PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 No. Case,_ 
 
 • No, Shelf, 
 
 No. Book. 
 
 The John M. Krebs Donation. 
 
 BV 647 .G37 1846 c.l 
 Garratt^ W. A. 
 An inquiry into the 
 scriptural view of the 
 
AN INQUIRY 
 
 INTO THE 
 
 SCRIPTURAL VIEW 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF A CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
 
 AND ITS RELATION 
 
 TO THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL. 
 
 ALSO INTO 
 THE EVIDENCE RESPECTING 
 
 THE ALLEGED FACT OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 
 
 BY WILLIAM ALBIN GARRATT, M.A. 
 
 BARRISTER AT LAW. ^ . : - 
 
 PHI aA 0*A Av>,a 
 
 SEELEY, BURNSIDE, AND S^^^^^irflS'JS-^^^"* 
 FLEET STREET, LONDON. *^W 
 MDCCCXLVL 
 
L. Seehy, Thames Ditton, Sum 
 
A *^A Al Was i. w-.[ 
 
 THSOLOQICilL, 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 We have of late years witnessed one of those parox- 
 ysms of controversy, which have at different periods 
 arisen, respecting the right constitution of a chris- 
 tian church, and the ordination of its ministers ; and 
 it has been aggravated by the strenuous assertion on 
 the one part (especially in the Tracts for the Times) of 
 what is called " Apostolical Succession/' and by the 
 denial on the other part of the lawfulness of any con- 
 nection between church and state. 
 
 Under these circumstances, I was led to enter upon 
 a careful examination of scripture, with a view to as- 
 certain, whether any and what model was laid down 
 by our Lord or his apostles, as essential to the con- 
 stitution of a Christian church ; what can be learnt 
 from scripture respecting the then existing churches of 
 Christ, their relation to each other or to the Universal 
 Church, their government, their ministers, their dis- 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 cipline ; and whether any and which of the practices 
 recorded respecting them in Scripture were institu- 
 tions to be adopted and perpetuated in all countries 
 and in all ages. The result at which I arrived was, 
 that no model of a christian church is exhibited in 
 scripture as necessary to he adopted in all countries 
 and in all ages : and that the doctrine of Apostolical 
 Succession, as taught in the Tracts for the Times, has 
 no foundation in scripture. 
 
 I further examined, whether scripture furnished any 
 principle, from which could be deduced the duty of a 
 Christian government respecting a national church : 
 and I came to the conclusion, that scripture did 
 furnish such a principle, and that the objections raised 
 against the establishment of a National Church were 
 founded in error. 
 
 This investigation, with its result, is the subject of 
 the first Part of this work : and it is strictly confined to 
 scripture, which is, I conceive, the only decisive au- 
 thority on such matters. 
 
 But we are told in the Tracts, that if Episcopacy 
 were " not at all mentioned in Scripture, even then it 
 
 would be our duty to receive it because the 
 
 first Christians received it : '' that the Scriptures are 
 " not a rule of practice" " not a rule of conduct or 
 discipline : ' ' that " as to the fact of the Apostolical 
 Succession, i. e. that our present Bishops are the heirs 
 and representatives of the Apostles by successive 
 
 ' Tract XLV. p. 5. 
 
PREFACE. vii 
 
 transmission of the prerogative of being so, this is 
 too notorious to require proof : " ^ that " it is only the 
 Bishops who have ever been called by the title of Suc- 
 cessors '^ [to the apostles] ; " and that there has been 
 actually a perpetual succession of these Bishops in 
 the Church, who alone were always esteemed to have 
 the power of sending other ministers to preach and 
 administer the sacraments/' ^ 
 
 These statements, boldly made and enforced by 
 much skill of argument, produced the intended effect 
 with many ; and I have thought it might be useful to 
 examine these positions, and more particularly the 
 historical evidence relating to the alleged "fact of the 
 Apostolical Succession." The result was decidedly 
 adverse to the Tracts for the Times : and this examina- 
 tion forms the subject of the second part. 
 
 If the conclusions, at which I have arrived — that no 
 model of a Christian Church is exhibited in Scripture 
 as necessary to be adopted in all countries and in all 
 ages— that the doctrine of Apostolical Succession, as 
 taught in the Tracts for the Times, has no foundation 
 in Scripture ; nor can the alleged fact be proved from 
 ecclesiastical history — that the duty of a Christian 
 government to support a National Church rests on 
 Scriptural principle — if these conclusions are (as I con- 
 ceive them to be) correctly deduced, something may 
 have been contributed towards allaying dissentions 
 between those who ought to love each other as brethren 
 
 » Tract VII. p. 2. 2 Tract XV. p. 2. 
 
Vlll PREFACE. 
 
 in Christ, and towards uniting in Christian love all 
 " them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity/'' 
 and hold fast the fundamental truths of the gospel. 
 If any thing shall, by the following pages, have been 
 contributed towards such a result, I shall rejoice and 
 be thankful. 
 
CONTENTS, 
 
 PART I. 
 
 THE SCRIPTURAL VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 
 A CHURCH, AND ITS RELATION TO THE CHURCH 
 UNIVERSAL. 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 
 I. Introduction ...... 1 
 
 II. Provision made by our Lord for the Go- 
 vernment, Extension, and Edification 
 OF HIS Church 21 
 
 III. Apostles appointed after our Lord's As- 
 
 cension 79 
 
 IV. Miraculous Powers 104 
 
 V. The Seven 123 
 
 VI. Different Classes of Ministers . . 129 
 
 VII. Appointment of Ministers : and therein 
 
 OF Ordination 168 
 
 VIII. The Question as to the Threefold Mi- 
 nistry and Ordination further consi- 
 dered 196 
 
 IX. Schism 229 
 
 X. The Visible Universal Church . . 239 
 
 XL Discipline of the Church, Maintenance 
 
 OF Ministers, and National Church . 257 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PART 11, 
 
 OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION EXAMINED. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
 I. The Question generally Considered and 
 Stated 
 
 II. The Apostolical Fathers 
 
 III. Justin Martyr to Origen 
 
 IV. Cyprian and later Writers 
 V. Conclusion .... 
 
 293 
 309 
 333 
 357 
 391 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 I. On the Date of St. Paul's First Epistle 
 
 TO the Corinthians ..... 399 
 II. Our Lord's Interview with the assembled 
 Disciples on the Evening of his Resur- 
 rection 400 
 
 III. Our Lord's last Commission to the Apostles 403 
 
 IV. On the Forty-fourth Section of Clement's 
 
 Epistle 405 
 
 V. On a Passage in Ignatius's Epistle to the 
 
 Trallians 408 
 
 VI. On the Epistles of Ignatius . . , 409 
 
 VII. Tertullian on Discipline .... 413 
 
 VIII. Tertullian ON Succession FROM THE Apostles 414 
 
 IX. Cyprian on Tradition and Scripture . . 420 
 
REFERENCES AND QUOTATIONS. 
 
 The following are the Editions of the Fathers to which the 
 references are made : — 
 
 Apostolic Fathers . . Jacobson — Oxonii, 1888. 
 Justin Marytr . . . Mon. Cong. Mauri — Parisiis, 
 
 1742. 
 Iren^us Massuet Mon. Ben. e Cong. S. 
 
 Mauri — Venetiis, 1734. 
 Tertullian ..... Semler — Halae Magdeburgicae, 
 
 1770. 
 Clemens Alexandrinus. Potter — Oxonii, 1715. 
 Origen Delarue. Mon. Ben. e Cong. S. 
 
 Mauri — Parisiis, 1738. 
 Cyprian Marshall'sTranslation — London, 
 
 1717. 
 
 Jerome Domin. Vallar. — Veronae, 1734. 
 
 Eusebius Burton — Oxonii, 1888. 
 
 Quotations in English from Scripture are from the autho- 
 rized version, the Italics (which there distinguish words not 
 found in the original) heing retained, and capital letters being 
 introduced to perform the usual office of Italics. 
 
ERRATA ET CORRIGENDA. 
 
 Page 9, note 2, line 6, for reply read comply. 
 
 — 42, — 1, — 6, — overseer read overseers. 
 
 — 43, — — 3, after have insert not. 
 
 — 72, — 1, — This note refers to tlm word blessed in line 2. 
 
 — Ill, — 1, — 2, 6e/bre confidence zwseri undoub ting. 
 
 — 131, — 1, for iii. read iv. 
 
 — — — 2, — 7, — " persons having the read persons having 
 
 " the. 
 
 — 150 line 1 from bottom — Crescens to Dalmatia read Crescens to 
 
 Galatia. 
 
 — 161, note 2, line 4, — God read God." 
 
 — 163, — 1, — 13, — gospel read Gospel. 
 
 — 220, line 11, — publicly reac? publickly. 
 
 — 261, note dele ? at the end. * 
 
 — 264, line 24, for heretic read heretick. 
 
 — 276, — 10, — ^}^a(Tiav read i^aaiav. 
 
 — 283, — 8, •— \ put : 
 
 — 294, — 7, — disciples read apostles. 
 
 — 352, note 2, line 4, — vol. ii. read vol. iii. 
 
 — 361, line 20, — vol. i. read part ii. 
 
 — 357 to 367, passim in references to Cyprian for vol. read part. 
 
 — 406, line 3, for 4dv read ihv. 
 
PAET L 
 
 SCRIPTURAL VIEW 
 
 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF A CHURCH 
 
 AND ITS 
 
 RELATION TO THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Different societies or communities of Christians claim 
 each for itself, either exclusively or in common with 
 others, the name of a Christian Church : and opinions 
 widely differing from each other, are held and stren- 
 uously maintained on the question^ — ^What societies or 
 communities are entitled to that designation, or to be 
 considered as branches of the Church of Christ ? Nor 
 are men agreed as to the definition of The Church. 
 A preliminary inquiry, therefore, arises — what is the 
 meaning of the word Church as used in Scripture. 
 
 The word translated Church, is, in its proper and 
 primary meaning, an assembly, convocation, or con- 
 gregation.^ It is accordingly in the New Testament 
 
 ^ Parkhurst, adverting to the etymology of the word, considers it as 
 importing an assembly called out ; and the Christian Church as an 
 assembly or society called out of the world : and perhaps some such 
 notion may have been implied, when Stephen spake of " the Church 
 in the wilderness." (Acts vii. 38.) 
 
 B 2 
 
4 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 used to express, sometimes a merely secular assembly ; ^ 
 and at other times a congregation or society of persons 
 united together as being, or professing to be, believers 
 in Christ. 
 
 I. We have mention made of particular churches, 
 i. e. congregations of Christians meeting for worship 
 in one place. Thus St. Paul says : " Greet Priscilla and 
 
 Aquila likewise greet the church that is in 
 
 their house, '^ (Rom. xvi. 3, 5) '^ Aquila and Priscilla 
 salute you^' " with the church that is in their house ^' 
 
 (1 Cor. xvi. 19), ^' Salute Nymphas, and the 
 
 church which is in his house '' (Col. iv. 15) and the 
 same Apostle in his Epistle to Philemon (1 — 3), wishes 
 grace and peace " to the church in ^' his " house " — 
 That in these instances the church included other 
 Christians besides the household of the individual named, 
 may reasonably be inferred both from the original 
 meaning of the word Church, and from the circumstance 
 that in another epistle the same apostle says : '^ Salute 
 .... the household of Onesiphorus,^^ (2 Tim. iv. 19) 
 and does not call that household a church. 
 
 The recognition, it may be proper to observe, of these 
 particular churches determines nothing as to their being 
 independent of other churches, or being connected with 
 or subordinate to any other church. 
 
 II. We have also local churches, either mentioned 
 or addressed in the New Testament, as the church at, 
 of, or in, a particular city or town, or of its inhabitants. 
 
 ^ So in Acts xix. 32, 39, 41, where it is rendered " assembly " in 
 the authorized version. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 5 
 
 Thus we have the Church at Jerusalem^^ at Antioch,- 
 at Cenchrea,^ at Corinth/ at Babylon :^ the Church 
 of Ephesus,^ of the Laodiceans/ of the Thessaloni- 
 ans : ^ the Church in 9 Smyrna, in Pergamos, in Thy- 
 atira, in Sardis, in Philadelphia. These I call local 
 churches, because they do not appear to have been 
 limited to congregations meeting in one building ; they 
 comprized, or were calculated to comprize, several 
 particular congregations, indeed all particular congre- 
 gations (if more than one), within the same city or 
 town. 
 
 This will clearly appear to have been the case with 
 the " church at Jerusalem,^^ if we examine what is re- 
 corded of the numbers which it contained. On the 
 day of Pentecost about three thousand ^° were converted 
 (Acts ii. 41), which number (however) probably com- 
 prized strangers then at Jerusalem for the feast. After- 
 wards " the Lord added to the Church ' ^ daily such as 
 
 ^ Acts viii. 1. 2 Acts xiii, 1. ^ Rom. xvi. 1. 
 
 ^ 1 Cor. i. 2. and 2 Cor. i. 1. 
 
 ^ 1 Peter v. 13. Whether this mean the real or mystical Babylon 
 is immaterial to the present purpose. 
 
 6 Rev. ii. 1. 7 Rev. iii. 14. 
 
 ^ " Thessalonians" — ^icaaKoviKiuv {\ Thess. i. Land 2Thess. i. 1.) — 
 inhabitants of Thessalonica (a city of Macedonia)- not of the country 
 called Thessaly. 
 
 » Rev. ii. 8, 12, 18. iii. 1, 7. 
 
 '^ It is indeed (v. 44.) added : " and all that believed were together," 
 ■ndvres 5e bi, iriTeuovTes ^ffav iir\ rh avrh ; by which, if the translation 
 be correct, it can only be meant, that t'ley all had more or less of inter- 
 course with each other. But, considering the context, perhaps a more 
 correct rendering would be — " and all that believed were for the same 
 thing "— i. e. pursued the same object. 
 
 " " The Church " in this place may mean, either the universal church, 
 
6 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 should be saved/^ (Acts ii. 47). At a later period, 
 when Peter had preached on the occasion of healing 
 the cripple at the gate of the temple (Acts iii.), '^ many 
 of them which heard the word believed, and the num- 
 ber of the men was about five thousand ^^ (Acts iv. 4). 
 Even this number was afterwards increased : for " be- 
 lievers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes 
 both of men and women '^ (Acts v. 14). The number 
 of Christians, therefore, at Jerusalem must have greatly 
 exceeded five thousand, when, at a subsequent period, 
 "there was a great persecution against the Church 
 which was at Jerusalem.^' That church consisting of 
 so many thousand believers, obviously had no building 
 in which they could all meet together. 
 
 Further with regard to the church of Ephesus — St. 
 Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, written ^ 
 after the great progress of the gospel in that city re- 
 corded in the first twenty verses of xix. Acts, sends 
 salutations to the church of Corinth from Aquila and 
 Priscilla " with the church which is in their house '' 
 as well as from "the churches of Asia" (1 Cor. xvi. 
 19), of which the church of Ephesus was one.'^ The 
 church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla, we may 
 therefore infer, was a particular congregation, not com- 
 prizing all the disciples then at Ephesus— a portion 
 of the then church of that city. 
 
 Each of these local churches constituted one body, 
 
 or the body of Christians then at Jerusalena. It is not material to our 
 inquiry which is the meaning. 
 
 ' See Appendix I. 2 g^g j^g^ -^ ^y 
 
INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 as is implied in the name of church given to them. 
 But I cannot discover in Scripture, that any two or 
 more of them were, at this early period, united to- 
 gether into one church for the country, province, or 
 district in which they were situated. Each is deno- 
 minated the church at, of, or in, a particular city or 
 toivn, or the church of its inhabitants — not the church 
 of, at, or in, a country, province, or district. We 
 have ^' the church which was at Jerusalem '^ (iVcts 
 viii. 1.), and "the churches of Judea^^ (Gal. i. 
 22. and See Acts ix. 31) : but we do not find the 
 church of Judea. We have an epistle addressed to 
 " the CHURCHES of Galatia; and they are mentioned 
 in another epistle (1 Cor. xvi. 1.) : but the expression 
 church of Galatia no where occurs. We have two 
 epistles addressed to " the church of the Thessa- 
 lonians,^^ i.e., of the Christians in Thessalonica ; 
 another " to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are 
 at Philippi with the bishops and deacons,^^ a descrip- 
 tion obviously of the church at Phihppi — both Thes- 
 salonica and Philippi being cities of Macedonia — and 
 in another place we read of the " churches of Ma- 
 cedonia '^ {2 Cor. viii. 1 .) ; but no mention is made 
 of the church of Macedonia. We read also of ^' the 
 church that was at Antioch ^^ (Acts xiii. 1.); and of 
 St. Paul going "through Syria ^^ (of which Antioch 
 was the capital) " and Cilicia confirming the 
 churches'^ (Acts XV. 41): but not of the church 
 of Syria. The churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Per- 
 gamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea, 
 
8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 are enumerated as " the seven churches which are in 
 Asia^^ (Kev. i. 11.) ; and the apostle John was directed 
 to send separate epistles to each of these churches 
 (Rev. ii. and iii.) : we read also^ at a much earlier 
 period, of the " churches of Asia " (1 Cor. xvi. 
 19.) : but we find no mention made of the church of 
 Asia, or the church of Lydia, within which region or 
 district five of these cities were situated. — Yet we have 
 an intimation, that, in some cases at least, there was 
 an external connection between the Christian inha- 
 bitants of a region or district, and the church of its 
 capital city : for the second epistle to the Corinthians 
 is addressed '^ unto the church of God which is at 
 Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia " 
 — And, at a later period, we find Titus left in Crete 
 by the apostle Paul to " set in order the things that ^* 
 were " wanting, and ordain elders in every city '' 
 (Tit. i. 5.) ; and generally to exercise spiritual authority 
 over the Christians throughout the island. Whether 
 that was a permanent or temporary authority we shall 
 have occasion to consider hereafter, as well as the 
 bearing of these remarks on National Churches. 
 
 There was also a bond of union, a connection 
 between all these churches ; * the bond of one common 
 faith and the unity of Christian love ; ^ a connection 
 also arising out of the authority exercised by the 
 
 ^ According]}'- we find such passages as these, " The churches of 
 
 Christ salute you." (Rom. xvi. 16.) " We have no such custom, neither 
 
 the churches of Christ." (1 Cor. xi. 16.) "All the churches of the 
 
 saints." (lb. xiv. 33.) "' So ordain I in all the churches." (1 Cor. vii. 17.) 
 
 2 See Rom. xvi. 4. 1 Cor. xii. 13. Eph. iv. 4—6. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 apostles over the different churches.^ But this brings 
 us to the consideration of the Universal Church. 
 
 III. We find THE CHURCH repeatedly mentioned 
 in the New Testament as a collective body. The uni- 
 versal church of Christ, either outward and visible, 
 or spiritual and invisible, is obviously meant. 1 use 
 this expression '^universal church/^ in preference to 
 that of " Catholic church/^ both because the latter 
 term has been grossly misapplied, and because the 
 word " universal '' conveys to an English ear a more 
 distinct and accurate idea than the word " Catholic.^' 
 
 The first occasion/ on which the word " church '' 
 occurs in the New Testament, is when our Lord de- 
 clared that ^' the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
 it '' (Mat. xvi. 18.). The church, of which our Lord 
 thus spake, was his universal church — his spiritual 
 universal church. A particular congregation may 
 apostatize — a local church may be overcome by the 
 powers of darkness^ — nor will the emphatical words 
 
 ' See 1 Cor. vii. 17 ; xi. 16. 
 
