrament: and some ceremonies are laid aside ; in all other respects it is equally un- scriptural in its pretences and dangerous in its consequences. The Methodist Episcopal church have a six-months probation answering as we view it to this rite of confirmation. These are things to which Mr. Choules ha? allusion in the above quotation. He calls i prelacy, &c. As to works consulted and quoted, we ger erally give the proper marks, &c. THE AUTHOR. STENOGRAPHY. Bu, by, but. Do, did, had, hadst. Fee, fast, off, of, if, for. Age, god, go, give, gave, ago. Have, he history, oh, ah. King, couldst, could. Line, live, lord, will, lie, all. Man, me, him, hymn. Hand, on, an, in, no. Precious, peace, peculiar. Question, queen, quality, equality. Err, air, are, heir, her Such, sin, sight, sign, his, has, is, so. To, unto, time, that, at, it. View, verse, versus. Was, wise, way, without. y Ye, your, you, year. Sh or ch. She, shall, should, shouldst. The alphabet begins with B and ends with sb, or ch; A cross on the end of a letter stands for x. Tarn y as the letter 0—F the contrary way. The learner is to strike 19 lines—this will include all the letters—on a sheet of paper and cross them by as many more, then write down the characters as he sees them in the column. This must be done above and at the left hand, then begin with the letter on the left and join it to the one successively at the head of the several lines, viii STENOGRAPHV. thus bb, bdj&c., 2nd line db, dd. It will be seen by look¬ ing at the several words opposite the letters they may be represented by said letter in composing. Spell without the letter a, e, i, o, and u; thus nsrinntbl for insurmountable. When a double letter occurs put but one as spl for spell. A dot in the line stands a, i or o—above the line for thee, they, or them. Supply the place of hard c by k—soft c with s—z with s and j with g, thus kbl for cable, snmn for cinnamon, sis for zealous, gls for jealous. A short mark above the line stands for and. Draw a line above repeat¬ ed. words. Each character stands for a word, therefore the word should be finished before the pen is lifted. Glance your eye in reading over several words at the same instance and you can then discover the connection. PART PIRST, I propose to show in. this work the Scriptural view of the origin, nature, and design of Church Government and Discipline. In brder to con- «duct a satisfactorily conclusive investigation, it becomes necessary to show what the-Chris- tian Church * (so called by Way of eminence) \tfas in her origin. We shall not trouble the reader with more at present than a bare men¬ tion (relative to'the anciellt Jewish Church,) of the fact that her outward form of government was peculiar 'to herself\ and consequently'.not designed for, nor adapted to the Christian dis- .pensatiori. We, therefore, begin with this dis¬ pensation. The word church is derived from the GreeJd ,(Ekklesia,) and denotes an assembly met abput business, or met to transact business collective¬ ly, without special reference to the nature of that business. See Acts, 19: 32, 39. Here this word is translated " assembly," Ecclesiastical is from Ekklesia. However, the word church, 1 % COMMENTARY ON CflTJRCH GOVERNMENT. as understood generally, includes all christians who acknowledge evangelically the reign of the Messiah; his adopted children, who submit themselves obediently to him. With the col¬ lective body of christians on earth—his visible church—we have to do in this investigation.— We give the language of St. Paul as a defi¬ nition of a Christian Church. 1 Cor. 1: 2.— "Unto the Church of God, which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, •called to -be saints, with all that, in every place call'upon the name of Jesus Christ'our Lord, "both theirs and ours." See also Math. 13 : 47. "Again, the Kingdom of HeavOn is like unto a net that was cast into the sea and gathered of every kind."* Isa. 9: 7,—Genisis 17: 7.—• " And J will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee," &c.— And 1 Qor. 7: 14. "Pol* the unbelieving hus¬ band is sanctified by the wife, else were , your children unholy: but now are they holy." f j^nd Acts 39. "For the promise is unto you and unto your children," &c. Refer to Gal.-3: 7, 9, 11, and Rom. 4th chap., founded on the above scriptures, with others, feee a definition as giv.en by the compilers of our excellent Constitution—Confession of faith.— See Form of Government. "The Universal Church consists of all persons, in every nation, together with their children who make profes- * This alludes to Outward form of the church. t That is, entitled to the ordinances of the visible church, COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 3, sipn of the holy religion of Christ. As this irnc itiense multitude cannpt meet together, in one place, toi holdcommunion, or to worship God, it is reasonable, and warranted by scripture exam¬ ple, that they',should be divided into many par¬ ticular churches." Refer to Rev. 1; 4-30. Sep "Westminster Con. /Faith, also; these divines speak to the same effect. Again, (see C. P, Con.) and further, our Compilers say: "A particular church oonsistSrof a number of professing christians, with their offspring voluntarily as¬ sociated together for divine worship, and godly living, ttgreeably to the holy scriptures, and submitting to ascertain form of government, - The precision and specific nature of our investigatipn thus far, may appear to some of ouy readers as rather tedious and unimportant ? yet it should be recollected that these quota- fionSt from the Scriptures and Fathers, are pe¬ culiarly - requisite in view of the controversy oil this matter, or father ihdefiniteness which some Episcopalian! Ecclesiastics have intro¬ duced respecting a- definition of' the tprm Church. See Drs. Wain Wright's and Potts' con¬ troversy on Episcopacy, published in New York, in 1844, Episcopal England, Protestant Episcopalians, ancl Episcopal Methodists in the ]J. S. A.? have adopt.ed, we believe, the- defini¬ tion of the Thirty-nine Articles in their Con¬ stitutions or Confessions, on this term, arword phurch ; viz: " A Congregation of faithful men, in which the true word of God is preached, and the sacranients duly* administered according to 4 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. Christ's ordinances, in all those 'things which are requisite to the same." It may be remembered in. connection with the above definition—as it attache^ to High Church men in England, and Protestant Epis¬ copalians in America—that they hold the doc¬ trine, 'No church without a Bishop ; and no Bish- op withouLhe has derived his ecclesiastical au¬ thority from an Apostle, by an uninterrupted sucCessional line of Bishops, in order*to admin¬ ister the "Sacraments rightly." For this rea¬ son they discard, not only the phrase used by Presbyterians, voluntarily associated together, &c., in their definition of a Church, but the very idea itself. Butt let us proceed without noticing their pretensions at .present. It appears then, that no specified aggregate number of members is requisite to form a particular church.** . We have now before" us a definition of a particular church, as well as that of the church Univer,sal} according to scripture, and also ac¬ cording to the Fathers. A church, in the early ages of Christianity, was • an assemblage Of believers voluntarily associated for mutual edification and holy liv¬ ing ; consequently, submitting to certain rules. Nor was it necessary, in-the iage of miracles, for any other form of church government than 1 t* : * This does .not oonflict with our Constitution*; because the mfeasnre is pro visionary, it does, not prevent even ten members from engaging a pastor and uniting with others, &e. COMMENTARY ON. CHUfeCH GOVERNMENTS § the Congregational—then the church at, Jeru¬ salem, could all meet in one plaemg thus endowed, were not disqualified for COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. ll their respective duties—those of ap ordinary spiritually qualified degree. We suppose there are two or three* conside¬ rations that here might be put to Episcopalians for explanation, which they • will ahswer no ways to the prejudice of Presbyterians: 1st. Was the office of deacon to be continu-, ed under the ordinary dispensation of spiritual gifts ? Episcopalians .continue the office—yes* 2nd. Was it instituted by Christ in person? it was not. See Acts 6th chap. 3d. Did the Church of Jerusalem, said to be " the mother of us all," have the power to con¬ fer the rightful authority 'which those deacons exercised ? They did; they those Stephen and Philip, 6(-c. . ' ' , 4th. But they "(the deactas) had no right to exercise authority, though previously' filled with the Holy. Ghost, until they were -selected by 'the Church-—the laity; and then, still it •seems as indispensably necessary that those to whom the Head of the Church had giyen the oversight of those spiritual and (in a moral or declarative point of view) temporal affairs, should also concur in this investment of au¬ thority. These things from the record entire appearing, can you, brother Episcopalian, say that these deacons were not rightly invested ? —or, (if you like this question in another form,) had any one of the above, viz : spiritual gifts, election by the whole 'lay, portion or body of that church, or then, the laying on of the apostles* hands been, omitted, would it have been a legal 12 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. or evangelic organization, or institution of aur thority ? It would not, it seems, indeed. Welf then you are a Presbyterian in government. ,5th. Were those deacons chosen to take the oversight (of any- matters directly, but those pertaining to the temporal affairs, making col¬ lections for the poor, &c. 1 Our quandam friends answer this question negatively, but we think without giving to the whole record (see Acts,l6th chap.) its,plain, unequivocal* meaning. , Besides, ordaining deacons without the con¬ currence of their laity, to be ruled by such offi¬ cers,.they hold them to be a third class ministry, and confer on them spiritual jurisdiction, or authority. It is jiM, however, to say, that they (Episcopalians) found their. belief and consequent practice on Acts 8: 25, 38; and also, in • connection, Acts 21: 8—and .other texts, perhaps. But as these appear most plau¬ sible, though contradicting (in accordance to Episcopal definition,), the plainly recorded and positively defined history, contained in Acts, 6th chapter, we will introduce a few factum order to show the true interpretation of those texts so much relied upon by qur opponents; and if We can show that their ground is untenable, on the.se, their strong proofs, the reader will have reason to believe that Episcopalians have introduced at least one grade in the ministry Which was not introduced' either by Christ or his appstles. The first reference (Acts 8 : 25, 38,) brings to view, as the reader discovers,' the, 'COMMENTARY ON CHURCH feOVURftMENT. 1$ case of Philip and the Eunuch* " Then Philip preachedomto him, Je^Us?' Verse 38, " and he baptized him." ^ Now the enquiry is, whether this was Pliilip the deacon, or Philip the apos¬ tle. Episcopalians seem to think that it was the deacon, and indeed seem somewhat lucky in their allusion to Acts ^1-: 8, above cited, as we there ,find that those of Paul's company departed (from Ptolamias) &c., " arfcl we enter¬ ed into the house of Philip, the' evangelist, which was one of .the seven." v' Now the mistake, ,as we conceive it to be, arising^here, is founded on a wrong interpreta¬ tion of the word evangelist; for we do irot in any wise dispute the fact brought to light (Acts 21: 8,) relative to the appellation given to^Philip, nor that this 'same Philip was one of the seven deacons. Though there is no satis¬ factory evidence that ^Philip the deacon ever preached, or baptized, as^an authorized or or¬ dained preacher. The mere fact of his being called^ or evert being an evangelist, does not ptove that he was a regular minister. If so, then, the members of the church at Jerusalem, when " they were scattered abroad preaching the word," (Acts 8: 1,) were all authorized preachers—men and women. But we are relieved of this absurd supposi¬ tion by referring to the word used, Evangeli- zpmenoi, which seems to signify, in more general terms, the business, or employ of those Who spoke of the good news, or gospel. Again, the Greek aggelos, translated evangelist, signifies a 14 commentary on church 'government. messenger,' or "any having a certain''special •Message to bear, withbut particular regard to him as generally or fully commissioned. * » This authority itself, did not warrant any to .administer the sacraments. See definition first given above. Diachonos, (deacQn) signifies a servant—a' minister. Nevertheless, we are not left to mere con¬ jecture on this important subject; that is, whether men preached by .authority or not— By reference t6 the original, as used, (Acts 8: 5;)' we find that Philip (the apostle) preach¬ ed to them'of Samaria, as an ordained or au¬ thorized minister. This is abundantly evident —the-word here translated preached, is Eke- russen, which means to preach by authority.— We find in verse 12th, of the. same chapter, that he also baptized; preachings there is ex¬ pressed by the word Evangelizomeno (evan¬ gelized) in more general terms, as have in¬ sisted. So that a deaeon being called an evan¬ gelist, would not authorize him to preach, .agreeably to this distinction of the sacred pens- man, which settles the matter beyOnd reason¬ able, doubt.: Noij is this authority conferred by Christ himself, alone, for wo hear Paul exhort¬ ing Timothy (2 Tim.. 4: 5,) to do the work of an evangelist; yet, in 2 Tim. 1: 6, he says, stir up the gift that is within thee by the put¬ ting pn of my hands." But let us not antici¬ pate this part of our subject. In short, it is discoverable that at distinction COMMBNTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 15 between those who conversed on scripture, or replied, as Stephen did, (Acts 7,) without.hny special authority, and thb.se who were author¬ ized, spoke or preached by authority, Was ■made. Philip^ under a deacon's authority, had no right tq baptize the Eunuch, nor did he do so. Then from the-above it is evident, (and we .think all Will acknowledge the investigation fairly conducted,) that ;a preaching deacon is ' a novelty, at least Would have been , so to the (Church at Jerusalem. We contend that deaeons are officers .of the Church of Jesus, .Christ—our views of their official investment, standing, and duties, are contained in Acts, 6th chapter, which see. We now have a scriptural definition of a Christian Church; an association of professing christians voluntarily united for the worship of God and holy diving, (including their off¬ spring,) and^submitting to .a certain form of government; their rules of goternpient, Christ's teachings, through the apostles—-(the New Testament not yet being written,) their govern¬ ment as yet Congregational. The offic ers'of the Church, we also have-r-tbe apostles them¬ selves; and perhaps those evangelists,* (the " seventy,") • whom Christ authorized to an¬ nounce the coming of his kingdom. r The dif¬ ferent dispensations,* or ages of the church, are here not distinguished.* * We drop a remarkhere—it is not our object to. date the precise time of the commencement of the gospel dispensa¬ tion, but to discover a scriptural church and its authorities. ?'6 commentary on church government. Tlie examination will now necessarily' e'x- tefid itself to the apostolic institutions, (as they are called,) relative to church government and discipline, for this is our scope. We do not design interfering with theology, further than an investigation of the authority, .nature, and design, of church government and discipline may necessarily indicate. We have hitherto confined ourselves to the scriptures—principal¬ ly the teachings of Christ, himself: in process",■ ,we neeessarily will have occasion to refer, moreover, to the profane history of the church, or church history. The evangelist, Mathew, has recorded the commission given by the great Head of the ChurcH; (see Mat. 28: 19, 20,) " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, bap¬ tizing 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 youand lo, I am with you always to the end of the world." This commission wa's given to the apostles. That Christ gave this authority for specified ends, you need but read Math. 18 : 18, and Eph. 4: 11,12, to learn that fact; the passage reads thus: "Verily I say* unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatso¬ ever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed jn heaven." John, recording a definition- of this authority, gives it more literally"; John 20: 23, —" Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remit¬ ted unto them; and whose soever sins ye re¬ tain, they are retained." If any doubt should 'commentary ox church Government. ,lt to call laborers into the vineyard, the imposition of hands is necessary. "Take heed, therefore, to yourselves, and to all the hock over which the Holy,Ghost hath made you overseers"-r-(bishops.) Acts 20: 28. We ■will notice an ordination, as. brought to view by St. Paul, which we think does hot; contro¬ vert this quotation, but advances to show that through men in office, as a medium or instru¬ ment, the Holy Ghost (Christ sent Him to ap¬ ply the benefits of redemption,) sets m'eri apart to the holy office without extraordinary gifts. Paul, writing to Timothy, (1 Tim. 4: 14,) ^ays': " Neglect iiot:the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." 2 Tim. 1: 6.'— " Wherefore J put thee in remembranc'e that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in theq by the putting on of my hands." Now it seems to be plain, that the "gift" was of God-; while yet, it- appears' equally plain, that the hands of Paul, or rather of Paul conjointly tvith other presbyters, wab necessary to ordain, or set him apart to the whole work of a bishop. -There are, however, -different opinions predi¬ cated on these quotations* which appear, taken. to COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT-. together, toyjonttadict, and thus .to favor the advocates for each; this apparent discrepancy as relative (as the reader readily discovers,) tp the number of presbyters ne.cessary to invest with "holy orders, Paul says, in his first letter to Timothy, "with the. laying oh of the hands of the presbyteryin the second he says, " by the putting on of my hands/' The following quotation, from a respectable writer, shows that latterly Episcopalians do not Consider it necessary, in accordance with the last quota¬ tion above, to employ the imposition 01 the hands of more than one bishop" A bishop, on the, ordination of clergymen, is to examine them in presence of the ministers, who assist him at the imposition of hands; but this is -only done as a mark of assent, not because it is thought necessary." See Bqck'sTheo. Die., jart. Ordination. Presbyterians advocate-thp necessity of the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. They, however, make', a< distinc¬ tion between presbyters who "labor in the word and .doctrine, and those who only rule well,"* pr lay elders. See 1 Tim. 4: -17.— Presbyterians contend that Paul himself was no more than an elder of the former class, or one that was not to be counted " worthy of double honor" alone, for ruling, well, but as one that " labored in the word and .doctrine." T^he apostle Peter, say they, was but an elder, in-this sense, and Paul couM be none other.—' See th)e first Epistle of Peter, 5; 1, 2, 3. " The elders (presbyters) which are among you I ex- COMMENTARY ON CHURCft GOVERNMENT. 2t hort, who am also an. elder, and witness of the sufferings of Christ,;" 'Meed the flock of Qod which is among you, talcing the oversight thereof, (epislctfpountes acting as bishop thereof,) not by constraiht, but wrljitfgly;" neither as being Lord over God's heritage, but being en- samples to the flock." John, ajso, in his third epistle,'calls himself "the elder." Thus, it is plain, (we-think,) that Episcopalians have mis¬ taken the true sense of the apostle Paul on this very important subject, that'of ordinatiorr.— We think it evident, and incontrovertable, that Paul was an elder, or presbyter, (as the pas¬ sages last quoted show Peter and John were,) and that where he speaks of th& ordination of Timothy, as by the presbytery, that he means nothing less when he speaks of the putting ott of his own " hands;" that is, it must be under¬ stood'that the "laying on of- the hands" of the presbytery (he and other presbyters) was the Wray. in which Tiniothy was ordained, and con¬ sequently the apostolic usage*. Consequently Paul was no archbishop. The reader may have seen some of these quotations handled in discussions on church government, and «may see them hereafter ar¬ rayed to that purpose by ps, but, it is not our present design to treat separately of that sub¬ ject, ; we ask your perusal, while We further continue to investigate the subject of apostolic, ministerial ordination. Again, the word, or- ,dain, and choose, or appoint, are by some Con¬ gregationalism and baptists, thought to b'e the 22 COMMENTARY/ ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. ^aipe. According to their definition, ordinal tion ''■lies alone in the suffrage 'of the people," (electing arid ordaining them would be fh'e same-^the former would comprise the 'latter,) agreeable to Mr. -Buck. Hbwever, it may be with them generally, the question is worthy in¬ vestigation, especially with ope disputing with successionists." , In some instances appoint, o;r choose, and ordam, may be, and are syrionyr mous, as in Mark, 3 : 14—^explained "by our Saviopr in John, 6: 70. \ We acknowledge that the word is sb used in Acts, 14: 23; in Cor. 2 : 8,19. Where the apostle spealp of a brother, , (Greek heirotoneitheis) who was chosen of the churches to trave^with us, and is so rendered, also, when ascribed to" God, (Acts 10: 41,) but it is, (as we conceive,) although a necessary prerequisite to a congregation and ministers entering into the pastoral relation, something ,yery different from ordination, yet necessarily connected . with it. '■ Episcopal Britain, as Well as others referred to, will have no ordirta- tidn when the applicant is not provided with a benifice. *" The English Independants, f are, it might seem, on one extreme—ordaining b.y the common suffrage, and the Episcopalians pn the other j that is, ordaining without a\id above) the consent of those' wh6 are to be administer¬ ed unto. Reader, can you discover any system ttaiting these extremes ? if you can that is that mpde generally "called Presbyterian. COMMENTARY* ON, .CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 23y Wethipkit likely that Congregationalists and- 'Episcopalians are pretty much the same every where. , The objection* which, also, in our opinion, inyeighs against both these forms of ordination, is, that they seem to discard the idea of the ordination'of evangelists, while it appears tp be a practice apostolic; nay, Christ approbated and instituted this kind of ordina¬ tion' himself,-—" Go ye into all the world, and preach my gbspel to -every creature." . This is evidently orte of the great'means of propaga¬ ting the'gospel. Saul and Barnabas were or¬ dained by the church at.Antioch to this inteht. See Acts 13 :-1,3. But we must not forget that there were as well as evangelists and apostles, also pastors. Relative to Saul and Barnabhs, in the text from Acts 13th, it seems they were separated from their brethren, and from the more common labors attendant on regular pas¬ toral relationship, in order tn .preach to the destitute, and found new churches. This was the appstolic usage, (1 Tim, 4 \ 14 ; Acts 1'6: 3,) and one means of perpetuating the church and that authority given her officers by. its founders—a mode we are attempting in this work to deduce upon scripture proofs. But to return, before we pass to examine ordination, as it appears after the immediate official acts in this line, by the apostles themselves, we will revert to the opinion and practice of some, relative to ordination, as resting exclusively with .the body of the church individually. We < remark, on this subject, that the word " choose 24 COMMENTARY ON- CHURCH GOyBRNMBNTi or appoint," denotes a .transfer of power not possessed exclusively by the laity. The word' (ckatastesomen) translated in Acts, sixth chap¬ ter and third verse, "appoint," signifies ac¬ cording to Scassula, and the best writers on the sacred language, "'to put one in rule," or to give authority. We hold that a church has the liberty of choosing their pastor, but riot'the power or right separately to confer the office itself. Scripture ^represents ordination to be the setting apart of a person to the holy minis¬ try, through, or by the medium of men in office,. not by a single man;, or bishop, (in not one ordinary case,) acting by the authority of,, and transferring that authority from Jesus Christ himself. 1 Tim, 4: 14 ; Jer. 3 : 15; 1 Pet. 5: 2,3,4; 2 Cor. 3: 6. The reason that we conclude that a church in its body indis¬ criminate of office, * has not this power to con¬ fer, is, because we find no authority to this ef¬ fect in the New Testament, we think. Be¬ sides, if this authority of holy investure was granted, why is it that in none of the epis- tiescan any direction be found in which the church is instructed how to proceed in the drdi- nation of ministers ? While on the other hand, we find ample and definite instruction given to those who were in office, or were ordained gospel ministers. See- Paul's letters to Timo¬ thy and Titus; (and I suppose it will not be disputed that these men were ordained minis- f A Presbyteri^n ^aator,^ chosen orelected by tbe elders, before ord&ibed. COMMENTARY ON CH.URCH GOVERNMENT. 2# teiy) Titus 1 :*5; Tim. 4: 14 ; Acts 14: 23. JC summary of - these directions, are; that they " lay hands on no man suddenly, tp exaniine him as to qualifications before they ordain, and that they commit the office to men faithful,; apd not only faithful, but .also, able to teach and transmit the office to others." The word presbyter is derived from preSbuteros, and sig¬ nifies senior, or elder. Of such was that' body composed which' laid their hands on Timothy in his ordination, and such bishops, or 'elders, are necessary, in accordance with the choice of those electing him to authorize a man " to exercise government and discipline, as a min¬ ister of Jesus Christ. That therq were elders who had different degrees of authority, or rather different duties^ to perform,-—see 1 Tim.. 5: 17. We think'that we have proven, in the-pro¬ gress of this investigation, or at least shown what a Church of Christ is—that He (Christ) instituted authority—what kind of authority it was—that it was exercised, by the apostles,, •and how they transmitted it—not their extra¬ ordinary gifts, but all gifts necessary for an evangelical succession, and perpetuation* of the Church of Jesus Christ. We have shown this was done by ordination—what ordination is. If now remains for us, in order to show more plainly that apostolic "succession," as held forth by Roman Catholics and other Episco¬ palians, is an absurd or unscrjptural doctrine, by enquiring if those who, "immediately sue-- "26, COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. ceedetf the, apqstles, were endowed by ordina¬ tion' with the power'of working'miracles, and with,the.power of conferring the Holy Ghost, * which, were those powers'that the apostles un¬ doubtedly possessed. We do not add. here another requisite of an apostle—that of being witness of Christ's resurrection.; • for we think, although this, is as necessary a prerequisite, in order to.be in reality, a successor, in the sense in, which "sugcessiopists" advocate it, of the apostles as others which they advocate, that they will not pretend'to claim to hhve enjoyed this advantage at the present day. Let us, to facilitate the desigh of this- enquiry, exhibit those qualifications made obligatory by reve¬ lation upon .Timothy, and others, to be observed with regard to future ordinations. See Titus, 1: 5, 0, 7, 8, 9 :—"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee; If any be blame¬ less,.the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of fipt, or unruly. For a bishop (elder) must be blameless, as the stew¬ ard of God: not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; but a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, pober, just,'holy, , temperate; hold¬ ing fast the faithful word as he hath beeii taught, that hp may be able by sound doc¬ trine both tp exhort and convince the gainsay- '■#See Episcopal forms—"'I^iceiye the Holy Ghost," &c. COMMENTARY 01? CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 2% ers." These things exhibit what' Paul would hafe done'bpth before and after orfljnation-V- "for a bjshop," says he, 4'must be blameless," &c. See I Tim. 3: 1 to 4 th verses, giving similar directions. ^The fourteenth and fifteenth verses read as follows, viz: teThese things write I unto thee* hoping to come unto thee shortly : but if I tarry, long, that thoumayest know how,, thou oughtest tobehhve thyself in the bouse of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truths" We will take a view of the duties of a bishop, or pastor, as given by the pen of, inspiration, or of Paul's enumeration of the duties of one whom he had ordained as his- successor. We give, from among many others, this passage. Now we remark, th,at in this enumeration, of clerical duties, as in the above fropi Titus, there is "not even an intimation of the necessity or-exercise of an extraordinary gift, such as Paul other¬ where declares that he himself had perforrA- ed- Hence,, it' will be evideiit to those who read the succeeding -quotation, that extraordi¬ nary gifts were neither necessary nor continu¬ ed,''in order to perpetuate authority, &c., ip the church; though Rome pretends to .claim suc¬ cession in an unbroken line from St. Peter.— Buf the promised text from Paul—See 1 Tim. 4: 12, 13,14, 1.5, 16. " —But l)Q thou/an ex¬ ample of the believers, in word-, in conversa¬ tion, in charity, in spirit,' in faith, in purity.— Till"I come, giye attendance to reading, to ex¬ hortation, to doctrine. ' Neglect not the gift 28 COMMENTARY- O-ti CHURCH GOVERNMENT. that is in thee, which was given thee hy prophet cy, with the laying on of the hands of the pres¬ bytery. Meditate upor\ these things; give thy¬ self wholly to.them; that thy profiting may appear to all. Tako heed unto thyself, andr unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and' them that hear thee." Surely, this is all that the gospel minister has to ' do, or could do, to- be a means of saving himself and all that hear him. We think that it is now plain, that the gospel ministry can be, and has been preserved without the high pretensions of successionist's,. couched in these words, (used by them,) rion ecclesia sine episcopo—no church without a bishop. To refute this arrogance, the cdmpiler of these pages has labored in the preceding sheets of this little volume. The charge made against Presbyterians and others, is, that, they have no gospel ministry; 'and that oi^r churches are- mere human societies—consequently, no au¬ thority front the Head of the church, (the only original legitimate source of church authority or government, as it regards the ministry,) is in our hands; while successionists claim for Epis¬ copalians (themselves) a divine right, as giv¬ ing them authority to ordain, to administer the sacraments, and exercise ecclesiastical gov¬ ernment and discipline. The humble christian may at first be startled at this sweeping assertion, but, perhaps, more- so wheg he learns that this divine right, claim- COMMENTARY ON'CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 3$ ed by. Episcopalians, depends on an unbroken succession, of bishops, from Peter and Paul down to 'the present time f and that their bishops are- said to have the ;very authority that those apostle's gave to their individual predecessors when they were initiated into the apostolic office. I^ow, although we have shown that successive apostleship yas impossible, in the full sense of the word, as well as unnecessary, yet, we will, nevertheless, proceed to'examine the preten¬ sions of these high claimants in the light of their own best authorities, with candor and impartiality. However, before we proceed to thi^ investigation, we will remark, that the minister of Christ has his duties laid down in the scriptures—that his authority is only moral or scriptural, ministerial and declarative.— Chrisl reproached the man in the gospel, and said, " — who made me a judge, or divider Cver you ?" See Luke, 12 s 13,14". " My king¬ dom is not of this world." John 18: 36. Hence; directions are given relative to the kind of characters in this kingdom (the church) with which the proper authorities were to deal, and in what manner. 2 Thess. 3: 6, -14, 15. How do these rules accord with^ Roman Catholic corruptions? But let us not anticipate our dis¬ cussion, or condemn without a hearing—"to the law and the testimony." Let it however, be remembered, that we are not contending with Episcopalians; that there can be, or is a church, (composed of laity, elders, bishops, or pastors,) without the successive authority of its founder, 80 commentary on church government. 'bat Use obg'ect to the manner in which they pretend to derive that authority. For instance, 'Episcopalians profess to derive divine authority from the Head of the Church .'[Christ] through a Succession Of bishops—ope handing his au¬ thority to the next succeeding hiru, the first having received it immediately from an apos¬ tle; while Presbyterians contend x for a succes¬ sion of the gospel ministry as designated, and set apart by the1 Head of the church, through it as an instituted means, and that it is not necessary for the perpetuation of the church, that one who has regularly received his office by apostolic succession (were it possible there were such "now,) should have the exclusive right to transfer authority by ordination. We contend; that any one who . has the qualifica¬ tions enumerated by St. Paul, has a right, if he has the internal call—has a right to ordina¬ tion; and that presbyters, having the same testimonials with advantage of ordination, have a right, connected with the approbation of the laity, to lay hands on him as a minister of Jesus Christ, and set him "apart." We con¬ tend that the "Head of the church reserves the right of " calling laborers,"" and has not com¬ mitted it to fallible man, or inseperably attach¬ ed this! prerogative do any definite succession of mere office-holders. Christ is then the One who calls men to sanction his call or choice of jnen)known by certain characteristics given in his word, (and ratifies the same:) He does not, - as we think, -wait till men choose, and Commentary on. church government. 51 then, as "if they werfe infallible, (a position Episcopalians seem to assume,) merely sane-: tion, subserviently, the choice. Then Popery arose to its enormity, and Episcopacy, as we think, is a relict of Popery. This we shall be able to show ere we are done. We will herb insert a quotation from Dr. Doddridge's Lectures: (Lecture 198,)—"It is a very precarious and uncomfortable foundation for christian hope which is laid in the doctrine of an uninterrupted succession of bishops, and which makes the validity of the administra¬ tion of christian ministers depend upon such a succession, since there is so great a darkness upon many periods of ecclesiastical, history,, insomuch that it is not agreed who were the seven first bishops of the church^ of Rome,, though that church , was so celebrated ; and Eusebius himself, from whom the greatest pat¬ rons of this doctrine have made their cata¬ logues, expressly owns that ' it is no easy mat¬ ter to tell who succeeded the apostles*in the government of the churches, excepting such as may be collected by St. Paul's own words.'— Contested elections, in almost all considerable cities, make it very dubious who were the true bishops; and decrees of councils, rendering all those ordinations null where any simonical contract was the foundation of them, makes it impossible to know that 'there is now upon, earth any one person \yho is a legal successor of the apostles; at least according to the prin¬ ciples of the Romish church." Dr. Doddridge^. 32 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. who was well acquainted with ecclesiastical history, refers us to " contested elections," -and " the decrees of councils," making ordinations- " null." We, by this allusion, are necessarily put upon inquiry in order to be able to specify those " contested elections," and " decrees of councils," to which reference is .thus made.— But we instinctively enquire for the yules in or¬ der,'rationally, to perceive the nefarious acts (or otherwise) of those after whose legal charac¬ ter we are enquiring. We propose, then, to give a selection of canons or rules adopted by the general councils of the church at an early date—perhaps within the termination of the fourth century—relative to ordinations.— Our successionists contend that the canons of the first six general councils, and the apostoli¬ cal canons, embody the apostolical traditions Upon the order and discipline of the church— that they contain what had been received from the apostles themselves, and were kept uncor- ruptednby their successors. With regard to the- date of the apostolical canons, Dr. Wdin- wright, a late Advocate for English Protestant Episcopacy, says: " They were composed very •early, and were gathered together about a. century after the death of St. John, it is said by Clemont of Alexandria. A century after that, they were quoted as very ancient.— Learned men 3^,ve decided, that there can be no doubt of the authenticity of these canons.'*" $i>ee p. SO, of his pamphlet. We will give sev- COMMENTARY ON CHURCH* GOVERNMENT. 33 eral canons relative to the ordination of bishops. * "Canon 1. Let a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops." " XXIX. If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall obtain possession of that dignity, by money, let both him and the person who • or¬ dained him be deposed, and also altogether cut off from all communion, as Simon Magus was by me Peter." f • " XXX. If any bishop obtain possession of a church by the aid of temporal powers, let him be deposed and excommunicated, and all who communicate with hilh." " XXXIV. The bishop of every .nation must acknowledge him who is first among them, and account him as their head,-and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do things only which concern his own parish, ,and the country places which belong to it. But neither ,let him v (who is the first,) do anything without the -consent of all; for there will be unanimity^ and God will be glorified through the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Father * These quotations are from a Work entitled " Definitions of faith and canons of discipline of the six oecumenical councils, 'with remaining canons of the code of the univer¬ sal church. Translated with notes. Together with the apostolical canons. By the Rev. William Andrew Hammond, M. A., of Christ's, church, Oxford. First American edition, .Nassau,st., New York, 1844." . t <:Me Peter"—who would doubt the genuineness of this canon after the signature df Peter himself—'twould be heresy to be sure! 3 34 COMMENTARY1 dN GHUKCBT GOVERNMENT through the Lord by the Holy Spirit, even the" 'Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." " XXXV. Let not a bishop dare to ordain beyond his own limits, in cities and places not subject to him. But if he be convicted of doing so, without the 'consent of those persons who have authority over such cities and places, let him be deposed, and'those also whom he has ordained." " XXXVI. If any person, having been ordain¬ ed bishop, does not undertake the ministry, and the care of the people committed to him, let him be excommunicated until he does un¬ dertake it." Def. Faith, Apost. Can. pp. 190,193,194, 195. " IV. It is most proper that a bishop should be constituted by all the bishops of the prov¬ ince; but if this be difficult on account of some urgent necessity, or the length of the way, that at all events three should meet to¬ gether at the same place^ thoSe who are absent also giving their suffrages, and their consent in writing, and then the ordination be perform¬ ed. The confirming however of what is done in each province belongs to the metropolitan of it." "XVI. If any bishop shall dare to usurp what belongs to another,' and to ordain in his church any such person without the consent of the proper bishop from whom he has seceded, let the ordination be void." Def. Faith, Can. Nice, pp. 33, 38. "XIII. Let no . bishop dare to pass from one COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 35 province to another, and ordain any persons in the churches to the dignity of officiating, not even if he bring others with him, unless he has come upon a written invitation from the me¬ tropolitan, and the other bishops of the country into which he has come. If, Jiowever, no one inviting him, he shall proceed disorderly to the ordination of any persons, and to the regula¬ tion of ecclesiastical matters which do not belong to him, the things which are done by him shall be annuled, and he himself suffer the punishment proper for his insubordination and unreasonable attempts, beitig deposed forth¬ with by the holy synod." * Ap. Can. 35. Def. Faith Can. Atioch, pp. 172, 173. We find here certain canons, or rules, setting certain clerical regulations and provisions.— These, we suppose, were originally and seri¬ ously considered and adopted by the whole church in council assembled; and hertce, by all true " churchmen," are, perhaps, considered necessary to be observed in settling the validity -of ordination. .Thesare: 1st. That no ordination is valid without the imposition of the hands of at least two bishops. 2d. If any officer, bishop, presbyter, or dea¬ con, obtain that dignity by moneyj both, the ordainer and ordained, shall be altogether cut off from the communion of the church. * We see nothing violating the mode of the primitive OTdinations of the New Testament in these rules, unless it be the dogmatical usurped jurisdiction of episcopacy, and the absence of moral or scriptural qualifications. 36 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 3d. If any bishop secure aid from the civil authorities in obtaining "a church," he is to be deposed and excommunicated, and all that communicate with him. 4th. The bishop Incumbent or in office first in a country, must not be molested; and those bishops under him must not do anything of im¬ portance without his consent—neither must the arch-bishop " do anything without the consent of all the bishops." 5th. No bishop must ordain beyond his dio- cess, but if he transgress upon the rights of other bishops, he is to be deposed, and his ordi¬ nations are void. 6th. If any bishop will not take active charge of his people he shall be deposed. No rules can be more specific than these, all pointing especially to ordination, and the re¬ quisitions subsequent. We remark here, that we would have referred to these rules prior to this time, when on the subject of ordination, but that we wished to investigate that subject only in the light of revelation. We are now upon the subject of apostolical succession, and intend applying these canons with the scrip¬ tural rules already adduced, in order, upon Episcopalian grounds, to come at the true characteristics of a minister of Jesus Christ.— These canons, however, will serve us as the rules acted upon by Episcopalians—their own rules—by which we will scrupulously judge them by their own laws, that by their own deeds they may either stand or fall. For " no COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 3? canons," says Dr. Peck, of New York, "have been more frequently repeated by subsequent councils; and that it was maintained that ad¬ hesion to the principles of these canons was necessary to the validity of ordination, is sus¬ ceptible of the clearest proof." "If things be done contrary to the established rule, the ordi¬ nation shall be null." Council Ant. Can. XIX. Gregory Nazienzen, Bishop of Constantinople, who flourished in the fourth century, says " This man, indeed, (refering to the above rule,) may have a nominal succession, but the other has the very thing itself, the succession in deed and in truth. Neither is he who usurps the chair by violence to be esteemed in the suc¬ cession ; but he who is pressed into the office; not he who violates all law in his election, but he who is elected in a manner consistent with the laws of the case." Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, of the third century, looks upon or¬ dination as valid or invalid, according to the conformity to rules in such case. These last references are sufficient to estab¬ lish the fact, that successionists are willing that their pretensions should be tested by the rules above, or similar ones. Let us now proceed to test the election of some who profess to hold authority by these canons. And as we are more attracted by the pomp of prelacy in the church of Rome, we will first call the reader's attention to that quarter. "One melancholy instance of Ro¬ mish clerical depravity, which took place in *38 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. this century, (336) may serve as a specimen of that departure from primitive virtue which marked the conduct of considerable numbers." In the year 336, the vacant see of Rome was, by the greater part of the clergy and people, conferred upon Damascus; and this choice was confirmed by his being regularly ordained by the bishops. The artful Ursicinus had, how¬ ever, by various intrigues, obtained ordination to the sep of Rome from some other bishops, and prepared to take possession of what he chose to consider as his right. This gave rise to a f urious contest in which both parties pro¬ ceeded to blows, and even to "blood-shed and murder." See Smith's Church Hist., 4th cent., p. 100 ; in which page of the history is also in¬ serted the following, viz: " The mode of estab¬ lishing the bishops in their functions and offi¬ ces, was one great object with the famous council of Nice. It was determined there, that every bishop should be ordained or consecrated by three bishops of the province, and that his election should be confirmed by the metropoli¬ tan. But to return, Damascus obtained peace¬ able possession of his see, by means of "blood¬ shed and murder;" his case I leave with the reader without, at present, further comment.-— Church Hist. 6 cent. p. 166. "The evils of a popular election were prevented at Rome, after Italy was subjugated to the Gothic princes, who themselves appointed the bishop." Again, Church History says: "From the time of Eugenius III, who was raised to the ponti- ■COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT, 35 ficate in 884, the election (of Pope) was car¬ ried on without the least regard to law, order, or even decency, and was generally attended with civil tumults and dissentions, until the reign of Otho the Great." About this time the bishops of Rome began to assert Catholic, or Universal supremacy, as the successors of Peter, over the bishops of all other sees. Ennodius, in this century, (the sixth.) bishop of Pavia, addressed the Pope with something rqore than royalty—he "assert¬ ed," says a historian, " that he (the Pope.) was judge in place of God, and vicegerent of the Most High" " But however extensive their authority, the bishops of the ancient capital remained subject, both in civil and ecclesiastical affairs, first to the jurisdiction of the Gothic Kings; and, up-r on the retaking of Rome, to the Greek Empe¬ rors." "Such, however, was the extensive influence of papal intrigues, that there were few amongst the potentates of the western em¬ pire who were not, beforeAhe close of the suc¬ ceeding century, (the 7th,) subject to the au¬ thority of the bishops of Rome." Was this not truly the Anti-Christ, " exalting himself above all that is called God,"—the Beast of the Apo¬ calypse? We can scarcely retain moderation enough to give the subject a further serious investigation, but impartiality becomes us as an investigator; besides, the oposition is for¬ midable and must be met, not with blind, or general objections, but with specific, pointed, 40 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. scriptural, historical, and rational truths.