 ^ The only other occasion, on which our Lord is recorded to have 
 used the word "Church," is when, at a subsequent period, he directed, 
 that a disciple, injured b_y another disciple, should as a last resource, 
 after other specified attempts at accommodation had failed, " tell it to the 
 Church." (Matt, xviii. 17.) Here the Universal Church cannot be 
 intended : for with such a direction it would be impracticable to reply. 
 The passage will be more fully considered hereafter. 
 
 ^ Our Lord himself, by his apostle John, threatened the angel of the 
 Church of Ephesus, that He would remove his candlestick out of his 
 place, except he repented. The powers of darkness prevailed against 
 thatchurch— it did not repent — its candlestick has been removed— and 
 the place thereof knoweth it no more. (See Missionary Record for 
 Aug. 1839, p. 176.) 
 
 B 5 
 
10 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 " MY CHURCH '' be answered by any thing short of 
 the universal spiritual church of Christ, consisting of 
 all true believers, and of none else. This will be 
 still more apparent, if we consider what our Lord had 
 immediately before said of this church. — He had 
 asked his disciples — " Whom do men say that I 
 the Son of man am ? '' And they had answered the 
 question. — " He saith unto them, but w^hom say ye 
 that I am ? And Simon Peter answered and said. 
 Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God : '' 
 (Mat. xvi. 13 — 16.) — a remarkable confession of faith, 
 that Jesus was the promised Messiah, the Anointed One 
 of God, not only the Son of Man, but the Son of 
 God — the Son of God in a peculiar sense , for the Jews 
 considered themselves as being (all of them) spiritually 
 the children of God.* It was, on this confession of 
 faith having been made, that *^ Jesus answered and 
 said unto him. Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona : 
 for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, 
 but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto 
 thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I 
 build my church ; and the gates of hell shall not 
 prevail against it. ''' (Mat. xvi. 17, 18.) The doctrine 
 in which Peter had professed his faith, and which 
 Jesus declared that his Heavenly Father had revealed 
 
 ^ On one remarkable occasion, a discussion took place in the temple 
 between our Lord and the Jews, in the course of which the Jews " said 
 unto him, Abraham is our Father "" (John viii. 39.) : and almost imme- 
 diatei}- afterward, "we have one Father, even God" — thus claiming 
 Abraham as their natural progenitor, and God as their spiritual Father. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 1 1 
 
 to him, was the rock on which our Lord built His 
 Church. His church then, respecting which He pro- 
 mised that the gates of hell should not prevail against 
 it, is a spiritual body, consisting of all those, to 
 whom His " Father which is in Heaven ^^ has revealed 
 the doctrine on that occasion professed by Peter — of 
 all who ^' have obtained ^^ or shall obtain " like precious 
 faith with^^ him.^ 
 
 That (not Peter, but) the doctrine professed by hini 
 is the rock on which our Lord declared that he would 
 build his church, is clear, not only from the tenor of 
 the passage itself, but from Peter's implied disclaimer 
 in his first epistle, where he describes the church as 
 built on Jesus Christ, *^the chief corner-stone^^ — "To 
 whom " (he writes) " coming, as unto a living stone, 
 disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, a7id 
 precious, ye also, as lively stones, are built up a 
 spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual 
 sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Where- 
 fore also it is contained in the Scripture, Behold I lay 
 in Sion a chief corner-stone, elect, precious : and he 
 that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto 
 you therefore which believe, he is precious.^^ (1 Pet. 
 ii. 4 — 7.) We have, in this passage, the universal 
 church expressly called '^ a spiritual house," the chief 
 corner-stone being our Lord Jesus Christ, and the 
 other stones (" lively stones") being those who be- 
 lieve on him. The persons, whom Peter so addressed, 
 were not the members (in general) of any particular or 
 
 1 2 Peter i. 1. 
 
12 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 local diurch, but '' the strangers scattered throughout 
 Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect 
 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, 
 through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience, 
 and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.'^ (1 Pet. i. 
 I, 2.) To such believers, and to them only the 
 apostle wrote : " Ye also, as lively stones, are built 
 up a spiritual house : " and it was by '' coming '' to 
 Christ, and only by coming to Him, that they were so 
 built up. 
 
 St. Paul describes the church under a similar me- 
 taphor. To the Ephesians he writes —Ye '' are built 
 upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, 
 Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone : in 
 whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth 
 unto an holy temple in the Lord : in whom ye also 
 are builded together for an habitation of God through 
 the Spirit." (Eph. ii. 20 — 22.) In this passage, we 
 have not only the church described as " a holy temple in 
 the Lord ; '' but its spiritual character, " an habitation 
 of God through the Spirit ; ^' and, further, its centre 
 and source of union, even Jesus Christ and faith in 
 Him, " the chief corner stone in whom all the building 
 fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple ; ^' 
 and lastly its '' foundation," which was laid by " the 
 apostles and prophets,^' even the rock of that faith in 
 Jesus as "the Christ the Son of the living God," 
 which Peter professed, and which both he and all the 
 other apostles and prophets preached and taught. If 
 it be said that St. Paul addressed this language to all 
 
INTRODUCTION. 13 
 
 the members of the visible church at Ephesus, I reply, 
 that the epistle is expressly addressed — not to the 
 church of Ephesus, but — " to the saints, which are at 
 Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus. '^ (Eph. i. 
 1.) None, therefore, to whom this character did not 
 belong, were, though members of the visible Church 
 of Ephesus, entitled to apply to themselves the 
 apostle^s language respecting the " habitation of God 
 through the Spirit : " while the expression " all the 
 building,^' as contrasted with the words " ye also," is 
 clearly calculated to include not only the saints which 
 then were at Ephesus, but with them all true believers 
 throughout the world. 
 
 In the same epistle, the church is described under 
 another metaphor — God " gave him " (Jesus Christ) 
 " to he head over all things to the Church, which is 
 his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." 
 (Eph. i. 22, 23.) And, after exhorting the Ephesians 
 ^^to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," 
 the apostle adds : '^ There is one body, and one Spirit, 
 even as ye are called in one hope of your calling ; one 
 Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of 
 all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all " 
 (Eph. iv. 3—6.) And again, Christ 'Moved the 
 Church, and gave himself for it; that he might 
 sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by 
 the word, that he might present it to himself a 
 glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any 
 such thing ; but that it should be holy and without 
 blemish." (Eph. v. 25 — 27.) Putting these passages 
 
14 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 together, we find the Church described as " one body/' 
 having Christ for its Head ; and for its bond of union 
 " one Spirit/' " one hope/' " one Lord, one faith, one 
 baptism, one God and Father of all,"' dwelling " in ^* 
 '^ all '' the members — This, therefore, is an universal, 
 and also a spiritual Church. " One baptism,^^ though 
 mentioned as a sign of membership, is only one of 
 many signs, without which baptism alone does not 
 constitute any individual a member of this spiritual 
 church. This church our Lord cleanses and sanctifies, 
 by cleansing and sanctifying all the individual members, 
 till at the last day he will present it to himself, "■ a 
 glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any 
 such thing, but that it should be holy and without 
 blemish." 
 
 In two other epistles the same apostle uses the 
 same metaphor. " As the body is one and hath many 
 members, and all the members of that one body, being 
 many, are one body : so also is Christ. For by one 
 Spirit are we all ^ baptized into one body, whether we 
 be Jews or Gentiles, whether lue be bond or free, and 
 have been all made to drink into one Spirit." (1 Cor. 
 xii. 12, 13.) "He" (the Son of God) "is the head 
 of the body, the church." (Col. i. 18.)—" the Head 
 
 ^ " We all "—not, ye all. The epistle is addressed " 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 their's and our's." (1 Cor. i. 2.) By the 
 words—" we all "—the apostle denotes all " who are sanctified in Christ 
 Jesus," and does not necessarily include all the members of the visible 
 church at Corinth . 
 
INTRODUCTICN. 15 
 
 from which all the body by joints and bands having 
 nourishment ministered_, and knit together^ increas- 
 eth with the increase of God." (Col. ii. 19.) The 
 church, of which the apostle speaks, is " one body " — 
 consequently it is the universal church. Its head is 
 Christ ; its members, those who have been " baptized 
 into it " by the Holy " Spirit/' who have been " made 
 to drink into one Spirit,'^ who " holding the Head/' 
 (Col. ii. 19.) draw nourishment therefrom and are 
 thereby " knit together " — consequently it is a spirit- 
 ual church, consisting of all those, and exclusively 
 of those, who are born again of the Holy Spirit, and 
 derive spiritual nourishment from Christ the Head by 
 spiritual union with Him. And what glorious things 
 does the apostle say of this spiritual church universal ! 
 " It increaseth with the increase of God : " it is '' the 
 fulness of him, that filleth all in all." Christ Jesus 
 
 will " present it to himself a glorious Church 
 
 holy and without blemish." 
 
 Our Lord, as we have seen, on the first occasion 
 recorded of his mentioning this churchy called it His 
 church. On another occasion, though without using 
 the word church, he described it as a '^ sheepfold," of 
 which the members were his " sheep," and himself 
 the " shepherd.'^ The character of the sheep is, that 
 they '' hear his voice;" "the sheep follow him, for 
 they know his voice ; and a stranger will they not 
 follow, but will flee from him, for they know not the 
 voice of strangers " — " I am the good shepherd," added 
 our Lord addressing the Jews, " and know my sheep, 
 
16 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, 
 even so know I the Father : and I lay down my life 
 for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not 
 of this fold ; them also I must bring, and they shall 
 hear my voice ; and there shall be one fold, and one 
 shepherd." (John x. 1 — 16.) When farther questioned 
 by the Jews, our Lord answered them — "Ye believe 
 not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto 
 you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, 
 and they follow me : and I give unto them eternal life ; 
 and they shall never perish, neither shall any man 
 pluck them out my hand.'^ (John x. 24 — 28.) Here 
 we have an account of Christ's sheep ; their character^ 
 that they hear his voice, and follow him ; their final 
 blessedness, that they shall never perish — an account 
 which necessarily excludes mere nominal Christians. 
 These true believers constitute the flock of Christ, are 
 brought into one fold, his spiritiial Church universal, 
 of which He is the Shepherd. 
 
 These are they for whom our Lord prayed just before 
 he went forth to Gethsemane, when he said — "Neither 
 pray I for these " (my apostles) " alone, but for them 
 also which shall believe on me through their word ; 
 that they all may be one ; as thou. Father, art 
 in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in 
 us ; that the world may believe that thou hast sent 
 me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have 
 given them; that they may be one, even as we 
 are one : I in them, and thou in me, that they may 
 be made perfect in one." (John xvii. 20—23.) 
 
INTRODUCTION. 17 
 
 This prayer undoubtedly was heard, and was and 
 will be answered. All, therefore, who ever have be- 
 lieved, or now believe, or shall hereafter believe in 
 Jesus Christ through the word of his apostles, are one ; 
 are, by virtue of that faith and by Christ dwelling in 
 them, united together into one body with him — into 
 His spiritual church universal, of which He is both 
 the head and the life. It is clear from this passage, 
 that the bond of their union is spiritual — Christ 
 dwelling in them by his Spirit. 
 
 This church is an universal church ; for it comprizes 
 all true believers in all countries, and in all ages.' It 
 is a spiritual church ; for its unity is not an outward 
 bond, but the unity of the Spirit. It is an Invisible 
 Church, invisible (as a Church)" to the eye of man ; 
 '^ the general assembly and Church of the first-born, 
 whose names are written in Heaven " (Heb. xii. 23), who 
 are all known to the great Head and Shepherd of the 
 Church, though often unknown to the world and even 
 to each other. 
 
 We have, however, distinct intimations in Scripture 
 respecting another Society, which may properly be 
 called ^^ the Visible Church Universal ^^ though it is 
 
 ' " Ye are come .... to the general assembly and church of the 
 first-born, which are written in heaven." Heb. xii. 22, 23. 
 
 ^ Undoubtedly the Christians, who from time to time protested against 
 the corruptions of the apostacy, and formed themselves into separate com- 
 munities (the Paulikians, the Albigenses, the Waldenses, and others) 
 ■weve visible churches oi C\iv\s,t, witnessing for this truth: but they did 
 noi con?,i\i\i.ie one universal visible church, nor did they comprize all the 
 members of ChrisCs spiritual Church. 
 
18 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 not generally (if it is ever) called in Scripture "the 
 Church/^ Our Lord, in several of his parables, de- 
 scribes it under the name of " the kingdom of Heaven." 
 
 In one parable, he compares " the kingdom of Hea- 
 ven " to " a net, that was cast into the sea, and ga- 
 thered of every kind : which, when it was full they 
 drew to the shore, and sat down and gathered the good 
 into vessels, but cast the bad away." (Mat. xiii. 47, 
 48). He had already promised Peter and Andrew, 
 that he would make them fishers of men (Matt. iv. 
 18, 19): and in this parable he intimates, that the net 
 of the gospel would gather out of the world into the 
 visible church disciples " of every kind," both " good " 
 and "bad." 
 
 In another parable, our Lord compared " the king- 
 dom of heaven," to a marriage supper made by a king 
 for his son. In this parable we have first those, who 
 " would not come," those who rejected the invitations 
 of the gospel ; and secondly those whom the king's 
 servants " gathered together .... both bad and good. 
 And the wedding was furnished with guests." These 
 guests, who were thus gathered together, represent the 
 visible church, called out from the world, yet com- 
 prizing both " bad and good." But they did not all 
 partake of the supper. " When the king came in to 
 see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on 
 a wedding-garment ; " and the king commanded his 
 servants to bind him, " and take hnn away, and cast 
 him into outer darkness." Whether all the others (both 
 " bad and good") had put on one of the king's wed- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 19 
 
 ding-garments and were allowed therefore to remain, or 
 the individual particularized was only one of many who 
 had neglected to put on a wedding-garment, is not 
 material to the present question. We may rather infer 
 the latter to be the meaning, as our Lord adds — " For 
 many are called, but few are chosen. '' (Mat. xxii. 1 — 
 14.) Whether the king excluded one or more of those 
 who entered among the guests, the rest only — the 
 guests who were allowed to remain — constituted the 
 spiritual church, though all were comprized in the 
 visible church. 
 
 On another occasion our Lord said, " I am the true 
 vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch 
 in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away. '' (John 
 XV. 1, 2.) It may seem strange, how any branch in 
 Christ, can fail to bear fruit, but our Lord explains 
 it. " If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a 
 branch and is withered." (ib. 6.) This is the branch 
 in Christ which bringeth not forth fruit; a branch 
 united to the vine externally by dried and withered 
 bark, but deriving no sap or nourishment from the 
 living trunk, and therefore unable to bear fruit. The 
 vine, with the fruitful branches to which it supplies all 
 the needful juices, is an apt emblem of the spiritual 
 Church. Christ is the root and stem from which all the 
 nourishment proceeds to the members of his spiritual 
 church, the living, fruitful branches : while the branches 
 which bear no fruit, because only externally joined to 
 the stem, represent those members of the visible church, 
 who are not also members of the spiritual church. 
 
20 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 I have dwelt tlie longer on this distinction between 
 the spiritual and the visible church, because much error 
 has arisen from overlooking the distinction, and apply- 
 ing to the one, passages of Scripture which exclusively 
 belong to the other. ^ The spiritual church, however, 
 does not fall immediately within the range of the present 
 investigation. The spiritual church, it is obvious, can 
 have no external constitution or form of government. 
 Our inquiry necessarily relates to a visible church, 
 particular, local, or universal. The inquiry is, whether 
 respecting the constitution of a particular or local 
 church, its form of government, its rulers, pastors, and 
 teachers ; its discipline, rites, and ceremonies ; its con- 
 nection with other particular or local churches, or with 
 the visible church universal, and whether respecting 
 the constitution of the visible church universal, we can 
 find in Scripture any and what precepts or examples, in- 
 tended for the direction of Christians, and binding upon 
 them, in all ages und under all cii'cumstances. 
 
 ^ See a powerful passage on this error, and misapplication of Scripture, 
 in Ancient Christianity, Vol. i. p. 485 et seq. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE GOVERN- 
 MENT, EXTENSION, AND EDIFICATION OF HIS 
 CHURCH. 
 
 Having thus ascertained the scriptural meaning of 
 the word Church, and enunciated the subjects proposed 
 for inquiry, the first step to be taken in the investiga- 
 tion is to examine what provision our Lord himself, 
 previously to his ascension, made for the government, 
 extension, and edification of His church. 
 
 His first measure was to choose among his disciples 
 twelve, whom he called apostles, viz. Simon whom 
 he surnamed Peter, and Andrew his brother ; James 
 the son of Zebedee and John his brother ; Philip and 
 Bartholomew ; Thomas surnamed Didymus, and Mat- 
 thew the publican ; James the son of Alpheus, and 
 Lebbeus whose surname was Thaddeus, or (as he is 
 called by St. Luke) Judas the brother of James; 
 Simon the Canaanite who was called Zelotes, and 
 
2^ PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 Judas Iscariot. (Matt. x. 1—4. Mark iii. 13—19. 
 Luke vi. 13 — 15 .) These twelve had previously become 
 his disciples ; and some of them had been specially 
 called by our Lord to follow him. Peter and Andrew 
 appear to have first sought Jesus in consequence of 
 John the Baptist having pointed Him out to Andrew 
 and another disciple (probably the apostle John) as 
 " the Lamb of God : " Andrew first went with that 
 other disciple to the abode of Jesus, and then took 
 his brother Peter with him. (John i. 37—42.) But 
 they did not at that time become his habitual atten- 
 dants. Peter and Andrew still pursued their occu- 
 pation as fishermen : and it was while engaged in this 
 occupation, that they were called by Jesus to follow 
 him, with the promise that He would make them 
 " fishers of men.^^ On the same day Jesus called 
 James and John the sons of Zebedee. (Mat. iv. 18 — 22. 
 Mark i. 16—20. Luke v. 8—11.) Shortly after the 
 visit of Andrew and Peter, our Lord called Philip to 
 follow him (John i. 43.) : and, on another occasion 
 previous to the appointment of the twelve apostles. 
 He called Matthew the publican (who seems to be the 
 same with Levi the son of Alpheus) while sitting at 
 the seat of custom. (Matt. ix. 9. Mark ii. 14. Luke 
 v. 27.) Probably all these six, from the time of their 
 being so called, became stated followers of Jesus : for 
 of Peter and Andrew it is recorded that they " left 
 their nets and followed him '' (Matt. iv. 20. Mark i. 
 18.) ; and of the two sons of Zebedee, as well as of 
 Peter, that "they forsook all and followed him/' (Luke 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 23 
 
 V.8 — 11.) and of Levi, that "he left all, rose up, and 
 followed him/^ (Luke v. 27, 28.) It was at a period 
 subsequent to these several calls, that our Lord chose 
 these six with six other disciples_, named them " apos- 
 tles," and ordained them, " that they should be with 
 him, and that he might send them forth to preach, 
 and to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out 
 devils." (Mark iii. 14—16. Luke vi. 13—16. 
 
 At a still later period, our Lord called the twelve 
 together ; endued them with authority over all devils, 
 with power to cast out unclean spirits, to heal all 
 manner of diseases, and to raise the dead ; and sent 
 them forth by two and two to preach the gospel in 
 Judea. (Luke ix. 1. Mark vi. 7. Matt. x. 1—8.) 
 
 On this occasion he gave them what may be called 
 their first commission. It is exclusively of a mis- 
 sionary character, but expressly limited to Judea. 
 They were to go ''to the lost sheep of the house of 
 Israel,^' " not into the way of the Gentiles " or 
 ''into any city of the Samaritans.^' They were to 
 " preach " (proclaim as heralds) " the kingdom of 
 God'' — to " preach, the kingdom of heaven is at hand." 
 They were to vouch their authority by healing the sick, 
 raising the dead, and casting out devils : and our Lord 
 declared to them : " He that receiveth you receiveth 
 me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent 
 me." (Luke ix. 1, 2. Matt. xi. 5—8, 40. Mark 
 vi. 7.) We have already seen what our Lord meant 
 by ^* the kingdom of heaven," when he illustrated its 
 nature by various parables. The apostles, therefore. 
 
S4 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 were now commanded to preach the gospel ; and to 
 proclaim as heralds, that His visible church was about 
 to supplant the Israelitish church, — the gospel dispen- 
 sation to supersede the Mosaic dispensation. Not 
 that they were, during this their first mission, to 
 declare these important truths explicitly; for as yet 
 they knew not that the Mosaic economy was about to 
 be set aside : but they were to declare that '' the king- 
 dom of heaven '^ was ^' at hand,^^ and to prepare the 
 way for the Christian dispensation. 
 
 This was the substance of the commission which 
 our Lord on this occasion gave to the apostles. He 
 added some special directions ; commanding them to 
 make no provision for the journey, but to claim the 
 hospitality of the most worthy inhabitant of each city 
 which they should visit — with a solemn declaration 
 annexed : " Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear 
 your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, 
 shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto 
 you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom 
 and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that 
 city.'' (Matt. x. 9—15. Mark vi. 8—11. Luke ix. 
 3 — 5.) These directions were temporary, intended 
 for the period during which their journeys were res- 
 tricted to Judea, their native country : and our Lord, 
 immediately after his last supper, when he was about 
 to enlarge the sphere of their missionary labours, 
 revoked these directions, and gave others in their 
 place. (Luke xxii. 35, 36.) But, on this very occasion 
 he renewed the declaration : " He that receiveth 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. f?5 
 
 whomsoever I send^ receiveth me ; and he that re- 
 ceiveth me receiveth him that sent me." (John xiii. 
 20.) And when a persecution was raised at Antioch 
 in Pisidia against Paul and Barnabas^ '' they shook 
 off the dust of their feet against them, and came unto 
 Iconium/^ (Acts xiii. 50, 51.) The special directions 
 were temporary ; the declaration annexed perpetual as 
 regards those whom our Lord really sends; and 
 amidst these directions, temporary though they were, 
 a principle is laid down applicable to the maintenance 
 of Christian ministers in every age — " the workman is 
 worthy of his meat.'' (Matt. x. 10.) 
 
 On the same occasion, our Lord warned his apostles 
 of the persecution which they would encounter ; and 
 promised them his Holy Spirit to teach them what to 
 say when brought before kings and governors for his 
 sake. (Matt. X. 17 — 19.) But in this he looked forward 
 to events of a later period, as they do not appear to have 
 been persecuted or brought before kings or governors 
 while engaged in this mission, or at any time before 
 our Lord's ascension. 
 
 In obedience to our Lord's command, the apostles 
 went through the towns, preaching the gospel, calling 
 on men to repent, casting out many devils, healing 
 everywhere, anointing many that were sick and healing 
 them. (Luke ix. 6. Mark vi. 12, 13.) They returned 
 to Jesus, and told him all that they had done in their 
 journey (Luke ix. 10, Mark vi. 30), the only mission 
 on which our Lord is recorded to have sent them pre- 
 vious to his crucifixion. 
 
 c 
 
26 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 Others, however^ besides the apostles, he called to 
 the ministry, while he continued on earth. The first 
 call to the ministry, of which we read, after that of the 
 apostles, is the call of one, who being commanded by 
 Jesus to follow him, asked leave first to bury his father. 
 To him our Lord replied — " Let the dead bury their 
 dead : but go thou and preach the kingdom of God/^ 
 (Luke ix. 59, 60.) We read nothing more of this 
 man ; but it is not improbable, that he was one of the 
 seventy disciples, whose mission must next be noticed. 
 
 "After these things, the Lord appointed other seventy 
 also, and sent them two and two before his face, into 
 every city and place, whither he himself would come.^^ 
 (Luke X. 1.) But, since we hear nothing of them as 
 distinguished from other disciples after their return 
 from this mission, it is unnecessary to enter into a 
 minute examination of it. It is sufficient to observe, 
 that they were to heal the sick, and to say " the king- 
 dom of God is come nigh unto you ; '' and that their 
 commission contained directions respecting maintenance, 
 promises to such as should receive and hear them, and 
 denunciations against such as should reject or despise 
 them, similar to those comprized in the commission of 
 the apostles. On their return they said : " Lord, even 
 the devils are subject unto us through thy name.'^ 
 And our Lord then confirmed to them the gift of 
 v/orking miracles ; saying : " Behold, I give unto you 
 power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all 
 the power of the enemy ; and nothing shall by any 
 means hurt you.^^ (Luke x. 1 — 19.) Their commis- 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. S7 
 
 sion_, therefore^ was permanent^ not temporary, not 
 limited to the particular mission on which our Lord 
 then sent them ; though their subsequent proceedings 
 are not recorded. 
 
 We read of no other appointment to the ministry 
 prior to our Lord's ascension. We must, therefore, 
 revert to the apostles. Hitherto, as far as is recorded, 
 our Lord had given them no directions respecting the 
 constitution or government of his church. He had in- 
 vested them with some miraculous powers, power to 
 cast out devils, to heal diseases, and to raise the dead ; 
 he had commissioned them to preach the gospel to the 
 lost sheep of the house of Israel, in the cities and 
 villages of Judea : he had denounced divine wrath on 
 those who should reject their message ; and he had 
 promised them the supernatural guidance of the Holy 
 Spirit, when they should be brought before rulers and 
 councils for his sake. Further powers, a wider com- 
 mission, fuller promises he afterwards gave them at in- 
 tervals before his ascension into heaven : and these 
 must now be examined. 
 
 The first occurrence of this kind, which calls for our 
 consideration, is the following : 
 
 Our Lord having asked his disciples, " Whom say ye 
 that I am," Simon Peter answered : "Thou art the 
 Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus said : " Blessed 
 art thou, Simon Barjona : for flesh and blood hath not 
 revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in hea- 
 ven. And I say also unto thee. That thou art Peter, 
 and upon this rock I will build my Church -, and the 
 :C 2 
 
.28 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will 
 give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : 
 and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound 
 in heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, 
 shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt. xvi. 15 — 19.) 
 
 This declaration of our Lord consists of three pro- 
 mises — 
 
 The first promise is : " Upon this rock I will build 
 my Church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
 against it." This promise has been already considered. 
 It has been shown that the rockj of which our Lord 
 spake, was not Peter, but the faith which he had just 
 before professed ; and that the church, against which 
 " the gates of hell shall not prevail," was the universal 
 spiritual Church, built on the rock of that faith. 
 
 The second promise is : "I will give unto thee the 
 keys of the kingdom of heaven" — the keys of the 
 kingdom of heaven — it is essential to mark the precise 
 expression. Our Lord promised not to Peter the keys 
 of the invisible world, or of the world to come : for our 
 Lord himself, long after this promise to Peter,^ de- 
 clared to the apostle John — " I am alive for evermore, 
 Amen ; and have the keys of hell '' (Hades, the invisi- 
 ble world) "and of death '^ (Rev. i. 18). Nor did He 
 promise to Peter the key of the spiritual church : for 
 our Lord (on the occasion of the same revelation to 
 St. John) characterized himself as " he that hath the 
 key of David,2 he that openeth and no man shutteth ; 
 
 ' At a time, Avhen according to ecclesiastical history, Peter was dead. 
 - " The key of David," indeed, is an expression used in another sense. 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 29 
 
 and shutteth, and no man openeth." (Rev. iii. 7.) 
 But our Lord promised to Peter the keys of the king- 
 dom of heaven, of that kingdom which He had already 
 commissioned his apostles to proclaim as being " at 
 hand '' (Matt. x. 7) ; of the visible church of Christ 
 which was about to be set up on earth.' Our Lord 
 used similar language, when He declared : " Woe unto 
 you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye shut up the 
 kingdom of heaven against men : for ye neither go in 
 yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to 
 go in.^^ (Matt, xxiii. 13.) "Woe unto you, lawyers! 
 for ye have taken away the key of knowledge : ye enter 
 not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye 
 hindered." (Lukexi. 5^.) "The Scribes and Pharisees," 
 sat '' in Moses seat." (Matt, xxiii, 2.) They and the 
 lawyers were the authorized expounders and teachers 
 of the law of Moses : but by teaching false doctrine, 
 by withholding the truth of God, and by superadding 
 " the traditions of men," they not only rejected Christ 
 themselves, but kept many from receiving, who were 
 
 in the prophet Isaiah, when by his mouth God said of Eliakira the son 
 of Hilkiah : " The key of David will I lay upon his shoulder ; so he 
 shall open, and none shall shut ; and he shall shut, and none shall open." 
 (Isaiah xxii. 20 — 22.) This, as the context shows, is a prophecy of 
 Eliakim's promotion to the treasurership in the place of Shebna, when 
 he would receive the key of office, and have full control over the coffers 
 in which the treasure was kept, and over the treasure-house •, though per- 
 haps the prophecy may be expressed in terras exhibiting Eliakim as a type 
 of Christ, who dispenses the Heavenly treasure. 
 
 ^ We have already seen (ch. i.), that our Lord, in several of his 
 parables, described his visible church under the appellation of " the 
 kingdom of heaven." 
 
30 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 disposed to receive^ his gospel ; while, by the terror of 
 being put out from the synagogue, they hindered others 
 from openly confessing themselves disciples of Jesus 
 and entering into his visible Church. Our Lord, when 
 he promised to give to Peter the keys of the kingdom 
 of heaven, used the future tense (" I will give '^ — not 
 — ^' I give"). It was not a present investiture of au- 
 thority. It was a prophetic intimation, that Peter, the 
 Jirst after our Lord's ascension — the first, not in rank 
 or authority, but in order of time — should by his 
 preaching open the door of the visible church, bring- 
 ing converts into it : and accordingly Peter first did 
 so open the door both to Jews and circumcised pro- 
 selytes on the day of Pentecost,^ and to the uncir- 
 cumcised Gentiles when he baptized Cornelius and his 
 friends.^ 
 
 The third promise made by our Lord on the occasion 
 of Peter's confession of faith is : " Whatsoever thou 
 shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and 
 whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in 
 heaven.'^ Very extensive authority is unquestionably 
 implied in these words : but, whatever that authority 
 be, it was not committed to Peter alone ; for on a sub- 
 sequent occasion the very same words were addressed 
 by Jesus to his apostles in general. (Matt, xviii. 18.) 
 The words relate to things, ^ not to persons ; and re- 
 fer therefore to general rules, not to individual offences. 
 Our Lord by these words gave his apostles power 
 
 ^ Acts ii. 2 Acts X. 44—48. 
 
 ^ The original word is neuter in both passages. 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 31 
 
 authoritatively to declare the laws of his church, and 
 its doctrine as to both faith and practice ; to make 
 provision for its government, discipline, and ordinances; 
 — these things they were to " bind : "" he also em- 
 powered them to establish his church and the Chris- 
 tian dispensation in the place of the Israelitish church 
 and the Mosaic dispensation, which, together with the 
 Mosaic types and ceremonies (the shadows of Christ 
 and his salvation) were to pass away, now that the 
 substance was come — these things, the Israelitish 
 church, the Mosaic dispensation, the ritual and cere- 
 monial law, they were to "loose." And our Lord 
 promised, that in thus legislating for his church and 
 preaching the gospel, they should be so preserved from 
 error, that whatsoever they should bind or loose on 
 earth, should be bound or loosed in heaven. That 
 this is the meaning i of the promise made to Peter 
 will more clearly appear, when we consider the cir- 
 cumstances under which it was afterwards made to all 
 the apostles : and, as it was on this occasion made to 
 Peter hy name, we may conclude that the authority to 
 bind and loose was given to the apostles individually : 
 so that each of them was alike to be preserved from 
 error in whatsoever he should individually bind or 
 loose. 
 
 * Its precise and full meaning, especially as regarded the ritual law, 
 was not at the time understood by the apostles. This was one of those 
 things, which our Lord had "spoken" to them " in proverbs" (John 
 xvi. 25) ;— of those things, which they could not then bear, but which 
 the Spirit should afterwards teach them. (lb. 12, 13.) 
 
32 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 There is nothing, therefore, in the passage under 
 consideration, or in any one of the three promises 
 which it contains, nothing importing that Peter was 
 to have any authority exclusive of or paramount to the 
 other apostles, or any rank before or above them. 
 That our Lord did not intend to confer, and that the 
 apostles did not understand him to have conferred, any 
 precedency on Peter, is also manifest from the strife 
 for superiority which repeatedly arose among the 
 apostles, from our Lord^s repeated rebukes of that 
 strife, (Matt, xviii. 1—5. xx. 20—28. Mark ix. 33—37. 
 X. 35—45. Luke ix. 46—48. xxii. 24—27.) and 
 from his declaration to the sons of Zebedee : " to sit 
 on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, 
 but it shall be given to tliem for whom it is prepared 
 of my Father." (Matt. xx. 23.) Had the primacy 
 been conferred on Peter when he made his confession 
 of faith, surely our Lord would have answered the re- 
 quest of the sons of Zebedee by telling them : " the 
 first place in my kingdom is already conferred on 
 Peter " — instead of which he says : it ^' is not mine to 
 give except to those for whom it has been prepared by 
 my Father.'^ ^ Peter never claimed, nor did the other 
 apostles ever concede to him, any superiority of rank 
 or authority. St. Paul more than once claims equality 
 
 ^ This is the correct translation of the original— d\A' oh T)T6ifJLaaTai 
 virh Tov irarp6s fi8. The words " it shall be given " introduced into the 
 authorized version emharrass the sense : and that dAAa may be trans- 
 lated except is clear from a comparison of Mark ix. 8. with Matt. xvii. 8. 
 St. Mark expresses by oAAd what St. Matthew expresses by ii fii]. 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 33 
 
 with "the very chiefest apostles" (2 Cor. xi. 5, xii. 
 11.) : and he tells the Galatians — "the Gospel of the 
 uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the Gospel oi 
 the circumcision ivas unto Peter ; (for he that wrought 
 effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumci- 
 sion, the same was mighty in me towards the Gentiles : ) 
 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be 
 pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they 
 gave unto me and Barnabas the right hands of fellow- 
 ship ; that we should go unto the heathen, and they 
 unto the circumcision.^' (Gal. ii. 7 — 9.) Here we find 
 James, Peter, and John named together — Peter not 
 being even placed first in order — as pillars ; and we 
 find them acknowledging the like grace given to Paul 
 as to themselves, and agreeing to go themselves to 
 the circumcision, while Paul and Barnabas went to the 
 heathen. 
 
 I now proceed to examine the circumstances under 
 which our Lord, on an occasion subsequent to Peter's 
 profession of faith, conferred on the apostles in general 
 the power to bind and to loose. 
 
 After relating the payment by our Lord of tribute 
 for himself and Peter by means of a piece of money, 
 which (under his direction) Peter found in the mouth 
 of a fish, (Matt. xvii. 24 — 27.) the evangelist proceeds : 
 " At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, say- 
 ing, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven ? '' 
 Our Lord first answered the question by setting up a 
 little child in the midst of them, as an emblem of the 
 character of those who should be admitted into the 
 c 5 
 
34 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 kingdom of heaven. Then he warned the disciples 
 against offences or stumbhng-blocks. Next he taught 
 them his compassion to sinners by the parable of the 
 lost sheep : and, after telling them that he was come 
 " to save that which was lost/^ he gave directions for 
 the conduct of a Christian towards an offending 
 brother — ^' Moreover/^ he said, " if thy brother shall 
 trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between 
 thee and him alone : if he will hear thee^ thou hast 
 gained thy brother. But if he will not hear theej then 
 take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of 
 two or three witnesses every word may be established. 
 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the 
 Church : but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him 
 be unto thee as an heathen man and a Publican. 
 Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on 
 earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever ye 
 shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again 
 I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth 
 as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be 
 done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For ^ 
 where two or three are gathered together in my name, 
 there am I in the midst of them.'^ (Matt, xviii. 1 — 20.) 
 The general purport of the directions respecting an 
 
 ^ " For " — 7op — I should in this place rather translate it " indeed " — 
 importing a more extensive promise— 70/? is not always illative. It is 
 sometimes used to denote the continuation of a discourse, as in Matt. i. 
 18, and Luke ix. 44 : and sometimes may be rendered " verily, " or 
 '-' no doubt," as in Acts xvi. 37. and 1 Cor. ix. 10. and as it might have 
 been rendered in John ix. 30, where our translators have rendered it 
 " why." 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 35 
 
 offending brother is obvious. The party offended is to 
 tell the offender his fault first privately ; and, if the 
 offender refuse to hear, then in the presence of one or 
 two brethren ; and, if he refuse to hear them, then 
 to "the church.^' The universal church could not be 
 intended — for such a course of proceeding would be 
 impracticable : nor yet the apostles as rulers of the 
 church — for they could not spare time to investigate 
 the private differences of individual Christians : either 
 the particular or local church to which the offender 
 belonged, or the rulers or appointed officer of that 
 congregation or church must have been meant ; and 
 probably our Lord left it to his apostles to give more 
 special instructions on the point. ^ — "But," our Lord 
 adds, " if he neglect to hear the church, let him be 
 to thee as a heathen man and a publican ; " — in that case 
 the injured party, though not released, as regarded the 
 offender, from what every Christian owes to his neigh- 
 hour according to our Lord^s extended use of that 
 term, (Luke. x. 25 — 27.) was no longer bound to 
 treat him as a Christian brother-, and perhaps the 
 church also was to disown the offender, — to excommu- 
 nicate him, — to exclude him from Christian ordinances, 
 till he repented and submitted to its decision— but this 
 is not necessarily included in the expression : " let 
 him be to thee as a heathen man." 
 
 Do then the words which follow these directions 
 respecting an offending brother, — " Whatsoever ye 
 
 * We shall hereafter consider the directions given by the apostle Paul 
 to the Corinthian Church on this subject. 
 