— Hence, we treat those which, with their pre¬ tensions, every American, almost, as yet dese¬ crates—the Roman Catholics. We speak of them and their numbers, compared with our whole population. We now return to the bishop and his adula¬ tory, or rather blasphemous Pavian prelate,, Ennodius. And who was this thus placed as judge in place of God, himself, but Summach- us, or Symmachus, who contested for the pon¬ tificate with Laurentius. History treating of the sixth century, has recorded the following ; " During the progress of the sixth century, the peace of the Romish church was thrice inva¬ ded by the contests of rival pontiffs." Mark the language, rival pontiffs. "Symmachus, a deacon of Rome, and Laurentius, who, upon the death of the bishop Anastasius, had, by different parties, been elevated to the vacant sees, (see) continued for several years to assert their discordant pretensions. After repeated struggles, and the claim of a prior right, the party (partyY of Symmachus at length prej vailed. ****** The church was again divided (note—divided) by the reciprocal claims of Boniface and Dioscarus; the prema¬ ture death of the latter terminated, however, this clerical war." *'But the century did not close without another similar disturbance in this unhappy church. The intrigues of Vigil- ius procured a secret order from the empress Theodora to Belisarius, who was then at Rome, COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 41 for the deposition of the reigning bishop Silve- rus, and the investure of Yigilius in all the rights of the deposed prelate. < The unhappy Silverus was, in consequence of this command, deprived of his dignities, and banished; but, upon the interference of Justinian,* he return¬ ed to Italy, with the- delusive expectation of regaining his rights. The good fortune, how¬ ever, or superior artifices of Yigilius once more prevailed; his antagonist was resigned to his power ; and was confined by him in the islands of Pontus and Paudataria, where, in penury and affliction he terminated his wretched exis¬ tence." Now let us apply the canons adopted by these high claimants to the right of divine succession of authority for government and discipline, to be (the canons,) observed, in order to invest any in ordination with the holy office. We do not speak for the attention of those of former ages, but to Romanists of 1845; and also, all who adopt an Episcopal form of church government, are called upon to help us apply these rules; for Episcopacy has no other mode, that we can see, than through apostolical succession, of deriving legitimate authority.— In the case then of Damascus and Ursicinus, the first to which we made reference (see a former page,) took place as early as in 330, A. D., in which the strife is said (o be. " a furious contest" between them for the ascendency.— * Justinian was emperor of the west, at Rome; and The¬ odora was empress of the eastern empire, and resided at Constantinople. 42 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT, The sequel is that Damasus obtained peace¬ able possession of the Roman see, but that a certain council—that of Aquillia—" solicited the emperor again to banish the turbulent pre¬ late ; (Ursicinus) but it was not till" after sever¬ al years that Damasus obtained the peaceable possession of his see." Now, to say nothing of the "blood-shed and piurder," was he in the true succession? See can. 30. "If q-ny bishop obtain possession of a church by the aid of temporal powers, let him be deposed " &c.—, Was he in possession until after "several years ?"—and was he not put in possession by an emperor without contending at all for fa¬ voring the pretensions of Ursicinus? We say that Damasus, by this canon, was not only sub¬ ject to be deposed, but to excommunication, " and all that communicated with him." Then there is here no bishop, and, according to suc- cessionists, consequently, no church—" non eo- clesia sine episcopo.1" This conclusion may seem to some to savor a little of the rigid; well, let it seem so, for this is not our fault. If successionists will form rules, and make high pretensions, and then violate and forfeit, let them mend this broken link; for it is one pecu¬ liarity which attaches itself to their plan, (and not to us) that if one link of the chain is broken their whole chain is useless. But this is not the only failure, forfeiture, and subversion with them. Another error of the same kind, was, that the barbarian Gothic princes, at one time, appointed successors to the chair of St. .commentary on church government, 43 Peter*—the popes. This-is apostolical succes¬ sion with a vengeance. At another time, in the ninth century, " the election "Was carried on without the least regard to law, order, or even decency,"—" attended with civil tumults," &c. And yet, will any cry out " disorderly "—-either Roman- or Protestant Episcopalian—to our ministry Tor want of such succession as this ? We hope not in the future ! Symmachus and Laurentius, are said (see the quotation in this work,) to be rival pontiffs, and for several years to assert their discordant pretensions— two heads to the " infallible church !" This evinces, to every candid mind, that there was ao real succession. Besides, is. it not very Re¬ liable that these bishops anathematized one ithe other, and that they ordained each bishops, and thereby violated the 34th canon—that they employed simony, and forfeited canon 24th, and indeed incurred the penalty annexed to a violation of every canonical regulation. Con¬ trary to the rule of Gregory, they forced them¬ selves into the chair, and were not pressed into the office by the "people," and neither, conse¬ quently, could obtain the requisitions of suc¬ cession—-yet one did succeed ! We have another case to dispose of, of which Catholics themselves can, as it regards its tur¬ pitude, have no doubt—that is, the case of Sil- Verus and Vigilius, recorded, or quoted in this work from authentic record, to which quota¬ tion we refer the reader, with this inquiry—If Silverus ever had the power of setting apart 44 CDTVfSfBNTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT'. his successor, did not tHe much-doritended-for prerogative die with him in the isles of Pontiis and Pandataria ? But we are not done yet with this4apostolicai succession—" Between the reigns of Leo IV. and Benedict III., a female Pope has been intro¬ duced. This extraordinary, or imaginary per¬ son, is still characterized by the popular niame of Pope Joan; but the papal title which is as¬ signed to her is that of John VIII. By succes¬ sive steps she ascended the'throne in 854.— Such is the narrative which was believed for successive centuries, and with so little offence to Catholics themselves, that her statue is said to have occupied a place among those of the Popes in the Cathredal of Sienna. It is (the fact) also supported by the testimony of Pla- tina, who dedicated his history to Sixtus IV;; by that of Ranulphus, Marianus Scotus, Ligi- bert Abott of Gemblowrs, Archbishop Antoine, and is mentioned as a well known fact by both Petrarch and Bocceacio." There is con¬ flicting authority, however, of some respecta¬ bility. * How will popish supremacy sur¬ mount this obstacle? They are goaded on * The following, fropi the,pen of the celebrated Augustus Toplady, on this disgraceful suhject, will be interesting to the reader: "It has been confidently asserted, by some modern members of the Romish communion, that the story concerning Pope John, is a mere fiction, invented by pro- testants to blacken the infallible church. In opposition to which insinuation, I here insert the following extract, 'copied verbatim,' by has' own hand, from that scarce and curious old, book, entitled, The Nurenberg Chronicle; COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 45 cither hand by this dilemma. Succession Can not loap the bound's impervious truth has set; or then, to discredit the record by her own chronologers and their ecclesiastical cata¬ logues, what becomes of . their canonical, not to say apostolical succession ? Now, after all we have seen of the pretensions of Romanists, without pursuing their history further, to apos¬ tolic succession, is there even a probability ?-—- nay, is there a possibility that they have any claims to an unbroken or; uninterrupted suc¬ cession? We think that they can not claim this exclusive right, much less that of supre¬ macy and infallibility. They are without di¬ vine authority, and themselves being judges, they are np church;—non ecclesia sine episcopo !■ But it has long since been proven that Rome Was the Babylon—the mother of harlots and mystery—of abominations. To the validity of this line of succession again we object, on account of the overt and enormous wickedness of the Romish clergy, and the Popes, preceding the days of the reformation through the space of six centuries. -which was printed at Nurenberg, in the year.of our Lord 1493: in a popish city, by popish printers, no less than four and twenty years before the first dawn of the reformation which Luther afterwards began, which asserts all that is said of pope Joan." Suffice it to say here, further, that this extract, from said Chronicle, is before' us, and confirms the assertion of Toplady above; though we must beg indul¬ gence for omitting in this work so ridiculous a story. If it be false, it condemns her historians—if true, Rome has also recorded it. 46 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. An advocate for " the succession" off the present age; in reply "to this* objection, has the following, viz: " These instances are simply examples of bad men, who were destitute of the inward and spiritual grace. We can, (con¬ tinues he,) of course, insist upon the outward sign only, because there a^e1 doubtless many hypocrites who die undetected. If' it be not so, all the ministrations of hypocritical and bad •ministers are invalid; and then no one knows whether he is baptized, has. communed," &c. Now this, to say the le&st of it,' is a niere evasion. We object, not to the undetected hy¬ pocrisy or condite corruptions only, of the Romish church, but to the emblazoned and public outward immoralities, the gross wicked¬ ness of the'ordainers in the Romanist succes¬ sion. ' The inquiry is, then, when our objection is fairly met, (and I defy a successful refuta¬ tion to it,) whether a known adulterer, (as Pope Joan,) murder, (as Pope Pascal II.,) hnd robber, (as Yigilius,) and blasphemer, (as Sym- machus was,) may hold a commission from Christ, or by the imposition of hands conferthe Holy Spirit? Would his religion have been thought holy, had the head of the church cho¬ sen for his disciples such nien as the twelve best Popes of the middle' ages ? We would' here inquire, what is the difference, on.the ground of successiomsts, between Christ's choosing suchmen directly and successionally; that is, by settling the discipline of his church on such basis (the Episcopal,) as Would sub- COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 47' jeet it to such selection ? This is a fair deduc¬ tion -from premises given us, and unavoidably occupied by Romanists and other Episcopali¬ ans. Then, has JesUS chosen such men as Car¬ dinal Wolsey, of England, and the bloody tyrant, Henry VIII., and all the filthy, beastly Popes of Rome, of the dark ages; and the present ctge, as head of his church, or as his officers ? The advocates bf Episcopal or prelatical succes¬ sion will, we presume, scarcely, have 'the ef¬ frontery, not to say blasphemous audacity, to assert the affirmative of the above inquiry.— While they disgrace or obtrude upon the rights of man, may they not make God a partisian; or degrade man in the name of the Deity 1 To suppose this power invested in an office, and inseperable or inherent in it, without any re¬ gard to the character of the holder, "is a gross libel upon Christianity, and ah insult to its Diyine Author." Episcopacy, in order to derive authority to exercise government 'and discipline, must go upon this enchanted ground; it will answer them at least; this purpose—it will avail them as a pretext for' the usurpation of individual rights. Though usurpation is not the design of many faithful and good men who embrace this form of government, (except Romanists,) 'yet the system itself is infected, (as the experience of every age tests,) with the principle. This last remark mainly belongs to the subject of church government; which see in this work. Wes will now introduce Paul's, requisitions as given to Timothy, relative to a 48 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. gospel ministry. 1 Tim. 3: 2 to 7. As we have already introduced and commented on these, we here introduce them for the sake of con¬ trasting them with the characters of most of the Popes of Rome. "Abishop" says Paul, " must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good-behaviour, given to hos¬ pitality, apt to teach, not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous, not a riqyice.— Moreover, he must have a good report of them which are without, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." But secession¬ ists' hold those to be true bishops of the apos¬ tolical succession who are not "blameless," who had no " wife," but many concubines—were not " vigilant," but dumb dogs lying down, lov¬ ing to slumber—not " sober," but abominable debauched bacchanalians—not of "good be¬ haviour," but every way disorderly—not," giv¬ en to hospitality," but inhumanly .and notori¬ ously covetous—"given to wine," strikers, greedy of filthy lucre—not " apt to teach," but uninstructed themselves and unqualified to teach at all—not " patient," but most peevish and resentful—" covetous, brawlers, novices," # haying of them without a most evil report * Several of the bishops at the councils of Chalcedon and Ephesus could not write .their own names. These councils were held about the middle of the fifth century. To the canons which-they subscribed-officially, they were obliged tos adopt Ahis form, viz: " I, —, have subscribed by the hand, of :—-—\ because I cannot write," or such a bishop having aaid he could not write,," I, whose name is under¬ written, have subscribed for MtoP COMMENTARY Otf CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 49 We pledge ourselves to prove these very ^characteristics relative to the mass or majority 'of succession bishops episcopal; especially is there reliable proof at hand, and that sufficient to. prove every allegation in the above brief as attaching to the Rouianists. We find here, then, a' dogma at once at war with reason, abolishing canons, at strife with councils, per¬ verting rights, abandoning mercy, shy of jus¬ tice ; and in its advoCafes, perverting revela¬ tion, oppressing man and defying God. It has ffiade the church of God the repository of fraud, the sanctuary a receptacle of crime; substi¬ tutes treason for devotion,, hypocrisy for faith, anger for love, discord for harpiony, and' de¬ bauchery for holiness. •'That we may give the views of other chris¬ tians upon the moral turpitude pf those who profess 10 have the divine, ministerial mission, (Romanists,) without moral or scriptural qualh iioations, we here introduce a homily of a Pro¬ testant church concerning the office, operation, and gifts of the Holy Ghost. " Now, to leave their doctrine, and come to other points. What shall w.e think or judge of the Pope's intolerable pride ? The scripture saith, that God resisteth the proud arid showeth grace to the humble. Also prpn'ouhceth them blessed which are poor in spirit;, promising that they which humble themselves'shall*be exalt¬ ed. And Christ our Saviour'Willeth all his to learn of him, because he is humble and'meek. As for pride, St. Gregory saith, it is the root of 4 50 COMMENTARY 0?T CHURCH GOVERNMENT. all mischief. And St. Augustine's judgment is this, that it maketh men devils. r pro¬ tested clerically ? But as Mr. Chapman, an advocate for this doctrine asserts, that we must seek the " succession " through the ordainerS, let us make the attempt. First, lowever, we had perhaps better convict them by a respon¬ sible witness, of holding to the'tenet of " suc¬ cession." " They (the Presbytadans, &c.,) are." says Dr. Wainwright, " without Christ's organi¬ zation and ministry." "Whereas, Christ organ¬ ized his church eighteen hundred yearS ago." See his pamphlet, pp. 60, 61, published at New York, 1844. Christ's organization is necessary then to constitute a " ministry," and if it has continued 1800 years it would indeed be a "succession and'for this suCcessionistS, Ro¬ man and Anglican contend generally, with this, our Dr. W., unchristianizing all other churches as " mere human societies.'* We are happy to find that if this line of Succession is interrupted or broken, that the whole hypothe- 5 66 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. sis falls to the ground. This fact jthese gentle¬ men themselves acknowledge. In the sixth cen¬ tury then, Augustin visited England, a. monk. By " the king of Kent," it is said, he was " chosen to be first archpishop of Canterbury/' By whom was he ordained ? Secessionists* history tells us that he " was not consecrated at Rome, but at Aries." And strange as it may > seem; after first stating that Rome, through Augustin, was one of the mothers of the church in England, and that after saying Augustin was consecrated at Aries, the history hdds, " the bishop of Lyons, a Greek, and not a Romish colony, assisting." Now, according to this Cact, instead of having Rome for a mother, England fain, it seems, would claim that connection with Constantinople, or ihe Greek chiir»h; strange contradiction! For Mr. Chapmai. very correctly tells us, " if we wish to trace lack the authority of the present bishops, we must, go in the li,ne of the consecra- ters." Prim. Chtirch, p. 268. Albeit, history has relieved us in tjhis strange contrast of ap¬ parent facts, agreeable- to all the .history we haye in the case found; Augustin was ordained by Gregory's orders,*1 and ill the Romish suc- cessional line; such as we have already proved it to be! We will attempt to trace "the au¬ thority of the present bishops of England," then, through the,Romish line. Augustin was ordained, according to Bede, by the archbishop of Aries; and as far as we ♦ See Collier's Eocl. Hist, of Great Britain, p. 157. COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 6? have reliable historical information, without the help of other bishops. We have said that we would trace the authority of the present English bishops through the Romish line. But here, in accordance with this design, we will introduce the historical, Episcopal catalogue, presented by successionists to prove the apos¬ tolical line of Gaul, one of the imputed moth¬ ers of the English church, descending from the apostle John. We will see irom these refer¬ ences, notwithstanding the high pretensiqns arrayed, that the succession of Rome and Gaul both in Augustin meeting, (which is not dis¬ puted,) is but Romish in reality. And these authorities, although there appears a discrep¬ ancy between their statements, are. such as are referred to by high churchmen themselves as valid. Here again thdse seclusionists have a caterfa of Episcopal names, retrospecting au¬ thority through the said-to-be-line of bishops from Etherius,, bishop of Lyons, back to John the apostle. We will not trouble our readers with this catalogue. This Etherius is said to be bishop of Lyons by Episcopalians. As to this we are not necessarily interested, further than that we see no evidence that Etherius was bishop of Lyons, but to the contrary. The inquiry concerning this bishop may be to some rather uncalled for, but we here state laconi¬ cally, that this delineation of facts historical becomes necessary, inasmuch as this- prelate, Etherius, is said to have assisted in the conse¬ cration of Augustin, and thereby to have con- 68 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. fered on him the Gaulic Episcopal line. Mf. Chapman, author of a work entitled " Primitive Church," says: " Augustin was consecrated by VirgiMus, twenty-fourth bishop of Aries, assist¬ ed by Etherius, thirty-first bishop of Lyons, A. D. 5196," and refers to Bede and-others in proof, albeit Bede says no such thing; but, on the contrary, makes Etherius archbishop of Aries. Bede's wqrds are: " In the mean time, Augustin repaired to Aries, and, pursuant to the orders received from the holy father Gregory, was ordained archpishop of the English nation, by Etherius, archbishop of that city." Historia Ecclesiastica, chap. XXII. "In a letter of Pope Gregory to Eulogius, if is said thatt Augustin \vas ordained by the bishops of Germany, to whom the Pope had given leave." Baronius is confounded in his Statements of the ease between the two, or rather sanctions both these high authorities. Dussin says, he "was or¬ dained by the French bishops." As it regards the time of Augustin's ordination, we are not much concerned; however, we find Du Piu, Pope Gregory, and Baronius dating it previous to his arrival in England, while Bede and Col¬ lier, with nearly all the ecclesiastical histori¬ ans of Britain, state the contrary; "that he first preached and baptized in England, and then went to Aries, in France, and, by the Pope's orders, was consecrated." These his¬ torians differ, yet they appear to establish the fact that Etherius was not bishop of Lyons, but of Aries, and that Apgustin was ordained COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 69 there. There is another pdint established to which I would call particular attention, that is, that Augustin was ordained by the authority of the Pope. This is proven beyond contro¬ versy. Then where is the boasted origin of a Gaulic line distinct from the Romish ? An¬ other thing is indisputably shown, that is, that Augustin was ordained beyond the confines of his future bishoprick, and, indeed, beyond the borders of Great Britain; the place of his future Episcopal dominion. It therefore, mat¬ ters little with us by whom in reality; although we have taken some precision of investigation, to show the falacy'of those pretending to have claims to authority by " uninterrupted apos¬ tolical succession." We are ready now to ad¬ vance a step further, in order to inquire how this Augustin, who appears to have been or¬ dained by but one bishop, obtained authority in England, according to the canons relative to patristic ordination, and the acknowledged indepertdance of bishops. After having, by the authorities of high-churChmen's own selection, shown the falacy of their absurd claim to apostolical Gaulic authority, the inquiry above concerning Augustin's ordination and Episcopal English jurisdiction, is nearly all that remains to lis necessarily, in order to arrive at our design, that is, to examine fairly the claims of English prelacy through the Romish succession. While we proceed to speak of Augustin's ordination and Episcopal jurisdic¬ tion further, we hope none, especially those 70 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. who have followed our chain of proof through the preceding pages of this work, will conclude that this is necessary, in order to establish the position that C. Presbyterians take on this sub¬ ject ; but rather to clear away the relics of Romanism. This we will do by paying a re¬ spectful regard to the arguments of the English Episcopalians, (so far as they may agree with history and revelation,) in calling up and com¬ paring them With the records of the primitive and suoceeding ages of the christian church. And, first, as it regards the ordination in question, we will refer the reader to the canons, and also to the records of the councils—see above. By these, successionists attempt a vin¬ dication of their pretensions; by these, We are likewise willing to be governed, at least so far as these records may be of service (even if to their advantage,) in the irivestigation. The validity of Augustin's consecration to the Episcopal office, leaving out of view (as> we have here to do relative to Romapists,) moral disqualifications, depends on a compli¬ ance with rules provided in such cases, and established to be observed in Episcopal ordina¬ tion ; for, by their own laws we will condemn or acquit them. Without a recapitulation of the " Definition of Faith" and " Canon of Nice," (see 4th Can. p. 33,) we would say, ac¬ cording to this Canon, Augustin's ordination was void. We again assert, that as far as history is concerned, (except Dr. W.'s and Mr. Chapman's,) there appears no evidence un- COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 71 questioned, so far as we can discover, that this ordination was canonically performed. Besides this canon (see a former page,) we have the corroborating testimony of church history to this fact; that is, that no consecration was con¬ sidered valid unless there were at least two bishops present. This Episcopal regulation took place as early as the fourth century. This historical account is undisputed, and refers td the existence of this canonical regulation.—r See Can. 4th, as copied by us. It is true, in order to bear out the claims of the English successionists, and to subvert the very foreseen fact which here we have presented, Mr* Chap¬ man, who has given us a learned book upon this subject, says: " Doubts have been raised by some theologians whether ordinations by one bishop are valid; but, as seems, to us, without sufficient reason. They would be ■uncanonical, and therefore, irregular but still valid."—p. 286, note. T-his is a dernier expe¬ dient by an 'avowed and able advocate of British apostolical succession, in order to brace up their disputed and disreputable pretensions; and, in fact, is a grand concession of its ille¬ gality. If "irregular and uncanonical," an ordination would,- of course, be out of the line of regular succession, the very thing for which this, its advocate is contending, and would be, according to his thebry, without authority, null and void. In this Mr. Chapman concedes that for which we insist, and gives " the ven¬ erable Bede," and others, the position which 72 commentary on church government. they claim; that is, that Augustin was invpl- ldly "ordained by the bishop of Aries," pur¬ suant to the Pope's orders. Bede, the better authority, is confronted (with others,) again by the letters of Pope Gregory and Dr. Wain- %wright; but these " letters " appear not to be very reliable, especially, that of the latter, which is said by him, according to Dr. Peck, to be an anonymous letter or tract, to a " Meth¬ odist," "by a presbyter of the diocese of Ma¬ ryland," showing tb,e succession of the prac¬ tical line, &c. Du Piu vaguely seems to say, that the Brit¬ ish succession came through the bishops of France. With these proofs before us, it is palpably evident that the succession of Augus¬ tin, to whom all the English catalogues refer, is faulty, nay falacious : first, that the Romish succession (as we have already proven,) was without a foundation in Britain; and secondly,, that it, spurious as it was, was not continued, in Augustin for want of canonical regularity. The second general inquiry, concerning the •English, Augustin succession, is that relative to the introduction of the papal authority ip. Britain; for we have hitherto shown that the claims of Atigustin were derived from Rome. In what manner those claims to supremacy could, how well, soever invested, give Augustin an archbishopric in England, is surely matter of important disquisition—important to our opponents, because, unless they can show a concurrence of their own acknowledged and COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 73 adopted rules of canonical investure, in this whole transaction, it is by tbe same, null and* void. In this investigation further, we are ready to concede all that our successionists dlaim respecting the existence of Episcopal succession in England up to A. D. 596 or 9, with¬ out questioning/orsooi% its legality. Nor will it. avail for their cause that the British prelates- objected to the Romish ecclesiastical authority, but? the contrary. We find in Smith's ecclesiT astical history (see pp. 165, 166,) that in 596, A. D., Augustin entered England as a Romish missionary; that hq " whom Gregory had in-. vested with full spiritual power over all the British and Saxon clergy, assumed the title of archbishop of Canterbury." " They" (the British clergy,) " refused even to acknowledge him as their archbishop,' and would not be pre¬ vailed on to exchange their ancient ceremo¬ nies." This same historian states, that " for several ages after the mission of Augustin," the churches of Britain would not conform to the practices of the Romish church re¬ specting the paschal controversy.* The late Dr. Wainwright, speaking of this period, (as already copied in this work, which see.) calls it "the fourth, or Roman period of usurpation," and we think too, with a great deal of propri¬ ety ; a strange concession indeed, for oile who * Elsewhere this authority says, that in the 7th century Theodore, by the concurrence of the Saxon kings, extend¬ ed the jurisdiction of the see of Canterbury "over all England." 74 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. advocates his cause—at the same time coi>- tending for canonical succession, and the ac¬ knowledged indepepdance of bishops. " There¬ fore," continues he, "the British church was far from extinct when Austin was sent from Rome." This fact we acknowledge, and, in •order to set it before our readers, have here introduced the above quotation from Dr. W.; we are willing he should have all the advanta¬ ges he could wish to derive from it as it stands. The Romish mission then, was a usurpation, as related both by Smith and (Wainwright; 'consequently, we may easily exhibit it in its true colors, by referring to the canons or eccle¬ siastical rules, in such cases, proved by the primitive general councils. We will also in¬ troduce evidence co-relevant from some of the primitive fathers. These canons we have in¬ troduced on a former page, but, however, we will make a running reference here, also, to them. " Let not a bishop dare to ordain be¬ yond his-own limits, in cities and places not; subject to him. But if he be convicted of doing so, without the consent of those persons who have authority over such cities and places, let him be deposed, and those also whom he has ordained." See also, and to the same effect, Canons 16, 23. These canons need no addi¬ tional comment. They apply to the case of Augustin, and cut off, without doubt, the claims of English successionists. Even had Augustin possessed, ill his iuvesture, every requisite that these feeclusionists could desire, it would not COMMENTARY ON CHURCH dOVERNMENT. 75 have given him a right to exercise church gov¬ ernment and discipline in other men's dioceses. Augustin had no right to " assume," aS church history says he did, the archbishopric of Can¬ terbury. Wainwright says he was chosen by the king of Kent to be first archbishop, &c.; a violation of another canon, which see.— Augustin could not then continue even the Romish succcession ; he himself was subject to be deposed, and biis ordinations, by succes- sionists' own canons, were null.' Especially was'this Romish line spurious and anathema¬ tized in the usurpation of the succeeding cen¬ tury (by the ecclesiastical laws,) under Theo¬ dore, who, " by the concurrence of the Saxon kings, extended the jurisdiction of the see of Canterbury over all England." See Smith's eccl. hist. p. .209. This last historical fact shows that the Romish line transplants the British succession. This line then, must have become extinct; and it is said, indeed, that the British bishops all, or nearly all, were cut oft' shortly after the Romish " usurpation," by the army of the king of Kent. And Dr. Wain- wright himself bears testimony to this fact in his abridged history of the English Church ; wherein he says, "bluff Harry," (meaning Henry the Eighth, of England,) "drove the seismatical bishops out of other men's dio¬ ceses." Noth withstanding these "seismatical," Romish bishops had these diocesses nearly one thousand years; and, consequently, the British bishops must have had no successors, and 76- COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENTS in this lapse ages must have become extinct.. The Gaulic and: British mothers of Dr. W., are lost, as evidently appears to be the incontro¬ vertible fact. Before, however, we proceed to examine farther the Romish succession in Eng¬ land, which we have attempted to prove un- canonical and irregular, and no apostolic suc¬ cession at all, we will, for the -information of our readers, introduce on this subject the opin¬ ions of ecclesiastics of the primitive ages.— " That it was/' says an able writer of the pres¬ ent age, "maintained that adhesion to the principles of these canons " (those cited above) "was necessary to the validity of ordination, is susceptible of the clearest proof." The council of Antjoch says, "If things be done contrary to the established rule, the ordination shall be null." Can. XIX. And Gregory Nazi- anzer says : " This man, indeed, may have a. nominal succession, but the other has the very thing itself,- the succession indeed and in truth*' This last'sentiment goes to establish the British succession, and, as our English claimants are desirous, it seems, to have three strings to their Romish monochoid, they, were it not that this their English Vibrator were sundered and dis¬ placed by the former, might, perhaps, make out apparent title; but hear Gregory again con- fii'ming what we have in our quotation exhib¬ ited from the record of the council of Antioch,. with-.ut invalidating, in the least, his first senti¬ ment. lie thus continues : " Neither is he who usurps the chair by violence to be esteemed in. tlOMMEftTARY ON'CHUkcfi GOVERNMENT. 77 the succession;" (Augustin did usurp by vio¬ lence this archbishopric,) " but he who is press¬ ed into the office; not he who violates all law in his election, but he who is elected in a man¬ ner consistent with the laws of the case."—> The laws of the case: the reader can make his own inferences, by referring to the canons on another page, with the facts in the case before hird. These are "the laws and facts of the case." We might introduce many authorities to the same effect, but the histqry of Dr. W., 'quoted already by us, taken in connection (and this brief history of the English Church compre¬ hends the facts as presented by an acknowl- edgely able successionist, diplomatist D. D., and his friends, it is presumed, will not demur,) with the rules or ecclesiastical canons, make it scarcely necessary for us to array further testimony. We will, neveit.heless, introduce at some length the collateral evidence of an able canonist of the third century, St. Cyprian. We will stop here to pay a passing tribute of respect to the character of this great and good man. Church history says: " Cyprian, who in the year 248 attained the Episcopal see of Carthage, acquired a degree of admiration and applause from his contemporaries, which has not been denied him by posterity. Affqble, virtuous, and charitable in his private charac¬ ter, he was zealous, spirited, and active in his public station, and possessed all those qualities which are calculated to attach friends, and ex- 78 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. cite the jealousy of adversaries. * * * He then entered into a spirited controversy with Stephen, bishop of Rome, concerning the pro¬ priety of re-baptizing heretics. * * * He (Stephen,) was resolutely opposed by the in¬ flexible Cyprian, who asserted, on the contrary, that baptism performed by heretics was null.'? Cyprian was afterwards beheaded, for con¬ stancy to the christian faith. The reasott we have said of Cyprian's evidence in this case, that we would give "the collateral evidence,^ &c., is, that the case of which he is speaking, viz: that of Novatian, is a case nearly paral¬ lel with that of Augustin, as regards canonical regularity. We must recollect, however, that there was nothing derogatory, as the quotation shows, of a moral nature in Novatian's case; albeit, in Augustin's claims to apostolical suc¬ cession, as has been shown by history—by the " canons "—by the concession of his partisans —by inferences and arguments, and above all, by the Word of God; there are moral objections insurmountable to successionists. And how will they avert the weighty testimony whi.ch we, in this very case produce. Augustin, who claims, perhaps upon the regularity of this Romish Novatian line, some three centuries posterior, (596) has to bear up his pretensions (or the English prelate for him,) in the face of authority incontrovertible; for all the objections, at least herein invalidating the Novatian Romish line, falls with accumu¬ lated anathemas upon Augustin and the Eng- COMMENTARY QN CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 79 Fish prelacy, falaciously attempting to claim authqrity and discipline. We have authority for spying, that all their Episcopal catalogues tr^ce up to Augustin; indeed, the history of Dr., W.,'already quoted, gives evidence to this point. Another remark before we introduce Cyprian's testimony: the case of Novatian \vas very applicable to our purpose, when tracing immediately the. Romish succession; although it comes inhere by design, and perhaps more aptly. Cyprian, speaking of the elevation of Cor¬ nelius to the see of Rome, and commenting on the pretensions of his rival, Novatian, says: Cornelius was advanced • to the Episcopal chair, * * * * which, therefore, being filled, agreestblyto the will of God, * * * whoever thenceforward would be ordained to it, must be ordained out of the church; nor is he capa¬ ble indeed of receiving ordination from the church who maintains- not the unity of the church; b& that person who he will, and let him boast as much as he pleases of his own merits and qualifications, I make n,o scruple to pronounce him a profane person, an alien, and one who hath no lot nor part in the privileges of the church. And since, when one is once regularly ordained, there can be no other after him, whoever pretends to any such ordination, after his, who alone is entitled to it, doth not only forfeit his claim to the effects of such a second but indeed of any ordination; and the SO commentary on churCh Government. whol6 "action is really a perfect nullity." *— Epistle 55, sec. 5. It is evident frorp the above comment on the canons, that Cyprian held that whatever was done in compliance with these rules, was in compliance with the will ol God; thus tena¬ ciously were the ecclesiastical regulations, call¬ ed canons, adhered to by Episcopalians at an early day.f " No .other can be after Jiim " or¬ dained, refers to the same time and same Epis¬ copal chair, and. the then incumbent prelate. In the same epistle, section 2nd, he says: "As to the person of Nbvatian, dear brother, con¬ cerning whom you desire to kno^ from me, what heresy he hath introduced into ,thc church, it dath not, I think, become us to be curious in our inquiries after his doctrine; since whatever he may teach, he reaches it out of the church, whosoever, or whatsoever else he be, he can be no christian who is not in the church of Christ, # # * * # unless you can think him a bishop, who, when another was ordained so by sixteen of his brethren bishops, would obtrude upon the church a spurious and foreign bishop, ordained by a parcel of rene¬ gades and disserters, and that by canvassing and intrigueing forvit. * * * * Whereas, moreover, in each city of every province there are bishops ordpined; venerable for their age, # Novatian differed with Cornelius on a matter of dis¬ cipline. t Episcopacy was imposed upon Christianity soon after the apostolic age. ' Commentary on church government. 81 Untainted in their principles, approved in the day of trial and adversity, and out-lawed in the time of persecution; he is so daring and adventurous as to constitute over their heads a set of spurious, pretending bishops, as if he were able to carry his new attempt through the whole christian world, by obstinately per¬ sisting in it." If this denunciation was hurled against Novatian, who was not justly charged with heresy, and who had been ordained by three Italian bishops, only because he usurped ecclesiastical authority which had been, con¬ signed 'to another, what would the " Romish usurpation" in England have justly called foi^th ? For a violation of the canons, Nova- tiap is pronounced by this high authority, " no bishop—a profane person—not ip the church— an alien—no christian—a sphrious foreign bish¬ op—his ordination a perfect nullity." These denunciations come with full force against the usurper of English ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Comment is needless. But a^ain, this Augus- tin succession which met with opposition from the English prelates, was entirely, in process of time, stipplanted by the Popes themselves. Testimony of the clearest is found of this in bishop Godwin's Lives of the English Bishops. See the result pf Mr. Powell's examination of, and quotations from this author, in his treatise on the Apostolical succession, published by Lane and Tippett, 200 Mulberry street, New York, pp. 145-147. All the bishops of Britain, (with one excep- 82 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. tion perhaps,) from Augustin to the time of Edward VI., were ordained by the Pope or his legates, either at Rome or elsewhere, upon the continent. Until the reformation in the six¬ teenth century, subsequent to the conquest, their bishops were mostly forqign. Mr. Powel says: " The English bishops regularly traded with Rome in simonical traffic; evidence enough of this is found in bishop Godwin's lives of the English prelates. The court of Rome Sold every thing. " Sometimes," says Godwin, " those who had purchased, were, by a fraudu¬ lent clause in a subsequent bull, thrown out of their purchase." It was then sold to a second huckster, and the Pope received double— p. 106. John of Oxford, bishop of Winchester, paid six thousand marks to the Pope for his consecration, and the same sum to Jordan, the Pope's chancellor—p. 222. Greenfield, arch¬ bishop of York, was two years before he could obtain his confirmation and consecration from the Pope, ahd then he paid nine thousand five hundred marks fgr the favor—p. 685. When Morton became archbishop of Canterbury, bishop Godwin says, He spunged from the bishops of the provinces a large amount of money, compelling them, by the authority of the Pope, to bear the cost of his translation to that see, to the amount of fifteen thousand pounds"—p. 131. Apostolical. Sue. pp. 247, 248. The following, from the same authority, shows something of the extent of the papal power in England, and the result consequent COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 83 Godwin represents the archbishop of Canter¬ bury, Peckham, as making to his holiness, Pope Nicholas III.,.in 1278, calling him his creator, the following complaint: " Truly a writ of ex¬ ecution, horrible to be seen, and terrible to be heard, ha„s 'lately reached me, declaring, that except I answer to it within a month after the feast of St. Michael, by paying into the hands ■of the merchants of Lucca the sum of four thousand marks, according to, my bargain with the court of Rome, I am then to, be excommuni¬ cated, and am to be cursed in my own and other principal churches, with bell, book, and candle"—p. 245.* In what a light does the Romish holy succession, apostolical, here ap-, pear? Nor less in clerical turpitude appear^ the would-be holy apostolical succession of Brit¬ ain. That the present English church is charge¬ able, since the reformation, with such simoni- eal corruption, we do not even once suppose ; but that any.successionist should, with these glaring facts staring them full in the face, pre¬ tend to claim authority through such a line of succession from the apostles unbroken,f is to us matter of inexplicable .astonishment,, wheth¬ er those claimants be Episcopalian, Methodists, or Episcopalians of Europe or any other Con¬ tinent. As to the canon lorbidding a bishop or bishops from taking possession, moreover, of * 245th page of Godwin's t! Lives," &c. f See Smith's church history, page 444, for further infor¬ mation relative to the claims of English secessionists, 84 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. the dioceses of others by the interposition of civil power, it has both, in Rome and Britain, been almost totally disregarded. And that which deposes a bishop for not taking the ac¬ tive oversight of his charge, has beeli also almost totally disregarded;# and, indeed, al¬ most all those canons of which successionists boast, and from which they pretend to derive high claims and authority, have been by them violated. If one of these rules (their own) is violated, is that not a link out of their succes¬ sion, and then, a link out of the chain and it falls. Now, what of apostolical uninterrupted succession ? Is there any such thing in the sense of successionists? We think not. Thus, we have, at grea'er length than we desired, or even anticipated, given our contro¬ versialists jure divrno, a part in this discussion; the investigation has occupied our pages at some length, and may to some appear to be subject to the appellation of prolixity. How faulty soever it may be deemed, in extenuation, (if necessary,) we would say the subject de¬ manded candor, aud without, by proper quota¬ tions introducing authorities, we could not even appear impartial, much less be so; or be en¬ titled to that -candor and fairness in disquisi¬ tion to be indispensibly attempted in a work of *Whpn Narni preached before the Pope to cardinals and bishops, and painted the crime of non-residence in its own colors, he frightened thirty or forty bishops who heard him, instantly home to their dioeeses. This same kind of event¬ ful, disgraceful non-residence was practised in England COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 85 this kind. This remark of ours bears defer¬ ence more particularly to the mass of our readers who may not be acquainted with the scope generally considered requisite in an in¬ vestigation of this subject; to-the antiquarian apd scholastic divine, it may not be too tedi¬ ous, yet ask of him dourtesy and indulgence We' deem it almost unnecessary to extend oqr investigation on the subject of apostolical succession, with regard ,to the derivation and exercise of ecclesiastical power assumed by the Methodist Episcopal churches of the United States of America, We find although, that successionists (according to Dr. Peck,*) claim Episcopal Methodists. It is just, however, to say, that the same author (Dr. P.) discards the falacicrus pretenders. Notwithstanding, the inquiry arises, (especially with regard to our brethren of the Episcopal Methodist church,) from whence does your authority originate?— Episcopalians, whether Protestant or Metho¬ dist, would say, through English succession apostolical! "We have a right to exercise gov¬ ernment and discipline derived from the Head of the church—derived uninterrupted " through,, the apostles and our clerical progenitors. This is (as we have seen,) a'mere pretext, used as a stratagem of ecclesiastical usurpation. But how stands the case alone with the " Metho¬ dist Episcopal Church?" It claims its right from Mr. John Wesley, as founder, (for sometime Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford, #See Methodist Quarterly Review, Jan. no., 1845. 86 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. England,) who was not only ordained an "Eng- lish successionist," but .adhered to the order of that succession, (or the established high- church,) in the mairr, until his death. How stands the case, if it denies 'the authority by which its clergy originated ; and, consequently, the right to ecclesiastical jurisdiction ? That the Rev. J. Wesley adhered to the English Church, as we have said, see the following in his own language, .viz: " Lord King's account of the primitivp church convinced me, many years ago, that bishops and presbyters are the same order, and consequently have the same right to ordain.' For many years I have been importuned,* from time to time, to exercise this right, by ordaining part of our traveling prach- ers; but I still have refused, not only for peac6 sake, but because I was determined, as little as possible, to violate the established order of the national church to which 1 belonged."'— Here, we remark, that the conviction of this great and good man, as expressed above, seems to argue but little for his candor. And as it regards this part of our general inquiry, viz: the origin and extent of church government and discipline—his acknowledged convictions and future acts appear to us not to accord, nor yet to warrant the erection of an Episcopal church government. Even admit his theory, (for you cannot his practice,) that is, that " bish¬ ops and presbyters are the same order; and that they have the right to ordain," can they ordain out of the church ? or, if you please, COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT." 87 above the authority of the church ? This in¬ quiry must be answered affirmatively, agreea¬ ble to Mr. Wesley's acts and convictions.— Then how did Dr. Coke and F. Asbury derive their authority in 1784, to constitute authori¬ ties successive? I arlswer, from the fyigh church of England- Witness the following, viz ; * * * " being assisted by other presbyters of the church of England, by prayer and impo¬ sition of hands, he (Wesley,*) Set apart Thomas Coke, L. Lf D», and a presbytgr of said church, as a superintendent of the Methodist societies in A,merica; and directed him to consecrate Mr. Francis Asbury for the same office." See Woodward's ed. of Buck's Theological Die.— his appendix; for which he says he is indebted to N> Bangs and I. Emory, publishers for the Methodist, &c.; and Smith's church history, pp. 498-9 and 500. Now if Dr. Coke was not ordained out of a church, in what church was he ordained? and by whom? In the high church of England, and by sucpessionist clergy- men^ To deny a claim to apostolical succes¬ sion,. is then to deny in this case, that they have authority to exercise discipline and, government over the laity of their body,, Does it not now incontrovertibly appear that the Methodist Episcopal Church is derived from, and is part and parcel of that spurious Romish, would-be English succession ? As it respects its right to ordain, we leave the matter * Was Wesley a bishop ? 88 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT! with our readers, denying, as they do, apostolic cal English succession. But how the clergy can claim authority to govern lay members according to the primitive rights of christians, J cannot see; unless they pretend something of an elective, representative power*—this their very name, " Episcopal," forbids. It is neces¬ sary, perhaps, again to warn the reader that we are not discussing the subject of church government direct, but tracing the origin of the right to exercise the same. Our design is to make lay christians sensible of their privi-. leges, as they are guaranteed to them by the Head of the church; and also, of their obliga-. tions. We have show from their own authori¬ ties that E. Methodists originated among Eng¬ lish secessionists, and we are now ready to look, according to the canons already intro-. duced and adopted by these high claimants, into their line apostolical; and further, after their rights to exercise authority in the church of Jesus Christ. . Now, if Methodists ,derived their jurisdiction in an elective representative manner, carrying out lay privilege, this inquiry would be useless; for we believe they are good people, and that their ministry are, most of them, called of God. But at the present criti¬ cal juncture every • error in government and discipline, should be exposed, (in christian chari¬ ty,) especially, when papists are asserting their claims to supremacy, should every relic of that *This is a runnjng referrencety) church government^ which see in this wo^h treaty}. COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 89 hierarchial despotism be exposed. And episco¬ pacy, in whatever independant form, is a relic too much, resembling popery to be looked upon with indifference \ in our humble view, it is tyranny. How then soever it may appear to speak of a church truly protestant in their doctrines, as adhering to popery ip their form of church au¬ thority, it is nevertheless, with us, matter of duty so to do, in an investigation of this nature. As it regards Protestant Episcopalians and Episcopal Methodises, we need not trace their succession American, since we know something already of their vague pretensions- from an investigation of the spurious claims which are put forward by their European ancestry. We think JVlr. Wesley was a little mistaken in things relative to a canonical church organiza¬ tion in America i first, in speaking of this mat¬ ter, he says; " bishops and presbyters are the same order(in this he was correct,) as in this he discarded, or at least disparaged British prelacy. But then, after this, he assumed pre- latical authority^ and Sent down upon the American societies a foreign bishop or super- intendant, and hence, formed a kind of dio- cessan episcopacy—he was mistaken some how between his pretended theory and prac¬ tice. Mr. Wesley says, prior to this organiza¬ tion : "By a very uncommon -train of provi¬ dences, ipany of the provinces of North Ameri¬ ca are totally disjoined from the mother country, and erected into independent States " 9® COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. * * * "But no one either exercises or claims any ecclesiastical authority at all." * * * * "Here there are bishops who have legal juris¬ diction." Is this not language tenacious of the divine right of prelatical succession? "In America there are none, neitherno parish min¬ isters." This was prior to 1784, the time of the organization, and he continues in reference to this organization, adding these significant words: "I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Francis Asbury to be joint su¬ perintendents over our brethren" (over, our brethren!) "in North America." I wonder if our brethren in North America were considered, by this advocate for prelacy, both preachers and laity, as "not having nor exercising any ecclesiastical" jurisdiction? So Mr. Wesley says ; see above. How long had our brethren in North America, existed as societies or churches ? Some eighteen years. Smith's church history says: " The first Methodist so¬ cieties in the United States were formed in 1765, one in New York, and one in Frederic county, Maryland. Societies having been afterwards formed in other places, some preach¬ ers were obtained from England, and others were raised up in America. Bangs and Emory in Woodward's appendix to his edition of Buck's Dictionary, 1826, say: " The first Meth¬ odist society inrihe United States of America, was formed in the city of New York, in the year 1766, by a few Methodist emigrants from Ireland. * * * * The first regular conference COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 91 Was held in Philadelphia, in the year 1773, under the superintendence of Mr. Thomas Rankin, who had been sent by Mr. Wesley to take the- general oversight of the societies in this country." This is all prior to 1784. But, besides Mr. Rankin, Mr. Embury, Mr. Straw- bridge, Mr. Pilmore, and Mr. Boardman, all of the Methodist persuasion,-there were other denominations who both claimed and exercised ecclesiastical jurisdiction in North America, before 1784. " The Presbyterian Church in the United States, was originally composed of a few strict Presbyterians from Scotland and Ireland, and some Congregationalists from New England and South Britain, f * * * In 1704, the. first Presbytery was organized. And in 1716 a Synod was formed, called the Synod of Philadelphia," &c. See Smith's church histo¬ ry, p. 500. Mr. Wesley Says: "In America thgre are none," (no bishops.) Strange ! when Lord King convinced him, as he acknowledges, (Smith's church history, p. 499,) "that bishops and presbyters are the same order." There were (if not among his brethreit,) some who were presbyters, if presbyters, himself being judge, then bishops. Yea, although oppressed by episcopacy in Virginia previous, there were several staunch old Scottish and Irish Presbyte¬ rian bishops, presbyters, or pastorsj, whose ec- clsiastical integrity stopped not at the down fad of British tyranny; nor took occasion, when our rights were invaded, to step over to Eng¬ land and consult peers and prelates. What 92 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT.. then of Mr. Wesley's, assertion in the face of these reliable authorities ?■' It seems, indeed, to me, that this distinguish¬ ed man was apprised of canonical successional difficulties, and was. attempting to make as plausible a case as possible, relative to a future American succession, apostolical. How logi¬ cally soever he may seem to succeed,,yet it is but badly that his prelates are oanonized.— How very similar is the derivation of Episco-» pal power through Dr. Coke, and that of Au¬ gust^ the Romish monk; one deriving power from the Pope, the other from Mr. Wesley;. the former at the head of the English succes¬ sion, the latter the. American.* Both, as far as pretension is made to ecclesiastical jurisdic¬ tion, was a usurpation, and according to the Episcopal fathers of the christian church,, they were foreign, spurious bishops. See cann¬ ons 33 and 35 quoted in this work. Now if the right to exercise church govern-- ment is neither found in Gaulic, Romish, Eng¬ lish, nor American apostolical Episcopal pre¬ tended succession, where is it found? Christ has a church, and rightly ordained clerical authority in that church. In addition.to what we have said in the first pages of this. work,, we will add a fe"w more remarks, and also introduce the opinions of approved authorities * The Methodist Episcopal Church does not claim) "apos¬ tolical succession." Dr. Bangs, who was one of them, has it seems, written ahly against the succession doctrine. COMMENTARY ON 'CHtJRCH GOVERNMENT. 33 Nm this subject.* Indeed, to make a profitable impression of what we have already inculcated in the light (as we think,) and simple language of the Holy Oracles, it is necessary here to add and recapitulate—especially, after the subse¬ quent unavoidably lengthy investigation of the senile claims of successionists. Our position is, that extraordinary offices were bestowed upon the church in the days of the apostles, but, that these gifts of the Holy Ghost were not necessarily (nor at all perhaps,) continued be^ yond the apostolical age. That ordinary ope-4 rations or gifts of the Holy Spirit, are those by which the church' has been perpetually sup¬ plied with the ministry and means of her con¬ tinuation. That it was not needfpl nor even possible that the apostles, strictly speaking, had a succession perpetual and uninterrupted. That successionists claimed a false position, when they assumed the exclusive right, of per¬ petuation with regard fo the clerical office and the church, which both belonged to Christ, through and by the concurrence of human lay agency. That ecclesiastical authority origin¬ ated in Christ, and was communicated by the ordinary gifts of ihe Spirit to the future officers of the church, voluntarily associated together for mutual edification and holy observance of *It might he by some expected that we give our views on literary qualifications relative to ministers, but this we leave as we have found it in Paul's writings; or rather leave every church judicature to make their comment, and act accordingly. See C. Presbyterian Confession of Faith on *biq c"ibieet. 94 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. His Word and Will. That this association or church, had a choice or voluntary right in matters of secondary consideration; that is, that individual members all had peculiar privi¬ leges, and a right, where the Word of God did not expressly forbid, as to government, to act for themselves. We think the a*bove synopsis or outline contains matter of momentotLS con¬ sideration,, and encompasses our views and arguments. That successionists maintain the idea that they succeed the -apostles in every apostolical extraordinary degree, (exoept Cath¬ olics,) is not presumed, yet pretending t© a divine right received from them, or claiming ^;o occupy their seats and their identical pre¬ rogatives, what less do they assume than their high and extraordinary endowments ? " There are four things which constitute an extraordi¬ nary officer in the church of God: 1st. An ex¬ traordinary call to an office, such as none other can have, by virtue of any law or constitution whatever; 2nd. An extraordinary power communicated to persons so called, enabling them to perform the duties to which they are called; 3d. Extraordinary gifts for the exer¬ cise of that power; £th. Extraordinary em¬ ployment, as to its extent and measure, requir¬ ing extraordinary zeal, Labor, and self-denial." All these must concur in those offices which we call extraordinary. Thus it was with the apostles, prophets, and evangelists at the first. They were extraordi¬ nary teaching officers. 1 Cor. 12: 28, and Eph., COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. $5 4: 11. "It was my design (says Dr. Owen, further on this subject, which testifies abund¬ antly in favor -of our position,) to manifest how vain is the pretence of some to a kind of succession to these offices, who have neither an extraordinary call, gifts, nor employments, but who are pleased to assume to themselves an extraordinary power over the churches and disciples of Christ, such.as neither evangelists, nor prophets, nor apostles themselves ever, claimed ; but.this matter of power is fuel to the pfoud ambitious minds of Diotrephists; and, as now circumstanced, with other advantages, js useful to the corrupt lusts of men; and therefore, it is no wonder if it be pretended to, and greedily sought, by such as have neither Call to the ministry nor gifts for it." Our re¬ mark that episcopacy is founded designedly by secessionists, upon the ungrounded assump¬ tion of power claimed by i'ts advocates, is, by this learned Doctor fairly sustained; or out remark rather, that it (" succession") was a stratagem of ecclesiastical usurpation. Agjain : "Now, where these were bestowed, as on the apostles and evangelists, they differ¬ ed only in degree from those which are ordi¬ nary and still continued." See all these gifts enumerated by the apostle in 1 Cor. 12: 7 to 11. These nine sorts of gifts flourished in the first age of the Church, and were the- life of ifs extraordinary ministry. Those gifts, peculiar to the apostles, were commensurate to their lives. "Noney after their, decease, had either D6 COMMENTARY ON CftUECH GOVERNMENT. apostolical office, power, or gifts." " The same may be said of the evangelists; nor have we any undoubted testimony that any gifts, truly miraculous, * * * were communicated * * * after the expiration of that generation, * * * or of those who received the Holy Ghost by their ministry." See Pneumatologia, pp. 34, 36-7-8. If a Vice-chancellor of the University of Oxford, Dr. Owen, could come out with the language we have seen above, in the midst and against law, sanctioned prelatiial orders, it must have been from a hearty, conscientious conviction that the Word of God sustained him, that he thus did. Moreover, he gives a dis¬ course on the work of the Holy Spirit, relative to what ordinary gifts bestowed tipon the body of Christ (the Church) are, and the ptoper dis¬ tinction of the terpis ordinary and extraordi¬ nary: "Gifts are called ordinary, not as if they were absolutely common to a(l, or not to be highly esteemed; but by this term they are distinguished from those just mentioned, which exceed all the powers and faculties of men; and because they are continued in the ordinary state of the church." It might be thought that enough has already been produced in this work, from scripture, ecclesiastical history, &c., to establish the scriptural view of the origin, nature and design (that for which we set out—see first of this- work,) of church government and discipline; but we have-as yet only, or principally, been employed in clearing away. As regards practi- "COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 97 cal explication, we have not taken into our dis¬ quisition the origin of ecclesiastical authority in its full extent. We have been confined prin¬ cipally to the ministry; and we have found that with them church power originated in part, from Christ, the Head of the Church.— We have given the apostle^ enumeration of offices, &c'., Eph. 4: 7, &c., " wherein," says, Dr. Owen, " at one view, the grant, institution, benefit, and continuance of the christian min¬ istry is clearly and fully represented." Yet we are desirous to investigate, in the light of reve¬ lation, more fully the characters of church officers that are necessary to the government of the church; especially those that do not labor in the ministry; or rather to distinguish and defend the claims of Presbyterians.—* However, before we proceed, we may notice the catalogue of Episcopal, modern official names—modern they must be, for they are not in the lists enumerated by Revelation: such as Superintendants, Class-leaders, Lay-preachers, &c. Now this may be thought a little pug¬ nacious, alid may be retorted upon us, as we» have stated-preachers and the like; but we do not, separately considered, rdcognize any such names as an official character1. See our Dis¬ cipline. See Methodist Episcopal Church Dis¬ cipline, where these stewards, &c.r have their ecclesiastical offices defined. Where do they derive their right to exercise their authority in 7 '98 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT the church?* Dr. Owen,.speaking of Paul's? classification in Eph. 4th chap., says: " And here it will follow, that the introduction of offi¬ cers into the church, not appointed by him, (Christ,) b an act of opposition to his authori¬ ty, and a contempt of his care and bounty; and if an examination might be admitted by this rule, (as it will one day, whether men will or not,) some great names now ih the church would scarce be able to reserve their station; Popes,, cardinals, metropolitans, diocesan pre¬ lates, arch-deacons, commissaries, officials, and I know not what other products of an incestious conjunction between secular pride and ecclesiastical degeneracy^ would think themselves severely treated by tiffs rule: but so it must be at last, and that unavoidably."^- Pneumat. p. 349. The principal difficulty re¬ maining, and all the one perhaps, is, that Epis¬ copalians seem to confront us with the asser¬ tion that there is no distinction made in scrip¬ ture between elders, or that lay eldership is not warranted in scripture. This is a scripture ♦office, and calls for our serious consideration relative to the above distinction ; for we think 'it lias been in this work plainly shown that presbyter and bishop are one and the same office. It has also been, by several quotations proven, that there were elders who ruled well, and those who " labored in the word and in *They have these officers elected—lay or local preachers have some show of authority. COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 99 the doctrine," both by divine authority appoint¬ ed. See on this subject Acts 20: 28—in this his farewell address to the church at Ephesus, Paul, 17th verse, having called the elders of the church, declared them to be made overseers of the church by the Holy Ghost. Now, to show what elders' offices were, we refer to' Peter's epistle to the church general. 1 Peter, 5 : It—"The elders which are among you I ex¬ hort, who' am also an elder," &c. See John's third epistle. Then if Peter and John, the chief apostles, were elders, is it not evident that elder, bishop, pastor or presbyter, which meail the same thing, (as to the general, or more comprehensive ecclesiastical appellation, a ruler in the church,) designated as high an office as was by Christ appointed. That presbyter and bishop are one.and the same office, hnd resided amidst their charge. See Heb. 13 : 7, 17 ; 1 Thes. 5': 12. What of the Episcopal ministerial three grades ? But there were some appointed as "overseers" by'the Holy Ghost, who did not labor in the doctrine. See 1 Tim. 5: 17.—"Let the elders that rule' well be counted worthy, of double • honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine;" also, Rom. 12: 7, 8 ; Acts 25: 25. There is another office instituted pertaining to the tem¬ poral affairs of the church. The reader at once anticipates the name deacon, or office of deacon. For its institution see Acts 6th chap., to the 7th veise inclusive. As we have confined our investigation thus 100 COMMENTARY ON CHURCfl GOVERNMENT. far, exclusively, almost, to the theoretical, we cannot pass to the second part, viz: church government, of this work (which we design,) without dwelling more at. large on the ordinary gifts granted by the Great Head of the Church, to that important and efficient, and divinely insti¬ tuted, official authority claimed and acknowl¬ edged in an evangelical modern ministry of Christ. Especially do we consider this important at the present .time, when extreme prejudices, mixed with disregard, bordering on profane contempt, are prevalent among the generality of non-professors; yea! among too many, I fear a majority of professing christians, there is lamentable want of due consideration, nob to say ignorance, relative to Christ's servants* Extremes attach to systems as well as indi¬ viduals. For instance, there is a system where " all abdve is intangible pqwer, and all beneath is unconditional" (ecclesiastical) submission; this is Episcopacy. Again, there is a system in which all have equal rights to the detriment of the (might be) wiser whole ; this is Congre¬ gationalism. The former has, and holds at too great a distance and too great an aWe, therefore, the minds and periods of its adher¬ ents (its laity,) relative to its ministry, who may " lord it over God's heritage." The latter retains, perhaps, too little respect for its sacred ministry, or lor those invested with holy orders. Ignorance may look through an old woman's spectacles, or a pert youth's vision, at the man Commentary on church government^ 101 whom, perhaps, God has- called, and who has "the fires" of God's love "shut up i.n his bones," and conjecture him to be underneath her ecclesiastical jurisdiction, scarcely worthy * Presbyterians have adopted a system of gov¬ ernment, (especially C. Presbyterians,) and form of ordination of' ministers which aims to incorporate all the advantages of these extreme systems, without embracing their disadvanta- ges.f How far they may have undervalued or abused their privileges, is not for us to say; There is, in our judgment, an evident want of solemnity and importance (al'legable to what sburce soeverj we say not,) to some, yea, the mass ©f the present generation-, with regard to things that pertain to the house of God. The ministry is not-regarded with that due subordi¬ nation to the great head of the church (by them represehted,) that ought to be. Brethrenr 1 fear that blame attaches to* us, that we do not have an abiding sense (and corresponding detneamor) of the greatness of the gifts bestow¬ ed upon us. We know, alas! full well, that without the presence of the Spirit, we cannot * In an election and ordination in tiie Primitive Baptist Church, at S. C., the' clerk chalked the candidates' names and kept the score on a bench. The members (old men and maidens,) whispered their approbation to the man of the bench. This procedure wag rather new to sister B., who, after a series of jocose " sniggering," and other information, was brought to know, her official standing in the church of Christ. f The note above might be thought to apply to our elec¬ tions of ministers as pastors, preparatory to ordination.— But t&i&is obviated by our bench of lay elders. 102 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. preach; and without an industrious, humble, self-denied cultivation of the gifts and graces of Jesus, we cannot preach ; and were all the world of Infidels, Campbellites, Scismatics, &c., to tell us that the Spirit did not call and after¬ wards assist and qualify, we would not believe them. But each would say, whatever his de¬ portment might be, I know my Master call,^— my Redeemer lives. We will address our¬ selves particularly to our young brethren in the ifiinistry, and the eldership ; and we invite gen¬ erally, those who may read, to consider this weighty and important subject: our remarks may suggest, at least, something to young per¬ sons of vMue, While we proceed to say, "he (Christ) ascended up on high p,nd led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men." Bp. 4: 8. The eminency of the grant, the gift of the ministry, appears, says Dr. Owen, from the grandure of its introduction. The'words are taken from Pshlms 68: 17 ; which passage re¬ fers to the glorious appearance of God on Mount Sinai, in giving the law; then God led captivity captive, in the destruction of Pharaoh and the Egyptians, who had long hpid his peo¬ ple in cruel bondage; but the words are ap¬ plied to Christ, who gloriously ascended " far above all heavens," " to fill all things;" (verse 10,) having effectually conquered Satan and all his powers. Theti "he received gifts for men," or " in man," in the human nature, as the Hebrew words may be rendered. Christ received fhese gifts in the human nature, to COMMENTARY1 ON CHURCS 'GOVERNMENT. 103 confer them on others. Now, to what end was this glorious theatre, as it were, erected, and all its preparations made ? It was to display the greatness of the gift he would bestow, and the glory of the work which he would effect; and was to furnish the church with ministers, and ministers with gifts for the discharge of their office and duty; and it will one day ap¬ pear that there is more gfory, more excellency, fn giving one "poor minister to a congregation, by furnishing him with spiritual gifts for the discharge of his duty, than in the pompous in¬ stalment of a thousand Popes, Cardinals, &c. He gdve gifts. The ministry is the gift of Christ; and the spiritual gifts whic,h belong to it are its life, and inseperable from its being.—' A ministry without gifts is not a ministry of Christ's giving. To set up such a ministry is to dispise Christ, frustrate the ends of the min¬ istry, and to deceive the souls of men. To set up a ministry which may be continued by outward forms, and orders of men only, with¬ out any communion of gifts from Christ, is to dispise his authority and care. The grand de¬ sign of the ministry is the "perfecting of the Saints—the edifying of the body of Christ," but this cannot be done without Spiritual gifts; and, therefore, a ministry destitute of them is a mock ministry, and no ordinance of Christ. The eminency of this gift appears also in the diversity of the offices and officers which Christ appointed. He knew there would be a two¬ fold state of the church ; the first of its foun- JQ4 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. dation, when an extraordinary aggression was to be made on the kingdom of Satan in the world, and when a new order and r,ule of wor¬ ship was to be established alhover, the earth.— For these purposes he gave apostles, prophets, and evangelists. It was necessary that these should have their call and authority from Christ, antecedently to all order and power in the church; for the very being of the church depended on their power of office; but this no man can pretend to; and what was done originally by their persons, is now done by their word and doctrine; for the church is built " on the foundation of the apostles and proph¬ ets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner¬ stone." There is; also a second state of the church, in its edification, which is to be carried on accord¬ ing to the rules given by Christ, in the adminis¬ tration of the institutions of the gospel. To this end Christ gave ordinary officers, pastors, and teachers, who, by his direction, were ordained in every church. Acts 14: 23,; 24. But, whereas extraordinary officers were given by Christ,, by his immediate call, and;, communication of power to them, it does not appear how he gives these ordinary officers unto it. I answer, he did it originally, and con- tinueth to do it, by the following means: He doeth it by the law and rffie> of the gospel, wherein he hath appointed this office, of the ministry in, his church, and so always^ to be continued.. If there be not, an ordinance. of COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 105 Christ to this purpose, or if its fbrce be now ex¬ pired, then we must confess tliat the whole of¬ fice is a mere usurpation ; but if he hath given pastors and teachers to his church, to continue until all saints, in all ages, "come to a perfect man, to the measure of the statue of the fulness t)f Christ," (Eph. 4: 12;)and he hath promised to be with them, as such to the end of the world, (Math. 28: 18, 20;) if the apostles "ordained elders in every city," (Acts 14: 23, Titus 1 : 5,) who were made "overseers, or bishops of the flocks" by the Holy Ghost, (Acts 20: 28;) aud if believers are obliged to yield obedience to them, (Heb. 13: 17,).,then thisdbundation stand- eth firm and unshaken as the ordinance of heav¬ en ; and as there is no intimation whatever in the scriptdres of any state of the church, where¬ in the disciples of Christ may or ought to Jive without the orderly guidance ©f the ministers, it is vain, to imagine that any defect in other men, any apostacy of visible churches, shouM render them incapable of erecting a regular minister ovorthem. To suppose, because the church of Rome and its adherents have, by their apostacy, 1'ost an evangelical ministry among them, that therefore, others "to whom the word is come," and has been made effec¬ tual to their salvation, have not sufficient war¬ rant from the word to yield obedience to all the commands of Christ, or in so doing he will not accept them, is fit Only for men who have a trade in religion to drive for their own private advantage. Jesus Christ continues this office 106 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. by bestowing: spiritual gifts and abilities on men, to enable them to discharge the duties of it. Spiritual gifts do not, indeed, of themselves, make any man a minister; yet no man can, according to the mind of Christ, be a minister without them. Wherefore, supposing the con¬ tinuance of the institution, if Christ, at any time, or in any place, were to cease to bestow spiritual gifts, then, and in that place the min¬ istry itself must cease. To erect a mmistry by virtue of outward' order, rites and ceremonies, without gifts for the edification Of the church, is but to hew a block with axes and planes, and set it up for an image to be adored. To make a man a minister who can do nothing of the pe¬ culiar work of the ministry, nothing towards the only end of it in the church, is to set up a dead carcass, fastening it to a post, and expect¬ ing it should do you work and service. Jesus Christ continues this office by giving power to his church in all ages, to call and sep¬ arate to the work of the ministry such as he hath fitted and gifted for it. This power in the church is not despotic or lordly, but consists in a right and ability to act in this obediently to the commands of Christ. Hence, the act of the church is merely the instituted means of conveying authority and office from Christ to persons called thereto. This does not give them any authority of its own, or resident in itself, but only in a way of obedience to Christ, they transmitted power from him to persons so called. Hence they COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 10*7 become ministers of Christ, and not of the bishops, or churches, or men holding their office from Christ himself, by the law and rule of the gospel; so that whosoever despiseth them, des- piseth him also in them. Some would have the ministers of the gospel to derive all their authority from the people who choose them; * and some from the bishops who ordain them ; but this is to make them ministers of men, and servants of men, and constitute other masters betweeh them and Christ. The church has no power to call any person to the office of the ministry, where Christ hath, not gone before in the designation of that per¬ son by an endowment of spiritual gifts ; for if the whole authority of the ministry be from Christ, and if he never gives it but where he bestows ministerial gifts, then to call any one to the work whom he hath not previously gifted, is to set him (Christ) aside, and act by our own authority. The order in which a church may call any person to the office of the ministry among them, and over them, is, by their solemn joint submis¬ sion to hirh in the Lord, as to all the powers and duties of his office, certified by their election of * Dr. Owen refers here to the mode of investure used by Congregatiopalists and Papists: "Some from the bishops,"' &e., in this passing remark of this etninent Doctor, he refers also to Episcopalians. Now, according to his reasoning and scripture proots, which are (in our opinion.) incontrovertible, can there be much difficulty in the minds of any about spu¬ rious ordinations and corrupt perversions of the gospel institutions 1 108 COMMENTARY ON CHURGH GOVERNMENT; him. It is concerning this outward order, iw calling men to the ministry, that the world is. filled with disputes; but whatever order be adopted, if the things before- mentioned be not observed, it is.of no validity or authority; on- the other hand^ admit that the authority of the ministry depends on the institution of Christ that he calls men to this office by the collation of spiritual gifts unto them; and that the acting of the church herein is but an instituted moral means of communicating office and power from- Christ to such person—then the outward mode need not be much contended about. It may be proved to be a beam of truth from the light of nature, that no man should be im¬ posed upon a church without their consent; (do ■ Episcopalians have the consent of their's?) "considering that his whole work is to be con¬ versant with- their understanding, judgments, wills and affections; and that this should be done by. their own choice, as the scriptures manifestly declare, Num. 8 : 9,10 ; Acts 1.: 23, 26; Acts 6: 35 ; Acts 14: 23 ; and that that method was sacredly observed cannot modest¬ ly be denied." [This is a reference to church government.—Author.'] \ "The Lord' Christ ecntinueth his bestowing of this gift of the ministry, by the solemn ordi¬ nance of setting apart those who are called irti this manner, by fasting, prayer and imposition of hands," Acts 14: 23; Chap. 13: 2; 1 Tim. 4 z: 14. By these means, I say, doth the Lord Christ COMMENTARY ON "CHURCH ftOtfifejifMENt. 103 'Continue to declare that "he accounts men to foe faithful, and puts them into the ministry." The substance of what we affirm is this: That there is a special dispensation and work of the Holy Ghost, in providing able ministers of the New Testament for the edification of the church ; and that he «doth exert his power and exercise kis authority in the communication of spiritual gifts; without a participation of which, no man hath (de jure) any lot or portion in this ministration. Jesus Christ hath faithfully promised to bfe present with his church unto "the end of the world;" and thus his presence renders the church a congregation essentially distinct from all other societies and assemblies of men. Let men be formed into what order you please, or de¬ rive authority by any claim whatever, yet, if Christ be not present with them, they are no church, nor can all the powers under heaven make them such. (Math. 18 : 20; Rev. 21: 3.) This promised presence of Christ is by his Spirit, We speak not of his essential presence with respect to the immensity of his divine na¬ ture; nor doth it respect his humanity; for where he promised this his presence, he inform¬ ed his disciples that be must depart from them; on which they were filled with sorrow, until they were assured he would make good the promise ofhis presence wit.h them, and who or what it was that should supply his bodily ab¬ sence. This was his Holy Spirit, whom he would send in his (own) name, place and stead, 110 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT* to do all to them and for them which he had yet to do with them and for them. (See John 14: 26 ; 15: 6,&c. This presence of the Spirit is secured to the church by an unchangeable, everlasting cove¬ nant. "As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord : My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy •mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, from henceforth and forever." Ifca. 59 : 21. This is God's covenant with the gospel-church, to be erected when the Redeem¬ er shall come out of Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob ; (verse 20,) andas the continuance of the word unto the church in all ages is by this promise secured, (without which it would come to nothing,) so is the presence of the Spirit secured to it; with¬ out which all Covenant relations between God and it would cease, and there would be no church, no ordinance, no acceptable worship. Hence the gospel is called "the ministration of the Spirit," and the ministers of it "the min¬ isters of the Spirit2 Cor* 3 s - G ; for it is by the assistance of the Spirit that any persons are en¬ abled to administer the gospel and its institu¬ tions of worship, according to the mind of God, and to the edification of the church in the world. God has promised that the kingdom1 of Christ shall endure to the end of time; and this must be either the work of God or of men; and if it be of God, it must be by the communication of COMMENTARY ON CHURCH; GOVERNMENT. HI Ms Spirit; and wheTeas the church falls under the double consideration, (its, internal and ex¬ ternal form) the first is, as we have shown, by Ms communicating effectual grace to the elect; the latter is, by the communication of gifts to the guides, rulers, officers and ministers of it, and to all its members, according to their place and capacity. Math- 30 13, 31, represents the State of the Christian Church in all ages, and the nature of this work is there declared. In the distribution of the talents, &c., &c, " These talents afe the gifts with which Christ, by his Spirit, en¬ dows his ministers for the servic^ of the church." It is also said, Romans 12: 1 to 8:—• *( As we have many members in one body," &c. Every one is to act therein according to his gift, and not otherwise. These administrations are, in their nature, "use, signification and efficacy spiritual. We also plead the event, even in our own days.— The Holy Spirit does continue to dispense spiritual gifts. The opposition that is made hereto by vain scoffers, is- npt to be regarded, The experience of those who are humble and wise are appealed to. Do they (the laity) not find the presence of the spirit himself, by his various gifts in those by whom spiritual things are administered to them, making the word mighty unto all its proper ends ? And the ex¬ perience of those who have received these gifts-r-of the special assistance which they en¬ joy in the exercise of them, may also be plead- II? pOMMENTART ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT** ed. Indeed, the profaneness of a contrary ap* prehension is intolerable among such as profess themselves Christians; (ecce.) for any to boast that they are sufficient of themselves for the dispensation of the gospel, by their own en¬ dowments, natural or acquired, without the peculiar gifts of the Holy Spirit, is a renunci¬ ation of all interest in the promises of Christ to the church, or the continuance of his pres¬ ence therein.* It will at length appear, that where the gifts of the Holy Ghost are excluded from their ministration, Christ himself is ex¬ cluded, the Holy Spirit is excluded^ the true edification of the church is at an end, and so are qll the real concerns of the gospel. It yet remains more particularly to point out what are those gifts by which the Holy Ghost qualifies men for the gospel ministry, and how they may be attained and improved. First. What are the gifts whereby men are fitted for the ministry ? The great duty of the ministry is, the dispensation of the doctrine of the gospel. Hence it is given in charge to all the ministers of the gospel; (Acts 20: ?8; 1 Pet. 5: 2 ; 1 Tim. 1:3; chap. 5: 17; 4: 13-16, &c.;) for this is the principal means appointed by Christ for the edification of the church, by which spiritual life is produced and preserved; * Campbellites apd other Arians knovn among us at the present day, who deny the operation of the Spirit other than a comforter, are here set in their proper light, and cannot do otherwise than deny Christ according to their heretical doctrines.—The Author. COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 113 and with respect to this duty three things are required: 1. Wisdom, knowledge or understanding in the mysteries of the gospel. Some imagine that this is very easily attained—nothing requisite but what is equally necessary in the acquisition of any art or science ; and it would be well if some persons would take as much pains to obtain this knowledge as they do in learnirig other things, which will turn to little account. The cursory perusal of a few books is thought sufficient to make a man wise enough to become a minister ; and more than a few persons un¬ dertake to be public teachers, who would scarce¬ ly be admitted as tolerable disciples in a well- ordered church. But more belongs to this wis¬ dom than most men are aware of. Were the nature of it duly considered, probably some Nvould not rush into that work as they do. It is such a cotnprehension of the scope and end of the scripture—such an' acquaintance with the system of doctrinal truths in their rise, tendency and use—such a, habit of mind in. judging of spiritual things and comparing- them with each other, as enables meri to make'known to others the way of life, of faith, and obedience. Now this is the special gift of the Holy Spirit: He gives the word of wisdom, (1 Cor. 12 : 8 ;) and where this is not, to look for a ministry, is to look for the living among the dead; and they will deceive their own souls in the end, as they do those of others in the mean time, who, on 8 114 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. any other ground (than the above) undertake to be preachers of the gospel. 2. Skill to divide the word aright, is requisite to the ministry of the gospel, and is also a pe¬ culiar gift of the Spirit. "Study to approve thyself unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of trhth(2 Tim. 2:15;) both the former clauses depend on the latter. If a minister would be accepted of God—if he would be found at the last day "a workman that needs not to be asham¬ ed," he must take care to divide the word of truth which is committed to his dispensation in a due manner. This is, as a wise steward, tak¬ ing out from those great stores of truth which are in the scripture, and as it were, cutting off a portion suitable to the various conditions of the different members of the family ; and with¬ out this, a (Jommon course of preaching, with¬ out distinguishing persons and truths. How¬ ever it may be gilded over with oratory, is a shameful work in the house of God! Now, to this skill several things are requisite. 1st, A sound judgment concerning the state of those to- whom the word is dispensed.. The minister must know the state of his people—whether they are babes or young men or fathers—wheth¬ er, in the judgment of charity,, they are convert¬ ed to God or not—what are their hindrances and temptations—what is their 'growth or de¬ cay.. 2d. An acquaintance with the methods of divine grace on the hearts of men. Nothing is more necessary than this, though nothing is commentary on church, government. 115 more despised. He who is ignorant of the ordi¬ nary operations of grace, fights uncertainly in preaching the word—like a man beating the air. God can indeed direct a word of truth, spoken as it were at random, to a proper effect of grace on an individual, as when the man who drew a bow at a venture, smote the King of Israel between the joints (plies of his armor) t)f his. harness; but usually, a man is not likely to hit a joint who knows not how to take his aim. 3d. An acquaintance with the nature of temptation—with the special, hindrances of faith and obedience, to which the hearers of the word are exposed, is likewise necessary.— 4ht. A right understanding of the nature of spir¬ it ual diseases, with their proper remedies; with¬ out which the hearts of the wicked are frequent¬ ly made glad, and those of the righteous filled with sorrow. Men who know not these things cannot distribute the Word aright; and it is la¬ mentable to consider what shameful work is made by some men in preaching the word, for want of this knowledge ; yea, how the whole gift is lost as to its power and benefit! 3. The gift of utterance belongs to the dis¬ pensation of the gospel. This the apostle reck¬ ons among the gifts of the Spirit; (1 Cor. 1:5; 2 Cor. 8 : 5 ;)and he desires the prayers of the church tfiat this gift may abide and abound in him.—Eph. 6 : 19. This utterance consists not in a natural volubility of speech, (which is some¬ times a snare to those who possess it, and trouble to their hearts,) nor in a rhetorical ability to set 116 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. . off a discourse with a flourish of words, much less in a bold corruption of the ordinance of preaching by quaint expressions and the sal¬ lies of wit; but it consists in liberty of speech, (Parresia) dicendi libeitas—freedom and liberty in the declaration of the truth; such as the apostle speaks of in 2 Cor. 6»11, "0 ye Corinth¬ ians, our mouth is open unto you ; our heart is enlarged !" A free, enlarged spirit with abilh ty of speech suited to the matter in hand, be¬ longs to this gift. 2. Boldness and confidence. "When the spirit of God, in the midst of difficul¬ ties and opposition, strengthens the minds of ministers, so that they discharge their work freely, as considering whose message it is they deliver, it belongs to this gift of utterance. 3. So also does gravity of expression become the sacred majesty of Christ, and the delivery of his truth. He that speaks "mu$t speak as the oracles of God," (1 Pet. 4: 11 ;) not only as "speaking" the truth of God and nothing else, but as preaching it with a becoming gravity and soundness of speech. 4. To this also belongs that authority which accompanies the delivery of the word, when preached in demonstration of these spiritual abilities ; for all these things are necessary, that the hearers may receive the gospel, not as the word of man, but as it is in¬ deed, the word of God! See Rev. G. Burder's abridgment of Dr. Owen's works, pp. 349-360, from which pages we have selected (with prop¬ er marks) the above essay on the ordinary gifts of the Holy Sprit, with its distinguishing char- COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 117 acteristics relative to an evangelic ministry.— We have in this, exercised a deference, not wish¬ ing to be thought obtrusive. Nor could there be any thing more to the purpose, nor (in our humble opinion) more loudly called for in this increasingly interesting, (yet in a degree) de¬ generate age, than the discourse, a part of which we have extracted, of Dr. Owen's. With our best wishes, nay, fervent prayers, we submit this first part of our little work. PART SECOND. ECCLESIASTICAL GOVERNMENT. We have, in the first part of this work, ex¬ hibited the Christian Church in its originaj organization. We think it conclusively proven, from revelation, and from church history, that the church is a divine institution, yet a volun¬ tary association. The difference between ex¬ traordinary and ordinary gifts has been shown. As the source of authority, both have been considered. The latter gifts of the church are of the ordinary kind, giving ministers and lay elders their qualifications for authoritative, (and other purposes) moral and ministerial oversight. Without this divine call and quali¬ fication, all the powers on earth, could not con¬ stitute a christian ministry, consequently, as there never has been a time in which a church existed without a ministry, there could not be a christian church in the full Acceptation of the term without it. How this right applies con- sistantly with the scriptures, which, in the CQMltfElNTARY 'ON CHURCH 'GOVERNMENT., ll'9 meantime, are !a standing observatory rule directing the constituted means, (the church,) and the undoubted claims of individual church members to the right of suffrage, is that which now calls our attention. That is, how this di¬ vine, official authority, becomes especially bind¬ ing on individual churches consistantly with both the privileges of members and the office or authority of Christ perpetually and succes¬ sively. Now, as there are some things annexed to the church, and with which it has to do, in a secular point of view, viz: the agreement of a minister with a particular church to labor, and they to support him, &c., there is no doubt but that the suffrages of members should be' 'obtained, or votes of a.majority rather, should rule. This is one consideration, and the least of -all, because temporal considerations are infinitely inferior to spiritual; for it is with the affections, will, and understanding in the latter ease that the minister has to do in the things that pertain to eternity. As we have discard¬ ed the pretended authority of prelates to come down upon the church as an. usurpation, the above inquiry appears the more imperious.