36 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and 
 whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in 
 heaven," — do these v^^ords import, that every judgment, 
 pronounced by the church in controversies between its 
 members respecting any private wrong, shall be ratified 
 in heaven ? It has been contended, that both these 
 words, andthe promise which our Lord immediately adds 
 — " Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree 
 on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it 
 shall be done for them of myFather which is in heaven : 
 for where two or three are gathered together in my 
 name, there am I in the midst of them^^ — are to be 
 read in connection with the directions respecting an 
 offending brother ; that the power to bind and loose 
 is to be exercised by the pastor and flock of the con- 
 gregation to which the offender belongs ; and that 
 exclusion from church-fellowship is the binding, and 
 remission of church censures the loosing, of which our 
 Lord speaks.^ If this were the true interpretation, it 
 would follow — either that every particular congrega- 
 tion of 2^f^ofessing Christians possesses infallibility in 
 this particular, and will never in the exercise of church 
 discipline pronounce any but a righteous judgment — 
 or that whosoever is (under whatever circumstances) 
 excluded from church fellowship by any congregation 
 
 ^ This is the view taken of the passage by Mr. Godkiii, formerly a 
 Romanist, but now a dissenting minister, in his " Guide from the Church 
 of Rome to the Church of Christ." But surel}'' the promise, that what- 
 soever the parties to whom it is made should bind or loose on earth, 
 should be bound or loosed in Jieaven, must mean something more than 
 exclusion from, or readmission to, church fellowship. 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 37 
 
 of professing Christians, and continues so excluded 
 till his death, will at the last day find his sentence 
 (be it a righteous, or be it an unrighteous sentence) 
 affirmed by the righteous Judge of the world, and 
 himself excluded from the church above ! And the 
 same objection would apply to any interpretation of the 
 passage, which should ascribe to " the chui'ch " the 
 power to bind and loose, whatever meaning we assign 
 to the word church in this passage. 
 
 Nor is there any thing in our Lord^s discourse on 
 this occasion, which requires us to connect the power 
 to bind and loose, either with the preceding, or with the 
 following passage. Our Lord^s discourse on this occa- 
 sion comprizes various matters, having no necessary 
 or very close connection with each other : and, when 
 he passes from the directions respecting an offending 
 brother to the binding and loosing power, there is a 
 change of phraseology which indicates a change both 
 in the parties addressed and in the subject. In 
 the directions respecting an offending brother, our 
 Lord says : " if thy brother shall trespass against 
 THEE^' — language which imports a general precept 
 belonging to all Christians — and he concludes : '' if 
 he neglect to hear the church, let him be to thee 
 as a heathen man and a publican. ^^ Then, passing 
 on to the power to bind and loose, our Lord proceeds : 
 '^Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind/' 
 'Svhatsoever ye shall loose." We may therefore 
 conclude that he is entering on a new subject. In 
 like manner, after concluding the promise of the 
 
38 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 binding and loosing power_, our Lord says : " Again I 
 say unto you ^' entering (as the word again ^ intimates) 
 on a new subject — united prayer. These passages 
 then are not necessarily connected ; and their juxta- 
 position is wholly insufficient of itself to establish a 
 connection, which would imply in the church a species 
 of infallibility never yet (as far as I am aware) 
 claimed by any church. Had our Lord intended to 
 establish a tribunal with authority so to decide private 
 controversies between Christians, that God himself 
 would invariably affirm its decisions, he would have 
 pointed out its constitution more distinctly than by 
 the word translated church, which, (as we have seen) 
 means sometimes the universal church and at other 
 times a local or particular church, or congregation. 
 And, as the righteous governor of heaven and earth 
 unquestionably will never ratify a wrong judgment, 
 such tribunal must have been endued with a power 
 (never before committed to mere man) of trying the 
 heart and reins,^ with a power of infallibly ascertain- 
 ing the truth in all matters of controversy brought 
 before it, and with undeviating integrity and unerring 
 
 '■ " Again," irdXiv. This is a word often used by our Lord, when 
 entering on a new subject. — See Matt. v. 33, or on a new parable, Matt, 
 xiii. 44, 45, 47. 
 
 ^ To try the heart and reins is repeatedly in Scripture declared to be 
 the Prerogative of God. " I the Lord search the heart, / try the reins ; 
 even to give to every man according to his ways." (Jer. xvii. 10.) " Thou, 
 even thou only, knowestthe hearts of all the children of men." (1 Kings 
 viii. 89.) " The righteous God trieth the hearts and reins." (Ps. vii. 9.) 
 The apostles and other disciples, assembled after our Lord's ascension, 
 " prayed and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men. 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 39 
 
 wisdom to award such a judgment as should be suitable 
 to the truth of the case so ascertained. 
 
 The way is now cleared for considering as a distinct 
 and separate promise — '' whatsoever ye shall bind on 
 earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever ye 
 shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven/' (Matt. 
 xviii. 18.) 
 
 This is unquestionably a promise of weighty import. 
 
 To whom is it made ? To the apostles^ and to the 
 apostles only. The whole of our Lord's discourse on 
 this occasion is addressed to " the disciples/' who had 
 asked him, " who is greatest in the kingdom of hea- 
 ven ? " It begins with an answer to that question : 
 "Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted 
 and become as little children, ye shall not enter into 
 the kingdom of heaven : Whosoever, therefore, shall 
 humble himself as this little child, the same is 
 greatest in the kingdom of heaven : " and, though it 
 
 shew whether of these two thou hast chosen." (Actsi. 24.) And our 
 Lord, in the Apocalypse, claims to himself the same prerogative : " I 
 am he which searcheth the reins and hearts, and I will give to every one 
 of you according to your works." (Rev. ii. 23.) See also 1 Chron. xxviii. 
 9. Jer. xi. 20 ; xx. 12. Rom. viii. 27. and 1 Thess. ii. 4. On special 
 occasions, indeed, and for special purposes, God has revealed to one man 
 what was in the heart of another, as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira 
 (Acts V.) : and, among other supernatural powers given to some members 
 of the early church, we find the " discerning of spirits," just as we 
 find "prophecy," enumerated. (1 Cor. xii. 10.) But in so revealing the 
 heart of one man to another, God exercises, without imparting, his own 
 Prerogative of trying the heart and searching the reins ; just as, when he 
 inspires a prophet, he only exercises his own glorious attribute of knowing 
 all things from the beginning. And, as the spirit of prophecy, so also 
 '' the discerning of spirits," has long since ceased. 
 
40 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 contains warnings and directions applicable to Chris- 
 tians in general, these are for the most part i given in 
 an altered phraseology — " whosoever shall hum- 
 ble HIMSELF '^ — ^' if THY hand or thy foot offend 
 THEE " — " if THY brother shall offend against thee : ^' 
 while the promise under consideration is directly 
 addressed to those disciples who had asked the 
 question — '^ Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye 
 shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and 
 whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed ia 
 heaven." — Those disciples were the apostles. No 
 other disciples were likely to have asked such a ques- 
 tion : the expression, '^ the disciples, '^ naturally points 
 out those, whom our Lord had chosen, and ordained 
 "that they should be with him : '' (Mark iii. 14.) and 
 the phrase " the disciples," or " his disciples," is that 
 by which St. Matthew (See xiii. 36. xiv. 15, 19, 22, 
 28. XV. 32, 33, 36. xvi. 13, 21. xvii. 10, 13, 19. xxiv. 
 3. xxvi. 17 — 20, 35, 45, 56.) constantly designated 
 the twelve, while he only once calls them " apostles.'^ 
 (x. 2.) The promise, therefore was made to the apos- 
 tles exclusively. 
 
 What then is its import ? Much light will be 
 thrown on this question by our Lord^s declaration to 
 the eleven apostles on the evening before his crucifixion, 
 after Judas Iscariot had left the room. "These things 
 
 ' I say " for the most part," because part of the discourse (v. 10 — 14.) 
 is addressed directly to those who had asked the question, though the 
 doctrine contained in it concerned all Christians. There was, however, 
 a peculiar propriety in addressing it to those who had contended for 
 superiority — it was peculiarly calculated to quell such strifes among them. 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 41 
 
 have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. 
 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom 
 the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you 
 all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, 
 whatsoever I have said unto you/^ (John xiv. 25, 26.) 
 " I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye 
 cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit 
 of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth : 
 for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever 
 he shall hear, that shall he speak ; and he will shew 
 you things to come." (John xvi. 12, 13.) Our Lord 
 did not, before his ascension, fully disclose to his apos- 
 tles all the truths of his gospel ; but he promised that 
 he would send to them the Holy Spirit, who should 
 not only bring to their remembrance all that he had 
 said to them, but lead them into all truth. Under 
 this infallible guidance, they would (in their authori- 
 tative teaching ^) teach the truth without any admixture 
 of error : and whatever they authoritatively taught 
 respecting the will of God, whether as to faith or 
 practice, whether as to the laws, government and dis- 
 cipline of the Christian church, or as to the abolition 
 
 ^ Even after the Day of Pentecost, Peter retained erroneous notions as 
 to the universal and perpetual obligation of the ceremonial law ; but was 
 by a vision prevented from teaching those notions, and enlightened as to 
 the admission of the Gentiles into the Church (Acts x.) Yet on a sub- 
 sequent occasion " he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them 
 which were of the circumcision" — on which occasion Paul " withstood 
 him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Gal. ii. 11, 12.) Thus 
 Peter's erroneous conduct is recorded, together with the corrective of 
 Paul's authoritative rebuke. 
 
42 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 of the Mosaic rites and ceremonies,, would conse- 
 quently be confirmed in heaven^ — would be confirmed 
 by our Lord himself. This is, I think, the meaning 
 of our Lord's promise, — " Whatsoever ye shall bind on 
 earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever ye 
 shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 
 
 Having thus finished our examination of these two 
 important passages (our Lord's declaration to Peter on 
 his confession of faith, and his subsequent promise to 
 all the apostles, of the power to bind and loose), 
 it may be useful to make three observations. First, 
 The promise made to Peter was expressly made on the 
 ground of the faith which he had professed, and which 
 our Lord knew him really to possess, and consequently 
 cannot be claimed by any as being his successors, inas- 
 much as they are not, as his successors, necessarily 
 partakers of " like precious faith.'' Secondly. There 
 is no reference made in either passage to any successors 
 of the apostles, nor any intimation that the power 
 thereby conferred was to be perpetuated. Thirdly. 
 The promise to the apostles was made to them per- 
 sonally, ^ because it necessarily involved a promise of 
 
 ^ I use the word " personally," to express what was addressed to 
 them exclusively and tcithout any poiver of transmission, whether address- 
 ed to them in their individual or in their apostolic character ; and I use it 
 in contradistinction to what was addressed to them in respect to those parts 
 of the apostolic office which belonged to them in common with other faith- 
 ful ministers of the gospel, whether pastors, elders, or overseer. The 
 author of Ancient Christianity (i. 493 — 497,) has pointed out the im- 
 portance of this distinction : though he expresses it as being between 
 words "addressed to the apostles personally,'"' and " officially ; " whereas 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 43 
 
 infallibility in respect of the matters included within 
 the scope of the authority. God will not engage to 
 ratify the doctrines and appointments of men, without 
 securing their infallibility, their entire conformity to his 
 will, in delivering the doctrines and making the appoint- 
 ments. Our Lord, in the early part of his ministry on 
 earth, declared : " Verily I say unto you, Till heaven 
 and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise 
 pass from the law, till all be fulfilled/' (Matt. v. 18.) 
 And he afterwards declared : " Heaven and earth shall 
 pass away, but my words shall not pass away/' (Matt. 
 xxiv. 35.) Had men been entrusted with the power 
 of binding and loosing, without being placed under an 
 infallible guide in the exercise of it, they would, in 
 some instances at least, have set aside the commands 
 of the law, and the words of our Lord : yea, fallible 
 men, impiously arrogating to themselves this power, 
 have (as far as in them lay) set aside the law of God and 
 the words of Christ, and made them of none effect by 
 their traditions. The apostles, to whom this power of 
 binding and loosing was really committed, were (as we 
 have seen) to be endued with the Holy Ghost, the 
 Spirit of truth, who should preserve them from all 
 error in their authoritative teaching, should bring to 
 their remembrance all that Jesus had taught them, 
 and should lead them into all truth necessary for the 
 
 he obviously intends to include under the latter class those words only 
 which have a " personal " as well as an " official " meaning (See lb. p. 
 494); and consequently not to include words which (though in a sense 
 addressed to them ofjickdly as apostles,) relate to parts of the apostolic 
 offiqe not intended to be perpetuated in the church. 
 
44 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 salvation of souls and the edification of the churcli. 
 This infallible guide being alike promised to them all^ 
 the power was entrusted to them personally and indi- 
 vidually : and there is nothing, either in the words con- 
 fering the power, or in the context, to intimate that it 
 could be transmitted. 
 
 Closely connected with this authority, though clearly 
 to be distinguished therefrom, is that which, as re- 
 corded by St. John^ our Lord conferred on his apostles 
 on the evening of his resurrection. After relating his 
 appearance in the morning to Mary Magdalene, the 
 evangelist proceeds : 
 
 " Then the same day at evening, being the first day 
 of the week, when the doors were shut where the dis- 
 ciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus 
 and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace 
 he unto you. And when he had so said, he shewed 
 unto them his hands and his side. Then were the 
 disciples glad when they saw the Lord. Then said 
 Jesus to them again. Peace be unto you : as my Father 
 hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had 
 said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them. 
 Receive ye the Holy Ghost : whosesoever sins ye re- 
 mit, they are remitted unto them ; and whosesoever sins 
 ye retain, they are retained. But Thomas, one of the 
 twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus 
 came.^' (John xx. 19 — 24.) 
 
 In this narrative no notice is taken of any except 
 " the disciples,'^ i. e. the apostles ; for St. John never 
 uses the word apostle, except in the Apocalypse. He 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 45 
 
 always in his Gospel speaks of the apostles as " the 
 disciples/' or "his '^ (Jesus') disciples/' (John xviii. 1. 
 compared with Luke xxii. 14 — 19.) or "the twelve" 
 — so he calls them in this very passage, though Judas 
 Iscariot was then dead. We learn, however, from St. 
 Luke, that others were assembled with the apostles 
 when our Lord appeared to them on the evening of his 
 resurrection. The two disciples, who had seen our 
 Lord at Emmaus, had " returned to Jerusalem, and 
 found the eleven," (i. e. the surviving apostles general- 
 ly, Thomas being absent) "gathered together, and 
 them that were with them." And, while they were 
 talking together of our Lord having appeared to Peter, 
 and of his interview with the two disciples going to 
 Emmaus, " Jesus himself stood in the midst." On 
 comparing the narratives of St. John (xx. 19 — 23.) 
 and St. Luke^ (xxiv. 33 — 42.) it is clear that they relate 
 to the same interview, though many different par- 
 ticulars are recorded, some in the one, and some in the 
 other, narrative : and, from an attentive perusal of 
 Luke xxiv., it will appear to be a very probable con- 
 jecture, that among those, whom the two disciples 
 found gathered together with the apostles, were the 
 women, or some of the women, who had been at the 
 sepulchere in the morning, especially as with these 
 women the eleven, after our Lord's ascension, " con- 
 tinued with one accord in prayer." (Acts i. 13, 14.) 
 Yet we cannot conceive, that the whole of what St. 
 
 ' See Appendix II. ia which I have arranged the narratives of these 
 two evangelists in parallel columns. 
 
46 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 John records our Lord to have said on this occasion 
 was addressed to this assembled company. Would he 
 have said to any but the apostles, " as my Father, hath 
 sent me, even so send I you '' ? It was of the eleven 
 exclusively that our Lord, in his prayer after his last 
 supper, said : " As thou hast sent me into the world, 
 even so have I also sent them into the world/^ ^ (John 
 xvii. 18.) And if women were present, it would ob- 
 viously be inconsistent with the principle of the 
 apostle^s directions touching the order of the church, 
 (1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35. and 1 Tim. ii. 11, IS.) to suppose 
 that such a mission was intrusted to them. On the 
 other hand, the first words which our Lord spake on 
 this occasion, and which are recorded by St. Luke 
 (xxiv. 36.) as well as by St. John — '^ Peace he unto 
 you '^ — appear to have been addressed to the whole 
 assembled company. 
 
 I think the case is this. St, John (who in his gospel 
 principally relates those events and those discourses of 
 our Lord which had been omitted by the other evange- 
 lists) records, in this passage, a renewed and enlarged 
 commision given to the apostles, Thomas however 
 being absent ; and then in a subsequent passage (xx. 
 26 — 29.) he relates what occurred eight days afterwards 
 when Thomas was present. These particulars had not 
 been noticed by the other evangelists : ^ and St. John 
 
 ^ That only the apostles were present on that occassion is clear from 
 Matt. xxvi. 20. Mark xiv. 13. Luke xxii. 14. 
 
 ^ St. Mark sums up the interview in one verse (xvi. 14.) and notices 
 only " the eleven," as present, St. Matthew is silent respecting it. 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 47 
 
 introduces his account of the commission by mention^ 
 ing some circumstances which fix the time when it was 
 given, and identify the occasion with the appearance 
 recorded by St. Luke.^ In mentioning these circum- 
 stances, it was not necessary for him to specify, that 
 others were present besides the apostles ; or that his 
 first salutation — " Peace be unto you " — was addressed, 
 and his hands and side shown, to others besides the 
 apostles. When he proceeds — " Then said Jesus to 
 them again ^' — he relates what the other evangelists 
 had omitted ; and all that follows^was addressed to the 
 apostles exclusively, our Lord distinguishing them as 
 the persons then addressed, by breathing on them. 
 
 We are now in a situation to examine the import of 
 the words so addressed to the apostles exclusively. 
 Just after his last supper, our Lord had said to the 
 eleven : *' Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto 
 you.^' (John xiv. 27.) But, when he was apprehended, 
 they had all forsaken him and fled. (Matt. xxvi. 56) — 
 one of them had thrice denied him. To assure them 
 of forgiveness, our Lord now confirmed to them the 
 legacy of his peace ; and he both confirmed and en- 
 larged their apostolic commission. " Peace be unto 
 you : as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you." 
 
 To enable them to execute this commission, our 
 Lord added : " Receive ye the Holy Ghost,^^ of which 
 his breathing on them was emblematical. They had 
 already partaken of the Holy Spirit in his sanctifying 
 graces — they were clean, all of them, now that the 
 
 ^ See Appendix II. 
 
48 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 traitor Judas was gone " to his own place " (John xiii. 
 10, 11. Matt, xxvii. 5. Acts i. 25): but their sancti- 
 fication was imperfect— in the hour of trial they had 
 forsaken him and fled/^ (Matt. xxvi. 56) and on various 
 occasions they had drawn on themselves his reproofs 
 for contentions about worldly superiority. They had 
 already partaken of the Holy Spirit in his enlightening 
 influences. Peter knew by revelation, that Jesus was 
 '' the Christ, the Son of the living God '' (Matt. xvi. 
 10, 17): and our Lord had ^' given unto '' all the 
 eleven "the words which ^' his Father had given him, 
 " and they " had " received them and " had " known 
 surely that " Jesus " came out from '' the Father, and 
 they had " believed that '' the Father had '^ sent " him. 
 (John xvii. 8.) But their illumination was still very 
 imperfect, their knowledge very defective — our Lord 
 had "yet many things to say unto'^ them, but they 
 "could not bear them" then. (John xvi. 12.) They 
 had been partakers of the Holy Spirit in His mira- 
 'culous powers — our Lord had empowered them to heal 
 the sick, raise the dead, and cast out devils. (Matt. x. 
 8. Mark vi. 13). But they had received power to per- 
 form miracles of beneficence only — they had not been 
 authorized to inflict any miraculous punishment ; nei- 
 ther had they received the gift of tongues, or the gift 
 of prophecy. Our Lord, during his ministry on earth, 
 had promised them, that, when he should leave them, 
 he would send to them the Holy Spirit, " the Spirit 
 of truth," who should lead them "into all truth." 
 (John xvi. 13.) He now renewed the promise. 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 49 
 
 giving them, as an earnest of its complete fulfilment, 
 more light and a higher degree of sanctification— a 
 larger measure of the qualifications requisite for the 
 office conferred upon them, than they as yet possessed. 
 But the full measure of qualification which was to be 
 bestowed upon them, the full accomplishment both of 
 the previous promise and of the words — " Receive ye 
 the Holy Ghost " — was, I conceive, reserved till after 
 our Lord should have ascended into heaven, and been 
 glorified ; reserved to the approaching day of Pentecost, 
 when the Holy Ghost was poured out in fuller measure 
 than ever before ' both in his gifts and his graces ; and 
 they were '' filled with the Holy Ghost,'' (Acts ii. 1—4) 
 and qualified for the office and commission with which 
 he entrusted them when he said — "as my Father hath 
 sent me, even so send I you/' These words are also 
 intimately connected with those that immediately follow. 
 '^ Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto 
 them ; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retain- 
 ed " — words, which require a very careful consideration 
 and cautious ex£.mination. They are sometimes con- 
 founded with those, in which our Lord had, on a former 
 occasion, given to his apostles power to bind and loose. 
 But there is a marked distinction between the terms in 
 which the two powers are conferred. The power to 
 
 1 " In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, 
 saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that be- 
 lieveth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers 
 of living- water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe 
 on him should receive : for the Holy Ghost was not yet given^ because 
 that Jesus was not yet glorified.) " John vii. 37, 38, 39. 
 
 D 
 
50 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 bind and loose related to things — "whatsoever things^' 
 (oa-cc la,v) — to general principles, laws, and rules : 
 the power to remit and retain sins relates to the sins of 
 individuals — " whosesoever sins ye remit" (av tivuv 
 atpTi-ve raq dfjt.apria,q.) — Some further and distinct 
 authority, therefore, must be intended in the passage 
 under consideration — Yet it cannot he a judicial au- 
 thority extending to the remission or retention of sins 
 
 AS REGARDS THE FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE LAST 
 
 DAY. Such an interpretation of the words would be 
 directly opposed to other plain passages of Scripture. 
 Even when on earth, our Lord declared that " the Fa- 
 ther .... hath committed all judgment unto the Son." 
 (John V. 22 ) The apostle Paul assured the Athenians 
 " that God hath appointed a day, in the which he will 
 judge the world in righteousness by that man whom 
 he hath ordained." (Acts xvii. 31) — even the same day 
 of which he wrote to the Romans ; " the day when 
 God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ." 
 (Rom. ii. 16.) How, indeed, can any one "judge the 
 secrets of men/^ or " judge the world in righteous- 
 ness," but God "who trieth the hearts and reins?" 
 Or who can forgive sins but God, of whose law sin is 
 the transgression ? 
 
 The commission, which our Lord had just given 
 to his apostles, leads us, 1 think, to the true meaning 
 of the words under consideration. He had sent them, 
 as his Father had sent him — to preach with di\ine 
 authority the same gospel — to declare the sins of all 
 who should repent and believe in Jesus remitted, and 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 51 
 
 the sins of all who should not believe in Him retained. 
 He had promised them his Holy Spirit to preserve 
 hem from all error in executing this commission : 
 and he now declared^ that whosoever should possess the 
 character (the repentance and faith) to which his apos- 
 tles should promise remission of sins^ his sins should 
 be remitted ; and that whosoever should not possess 
 that character, his sins should be retained. 
 
 In this sense the passage is in a measure ^ appli- 
 cable to all ministers, who are serit hy our Lord. 
 They are authorized to preach the same gospel as the 
 apostles preached : and, so far as they preach that 
 gospel faithfully, they declare the character of those 
 whose sins are forgiven, and the character of those 
 whose sins are not forgiven. Yet there is this diffe- 
 rence between the apostles and all other ministers. 
 The apostles were preserved from all error in preaching 
 the gospel; but with other ministers it is not so. To 
 their preaching our Lord's declaration applies so far 
 only, as they preach the same doctrine as the apostles 
 preached : and accordingly no mention is made in the 
 passage of other ministers than the apostles. 
 
 The passage, I think, may (as regards the apostles) 
 
 * Other promises require certain qualifications. Thus our Lord, 
 preaching on the mountain to the multitude (Matt. v. 1.) said : "Ask, 
 and it shall be given you." (Matt. vii. 7.) And on another occasion he 
 added: "For every one that asketh receiveth." (Luke xi. 10.) But 
 St. James writes : " Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, 
 that ye may consume it on your lusts." (James iv. 3.) And again, " Let" 
 a man " ask in faith nothing wavering. For he that wavereth ... let 
 not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord." (James 
 i.6,7.) 
 
 D 2 
 
52 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 have a further meaning. I think our Lord, on this 
 occasion, gave to his apostles judicial, as he had by 
 the binding and loosing power given them legislative, 
 authority over his church — authority to remit or retain 
 sins, not in reference to the final judgment, but in 
 reference to the church, its ordinances, its communion, 
 its privileges, and its means of grace. He gave them 
 authority to exclude an offender from church-fellow- 
 ship, and to restore him when penitent. The church 
 was bound, in such matters, to execute the sentence 
 of an apostle, which would always be pronounced 
 under the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit : and, 
 should the church fail in its duty, our Lord himself 
 (the great Head of the church) would make it effec- 
 tual, by withholding on the one hand from the person 
 whose sins the apostle so retained the blessings usually 
 attendant on the public and outward means of grace, 
 or by supplying on the other hand the want of public 
 ordinances to the person whose sins the apostle had so 
 remitted. 
 
 In confirmation of this extended interpretation of 
 the passage, we may observe, that we have an instance 
 of this authority exercised in the Corinthian church 
 by St. Paul, who, though not one of those to whom 
 the words were addressed, was, after our Lord's as- 
 cension, invested ' by Him with full apostolic power, 
 and asserts most strongly his apostleship in both of his 
 epistles to the Corinthians. (1 Cor. i. 1, ix. 1, 2, and 
 2 Cor. i. 1, xi. 5, xii. 12.) The Corinthians had al- 
 
 ^ See post Ch. III. 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 53 
 
 lowed an incestuous member to continue in their 
 church ; and the apostle_, after reproving them for 
 this neglect, (1 Cor. v. 12.) gave them these direc- 
 tions : " I verily, as absent in body, but present in 
 spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, 
 concerning him that hath done this deed, in the name 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, w^hen ye are gathered to- 
 together, and my spirit, with the power i of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for 
 the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be 
 saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your glorying is 
 not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth 
 the whole lump ? Purge out therefore the old leaven, 
 that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened .... 
 Therefore put away from among yourselves that 
 wicked person." (1 Cor. v. 3 — 13.) The latter clause 
 — "put away from among yourselves that wicked 
 person," — explains what St. Paul meant by delivering 
 him to SatanP- They were to excommunicate him, 
 to exclude him from their church and society, to put 
 him out of the " visible church," " the kingdom of 
 God," and thereby expel him into the world, the 
 kingdom of Satan. This they were to do in a solemn 
 manner, when " gathered together," and when by 
 
 ' " Power," Supdixei. 
 2 From the similarity of the expression I infer, that the same apostle 
 alluded to a similar proceeding, when, speaking of some who " concerning 
 faith " had " made shipwreck," he adds : " of whom is Hymenaeus and 
 Alexander ; whom I have delivered to Satan, that they may learn not 
 to blaspheme." (1 Tim. i. 19,20.) He had excommunicated them, to 
 convince them of their error, and lead them to repentance. 
 
54 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 prayer they were united in spirit with the apostle, who 
 by virtue of his apostolic authority, and " in the 
 name of our Lord Jesus Christ,^^ had already judged 
 concerning the offender, and now enjoined the pro- 
 ceeding. The sentence was not a sentence of final 
 condemnation. The object of the proceeding was — 
 not that the offender should remain under the power 
 of Satan — but, on the contrary, that his " flesh '^ 
 (his corrupt nature) should be destroyed, that he 
 should be brought to repentance, and " saved in the 
 day of the Lord Jesus.'' 
 
 He did repent; and, in a subsequent epistle, the 
 apostle wrote concerning him to the church of Corinth : 
 '^ Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which 
 was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought 
 rather to forgive hirrif and comfort him, lest perhaps 
 such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch 
 sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would con- 
 firm your love towards him. For to this end also did 
 I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether 
 ye be obedient in all things. To whom ye forgive 
 any thing, I forgive also : for if I forgave anything, 
 to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in 
 the person of Christ.'' ^ (2 Cor. ii. 6—10.) Here 
 the apostle directs the Corinthians to " forgive " the 
 penitent offender, and to " confirm " their " love 
 towards him : " while he himself forgave his offence 
 "in the person of Christ." They were to re-admit 
 
 ' So tlie authorized version : but in the margin, " In the sight of 
 Christ." 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 55 
 
 him into their church and Christian fellowship and 
 love ; the apostle forgiving him also, and revoking, in 
 the name of Christ and by his apostolic authority, the 
 sentence of excommunication, which in the name of 
 Christ he had pronounced. 
 
 We have, in this instance, a case in which St. Paul, 
 by virtue of his apostolic authority, first retained, 
 and then remitted, the sin,^ — that is to say — first 
 pronounced, and then revoked, the ecclesiastical pun- 
 ishment. The judgment, in both cases, was his ; the 
 church, at his command, inflicted and removed it. 
 The ofi'ender's sin, when the apostle retained it, was 
 retained ; when he remitted it, the sin was remitted. 
 
 The power of retaining and remitting sin in this 
 sense is obviously a power essential to the well-being 
 of every visible church in all ages : the necessity for it 
 is expressed by the apostle when he says — "Purge out 
 therefore the old leaven," exclude from your society 
 " that wicked person," lest, as " a little leaven leaven- 
 eth the whole lump," he should corrupt your whole 
 church : and, though our Lord gave no direction for 
 this power being perpetuated, the apostles, as invested 
 with legislative authority in the church, were authorized 
 to provide for its exercise as long as the church should 
 last. From the reproof which the apostle Paul gave 
 to the Corinthian church for not having excommuni- 
 
 ' The apostle seems not to have exercised this authority on every occa- 
 sion, even against heretical teachers. Though he tells the Galatians : 
 " I would they were even cut off" from the church, " which trouble you," 
 (Gal. V. 12.) ; he did not (as far as appears) actually cut them off. 
 
56 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 cated the offending member, as well as from the re- 
 proofs whicli our Lord himself by his apostle John 
 gave to the angels of the churches at Pergamos and 
 Thyatira for similar neglect (Rev. ii. 12 — 22.), we may 
 conclude, that each church was invested with this 
 authority over its members. But, in the exercise of this 
 authority, the church, its ministers, may err : in 
 which case the sentence, though on earth carried into 
 execution by exclusion from ordinances, will not be 
 ratified in heaven. A sentence of exclusion, if just, 
 may bring the offender to repentance, or (if he con- 
 tinue impenitent) may aggravate his final condemna- 
 tion : but, if erroneous, it will not be sanctioned by 
 the great Head of the Church, who can by his Holy 
 Spirit supply the want of ordinances and means of 
 grace to an individual unjustly excommunicated — as, on 
 the other hand, he will not forgive the impenitent 
 sinner, though restored to the outward communion of 
 the church by which he had been justly excommuni- 
 cated. 
 
 Possibly the promise may have some reference to 
 the miraculous powers conferred on the Apostles : and 
 such a notion is naturally suggested by the language 
 which our Lord addressed to the sick of the palsy on 
 the occasion of his cure — '' Thy sins be forgiven thee." 
 (Matt. ix. ^.) But the apostles, though they wrought 
 many miracles of mercy, are in no one instance re- 
 corded to have used such language. Three, and only 
 three, miraculous punishments are recorded, with the 
 infliction of which an apostle was in any way con- 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 57 
 
 nected. I refer to the cases of Ananias, Sapphira, 
 and Elymas the sorcerer. On Ananias, the apostle 
 Peter pronounced no sentence, but mei'ely charged 
 him with his sin. (Acts v. 3, 4.) In the case of Sap- 
 phira, his language is rather that of a prophet foretell- 
 ing the punishment, than of a judge pronouncing 
 sentence. (Acts v. 9.) The same may be said of the 
 apostle Paul's address to Elymas. (Acts xiii. 9 — 11.) 
 There are, indeed, passages both in the same apostle's 
 epistles to the Corinthians, (1 Cor. iv. 18—21. and 2 
 Cor. xiii. 2, 3.) and in the apostle John's third 
 epistle, (3 John 9^ 10.) which sound very much like 
 threats, that, if he came where the offenders were, he 
 might be led to inflict some miraculous punishment on 
 them. But I should hesitate to draw the conclusion, 
 that the words — "whosesoever sins ye remit, they are 
 remitted unto them : a7id whosesoever sins ye retain, 
 they are retained" — include a reference to miraculous 
 powers. If such a reference be included, it cannot be 
 the principal or primary meaning of the words ; and 
 the promise in this sense does not belong to ministers 
 in the present day, miraculous gifts having long since 
 ceased in the church. 
 
 Our Lord's address to Peter, when thrice he in- 
 quired whether the apostle loved him — " Feed my 
 lambs." '^Feed my sheep." (John xxi. 15 — 17.) — 
 does not appear to have any particular bearing on the 
 present inquiry. It gave him no authority distinct from 
 that given to the other apostles ; and on that occasion 
 these words were obviously addressed to him in par- 
 
 D 5 
 
58 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 ticular, in order to confirm liim in his apostleship not- 
 withstanding his fall, and to assure him of forgiveness. 
 He was to feed the flock of Christ : so were the other 
 apostles : and so were all who were afterwards ap- 
 pointed elders. St. Paul exhorted the elders of the 
 church of Ephesus, and Peter exhorted the elders 
 among those to whom he addressed his first epistle, to 
 ^^feed the Church of God.'' (Acts xx. 17, 28. and 1 
 Pet. V. 1, 2.) The command, therefore, does not im- 
 port any commission given exclusively to Peter. The 
 argument, ^ that supremacy was given to Peter by the 
 direction to feed the sheep (the clergy ! ) as well as the 
 lambs (the laity ! ), is too absurd to require an answer : 
 the argument, ^ which from the commission to feed 
 the flock as including authority to destroy wolves, con- 
 cludes that heretics, even though princes, are to be 
 put to death, is not only absurd, but wicked. 
 
 Our Lord's last ^ commission to his apostles is thus 
 recorded by St. Matthew. '•' All power is given unto 
 me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and 
 teach ^ [" make disciples of " margin] all nations, 
 baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of 
 the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to 
 observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you;^ 
 
 ' Bellarmine quoted by Doddridge on the passage. 
 
 2 See Boyle's Philos. Comment, quoted lb. 
 
 ^ See Appendix III. 
 
 * fxa9T]Teii(TaT€ irdura ra eOv-q — " make all nations disciples." — The 
 
 word here translated " teach," is a different word from that immediately 
 
 afterwards translated "teaching." 
 
 ^ iueTeiAdfxrjv ufuu — "I have charged you with "—referring, appar- 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 59 
 
 and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of 
 the world/' (Matt, xxviii. 18—20.) 
 
 Here we find the apostohc commission, which had 
 hitherto been restricted to Judsea, and the lost sheep 
 of the house of Israel, now extended' to all nations. 
 It was also extended in respect of its object. They 
 were not only to preach the gospel, to teach others 
 what Jesus had taught them ; they were to make 
 disciples of all nations, baptizing them " in the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." 
 They were to plant Christian churches throughout the 
 world ; and, by baptism, disciples were to be received 
 
 rently to his having not only taught them, but commissioned them to 
 preach the gospel — ^given them the gospel in charge. It is the word trans- 
 lated " he shall give . . . charge " in Matt. iv. 6. 
 
 * An intimation of this extension, and new directions adapted to this 
 extended mission, had been given by our Lord to his apostles on the 
 night before his crucifixion. " He said unto them"— obviously referring 
 to their former mission — *' When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and 
 shoes, lacked ye any thing ? And they said. Nothing. Then said he 
 unto them. But now he that hath a purse, let him take it^ and likewise 
 Ids scrip ; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and but 
 one." (Luke xxii. 35, 36.) You can no longer expect the same hospita- 
 lity as heretofore ; you must, therefore, make the provision which tra- 
 vellers usually make for a journey — a purse, a scrip, and a sword. Not 
 that our Lord intended to be literally understood as to each article which 
 he mentioned ; but only to revoke his former directions, and substitute 
 such as were proper for missionaries of the gospel travelling in foreign 
 heathen lands. Accordingly, when the disciples produced two swords 
 probably imagining that now he would assert his right to a temporal king- 
 dom, "he said unto them. It is enough "(Luke xxii. 38.) — which it 
 obviously was not for eleven persons, if they were to comply literally 
 with his directions. And, when Peter drew his sword and smote off 
 Malchus's ear, our Lord reproved him — "Put up thy sword again into his 
 place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." 
 (Matt. xxvi. 51, 52.) 
 
60 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 as such, and admitted into the visible church — a vast 
 undertaking, but^ for the accomphshment of which, 
 and their encouragement in the prosecution thereof, a 
 promise was added, that Jesus would be with them 
 " alway even unto the end of the world." 
 
 This is a promise extending beyond the lives of the 
 apostles, belonging therefore to others besides them — 
 a promise of Christ's perpetual presence — a promise to 
 his church, that he will ever be with it, hearing its 
 petitions, guiding, protecting, enlightening, comfort- 
 ing, strengthening, and sanctifying it ;^ so that (as he 
 had already promised) ^ the gates of hell shall never 
 prevail against it. The promise is general. I see no- 
 thing to restrict it to any line of succession derived 
 from the apostles. It belongs to all, who are called by 
 the Holy Ghost to preach the same gospel w^hich the 
 apostles preached, and to administer the same baptism 
 which they administered — and, in a sense, it belongs to 
 all true members of Christ^s spiritual church, to all who 
 receive in faith his gospel, and are baptized with the 
 baptism which he appointed. It may, however, be in- 
 ferred from this, and from other passages which have 
 been previously considered, that the apostles, on whom 
 full power had been conferred for regulating all the 
 economy of the Christian church, were authorized to 
 give directions touching the appointment of ministers, 
 
 ' This was the substance of, or included in, our Lord's prayer for all who 
 should "believe on" him through the apostles' word. (John xvii.) 
 And assuredly his prayer is, has been, and will be granted, until the end 
 of the world. 
 