— But, let us not anticipate our subject, nor forget that the church at Jerusalem is our model— distinguishing however, between the extraordi¬ nary and ordinary calling and qualification of her officers. That which we seemed to be anticipating, is, that a church is a voluntary association.* We avow this, although by this *See C. P. Con.—" voluntarily associated'together/' &c> 120" COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. -avbwal Episcopalians think we have con¬ ceded the point, wherein they say our churches, are " mere human institutions." Such says one of these high claimants to Episcopal, apostoli¬ cal succession, as " temperance, abolition, or sewing societies" See Drs. Wainwright's and Potts' book, published! at New York, 1844. That we concede the point of " divine insti¬ tution " by this avowal relative to our church¬ es, we deny. Nor does it effect this established fact respecting the- origin of our churches, without, indeed, we were attempting to occupy the untenable ground of oqr opponents—that is, a divine right direct from the apostles them¬ selves, claiming all church, authority irrespec¬ tive of the privileges of individual members. All we mean respecting the church as a voluntary association, is, that the church members may, and do form themselves (as they join succes¬ sively,) into an assemblage mutual for holy living and observance of the commands of God, We do not claim a definite divine au¬ thority for our form of government. Indeed, were we to turn inquirer in this case, it would be, with all their boasted ability, an abortive effort for Episcopalians to attempt to cite the passage containing the words : " Thus saith the Lord," for any particular form of church gov¬ ernment, much less theirs. In support of such effort, Dr. Paley speaks not; but .to the con¬ trary. " It cannot be proved that any form of church government was laid down in the Chris¬ tian, as it had been in the Jewish Scriptures, COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 121 with a view of fixing a constitution for suc¬ ceeding ages;" &c. See Paley's Moral Phi¬ losophy, vol. 2, p. 173. We might prove, by different authorities, this same fact. The fol¬ lowing quotation from our Confession of Faith, chap. 1, sec. 6, last clause, is to the point in hand, and speaks with decided authority as follows: "There are circumstances concerning the worship of God and government' of the church, common to human actions and socie¬ ties, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed." See 1 Cor. 11: 13,14 ; and 1 Cor. 14: 26, 40, We have said, church members may, and do form, &c., an4 how could they do otherwise than voluntarily asso¬ ciate, when it is an undeniable fact, that men have different views relative to any and every subject, and vary more or less, particu¬ larly, where, under a more general rule, deduced constructions become or are likely to become obligatory as a directory supervised— a law. Yet this variety of apprehension, although an item of fact worthy of considera¬ tion, unavoidable in this case, is not the main thing or prominent feature •, men are born free—the inheritors of civil liberty when being introduced into the affairs of State jurispru¬ dence, and surely should be so introduced into ecclesiastical affairs. We shall, however, ex¬ hibit a quotation or two of modern, and per¬ haps one of more ancient date, illustrative of 122 commentary on church -government. the position that a church is a voluntary asso¬ ciation, and that Protestants claim no especial (other than inferable from Scripture and the apostolical institutions,) divine sanction fqr a particular form. "But these high churchmen," says Dr. Peck, of New York, "seem to them¬ selves to have the whole ground, by the con¬ cession of 4 the sects,' in their avowal that4 the church is a voluntary association.' ***** All evangelical denominations most certainly believe the church, which is the body of Christ, and which is made up of 4 faithful men, coetus jidclium,' congregation of believers, to be a di¬ vine institution, constituted by God himself.— But they claim no divinity for particular forms of church organization, which are the result ef human opinions, as to the sense of the scrip¬ ture with regard to the government of .the church. And ' the church,' so called by its supporters by way of eminence, is just as piueh 4 a voluntary association' and a 4 human soci¬ ety ' as any ether."* See Methodist Quarterly Review, Jan. no., 1845. This quotation is to the purpose-; nor is that of Turtullian, one of the 44 fathers of the primitive ages," less to our purpose, particularly, in coming at a definition of the inquiry which we have instituted, viz: how this divine, (ministerial,) official authority becomes especially binding on an individual church, consistently both with the privileges of *This is, ill our view, a grand concession, coming as it does from a Methodist Episcopalian D. D., in favor of the Presbyterian or elective representative church government. COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 123 members and the office or authority itself, per¬ petually and successively. The quotation is as follows, viz: Led ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laid—Moreover, where there are three, there is a church, although they be laymen." * This sentiment is from high pristine human authori¬ ty, and will not, cannot be by Episcopalians successfully contested. It shows the church was considered by this great ecclesiastic, (Ter- tullian,) a voluntary association; or rather, that, contrary to the explanation and claims of Episcopacy, a church could possess the requi¬ sites, or could be and was considered a church without the presence of a bishop in its or¬ ganization. This, principle in church govern¬ ment, (we could introduce^other testimony if necessary,) we find no way incompatible with the organization of the qhurch at Je¬ rusalem, taking into consideration its perpe¬ tuity and designed succession. An objector might say there were bishops, on that Occa¬ sion, divinely appointed, and present. This we do not deny, but maintain. But we would ask our objector to turn to a divine re¬ cord on this important matter. In Acts, 1st c., he will find a history of this transaction which will divest a church (or ought so to do) of that prince¬ ly prelatical, pompous, law-established expen¬ diture attendant on the instalment of Popes, Cardinals, and other such Episcopal (fplsely so called) dignitaries of the church. Besides, it will appear that there was no great nor chronic #De Exhort. Castil, c. 7; also, I>e Pudicit, c. 27. 124 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. ceremony used, but that their business (which is that of every church,) seems to be the wor¬ ship of God, and a perpetuation of that worship. Nor will it avail for episcopacy that she array these officers (apostles) possessing the gift of prophecy in order to maintain a pre-eminence1 as possessed by one bishop over that of another,, or over a whole diocese, (which is her modern practice,) because the contrary will appear.— The fact that they were divinely inspired and- that the Head of the Church did not decide prior in this their first ecclesiastical transaction, " perhaps, viz: the election of Matthias to the apostleship is, in our opinion, a strong testimo¬ ny in favor of the manner of the apostolic pro¬ ceeding on that occasion, as a precedent for us* The brief of this transaction is, that Peter rose and made the proposition for the consideration of the whole association or church, (23d verse,) "And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsa- bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias." They appointed, &c.; and tltey gave forth their lots, &c. This whole transaction seems to in¬ dicate an equality so sacredly observed that equals (the apostles) and inferiors (in office,&c.,) maintained inviolate the rights of individual suffrages, of giving or withholding their con¬ sent. Peter, it is true, appears to have prefer¬ ence, but that preference accords so striking- *We would be understood here as referring to matters of government and discipline—this is our subject. The apos¬ tles and other appointed officers in matters more than those of edification, in which the scriptures especially directed, had a divine preference over the laity. ^COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 125 ly with our Lord's injunction, "he that would foe or is greatest among you, let him be servant of ail," that it cannot fail to call forth the ad¬ miration of every lover of the Divine Author. The approbative lot of heaven fell upon .Mat¬ thias. There were about one hundred and twenty—that this is a precedent of numbers to be indispensably observed, none will contend; hence the fact that no specified aggregate pum- ber,* as we contend, is necessary to fortn a sin¬ gle church, remains. That any would persist in the assertion (for it could amount to nothing more,) that the church oil that occasion did not meet as well as proceed in a voluntary, accor¬ dant manner, we do not presume; since, in Acts 1: 14, "These all continued with one accord, &c.,"f are the words recording the fact.— Agreeable to what we have introduced from Tertullian and Dr. P., it becomes us to pursue our inquiry (see above) further, in relation to the rights comprised in the words, "voluntary association," with reference to a church. This view of the subject is necessary to show the reciprocal co-operative conjunction of succes¬ sive ministerial and lay authority or privilege ecclesiastical. The rights comprised in this "association," if it be a voluntary one, must be (under the general rules and grant of the scrip¬ tures) very similar to those acknowledged as *Fully organized churches of our order with a pastor, may have each less than thirty names. f It might be matter worthy of investigation to ascertain whether the apostles, at this time, were divinely inspired or ■not. The gospel dispensation had now commenced. 126 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. radical, in a civil compact, by Dr. Paley. These are "natural and adventitious—alienable or unalienable—perfect or imperfect," These are, however, but the divisions of rights as existing reciprocally amongst mankind. We, therefore,, must retrospect those rights in order fully to understand them. The prominent feature in» this retrospective deduction of rights is to dis¬ cover their predicate or foundation. Nor will it fully answer our purpose that we show the fact that right and obligation are re¬ ciprocal ; that is, where right eiiher in a civil or ecclesiastical sense exists, there exists a corres¬ ponding obligation ; if a parent has the right to command, his children are obliged to obey mr so,in any other case either civil or ecclesiasti¬ cal, of a similar nature. The origin of these, in their authoritive and reciprocal validity dnd obligatory utility, must be predicated ; we shall attempt to make the will of God this predicate. Paleys Mor. Philosophy, as our province is the investigation of ecclesiastical or moral and ministerial rights, may be of use to us. We will quote from this wotk for the satisfaction of those (as there are such) who like only to fol¬ low established authorities. "As the will of God (says this author) is our rule, to inquire what is our duty, or what we are obliged to do, in any instance, is, in effect, to inquire what is the will of God in that in¬ stance ; which consequently becomes the whole business of morality. Now there are two meth¬ ods of coming at the will of God on any point. COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 127 1. By his express declarations, when they are to be had, and which must be sought for in scripture. 2. By what we can discover of his designs and dispositions from his works ; or as we usually call it, the light of nature." Vol. 1, p. 56. In pursuit of the facts deducible from the "first method," viz : the scriptures, the fol¬ lowing relative to an ambassador, is introduced "He will be directed by both rules ; when his, instructions are clear and positive, there is an end to all further deliberation." And on the "second method" of deriving the1 will of God, the following is introduced : "The method of coming at the will of God, concerning any ac¬ tion, by the light of nature, is to inquire into the tendency of any action to promote or di¬ minish the general happiness. This rule pro¬ ceeds upon the presumption that God Almighty wills and wishes the happiness of his creatures ; and, consequently, that those actions that pro¬ mote that will and wish must be agreeable to him." We presume it needless to introduce scripture on this first "method" or arguments, Irom the works of nature, on the second "meth¬ od" to prove that God designs, wills and wishes the happiness of his creatures. Then whatev¬ er tends to premote the happiness of mankind is in accordance with the will of God. As Dr. P. says (p. .61). on this subject and predicated on the foregoing, "It is the utility of any moral rule alone which constitutes the obligation of it." This last quotation (p. 61) is to be consid¬ ered in view of the particular" and ugeneral" 128 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT* bad and good consequences of actions ; or in view of the necessity of "general rules," as out¬ lines by which actions (either individual or as¬ sociated reciprocal actions) are to be governed. "You cannot permit one action and forbid another without showing a difference between them. Consequently, the same sort of actions must be generally permitted or generally for¬ bidden." I answer, that general rules are ne¬ cessary to every moral government; and by mqral government I mean any dispensation whose object is to influence the conduct of rea¬ sonable creatures, Hence m,ay be seen the pro¬ priety of churcb rules or disciplines. (Confes¬ sions of Faith are entirely founded on God's Word—at least professedly so.) Hence the computation of all scismatical (would be or¬ derly christian) churches who sneer at the idea of regulation and disciplinary governmental church-rules. And hence the propriety, on the other hand, of the rules adopted by Presbyte¬ rians and others. For our "discipline and gov¬ ernment" does not meet out every possible case, yet declares spicifically our belief and what heresy and disorder are—leaves us not to vague inference—are general rules under the more scripture ones. Bnt to examine our discipline is not now our business, but to investigate the rights which are comprised in it radically.— This has been by us in part attempted in the foregoing reference to rights. Now let us re¬ turn to our chain'of arguments. We have al- COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT, 129 •ready found that "whatever is expedient is right," " But then it must be expedient on the whole, at the long run, in all its effects collateral and remote, as wrell as in those w hich are immedi¬ ate and direct." In this light we intend an examination of our church rules, ere we have dune. We have introduced the preceding defi¬ nitions of rights, mainly to inform the reader's mind of the method by which we come at the will of God as a predicate of obligation spe¬ cific, where we have not as in church govern¬ ment revelation. Without this information, to say that the \yil,l of God was the predicate of right in an ecclesiastical "association," (we have acknowledged that there is not, "Thus saith the Lord," for any particular form of church government,) would hardly be intelli¬ gible. Efowever, we have found that the will of God is, that his ereatures should be happy; that, consequently, duty and the will of God are one, or for an individual, how situated soever to do his duty, would be doing the will Cod, While we now advance to take a more particular view of the division of rights as regards individuals, tVo will be enabled to see that those special, individual rights, predicate themselves on the will (agreeable to the rule we have adopted as a criterion, viz: the happi¬ ness of the whole,) of the divinely benificent Creator. Natural rights receive a different direction, but do not terminate. 9 130 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. Natural rights are a man's right to his lift'- limbs, and liberty, &c. ( The pursuit of happiness is also his right iu this sense. " Adventitious rights are the rights of a gen ¬ eral over his soldiers;" (so with a bishop over the laity;) " of a judge over the life and liberty of & prisoner; # * # * a right, in a word, in any one man, or particular body of men, to make laws and regulations for the rest." For none of those laws would exist in a newly inhabited island at the first settlement. It may be asked how adventitious rights are created or which is the same thing, how new rights can accrue from the establishment of civil society ? As rights of all kinds, we remember, depend upon the will of God, and civil society (so with ecclesiastical,) is but the > ordinance and institution of man. For the solution of the difficulty, we must return to our first princi¬ ples laid down—"God yvills the happiness of mankind; and the existence of civil society is conducive to that happiness. * * % * Whence also it appears, that adventitious rights, though immediately derived frorp human appointment, are not, for that reason, less sacred than natu¬ ral rights, nor the Obligation to respect them less cogent. They both ultimately rely upon the same authority—" the will of God." The definition of personal rights thus exhibited, is sufficient for our purpose, viz : to discover the extent of privilege that each individual brought into the! common stock, so to speak, of compact COMMENTARY ON C£CURCH GOVERNMENT. 131 or associated rights, and the sacred nature of governmental rules ; yet the further enumera¬ tion and, explication of those rights following, may not be amiss, as they give a kind of ex¬ planation of natural and udoentitious rights.— The right we have, say?? Dr. Paley, to rnost of those things which we call property, as houses, lands, money,-&c., is alienable. The right of a Prince over his people, of a httsband over his wife, &c., is-generally and naturally unalienable. Can a bishop then hand these rights to another ? " Perfect rights may be asserted by force, or what in civil society comes in p'lace of private force, by course of law. Imperfect rights rpay not."— The first of theSe two classes of rights consists in the redress a man may obtain either by im¬ mediate self defence violent, or by law, in case of. the attack by an aggressor on his life, per¬ son, house, &c.; his right to an estate, furni¬ ture, clothes, money, and all ordinary articles of property, come under the regulation of per¬ fect, or are held by what is called perfect rights. The right a qualified candidate has to success over an inferior one—a poor neighbor's right to charitable relief—a benefactor's right to re¬ turns of gratitude from the person he has ob¬ liged—children's right to affection and educa¬ tion from parents, &c., are among those rights which cannot be enforced by law, nor sanction of law, and for that reason alone, are termed imperfect. 132 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. " A man (says Dr. Paley,) who by a partial prejudice, or corrupt vote, disappoints a worthy candidate of a station in life, upon Which his hopes, possibly, or livelihood depend, and who thereby grievously discourages merit and emu¬ lation in others, commits, I am persuaded, a much greater crime than if he filched a book out of a library, or picked a pocket of a hand¬ kerchief ; though in the one (first) case he Vio¬ lates only an imperfect right, in the other a perfect one. Religion and virtue find, their principal exercise among the imperfect obliga¬ tions. See Moral Philosophy, p*. 74. Under the perview, so to speak, of natural and ad¬ ventitious rights, we see all the rest principally comprised. We would particularly call the attention of the reader to the definition of natural and ad¬ ventitious rights. The right of suffrage, in our definition of natural rights, is found to be in- seperably connected with the best interest of every man; and if so, within the precincts of every association or body of men, must and does enter individually, making up adventitious or delegated rights. If thus necessarily enter¬ ing as so many small rivulets, and forming a body federative which is conducive, as we have seen, it might be to the general happi¬ ness, has not such an institution, either civil or ecclesiastical, the sanction of that divinely be¬ nevolent being, viz: God? We can see no other method by which adventitious rights, consistently with the benevolent mind, could commentary on church government. 133 accrue, thin by the common suffrage or com sent of the many governed to the authority to be exercised by the few. Besides, it is sa com¬ patible with the teachings of our divine Sa¬ viour, "he that would be greatest among you let him be servant of all." Now, although there appears a mixture of civil rights amidst these, premises and conclusions, will any say that the church to which we have had allusion, that at Jerusalem, had not in its members individually when it' convened after the " as¬ cension," all thbse natural rights in view of a new association, as defined by Dr. Paley, and all the common rights of man generally ? or will any deny such men as the first christians were, when entering into an original ecclesi¬ astical association, the rights and privileges that are necessary to form a civil society or association, merely because such institution was connected with religion? We think not. The design of that association was to furnish rules precedently, partaking indeed of a spir¬ itual cast, being moral, declarative or minis¬ terial ; yet, notwithstanding, it was in its par¬ ticular forms of administration as to govern¬ ment, a human institution, as already shown.— And we think it very evident that it was one answering the great ends of the Divine Creator, viz : the happiness of each and of all—this is taught us in the manner of their procedure.— Acts, 1st chapter. How then did ecclesiastical adventitious rights on that occasion occur ? There appear- 134 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. ed to- pe no claims or rights exercised extra¬ ordinary or pre-eminent. Luke tells us (see the last reference,) how Matthias had a supe¬ rior or. adventitious right confered upon him above the laity, by the setting apart and cast¬ ing lots of the association, or church. This is the point at which we, in this second part of our Work, have been laboring mainly to bring our readers. Two prominent features are in this itivestigation brought to light; the one is, that an ecclesiastical association is not only necessary, as generally sanctioned by revela¬ tion, but also derives divine sanction, being conducive to human happiness from the light of nature in a particular sense—(if natural light can be a more special directory than reve¬ lation, with which it accords.)* The other is, that adventitious rights,f whether civil or eccle¬ siastical, (matters not for our present purpose,) are to be as sacredly observed, if their utility be such that they obtain divine approbation according to our maxim—general happiness as natural rights. " God wills," says Dr. P., " the happiness of mankind; and also the ex¬ istence of civil society as conducive to that happiness." See Moral Philosophy, pp, 70, 71. *The Grecian republics and others testify that by the light of nature man e understood as saying that the rights of church members are not defined; they can enforce by church rules most of their claims of a spiritual or mora! nature. Hence, these rights are perfect moral rights. COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT* l5t. by church rules, define every thing specifically; but this is not our position. Nevertheles, they will agree with us that church rule is more specific in morals than civil law, yet there are •many things which our discipline does not limitedly specify, but teaches by constitutional general rules. For instance, it inculcates charity, but cannot specify; and of the sup¬ port of the " gospel—give as the Lord hath pros¬ pered "—but mainfy leaves it with the dopoi to decide to what extent. Those things, how¬ ever, are tought—are the will of God, because they are taught in his word. These imperfec rights having' been 'frequently mentioned ii this work, may not be understood, that is, whj they (they could not write out every case) are pecessarily left in all laws, (except the mora) Jaw, and laws of Faith, which discern the thoughts and intents of the heart,) undefined 'as penal laws. Ecclesiastical law, and not theology, remember, is our Subject. The con¬ stitution of our church then, makes it obliga¬ tory, in general terms, on the members to sup¬ port benevolent institutions* by pecuniary and *We would insist that the Institutions of our church, viz: our University at Lebanon, Tennessee; at Princeton, Ky., &c., are of this class; the former educates pious indi¬ gent young men, tuition gratis, &c., and hence, if from nfl other consideration., should be endowed. We are not in¬ formed relative to Princeton, but of the University at Leb¬ anon, Dr. Cossitt, Editor of the C. P.'Banner and Advocate states, under date of December, 1845, that " the p'aculty of our own University at Lebanon, are instructing gratui¬ tously from twelve to fifteen candidates for the ministry.— They propose, we understand, to afford the same advantages 152 COMMENTARY ON'CHURCH GOVERNMENT. other means—to donate, in the same why, fov the conversion of the heathen—support mis siotis—to relieve the poor-^-to support the min¬ istry among them, &c.; but it cannot limitedly specify to what extent, for the following rea¬ sons: besides running in contact with civil laws, the " indeterarinateness, either of the ob¬ ject, or of the circumstances of the right, the permission of (civil) force in these cases" " would, in its consequence, lead to permission of force in other cases where there existed no right at all. A poor man, for instance, has a right to relief from the rich—a poor minister, if you pleas'e, out of pasto-ral engagements, for. if not thusx obligations \vould (or ought to) 'ex¬ ist—the promise on the side of either party, preacher or people, unperformed, would be a falsity cognizable by our discipline as a moral wrong." See our gov.,.chap. 10, p. 246—" But the mode, season* and quantum of that relief, who shall contribute * * * or how much are not ascertained by our constitution, but may be by legislation ; yet these points* must be ascertained before claim to relief can be prose¬ cuted by" censure before our judicatures.— "For, to allow the poor to ascertain them (do- to as m&ny more as may choose to avail themselves of the gratuity." In equally favorable light stand the proposed institutions recbmmended by bur Fifteenth General Assem¬ bly of 1845, viz: the Missionary Society—the society for the publication of our standard, and other works for the use of our church. $3000 are necessary for its! commence¬ ment. Remark—all the above receive the donations and hearty support of the Fathers of our churqh. COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 153 nations) for themselves (as tp quantity, circum¬ stances, &e.,) would be to expose property to so many of these claims that it would cease to he"'—as far as moral or spiritual laws could have that tendency—valuable1, or individual property. Another reason why our discipline does not specifically determine between candi¬ dates for office (elder, pastor, &c.,) is, that their qualifications are indeterminate, and hence, must be left under the class of imperfect rights. For instance, in the case of the one of superior merits, if he be fqirly beaten byo/?e of inferior in an election, he chn have, no redress before an ecclesiastical court, because his right to election -over an equal, which he no doubt may Dave, depends upon his comparative qualifica¬ tions—upon his Comparative virtue, learning, &c. ; in their existence, degree, and respective importance, they are indeterminate. There must be somebody to determine them ; to leave tlifs determination to the officers of our church (fop the constitutional rule cannot determine in minor degrees,) would be to leave it to t)ie discretion of such officers in what manner they would officially dispos.e of the case, being left to construe an indefinite law without legis¬ lative action or rule, which vyould be just so much tyranny." "To allow the candidate to demand success by force, (sanction of such a rule,) Is to make him the judge of his own Qualifications." "You cahnot do this, but you must make all other candidates the same, which would open a door to demands without 151 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. number, reason, or right. Hence, all right* being strictly observed, it is left to our churchej and their delegations to determine by vote, &c., in all such cases of imperfection. "The degree of guilt," (says Dr. Paley 01 this subject—Moral Philosophy, pp. 73, 74, " incurred by violating the obligation " (that :s that which we are under to advance superio ■merits,) '|is a different thing" from perfect an imperfect rights—" and is determined by cii cumstances altogether independant of this dis tinction.'^ " A man," he adds, " who by a par tial, prejudiced, of corrtipt vote, disappoints f worthy candidate of a station in life, upoi which his hopes, possibly, or his livelihood de¬ pended, and who thereby grievously discour¬ ages merit and emulation ii^ others, commits, I am persuaded, a much greater crime than ii he filched a book out of a library, or picked a pocket of a handkerchief." " The same obser¬ vation," 6ontinues Dr. P., " holds good of othei cases of Imperfect rights; not to mention that that in the instances of gratitude, affection reverence^ and the like (civil) force is exclude? by the very idea of the duty, which must b voluntary, or cannot exte at all." The Docto here speaks of force by sanction, of civil la\V— some of these ecclesiastical government make; obligatory or perfect, spiritual, or moral right! in her proper sphere. See our form of gov ernment passim. To make .this necessary distinction, that i that the distinction between perfect and im COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 155 perfect rights, though it has already caused us some labor, is what we would strive further to make- as a thing or object of vast and vital importance to the present generation, and to our church in particular. From what we havr seen of the principles of our government, i must be plain to every mind, that With a jus estimate and exercise of our rights and privi leges, the power of Ruling being in the mass c our people, and with that "fust estimate'''' onl^ we can expect, or have any probability evei of success In- the advancement of the eaust of our blessed Redeemer* as a chnrch. With this fact in view, we proceed to elucj date the principles oP church government fur' ther, after our preliminary observations a suggested on a former page. This we will dc as also suggested, by an examination of the C Presbyterian Form of Government. Form ot Government, chapter 1, section 2. "The uni¬ versal church cbnsists of all those persons, in every nation, together with their children, who make profession of the holy religion of Christ, an,d of submission to his law's : Section 4th.— A particular church Consists of a number o prbfessing christians, with their offspring, vol untarily associated together for divine worship *Disciplina est eustos spei, retinaculum fldei,'dux ite neris salutaris, fomes ac nutrementum bonae indolis, magis tra virtutis; facit in Christo manere cemper? ac jugitei Deo vivere, ad promissa caelestia Ct divina pracmia perver rire. Hane et sectari salubre est, et adversary. ac negliger lethale. Cyprian, de Discip. p. 2J35. See also Calvin's I:: stitutes Lib. iv. cap. cap. 12, section 1. 2. 158 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. •and Godly living, agreeably to the holy scrip¬ tures, and submitting to a certain form of gov¬ ernment. A particular church must submit to " a cprtain form of government," and voluntari¬ ly associatei. For these principles \ye have, we think, successfully contended throughout this work, as scriptural requisites, or principles evangelical, indispensilple relative to a church. This is all the plan, as we have seen, by which we can claim truly a divine sanction for our ministry and ordinances; and thus we have claimed and proved our title, despite of the ostensible pretensions of our high churchmen. Catholics and others, who have decried the Protestant Presbyterian, and other cht.rcheS as spurious. See former part of this work. Yfe haye the church before us, now let is pursue our subject—recelesiastical government. The Qompilers of pur Form of Government, and the whole C. Presbyterian Churph in assembly convened, in her representative capa¬ city, say in their '' introduction," " The General Assembly are unanimously of opinion? 1st. That God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath let us free from the doctrine and com¬ mandments of men, which are in any thmg contrary to his word, or besides it ill matters of faith or Worship." Therefore they consider the rights of private judgement, in all matters that respect religion, as UniversaJ and unalien¬ able. That, in perlect consistency with the above principle of common right, every chris¬ tian church, or union, or association of particu- COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 157 lar churches, is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion, and the qualifi¬ cations of the ministers and members, as well as the whole system of its internal government} which Christ hath appointed. See these comprehensive outlines of govern¬ mental principles investigated in this work, in our definition and defence of natural and ad¬ ventitious rights, &c. But on this subject we find that we are not left to vague conjecture— only furnished with general principles, for on page 217 of their constitution, is found the fol¬ lowing, viz: "It is absolutely necessary that the government of the church be exercised under some certain and definite fortn ; and we hold it to be expedient" {whatever is expedi¬ ent is right—see q former page,) " and agreea¬ ble to scripture, and the practice of the primi¬ tive christians, that the church be governed by congregational, presbyterial, and syncdical assemblies. These assemblies ought not to possess any civil jurisdiction, nor to inflict any civil penalties, proeed, that is, by rising, stretching out the hand, &c., as expressive of approbation, or the contrary*— Before we proceed to sjrcak particularly ot the im ortance and duty attached to this, office, which we think should be inculcated, we Would not omit to mention, that notwithstand¬ ing this judicature, or the officers composing it, (without which it would not rightly exist,) seem to be invested with authority, legally, equitably, and in violation of no individual privilege, is an office discarded by Episcopali¬ ans. Lay elder is an office in the church not acknowledged by them We need but refer to a few plain texts of scripture, however, to prove this an office recognised in the apostolic age. It may here be remarked that the office of deacon, which is recognised by our discip- COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 161 line, is so very similar to that of lay elder, that it is scarce worthy a different or particular notice. We shall include both these in remark¬ ing on either. The following observation may be of use, that is, that in a church where no deacon is elected, the temporal affairs of the church belong to the eldership exclusively, as officers of the same. See enumeration of those duties. Paul writing to Timothy relative to this subject, says: " Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, espe¬ cially they who labor in the word and doctrine." 1 Tim. 5:17. Here it is evident lhat Paul distinguished elders—those that ruled only, from those who, moreover, "labored in the word." See also Rom. 12 : 7, 8 ; Acts 15: 25. As we have argued this subject in a former part of this work, we will not unnecessarily dwell upon it here. Whoever fakes into con¬ sideration the origin of power belonging to lay elders, will see that it arises from the church under the sanction of revelation; and further, none need be ignorant of the concur¬ rence of divine investiture with this choice who look at our mode of ordaining. See p. 237. If any should inquire why the representative form is adopted in a congregation, we answer, first, that it is an apostolic mode, and second, because a church being one of many, must, to keep up the unity of the whole body, have oc¬ casion to appoint Representatives—leaving out of view the fact that this is undeniably the only way to do things pertaining to a whole 11 162 Commentary on church government, chfirch " in decency and order "—often to at¬ tend the, perhaps, distant and higher judica¬ tures. When, therefore, an elder is ordained, he having the sanction and investiture of the whole church, and being set apart by prayer, is a church officer for life, or during good be¬ haviour. It will be recollected he takes this office upon himself, for a requisition is made upon the minister by the discipline that ordains an qlder to this effect: " Do you accept the office of ruling elder (or deacon) in this con¬ gregation, and promise faithfully to endeavor to perform all the duties thereof, &c..?" We will now proceed to sum up some of the duties incumbent-, according to the above obligations, upon that responsible class of church officers—• the elders. Elders, in their official capacity, are declared to be " competent to the spiritual government of the congregation ;" this being the fact, ybu, brethren, occupy the most im¬ portant official standing for government that exists in the church. You are entrusted as stewards of the grace of God. We are ap¬ prised that, we are running, in propagting the above sentiment, in contact with a senile, favorite, vet false opinion, which has long been cherished by some of our beloved church mem¬ bers, ministry perhaps, as well as laity; that is, that the ministry is not only the most im¬ portant, bu< almost all the church officers necessary. It is true, onr Discipline declares, (p. 211,) : "The pastoral office is the first in the church, both for dignity and for usefulness," COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 168 but this must be, and is understood in its more extensive bearing. Your body is composed of a minister and elders, and exclusively of elders. You have, therefore, the majority or exclusive power of governing. In this light, that is, of governing and exercising discipline, we here have asserted that your ecclesiastical court— a standing one—of the church, occupies the most important, and ought to exercise the most efficient church jurisdiction. And for what reason ? We answer, because more direct in its"bearing, more specific in its operation' upon the whole membership in its several judicial capacities. The error, brethren, under which you, (with myself,) have labored, is, that we have been disposed to think, as the present aspect of our ecclesiastical affairs in portions of our beloved Zion, too lamentably manifest, that those remote judicatures, (so to speak,) are the more important. This cannot be the fact, so long as personal rectitude is considered requisite, or to be necessary in every individual in communion—of the mass of our church members. True it is, that these higher authori¬ tative bodies—presbyteries; synods, (fee.—have a more extensive indispensably necessary juris¬ diction ecclesiastical, but yet they cannot de¬ scend upon those under your care, except through or by you, their representatives. They cannot. Did ever a Presbyterian know a private member tried in presbytery for an of¬ fence without first having brought himself t© such from the decision of his church session 164 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. by appeal, memorial, or reference relative to his case ? " The session is competent to the spiritual government of the congregation"— they have power, &c., "to concei t the best mea¬ sures for promoting the spiritual interests of the congregation to appoint delegates ;" it has judicial, legislative and executive power, and is as complete in its parts, and as well furnished for the accomplishment of th& designs of a good and thorough oversight, government and discipline, as any judicature of our church.— If the session " concert measures for the inter¬ est " of their church, and this is a kind of legis¬ lation, it must be recollected that it is done, however, in view of the constitution, like all other legislation. It is said the session has power—if it has power to command, (and it a delegated power too,) it surely has a right to do so—right and obligation, it will be remembered, are recipro¬ cal terms—that is, where one person, or body of men, have a right to an estate, or any part or parcel of an estate, others are unavoidably obligated—are under obligation to withhold interference in way of possessing either the estate or what rightfully pertains to it. Thus it is agreeable to every-day common interpre¬ tation, with those having a right to rule, and those ruled ; for if one has a right to rule, it is necessarily implied that there are subjects, and as necessarily implied, (even were there no specific rules in the case,) that there is an obli¬ gation resting upon them to obey. Where the COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 165 right is moral or otherwise, the obligation is the same. This " power to concert measures," may be resisted in providing and fostering ad- vantagious supplies of the means of grace.— Among these is one of vital importance, viz : the obtaining of ministerial labors—procuring the attendance, nay ! if possible, the pastoral services, preaching, &c., of a faithful minister. This, we say, is the business of a church ses¬ sion in concurrence with presbyterial appro¬ bation. This act itself may not be a legisla¬ tive act, but then there are things connected with this transaction which are of that nature. It will be also recollected that there are many poor and distressed persons in the bounds of most churches, it is a duty tQ raise collec¬ tions for their relief. This is a matter for a session to " concert," as to particular ways and means. Your minister, brethren, what will you do for him ? You have a right to demand from your churches respectively, a support for him. Or will you stand foremost to " muzzle the ox that treadeth out your corn," by saying, as many of you have said, .we cannot support him ; and that, perhaps, only another mode of expression for, " we will not"—manifested by the thousands possessed, but withheld by you " to the evil example of all others like offend¬ ing."* While you appear before the prophet of * The following resolution was passed at Union Hall, by Hiwassee Presbytery, Sept., 1849 : •' Rssolved by this Presbytery, That the several church sessions under her care, be and they are hereby requested 166 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. the Lord, like one of old, saying, " Blessed be thou of the Lord ; I have performed the com¬ mandment of the Lord. And Samuel said, what mecineth this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of oxen which I hear ? Are the Amelikites all destroyed ?— No—we have their king among us—the peo¬ ple spared the best of the sheep' and of the oxen to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God." And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams: *' * * because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king. Brethren, what will you do to concert measures—yea, the best measures, says the authority granting you power for the purpose, of government and protection, in order to have a minister supported among you ? Or Can you live with the vows of God upon you, the church looking up to you for the bread of life, without a ministry? Will you not "concert" measures that will call into action the benevo¬ lence of your congregations ? Some have clone to pass a standing resolution, requiring each member in com¬ munion belonging to their several congregations * * * to contribute annually to the support of the gospel as God in his providence may prosper them; and any refusing the same shall be reported to the session, and in such cases the ssessions are requested to deal with them accordingly." On motion to sustain a mark of impropriety on the above resolution (made by a committee,) the resolution underwent a critical investigation ; the motion was lost, therefore the resolutien was sustained. commentary on church government. 187 so; and others, I am persuaded, will do the same. It may be my brethren may think themselves hardly dealt with ; if so, we reply, in extenua-i tion, to these our official brethren (the elders) that our subject is, church government, that we have in pursuance of this subject, seen you in¬ vested \vith authority; we do not, therefore, wish to treat you beneath your official dignity, or attempt to go down among your household, so to speak, and take authority out of the hands of the patriarch, in order 1o lecture or bear rule. When we wish to know whether good rules are enforced or not, or whether the head of a family is a good governor or not, he being accountable, it is true, we sometimes look around among the household to obtain that knowledge. And should we see disorder, the offspring of bad government, ingratitude, dis¬ trust, &c., we conclude that the elders of that church, either by precept or example, or perhaps both, have inculcated (or suffered it, which is the same) those very ruinous, lawless, fleshly lusts ; for (says. James) where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. See James 3: 14—18. It is for want, probably, of your having procured and sustain¬ ed a faithful minister, or one suited to the emer¬ gency necessitous, and capacity of your people and yourselves. Brethren look at the follow¬ ing, on the subject of collections " for the poor" and " other pious purposes of the church" and say whether the eldership of our church have 168 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. not the funds of the whole church under their control; and if so, who has reason to complain the more for want of support, a faithful, but poor, neglected ministry, or the head of the church to condemn, who commands man to give according to that he hath. See Discipline, p. 272, note—" The session is to judge when it is expedient to make collections." Now, can the "higher judicatures even,make a collection for the purposes above, or any other, by proposition to your people, without your permission. They cannot. How responsible is the station occu¬ pied by the eldership! It is as if a parent should consign his children for education, sup¬ port and protection to the hands of special guar¬ dians, that higher, yet more remote, judicatures of the church under God, have consigned to you severally and constitutionally the immediate oversight of the whole body of the laity. There is another error which we fearprevails; thatis, that discipline and government are esteemed of but little or no importance to the advance¬ ment of Christ's kingdom—the church^ And again, too many separate government and dis¬ cipline, or rather omit the latter, while one is equally obligatory with the .other. An old ad¬ age is, (and a very true one, too,) that "ap ounce of preventative is better than a pound of cure." To discipline, disciple or catechise and train, especially in our Western States where it is and has been so shamefully neglected, would be to prevent crime, build up and establish our churches in the gospel graces. But as this is COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 169 the province of the ministry mainly, we will let these remarks for the present suffice. Dis¬ cipline pertains more to edification than other¬ wise. Elders should, we think," concert" ways for the preservation of the spiritual children of ministers under God; and, at the same time, have regard to the spiritual father—the minis¬ ter himself—who has consigned them to their care, lest they learn to speak evil of him or slight and neglect him. They should inquire after any who absent themselves from the house of God—this is in their line of duty. They should " concert measures"—the best, not only for the purposes above cited, (for their minister who is their servant, and whom they can dis¬ miss for proper reasons presented by them to the presbytery, such as inefficiency in his work and the like,) but also for other purposes sub¬ servient to the advancement of " spiritual in¬ terest" in their respective congregations. The procuring of comfortable houses of worship— church houses—establishing weekly piayer meeting—Sabbath schools—appointing days of fasting and humiliation—especially should this be done when recommended by the higher ju- catures. Recommended, we say, it is all they can do, but the session can enforce this moral obligation—has a right to do it if judged ad¬ visable by its members that a day of' humilia¬ tion be observed in their congregations—at least to prevent by censure or otherwise, any con¬ temptuous disregard of this, declared (pp. 215 170 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT/ '—216 of our discipline,) to be one of the ordi-1 nances of the church. If any should apprehend that a kind of dis¬ cretionary or legislative power, o1 which we have principally spoken in this address to offi¬ cial fay brethren, as being possessed by them, is dangerous and detrimental, we would cite them to the discipline as the great bulwark of bur ecclesiastical liberty. It is hardly possible, if doing justice, and good works, and loving mercy, be our design, that any will transcend the bounds of limitation set and designated by the word of God, in our discipline. Hence, brethren, read your disciplines—come up to the requirements therein laid down and we will prosper as a church beyond doubt, and obtain the blessing of heaven on our church and its benevolent institutions. We have said that the ministry are the servants of the lay elders (un¬ der consl itutional restrictions, so with regard to all the higher judicatures and their official mem¬ bers, including elders,) but then the elders are not abstractly or absolutely independent; they are the servants of the laity. See form of election and ordination of elders, and defin¬ ition of church session. Who, then, are the sov¬ ereigns in our ecclesiastical polity ? Th.e peo¬ ple. Who introduced, or admitted, and admits those members composing the laity into author¬ ity'or into a-participation of privileges, thus fraught with power and vital, radical interest, to the state indirectly and to the^cause of ben¬ evolence of God, and of truth, directly ? The COMMENTARY ON CIIURCH GOVERNMENT. 171 elders. Which of the Presbyterian judicatures are, then, the most important and responsible tosthe general assembly—nay to God and the world of mankind? Unhesitatingly we say, the church session is. None, with these facts, (in view of government,) the word of God, and his adopted constitution—the discipline—be¬ fore him, can otherwise conclude. Will it do you any service in a coming day when, your Lord returns to reckon with those servants ?— Dear beloved brethren—elders—:to say we had hard masters—the "people Spared of the best of the sheep and of the oxen for a sacrifice."— Or in other words, when you should have been inculcating obedience and respect to spiritual guides, (and your judicatures) to 3d. Faith in Christ. This is closely connect¬ ed with, and should be considered in connec¬ tion with the above, (piety) as faith and works are inseperable. The former is the cause, or main-spring. Do they show their faith by their works, and vice versa 1 But to detect error and hypocrisy, (for our Episcopal friends in upbraiding us, say, any person can frame a good story) we here have an opportunity of applying a test, about which hypocrites are ignorant. Upon a proper and strict examina¬ tion of their faith, its nature, its author, its ap¬ titude to their condition, its simplicity and im¬ portance, &c., candidates for church privile- 12 178 Commentary on church government. ges, how adroit soever, or then igrtorant on general topics, can not whjll If at all conceal their true state. The reason that an apparent preference is allowed to children born within the pale of the visible church is, that parents of such are botuid, and it'is supposed by our Constitution and the word of God, have performed all the di:ties of christian parents, and that those children are consequently taught in the Holy Scriptures—taught the catechism—taught to repeat the Lord's prayer, &c., &c. This, for Our purpose (government) must suffice, on this otherwise theological subject. Parents, how does the case stand with you and' your chil¬ dren, nay, with you and your God 1 Are your children, christian parents, taught' the Holy Scriptures " which are able to make them wise unto salvation ?" Does your Heavenly Father smile upon you in the conversion of your children ? If hot, your broken vows, un¬ less you repent, will intervene between that heaven to which you profess to be traveling, and their souls, and chll down the iniquity Of the fathers upon the children even to the fourth generation. .Here it will be seen that neither sex rior color excludes any from church privileges, or membership. Nor is degrees of capacity, if above an idiot, a requisition made. Then our government has an advantage to afford to all God's children that are willing and able to con¬ fess him before men, And moreover, all such COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 179 members of the household of faith, a thing the civil, and even some ecclesiastical (see Con. P. Methodist Church) laws do not permit, are allowed—females and people of colour—to vote in the choice of their church officers?'; and they can carry (or any one of them) by ap¬ peal, if aggrieved, their cause to. the highest judicature (this privilege the M. E. Church denies their lay members, male and female, white and black,) of our church—the General Assembly. The practice of C. Presbyterians in receiv¬ ing members, have, as far as we has observed, been according to the principles we have ex¬ emplified in o^r comment above ; that is, they have not gone hastily, noi* superficially into the discharge of their duty. Those that are to be admitted, &c., are to be examined ; this does not imply, as our remarks thus far seem to indicate, that there is no other mode of ex¬ amination than by a personal interview and interrogation; our several sessions also receive members by letters of recommendation, offi¬ cially certifying their good standing at the time of dismission (which time should not ex¬ ceed 12 months) in some other particular churches of our order. We think that the above mode of receiving church members is the scriptural mode. It was the scripture manner to receive, members upon profession of their faith. Besides, it is the only rationally discriminate way, in our opinion, in which a church of Jesus Christ 180 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. could be distinguished—so far as men could judge of the proper characteristics—as sepe- rate from the world. To open a church door so wide that those even" who did not profess to have faith—nay, those who had not repented—were only re¬ pentant, or penitent, and then when they had entered spread before. them the sacred em¬ blems—yes, and baptize them—mark them off as the property of that Saviour whom they even then denied—having no faith in him, is nothing more nor less, as we perceive, than in those church officers so officiating, a perver¬ sion of the use of the keys of the kingdom of Christ, the church, and a burlesque on chris¬ tian privilege, if not on Christianity itself. Cumberland Presbyterians take, it is true, mourners by the hand and covenant with them —that, on their part, they will, as the lovers of the Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently of the souls of those for whom he died, continue in a special manner to pray for, and weep with, and endeavor to lead them by instruction and exhortation to the " Lamb of God that taketk away the sin of the world? This special inter¬ est is grounded in part on the conditions of that covenant—with which conditions those penitents, with tearful eyes and broken, heavy hearts, agree to perform—that is, that they will never rest or cease mourning until they find rest and comfort in the Lord. But to invite those dear disconsolate souls to eat and drink damnation or condemnation— COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 181 partaking without faith to discern the Lord's body, unworthily—to themselves, is more than any officer of Jesus Christ has authority to do. The practice above of our church is that which has been blessed—themselves and, their mourning friends together have, often shouted the praise of God—and should be continued. Note.—It has been more or less prevalent as a practice among several Church Sessions, to omit prayer, especially at their adjourn¬ ments ; this practice has, as far as it has pre¬ vailed under the authors observation, been founded on expediency, (so plead,) but more we believe on the supposition that our Con¬ stitution was silent upon that special matter. For the benefit of our brethren, (elders,) we cite them to the following, viz : (See Form of Gov., p. 235, chap. 12, sec. 4:) "Each session of the Assembly, as of all other judicatures of the Churchj shall be intro¬ duced and concluded with prayer." An inquiry.—Should not that only Form, (with proper variations to suit the several judi- catorial duties assigned) found Con. pp. 234, 235, be observed ? This would obviate, in its last clauses, the.violation (as we look upon it,) of the true intent of all representative or dele¬ gated responsibility, viz : that of being ameni- able to constituents. We mean, that elders sent to higher judicatures, representing their congregational assembly or church session, should report their proceedings—their dilli- gence therein. • The Presbytery (Ocoee) to ] 82 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. which the author belongs, has a standing rule to this effect. This would prevent mueh hurtful delinquen- cy* . . . . , Fo|ms used in process—a citation, a judge¬ ment or the records of a session, &c., &c.—for the use of church sessions. i We have thought it necessary, in giving forms for the use of church sessions, to be more gen¬ eral as well as'specific, than we would be, were it not that our constitution, from its apparent indefiniteness, seems to call for and admit an analogous illustration. For instance, it is not said definitely what number of elders compose a session. Two elders, however, are a consti¬ tutional number to caW a meeting of the ses¬ sion ; therefore it is evident there must be at least three—there ought to be five—see Con., p. 220, chap. 8, sec. 1. Again, it is not specified in our Book that in a vacant congregation, where it is said, (see- p. 220,) " the elders alone shall form the session," how they shall make a moderator—or, indeed, whether they shall have any—yet it is evident¬ ly intended, for on p. 248, chl 18, sec. 1, it is said :• "It is necessary in the judicatories of the church that there should be a moderator and p. 255, in a note, it is said, " the presiding (lay) elder of the.session * * * * shall admin¬ ister the oath," &c. It is necessary, * * * * * there should be a moderator. He must be elec¬ ted iby the members of the session—agreeable td principles of our republican usages and COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 183 the rule-^among or out of their own body the session must select a , moderator by whatever plan, viva voce or otherwise, they prefer. The record must show how the moderator, signing the minutes of the occasion, came to/ office— except a regular pastor. So in any case where a minister js called in, &c., for this omission, I have seen sessional minutes ..subjected to criti¬ cism in presbytery .j., a minister sent to supply a vacancy, is moderator for thetime-r-a pastor is also, &c. ..(See ch. 18, sec. 3, p. 248.) Should there be any doubt of the propriety of electing a lay elder as moderator, or of electing a moderator in a vacant congregation we think the practical and constitutional rules' specified in relation to all the higher judicatures (which see) at once decide in favor of an election as suggested by us. Especially when it is said, (Con., p, 251, ch. 20,) "Every judicatory shall choose" (or eject) "a clerk." A session, then, ought severally (and I think do) elect a moderator and clerk. Some of our ecclesias¬ tics seem rather to regret that our constitution is not full and formal enough in directing the synod's organization, but I think that if any where—to any great advantage—it might be found needful to be more full and explicit, in our book, it isonthe organization, &c., of church sessions. The vagueness concerning 'its constitutional quorum, &c, I fear (if no more) has caused many to think and act as if there were little or no special importance attached to their modus 1S4 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. operandi. This is a mistake ; because the church session is a grave, deliberative body and transacts as important business as belongs to any judicature, either civil or ecclesiastical upon earth; and consequently should occupy scriptural or constitutional grounds. They should never transact business hurriedly, but should meet in a solemn and grave manner ; and, how can they do otherwise when agreeable to the constitution it is made their duty to open and close each several meeting of their body by prayer? Do any omit this duty ? Should they do it, would such session be constitution¬ ally organized ? We think not. Would a presbytery under such circumstances be in violation of the constitution? If so, would any subsequent act of theirs on the oc¬ casion be constitutional ? We leave this inter¬ rogatory for the answer of those who are en¬ gaged as officers of Jesus Christ under our con¬ stitution? Brethren of the several vacant con¬ gregations, we write for edification; will you suffer a word of friendly admonition. We give a brief now that if need be it may assist you in forming your minutes. This we do because we have ourself, when acting as el¬ der, found ourself put to the blush in forming a minute. Though, we think it due you, so far as we have had opportunity of observing, to say that our sessional records have ~ generally been—* though sometimes a little informal—correct.— COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 185 No very material departure from constitutional rules have been before our presbytery. A Form for Organizing a Church Session: The session of S—(here insert the name,) church met at S— church, on Saturday the 24th day July, 184-% Members present: J. P., S. A., and James R. The session was then constituted by prayer. Julius P., a member of S. church, appeared before the church session and preferred as com¬ plainant or prosecutor, the following charges against C. D., a member of this church, viz :— That on the third day of June last, at the house of A. L., in the town of Harrison, Hamilton county, Tenn , he, the said C. D., did then and there (here specify the crime,) in the presence of S. D. and C. A.; and we, the session of C. church, having evidence before us that the said G. D. has refused to be reconciled or to reform through, or by the means recommended by our constitution, do therefore issue our citations, re¬ questing the said C. D. and those witnesses, S, C. and C. D., specified in said charge, to appear before us* And they are hereby in due form cited. We, the session of S. church, having preferred before us by C. D— the following charge, (here specify the time and place, wit¬ nesses, charges &c.,if there be different charges specify, and each witness to prove each,) do require you, G. D:, to attend and answer to those charges before thi§ session at S. church on the 3d day of August next, being Wednes¬ day. 186 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. Issued by order of the session, July 24th, 1849. JAS. R., Clerk of Session. N. B.—The prosecutor should be duly served with a notice of the time of the trial. Each witness should be cited to the time as a wit¬ ness for the plaintiff or defendant, for which the notice should specify on the minutes. The defendant would have a right to apply for no¬ tices to obtain witnesses before, if he plead for it, he could or ought to come to trial. It is scarcely necessary to remind you that when the regular trial (as instituted above) is in progress that the deposition of every witness must be ta¬ ken in writing and subscribed by said witnes¬ ses. We say it is hardly necessary to give the last information. Our book is plain on this fact. The plaintiff may himself, after'the evi¬ dence is through, or employ (with the consent of the session,) another member of the church to sum up in a brief manner, the testimony and compare it with ecclesiastical law or our con¬ stitutional rules. Likewise may the defendant do—but I.presume it would be rather unseemly to introduce any others than those hinted above. In process of several day's trial every meeting adjournment from day to da}?, &c., must be du¬ ly recorded. Judgment or Decision. It appearing from the above testimony in this case that C. D. is only guilty of indiscretion and too much levity, COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 187 -j Resolved, therefore, That he be rebuked and also admonished by the chair. Which was accordingly done. The session then adjourned ; concluding by prayer. , , J. P.,' Moderator. > J. B., Clerk. " 2he Presbyterial Assembly." The members composing, or of which a pres¬ bytery " consists" are "all the ministers, and one ruling elder 'from each congregation, within a certain district." In [the language of our dis¬ cipline, the " importance and usefulness of pres¬ byterial and synodical assemblies arise" from the fact that " the church being divided into many separate congregations, these need," (or needing) " mutual counsel and assistance in order to preserve soundness of doctrine, and regularity of discipline ; and to enter into com¬ mon measures for the promoting of knowledge," &c. See chap, ix, see. 1-2 of Form of Gov¬ ernment. " The importance, usefulness," &c., of this body arises from its adaptedness " to preserve soundness of doctrine," &c., (see above) in the several churches, through mutual counsel and assistance. • Which judicature, the presbytery or church session, has, in this view, the pre¬ ference? The one, assuredly, that has power competent to spiritual government and needs the other only for mutual counsel and assistance," &c., &c. We presume none will think that mutual counsel, &c., (which the congregations 188 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. are said to need) outside of government, (if the expression is allowable) or in other words, irre¬ spective of the official medium through whom it is to be given, viz: the elders of a church. Hence when the above remark ruins the comparative merits of these two bodies and introduces the presbytery as counselling, &c., the congrega¬ tions, it rightly substitutes the word session in plaeeof congregation. Hear the following respectful language of our constitution affirmative of the foregoing sentiment, viz : The presbytery have cognizance of all things * * * *■ that are not cog¬ nizable by the session. Enough at the present juncture of our defin¬ itions on the powers of a presbytery. Let us first investigate its radical, representative, com¬ ponent parts. We have seen that " all the min¬ isters, and one ruling elder within a certain district (called the presbytery) compose this judicatory. Section 2, which gives thus the outline of' the ratio of representation, between the ministry and eldership, has by section 3, certain modifications or provisions given to it, as is evident from the language of the same. Every congregation, which has a settled pastor, has a right to be represented in presbytery, by one elder, and every collegiate church (that is, one church having two or more ministers,) by two or more elders, in proportion to (the num¬ ber of) \ts ministers. Where there are two or more congregations united under one pastor, all such (associated) congregations shall h.ave commentary on church 'government. 189 but one elder to represent them. Every con' gregation that has-not a settled minister, con¬ sisting of thirty members in fcommunion or more and is willing to support the gospel according as God has prospered them, shall be entitled to be represented by a ruling elder in this judica¬ ture. And where there are two or more con¬ gregations united, in their united capacity, are of the description aforesaid, then such united congregations may be represented by one el¬ der." The design of this supplementary (3) sec¬ tion is to designate amidst eertain deviations (should they exist) varying from the radical, first principles of our constitution and its polity, with regard to the relations existing between pastors and churches: that is, the pastoral re¬ lation is that mainly recognized as of any ec¬ clesiastical, radical, valid importance, and who that has read the above can draw any other conclusion, from it, than that the pastoral rela¬ tion is recognized as existing between one pas¬ tor and one congregation. This is the only way that the principles of ourgovernment can tru¬ ly be exemplified. Any other relations either multiform or complex, relative to this connec¬ tion, is viewed by our constitution as cases of necessary emergency. Hence we find them provided for supplementary. For a minister to take charge of more than one congregation, resembles diocesan episcopa¬ cy too much to leave out of view the impossi- 190 COMMENTARY ON CHtRCH GOVERNMENT. bility of his performing the task assigned him according to revealed requisition. Upon what principle does this ratio, that be¬ tween the ministry and eldership, exhibit its practicability, but on that of the equality of interest in every several church established be: tween the pastor and elders or elders delegated ? The. design of equality of numbers, &e., is ap¬ parent ; and no' less is it apparent that the ministry1 and laity are entitled to equal privi¬ leges in this judicature, except that of being moderator assigned to preachers, than it is, that a balance of power is intended. That is, as we perceive, that the pastor in a particular church who from his supposed, or really supe¬ rior power, might take occasion to usurp author¬ ity detrimental to lay privilege, have one (an elder) equal in ecclesiastical authority to rep¬ resent and guard in presbytery, his own rights, and those having rights with his identified.— And so on the contrary, the minister or ministry have an equitably balanced influ¬ ence with elders that they may maintain their rights. Some might conclude that this is too minute a view of this subject. . Admitting the balance of power as stated to be correct, I know there are those who would count, not by twos but by scores ; that is, would sum up in general terms this common yet conflicting (pos¬ sibly) interest, and say the ministerial is bal¬ anced by the eldership's influence, without be¬ ing able to specify. But this is almost as con¬ trary to good sense as it is to the avowed care COMMENTARY ON CtffrfcGH GOVERNMENT. 191 and circumspection of our church polity. Our discipline in its every feature exhibits tender¬ ness arid i*egardto wardsthe'laity. It descends to particularize and is tenacious of equal rights. This balance of power must have some design and may, it is true, be expressed' in general terms, yet what is of moretvital importance to our beloved Zion than to see every family (so to speak) nay, every individual of each family [church"[ regarded. This vague manner of inter¬ pretation, has done more to create inordinate, in¬ efficient government &nd discipline than most are apprized of who have not dulyj reflected. However, we must not lose sight of the-main subject. To'remedy irregularities, the provis¬ ions in section " 3" willhave collegiate churcffi es, and the several churches employing one pastor only, to have one or more representatives in proportion to the number of their pastors.— But then a still greater latitude is given. This is in t'he case of vacant congregations who are united—(or one)—making up thirty members, or having that number in-communion, and be¬ ing willing to support the' gospel—aVe entitled to a representative in presbytery: The balance of power may not, in this ppovisonary emergen¬ cy, yet be lost. There, may be, and in these days of stated, occasional, and missionary pan- aceatical enterprize, there are many ministers, as well as-many churches who have no pastor¬ al relation. Strange as it may seem, there has beeu and are presbyteries which even yet, per¬ haps construe the meaning of this " 2 and 3" 192 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. section so as to make them mean that every church having thirty members, &c., has a right to.be represented by one elder inpresbytery, ir¬ respective of pastoral relations, Its Powers. The presbytery have cognizance of all things that regard the welfare of the particular church¬ es within their bounds, which are not cogniza¬ ble by the session. They have also the power of rpceiving and issuing appeals from the ses-1 3ions, and references brought before them in a regular manner; of examining and licensing candidates for the gospel ministry ; of ordain¬ ing, settling, removing, or judging ministers; of examining and. approving or condemning the records of the sessions; of resolving questions of doctrine or discipline, seriously or reasona¬ bly proposed, of condemning < erroneous opin¬ ions, that injure the purity and peace of the church; of visiting particular churches, to in¬ quire into their state, and redress the evils that may have risen with them; of uniting or divid¬ ing congregations, at the request of the people, and of ordering whatever pertains to the spir¬ itual concerns of the churches under their care." We remark here that presbyterianism, as a government is tenacious of the elective repub¬ lican form; and hence guards with a zealous vigilance the encroachments of episcopacy up¬ on individual .or congregational rights; and with equal assiduity regards. the intrusion of congregational or individual encroachments COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 193 upon the episcopacy or rights of bishops. It will be seen from this, that both of these forms are not only regarded, as both these orders of rights are necessarily involved, (because the laity and ministry are component parts in our jurisprudence, with their distinctive evangeli¬ cal immunities,) but are blended ; making har¬ monious reconciliation between those two con¬ flicting ecclesiastical principles which are dis¬ franchising in their separate untoward ex¬ tremes. Presbyterianism stands aloof from episcopal usurpation, and, equally so, from the detached anarchy of Congregationalism. It now becomes our privilege to : investigate the powers (and restriction of those powers,) belonging to this judicature of our church.— And as we have heretofore introduced the lan¬ guage of the discipline, relative to the pre-emp¬ tive rights of the session, viz : "presbytery have cognizance of all things, * * * * * not cognizable by the session," and have, when commenting on .the prerogatives and powers of that body, exhibited at least an outline of its jurisdiction and its relative ecclesiastical priv¬ ileges, we need not on this point long detain. Not disposed to arrest presbyterial authority but to arrest error, we enumerate the following, viz : "The church session # * * have power to inquire into the knowledge and christian conduct of the members of that (the) church, to call before them the offenders and witnesses, to bring the process to issue; to admonish, re¬ buke, to suspend or exclude those who are found 13 194 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. to deserve, &c., to concert1 the best measures for promoting the spiritual interests of the congre¬ gation and to appoint delegates (from its own body) to the higher judicatures. Error, as hint¬ ed at above, may be explained, as to our mean¬ ing in this place, by asking a question or two: Do the sessions of our several churches—ah ! including ministers too—perform that which they have power to do—have undertaken to do —have promised to do—have pledged them¬ selves before the sacred altar, to the " Chief Shepherd and Bishop of Souls," professing to be set apart thereto by the Holy Ghost, and then to their brethren, have promised and pledged themselves to do ? That which they have a right to do ! If all these things be performed, that is, in the first duty, viz : to inquire into*the knowledge of the members, and I hope, as you, brethren, are spiritual or moral governors, that you will be at no loss in ascertaining what kind of knowledge you are to observe and after which to inquire. Methinks I hear some good natured, not to say anchoret or recluse, elder objecting. " I think (says he,) and have always, since I have been an elder, thought it was the preacher's dutv to attend (if a duty at all) to that matter." Igno¬ rant as any may be of our rulps, we would say to such an one that, if he has been hurried into office immaturely, he cart learn, by reading hi» discipline, a different lesson from that which he has been supposed (I' wish, for the sake of the -interest of ohr church, that a supposition would COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 195 here suffice) to utter, if Have you a minister—a pastor ? He is moderMtor of your body. How did he become one of your judicatures ? Did the presbytery send him down upon you ? No. He was elected by Cur session he having investigated his claims and the interest of our congregation. The agreement between us was briefly rer ported to the presbytery by our representative, to which he (our preacher) gave affirmation— the engagement was sanctioned, &c. If you engaged Mr. P. as pastor of your church, ex¬ clusive of the assistance or embai rassment of any other pastor or church, the discipline (were there no specialities made) set him at work and you to observe, (your duties assigned,) and obey in the Lord ; or rather to see that your congregation observe the rules of discipline, and that your pastor does the same.* Whose servant, or minister, which means the same, is he ? The servant of Jesus Christ—but you have employed him, and therefore have made him your special minister in Christ. If he be your servant, or in your special employ, have you not a right to command or require him to do your service in the Lord's vineyard ? Now examine your authority which gives you com¬ petency of power to govern, and see if you, as a session, are not accountable for the per¬ formance of the above and other duties, if not *We would not be understood to intimate that ministers $re amenable at the bar of a session. Though they ea* take by reference a cause to a presbytery. 196 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. performed* Recollect, if you observe, as is your duty, the conduct in view of discipline and government of the minister and people between whom you stand for the defence and security of both, that the constitution sets both these to notice and detect you—your body ec¬ clesiastical. If there be conditions in your pastoral relation, and these be subversive of the " best interest," you, in such case, would especially be accountable. The non-perform¬ ance of a pastoral relationship conditional, in either party, would be sufficient reason for an appeal to presbytery, complaining of immor¬ ality, &c., or praying a dissolution of the con¬ nection, if not attainable by mutual consent.— In the view of an impossibility, as some seem to suppose, of ever being disengaged fiom a pastoral relationship, many churches, other¬ wise approving, have, we fear, discarded it altogether. This last re ark, however, is gratuitous. To return more immediately to our subject, we would re-assert that elders are authorized, and consequently, as officers, bound to perform all the duties enumerated Non pp. 220, 221, either directly or indirectly. Nor does a pastor, as moderator, manumit, or release you from this obligation. How is that ? says my good jiatured, clever elder, I answer, because the power and jurisdiction of the session is com¬ petent to that task. Remember, we rule by majorities—three is a sessional quorum to do business ; and were your minister disposed to COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 197 misrule, he could not do so with a faithful church session to govern him. But why all this array of argument about a plain rule of discipline, or what is the difference between a Session's doing a known duty, or employing a pastor to do the same ? None, except that it would likely be much better performed by a man every way qualified, and so pronounced by the high and'responsible judicatory having cognizance of the same ; viz: the presbytery. With great propriety then, has our Constitution declared that the church session " is compe¬ tent" to govern a congregation. And we might remark, that the obligations resting on elders, were they understood and appreciated, would in every instance cause them to procure, if possible, the assistance and pastoral over¬ sight of some approved minister.' Then, if you have inquired into the knowledge of your con¬ gregations, yOu have done a duty, upon the right performance of which, depends your fa¬ cility in all the remaining duties of your office. That this is not an incorrect view of this sub¬ ject, let me turn your attention to the conside¬ ration of what is comprised in this duty, to prove that fact. " To inquire into the knowl¬ edge of the members of that society," would require you to have a knowledge yourselves— of what? I answer, of the ordinances—not exclusively those, denominated sealing ordi¬ nances, viz: " baptism and the Lord's Supper," but of all the ordinances declared to be such, belonging to a particular chuich. Nor is this 198 COMMENT Any ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. enumeration found elsewhere than in that por¬ tion of Discipline headed "Form of Govern¬ ment." It is a mistaken notion that too many- officiating in our church appear to entertain and practice; that is, that church government has but little to-do with the spiritual concerns of the gospel; and yet they have left the gos¬ pel to do all, through it% ministers. Thus they have flattered those that flattered them ; or, in other words, (I speak of elders,) those that have been the more f ortunate, not perhaps for learn¬ ing and piety, but. for a kind of occult preten¬ sion to immediate inspiration—the thing which those entertaining the above wrong view— would have a minister tQ exhibit, in order to enforce discipline and government, and mira- bile dictu!—in order to be popular.* While other ministers, perhaps, of learning, at least of christian humility, who come to the house of God bearing marks of modesty, not only in their external appearance, but in their demean¬ or, endeavoring to inpulcate an observance of our discipline, doctrines and government, be¬ cause these things have been inculcated by, or in their adopted constitution—that of their *The above error is not charged there but with only one of its many bad tendencies. For instance, leaving out .of view the passive obedience and its results in special indi¬ vidual adjudications of such a session—were there such to the dictations of such a minister—were there such this same or any oth'er minister, except he be more than human in the eyes of his people, that is, have absolute command over, their consciences, might wear hipiself out in their service, without temporal support, or spiritual success. COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT, 199 ehureh-r-and above all, hythe word of God, have been considered as -unworthy and ineffi¬ cient ; or as cold, formalpreachers ; and hence, such are rejected where the above error pre¬ vails, Brethren, to prevent this very thing which partakes, pf Episcopacy, if not df a degree (in our case) of superstition, has the judicature, the necessity and propriety of whose existence we are here though indirectly at¬ tempting to show, been established. This ex¬ treme and the contrary, viz : a want of proper subordination to bishops, it is the province of presbytery and other higher judicatures to prevent. But before we directly pursue our subject further, that is, show by what means these objectionable features of government (detesiable in the eyes of all reflecting presby- frerians) may be avoided, let us add a few re¬ marks discriminative with regard to the rela¬ tion that government has to the design ultimate of the church of Christ on earth—that of the triumph of truth, peace and order. And, first, we remark that the Form of Gov¬ ernment, although distinct, by its caption, &c., is not however detached or separated from the "directory" and doctrinal part of our Book.— So far from this being the case is it, that we see in that portion of our discipline, a kind of out¬ line of those very doctrine* and that "directo¬ ry"—especially of the latter—in the form of government. So that had we nothing more to direct us than this form, with its references, we could not well mistake our duties toward God; 200 COMMENTARY ON ClfURCtf GOVERNMENT. nor could we at all mistake our relative duties. Nevertheless, our discipline being what it ought to be, a complete system of Church Govern^ ment, does not talk irrelevant to that moral or spiritual kingdom of Christ. It is designed as a kind of comprehensive interpreter and safe¬ guard of moral or spiritual privilege, duty and obligation under the gospel; and refers not on¬ ly to the gospel, but under 'the gospel sanction, refers to the rules laid down in our discipline. (I use theword discipline asmeaning the whole book containing the discipline.) Hence, a knowledge of our whole discipline is necessary to those who would rightly inquire "into the knowledge, of church members." Let us in¬ troduce the language of our discipline upon this important and critical subject, viz: Church Government. "For the better government" (referring to other rules, see p. 167,) "and fur¬ ther edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called sy¬ nods or councils ; and it belongeth to the over¬ seers and other rulers of particular churches, to appoint such assemblies." Ag'ain, p. 168, sec. 2, we have the following, viz: "It belotigeth to synods and oouneils, ministerially, # * * to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church." Again, p. 205— " That our blessed Saviour, for the edification of the visible church, * * * hath appointed officers, not only to preach, the gospel, * * % but also to exercise discipline, for the preser* COMMENTARY ON CHltRCH GOVERNMENT. 201 vation both of truth and ddty." Our discipline again says, p. 205: " there is an inseperable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty." '• "The better government? and "the better order ■ ing of the public worship of God, and edifica¬ tion of the visible church * * * hath appoint¬ ed officers to exercise discipline for the preser¬ vation both of truth and duty." All these quo¬ tations go to show that it is considered next to impossible to preserve the public worship of God, or to govern the church, or to preserve truth and duty, which are " inseperable," with¬ out judicatures and officers of the same. These facts set the importance of discipline in; its proper light; and consequently, explode the vague, and worse than idle notion some of our churches have of discipline and ^government. These act or practice, let their theory be what it may, a government (if one at all) and dis¬ cipline as if they thought it of but very little interest—doing but little good, and productive, in the event (I fear) oj* much evil. Not that I would willingly charge home, on any officer, this fault, much less a judicature of our church specifically; but in order, if he or they (it) be found chargeable with any of the above faults, either in theory or practice, to attempt, on my part, to impart knowledge, as I may be able, and to effect reformation. If it be a fact then that government and discipline are of vital importance to preserve truth and duty insepera- bly, and edifydhe body of Christ, his church, 202 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. as exhibited jn the language of the discipline, it becomes an interesting inquiry with us to learn in what manner it is intended, that we should pursue this effective policy, in order to attain to its valued benificence. This brings us to our proposition made on a former.page; that was, to. show what means we are to employ, or a session ought to employ, in order to perform the first mentioned duty, (p. 220,) viz : to inquire into the knowledge of church members efficiently; and to evade im¬ proper bias of governmental principles. We have seen that, in order to pursue this object rightly, it must be done in view of the rules contained in the Book—both moral or spiritual and ecclesiastical, if such distinctions exist— or in view of the rules of faith and practice.— We may find these in our form of government, as already intimated, under the title, "Ordinan¬ ces in a particular church." In this outline of duties, the reader will necessarily perceive that he is referred to the book of discipline and set about a work, if he be a presbyter, that re¬ quires no ordinary or casual knowledge. . And he need not be surprised if he find that neglect¬ ed duty, viz : catechising, and another duty likewise, too much neglected, that of exercising government, enumerated among the ordinances of the church. Page 215—-"The ordinances established by Christ, the head, in a particular church, which is regularly constituted with its proper .officers, are prayer, singing praise, read¬ ing, expounding and preaching the word of COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 203 God ; public solemn fasting and thanksgiving, catechising, making collections for the poor, and other pious purposes, exercising discipline and blessing the people." Now, if we under¬ stand the true intent and necessity of an in¬ quiry " into the knowledge of members," it is With regard to soriie, yea, all pf these different ordinances. For, notwithstanding some of the above ordinances include the very transac¬ tion by name in which a minister would be engaged in this inquiry, viz: disciplining, or exercising discipline as 08 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. your heart is warm with love divine, you will be all over .ere you are aware, engaged in ful¬ filling your duty in the love of it. If so, sin¬ ners will hear your private exhortations. All these things accomplished, you will have need then to look among the more orderly members, remembering that fine dimples, pleasant smiles, intelligent faces, graceful carriage, and fine coats, do not always denote wise heads, spirit¬ ual minds, nor hearts imbued with a sense of sin, and a love of holiness. And were all your charge active, intelligent christians, by the above plan—for no other exclusive of this will do it—and it, by you pursued thus effectually, you would yet have reason to inquire, never¬ theless, into their spiritual knowledge daily.— And why ? Because thp healthiest constitutions are subject to disease—so with the man in his spiritual nature or strength. They are chris¬ tians, but men are subject to spiritual disease. Their pastor is to feed them. How does he know without he inquires of them personally, in the class or otherwheres, whether they are babes in Christ requiring the '"milk of the word," or men able to eat meat. If they are siok pr diseased, either men or babes, can he administer a remedy without knowing the nature of the disease? Would this minister be willing—diseased in body—the soul is worth more than the body—to employ a phy¬ sician that would administer temporal reme¬ dies as he (or some) does spiritual ones ? that is, without a knowledge of any particular dis- commentary on church government. 209 ease, throw out at random his pills in the midst of a whole crowd, and then never look any more after him—kill or cure1? Now this is practical Episcopacy, and that the grossest form of it, that is, not disciplining or catechi¬ sing in a pastoral relationship* on the pastor's part, much as some discard it. For instance, the bishop sees not perhaps, once in a year, if at all converses on spiritual things with a portion of his charge, so with many, too many, alas ! of our modern preach¬ ers ; yea ! of our Presbyterian brethren, who do not see all, many members of their charge for months, or converse with them seriously on subjects of religion at all personally. Shame I for such presbyterians—pity ! for such mem¬ bers. To obviate this unchristian, impolitic, not to say wicked course, has our discipline set forth the evangelical principle of one pastor to feed, &c., in one congregation. In fact it is one of the strong arguments against diocesan prelacy, that the prelate or bishop can not attend to his charge on account of its extent, founded on the following texts-: Acts 20: 28 ; Heb. 13 :7, 17 ; 1 Thess. 5 : 12, and others. On the first, take heed to all the jlock. On these words of the first text quoted, the Rev. and pious Mr. Baxter says, (see Reformed Pastor, p. 40,) " We are commanded to take heed to all the flock, that is, doubtless, to every individual member of it." That this text from Acts makes it very evident that the bishops of the churches were to have 14 210 commentary on church government. I the oversight of no more churches, individual¬ ly, than they can hold personal communion with; for they were to be under such regula¬ tion with regard to their charge, as that every one of that charge was to know, esteem and love them ; and how could this be without they, their pastor, or pastors labored among them ? It is the principle of Episcopacy to rule, or lord it over " God's heritage," as above noticed with regard to too great, or an extensive dio¬ cese, or pastoral charge; in that they govern without feeding the flock. Paul taught pub¬ licly, and yet from house to house. And what were some of the things which he taught ?—- Let every squI be subject to the powers that be for conscience sake. If this be the fact in his case, might it, nay, ought it not to be in the case of his successors. Then we think with this view alone, we have shown the min¬ istering brethren how (that which we promis¬ ed) they might make the power conferred on them to inquire into the knowledge of mem¬ bers, the fruitful source of facility in the per¬ formance of all their other official duties. We will, give a quotation from one of the fathers of the primitive ages, Ignatius, showing that it was considered a duty to take and exercise a special oversight in a pastoral relation: "Let" says he, " assemblies be often gathered ; seek after (or inquire of) all by name; dispise not servant men or maids.'* 1 In this manner would a church be edified.-*- By edification or building up, we mean not COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. £ll only what we have said above for the sake of speciality relative to professors, but also, the bringing in of new materials—the unconverted, And there is a want, generally, of a proper conception of mind and exercise of practice in even this ; that is, when many come to take their charge, or a pastoral oversight, they seem to forget, if they ever knew, that all baptized children are in the pales of the church. See definition of a church. How especially is it necessary that these be catechised, lest the preaching of the gospel be foolishness to them ; how can the. young and tender mind of such be benefited by preaching—though we by no means undervalue the preaching of. the gospel •—which is a kind of outline of theology, and sometimes in these latter days, a mere decla¬ mation, without the young having a knowledge of the scriptures ? It seems, from the practice of too many, that they consider our church government to be more indifferent—and so it has proven.in cases—about the welfare of its subjects (the laity) than the state is about those of hers. The state, in order to government and its consequents—prosperity and happiness— will have all, yea, childeren too, instructed not only in governmental principles, but in every art and science, at great expenditure. So we are happy to say the church would have her subjects taught in her proper sphere, that of moral and spiritual knowledge and govern¬ ment. We are not to be understood to say, however, 212 COMMENTARY ON- CHURCH GOVERNMENT. that with relation to the right and duty of dis¬ ciplining, that the officers of a church are the mere slaves ol the people, or are a pitiable class of officers that have no remedy after they have discharged the above part (inquiring) of their official duty; hence, we have, through¬ out these our arguments, kept up to unequivo¬ cal observation, the fact, that if they have a right to command, there is invariably a cor¬ responding obligation to obey. These officers, commissioned by the Great Head of the church, therefore, bear not rule in vain, which brings us to our second authoritative duty, viz : " to inquire into the christian conduct of the mem¬ bers of that church." See discip. p. 220. As the first grant of power to the session, viz : to inquire, &c., included that class of min¬ isterial or moral duties intended to prevent the omission of duty, this second grant of power, viz : "to inquire into the conduct of the mem¬ bers of a church," includes official moral du¬ ties, pertaining to the punishment of crime.