 2 Matt. xvi. 18. 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 61 
 
 who should make disciples, baptize, and teach : but the 
 passage itself determines nothing as the nature of such 
 directions, or the mode of such appointment; nor does 
 it prescribe any particular form of church government, 
 
 St. Luke adds another part of the apostolic com- 
 mission, which our Lord (apparently ' at this interview) 
 gave, though not for the first time,- to the eleven. 
 " Ye are witnesses of these things^' (Luke xxiv. 48). 
 " Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is 
 come upon you : and ye shall be witnesses unto me 
 both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, 
 and unto the uttermost part of the earth." (Acts i. 8.) 
 They were thus to be witnesses to Jesus, because they 
 had been with him from the beginning — they had been 
 ordained, '^ that they should be with him." (Mark iii. 
 14.) Our Lord, conversing with them after his last 
 supper, had already said : '^ When the Comforter is 
 come, whom 1 will send unto you from the Father, 
 even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the 
 Father, he shall testify of me : and ye also shall bear 
 witness, because ye have been with me from the be- 
 ginning." (John XV. 26, 27.) It was, therefore, an es- 
 sential part of the apostolic office to hear witness to 
 Christ ; to testify what they had seen and heard, while 
 they were with him from the beginning. This part of 
 the apostolic office was obviously personal, and not 
 transmissible to others. 
 
 St. Mark records some further particulars apparently^ 
 
 ' See Appendix Til. ^ See John xv. 27. 
 
 ^ See Appendix III. 
 
62 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 of this interview — "And he'' (Jesus) "said unto 
 them^^ ( the eleven is the immediate antecedent) — " Go 
 ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every 
 creature. He that believe th and is baptized shall be 
 saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 
 And these signs shall follow them that believe ; In my 
 name shall they cast out devils ; they shall speak with 
 new tongues ; they shall take up serpents ; and if they 
 drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them ; they 
 shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover '' 
 (Mark xvi. 15 — 18). The commission as here recorded 
 is : " preach " — Acvj^ulare— proclaim as heralds — " the 
 gospel to every creature : " and it is sanctioned by a 
 declaration of the different consequences, which should 
 result from this preaching to those who should 
 believe and be baptized on the one hand, and to 
 those who should not believe on the other. A promise 
 is added of supernatural powers, including some powers 
 not before specifically noticed as conferred, either on 
 the apostles or on the seventy disciples, the most re- 
 markable of which is the gift of tongues, which was 
 not needed while the preaching of the gospel was re- 
 stricted to Judea and the children of Israel, but would 
 now be essential for the promulgation of the gospel 
 throughout the world. This promise was not made to 
 the apostles exclusively — " These signs,^' said our 
 Lord, "shall follow them that believe.''^ Was 
 
 ' Our Lord had already, during his ministry on earth, declared : " He 
 that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also ; and greater 
 worhs than these shall he do ; because I go unto my Father." (John xiv. 
 12,)— a promise of that fuller effusion of the Holy Ghost, which Jesus, 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 63 
 
 this a promise, that every believer should be endued 
 with these powers ? A question put by St. Paul to 
 the Corinthians, and implying a strong negation, will 
 settle this point — " Are all apostles ? are all prophets ? 
 are all teachers ? are all workers of miracles ? Have 
 all the gifts of healing ? Do all speak with tongues ? 
 Do all interpret.'' (1 Cor. xii. 29, 30.) The power of 
 working miracles was not, any more than the apostleship, 
 conferred on all ; and even the gift of healing, and the 
 gift of tongues do not appear to have been always uni- 
 ted in the same individual. The promise, therefore, 
 was a promise of supernatural powers, to be so con- 
 ferred, and on sucJi believers, as should be sufficient to 
 avouch by such signs the divine origin of the doctrine 
 in which they believed. There is no limit expressed 
 for the continuance of these signs; neither does the 
 language ^ used necessarily import that they should 
 for ever accompany the Church : while the circumstance 
 of their being expressly given as signs may in some 
 measure indicate, that the signs, when no longer need- 
 after he had ascended to his Father, poured out on the day of Pentecost, 
 and occasionally afterwards — a promise, to which the same observations 
 respecting its extent will apply as to the promise noticed in the text. 
 
 ^ St. Mark does not mention our Lord's promise recorded by St. 
 Matthew — "I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." 
 (Matt, xxviii. 20.)— and if (as I think we should) we consider the narra- 
 tives of St. Matthew (xxviii. 18—20.) and St. Mark (xvi. 15—19.) as 
 relating to the same interview, and adopt Dr. Doddridge's harmony of the 
 two passages (See Appendix III,), that promise of our Lord's perpetual 
 presence will be connected with the commission recorded by St. Matthew, 
 but not necessarily with the promise of supernatural powers now under 
 consideration and exclusively mentioned by St. Mark. 
 
64 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 ed for the confirmation of the gospel, would cease. 
 We shall have occasion hereafter to revert to this ques- 
 tion of the continuance of supernatural powers in the 
 church. 
 
 Thus far our Lord committed to his apostles an 
 almost unlimited discretion as to the government of 
 his church, an authority subject to scarcely any 
 restriction ; but in the exercise of which, the guidance 
 of the Holy Spirit was promised to them. In one 
 particular, indeed, he gave them (as we have seen) a 
 specific direction to baptize ^'^in the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ^' — 
 and he had previously instituted the Lord's Supper. 
 — These two ordinances, instituted by our Lord him- 
 self, I have reserved for a separate consideration, as 
 being ordinances which the apostles themselves had no 
 authority to alter. 
 
 We have no distinct mention made of the first 
 institution of Christian baptism : but, immediately 
 after our Lord's interview with Nicodemus, we find it 
 recorded, that " after these things came Jesus and 
 his dijciples into the land of Judea ; and there tarried 
 with them, and baptized." (John iii. 22.) 
 
 And not long afterwards we find in the same evan- 
 gelist : " When therefore Jesus knew how the Pha- 
 risees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more 
 disciples than John, (though Jesus himself baptized 
 not, but his disciples,) he left Judea.*' (John iv. 1, 2.) 
 
 From these passages we learn two things : first, that 
 Jesus, in the early part of his ministry, instituted 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 65 
 
 baptism, as the rite by wliicli his disciples were to be 
 distinguished : and secondly, that the rite was gene- 
 rally (if not always) administered by ^^his disciples/' 
 not by Jesus himself. 
 
 In what form Christian baptism was administered 
 during our Lord^s ministry on earth is not mentioned : 
 nor is it for our present purpose important to enquire, 
 whether it was, during that period, administered in 
 the form afterwards prescribed, viz. in the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. ^ 
 It is sufficient, that our Lord, immediately before his 
 ascension, commanded his apostles : " Teach all na- 
 tions, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and 
 of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : teaching them 
 to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded 
 you : and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the 
 end of the world.'' (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.) This 
 
 * Scott, in his note on John iii. 22 — 24, thinks it " not probable " that 
 our Lord and his disciples " baptized in that form which he afterwards 
 prescribed : " but he assigns no reason for this opinion ; and I see not 
 how to reconcile it with the account given of St. Paul's conversation with 
 the twelve disciples at Ephesus (Acts xix. 1 — 5.) The men were " dis- 
 ciples," professing Christians : and, when they declared — " we have not so 
 much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost " — the apostle inquired, 
 " Unto what then were ye baptized ? ''' — a question obviouslj^ implying, 
 that, if they had received Christian baptism, they must have heard of 
 the Hol}^ Ghost — "and they said, Unto John's baptism." This is all 
 very intelligible, if we assume that Christian baptism was from the first 
 administered "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost." But it is not easy to account for the apostle's question, if that 
 form was not used till after the time when our Lord is recorded by St. 
 Matthew to have nrescribed it. 
 
66 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 command is sufficient both for the minister, and for 
 the disciple. 
 
 From that time, if not previously, this was the pre- 
 scribed /or/?» of Christian baptism — a form which our 
 Lord gave his apostles no authority to alter; and 
 which (it cannot reasonably be doubted) they invariably 
 followed, though disciples are sometimes said to have 
 been *^ baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 
 xix. 5.) ^ 
 
 Nothing, however, was prescribed by our Lord as 
 to the persons by whom the rite was to be administered : 
 for the apostles could not personally baptize " all 
 nations ; " still less could they, except by the ministry 
 of others, perpetuate the rite " unto the end of the 
 world." The language, however, imports, that they 
 were to provide for the continued administration of 
 baptism, as well as for the preaching of the word, 
 " until the end of the world : " and to make such pro- 
 vision would also fall within the general authority 
 already committed to them, by which they were em- 
 powered to legislate for the church. It will be a 
 subject of inquiry hereafter, what provision the apos- 
 tles did make for these purposes. 
 
 ^ In this particular instance, it is clear from the context, (and we may 
 consequently in other instances infer) that the parties were baptized ••' in 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : " for it 
 is evident from the preceding narrative, that the apostle Paul took it 
 for granted that those, who had received Christian baptism, had been 
 baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, 
 and must therefore have heard of the Holy Ghost. To be " baptized 
 in the name of the Lord Jesus, " was a concise mode of expressing 
 Christian baptism, the form of which was then well understood. 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 67 
 
 Nor does the command distinctly prescribe the per- 
 sons to whom the rite was to be administered. The 
 apostles are commanded to '' make all nations disciples, 
 baptizing them j " baptism being thus intimately con- 
 nected with the making of disciples : and we find the 
 same connection mentioned, when it is recorded, " that 
 Jesus made ^ and baptized more disciples than John/^ 
 (John iv. 1.) The apostles were to baptize *'all na- 
 tions/' without any specified distinction of age or sex ; 
 nor is any previous qualification or condition here re- 
 quired, except what is implied in the connection be- 
 tween being baptized and being made a disciple. 
 When then may a person be said to be made a dis- 
 ciple ? Is it when placed under instruction ? or is it 
 when so far instructed, as to profess belief in the 
 doctrine? When the Samaritans "believed Philip 
 preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, 
 and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both 
 men and women'-' (Acts viii. 12.): and when the eunuch 
 of Ethiopia inquired, — " What doth hinder me to bebap- 
 tized ? '^ — " Philip said, If thou believest with all thine 
 heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe 
 that Jesus Christ is the Son of God : '^ and upon this 
 confession of faith Philip " baptized him.'' (Acts viii. 
 36 — 38.) Such a confession of faith, therefore, ought 
 
 ^ The word rendered "teach" in (Matt, xxviii. 19.) 'is /xo^^TjTeWaTe 
 (a different word from that translated "teaching" in v. 20.) and is 
 obviously used to express what is meant, when the apostle John says 
 that "Jesus made disciples," (/uaS^rjTdsTrote?.) (John iv. 1.) — the connec- 
 tion with baptism being the same in both cases. 
 
68 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 to be required of adults coming to baptism ; and it 
 would be unreasonable to baptize them in a name in 
 which they did not believe, or even profess to believe ; 
 nor without such belief could they be considered as 
 willing to receive Christian instruction. But the case 
 of infants is different. The faith, professed by those 
 who bring them to baptism, is a sufficient warrant for 
 anticipating, that they will be placed under Christian 
 instruction when capable thereof; and, by being so 
 brought by believers, they may be considered as dis- 
 ciples within the meaning of our Lord's command : 
 while adults, who do not even profess to believe in 
 Christ as the Son of God, cannot be so considered. 
 That infants are admissible to baptism, may also be 
 inferred from our Lord's declaration and conduct on 
 the following occasion. They "brought unto him 
 little children,^ that he should put his hands on them 
 and pray : and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus 
 said. Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to 
 come unto me ; for of snch is the kingdom of heaven : '"^ 
 (Matt. xix. 13, 14.) " And he took them up in his 
 
 ^ vaiUa — a diminutive — St. Luke in the corresponding passage uses 
 first €pe(p7j (xviii. 15.) and then iraiSia (lb. 16.) The former word 
 is properly rendered (in our authorized version) " infants," and is used 
 by the same evangelist for a " babe " in the w^omb, (Luke i. 41, 44,) and 
 for a "new-born babe" (Luke ii. 12, 16. Acts vii. 19) ; in which latter 
 sense it is also used by St. Peter. ( 1 Pet. ii. 2. ) 
 
 ^ If it be thought, that the "kingdom of heaven" in this place 
 means heaven itself; the argument will still hold, that those, who are ad- 
 missible into heaven, are admissible into the visible church on earth, and 
 consequently to baptism ; especially as our Lord "• blessed them " — either 
 pronounced or asked a blessing, a spiritual blessing upon them. 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 69 
 
 arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them." 
 [rjdAoyei avrd) (Mark X. 16.) On this occasion our 
 Lord plainly declared, that such little children or 
 infants were admissible into the kingdom of heaven — 
 into his visible church on earth — and consequently 
 were proper subjects for baptism, just as the children 
 of Israelites were not only permitted, but commanded, 
 to be circumcised on the eighth day after their birth ; 
 and so were received into the congregation of Israel, then 
 the visible church of God on earth. 
 
 In thus considering baptism as a divinely-appointed 
 rite for admitting disciples into the visible church of 
 Christ, I express no opinion on the many theological 
 questions connected with the rite ; nor would I be un- 
 derstood as considering it to be merely a rite. The 
 various controversies as to its nature and efficacy as a 
 sacrament do not appear to me to bear on the subject 
 of the present inquiry — the constitution of the Church. 
 In the same sense, the Lord's supper, which I now 
 proceed to consider, may be viewed as an ordinance of 
 divine appointment, by partaking of which the disciple 
 professes his adherence to the faith into which he was 
 baptized, and a grateful remembrance of the death of 
 Christ ; while the church which administers the 
 ordinance, recognizes him as being still one of its 
 members. 
 
 The institution of the Lord^s supper is not noticed 
 by St. John, who principally records what the other 
 evangelists had omitted. By each of the three other 
 evangelists it is related ; but St. Luke alone of the 
 
70 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 evangelists mentions the command to continue its cele- 
 bration. His account is as follows : 
 
 " And he '' (Jesus) " took bread, and gave thanks, 
 and brake it, and gave unto them '^ (the apostles) 
 ^^ saying, This is my body which is given for you : 
 this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup 
 after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in 
 my blood, which is shed for you/' (Luke xxii. 19, 20.) 
 
 The fullest and most minute account of the in- 
 stitution is that given by St. Paul, who was not pre- 
 sent on the occasion, but had the particulars from im- 
 mediate revelation. 
 
 " I have received of the Lord, that which also I 
 delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the same 
 night in which he was betrayed, took bread ; and when 
 he had given thanks he brake it, and said. Take, eat : 
 this is my body, which is broken for you : this do in 
 remembrance of me. After the same manner also he 
 took the cup, when he had supped, saying. This cup 
 is the new testament in my blood : this do ye, as oft 
 as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as 
 ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the 
 Lord's death till he come." (1 Cor. xi. 23—26.) 
 
 It is implied in this narrative, and it is expressly 
 mentioned by St. Matthew, that our Lord gave the 
 cup to the apostles, and commanded them to drink of 
 it. " Drink ye all of it : for this is my blood of the 
 new testament, which is shed for many for the remis- 
 sion of sins." (Matt. xxvi. 27, 28.) St. Mark says : 
 " he gave it to them : and they all drank of it.'' (Mark 
 xiv. 23.) 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 71 
 
 There is one, and only one other particular to be 
 noticed — a particular recorded both by St. Matthew 
 and by St. Mark, viz. that our Lord blessed the bread. 
 The expression used both by St. Luke and St. Paul is 
 eL%apir^o-a? e/cXacre, having given thanks, he brake it. 
 The words of both St. Matthew and St. Mark are : 
 
 Aa€uv 6 'l'/}<rov(; tov' aprov koci ivXoy^occ^'^ eKXcc^e (Matt. 
 
 xxvi. 26. Mark xiv. 22.) " Jesus having taken bread 
 and blessed it, brake it" Jesus, not only gave thanks 
 to God, but blessed the bread and the wine. "What is 
 the meaning of the word blessed in the passage ? The 
 use of the same word in the miracle of the loaves and 
 fishes will furnish an answer to the question. "Then 
 he '' (Jesus) " took the five loaves and the two fishes, 
 and looking up to heaven, he blessed them, and 
 brake.'^^ (Luke ix. 16.) He pronounced, or rather 
 (as the looking up to heaven seems to import) he 
 besought a blessing on the loaves and fishes — he be- 
 sought that, although naturally capable of satisfying 
 
 ^ The article is not in St. Mark ; nor (according to some readings) in 
 St. Matthew ; hut the variance does not aflfect the sense, further than 
 that the one may mean " bread," the other " a loaf." 
 
 ^ The proper idiom of the Greek applies the evA 07^0*05, as well as the 
 KaSibv, to the &pTov, especially as either 6,prov, or the relative pronoun 
 must be understood after eK\aa€. Our translators have, therefore, 
 properly supplied it after the word, and rendered ivKoyqaas having 
 " blessed." This translation is confirmed by St. Paul's question — " The 
 cup of blessing (^4v\oylas) which we bless (ivKoyoufxev), is it not the 
 communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not 
 the communion of the body of Christ ? " (1 Cor. x. 16.) 
 
 ^ Ao§cbj/ 8e res Trevre &pT8S, Kai res dvo IxBdas, avaSXi^as its rhv 
 epavhv, ivKoyrjcrev avrh, Kat KaTeK\i]ae. The pronoun avTohs " them " 
 
72 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 only a very few individuals^ they might miraculously 
 feed the assembled thousands. So, when he blessed 
 the bread and wine, he pronounced, or rather (as the 
 circumstance of his at the same time giving thanks 
 implies) he besought a blessing on them — he besought 
 that, in eating and drinking thereof, the apostles 
 might spiritually eat his flesh of which the bread was 
 an emblem, and spiritually drink his blood of which 
 the wine was a symbol ; and that they might be 
 nourished thereby unto life everlasting. 
 
 Our Lord, then, himself on this occasion admin- 
 istered the supper. He blessed the bread and the 
 wine. The apostles oiAy partook of it ; eat of the bread, 
 and drank of the wine : and it was after our Lord had 
 given them the bread to eat, that he said, '' This do in 
 remembrance of me," and again after he had given 
 them the cup to drink of the wine, that he said — " This 
 do ye, AS oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of 
 me." This command, therefore, was a command to 
 partake of the Lord's supper in remembrance of Him ; 
 and, though addressed personally to the apostles, it 
 was through them addressed to all disciples — for the 
 apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthian disciples^ im- 
 
 determines the application of the word ivXSyriaev "blessed." It is 
 omitted, and must be understood, in the parallel passages in St. Mat- 
 thew (xiv. 19.) and St. Mark (vi. 41.) 
 
 ^ St. Luke and St. Paul use the word evxapiT-qaas in connection with 
 the breaking of the bread, and imply the like as to the wine by the words 
 axrdvTUJS nhi to iror-fipLov : St. Matthew and St. Mark use it in con- 
 nection with giving the cup. (Luke xxii. 19, 20. 1 Cor. xi, 24, 25. 
 Matt.xxvi.27. Mark xiv. 23.) 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 73 
 
 mediately adds : " as often as ye eat this bread, and 
 drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he 
 come/'* (1 Cor. xi. 26.) 
 