— Some may think this distinction unnecessary, if not useless. We base it, however, on the principles of mercy and justice, which features of jurisprudence are surely found in our eccle¬ siastical code. Nor are they entirely absent from the civil constitution. For instance, a law is not binding until it is published, or until it is known—a sufficient opportunity and time given—as such by the proper functionaries of state in their discharge of duty to the common •lass of subjects. Especially is this the prin- COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 213 ciple of divine, and ought to he of ecclesiasti¬ cal government; that is, that " where there is no law there is no sin, or violation of law." It is requisite that the ministers, officers of a moral or spiritual government, make these their laws known. They have more to do than the state ; their work is not only more im¬ portant, but more intricate and special; for instance, the penalties which they inflict are of a declarative moral kind—that is, they inflict punishment only by declaring, in way of re¬ buke, reproof, admonition, suspension from the sacraments and exclusion. In order to bring this subject to bear, we would ask what effect a penalty of the above nature would have up¬ on the mind of one who was not prepossessed with a sense in the ordinary manner—the day of miracles is past—of moral or spiritual obli¬ gation. We answer none ; but to incense him, perhaps, with invidious feelings—none of a salutary natqre. Now, if he be without a sense of spiritual or moral things, which it is evident many in the world are, (and I have little doubt many in the church too,) is he truly a subject fit for moral government ? or, in other words, are suqh men in possession of the knowledge of that law as existing ? If he has little or mo sqnse, or perception of its existence, is he bound to abide by it, according to the foregoing—would it be sin in him to transgress against its precepts so as to justly incur its penalty ?# We leave the reader to decide.— * The above might be thought exceptionable as favoring 214 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. This may seem far fetched argument, but not¬ withstanding, it might be thought so, by those disposed to look upon the church of Christ and its government, as a mere human institution, yet it is, in the eyes of those disposed to regard the church in its proper light, viewed different¬ ly. See discipline. • It is hardly probable that the church has in her communion men entirely destitute of a sense of moral obligation in the general ac¬ ceptation of that phrase, but when we refer for the interpretation of this moral sense to scripture, and find also that in our discipline it is used as synonimous with spiritual, or spir¬ itual sense, the question is soon at rest. But a church are not all adults—children are mem¬ bers ; hence, there is a propriety in this dis¬ tinction. They are a pastor's charge in part. Are their souls as precious before they come to have a spiritual knowledge as they are after¬ wards ? (and what of other sinners ?) Or will any say that the disciplining, or that church rule has no instrumentality in this matter ?— They might as well say that ministers have none, or then seperate all order and rule from the church. Or then again, argue that the pastor is not accountable to the Head of the church for the spiritual interests of his charge. the excuse of sinners for non-compliance to the laws of ■God, though He, while they are rebels, deals with thgm on the above principles—enlightens them, and condemns, if they disobey—through the church-; all have convictin g grace accompanied with knowledge. COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 215 There is one thing that appears here to need a distinctive notice, that is, that the adjustment n (above) seems to favor the idea that omission of duty* is not sin. This is not the fact, nor is that division which we have made accessory to it. We give in further explanation, the former division—that to inquire, &c.-—the qualifying phrase progressive disciplinary mea¬ sures ; because we consider it the duty of the pastor to give a knowledge of the laws of the kingdom, or else all the effective force, and hence the salutary influence of such laws would be lost—would be of no avail. Nor is he allowed to preach' anything (if he do he is ameniable before presbytery,) but what is given in the word of God ; repentance, faith in Christ, possible salvation for all, final perseverance, tbr'h irf opr Confession of Faith, separately considered*' No brethren, if the*1 wri er of the^d hu lihle Eheefs, could'discover, 6r though1 he cou.Hl,, that the Confession of F.jiiih which he has 'adopted in his ordiilation,vows, d d not ■entertain 1 he re¬ ligious prihcipIeS'iof »he' \Bd>le?; or then," that, the governU and discipline attached fo the' same, on -principles of equity aiid jus'lice, were not adequate to ineulca f 'and foijccv'by moral and spiritual means, these religious principles, 226 commentary on church government:- he for one, would seek out in other quarters, if possible to be found, these desirable regula¬ tive principles, When the great millenial ju¬ bilee is sounded,,it is our belief, these principles- of doctrine, government and discipline, will be- cordially recognized. Then, if the doctrines of Our chqrch havfe been preached soundly, the people have attend¬ ed punctually, gravely and reverently to that preaeking, in player/ singing praise, solemn*' fasting and thanksgiying, have rightly attended to the sealing ordinances, baptism and the- Lord's supper, catechizing, making collections, for and applying. them; to the benefit of the poor, and in like mannerf.colleeted,&c., for oth¬ er pious 'purposes, not forgetting to support your ministry among them having for this pur¬ pose, as far as practicable, entered into pas¬ toral relationship; and, if, in view of these above ordinances and christian duties, your ses¬ sions have exercised discipline aright, you brethren, ef, or composing the different, or any one presbytry, if they further have presented to you a .fair record of the same, have nothing to 4o but to concert general measures with them for a continuation and advancement pf the common cause of our blessed Redeemer. Or then, as you cannot reach their congre¬ gations individually, but through their sessions in many of these things, if those sessions have tried, by all the proper disciplinary means, to obviate di^or.der, or tq come up to the above COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT''. 122*7 r,iiles„and requirements, you can but say to theni "well-.done good and faithful" stewards.,, \Presbytry has the "power "of visiting," that is officially, lay' appointing certain, members of their ownbody, composing a regular . mission, ,6t church session, where evjls exists manifested mainly,'perhaps, by a contempt of the book of Discipline,1 in, not sending up a representative to presbytry to ;bring the " state pf"things in his churcri, to light, &c., "particular churches to inquire into their state, and redress the evils that may have arisen with'them." Where' no special recourse, like- the - atobvfc Fernanda it, (which is only and virtually restoring the eoh- greg'ational judicature, though in this extreme case, Wifhout the election of the same by that church) the presbytryf on failure-of,sessions, to perform their official duties, whatever' be thq disorder pf thc chureh conSequeht' thereon-, has to reprove,'dissolve of admonish,such ses¬ sion, in order to effect reform. -It then only has an appellative jurisdiction; except where it might she proper to order things'of a general nature, for thp spiritual welfare of the churches and for the performance of the same by indi¬ viduals, holds the respeetive sessions-accounta¬ ble1.' 'They mi'ght order, congregation^ schools to be kdpt up, and eertain rules to be observed, or certain- books to be' used. -It,might enjoin an observance of a rhonthfy concert for prayer —ii presbyteTiaK'missionary society, and the Same to take effect hi the several congregations -^-'Sen& -or ftvore mission rff ids iii destf- 228 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. tute parts, "exclusive of short missions and oth¬ er supplies granted to vacant congregations," with the .consent of those appointed; at the Same time, (for all these things'ar.e within the ' compass of spiritual concerns,) ordering those societies to pay them specified sums for their support; for the raising, &c«, of which—pro¬ vided such missions were supplied—each sev¬ eral session, without plausible official excuse, woyld fie bound and .subject to reproof. For it is wo'rse,, than nonsense to say that. an eccle¬ siastical court, or any 0,1 her, hqs poyoer to order without having power also to punish. Recol¬ lect that power or a right to exercise authority always implies a CQrrespon ling right or obliga¬ tion to obey* Right and.obligation are recipro¬ cal terms. Our discipline says, that every member or that saints, &c., are bpund o attend td all things that pertain to their mu'unl edifi¬ cation "as also in outward things,-according to their several abilities and necessities." See in proof 1, John 3: 17; Acts 11: 20, 30. This money 'matter is one, which had. occasioned many a wry face, but never once has the warm hearted, intellegent christian made this kind of a face. For how could he have a,ny,similarity to him, his. divine Father, if be refused "to give a part of his estate, when his Father gore his only Sons and that Son became, poor. YeS t of 1 his world\s_ goods he had none, 1 hough hft had laid aside the glories of a kingdom, nay, of a universe, it.se! 1, that he might purchase a re¬ spite for rebel man. This were enough, but COMMENTARY' ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 229 lias He made thee, worm ! heir, to a kingdom, and wilt thou not administer to the wants of thy brethren! He would not tell thee as ant en¬ emy, werd he an hungered, then if as a friend he kindly asks thee tb give one of his servants a cup of cdld water, wiIt thim refuse ? impossi¬ ble ! We always consider it a mark in a man not to come up to his own responsibilities; the christian when he joined the church became under obligations voluntarily, to observe all its tules, of an evil disposition or an avericious spirit, a biased judgment, or want of informa¬ tion ; for this reason, he that lendeth to the librd shall receive good measure, heaped up, "shaken down, and what e\se,-running over.-^- Such a christian has either no faith, or is ho fiscal economist. The writer-Would observe that Ke is ewe that attempts to be a divine,, lin¬ ing on his own temporal resources and expects so to do;. he wishes never to be cajled a woUld- be-fine, but he is attempting to plead on con¬ stitutional grounds, for the hdnor of the compi¬ lers of our discipline, for the success of judicial resources and the common cause of religion.— If he go not according to discipline—do, I be¬ seech yau, examine and see—you need not re¬ gard him. Who are to .judge in individual cases relative to what members should pay, or relating tb.their abilities so to do, and call to an account such as refuse to pay accordingly. A rnember that will not comply, is living in violation of this plain case of discipline—-and. more, in violation 6f a plain scriptural duty— 230 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT:' is sin,(unless ignorance or poverty excuse him) and had'as well be out of the church, unless reformed, and better too, than in it.* The of¬ ficial acts of the session might assess discretion¬ ary the severe! sums makihg up the aggregate of presbyterial demand for missionary and oth¬ er pious purposes, regarding distributive jus¬ tice, not only to individuals according to their several abilities, but also a proportionate div¬ idend according to congregational abilities within the presbytry severally. This demands a discretionary -distributive j ustice. However, this last distributive act would more properly fee presbyterial business., These bodies could designate the amounts, yet on failure of indi-" vi'dual or sessional compliance, the highest punishment that could be inflicted would be only declarative; that is, by admonition, rebuke, suspension, or excommunication. As we are on the ,subject of missions, and their means of support, and as our churches have been infat¬ uated—shall we say-through the abetting—at least by the connivance in some Oases of our jndicatures, and that to distraction if hot to misrule, we would probably do well to inquire here, more particularly concerning those short missions (see p. 247,) and other sujjplies grant¬ ed to vacant congregations. We Would notify the reader, that he will or may discover two objects for which we contend tested in this in- *The Old Presbyterian Con. of 1797, bears us out in tbis: See p. 417 and scriptures,. None voted that did not support the gospel—rwete allowed so to do. e'OMStEfcTAKy «ar CHURCH GOV£&.WSIEffT. in¬ vestigation ; the one that the pastoral relation is entertained, and also, the duty of gospel support-—(shame ! for a.systtem that would im¬ pose toil without reward—there is not such a sygtem of laws in the universe I) in the discip¬ line. To unravel this istkmiian, between mis¬ sionary and pastoral ministerial labors, we will, examine the discipline's language, to discover what is considered a vacant congregation.— ^ Considering, (pp. 251,252) the great impor¬ tance of assembling the people, weekly for the worship of, God ; \ *, * * to augment their reverence for the most: high God, and to promote the charitable, affections <, which unite men most-firmly together—it is recommended that every vacant congregation meet together op. the .Lord's day ;; * * * and that the elders or dpacons • * * * shall preside." That this be not a church under the presbytry's displeas¬ ure, subject to its official visit as provided in the case of non-representatiop, &c., by our dis¬ cipline; that in fact, it be considered an mtej gral constitutional part or church in our con¬ nection, it is required of.it to have the follow-' ing prerequisites, viz; every congregation (see p. 223,) consisting of thirty members or more, that has. not a settled minister, and is. willing to support the gospel according as God has prepared them, shall be entitled to be represen¬ ted by a ruling elder, in this (presbyterial) judi¬ catory." The question-to he solved relative to such chprch or chufehes is, whether this be a dfestitute^place. If it foe not a destitute place, 232 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. it is not ft missionary place to plant churches. Nor is there any demand for missionary funds, it having been in a condition of admission, and is considered such, with churches truly under, recognition of our discipline as such, that they support the gospel, support a pastor, or mani¬ fest their willingness so to do; unless,indeed, ?iny could suppose that thirty worthy members —such they must be if in communion—who meet every Sabbath, to cultivate reverence and charitable affections, unable to support one man and his famil)r. How does this fact accord with the pitiful, not to say false, position of ma¬ ny of our churches who are represented from time to time? Do any suppose, that, were they what they profess to be, agreeable to the above conditions of admission, that they would be long without a pastor? And will our presbyteries longer listen to the whining cant (brethren ex¬ cuse the phrase, and my reproof) of churches who have starved out preachers, that will have nothing said of them but mi jssonary t itenerant! missionary.! itenerant! Many pres¬ byteries, I am glad to learn, from authentic sources, have of late arisen in this space be¬ tween the living and dead to stay the plague of distraction. Brethren bear with one, though feeblest, that would not give an unhandy touch to the ark for all the world calls great. For-* bearing one another, is an authority of high prerogative. My subject is the constitutional, scriptural investigation of the origin,nature and design of church governi^ent and discip- COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 233 line. But I fear that the practical deductions of my investigations will, if not-already, have, perverted that clearness and connection of ar¬ gument, so necessary ■ on this-all-important sub- ject. v ■ ' . But to the law and testiipony. We have discovered what a vacant congregation of church is, a church without a pastor We have also, discovered or learndd» what a missionary field is, a,.place or country- destitute,mot of preach¬ ing particularly, but of churches—a place to plant churches. > Now, what is a vacancy, or a mission granted to vacaqt congregations, in this light. In order to understand what a va^ eancy is, according to the tenor, and also, plain language of discipline, we are to inquire what is considered requisite on the contrary ;< that is, what it is that makes, a congregation in our church government, a church to be considered occupied and not vacant. It will be recollect¬ ed that we have proven (as we think)-beyond controversy from t he discipline itself that none other,, but that of the pastoral relation is con¬ sidered as regularly carrying- out the principles of our' government; and that severally, one pastor and one congregation singly united-. All others consequently partake.of the nature of irregular expediencies for the time being. But these are constitutionally admissible irreg¬ ularities, a .priori, and not as subsequent or growing out of practical or governmental trans¬ actions ; if so our discipline and government, professing to be aspirant to perfection of order 234 COMMENTARY ON CHURGII GOVERNMENT. and rule; and professing that bishops and pasr1 tors see pi 211,2 }2—"Thepastoral office is the first in the church, both for dignity and for use¬ fulness;" as he has the oversight of the, flocks* (not' flock, &c.) are the most useful; we say, if these irrfegularities, &c., it would as undoubtedly be the fault of those officers, or would attach to practical principles ot govern¬ ment. A territory when it arrives at state principles or has constitutional adequacy, is not more entitled to have an executive or state governor elected by them, nor is it less requis¬ ite to its proper and efficient future legislative ^veil-being and perfection, ihan that a congre¬ gational assembly—a church session—have a a pastor or bishop to direct ministerially, its- discretionary or legislative spiritual councils.. He, the p rstor, executes too, in a qualified sense, the will of the session, that is, the sus¬ pension, &c., of members are declared by him publicly; though the session might do 1 his if they had no pastor. This last relation, how¬ ever, is to be considered in its greater effi¬ ciency ; that is, as ministerially, guiding the *The Constitution admits territprial representatives, ru¬ lers, &c. COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT 23f discretionary, or legislative acts, allowed (un¬ der our discipline) for the accomplishments of its main.objects. See this subject discussed in a former, part of this work. Thje accomplish-, rnent of exact perfection of government by the admission apparent irregularities both in church and'State, are'their ultimate objects. The Presbyterian phurch Constitution admits churches that have not all and every materi¬ al regulation, yet what is attainable to-thfem by this seeming irregularity to effect this de¬ sign? In the state, it is, that, territories might become states, and in the -church, that those fragments, or ecclesiastical territories, might become churches,* unless any should have the ignorance and hardihood to say that a church of Jesus Phrist is considered, and in his own institution of'it too, to be thoroughly furnished unto every .good word *and work, Without a pastor, is the above correct—we say without the ahov.e inconsistent position, our arguments are correct. How many of ouf presbyterial, judicatures have appointed and con: inued territorial officers and laws, (or those designed to govern • missionary' operations;) overstates (churches) entitled to better privi¬ leges, is not for us to say. A remark here might not be aniiss. We have on a former sheet attempted tp show the great superiority of ministerial (or, as we, • for speciality of meaning, termed it progressive in conlradis- ♦ rhis,refers to missionary fields, or smaUsocietica. 238 COMMENTARY ON .CHURCH GOVERNMENT. tinetion to remedial,) means over those denoted remedial or penal; in furtherance of this verj tenable position, we would ask whether the former, in "either church or state, would be the more- likely to succeed ? Every one would answer—-the territory must not only have full power and protection, but she must have fos¬ tering, parental protection. Not only must she be protected from the savatge, but we mUst enCou-rage civilization by granting means of instruction; we must send our most wise and pacific statesmen; and most liberally edu¬ cated, and, disposed to instruct her; for should thtey (the citizens,) advance 'by mere numbers to stated privileges, and The questions to be put are similar to those used in the licensure—which see; except the 4th and some others-*-" Do you promise sub¬ jection to your brethren in the Lord? 5th. Have you been induced by the Holy Ghost, * * * to seek the office of "the holy ministry, &c. ? 6th< Do you promise to be zealous and faithful * ■* * in maintaining the truths of the 17 258 commentary on church government. gospel, and the purity and peace of the church, &c, ? 7th. Do you engage, through .grace, to be. faithful in the discharge of public and pri¬ vate duties, &c. ? The candidate having an¬ swered affirmatively, the moderator, or other bishop or minister appointed for that purpose, shall require him to kneel in a convenient place, then the presiding bishop, by prayer, and with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery * * * solemnly ordain him. * * * Prayer being ended, he shall rise from his knees; and the minister who presides, shall first, and afterwards all the members of pres¬ bytery in their order, take him by the right hand, saying, * * * "We give you the right haud of fellowship, to take part of the minis¬ try with us." After which, the minister pre¬ siding, or some other appointed, * * * shall give a solemn charge in the name of God, to that newly ordained bishop, and then shall, by prayer, recommend him to the grace of God and his holy keeping." He shall dismiss the congregation by singing, and with the usual blessing. See discipline p. 243, 244. 245, 246. A few critical observations on the ordinance or ordination, may not be amiss. We would fema-rk, however, that the whole transaction is so imposing, so solemn and important, that we would rather leave the reader to contemplate it, if it were not that we are in duty bound to guard against wrong conceptions, in view of particular sections recording thei solemn scene. All other acts of official investiture, stand in CpMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 259 awe of this. The pomp and costly equipage that attend the courts of earthly coronations, bespeak the fearful odds against transgression arrayed-r—but these are vindictive of ephemeral wrongs. Descended of royal line, the potentate of his Father's domains prince regent, insulted, points to the wealthy majesty of a paternal throne, (soon to be his ;) the aWe-stricken rebel sees justice with power clothed, and sues for clemency. But the royal lineage descended, and throne of wealthy majesty, are earthly.— The terror-stricken, by the prince regent, hear no thunders speak, nor can the vicegerant tell of wrath that burns down to hell. Vindictive justice from such throne cfries, let the rebel die. But it is temporal death ! The royal messen¬ ger mandate gives—obedience succeeds his hearty welcome, because clothed with power superior. But it is earthly power ! The mes¬ senger talks of provisions clement for rebellious error plenteous. But they ape earthly means of reconciliation ! Again, he tells of richer fe- wards that to obedience comes prolific of pow¬ er. But he has no thrones on which to set re¬ pentant prodigals—no crowns with which to deck the brow—nor sceptre to grace the hand of him who WQuld suffer ou his "three score years and ten." He speaks of the glories that dazzle his Father's courtiers round ; but not be¬ yond the gloomy vale enlightning, does those glories shine, of triumphs ; but those triumphs had not angel, nor cherubim, seraphim! Of shouts and songs; but not commemorative of 260 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT.' the eonquest of death, hell nor the jsjrave, of captivity captive led, and gifts immortal to man dispensed—of loud alleluias, he speaks; but not as the voice were they of mighty thun- derings, as the voice of many waters, saying "alleluia, for the Lord God omnipotent reigns Be astonished, O heavens! And has Jesus come to a militant world, to his church, and put one of his adopted soris in power? While thy brethren, O fearfully and sacredly clothed ! laid their hands upon thee, didst thou know that Jesus did it ? Go, my son, I make thee a ruler in Israel, "I send thee as a sheep among wolves. If they have hated and persecuted me, they will hate and persecute you, but Id! I am wi h you always even unto the end of the world." Lovest thou me? Lovesi thou me more thaii these, feed my lambs, feed my sheep? For thisyI give unto thee the keys of my king¬ dom. Lead my sheep to the green pasture ; carry the tender lambs in thy bosom. "Be faithful until death." We now proceed to make critical remarks. In the'third answer, the newly ordained bishop approved, not only of the government, but also of the discipline of the C. Presbyterian Church. How has thi§ approbation been manifested? Let the children, nay! elders (in some cases,) ahd others of the different charges, answer us a question, in proof, verbatim. We will pro¬ pose you an easy one—the 57th of our catechism is an ifn port ant one, and is as follows—Which is the fourth commandment? If you can not COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT, 261 answer that, your minister has. surely taught you the 96th. Do you know what that is ? In¬ deed it may be your pastor does not know himself. These, brethren, are strong insinua¬ tions, but shameful thought! respecting church¬ es, that is, that this insinuation is no less strong than true, and in other churches too besides the C. Presbyterian. Not but what these and the like questions are Understood, and much greater matters, yet a school boy, well taught, would put many of us'to the blush, in being able by answering these several questions verbatim, to explain in concise, specific lan¬ guage, what faith was—what repentance was -7-what was meant by justification, adoption and sanctification. And would know more than a thought-to-be respectable minister ap¬ peared to know, (whom the writer heard a few Sabbaths past discanting oh the Lord's prayer,) that is, would know the difference be¬ tween a preface, a petition and conclusion.— For the sake of the honor of a church I omit his name. The fourth question elicits a promise of sub¬ jection to his brethren in the Lord, from the bishop. This implies more ,thp.n what many are apprised of at first view of it. The ques¬ tion put to the licentiate, before his licensure, was—-"Do you promise to submit yourself, * * * to this presbytery, &c." This distinc¬ tion imports something that the discipline itself must explain. "For the better government * * * of the church, there ought to be such 262 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. assemblies * * * as synods or councils; and it belon'geth to the overseers and other rulers of the particular churches, by virtue of their office, and the power which Christ hath given them for edification, and not for distruction, to appoiqt such assemblies; and to convene to¬ gether in them as often as they shall judge it expedient." Discipline, p. 167, It is not that we would inculcate the principle, by this quo¬ tation, that church officers are independent of the judicatures, but " as (in the language of our discipline,) ordination is investing the pro¬ bationer with as high an ecclesiastical office as is recognized by this church, that we may teach the fact, that the officers of the church, severally, are not the creatures of the judica¬ tures, but that the judicatures are the creatures of the bishops and other officers, by virtue of their divine or spiritual investiture. To make the officers creatures of the judicatures or councils, would be to make our judicatures, (and hence those holding office power under them), indeed and in truth, mere human insti¬ tutions and human agents.* This is the false position which our Old School Presbyterian brethren have occupied, more or less vehement¬ ly ever since A. D., 1810, (see their proceed¬ ings in 1837 and '38,) in that, that they declared us disorderly. The powers pi papal jurisdic¬ tion once encompassing almost all Christen¬ dom ; without this principle above advocated Judicatures forma bond of union between the m embers. COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 263 m be the fact, we protestants are all disorderly. This false position does more for those who advocate it, and their church, than they would desife; for without, they can prove that the apostolic organization of their church has been perpetual, (which none on earth can do,) they fall beyond the precincts of church officers of Christ. This Rome does, because she makes her successive bishops creatures of a bishop or hierarchy—and the motto of the high church of England is, non ecclesia, sine episcopo—na church without a bishop—while protestants hold with the fathers, that there is a church where there, of Christ's children, are but three collect¬ ed, because Christ is there by his spirit. This principle must hold good, or then we are Epis¬ copalian Successionists by necessity, or deny the prerogative of Christ to appoint and per¬ petuate his church and its officers. An objec¬ tor might say to us, ah! but you are a Presby¬ terian, and how could the Waldenses, in the dark ages, or any other, at similar time, per¬ petuate the church on your plan of presbyte- rie's being competent to judge and ordain offi¬ cers, &c. We answer, that strietly speaking, our several judicatures are nothing more than one churchby representation, all in a certain bounds belonging to the christian church of our order, are present; nor are any,.as far as general regulations are concerned, of our whole body absent or dissenting ; because, under our general Assembly, where the whole church convene^, these rules have been adopt- 264 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT1. ed, and that body having cognizance of the aetions of those presbyteries, virtually adopts the acts administrative, so that the whole C. Presbyterian church is but one church; Now, upon this principle again, should the time ever come when the church should be reduced to the number of three genuine members, and should those members have raised' up among them, by the divine call, (all the judicatures on eatth, Without this call, could not make one a minister of Christ,) some that appeared to b6 gifted, those three, or remaining two—the ►Saviour makes feet and hands, as well as heads and eyes, so he tells us by the apostle—could judge of the intimations of the Spirit as to his call, and consequently ordain him, or confer office power. We do not disparage or dis¬ countenance congregational government, but contend that synods, &c.,are intended only to carry out the principle of individual and per¬ sonal privileges, without dissection of the body. The bishop in the above case being possessed of the highest authority in the church, was made to promise subjeotion to his brethren—a majority of them—in the Lord. But let none suppose that this array of argument is in any way, as respects mere numbers, intendedwto defend the organization of our first presbyter. Fathers King, McAdow and Ewing, were or¬ dained bishop^'—" regularly ordained minis¬ ters,''1 (in their own word,) in the Presbyterian church, against whom no charge, either of immorality or hersey, has ever been exhibited COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 265 before any: judicatures; hence, in this case, these Rev. Fathers of our church were only acting in a proper and legitimate exercise of their ecclesiastical and clen'cal privileges in connection with others. Their numbers were canonical; "Let a bishop be ordained by two ©r three bishops. See .Def. Faith, apostolic Canons, p. 190. Their presbytery was constituted with strict regard to their discipline. We cite the reader to page 224 of our discipline, containing this provision, relative to the constitution of a presbytery : " Any three ministers and as many elders as may foe present belonging to the presbytery being met, * * * shall be a judi¬ catory, competent, &c." We do not recollect the page of their then existing discipline, con¬ taining the same language. ' But C. Presbyterians, Hopkjnsian and Calr vinistic Presbyterians, have in common to con¬ tend against - opposition from high antiquity; yet not quite as high as the apostolic age, We mean that opposition which arises from episco¬ pal pretension'to different grades of bishops. They contend that the scripture warrants a bishop of bishops, or that Presbyterian bishops are not the "highest order of bishops. We would observe on this subject, in vindication of our position, that we no where read an the New Testament of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, in, any one! church; and, that there¬ fore we are under the necessity of concluding, bishop and presbyter.- to be two names for the. 260 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. same church officer—see Phil. 1 : 1—" with bishops and deacons."* * From a practical review of our past and present polity as a church, it seems that we have almost dispensed with the office of deacon. Though this is not strictly constitu¬ tional. "Thescriptures (see Constitution, p. 214,) clearly pqint out deacons as distinct officers iu the church, whose business it is to take care of the poor, to * * * distribute the collection * * * raised for their use." Acts 6: 1, 2; Acts 6 : 3, 5, 6. We contend, not that the office of deacon is unnscessary, but that that office pay and ought to be supplied by the lay eldeys of every several church, if no deacons are elected. Every church session is bound to have their secular matters'attended in teome way ; for as we have seen, " taking care of the poor" is an ordinance of the church. See p. 215. After the enumeration (see p. 214,) of duties, our Constitution says : " To them also may be committed the temporal affairs of the church—that is, the management of, &c." Thus we see that deacon and elder are considered virtually one officer, in this, that our con¬ stitution recognizes them as qualified to fulfil the same office each, signified by the following, viz: " To them also inay be, &c." By a parity of reasoning, elders might have ".To them also committed * * * the management of tem¬ poral affairs." On this principle wc heretofore have con¬ signed building (the oversight of, &e.,) of comfortable church houses, &c., &c., to elders. "Nor is it a less important or solemn ceremony to'ordain a deacon than an elder. , See p. 236. The same requisitions are made—th€ same form being used—of a deacon that there is of an elder; hence, we' are unavoidably brought, from our constitution itself, and the references, to conclude that deacon and elder are not seperate officers, although originally marked by some distinction. These offices being thus identified, we are ready to conclude that it would be no great innovation in us to inquire if they are not, or might not be considered one and the game. >• Has this not been, with us at least, practical Presbyterian church government? Does not the advocacy of our church polity call for it? We do not, by this suggestion, intimate that there is no such distinction of officers, as used to Warrant the ruling elder's office in our COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 267 Two ot the apostles, Peter and John, declare themselves to be nothing more than elders or presbyters. See 1 Pet. 5:2V3. "The elders which are among yon I eXhort, who am also ai> elder, * * * feed the flock of God which are among you, taking the oversight thereof, &e.'' See also 3 Ep. of John—" The elder unto, &c." It is still more evident that arch¬ bishops were not recognized in the apostles' day, when we read Heb. 13: TV 17, and 1 Thes. 5 : 12 ; for here the bishops of the Thessiloni- ans were those that had a special oversight. They were those (as also in Hebrews,) that all the people were to know, &c., &c. This is evident from the passages themselves. How constitution, but that ruling, elders may be considered as deacons, or occupying that officfe as designated in scriptur e. We see nothing in scripture materially to the contrary.— We think that Paul, when he addressed the bishops and deacons of the church at Phillippi, meant, perhaps, nothing else in the latter case than to address the lay rulers, or lay elders of that church. Nor is there any great disparity in this sense between the two original words translated.— Presbuteros signifies senior or " elder, intimating that the government of the church was by presbyters, or presbyte¬ ries ; Diachonos, translated deacon, signifies, agreeable to Buck, and others, a servant, a minister. And according to the same authority, ''the word, in the New Testament, is used for any one that ministers in -the service of God: bishops and presbyters are also styled deacons; but more particularly and generally, it is understood of" >(to desig¬ nate) " the lowest order of ministering servants in the chufich." 1 Cor. 3:5; Col. 1:23. 25; Phil. 1 : 1; 1 Tim. 3. The directions of Paul to Timothy, relative to the characteristics (1 Tim. 3 : 8, 14,) of a deacon, is so nicely distinguished, and so similar to those of a bishop that they warrant the conclusion of the above suggestion'; that is, that elders and deacons are not dissimilar officers. £6# COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. coijdd a diocesan bishop, whom perhaps not one twentieth of his diocese ever seen, have such an oversight ?. It is evident that these overseers, bishops, were no more than presby¬ ters, or eiders that labored in " the word apd doctrine." Paul writing to Timothy, directs that especially those (elders) should be "count¬ ed worthy of double honor, &c." There is no portion of sacred writ upon which Episcopa¬ lians are apparently' more ready to test the validity of their pretensions, respecting their exclusive orthodoxy of ordination, than that relating to Timothy and Titus. Referring to the scriptures, they attempt to prove that the former was bishop of .Ephesus, the latter of Crete. The alleged episcopacy of the former is founded mainly on the following quotations, viz: 1 Tim. 1: 3; 2 Tim. 2: 2. There is nothing, however, irt these passages that gives any special testimony, either for or against Timothy's episcopal prerogative; unless the' fact that Timothy was addressed alone, upon this important subject, favors the position oc¬ cupied by Episcopalians. Thus they argue upon the presumption, that the nature of the apostolic office would require, for the proper edification of the church," that it (the'office) Should have or retain soine of the peculiarities special to that extraordinary day ; that is, that the alleged episcopacy of the apostles, creating thepi (in short,) archbishops, must necessarily be retained in the present age. Now if we can prove from the same authorities that this COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 269 is a false position, we need not regard their enumerated arguments. Tn order to show that their first position is wrong, that is, that Titus and Timothy were not diocesan prelates, see the following quotations: 2 Tim* 4 : 9, 13; Tit. 3: 12—from these passages it is very evi¬ dent that these men were evangelists, or itine¬ rant ministers. That the office of an evangel¬ ist, as heretofore argued by us, was- an extra¬ ordinary one. See 1 Tim. 4: 14; 2 Tim. 4: 5; Eph. 4:11. Even had these evangelists be¬ come bishops, their office qualifications, spirit¬ ual, would have been beyond the degree of ordinary gifts. This would be beyond, in degree, what any man at the present day% without "ignorance, andjhe most abject super¬ stitious presumption, dare claim. Besides, we have already learned thattwo very eminent apostles, Peter and John, have declared them¬ selves no more than presbyters, or Presbyterian bishops. We remark her'e, that the oft refuted dogma of the Popish, supposed supremacy of Peter, the former above named, does not, in our estimation, deserve serious confutation'—it is so palpably and glaringly absurd. We maintain, therefore, that as far as ordination, confirmation, and excommunication are con¬ cerned, that they may severally be performed aright by presbyters—there being nothing in them but "what may be performed by, or seems to Suit the pastoral office generally—without extraordinary gifts. As it regards the'alledged claims of Timothy 270 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. to an archbishopric—we cite Acts 20: 17 to 35*—in, confutation of the assertion that he was either flishop of Ephesus or any diocese what¬ ever. We. find that Paul from Miletus sent to Ephesus and .called the elders of that church. And when they were come unto him, he said unto them,. "ye know, after what manner I have been with you in all seasons," &c. "Take heed to. yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made yau overseers (bish¬ ops) to feed, &c." "And now, brethren, I comtr mend you to God, &c." We remark that it is a little strange that Dr. Hammond, who was a very great zealot for episcopacy, and a learn¬ ed ecclesiastic, should suppose that .the elders of the church, here said to be those of the church of Ephesius, Were diocesan bishops of the. Asiatie churches generally. Would not the apostle have styled them bishops of Asia, or elders of the church in general, had' this been the fact. It ts evident from the history given by Paul, as well as his directions, that there were a number or plurality of pastors of equal authority without any diocesan that ruled them. Paul directs his discourse to therh all in com¬ mon, giving them equal power over the flock. Whether there were several churches or a plu¬ rality of pastors over pne, is not matter of in¬ quiry with us. From the sacred record before us, it is evident that these elders, or presbyter bishops had the whole power severally by*the Holy Ghost, conferred upon them ecclesiastical¬ ly. , They are enjoined to do the whole work of COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 271 bishops—to do it, which signifies to rule as. well, us feed the flock. Hence, we learn that govern¬ ing and doing the other pastoral dpties, viz : to watch-over and preach to a flock, are consider¬ ed by Paiil as inseparable. That those thus enjoined ,are not accountable to any diocesan prelate, but to the Head of the church Christ, from whom they have,received authority. Now as Paul was making his fare vy ell address, as¬ serting' that fie had not shunned to declare unto them (the elders) the whole counsel of God,-is it not evident, that, as Timothy was present, (see Acts 20 ; 5,) he would if not previous, (he had no opportunity afterwards,) have then given them charge concerning their obligations to obey their diocesan bishop, Timothy ? We must necessarily conclude from this omission that the apostle recognised no such obligation. Moreover, would it not have been a seasona¬ ble time to have given Timothy, their supposed bishop, charge ? Or would it not have been, had he the charge as above supposed, more proper to give Timothy, instead of those Ephe- sian elders, an exhortation? No such thing transpired. Paul again says, 1 Tim. 1 : 3: "I besought thee to tarry at Ephesus." Now had he been fixed bishop of Ephesus, why would Paul requesjt Timothy to tarry, &c ? Phil, 2 : 19 ; 1 Cor. 4:17 ; and 16: 10,11, make it appear more evident that. Timothy was bishop* of Co¬ rinth also, (or, rather) as well as of Ephesus. From the above in .short, we find no evidence in favor of diocesan episcopacy. 272 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. Another argument with Episcopalians, is drawn frojm Revelations 2nd and 3rd chapters. The shortrepistfles to the seven Asiatic churches, being addressed to the angels or ministers of those churches, give but meagre supposition in favor of dio'cesan prelacy; for there is noth¬ ing in this nianner of address that vindicates any claims, as possessed by those angels, or ministers, superior, or even differing, from those rights of ecclesiastical jurisdiction obtained and exercised by pastors over their several con¬ gregations respectively. The fact that Ephe- sus Was one of those churches, and as we have discovered that Paul left none there in diocesan, prelatical,authority, (see Acts 20,) at once de¬ cides the" case in this one instance at last. Nor does it militate against us, that there were a plurality of pastors in any of those cities ; but is it not more than probable, that, if Ephesus had no arch-prelatical power cognizable, the same church government in kind, existed in Lardis and others ? Another argument is, that some of the apos- Jxilic Churches (that at Jerusalem for in¬ stance) were composed of such vast numbers that they could not meet in one place, and, hence,' Metropolitan episcopacy at least, must have existed in the apostles' day. This argu¬ ment, we readily acknowledge, seems to bear plausibility. Though plausibility, and even probability, is not proof, yet we will neverthe¬ less, present the reader some facts on this part of their (would-be) infallible testimony. The COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 273 first, we will introduce,by inquiring if it were in2- dispensably necessary that, even supposing there were my raids, they (the christians) should all worship at one house? Or again, is it notprob* able that a large city afforded several houses of worship, and as many several1 congregations^ societies, or churches ? If so, might not every church have its pastor ? So the argument van¬ ishes into the mere favoritism of partisan, Epis* copal advocacy. That very good, and very great men have embraced this form of church government, is an undeniable fact; yet, as it regards the argument now under consideration, we believe that those men have mistaken the true meaning of the sacred historian by giving the Greek word, tod strict or literal a transla¬ tion. This word is mostly translated many-or an innumerable multitude. See Luke 12 • 1. There is not sufficient proof of ■ there being any thing more than numbers collected. And if there were even several times ten thousand, as the Greek word literally signifies, where is the evidence that thesemumbers were statedly resi¬ dent in any christian city ? By consulting Acts 8 : 1, 3, and other like passages, it will become evident to the unprejudiced mind—at least plausibly so—that these thousands were ohly transient or temporary inhabitants, called to¬ gether on the solemnity of sacred celebrations. And even then, it would have been a very in¬ congruous, if not disgraceful act, for those christians, whether worshiping in one or many churches, residing in Jerusalem, not to have 18 274 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. had spacious and welcome room, in such house or houses of worship. JesuS had. taught them to possess in their hearts charitable feelings and desirous activity, agreeable to the com¬ mand they had received—to dp " all things de¬ cently and in order." So, from all that we have seen, there'is not the least probability-in our opinion, that episcopacy was established by divine authority. If the above distinction es¬ tablishing, on scripture facts, and inferences, the officers of the church to be presbyter bish¬ ops or presbyterian pastors, and presbyter, or. lay elders be regarded, it follows unequivocally, that the presbyterate, or office of presbyter in the highest permanent office in the christian ehurch. And that our ministers are not eligible only, but also adequately furnished, by the great Head of the church, to ordain to the sacred pastoral office, and to exercise all other minis¬ terial and ecclesiastical duties and prerogatives as evangelically as the apostles did themselves, where no extraordinary gifts were called into requisition. From these conclusions—or this last—it' is, to say the least of it, strange that our Episcopal Methodist brethren contend that the episcopacy, by which they are governed, and under which in form they ordain different grades of their ministry, viz: Deacons, Elders and (diocesan) Bishops, has grown out of, or is founded on Presbyterian ecclesiastical govern¬ ment and investiture. Was- there ever any' thing more incongruous! We do not desire to calumniate, but to discriminate, between the COMMENTARY' ON CHURcfi ' GOVERNMENT. 