 In no one of the accounts given in Scripture of the 
 institution of our Lord's supper is any direction re- 
 corded as to the individuals hy whom it was to he ad- 
 ministered. But it was clearly implied that provision 
 was to be made for the due administration of the or- 
 dinance until our Lord's second advent ; for those who 
 partake of it thereby " shew the Lord's death till he 
 come " (1 Cor. xi. 26.) ; and the power previously com- 
 mitted to the apostles of binding and loosing would 
 authorize them to lay down all such regulations not 
 inconsistent with our Lord's own institution^ as might 
 be necessary, whether with regard to the persons who 
 were to administer the Lord's supper, the persons to 
 be admitted thereto, or the mode, or place, or time of 
 administration. Regulations not inconsistent with our 
 Lord's own institution. The apostles themselves had no 
 authority to give the bread and withhold the cup, in 
 direct contravention of our Lord's express command, 
 " Drink ye all of this." Nor did they withhold either 
 the bread or the cup. It is obvious, from the passage 
 in the epistle to the Corinthians already quoted, that 
 
 * This coming is obviously a personal advent. The remembrance of 
 our Lord's death was to be continued till such remembrance should be no 
 longer needful, when he should " come again and receive " his disciples 
 " unto himself" — an advent yet future : and, accordingly, the disciples 
 continued to celebrate the Lord's Supper under apostolic sanction after 
 his ascension, though he had appeared to many disciples in the interval, 
 between his resurrection and ascension. 
 
 E 
 
74 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 the Corinthian disciples partook of both. Those who 
 only eat the bread, without drinking of the cup, do 
 not " shew the Lord^s death till he come.'^ (1 Cor. 
 xi. 26.) 
 
 In the institution of the Lord^s supper I cannot dis- 
 cover the remotest idea of offering a sacrifice. It is 
 not a sacrifice, but a thankful memorial of the Great 
 Sacrifice which Jesus ofi'ered once for all on the cross 
 for the sins of the world. It is not the officiating 
 minister who alone shews the Lord's death : both he and 
 the disciples, as often as they eat that bread, and drink 
 that cup — as often as they do both '^ in remembrance '' 
 of Christ — '' do shew the Lord's death till he come." 
 (1 Cor. xi. 26.) That the Lord's supper is not a 
 sacrifice is further manifest from the apostolic epistles, 
 especially from that to the Hebrews. But this ques- 
 tion, whether the Lord's supper be a sacrifice, will be 
 more fully considered hereafter, when the different 
 orders of ministers in the Christian church and their 
 different offices are examined : the question has no 
 direct bearing on the present inquiry. 
 
 The two ordinances, which we have thus considered, 
 baptism and the Lord's supper, are essential to the 
 Christian Church, as a visible body — the one as the 
 admission of a member, the other as the continuance 
 of membership. The passages cited show, that the 
 Lord's supper is a representation of spiritual blessings ; 
 nor can it be doubted, that those, who rightly partake 
 of it, partake of the spiritual blessings so represented. 
 The same might be shown of baptism; but these are 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 75 
 
 theological questions not falling within the range of 
 the present inquiry. 
 
 Such were the measures adopted by our Lord before 
 his ascension, such the provision made by him for the 
 government, extension, and edification of his church. 
 It may be useful here to review them. 
 
 Our Lord chose first twelve apostles, and then seventy 
 other disciples : and, at separate times, sent out first 
 the apostles, and afterwards the other seventy, two by 
 two on a missionary journey to preach the gospel in 
 Judea, investing them with supernatural powers. On 
 the return of the seventy to our Lord, he confirmed, 
 and (it seems) enlarged, their power of working mira- 
 cles : but they are not afterwards noticed distinctly 
 from the other disciples. After his resurrection he 
 promised that supernatural gifts (including the gift 
 of tongues, which had not yet been conferred on any) 
 should follow the church : so that these powers were 
 not confined to the apostles ; while, on the other hand, 
 they do not appear to have been promised in perpetuity. 
 The commission given to the apostles was from the 
 first more extensive than that of the seventy : and it 
 was from time to time enlarged. They were chosen 
 to be the stated followers of our Lord ; and, as such, 
 to be witnesses of all that he did and said on earth — 
 witnesses of the doctrine which he taught, of the mira- 
 cles by which he vouched his divine mission, of his re- 
 surrection, and ascension. They were to preach the 
 gospel and expound authoritatively the terms of salva- 
 tion ; to establish Christian churches throughout the 
 
 E 2 
 
76 PROVISION MADE BY OUR LORD FOR THE 
 
 world ; to receive disciples into the church, baptizing 
 them in a prescribed form ; to provide for the adminis- 
 tration of the Lord's supper after the manner appointed 
 b)^ him, as a memorial of his death and sufferings, and 
 at once a symbol and a means of grace to believers. 
 Subject to our Lord's express directions respecting these 
 two ordinances, and to the general principles which our 
 Lord incidentally, from time to time, laid down ; 
 they were invested with full legislative authority in 
 the church of Christ ; authority to declare what parts 
 of the Mosaic law ^ had ceased to be binding ; 
 authority to establish laws and regulations for the 
 government of the Church. They were also invested 
 with judicial authority; authority to exclude from 
 and receive back into the church ; and, it seems, further 
 (on special occasions, indicated to them by immediate 
 inspiration) to denounce miraculous punishment. In the 
 exercise of these extensive powers, in the authoritative 
 preaching of the word and expounding of the terms of 
 salvation, in the execution by them as apostles of these 
 legislative and judicial functions, they were to be pre- 
 served from all error : and for this purpose the gift of 
 the Holy Ghost was promised to them, to lead them 
 
 ^ It is clear from our Lord's declaration, (Matt. v. 18.) that he gave 
 no authority to the apostles to alter one tittle of the moral law. — By the 
 Mosaic law, in this place, I mean, that law which was peculiar to the 
 Mosaic economy, the ritual law which was fulfilled and abolished in 
 Christ, and the judicial law which was exclusively given to the Israelites. 
 It was especially over the ritual law that authority was given to the 
 apostles to declare, that it ha ceased, the substance being come, and 
 new rites substituted. 
 
GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH. 11 
 
 into all truth. There is, however, no promise, that 
 either this infallibility, or these powers ^ to the due 
 exercise of which the infallible guidance of the Holy 
 Spirit was obviously necessary, were to be perpetuated 
 in the church : while the preaching of the word, and 
 the administration of baptism and the Lord^s supper 
 would always be requisite ; and in respect of these our 
 Lord promised to be with his church ^' always, even to 
 the end of the world ;" not indeed enduing the minis- 
 ter with full apostolic authority, but by the Holy Spirit 
 giving to the word when faithfully preached, and to the 
 sacraments when rightly received, power and efficacy 
 as means and instruments of grace. 
 
 The apostles, even during their own lives, could not 
 personally teach all nations ; they could not personally 
 admit all converts to baptism ; they could not personally 
 in all the congregations administer the Lord's supper : 
 and it was necessary, in the execution of the com- 
 mission entrusted to them, that they should make pro- 
 vision, not only for the performance of these duties 
 during their lives, but for perpetuating until the end of 
 the world the preaching of the gospel and the adminis- 
 tration of its appointed ordinances. It, therefore, fell 
 within the scope of their commission, both to appoint 
 ministers, who should preach the word, baptize, and 
 administer the Lord's supper : and also to make such 
 
 ^ The visible church, as has been observed, necessarily has aiitbority 
 to exclude and readmit its members : but this does not necessarily and 
 in every case involve exclusion from or readmission into the spiritual 
 church. 
 
78 THE CHURCH OF CHRIST PROVIDED FOR. 
 
 regulations, and give to the church such a constitution, 
 as might best secure a supply of fit and able ministers 
 for these purposes. But it does not follow as a neces- 
 sary consequence, that they should make such regula- 
 tions for the appointment of ministers as would exclude 
 from the exercise of these functions all who should not 
 derive, by external designation, a commission from 
 themselves or from individuals whom they should 
 authorize to transmit it. 
 
 Before, however, we examine what measures the 
 apostles adopted in execution of the commission en- 
 trusted to them, we must consider the appointment 
 first of Matthias, and then of Saul, to the apostolic 
 office : for in these proceedings for settling the churches 
 Saul, who was also Paul, had a large share. We must 
 further inquire in what sense Barnabas is called an 
 apostle ; and we shall also find it useful to consider the 
 supernatural gifts bestowed on the church. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 APOSTLES APPOINTED AFTER OUR LORD'S ASCENSION. 
 
 Our Lord, as we have seen, appointed twelve apostles ; 
 and we have not, either in the original appointment, or 
 in the commissions which from time to time he gave to 
 them, discovered any indication that the office was to 
 be perpetual, or was to be conferred on any other in- 
 dividual. In point of fact, however, we find in Scrip- 
 ture that it was after his ascension conferred on others ; 
 and the appointment of these individuals to the office 
 must now be considered. The death of the traitor 
 Judas gave occasion to the first of these appointments. 
 In the interval between our Lord's ascension and the 
 day of Pentecost, the eleven surviving apostles " con- 
 tinued with one accord in prayer and supplication : 
 with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and 
 with his brethren. In those days Peter stood up in 
 the midst of the disciples '' and addressed them {" the 
 number of the names together were about an hundred 
 
80 APOSTLES APPOINTED 
 
 and twentymo (Acts i. 13 — 15.) He reminded them 
 of the prophecy concerning Judas in the psalms, re- 
 ferring apparently ^ to Psalm xh. 9, and expressly quo- 
 ting (though not exactly according to the Hebrew)) 
 Psalm Ixix. 25 - and Psalm cix. 8. The latter alone 
 bears on our present subject — " His bishopric " (eir*- 
 o-Koirvji/,^ oversight, overseership, or office of overseer) " let 
 another take. Wherefore" (continued the apostle) ''of 
 these men which have companied with us * all the time 
 that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, be- 
 ginning from the baptism of John, unto the same day 
 that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to 
 be ^ a WITNESS with us of his resurrection. '^ 
 (Acts i. 20 — 22.) In pursuance of this advice, "they 
 appointed ^ two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was sur- 
 
 1 " Yea, mine own familiar friend in whom I trusted, which did eat of 
 my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." — This appears to be the 
 passage to which the apostle referred, when he said of Judas : " he was 
 numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry." (17.)— Our 
 Lord had already applied it to Judas. (John xiii. 18.) 
 
 ~ This (according to the authorized version) is : " Let their habitation 
 be desolate ; and let none dwell in their tents." It is observed by 
 Bishop Home commenting on this verse, that Peter applies it to Judas 
 as the representative of the Jewish nation, noticing that he " was guide 
 to them that took Jesus" (Acts i. 16.) : and that our Lord seems to have 
 had it in view, when he said to the Jews ; " Behold your house is left 
 unto you desolate." (Matt, xxiii. .38.) 
 
 3 The same Greek word is used by the apostle, as in the Septuagint. 
 
 ■* " Of THESE men which have companied with us" — rather " Of the 
 men who have companied with us." ruv cvv^X^Svtuv T]fxiv apSpcov. 
 
 5 " Be ordained to be."— The Greek word so rendered in the authorized 
 version is simply yevea-Oai — " to be," " to become." — I should translate 
 the passage— " Must one become." 
 
 ^ " Appointed,"— es-770-ai/. The word is used in a similar sense, in 
 Acts xvii. 31. errjo-e;/ Vepay.— " He hath appointed a day." 
 
AFTER OUR LORD's ASCENSION. 81 
 
 named Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and 
 said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all meut 
 shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, that he 
 may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from 
 which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to 
 his own place. And they gave forth their lots : and 
 the lot fell upon Matthias ; and he was numbered with 
 the eleven apostles.^^ (Acts i. 23 — ^6.) 
 
 Several observations arise on this passage — the apos- 
 tolic office as distinguished from every other office in 
 the church — the mode in which Matthias was appointed 
 to the office — his being '' numbered with the eleven ^' 
 — the filliDg up thereby of the original number of 
 twelve. 
 
 1. The apostleship, to which Matthias was ap- 
 pointed, included two things, the oversight of the 
 church, and being a witness of the resurrection.. 
 Others (as we shall see) are called overseers {iTvia-KOTtoi), 
 but not in the same sense as the apostles. The apos- 
 tles were overseers of the whole church of Christ, 
 others of particular or local churches. To others 
 also besides the apostles our Lord had appeared after 
 his resurrection— to the women who went to the tomb 
 with spices to anoint him — to the two disciples whom 
 he met on their journey to Emmaus (Matt, xxviii. 9, 
 10. Mark xvi. 9—13. Luke xxiv. 13— 31.)— to the 
 five hundred brethren of whom he was seen at once 
 (1 Cor. XV. 6.) : but the apostles were to be witnesses 
 of his resurrection in a sense peculiar to themselves — 
 they were to bear witness of it publicly and proclaim 
 E 5 
 
82 APOSTLES APPOINTED 
 
 it throughout the world ; and Matthias was, in this 
 sense, appointed to be a witness with them of our 
 Lord's resurrection. 
 
 2. The appointment of Matthias was (as that of the 
 eleven had been) not of men, or by men, but of the 
 Lord. The word translated " appointed/^ ^ does not 
 import election in the common acceptation of that 
 word : nor is there any reason to doubt, that Barsabas 
 and Matthias were a2:)pointed, set up^ with the una- 
 nimous concurrence of the whole assembled body, 
 being persons who had companied with the apostles 
 during the whole of our Lord^s ministry upon earth. 
 Perhaps, they were the only individuals, besides the 
 eleven, found among the company assembled, who 
 " were qualified to stand in the room of Judas, by the 
 fact of their having consorted with Jesus from the com- 
 mencement of his personal ministry, until the close 
 of it.^^ ^ — Whether this were the case or not, the choice 
 between the two was clearly referred to the Lord. 
 
 3. When the lot had fallen on Matthias, " he was 
 numbered with the eleven apostles ; '^ but no intima- 
 tion is given of any other outward designation of him 
 to the apostleship. Nothing is recorded of imposition 
 
 ^ To express election^ ^eiporouc^u^ iKkcyea^ai or some similar word 
 would probablj'^ have been used. (See Acts vi. 5.) 
 
 2 This is the view taken of the passage by the author of Spiritual 
 Despotism (p. 440.) : and I think there is much to support it. St. Peter 
 tells the disciples, that of the men who have " companied with us . . . 
 must one become a witness with us of His resurrection :" no suggestion of 
 election. Two, we are told, were set up ; again nothing distinct about 
 election. Nor is it unlikeljs that two only were found possessing in 
 their full extent the qualifications specified by St. Peter. 
 
AFTER OUR LORD's ASCENSION. 83 
 
 of hands either in his case, or in our Lord's appoint- 
 ment of the twelve. 
 
 4. When he was thus numbered with the eleven, it 
 was, " that he '■* might " take part of '^ that ministry 
 and apostleship from which Judas by transgression had 
 fallen. The original number of twelve was filled up. 
 Was then this number to be always filled up from time 
 to time ? Was no addition to be made to it ? I am 
 not aware of any passage in Scripture from which 
 (unless from this passage) it can be inferred, either 
 that by fresh appointments from time to time the 
 number of apostles was to be kept up to twelve, or 
 that it was never to exceed that number. No such 
 inference arises necessarily from this passage ; and 
 the intention seems to have been, that, in the first 
 instance only, and especially with reference to the first 
 preaching of the resurrection and ascension to the 
 children of Israel, the number of the apostles should 
 be completed to the original number — that of the 
 twelve tribes. The apostolic office, so far as it required 
 the qualifications specified by St. Peter on this occasion, 
 could not be continued beyond the then existing gene- 
 ration : and the subsequent appointment of Saul of 
 Tarsus to that office, which is next to be considered, 
 shews that the number was not to be restricted to 
 twelve. 
 
 Saul of Tarsus was appointed an apostle, while the 
 other twelve still held the office. We must now care- 
 fully examine his conversion, his appointment to the 
 apostleship, and other parts of his history connected 
 
84 APOSTLES APPOINTED 
 
 with it : and we shall find, that like the other apostles 
 he was appointed not of men, but of God; that, 
 although he never associated with our Lord during his 
 personal ministry, yet (having both seen our Lord and 
 heard his voice after his ascension) Saul was thereby 
 qualified to bear witness (as the other apostles bore 
 witness) that Jesus had risen from the dead. We 
 shall also find, that Saul was invested with authority 
 equal to and co-ordinate with that of the other apos- 
 tles, and was (like them) replenished with all the gifts 
 of the Holy Spirit required for the due exercise of 
 that authority and the right execution of the commis- 
 sion entrusted to him. 
 
 His conversion and call to the apostleship are related 
 by St. Luke in Acts ix. : and the same inspired his- 
 torian has recorded (Acts xxii. and xxvi.) two speeches 
 of the apostle, in which the same events are narrated. 
 The apostle himself also refers to them in his epistle 
 to the Galatians. 
 
 Saul had set off from Jerusalem for Damascus with 
 authority from the chief priests to bring the disciples, 
 who were there, bound to Jerusalem to be punished. 
 As he came nigh to Damascus (Acts xxvi. 12, xxii. 5, 
 6.), " at mid-day " he " saw in the way a light from 
 heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round 
 about " him. He fell to the earth : and, while he 
 lay on the ground, Jesus himself gave him his com- 
 mission. — "Rise, and stand upon thy feet : for I have 
 appeared unto thee for this very purpose, to make thee 
 a MINISTER and a witness both of these things 
 
AFTER OUR LORD^S ASCENSION. 85 
 
 which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I 
 will appear unto thee ; delivering thee from the people, 
 Siiid. from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send ^ thee, to 
 open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, 
 Sind from the power of Satan unto God, that they may 
 receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among 
 them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." 
 (Acts xxvi. 13—18.) 
 
 It is not stated in the narrative of this vision that 
 Saul saw our Lord, though our Lord said '^ I have ap- 
 peared unto thee ... to make thee . . . awitness ... of 
 THESE THINGS WHICH THOU HAST SEEN." But Ana- 
 nias, when sent to him to restore his sight of which 
 he had been deprived on this occasion, said unto him : 
 " Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou 
 camest, hath sent me : " (Acts ix. 17.) the God of our 
 fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know 
 his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear 
 the voice of his month. For thou shalt be his witness 
 unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard." (Acts 
 xxii. 14, 15.) The natural construction of these ex- 
 pressions is, that, on that occasion, Saul not only 
 heard the voice of the Lord Jesus, but actually saw 
 him. And from passages in St. Paul's first epistle to 
 the Corinthians it is clear, that either on that or on 
 some subsequent occasion, ^ he saw the Lord, and was 
 
 ^ Send, aTToreWaj, the word whence apostle is derived. 
 ^ He expressly mentions that, when first after his conversion he went 
 again to Jerusalem, while he prayed in the temple he " was in a trance ; 
 and SAW " the Lord. (Acts xxii. 17, 18.) 
 
86 APOSTLES APPOINTED 
 
 thus constituted an eye-witness of the fact of his re- 
 surrection, and qualified to be an apostle. " Am I not 
 an apostle ?" he asks, ^' am I not free ? have I not seen 
 Jesus Christ our Lord ? " (1 Cor. ix. 1.) And, when 
 urging on the Corinthians the evidence of the resurrec- 
 tion, he says of Christ : " he was seen of Cephas, then 
 of the twelve : after that, he was seen of above five 
 hundred brethren at once .... after that, he was seen 
 of James ; then of all the apostles. And last of all he 
 was SEEN OF ME ALSO, as of ouc bom out of due 
 time." (1 Cor. xv. 5 — 8.) 
 