275 presbyterate and the pontificate; Lest some of those brethren pot being apprised of exist¬ ing facts, shouldthink that'we are a little rigor¬ ous, if not'unfair, in this our statement, we will cite a quotation or two from one of their New York publications: Methodist Quarterly Re¬ view, for Jan., 1^45, edited by G. Peck, 'D. .D., p. 153. "It is remarkable that the note writers, who take frequent notice of the Methodists, still array them against Presbyterians, on the side of Episcopalians. Now we'protest against this classification. But Methodist' episcopacy is based upon, and grows out of the presbyte¬ ry." Without more than designing a brief out¬ line, uponj the comparative relation existing between the Presbyterate, and the pontifical or episcopal'System, we will proceed' to notice a few outlines of the latter. 'TJow.is a traveling deacon (see Methodist discipline, p.-32,) con¬ stituted?" Answer. "By the election of the ma¬ jority of the yearly conference, and' the laying on of the hands of a bishop." The yearly or annual conferences, we discover, are composed of traveling preachers, "Who shall attend (see Methodist discipline, p. 23,) the yearly conferences ?" Answer. " All the traveling preachers who are in full connection, and those who are to be received into full connection." We ask if this judicature resembles the pres¬ byterate ? Is it not Held to confer office power ? And who confers this power ? Is it the church, or any one church composed of the laity, which is the instituted means of conferring office povf- 276 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. er ? Do their bishops (or bishop) have any- right by sanction, or a previous election, of this man by the laity admitted to holy orders, to set him into ecclesiastical authority ? We are not calling in question his divine call—Christ has given him perhaps, gifts as well as graces; but over and from whom has he office power conferred ? Not over those who have elected him, for he is among the lowest of their order ! Traveling preachers, we presume, are those, in the bounds of the conference, who itenerate-r- deacons, elders and bishops—a bishop it seems, must attend ! That a deacon is not, although an ordained minister of the M. E. Church, equal in authority to his brethren also ordained, viz: elders and bishops, we need but refer for proof to the question put to him previous to ordination by the bishop: (p. 122.) "Will you reverently obey them to whom the charge and government over you is committed, following them," &c 1 ■ While presbytery requires of their minister a promise of subjection to it as a judica- tpry of Christ, or then, subjection to his brethren —not reverently to obey any and, submit to their godly or lordly "•judgments" Those admitted to elders' orders are requested in ^n interro¬ gation similar to that used relative to deacons, to be subject to their chief ministers, (bishops.) Thus, we think it fairly established, from their own discipline, that the M. E. Church ecclesi¬ astically, have no claims upon, nor authority derived from, or growing out of, any thing simi¬ le in government to that of a presbytery. COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 277 There Us a question involved in the above in¬ vestigation, upon which we call the clerical world, to look with a critical eye. This ques¬ tion, however it may be viewed, or how hard soever it may bear upon our Episcopal breth¬ ren, has,, like all other questions agitated among us, two sides, or a right and wrong, (practically so, as well as theoretically.) It is couched in the following question, viz : Is the investiture of a minister with ecclesiastical ju¬ risdiction the business of a bishop alone, as above, first named or the business of those con¬ nectedly (with bishops) who are to be governed? Or are the laity an integral part, (by represen¬ tation or otherwise) ecclesiastical ? Or again, is it not the case, that both of the above ques¬ tions are affirmatively true according to indi¬ vidual rights as designated by moralists and ecclesiastics generally? The question-in short, is, are the ministers of Christ the servants, (un¬ der him) of the church, in a scriptural sense* or are the laity the servants of the ministry ? The former of these must be the true state of the case; because, the happiness of the whole nation or church is preferable—more to be de¬ sired—the aggregate of happiness being dic¬ tated by the light of nature and revelation as the thing desirable, than "the happiness of the few. Now on first principles if this aggregate of happiness be considered as existing among the greater number, that greater number should be considered to have the power of conducting the greater good; and of transfering their rights 27$ COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. at discretion unless they are shown to be inca¬ pable of self-government;, or born slaves, while others are born, not only capable of exercising rationali ty themselves, but of conducting others devoid of rationality or reason* Now, in the above investitures with office power, the prin- 1 ciple here mentioned, is involved, and not only so, but acted upon in the entire absence, for all their discipline shows, of the laity. Then, if the whole body of the laity composing an an¬ nual conference, have no right to confer*with tjie candidiate, more than merely to recom¬ mend him, nor with the investing bishop eccle¬ siastically, in the ordination of a deacon, from whom does he derive authority ? From the clergy eleeting him—and this wish, or clerical 'will is carried out by the bishop in ordination— say our Episcopal brethren. .But this is wide of the mark—'those who elected and ordained are to .govern him; therefore no adventitious right accrues. Well, if this is not episcopacy, or a government by bishops, the writer ac¬ knowledges that he knows nothing of such government. ' But this is pot the end of the chapter—this elder or deacon goes down upon the laity with authoritative, ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Let the question be asked—where, sir, did you de¬ rive authority to minister, to, and govern—say, five churches ? From election by the clerical brethren, and ordination by another—the bish¬ op. And where in the name of sacred rights, in all their compass, did those brethren obtain COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. ,279 authority thus to do ? From the Head of the church intimated in hij call. Well, but your call, we presume, was sufficiently loud, as given by Christ, to satisfy yourself (as you owned in ordination, and the bishops acknowledged the same) that you had authority to minister, &c., and if so, we would have received you as a minister. 4-h! but our bishops never allow the laity to judge of these things above the quarterly conference; things become too sacred for, and therefore,above vulgar minds. Besides, this call must have connected with it, not only divine gifts, but the sanction by the laying on of the hands, of the bishop, setting us over the churches. . Ah ! what then is the meaping' of ordination—Christ qualifies spiritually and it seems to me, that is sufficient on that score, and that ordination was putting a man into'a spe¬ cial kind of authority over and among the churches, which those churches had to confer so that he might have full power, or else we cannot see any additional authority conferred in his ordination ! Ah ! but, my dear brethren, I would have had no authority at all to preach, without the bishop had said as he did, in my ordination, "take thou authority.,'"&c. Why! indeed, dear Mr. —= you make it appear that the bishop has the power of conferring the Holy Ghost upon those ordained; for; if you have need of authority and separately such, as the episcopate alone can confer the Great Head of the Church Christ, only setting forth (by the im¬ position ,of his hands) those to rule over us 280 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT* without'our knowledge whom heqrdains, this must be the case. Presbyterians distinguish between the spiritual call in judging of the same by attendant gifts, and investiture of office power, thus, the Holy Ghost has the preroga¬ tive of calling, &c., to the holy office. The churches, in a certain presbyterial bounds all judge of- the call, and by their representatives assist the ministry to determine the case ; but before a candidate can be eligible to ordination,, he must be elected in some one respectable church as their pastor; hence, the proper dis¬ tinction is made between Ghrist's prerogative and the duties of the presbyterate; in this that Presbyterian bishops are in ordination, or im¬ position of hands, only sanctioning what Christ has done, on the one hand, and confirming or sanctioning what his church has done on the other. But there is but one, on one hand, in the above case of our bishop; and indeed, it seems tfiat without the bishop has the power of conferring the Holy Ghost, that there is but one alternate, that is, the bishop solely and alone appoints him to his, a merely humanly instituted office. What doth our deacon an¬ swer ? Indeed, brethren, you are not very welt acquainted, I-discover, with your discipline, or you. might have saved all these, last inquiries. Now look at page 145, and you will see that our bishops, agreeably to our book, have this very prerogatory power in these words, viz : "Then the bishop and elders * * * shall lay their hands upon the head of the elected'* (to COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 281 bishop orders) "person, * * * the bishop say¬ ing, Receive the Holy Ghost," &c.* Laity. But where did the bishops derive this authority ? It appears that if it Was once lost, or if there Were no bishops possessing this power to confer the Holy Ghost that it would be impossible to resurrect it, or raise it up in the church—for there ivould be, ifideed, no church without a bishop. Remember, you1 have rightly said that you would have had no authority at all, without the bishop had confered it. Now, friendly reader, I leave you to anti¬ cipate the deacon's answer. What, with the facts relative to their discipline, which we have quoted before you, and the conclusions we have drawn from radical principles of in¬ vestiture With ecclesiastical power in ordina¬ tion, what, we say, would save this poor dea¬ con from ejectment from authority, or even give hitn a plausible pretext fdrthe exercise- of the same, aside from, or-except something like the following: The apostle Paul planted' the English. churches eighteen' hundred years ago—he ordained bishops;giving them the power of conferring the Holy Ghostf—and John Wes¬ ley was one 'of them, in an uninterrupted apos¬ tolical succession—he ordained Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury, and they continued the apostolic *We think it evident that the M. E. Church would do well to examine the first canonical rule introduced by us, which is: "Let a bishop be ordained by two or three bish¬ ops"—lest, they should be>reminded, by some other epis¬ copal body, that their ordinations are uncanonical. f It is hot thought they caii claim inspiration immediate. 282 COMMENTARY ON GHURCH GOVERNMENT, line which has centered its virtues in our bishop, and now in me a- portion of it! See our argu¬ ments on this subject. Thus we have attempted to maintain the position, that there is no real similarity be¬ tween episcopacy, though in its mildest form, (as with our JVL E. brethren, whom as a de¬ nomination of orthodox, zealous christians, we much love and respect,) and Presbyterians, as to' origin of chureh government. It is due these brethren ,to remark, that offenders are judged, by the society of which they are mem-' bers—the preacher in charge presiding—this is the usual mode. The bishop fixes (see dis., p. ,26;) pr stations the circuit preachers. We proceed now to remark on the last argu¬ ment, (see a former page,) used by Episco¬ palians, to prove that diocesan prelacy existed in the primitive ages of Christianity. "That in .the writers (say they,) who succeeded the inspired .penmen, there is multiplied and con¬ curring evidence to prove the apostolic insti¬ tution of ^Episcopacy." ' We will attempt to gratify the curiosity of the critical inquirer by a reference to those writings. We will, however, attempt to ren¬ der satisfactory testimonials on this part of our investigation of the subject, as we find them served up by a respectable author to our pur¬ pose, in his own language. "It is observed, that though Clemens Ro'manus recommends to the Corinthians the example of the Jewish church, where the high priest, ordinary priest, COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 283 and Levites knew and observed their respec*- tive offices, yet he never mentions presbyters' and bishops as distinct, nor refers the contend¬ ing Corinthians to any one ecclesiastical head as the centre of unity, which he probably would have done if there had been any dio¬ cesan bishops among them; nay, he seems evidently to speak of presbyters as exercising the episcopal office. See see.-XXXIX of his epistle. As for Irenaeus, it does not appear that he, made any distinction between bishops and presbyter's. He does, indeed, mention the succession of bishops from the apostles, which, is reconciljable with the supposition of their being parochial, nor altogether irreconciliab-le with the supposition of joint pastors in those churches. It is allowed that Ignatius in many places distinguishes between bishops and pres¬ byters, and requires, obedience to bishops from thjs whole church, but as he often supposes each of the churches to which he wrote ' to meet in one place, and represents them 'as. breaking one loaf, and surrounding one altar, and charges the bishop to know all his flock by name, it is most evident that he must speak of a parochial and not of a diocesan bishop.— Polycarp exhorts the christians at Phillippi to be subject to the presbyters- and deacons, but says not one word about any bishop'. Justin Martyr , speaks of the president, but then he represents him as being present at every ad¬ ministration of the eucbarist, which he also mentions as always making a part of their 284 . COMMEtffrARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. public wftrShip; so that the bishop here must have, only; been the pastor of one congregation. 6. Tuftullian speaks of approved elders ; but there is nothing said of thejm that proves a diocesan, since all he says might be applied to a .parochial bishop.' 7. Though Clemens Alexandrinus speaks of bishops, priests and deacons, yet it cannot be inferred from hence that the bishops of whom he speaks, were! any thing more than pardchial. 8. Qrigiif speaks distinctly of bishops and presbyters, but unites them both, as it seems, under- the common name of priests, saying nothing of the power of bishops as extending beyond one congregation, and rathef insinuates the con¬ trary, wh^n he speaks of offenders as brought before the whole church to be judged of by it. 9. The apostolic constitutions # * * are supposed to be a forgery of the fourth century. 10. |t is allowed that in the succeeding ages the difference between bishops and presbyters came- to be more and more magnified, and various'churches came under the care of the same bishop ? nevertheless,. Jerom does ex¬ pressly speak of bishops and presbyters as of the same order; and Gregory Nazianzan speaks of the great and affecting distinction made between ministers in prerogative of place, and other tyrannical '.privileges (as he calls them,)'as a lamentable and destructive: thing." i This array of patriotic authorities- we think sufficient tp thwart the Episcopalian's preteii- COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 28& signs, to disprove all the testimony that he can array against presbyterial church government. This evidence establishes the presbyterate. Some of our clerical brethren have thought and so expressed themselves to the author—that the compilers of our Constitution made a radical omission or error,'in not setting forth a form of instalment, to be used when a pastor was in the act of taking the oversight of a congregation. We would remark that this one, among others —if an omission at all—of their happy omis¬ sions. The reason that'we thus say is, that they, in the above omission, have evaded that too ostensible, perhaps ecclesiastical, parade which our pld Scotch Presbyterian bishops, (see Westminster Confession offaith) seemed to war-* rant in this matter. We American Presbyte¬ rians wish to avoid the appearance even of pon¬ tifical parade, or to exchange it for the simple, unaffected gospel plan of investiture. How glaringly absurd do.the abridged English lithur- gy and form of ordination, &c., appear, when exhibited, as approved by Mr. Wesley, in an American Church. See J. Crowther's "portrai¬ ture of Methodism," p. 63, Smith's eccl. history. The inquiry arisis, is there no such thing, as a pastoral instalment, recognized by our constitu¬ tion? We answer, that ordination is in pur¬ suance of the 'will manifested by their petition to presbytery, of a congregation who have elected previously their pastor; his ordination would hence give hipq all authority necessary— see form of ordination. From which conside- 2$6 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. rationisuperceded the necessity of the above formality.' This would be effectually the same and should be conducted'in the same way, omitting Questions irrelevant,,.in the presbyte- Hal sanction of any future agreement between a pastor "and people. We think, however, that indhe former instance it might be for the edi¬ fication of all parties, were presbytery to ap¬ point (if necessary,) a call session, and perform the ordination in presence of the newly elected pastor's, congregation, giving them and their pastor each their chafge. Besides, we are in¬ clined to think, moreover, that this ia the true intent and interpretation of our constitutional rules in such case, in order that each'perform their vows. We have, as yet, said nothing con¬ cerning the discretionary powers of presbytery,, relative to the literary qualifications of those whom- they are to ordain—whether they may ordain those who have not come up to our con¬ stitutional standard in a literary point or not. Brethren, let our Constitution, I would.^ay (ex¬ cept very ! very! peculiar cases) first-, last and forever, be our criterion. The standard is not raised too high—any, and every man that stands in the Nineteenth Century, upon the shattered walls of Zion should be a priest (or 'minister) whose lips should "keep knowledge.'* "Not a novice, (says the apostle) lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of 'the devil." That there has, perhaps, been too great a latitude given in this matter already, and that, among all denominations, we think is very commentary on church1 government. 287 probable. The author has sometimes seen to his great mortification, the pen of satyr, with a degree of propriety and truthful acumen he must acknowlege, employed against his breth¬ ren in the ministry. There is nothing on this part of ouf subject, viz: the powers, &c., of presbytery—-as we con¬ ceive, very material, yet remaining; or upon which we have not commented. Before we proceed to notice the next higher judicature* the Synod, we will remark that the presbytery, has, next to the church session, and only second to it—(in proportion as the laity exceeds ift numbers, the ministry,) a special and direct ju¬ risdiction. We use the words special and direct, to distinguish between that jurisdiction which a presbytery exercises over those who are standing members, against whom a process must be originally entered in such body and that jurisdiction which it,possesses over lay elders and lay members, by appeal-r-rightly termed appellative. As the bishop is in as high office permanent, as is recognized, by our con¬ stitution, he is ameniable, strictly speaking,• for these three offences only, (in way. of criminal process against him,) immorality, seism, and heresy. A regular process entered and prose¬ cuted, to effect according to the rules* for any of these crimes, against an ordained minister, can alone effect his standing* There may be more propriety in thus identifying clerical mis¬ demeanors than perhaps some suppose. We have contended that the judicatures are the 288 commentary on church government. creatures of church officers and not officers the. creatures of the judicatures; this principle applies in this case. The prfesbytery cannot, as the Synod pf Kentucky attempted in 1806 to do, after they have put a man into this high and responsible office, whatever irregularities may have been connected with his investiture, take him up or proceed against him either in way of re-examination, or otherwise, so. as to effect his official standing retrospectively. He is amenable to the body for mal-administration, while, at the same time, by virtue of his call and sanction by the .church investing him with office, he has authority, as we have already seen,-to devise and concert measures original for the perpetuation of the kingdom of Christ, his church. If the body to which such minister or ministers belong, should become so far de¬ generated as to attempt unconstitutional depo¬ sition, as the Synod pf, Kentucky did in the case of the members of Transylvania presbytery, and subsequently, in that of Cumberland pres¬ bytery, the power vested; as above, by virtue of office, warrants the formation or rather, per¬ petuation of the rightful judicatures of the church—as was the case with the fathers of the C. Presbyterian church and their rightful proceedings in re-organizing Cumberland pres¬ bytery ; or claiming as they thus did, their cleri¬ cal or ecclesiastical rights. See Smith's ec¬ clesiastical history of the C. P. church. By virtue of the same official power an individual member, would have a right to withdraw his COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 289 advice and authority and consequently, his membership from any one church judicature and attach it to another of a'different order or regulation, and not be Chargeable with either immorality, seism or heresy, for that act. It is not in a strict sense a very great stretch df Ec¬ clesiastical authority in mal-administration, from what we might learn relative to these principles, which causes, either a church session or a presby tery to lose their identity as a king¬ dom or church judicatory of Christ. There may be salt which has not lost its savor, genu¬ ine chi istianity in the body, but this will not answer ecclesiastically; because, when the laws of the kingdom are transgressed with im¬ punity, or which is the same thing or worse, other laws introduced contrary to the scripture rules and the constitution investing pbwer by which its officers profess to act, such judica¬ tures are ecclesiastically, without authority— the constitution itself deposes them—what is this less then, than a synagogue of Satan? This important (as we conceive it to be) dis¬ tinction, between ecclesiastical salutary identi¬ ty, and individual, personal piety, is a distinc¬ tion, not only correct but very necessary to be observed. Were it properly observed, it would cause, at all times, officers to be viewed in their true li^ht, their authority to be inspected, their responsibility to be prayerfully sympathised by every member, exciting not only to personal holiness but to obedience—in those who ruled a tremulous, conscientious regard to themselves, 19 290 . COMMENTARY ON' CHURCH GOVERNMENT. and to* all tjbe flock, oyer which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers;., (Acts 20). and in those who composed such flpek or floeks an equal regard lest their judicature might be¬ come a synagogue of Satan. Like Saul, their ruler or rulers being rejected of the Lord, while some prophet, (a minister or whole judicature,): by God's direction, should be sent, a Samuel, to annoint with the holy unction from on high, of an obscure tribe, as was the comely and ruddy, unassuming shepherd boy, or some other to rule in Israel. We, brethren, in our organization,, were this other. We say it with due deference to the opinions of our brethren composing the present Kentucky Synod for with that Synod strictly the matter referred to, originated and demised. The dispute between the revival and anti-revival parties of. Transylvania and Cum¬ berland presbyteries,never was legally brought by appeal before that Synod agreeable to church history ; it was taken up upon a letter of information. Neither was the case for all that we can learn, ever legally before the General Assembly. See Smith's church history. We say, thenj, that we, as,a church,. Were chosen by the holy unction from on high, and restricting this-simiVe to. signify,those who gave the above letter of complaint to synod, (see "Smith's history,, p. 6Q8.) may we not truly say that the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul and an evil spirit eame upon him. Now, has this not. almost, if not altogether, literally been the fact \ All the assembly has COMMENTARY ON CHURCH QOVERNMENT. 291 known that the Lord saves not by sword, nor by spear, rior by shield, for the battle is the Lord's^ and he has delivered our enemies, (un¬ believers,} the uncircumcised Philistines, into our hands, while Saul has seen the great sal¬ vation wrought for Israel, has rejoiced, and now, not only his messengers, but Saul him¬ self, prophesies with us— Samuel standing in his appointed place. We speak with regard to the bounds of the operation of Cumberland Presbytery, and the Kentucky. Synod, from 1800 till the present date, 1846. To these we confine ourselves principally in the above alle¬ gorical reference to sacred history. We went forth because the enemy had defied the living God. Qur armour was simply faith in God ; with our homely weapons, a plain Bible and Hymn-book, sent by our Master, Christ, the Bethlehemite, we declared in our vernacular tongue, the infallible truths of the everlasting gospel. The great Head of the church, as well as pur fellow pilgrims, heeded our labors of love. Jesus heard our prayers. Serve God with thy substance, or according as he has prospered thee. While we would do this, let us pot forget the simple unvarnished manner by which we have succeeded in building us a name, by extending the. Redeemer's kingdom. We are better qualified for doing good, and mote, therefore, is ^required of us ; lest it should be said of us, Satan said unto them, go num¬ ber Israel, let us. take heed to ourselves, let us be humble. The principle advanced is, that 292 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. the people mourn when the wicked-rule; ot* that God punishes the church for misgovern- mentof her rulers. Now if this matter were taken into consideration by our several judi¬ catures, the word of God, our ordination vows, and our constitution, being in any way strict¬ ly the criterions, would we not, in many cases, have cause to repent even in sackcloth and ashes, for an untimely, if not unSanctified use or retention of t^he keys of the Kingdom com¬ mitted to our keepingT Tttepower which is possessed by presbytery, may be further illustrated in the following language of our Constitution: (see p. 232,) "'Before any regulations proposed by the Gen¬ eral Assembly, to be established as constitu¬ tional rules, shall be obligatory on the church¬ es, it shall be necessary to transmit them to all the presbyteries, and to' review the ffeturns of at least a majority of the presbyteries in wri¬ ting approving thereof." From this we must infer that the presbytery is superior for special guardianship to the Synod, and even to the Assembly itself. It has the right to appoint, by elective franchise, com¬ missioners to the assembly. The# reason "that, it has this right, might be deduced froni the fact, that in the presbytery the ministry and laity, or the congregational and clerical, or episcopal branches of our government, first, and perhaps most properly unite. It is then,, in a peculiar sense, a standing or permanent, judicature. COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT, 293i Before we dismiss this judicature, we call the reader's attention to its discretionary or legislative power, "and of ordering whatever pertains to the spiritual concerns of the church-? es under their care." See sec. 5. .How far this legislative grant of power extends, and to what particular regulation it rightly refers, has been matter of interesting inquiry and dis- cyepency among ecclesiastics. Some have been so timid and indiscriminate, as to declare that there is nothing of a legisla¬ tive character pertaining to this (or any indeed!) ecclesiastical body; thus betraying ignorance (at least inadvertancy) of even the title, of the Book of their choice. The constitution of* &c„ —if a constitution, "it contains the elements and principles of government, and fixes the na¬ ture and limits of its (government's) "form and operations;" is distinct from,, yet, controls fu¬ ture government. Ah ! but the scriptures, are to be the rule, says one, Well then,, your constitution, I an¬ swer, is a legislative code and has been by the great Presbyterian family misnamed. Or do any sqch objector fear to think of legislating irrespective of the Scriptures ? If so we equal¬ ly fear thus to think. No, friend, the truth is, you haye set too low an estimate upon your constitution. How then ? Is the Presbyterian constitution found¬ ed on the word of God? Yes ! and compiled originally under its genera] rules, by some of thq, wisest heads and warmest and purest hearts ( . •< . 294 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. of which Europe in that day could boast. Why indeed I yW seem to intimate that I am a kind of practical old Baptist or C&mpbellite—denying the utility of church rules, under pretence that they are constitutional nothings—not prehea¬ ted on the Scriptures! I reply, there are too many that are Campbelliteish ecclesiastically. To such we would again say, we have a con¬ stitution which sets bounds, when rightly in¬ terpreted, to all necessary legislation; and those scripture limits or bounds too. Examine the references. Having already,shown something of the powers which this body may constitu¬ tionally wield, we will consider for the present, how *far this legislative provision may be di¬ rected and enforced as it regards its standing numbers. The investiture of ministers is here to be called in question—ministers alone, are standing members of presbytery. This makes it a kind of episcopal judicature—it belongs strictly speaking to them, as the session does to lay elders. Those two features of ecclesiasti- cal'government blend, however? in the presby¬ tery. Ministers are the presbytery, except when it convenes at its several sessions; so with the session or congregational judicature strictly speaking, who may call to their assis¬ tance a pastor. After this digression, we return to our inqui¬ ry ; that is, to discover how this discretionary j>oviver granted to a presbytery, may be rightly directed in ordination and the subsequent labors of ministers; this last feature, subsequent tabors, commentary on church uovernment. 295 is in^epgrably connected with the former- viz: ordination ; for if is an excellence of oar con¬ stitution, that our officers act under a delegated authority in official duties, are always in reach of the original proprietors, the people or laity, who may reclaim their property or natural rights^ This may be done irrespective even of mal-ad- ministration as a grounds, at their pleasure. In introducing this inquiry, we Used the term some have, &c.,, we now produce its opposite, others-^others have legislated extensively. We instance, the several cases of our presbyteries, in which we have proceeded to ordain evan¬ gelists almost exclusively. Now, we appre¬ hend that the legislation of every ecclesiastical body, is not designed to infringe upon a plain and unequivocal constitutional rule. The con¬ stitution declares the plain regulation by which a licentiate must advance to ordination, "when" he has "preached td the satisfaction' of the presb3'tery, and one or more respectable con¬ gregations shall have petitioned for his ordina¬ tion, then the presbytery may," &c. This is the radical principle—4he constitution. Well but brethren, we have legislated almost all the time; have we the authority to ordain evange¬ lists? If we have, let us not neglect our main principles, those to be observed, and turn our go¬ vernment into an Episcopal Methodist church rule—a mere governmental expediency. , Remember, the ' mode last quoted above, is Presbyterian^ and none other on radical first principles is.. 296 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. .At the first view of this subject, I must con¬ fess, that I could not find, from the plain letter of our constitution,#(ilor can I yet) nor by just inference, any authority (I referred to the book itself for interpretation) for ordaining an evan¬ gelist in the C. P. Church. By consulting, how¬ ever, p. 247, under the caption Missions, > on which page' I found in addition to the discre¬ tionary- orJegislative grant recorded on p. 327, of our constitution the following: "* * * the itinerant plan-is the best to supply vacancies, * * f and to plant new churches, it is recom¬ mended to. the presbyteries, to devise'and adopt such measures as will be best calculated, to promote that end." But then the inquiry arose in my mind,, is ordination a mere deviso- ry measure; or can as important a transaction as that of investing a bishop with holy orders, and the mode of procedure too, laid.down as a constitutional rule without any exception annexed, as regarded* his prior election, &c, be classed with mere devisory expediencies. No one, I presumh, would have very readily, any more than myself, concluded that it (ordi¬ nation, Was included in a Vague grant of deVi- sory power. , The first grant discretionary, *p,227, for aught that we can see, included as* much as the succeeding one-r-p. 247. Well, "*' * * presbytery ought to keep one or more missionaries constantly employed ex¬ clusive of short missions, and other supplies granted to vacant congregations." One or more missionaries q,nd other supplies granted*^- COMMENTARY ON CHURCp GOVERNMENT. 297 shot>$ missions, seems very much to, fa¬ vor the sentiment for which we contend on a- former page; that is, that the pastoral relation is ayleading feature in our ecclesiastical policy. It does not furthermore, warrant—being a de- visory expedient—the ordination of evange¬ lists where the end to be accomplished, as spe¬ cified in it (the rule p. 249,) viz: the necessary occupancy of missionary fields or to fill vacan¬ cies, does not call for them—evangelists. That we occupy, in this last remark, consti¬ tutional ground, we need but refer to the origi¬ nal from which we presume this Chapter on Missions was compiled, to prove. "When vacancies become so numerous, (see Con. P. Church publish 1797—pi 417,) in any presbytery that they cannot be supplied with the frequent administration of the word and ordinances, it shall be proper for such presby¬ tery, or any .'vacant congregation in their bounds, with the leave of presbytery, to ap¬ ply to another presbytery, or to any synod, or to the general assembly, for such assistance as they can afford. And the general assem¬ bly may, of their own knowledge, send mis¬ sions to any part to plant churches, or to sup¬ ply vacancies. And, for this purpose, may di¬ rect any presbytery to ordain evangelists, or ministers without relation to particular church¬ es; Provided always, that such missions be. made with the consent of the parties appoint-, ed;" here our compilers stop, after having, as the. reader may see, quoted verbatim a sen~ 296' COMMENTARY ON* CHURCH GOVERNMENT." tence or two, orhitting the following claufee i "and that the judicatory sending them malfe the necessary provisions for their support and reward in the performance of this service." Reader, you have a plain interpretation before you of our rule. The reason We entertain for believing that this constitution of 1797, from which we have just quoted,- is the one from which the above chapter 17th, of the C. P. con¬ stitution was compiled, is that we find numer¬ ous quotations, whole sections and even chap¬ ters "copied verbatim from it. Besides, the dates of the origin of the difficulties as well as those of the publication of both constitutions, Support the supposition. A reference to this chapter of the old con¬ stitution, was that alone which put us in pos¬ session of what was understood to be by older brethren, acquainted with the compilers and- their interpretation, the true authority for or¬ daining evangelists. Todev>se and adopt mea- mres, then implies much, and among the rest, if to vacant congregations supplies be grantedt of course it is to be on application of those congregations officially ; and they such as could not obtain pastors. Under the supervision of the assemblies, presbyteries rqay—should emer¬ gencies demand—ordain evangelists. If this chapter on missions authorises the ordination of evangelists in its devisory complexion at all, it implies all that the original one does ; and was desighed so to do, we have no doubt by the' fathers of our church. Then this is true Pres- COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 299 byterian ecclesit&tical 'government, in its ex¬ pediency. The reader is not unapprised that the- Pres¬ byterian church too have a revised edition of this their origihal constitution of 1789; and if vfe mistake not they have comprised fnost of the chapter from which we have quoted in something of the following form: Presbytery shall, when they dOem it necessary, ordain evangelists; but they like C. Presbyterians," have in parts deemed it necessary almost in¬ cessantly. Brethren, let us look at what Pres¬ byterian government was originally—our go¬ vernment is the same—that we may be ena¬ bled to understand the principles of out govern¬ ment—-the only ecclesiastical government that is, as we cone ive, able to stand acquitted in presence of the scrutinizing, equitable eye of revelation. Thus defending and maintaing the laws of our churches, we need not fear either the intrigues, tyranny, vassalage, or audacity of episcopacy. In ordaining evangelists, the constitutional rule, except their election to pastoral charges, m'ust "be observed. The question arises here, could such missionaries after they had built up, or organised churches tajfe charge of them as pastors without the special sanction of presby¬ tery. We answer they could not, without a violation of the constitution. Seep. 246, chap. 16. "Nb minister, either licensed or ordained shall take charge of any congregation or con¬ gregations, as their stated pastor, without the 300 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. consent of presbytery.'*8 An evangelist is then an evangelist and not a pastor. It his duty to organise, have elected and ordain three elders, &c., then those elders are "competent to the • spiritual government of the congregation," says our constitution—and they have a,right to be heard in all our judicatures as representa¬ tive members of that church and of their ju¬ dicature, the-session. Elders' rights and priv¬ ileges being thus, could presbytery send a mis¬ sionary which would be, if rightly introduced to. such vacant congregations the moderator of the session or sessions—see con, p. 249—jwith- oiat the previous concurrent invitation of Such sessions—-for such supplies as they (the presbytery) could afford?1 We answer, they could not. See con. p. 206, sec. 6 and p. 279. Nor could presbytery even then send them sup¬ plies, without a violation of the principles of our goyernment,i unless it be made to appear that they cannot obtain a regular pastor. Again, no minister has, strictly speaking, agree¬ able to the above rules, aright to officiate, ad¬ minister the ordinances, or even preach regu¬ larly in the bounds of another's charge, without the special invitation, and that only for a time, by the session with its moderator. See p. 246,. Once more, no bishop has the right, withopt consent of his presbytery, and the concurrence officiallv, of the,one in which he officiates, tp travel beyond his presbytery, or extend his regular stated labors within, .the bounds,- of another.; COMMENTARY ON CtftfRCtt GOVERNMENT. 301 Such foreign ministers should be called upon T>y the latter presbytery or its committee and be able tt» show his permissive authority froin the former. The Synod. "As a presbytery is a convention of the bishops and elders within a certain cjistriet, so a Synod is * * * a larger district, including three or more presbyteries." Five 'ministers, with as many elders, provided a majority of said numbers belong to no one presbytery, shall be a quorum to transact business belong¬ ing to the synod. "It shall meet once a year on its own adjournment." ' The following has been thought by some to be rather vague: " It shall be the duty of each (every) minister to bring with him an elder to sit in Synod." But without good reason. We are warranted in this assertion by thp princi¬ ple of our government, as exhibited in the act of constituting the presbytery, and elsewhere. This' omission is h very strong and corrobo¬ rating testimony in favor of one of two facts. The first is, that the compilers of our consti¬ tution were very faulty, if not incompetently ignorant, for there evidently is vast vagueness as the above sentence independently stands ; or then, the principle for which we contend, or rather" the constitution' itself explains, is the fact; that is, that every minister be a pas¬ tor over some one particular church. That this last position is the tact, and only truth about the case solving the apparent difficulty, 802 CQMMEjyyARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. the writer has not the least shadow of doubt. Let this be the case, that is, let every minister have connection with a session, and there is no mystery or vagueness about this rule—be can bring his elder with him, or at least as mode¬ rator of the session, appoint, one. " The elder, (says the 15th General Assembly of the C. Presbyterian Church, being memorialized by Middle Tenne ssee and Pennsylvania Synods on this case,) derives his right to a seat in Sy¬ nod, by appointment of the church session." The real or fictitious Jtounderwgs over and about this question in individual instances, has been rather of the visible, class. Some, it seems, were, in olden times, obliged to apply to. two seperate sessions for an elder, for with¬ out this* if he appeared all alone, he was fearful of being under penalty. This, and other ominious notions, conjeoturiogs, &c., in our humble opinion, are not in keeping with the spirit of our constitution. We conceive that where there is no pastoral relation thefe is no obligation resting specially on the bishop, as it regards a lay representative, and then only as moderator of a session is he responsi¬ ble. The session appoints (see chap. 8, sec. 2.) "delegates, to the higher judicatures." The session is amenable to. Synod for failure to appoint; the member appointed, the same to the session, if he fail to attend.. See Mia. above refered to. . Now, we may bring the principle of pas- toral, relationship to bear in. this connection COMMENTARY ON CHURCH pOVERNMENfl1. 303 and train of facts and arguments, in its true light. We will do so by' asking a question.-— If the sessions have the prerogative (see Assem. Min. above,) of appointing eligible, synodical members, and a greater number of sqch mem¬ bers demand seat^ in Synod than there are in number of bishops present, who are standing members, how could we legally, with sufficient proof, carry out. the spirit, and letter of the above, X chap., IT sec. ? It is evident that the sessions bave,a right to appoint members in some way or connection ; it is equally evident that this section anticipates a balance of power between the ministry and laity, or equal 'numbers of bishops and lay elders in the organisation of Synod. As the above decision of the Assembly is before the presbyters of the C. Presbyterian church, we anticipate the existence in future of such .an investigation.— Should such investigation become necessary in order constitutionally to organise the Synods severally, two principles of our government will he brought to , bear; (for we have the utmost ponfidence in the integrity and ability of a majority of our ecclesiastics;) the one will be that a balance of power in all our judicatures, except session, js the true spirit of Presbyterffinism: the second will be, that the pastoral relation can only carry out this princ.iple-~one pastor and one church several¬ ly. Now, were elders to litigate their claims as above premised, the opposition would una- voidably be thrown, upon the very grounds 304 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. which we have occupied relative to the organi¬ sation of presbytery, (which see,) if they suc¬ ceeded in preventing an illegal organisation- Sec. III. "The Synod shall admit and judge ©f appeals regularly brought up from the presbyteries ; give their judgment on all refer¬ ences of ecclesiastical cases made to them; review the presbyteries' books, redress what¬ ever has been done by presbyteries contrary to order ; create, divide or dissolve presbyteries, when deemed expedient; take effectual care that the presbyteries .observe the constitution of the church ; make such regulations for the benefit of their whole body, and, the presby¬ teries and churches under their care; as shall be agreeable to the word of God, and not con¬ tradictory to the decision of the General As¬ sembly ; and propose to the General Assembly , for their adoption, such measures as may be of common advantage to th6 whole body." This third section contains* a summary of the duties and prerogatives of Synod. We will take up the paragraphs or different claus¬ es as they present themselves in this enumera¬ tion of synodical rights. The Synoctshall, fyc,, receive appeals regularly brought up" <$*c. Remark—there is nothing said of issuing appeals, as in the case of a-similar act of'a presbytery, (See chap. 9, sec. 5, p. 225,) but as chap. 10, sec. 4, p. 229, makes it the duty of Synod " to forward their -minutes for inspec¬ tion to the Succeeding General Assembly;" and, as-chap. 20, p. 251, makes it the duty of commentary on church Government. "305 "Every judicature " to "choose a clerk," whose duty it shall be, besides recording the transac¬ tions of such body, to preserve them carelully, grant extracts, &c., there can be ho reasonable, nay, possible difficulty relative to the propriety of synodical appeals and references being con¬ ducted aright—similar to the specifications of presbyterial rules of action in such cases, must synodical rules be considered in matters of appeals and references. See those rules and comment. Paragraph third—:review the presbyteries' books, redress whatever has been done contrary to order—this clause, and the fifth, viz: take effectual care that the presbyteries observe the constitution of the Church, are virtually one and the same ; because, to redressdisorder or irregularity in any case whatever, would be but taking effectual care that, <^c. Besides, (he former clause (unless the above remark be ob¬ served,) seems, to favor an exclusively discre¬ tionary, not to say arbitrary, synodical power. ■We argue for, not against our excellent con¬ stitution in this incidental stricture. We con¬ tend that no disorder could possibly exist, which the observance of our constitution, would not in its original and appellative jurisdiction reach and effectually remedy. We plead for an observance of our constitution—we plead for no more. Synod, it must be observed, has no original jurisdiction. This body has only nn appellative jurisdiction in litigated cases, as the first paragraph shows. How, then, are 20 306 COMMENTARY ON CHUJtCH GOVERNMENT. the synods to tqke effectual care, or redress things done by the presbyteries contrary to order ? We answer, by revoking the decrees or decisions of presbyteries, or declaring what is truly constitutional in cases of dispute brought to them by appeal, whether relative to government, doctrine, or discipline. The" fourth paragraph—create, divide, or dissolve presbyteries when deemed expedient, seems to favor the extension pf synod.ical pow¬ ers beyond, in degree, the above appellative remedial measures. But as these things must be done in accordance with the word of God, and the constitution of the church, which re¬ spects no,t only individual, but also judicatorial rights, there cannot be, even in extreme cases, an admission of ultra measures. Their mat¬ ters must be redressed, and effectually reme¬ died, by petition, reference, memorial, or ap¬ peal, &c., and that petition, &c., originating regularly in, and carried up front or by tho lower judicatory, or judicatories to synod, by the parties themselves. As to what might be considered the true interpretation of the phrase effectual'measures, it seems rather difficult to ascertain. Some have thought that it was intended to warrant (he synod to visit certain presbyteries, and in its own synodical capaci¬ ty, to investigate and adjudge the affairs and members of such presbytery or presbyteries as are at default. We are rather inclined to think that, in very extreme instances of pres- byterial delinquency,, this, phrase might be so COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 307 interpreted and so acted upon by a synod.-— The reason upon which this opinion is found¬ ed, is, 1st, that expediency seems to endorse the emergency; and 2d, that synod being de¬ nominated (comparing it with a presbytery,) " a convention of bishops and elders, wijthin a larger district," the same rules that govern a presbytery's procedtire with regard to church sessional irregularities and disorder, seem ap¬ plicable to a synodical procedure in this case. This, our opinion, we say is founded in part on the similarity existing between a presbytery and a synod. In defining presbyterial powers, it is said, (see Con., p. 226, chap. 9, sec. 5,) she has the power " of visiting particular church¬ es, to inquire into their state, and redress the evils that may have arisen, with them;" this seems to be applicable or admissable in synodi¬ cal jurisdiction, and prerogative; as well as in a presbyterial. We will add a few remarks relative to this dernier resort and very ques¬ tionable privilege, by which a synod might b« induced to keep a constitutional position and direction, for she will not be within, strictly speaking, her own latitude. >' First, they (the synod) could pot, in our opin¬ ion, undertake to visit any presbytery, in their synodical capacity or transact any presbyterial business in that capacity but through presbytery. Because whatever was done, if due regard to all parties were recognized, it must be done as presbyterial business. Thence, to redress the evils that may have arisen among them, they 308 . COMUTENyARY ON GHUKCH GOVERNMENT.. ' % must pay regard to all the recorded transactions, of such presbytery. This rule is pre-supposed and implied by the very action of synod on the case—synod passes resolutions and appoints a select presbytery or .committee of their own body purporting to visit officially, a presbytery. If it is a, presbytery, it is a legal ecclesiastical judicature; whatever it has done, according to the spirit even of the constitution, is, tip to the very moment of said visit, Jegal. For it must be recollected that the investigation, which is pre-supposed to condefnn, &c., is yet to take place—the law always considers its subjects innocent until proven otherwise. Now if such presbytery have standing—as it has in its min¬ istry—members over -whom it has exercised original jurisdiction, those members stand in a very peculiar relation to this body. They are not, only ameniabhj to the presbytery, but have (|erived their official existence in. part through the same, of which same body in many in¬ stances, they may yet be members. This being the. fact, we must, to come at the true state of the case, necessarily examine first, the preroga¬ tives and privileges guaranteed to presbytery. Our constitution says (p. 225,) on this subject: "They '(the presbytery) have also the power of examining and licensing candidates for the gospel ministry; of ordaining, removing, or settling ministers. With these ministers, we presume, such synod would have to do,, and with them alone,, for they (the synod) could not descend upon lay members who are subject.to COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 309 the several sessions. If that presbytery had, in her proper sphere, licensed and ordained tninisters, it having the rightso to do* these acts could hot be annulled, though there might have even been some irregularities connected with such licensures and ordinations; especially the ordinations. We will refer the reader to a similar act (and that too upon which we found the supposition that synod might similarly act,) of a presbytery in visiting a church. They do not send a presbytery or any other body to re-transact all the business of a session ; that is, to reorganise such church, to re-examing all the lay members, much less, to re-examine and re-ordain, suspend or excommunicate their el¬ ders. But "to redress the evils that may have arisen with them and should those "evils" be of such a nature that nothing short of the above extreme measures would seem to effect a vin¬ dication, of the interest of our Zion, could it be effected in the above manner ? We think not; because such act would be, as it attached to such presbytery, an ex-postfacto law or regu¬ lation. For this reason, the presbytery had not only recognised that judicature (the session,) as capable of doing thespecial and important bu¬ siness, under the constitution assigned it—such as receiving members, and in connection with their pastor ordaining elders being "competent to the spiritual government of" their "church," &£., but had actually sanctioned all or most of those proceedings. Hence they (the pres.) whatever seeming irregularities might have *10 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. ' ■» transpired in the organisation of said church, could not legally, in our opinion, disannul the recorded ^proceedings of such body. It is true their unconstitutional acts would be subject to correction and revision—presbytery could ar¬ rest immoralities, seisms and heresies, by sus¬ pension or even ex-communication in individu¬ al cases. Nor could presbytery, without vie-, lation of privilege, unite or divide such congre¬ gation without their request—"at the request of the people." See Con. p. 296. It is not sup- posable, that any higher judicature would suf¬ fer a lower one to become entirely corrupt. This is preposterous ! See the suggestion on ex-postfacto laws above.. In the foregoing allusion to synodieaj powers, the case, we presume, is as desperate as ever will be recognised—ever has, or could be. This is truly a case of which, in its extremity, the author is happy to say, he has never had the mortification to witness, nor even expects to have, though he has witnessed, perhaps, his por¬ tion of ecclesiastical depravity and reform. In the analagous, synodical prerogative above, we have a comprehensive, though indistinct, enumeration of judicatorial and indi\idual right and privilege. Before, however, we at¬ tempt a distinction of those seyeral rights, we remark that it is not anticipated by our consti¬ tution, that a committee from a higher judica¬ ture, go down upon a lower, for any other bu¬ siness than to assist: their brethren "to remedy the evils that have arisen among themthat is, COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 311 to decide difficult litigations, and that which has arisen out of such cases; foi> in answer to an enquiry supposed—what are those things which have or might arise out of strife or liti¬ gation, We quote the apostle : "Where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.—James* That this is the practical, as well as revehled truth, we would refer to the past and present history of the church—a little leaven leavens the whole lump, then there is not only "confusion" but "every evil Work.'* Again, and mainly, as we have heretofore argued, n6 judicature has a constitutional right to descend upon another, while such lower judicature con¬ tinues to evade contempt, or to send up a rep¬ resentative in due form authorised, to such higher body. It will we seen by a reference «to our constitution, that the minutes will thus be before the proper authority, which will give them (or it) all the power designed or vested in the functionaries of a moral, ministerially de¬ clarative government* The body need not then, go out of itself, so to speak, to reach any •case. In defining the judicatorial and individual lights, privileges, and prerogatives that are, connected with the above synodical visitation, it is necessary to refer to the following consti¬ tutional authority—see p. 225. They (pres.) have power "of examining and licensing can¬ didates, &c., of ordaining,, settling, &c., minis¬ ters, of receiving and issuing appeals, &€., from the sessions, brought before them, &c., of 312- COMMENTARY , ON -CHURCH GOVERNMENT. approvidg or censuring the records of the ses¬ sions. V , This right is vested alone in the presbytery, especially, with regard, to licensing and ordain¬ ing gospel ministers. Synod, (nor even the General Assembly,) has not any such preroga¬ tive ; hence, if a presbytery had judged aright, had licensed ordained ministers, these acts, af7 ter once performed by this body which have a right so to do, if not to the very letter, if within the spirit or tenor of the constitution are legale See the arguments referring indirectly to this point respecting the priviliges or. prerogatives of a church session above. No judicature has original jurisdiction over the clergy, except a presbytery, of which they are standing members. Nor has any judica¬ ture cognizance, so direct of the several ses¬ sions as a presbytery. That is, no session can successfully otherwise appeal, than to a pres¬ bytery from its own body. For the rights of individuals see Cpn„ pp. 253,258, particularly p. 253. * ' We say, where there is a representation from presbytery in Synod, that through the rep¬ resentation (we mean here if only a portion of the preachers belonging to a presbytery, which is too often the case,) attend that Synod has no legal pretext for visiting by cpmmittee, that presbytery;—that, the true minutes of such presbytery, then and in that case, are ample testimony. . . Things to be considered, -Presbytery is not commentary on church government. 313 responsible to a Synod for the absence of her members; ministers are personally and indi¬ vidually responsible for non-attendance, albeit, not to Synod, but to their presbytery. Pastors are not elected to attend Synod—presbytery, therefore, is only accountable, for subsequent neglect in not requiring a sufficient excuse from- its members for non-attendance, upon com¬ plaint. Again, presbytery has nothing to do, unless upon an appeal from the. sessions, with regafd to the lay representation in Synod.— The sessions have a right to send members of their body to Synod, to whieh body (the ses¬ sions) such elected members are accountable. These things considered, make it very doubt¬ ful whether a Synod has the right, except the case admitted abpve, if at all, to visit a presby-- tery by committee. The practical exposition of some synodicai' bodies, appear to be that the pow;er of such ju¬ dicature to create, divide or dissolve presbyte¬ ries, is vested for the purpose of effecting reme-- dial measures; or to meet th© above exigen-. cies of disorderly cases. This is a false position, at least, in part,, though something of this nature might be ac¬ complished by said power ; yet it must be re¬ collected that the words qualifying this, power pertaining to these several acts—when deemed expedient*—has a very peculiar, if not a very *The Synod of Ky. supposing right and expediency to differ, it seems dissolved Cumberland presbytery unconsti¬ tutionally,, with, other, illegal acts. 314 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. extensive bearing. It will also be remembered that these acts severally, are to be done at the request of the people—so says our constitution in all places where it defines—so it is here im¬ plied. See pages 226, 232. We would, first, last and forever, in our humble scale, say to our brethren, take effectu¬ al care that the presbyteries Observe the discip¬ line, but do not violate it in a synodical capac¬ ity, lest the remedy be worse than the "idisease itself. I feel to congratulate our brethren, who havo composed the several late Synods of the C. Presbyterian church. So far as I have had the opportunity of reviewing their minutes, I afn glad to say, that they have done- nobly: the pastoral relation, so much and so long neglect¬ ed among us, is now being recommended, the ratio of representation is investigated (by East Tenn. Synod and othei s) and recommended on constitutional grounds, missionary enterprises, &e., &C., are topics upon which both our pres¬ byteries and synods generally are interested.— Education is enforced. Nothing more on this head need be said, than to quote the following language, viz :— "Synod shall make such regulations, for the benefit of their whole body, and the presbyte¬ ries anduhurehes under their care, as shall be agreeable to the word -of God," (if so t'hey will be agreeable to our constitution,) "and not contradictory -to the decision of the Gen¬ eral Assembly; and propose to the General Assembly, for their adoption, such measures as COMMENTARY ON CHURCEL GOVERNMENT. 315 may be of common advantage to the whole church." With regard to all emergencies above hint¬ ed, it is scarcely possible that appeals, &c,, will not be brought before synod. The General Assembly.—Chapter XL " The General Assembly shall-constitute the bond of union,, peace, cprrespondence, and mutual confidence amongst all our churches. " The General ^Assembly is the highest judi¬ catory of the Presbyterian ehurch, and shall represent in one body all the particular church¬ es,of this denomination, and shall bear the gtyle and title of the General Assembly of the Cumberland PresbyteriatiiChurch of the United States of America. " The General Assembly shall consist of a delegation of bishops and elders from presby-, tery in the following proportion, viz: each presbytery shall send one minister ahd one elder—each presbytery consisting of twelve or more ministers, shall send two ministers and two elders—and no presbytery shall be entitled * * # to more, &c. "Any twelve or more commissioners, one hall of whom being ministers, being met on the day and .at the place appointed, shall* be 'Competent * '*• * to proceed to business. . "The General.Assembly shall admit and judge of appeals regularly brought before them from the inferior judicatures, give their judg¬ ment on all references or ecclesiastical cases made to them, review the synodical books, |}10 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT; dress whatever has been done by synods con¬ trary to order, take effectual care that synods observe the constitution of the church, make- such regulations for their whole body, and of the synods, presbyteries, and churches under their care, as shall be agreeable to the word of God and the constitution of the church. " To the Assembly also belong the power of consulting, reasoning and judging in all con¬ troversies respecting doctrine and discipline; of reproving, warning or bearing testimony against error in doctrine or immorality in prac¬ tice in any church, presbytery or synod; of corresponding with other churches; of putting; a stop to schismatical contentions and disputa¬ tions; and in general, of recommending and attempting reformations* of manners, and of promoting charity, truth and holiness through all the churches, and of altering, dissolving, or creating new synods* when they judge it. necessary," Remarks. Comment is here aftnost unne¬ cessary. We have superceded the demand of any thing like , strict criticism in our advance upon this high and responsible-judicature— that is, in defining. " the liberties,and privileges with which, the constitution invests the several synods and presbyteries, (how well soever done, we do not pretend to>say,) we have said all perhaps that any conceive to be necessary for those who would attempt to learn from our comment Besides,.we apprehend no danger Qf misrule.from this.quarter, especially if the- ■commentary on church government. 3it lower judicatures are faithful; for we are happy to be able to say that our body is fitly joined together—that it is one. Whether we behold the body judicatorial in church sessions severally, or then, severally presbyterial, or synodical, we rejoice, that under the sanction of our great constitution, supported by revela¬ tion at every point, the emblazoned feature is held out, unity! unity !! We are but several limbs, but Jesus is the Head. In government we finally unite under the watch care of the General Assembly—may we not humbly add, in the General Assembly of church of the first born ! Brethren, this is our portentous motto. May we feej, with due christian benevolence, and truly evangelical charity to others, that this, and nothing less, is the design Of the Great Head^of the church in instituting the same on earth. May we act in our proper sphere, looking to the time when the watchmen shall see eye tp eye,und speak the same things. When " the watchmen shall rejoice together, and break fOrth into singing the anthems of Jesus; when the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ," will we contend- earnestly for the faith? ■ I have no doubt but that some of our breth¬ ren would feel very loth to answer the follow¬ ing inquiry, viz: Do you believe that the church to which you belong, in its rules of government, doctrine and discipline, is the purest church pn earth? Or in other words, SI 8 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. $ome,yea, many, of our lay and clerical breth¬ ren, would be unprepared for such an answer, for want of proper reflection—not upon their own, or the doctrine, &c., of other churches, but for the lack of due reflection on what they themselves had actually done. To bring this case to bear in its proper relation, suppose such brethren deny, or answer the above inter¬ rogatory in the negative; ;would they not be sadly puzzled with the following: Have you made then a goodly profession before many witnesses in your covenant and ordination vows ? You have, or have you not, a belief that there is a great and very peculiar neces¬ sity that a man examine on this matter, that he be fully persuaded in his own mind. These remarks may be thought too strictly sectarian, but this is not the motive of the writer—that is, to stir up strife among breth¬ ren. It is our design, rather, to provoke to love and to good works. .From what We have witnessed, not only among our own brethren, but those also belonging to other christian de¬ nominations, may we not exhort alb—"contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saintsi" Our judicatures have great reason to fear that there are many who are either ashamed of their profession, or then, what is perhaps worse, have little or no concern about these weighty matters. These considerations speak lopd and portentous in an ecclesiastical aense. Our judicatures have recommended^ and attempted the promotion of holines, chari- COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT* 319 ty, reformation of manners, &c., &c., but to too little effects Now suppose the writer declare that he be¬ lieves. the C. Presbyterian church to be the purest church on earth, would he do any thing m,ore than he has already done in presence of God and his church,? The writer so declares in view of the awful and solemn realities of time and eternity. Would to God all would thus feel, and aa delegation from Ocoee Presbytery (East Tenn.,) the writer can, he be¬ lieves^ advisedly affirm that they are now the friends of the Association, and we think its^ friends are increasing generally. As it regards the majority, there were 49 of" therr^ including, the compilers of our constitu¬ tion and all (present) of the old fathers of the Cumberland Presbyterian|phurch, and among this weighty and respectable majority areji um¬ bered two or three Doctors of Divinity. We think it is a laudible, christian, as well as ecclesiastical enterprise. Has not sacred literature a vast influence, and has not such influences in a church, been the means section- ally, for the want of a common centre around which to revolve, so to speaks been the cause, even under the same constitution, of dissen- tion ? One portion of the church propagating one extreme, yet constitutional tenent, and an¬ other portion another doubtful, or question? able one, until dissension and division finally is the result. To guard this spirit, and to war against the first incursion the common enemy, discord, we think this association under the GoXfMENTAR V ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 338 guidance of the assembly well calculated to do. To devise measures for the preservation of the whole body, the assembly has a con¬ stitutional right. We would challenge a comparison with this constitution before us, with any other of a like nature. We have examined the Consti¬ tution of the Methodist Book Concern, which yield to those brethren collectively, some thou¬ sands—perhaps (if we are rightly informed,) $30,000 annually, and are ready to pronounce this association on at least as safe constitution¬ al grounds as that of others at New York.— And what denomination are better supplied with books—standard works ? Besides, th§ above concern mainly enables therii to keep up their itenerant ministry—to support' superan¬ nuated and worn out preachers—widows and orphans of deceased ministers, &c. In brief, we woilld say, that this assembly earnestly recommmd a hearty co-operation of Cumberland Presbyterians with the American Bible Society—act as agents, &c. That they recommend the Colporteur plan of dissemi¬ nating the American Tract Society's publica¬ tions—form societies, act as agents, &c. That they condemn all unnecessary visiting, travel¬ ling (of the mails, steam-boats, &c.,) as a dese- cfation of the Sabbath. They recommend'a retrenchment of prodigal expenditures in fami¬ lies, and with individuals, such as that per¬ taining to luxurious living, costly apparrel, &c. ' On the subject of missions, they (the Assem- 834 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. bly) are importunately eloquent. They have organised "a missionary board to be called, "The Assembly's Board of Foreign and Domes¬ tic Missions." The object (says their con.) of this Board shall be to aid Foreign and Domes¬ tic Missionaries, at such places, as may be pointed^ out by the General Assembly. The funds placed (see Art. 13) in the hands of the Treasurer shall be equally divided between the Foreign and Domestic fields, unless otherwise determined by the Assembly. • Comment is needless. Every christian heart in its purity and fervency of zeal—every chris¬ tian has the spirit of Christ his Master. Suf¬ fice it to say, that, if he cultivate this spirit, he will not "be barren nor unfruitful," but "will abound, in the work of the Lord." (See As¬ sembly Min.) An important requisition aux¬ iliary, is that the several congregations and presbyteries form.societies, i This then is a con¬ stitutional act, if so, it beat# ecclesiastical ob¬ ligation with it; and none can disregard it, even in this light, without being an offender against ecclesiastical law, and more,, against the laws of divine benevolence,, against tha laws of God, ho cannot have a reasonable doubt, but that he ha& offended. We Ijavo with some degree of labor, and with much anxiety, caution, and, investigation, gone through with our. subject. We haye at¬ tempted to tracev (aftep discovering the "Ori¬ gin") the nature* design and extent of ecclesi¬ astical Government and Discipline, APPENDIX. We have thought propel* to append to this Work a few rules and regulations, taken mainly from the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church as worthy of consideration. Thes® relate to ecclesiastical process, references, ap¬ peals, &c., and do not conflict with, or,affect any of our rules, but might correspond with them. 1. It is the duty of every judicatory (except a session,) to review the records of the judi¬ catory next below annually. 2. Such judicatory omitting to send up their records, the higher one may issue* an order to produce them immediately, or at a particular time, as the circumstances require. To examine them—have they been consti¬ tutional and regular—-wise, equitable, and for edification—rare they correctly recorded? 3. The judicatory may fulfil its duty by re¬ cording on its owh minutes, the strictures or oensures thought necessary, and also entering 336 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. the same on the book reviewed. Yet, should cases of irregularity disreputable and injuri¬ ous demand, the superior judicature should interfere, and require the inferior one to review and correct its minutes. 4. No judicial decision, however, of such body shall be reversed, unless it be regularly brought up by appeal or complaint. 5. Judicatories may entirely neglect to per¬ forin their duty ; by which neglect heresies, and corrupt practices may be suffered to gain ground; gross offenders permitted to go at large; or circumstances may, in their transac¬ tions of great irregularity, not be recorded by ihem. In these cases severally their records by no means exhibit a full view of their pro¬ ceedings. Therefore, if by commOTt fame, the superior judicature be well advised that stioh irregularities have occurred, it is incumbent on them (or it,) to take cognizance of the same ; and to examine, deliberate, and judge the mat¬ ter, omitted as completely as if it had been under review as part of their records. ; 6. Grossly unconstitutional proceedings re¬ corded, or coming to the knowledge of a su* perior judicatory by common fame, warrants such body being next above the one alleged to have offended, to cite them to appear at a specified time and place, and to account for delinquency, by showing what they have done, &c., in the case. If it appears that (should it be common fame accusing,) such allegation was true, the judicatory issuing the citation, COMMENTARY ON CEPOROJ® GOVERNMENT. 53^ should remit thb Whole m&tter to the delin¬ quent judicatory with - direction^ to take it Up and dispose of it in a constitutional mariner, or stay further proceedings in the case as expediency may require. 1 ; REFERENCES. 1. A reference is a written, judicial repre¬ sentation of h, case1 not yet decided, made by an inferior judicatory to a superior. 2: New, important^ difficult and peculiarly intricate cases areproper shbjectrof refer¬ ence. Especially if the deeisi!eih;i&J likely to establish* precedents of extensive influence1, it is then highly desirable that a larger body Should first decide, and particularly'so if the judicatory be divided in sentiment, should they make it matter of reference. 3. References may be made for advice only, or then may transfer a case from a lower to a higher judicature for trial, and ultimate de¬ cision. ; « 4., In the former case, it (the * body,) only suspends the decision of the case in the body making the reference—in the latter case, it totally relinquishes the whole cause, submitting it. to the superior judicatory. 5. References may be, highly proper, yet it is. generally more conducive to the public wel¬ fare and. private interest of the church, that judicatories fulfill their fluty- by exercising their judgments and decisions upon most cases. 6. References ought to procure advice, yet the higher judicature, even if moreover re- 9Q 838 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT, quested, is not bound to give a final decision,, but may remit the whole cause, either with or without hdvice. 7. The -members of the lower judicature retain all the privileges of deliberating, voting and judging, in the pourse of the trial before the higher judicature, which they would have had, had no reference of the case been made by them. 8. References are generally Jo be carried to the judicatory next above. 9. References ought to be accompanied by all the testimony, documents, ditc., in order to prevent difficulty and delay in the superior judicature, that they may consider a,nd issue the case. APPEALS. . ] . An appeal is the removal of a cause already decided from an inferior to a superior judicatory by a party aggrieved. 2. All persons who have submitted to a regu¬ lar trial in an inferior, may appeal to a higher judicatory. 3. Any irregularity in the proceedings; a refusal to a party on trial of. reasonable indul¬ gence; declining to receive important testimo¬ ny ; huriying to a decision before the testimo¬ ny is fullytaken; a manifestation of prejudice in the case, and mistake or injustice in the de¬ cision, are ally proper grounds of appeal from the decision of a lower to a higher judicatory, 4. Appeals may be, either from a part of the; {Commentary otf church government. 339 proceedings of a judicatory, or from a definite sentence. 5. Every- appellant is bound to give notice of'his intention to appeal, and also to lay the reasons thereof in writing before the judica¬ tory appealed from, either before its rising, or within ten days thereafter. If this notice, &c., is not given in compliance with the first requi¬ sition above, that is, before said judicatory rises, it must, in compliance with the second, be lodged with the moderator of said presby¬ tery, &e., within the time specified. 6. Appeals are generally to be carried up in regular gradation to the next higher judica¬ tory, &c. 7. > The appellant shall lodge his appeal, and the reasons of it, with the clerk of the higher judicatory before the close of the second day of their session. 8. In taking up an appeal, after ascertaining that the appellant, on his part, has conducted it regularly, the first step shall be to read the sentence appealed from: secondly, the record¬ ed reasons assigned by the appellant for his appeal: thirdly, to read the whole record of the proceedings, including all the testimony and the lower judicatories reasons for their decision in the case: fourthly, to hear the original parties : fifthly, to hear any of the members of the inferior judicatory in expla¬ nation of the grounds of their decision, or of their dissent from it. 9. After all the parties shall have been fully 340 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT heard, and all the information gained by the members of the superior judicatory from those of ;the inferior, which shall be deemed requisite-, the original parties, apd all the members of the inferior judicatory shall withdraw, when the clerk shall call the roll, that every member may have an opportunity to express his, opinion on the case; after which the final vote shall be taken. ,10 The decision may vbe to confirm or re¬ verse, in whole, or in part, the, decision of the inferior judicatory ; or to remit the cause for the purpose of amending the.. record, should it appeal" incorrect, or defective; or for a new trial. 11/ If an appellant fail to prosecute his ap¬ peal, it. should be considered as abandoned, and the sentence of which he has complained shall be final, unless he can make it appear that he was pre\ented from prosecuting his appeal seasonably—for said appellant must appear be¬ fore the judicatory to which he appeals- at farthest on the second day of its first sitting after the,date of his appeal, or it is considered as abandoned, except in cases in which the ap¬ pellant can make it appear that he was pre¬ vented by,the providence of-God. ,12. Members'of judicatories appealed from, cannot be allowed to vote in the superior, judi¬ catory on any question connected with the ap¬ peal- 13. If the members of the inferior judica¬ tory, from which an appeal has been made, ap- COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 34l ppar to have acted according to the best of their judgment, and with good intention, they incur no censure, although their censure be re¬ versed ; otherwise they shall be censured as the case may require. < 14. If an appellant is found to manifest a litigous or other unchristian spirit in the pro'se- cution of his appeal, he should be censured ac¬ cording to the degree of his offence. 15. The necessary operation of an appeal is to suspend all further proceedings on the grounds of the sentence appealed from. But if a sentence pf suspension, or of excommuni¬ cation from church privileges, or of deposition from office, be the sentence appealed from, it shall be considered as in force until the appeal be issued. 16. If any judicatory from which an appeal is taken shall neglect to send1 up authentic copies of all the records connected with, or re¬ lating to such case or cases of appeal, they should, especially if the appellant suffer there¬ by, be censured according to the demerits of such official act. 17. An appeal should in no case be entered, except by one of the original parties.- COMPLAINTS. 1. Another method by which a case, which has been decided by an inferior judicatory, may, perhaps, be carried before a superior, is by complaint. 2. A coffiplaint is a representation made to a superior by any member, or members of a 342 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. minority of an inferior judicatory, or by any other person or persons, respecting against a decision by an inferior judicatory, which, in the opinion of the complainants, has been ir¬ regular or unjustly made. 3. The cases worthy cause of complaint, ape the following, viz : partiality; or the judg¬ ment in question may do no wrong fo any indi¬ vidual ; or the party who is aggrieved by it may decline the trouble of conducting an ap¬ peal—or where in such cases no appeal is ex¬ pected or carried up. In these cases, if the said judgments be considered by any member as derogatory to the dignity of a church judi¬ cature, contrary to the constitution, or injuri¬ ous to the general interest of religion, such members have a right to enter their dissent on the records of the inferior, and also to be heard through, or by their protest, as complainants before the superior judicatory. 4. The same rule is to be observed in obtain¬ ing and carrying up a complaint as observed in the case of appeals. 5. TMs complaint, if well founded, brings the whole case under review, and may conse¬ quently have the effect of reversing a judg¬ ment, and also of drawing down censure upon those concurring in the decision or judgment of which complaint has been made. 6. The action of the superior does not neces¬ sarily bring down censure on the members of the inferior judicatory by a reversal of their judgments. See appeal. COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 34$ 7. None of the members of the louver judi¬ catory, of whose act or acts complaint is made, can vote in the higher on any question con¬ nected \vith the complaint. DISSENTS AND PROTESTS. 1. A dissent is declaration on the part of one or more members of a minority, in judica¬ tory, expressing a different opinion from that of a majority in a particular case. A dissent, unaccompanied with reasons, is always enter¬ ed on the records. 2. A protest is a more solemn and formal declaration, made as aforesaid, and is general¬ ly attended with a detail of the reasons on which it is founded. 3. If a protest or dissent is couched in re¬ spectful language, and contains no offensive insinuations or reflections against the majority, those who offer it have a right to have it re¬ corded on the minutes. 4. It is optionary with those who enter either a dissent or protest on the minutes of a judi¬ catory, whether they annex a detail of reasons or not. If no cause or reason is detailed, said dissent, &c., is left, to the review of the supe¬ rior judicatory who may judge of the case. 5. A protest, though not infringing the rules; of decorum, either in its language or matter, may yet impute to a judicatory some princi¬ ple or principles Of action by which it was not actuated. In this case the majority may ap¬ point at the time, a committee to draw up an answer, stating the facts of the case. If said 944 commentary on church oovenment. committee's report be adopted in part or entire as the act of-the body, it ought to b.e recorded. 6. Should thpse protestants consider the above «ns?cer to impute to them opinions and conduct which they disavow, the proper course would be to obtain leave to withdraw, for modification, their protest. This alteration or modification may render it more agreeable to their views ; a similar act on the part of the majority may modify their answer, with which the whole affair, at the present juncture, should terminate, No reply to an answer is allowa¬ ble, lest litigation to the great disgrace of the judicatory ensue. 7. None can join in a protest against an ec- clesiastical adjudication, except those com¬ posing that body at the time of such decision. NEW TESTIMONY 1. If after a trial before any judicatory, new testimony be discovered which is highly im¬ portant to the accused, it is proper for him to ask, and for the judicatory to grant a new trial. 2. Representations of the above nature, es¬ pecially in the prosecution of appeals, should be satisfactorily or clearly made known to the body as, existing and as to what fact they were likely to establish. These things ascertained, make it important (in case of appeal) for the higher to remand the parties with their cause before the lower judicature for a new trial. The above discovery may be, with the con¬ ditions, its existence, &c,, made either by the COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 345' inferior judicatory itself, or by the appellant in prosecution of appeals. 3. If it also appear that the testimony pro* posed to be established, if proved would ma¬ terially alter the aspect of the cause,1 and if the probability is that said testimony will be sufficient to establish the fact alleged, then the superior judicatory ought to send the cause back for a new issue. 4. If, however, the parties (and inferior body ecclesiastical also) concur in requesting it, the superior judicature may take up the case, with the additional evidence, and issue th6 appeal. This ought to be invariably done, when delay would occasion any seriqus probable evil. 5. If, in such case, the judgment be reversed, the superior judicatory should ?tate the grounds of their decision, if effected materially, or at all by the new testimony. It remains for us to add a few remarks upon the competency and credibility of witnesses, to complete our advisory, critical-appendix. Whatever may be thought of the foregoing directions in this appendix, there can be no discrepancy of opinion either of the propriety or utility of observing the following rules ; or again, of the necessity of being, in our judica¬ tures, impartially careful to examine and weigh testimony. We . will make a distinction between the competency and credibility of witnesses thus : a competent witness is one who has arrived at age sufficient to give testimony, provided he be &46 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. ©f sound mind, or which would effect the same against his being admitted to testify as the above exception, that is, he must also be in possession of the proper senses, hearing, seeing, &c;; especially if the peculiarities of the case, and points to be established by him depended, as to his knowledge of them, on any of' thosfc senses; infamy of character, church censure for falsehood, nearness of relation to any of the parties; these and the like, effect the compe¬ tency of a witness, and form a plausible pre¬ text (even if supposed to exist,) lor either par¬ ty to challenge or reject such witness, and for the judicatory to candidly attend to and de¬ cide upon such challenge. Credibility of a witness may he effected by deep interest in the result of the trial; also by indiscretion, ma¬ lignity of character, or by general rashness of disposition ; these, and various other conside¬ rations, are those to which judicatories ought to attend, and for which they are to make, as to the degree of credibility attaching to such witnesses, proper allowance in their decisions. Husband and wife are not to be treated as contumacious for not testifying against each other; neither are they, according to the rule above, competent. Our Constitution forbids the establishment (see form of process) of any fact by one wit¬ ness, but collateral evidence, that is, where several witnesses testify to similar acts going to establish the same or general charge, the fact is considered as proved, unless by consent COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 347 of parties, (except a nflember of the judica¬ ture,*) no witness aftefwards to be examined on the same case shall be present while another is giving testimony. Questions are to be put to witnesses first by the party introducing them, or the parties are first to propound questions, or examine their own witnesses ; then the cross examination is to be conducted by the opposite party. These examinations, as well as any addi¬ tional interrogatories, either by the parties themselves or by any member of the judica¬ ture, are to be conducted under the direction and control "of the moderator; and no question ought to be put or answered, except by per¬ mission of the Moderator—either his vocal, or at least implied permission. These rules above specified, are necessary to order, and will pre¬ vent confusion. Before any witness give evidence he should take " the oath or affirmation" which shall be administered by the moderator. See Con. sec. 8, p. 255. They must be examined in pres¬ ence of the accused. If required every question deemed sufficient¬ ly important by either party, ought, first, and then with its answer, to be recorded. The authenticated records, or any of them original or transcribed, (see Con. p. 258,) would also be valid testimony. To these (or this) * This exception might he necessary, lest the body dis¬ solve itself, if a bare quorum only be present. 348 COMMENTARY ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. records the signature® of the moderator and clerk (or either of them) are necessary. , When the witnesses have all been examined, the accused and prosecutor . ought to have, or might, to a,reasonable extent, have the privi¬ lege of commenting before the judicature on their testimony as severally produced. The record containing witness' testimony, as. far as that testimony is concerned verbatim, must be to them severally presented, and be approved and. signed by them. We think it advisable, should the Commen¬ tary fall into the hands of any who have not seen our Confession of Faith, to insert the fol¬ lowing comprehensive brief of the doctrines held and taught by Cumberland Presbyterians. It is from an approved author. See Buck's Theolqgical Dictionary. ■ They (the C. Presbyterians) dissent from the (old) confession in: 1st. That there are no eternal reprobates. 2d. That Christ died not far apart only, but for all mankind. 3d. That all infants dying in infancy are saved through Christ and sanctification of the spirit. 4th. That the spirit of God operates on the world, or as co-extensively as Christ made the atone¬ ment, in such a maimer as to leave all men in¬ excusable. Discipline.—Their discipline is Presbyterian. INDEX. Church, Jewish Page, 1, 7 Church, Definition of the word 1 Church, universal christian 2, 155 Church, particular christian 3, 4, 15, 155, 156, 157 Church, definition Episcopal 3, 4 Christian dispensation begun, 5, '6 Officers of the same, 7, 103, 104 Officers, distinguished 7 to 15 Commission given, 16 Commission for specified ends, 16', 17 Judicatures authorised by Christ, 16, 17 Process in use of the keys, 17, 18 Commission implied succession, 18 Succession Episcopal, Pres. doctrine, 18, 19 Ordination, no presbyters necessary, 19, 21 Ministers equality of power, 20, 21, 86, 90 Ordination, Episcopal, Congregational, Presbyterian, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30 Day elders, 20, 25, 98, 99 Deacons, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 99 Extraordinary gifts not continued, 26, 27, 96 Ordinary gifts, 26, 27, 28, 29 Succession, view of Presbyterian 30 Ministers, call of 30 Qualification, i)f moral 26, 27 Doddrage's lecture, extract of 31 350 index. Canons, Episcopal ordination of Page, 32, 35 Canons, Dr. Peck's testimony on 37 Canons, Bp. Gregory on 37, 76, 77 Canons, Bp. Cyprian on 37, 76, 78 Koman elections tested, 37, 55 Immorality an obj., 46 Immorality contrasted with scripture, 48 54 Rome no church, mother of harlots, 45 Homily on the Holy Ghost, gifts of,&c.> 49, 54 Claims of English succession examined, 55, 84 Dr. Wainright's history, 55, 61 Austin's arrival in England 63 Rise of Popery, 63, 64 Canons applied, 70, 74, 75, 92 The British and Gaulic mothers lost, 76 Romish succession, Augustine supplanted, 76 Bp. Beckham's complaint, 83 Bishops, illiterate 85 Episcopal Methodists, 85 Canons applied to Wesley's organization, 92 Rights originated with English church, 86, 88 Dr. Coke ordained, 87 Austin & Coke's usurpation contrasted, 92 Summary of our views, 93, 94 Ep. claim, extraordinary gifts, 94 Qifts extraordinary, what implied, 94 Ep. claim more than Apostles, &o., 95 Dr. Owen's testimony, 94, 95, 98 Spurious names official, 9?, 98 Extremes attached to systems of ordination, 100, 101 Want of ministeral regard, 100, 101, 102 Ministry, a gift, 103, 108 How given, 105, 109 How continued, 106, 107 How a church may obtain or elect one, 107, 108, 139, 141, 170, 174, 175 . Church distinct from the world, 109, 111 ■ Proof for a church evangelical, 111, 112 Duty and spiritual qualification of ministers, 112, 116 How the divine call and human agency index. 351 concur, Page, 119 to 141 The church a voluntary association, 119, 120, 122 Dr. Wainright declares them human, 120 A voluntary association 120, 121 Primitive organization of christian church, 123, 125 Natural and adventitious rights examined, 125 to 138 The will of God, 127 to 136 How did advantitious rights occur, 133 to 135 and 277 Congregational government, 141 Representative government, 142, 143, 161 Usurpation, 143 to 146 Natural rights and natural or civil liberty, 144, 145 Difference between civil and moral rights, 147 to 154 Government, Assembly on principles of general 156 Government, particular application of general 157 to 160 Presbyterian Eccl. courts, 157 Church judicatory, critical review of 159 to 370 Church session,. 159, 182 Discipline, compilers.of 157 Elders, election of 160, 162, 181 Elders, duties of 162 to. 187 Sessions more responsible than presbytery, 162, 171 Sessions have legislative power, 164, 165 Sessions have disposable fund?, 168 Laity sovereigns, , 170 Admission of members, 176 to 180 Mourners, covenant with 180, 181 Process, forms of 185 to 187 Presbytery, organization of 187 to 192 Ratio of representation, 188 to .191 The Synod, 301 The Gen. Assembly, 315 Report of R. Donnell & Birdj 325 to 333 Appendix, 335- ERRATA. Fbr"'i» vesture" read "investiture,"passim. Page 24, 5th line from top, for "Scassula" read "Scap- pula.',' ; Page 44^argin, for "Nurenberg" read "Nuremberg." Page;68, 20th and 21st lines from top, for "Duss'in and Du Pin"'read "Du Pin." Page,72,11th and 13th lines, for "practical" read "pe- Ifttical'^and "piu" "pin" Page 74, 15ih line, for "proved" read "provided." Page. 100,:27th line, for "periods" read "persons." Page 105, 6th line, for "statue'' read "stature." 1 Page 115, margin, for "hearts" read "hearers." Pggp 123, 3d line, for "Led" read "Sed." Ph§je 128, 26th line, for "more".read "more general.". Page 142, 29th line, for "no" read "no small." Page 166, margin, for "made by acorn." read "made, <&c., of^ Tenn. Synod." Page'1?4, 13th line, insert "be" before "one." Page 1$8, 5th line, for "ruins''read ."runs." Page 63, 31st line, for "because" read "became." Page 195,*5th line, for "he" read "they." Page 234,4th line, for "flocks" read "flock." Page 272, 22d line, for "Lafdia" read "Sardis."