 It is clear, therefore, that Saul, in his way to Da- 
 mascus received an apostolic commission. Our Lord 
 himself sent him, as a minister, as a witness, as a 
 preacher of the gospel : and he was to be a witness 
 both of those things which he had then seen and heard, 
 and of those in which our Lord should thereafter ap- 
 pear unto him — a witness (among other things) that 
 Jesus was risen from the dead, that he had seen the 
 Lord, and heard his voice from heaven. No specific 
 mention, indeed, appears on this occasion to have been 
 made either of authority to administer baptism and the 
 Lord's supper, or of any supernatural gift : but autho- 
 rity to administer the sacraments was necessarily in- 
 cluded in (though St. Paul did not consider it as the 
 principal part of) the apostolic office; and the mission, 
 on which he was sent, implied a promise of every gift 
 necessary for its effectual execution. In fact he did 
 both baptize (1 Cor. i. 14.) and administer the Lord's 
 supper (1 Cor. x. 16.) ; he both spake with tongues, 
 
AFTER OUR LORD^S ASCENSION. 87 
 
 (Cor. xiv. 18) and " wrought many miracles." (Acts 
 passim.) 
 
 It was, therefore, on his journey to Damascus, that 
 Saul of Tarsus not only was converted, but first re- 
 ceived the apostolic commission. Fuller instruction in 
 the truths of the gospel he afterwards received by di- 
 rect revelation : for he had afterwards " visions and re- 
 velations of the Lord ; " he was " caught up to the 
 third heaven ; " and such was " the abundance of the 
 revelations " vouchsafed to him, that, lest thereby he 
 " should be exalted above measure," there was given to 
 him " a thorn in the flesh/' (2 Cor. xii. 1, 2, 7.) 
 
 Ananias, indeed, a " disciple at Damascus," was 
 sent by our Lord to Saul on a special commission, 
 before Saul had entered on his apostolic office, and 
 while his blindness continued ; and, in executing this 
 commission, Ananias laid his hands on Saul. But 
 this was not any outward designation of Saul to the 
 apostolic office, as we may see on a careful examina- 
 tion of the narrative. 
 
 " The Lord said unto " Ananias : " Arise, and go 
 into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in 
 the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus : for, 
 behold, he prayeth, and hath seen in a vision a man 
 named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on 
 him, that he might receive his sight." (Acts ix. 11, 
 12.) The only purpose, for which Ananias was di- 
 rected to lay his hand on Saul, was "that he might 
 receive his sight." But (it is further recorded) Ana- 
 nias " entered into the house ; and putting his hands 
 
88 APOSTLES APPOINTED 
 
 on him said, Brotlier Saul, the Lord even Jesus, that 
 appeared to thee in the way as thou earnest, hath sent 
 me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled 
 with the Holy Ghost." " Receive thy sight." '' And 
 immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been 
 scales : and he received sight forthwith." And Ana- 
 nias '^ said, The God of our Fathers hath chosen thee, 
 that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just 
 One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For 
 thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou 
 hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou ? 
 arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, call- 
 ing on the name of the Lord." And Saul " arose, 
 and was baptized.'^ (Acts ix. 17, 18. xxii. 13, 14 — 16.) 
 From the whole narrative of Ananias^ visit it appears, 
 that Ananias was sent to Saul for three purposes, first 
 that Saul should receive his sight, secondly that he 
 should be " filled with the Holy Ghost," and thirdly, 
 that he should be baptized. But there is nothing 
 necessarily connecting any one of these purposes with 
 the laying on of the hands of Ananias, except the re- 
 storation of Saul's sight, with which (and with it alone) 
 it is connected in the commission given to Ananias as re- 
 corded (and it is not recorded elsewhere ) in Acts ix. 10 
 — 16. And it may be remarked, that while it is ex- 
 pressly recorded, that Ananias said to him " Receive 
 thy sight," and that "he received his sight;" it is 
 not mentioned, either that Ananias said " Receive '* 
 or " Be filled with the Holy Ghost," or that Saul did 
 receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of his hands. 
 
AFTER OUR LORD'S ASCENSION. 89 
 
 Yet Saul's being "filled with the Holy Ghost ^' was to 
 be, in some sense, a consequence of the visit of Ananias. 
 If by this, a further ^ measure of sanctification be 
 meant, that result followed, when he was baptized, 
 and washed away his sins, calhng on the name of the 
 Lord — if the gift of supernatural powers, this also, 
 though not connected with the laying on of hands, 
 might be considered as, in some sense, the consequence 
 of a visit, at which (after his sight had been restored) 
 he was admitted by baptism into the church of Christy 
 and thus prepared for his next step, his journey into 
 Arabia, in which he seems to have been endowed by 
 the Holy Spirit himself with all the gifts and qual- 
 ifications requisite for his apostolic ofiice. 
 
 That he was so endowed during the time that he 
 spent in Arabia, and that he did not consider himself 
 as designated to the apostleship by the laying on of 
 the hands of Ananias, may, I think, be fairly inferred 
 from his own account of his journey into that country, 
 and from what is recorded of his proceedings on his 
 return to Damascus. 
 
 " When it pleased God/^ (he writes to the Galati- 
 ans) ^' who separated me from my mother's womb, 
 and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, 
 that I might preach him among the heathen ; imme- 
 
 ' Saul had already exhibited marks of conversion. While lying on 
 the ground, he inquired of Jesus, " Lord, what will thou have me to do ? " 
 He obeyed without hesitation the directions which our Lord gave him. 
 He fasted three days, and our Lord described to Ananias the state of 
 Saul's soul by the remarkable expression. " Behold, he prayeth." 
 (Acts ix. 6—11.) 
 
90 APOSTLES APPOINTED 
 
 diately I conferred not with flesli and blood : neither 
 went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles 
 before me ; but I went into Arabia, and returned again 
 to Damascus/-' (Gal. i. 15 — 17.) For what purpose 
 did he go into Arabia ? He tells us not — Was it to 
 preach the gospel ? We have no where any allusion 
 to any ministerial labours of his in Arabia. He con- 
 trasts his journey to Arabia, with the journey which 
 he might have been expected to take, a journey to 
 Jerusalem to see the apostles. Does not this imply, 
 that he went into Arabia under divine direction, and 
 there received immediately from the Holy Spirit, 
 without human intervention, those gifts which the 
 apostles (as we shall see) were accustomed to confer by 
 imposition of hands ? 
 
 On his return to Damascus, he entered on his mi- 
 nistry, and made full proof thereof. " He preached 
 Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.*' 
 He ^' increased the more in strength, and confounded 
 the Jews that were at Damascus, proving that this is 
 very Christ. And after many days were fulfilled, the 
 Jews took counsel to kill him : " (Acts ix. 20 — 23.) 
 and the governor kept the city with a garrison, desirous 
 to apprehend him : (2 Cor. xi. 32.) " but their laying 
 await was known unto Saul. And they watched the 
 gates day and night to kill him. Then the disciples 
 took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a 
 basket.^' (Acts ix. 24, 25.) A remarkable accomplish- 
 ment of the promise : " delivering thee from the people 
 and from the Gentiles.^' 
 
AFTER OUR LORD'S ASCENSION. 91 
 
 From Damascus he went to Jerusalem ; three years 
 having then elapsed since his conversion. (Gal. i. 18.) 
 But neither then did he receive any authority from the 
 apostles. He saw, indeed, only two of them, Peter 
 and James, as he himself declares to the Galatians 
 with the solemnity of an oath, (Gal. i. 18—20.) ob- 
 viously to guard against any inference that he received 
 his apostolic commission from the apostles. (See Gal. 
 ii. 6.) Bat at Jerusalem also he exercised his ministry. 
 "He was with" the apostles '^coming in and going- 
 out at Jerusalem : and he spake boldly in the name of 
 the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians.'^ 
 (Acts ix. 28, 29.) And, while he prayed in the temple, 
 he was " in a trance, and saw '' the Lord " saying 
 unto " him, "make haste, and get thee quickly out 
 of Jerusalem : for they will not receive thy testimony 
 concerning me.'' Paul made some remonstrance : but 
 our Lord said unto him : " Depart, for I will send 
 thee far hence unto the Gentiles." (Acts xxii. 17 — 21.) 
 In fact the Grecians had conspired ^^ to slay him : 
 which when the brethren knew, they brought him 
 down to Csesarea." (Acts ix. 29, 30.) 
 
 There is one other occasion, on which hands are re- 
 corded to have been laid on Saul, not by any apostle, 
 but by certain prophets and teachers at Antioch. 
 This imposition of hands clearly was not his designa- 
 tion to the apostolic office, for he had previously ex- 
 ercised his ministry for a year at Antioch^ as well as 
 first at Damascus and then at Jerusalem. (Acts xiii. 
 1 — 4. and xi. 26.) What the purport was of this 
 
93 APOSTLES APPOINTED 
 
 imposition of hands, we shall have to consider, when 
 we examine in what sense Barnabas was called aii 
 apostle. 
 
 One thing is clear, that St. Paul expressly declares 
 himself to be " an apostle not of men, neither by 
 man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father." 
 (Gal. i. 1.) He not only calls himself an apostle, 
 but insists on having exclusively received his apostle- 
 ship from Christ, or (as he sometimes expresses it) 
 from God. (Rom. i. 1 — 5, and 1 Cor. i, 1, and 2 
 Cor. i. 1, and Gal. i. 15 — 19, and Eph. i. 1, and Col. 
 i. 1, and 1 Tim. i. 1, 11, 12, and 2 Tim. i. 1, and 
 Tit. i. 1—3.) He speaks of himself as " not a whit 
 behind,^' as "in nothing behind the very chiefest 
 apostles ; " and refers the Corinthians, for evidence 
 of his apostleship, to " the signs of an apostle," 
 which " were wrought among ^' them " in all patience, 
 in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.'' (2 Cor. 
 xi. 5. xii. 11, 12.) He exercised the same apostolic 
 authority as they exercised, preaching the gospel,^ 
 bearing witness to the resurrection of our Lord,^ whom 
 he had seen since his ascension,^ denouncing * and 
 threatening ^ miraculous punishments, having " the 
 care of all the churches " resting upon him,^ and ex- 
 ercising authority over various churches.'^ 
 
 ^ Acts passim. ^ Acts xxii. 1 — 10. and xxvi. 12— 23, and xvii. 31, 32. 
 
 ^ Acts ix. 17. and xxii. 14, 15. and 1 Cor. ix. 1, and xv. 5 — 8. 
 
 * Acts xiii. 8—11. 
 
 5 1 Cor. iv. 18—21. and 2 Cor. xiii. 2, 3, 10. and see ante Chap. ii. 
 
 6 2 Cor. xi. 28. 
 
 '^ Tit. and 1 and 2 Tim. passim, and 1 Cor. v. 1 — 5. and 2 Cor. ii. 6--10. 
 
AFTER OUR LORD'S ASCENSION. 93 
 
 We find then Paul appointed an apostle in addition 
 to the other twelve, after the number had been com- 
 pleted by the appointment of Matthias, and before 
 any breach had been made in it. No reason is as- 
 signed either for the original number of twelve, or for 
 the addition of this thirteenth apostle who speaks of 
 himself as of "one born out of due time." (1 Cor. 
 XV. 8.) But Paul was sent "far" from Jerusalem 
 " to the Gentiles : '^ and he declares himself to be 
 "the apostle of the Gentiles." (Rom. xi. 13.) We 
 may, therefore, reasonably conjecture, that the twelve 
 apostles (whose commission was in the first instance 
 restricted to the children of Israel) were originally 
 appointed, and the number afterwards completed by 
 the appointment of Matthias, with reference to the 
 number of the tribes, it being the will of our Lord, 
 that the gospel should be first preached to the Jews, 
 and then to the Gentiles (Luke xxiv. 47. Actsxiii. 14 
 — 16.) : while the thirteenth apostle was afterwards ap- 
 pointed as " the apostle of the Gentiles." Not that 
 Paul restricted his ministry to the Gentiles — he testified 
 " both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repen- 
 tance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus 
 Christ." (Acts XX. 21.) Neither did the other apostles 
 restrict their ministry to the children of Israel. Peter 
 was the apostle, through whose ministry (after Paul's 
 appointment) the kingdom of God was opened to the 
 uncircumcised Gentiles, on the conversion of Cornelius 
 and his friends. (Acts x.) But the mission of the apostle 
 Paul was principally, not exclusively, to the heathen : 
 
94 APOSTLES APPOINTED 
 
 that of the other twelve primarily and in the first in- 
 stance, not exclusively, and (after a time) perhaps ^ 
 not even principally, to the children of Israel. 
 
 Was, then, any apostle appointed subsequently to 
 St. Paul ? Herod " killed James the brother of John 
 with the sword.^' (Acts xii. 2.) Was any one ap- 
 pointed in his place ? Nothing of the sort is inti- 
 mated in Scripture ; though twice during a missionary 
 tour, which Paul and Barnabas afterwards took 
 together, they are called {aTila-ToXoi, literally " messen- 
 gers,'^ but in the authorized version) ^' apostles." 
 (Acts xiv. 4, 14.) In what sense is Barnabas so 
 called ? 
 
 When Saul escaped from Damascus ^' to Jerusalem, 
 he essayed to join himself to the disciples : but they 
 were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a 
 disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to 
 the apostles." (Acts ix. 26, 27.) It is clear, that at 
 this time Barnabas was not an apostle ; for St. Paul 
 declares, that on this visit to Jerusalem he saw none 
 of the apostles except Peter and James. (Gal. i. 18, 
 19.) 
 
 Afterwards " the church which was in Jerusalem," 
 having heard that at Antioch " a great number " 
 had " believed and turned unto the Lord," sent Bar- 
 
 ^ Peter addressed his second epistle " to them that have obtained like 
 precious faith with us : " (2 Peter ii. 1.) Jude his epistle " to them that 
 are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and 
 called:" (Judei.) and John the Apocalypse "to the seven churches 
 which" were "in Asia." (Rev. i. 4.) 
 
95 
 
 nabas to that city : '' who, when he came, and had 
 seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, 
 that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the 
 Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy 
 Ghost and of faith : and much people was added to 
 the Lord. Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to 
 seek Saul : and when he had found him, he brought 
 him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole 
 year they assembled themselves with the church, and 
 taught much people.^' (Acts xi. 21 — 26.) Here was 
 no assumption or exercise by Barnabas of apostolic 
 authority : but, on the contrary, he fetched the apos- 
 tle Paul to assist him in his work. 
 
 He is never called an apostle previously to his 
 missionary tour with the apostle Paul. The way in 
 which they were sent forth on this mission is thus 
 recorded. 
 
 " Now there were in the church that was at Antioch 
 certain prophets and teachers ; as Barnabas and Si- 
 meon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, 
 and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod 
 the tetrarch, and Saul. And as they ministered to the 
 Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said. Separate me 
 Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have 
 called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, 
 and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. 
 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed 
 unto Seleucia." (Acts xiii. 1 — 4.) 
 
 This, if Barnabas was ever appointed an apostle in 
 the same sense as the twelve, was his appointment 
 
96 APOSTLES APPOINTED 
 
 — no other is recorded. But can this be an appoint- 
 ment or ordination of Barnabas to the apostleship ? 
 
 Whatever commission this imposition of hands con- 
 ferred on Barnabas, the same it conferred on Saul. 
 It therefore could not be the apostolic commission — 
 for Saul was already an apostle : he had received his 
 apostolic commission from our Lord himself : and he 
 always, as we have seen, disclaimed having received it 
 either of men, or hy men — still less did he receive it 
 from prophets and teachers, themselves destitute (as 
 those of Antioch except himself were) of apostolic 
 authority. 
 
 The commission given by this imposition of hands 
 alike to Barnabas and Saul — given (I should rather 
 say) by the Holy Spirit, and designated by the laying 
 on of hands — was a special and temporary com- 
 mission. " The Holy Ghost said. Separate me Barnabas 
 and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." 
 In obedience to this command, those to whom it was 
 addressed '^ fasted and prayed, and laid their hands 
 on them,^' and " sent them away." After travelling 
 through various countries, and preaching the gospel, 
 and settling churches, they returned " to Antioch, 
 from whence," says the inspired historian, " they had 
 been recommended to the grace of God for the work 
 which they had fulfilled.'^ (Acts xiii. and xiv. 1 — 26.) 
 They had fulfilled the work for which they had been 
 seiit forth; they had executed their special com- 
 mission ; it was at an end ; and therefore it was other 
 than and distinct from, the apostolic commission, which 
 
AFTER OUR LORD^S ASCENSION. 97 
 
 Saul had previously received, which he exercised in the 
 course of this journey, and which he never laid down. 
 It is in the narrative of this journey, that Barnabas 
 and Saul are twice, and twice only, called apostles. 
 St. Paul calls himself an apostle, and strongly asserts 
 his apostolic authority in several epistles written after i 
 this special mission was ended. But Barnabas is never 
 in Scripture, either before or after this journey, called 
 an apostle ^ or recorded to have exercised apostolic 
 authority, though he is several times after this journey 
 mentioned both in the Acts of the Apostles (xv.) and 
 
 ^ See 1 Cor. i. 1, and passim ii. 1 — 5. ix. 1, 2, 5 ; and 2 Cor. i. 1. xi. 
 5. xii, xiii ; and Gal. i. 11,12; and Eph. i. 1, and Col. i. 1, and 1 Tim. i. 
 1 ; and 2 Tim. i. 1, 11 ; and Tit. i. 1. The 1st. epistle to the Corinthians has 
 been shown (See Appendix I.) to have been written during St. Paul's visit 
 to Ephesus recorded in Acts xix ; and consequently both the epistles to the 
 Corinthians were written after the missionary journey of Paul and Bar- 
 nabas, The epistles to the Galatians, and to Titus, and the first epistle 
 to Timothy refer to events subsequent to this journey. (See Gal. ii. 1 — 14. 
 and Tit. i. 5, and 1 Tim. i. 3.) The epistles to the Ephesians, and to the 
 Colossians, and the second epistle to Timothy were written when Paul 
 was a prisoner for the sake of the gospel, (See Eph. iv. 1, and Col. 
 iv. 3, and 2 Tim. ii. 8, 9.) which he never was till after this journey. 
 
 2 It has been thought, that in 1 Cor. iv. 9. St. Paul calls himself and 
 Barnabas the last apostles ; and that the words 6 0eb$ rjfias rss ano- 
 cttSAss iffxares a.ir45ei^ev, (which in our authorized version are rendered 
 " God hath set forth us the apostles last,") should be translated -" God 
 hath set forth us the last apostles." I see no sufficient reason for de- 
 parting from the authorized version : and, if the proposed alteration 
 were adopted, I should uuderstand St. Paul as speaking of himself 
 alone, though in the plural number, as elsewhere (See 2 Cor. vii. 2 — 13. 
 Gal. i. 6—9.) he speaks of himself interchangeably in the plural and 
 singular number. He had not mentioned Barnabas before the verse in 
 question ; and the whole context is more applicable to St. Paul than to 
 any other individual, and has no particular application to Barnabas. In 
 a subsequent passage, indeed, after asserting his own apostolic authority, 
 
 F 
 
98 APOSTLES APPOINTED 
 
 in the epistles of St. Paul. (1 Cor. ix. 6._, and Gal. ii. 1., 
 and Col. iv. 10.) In the epistle to the Galatians, 
 indeed, St. Paul says : " When James, Cephas, and 
 .John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace 
 that was given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas 
 the right hands of fellowship ; ^ that we should go 
 unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. '^ 
 (Gal. ii. 9.) But his meaning, I conceive, is, that 
 James, Peter and John, being satisfied of Paul's apos- 
 tolic commission ("the grace given to me"), gave to him 
 and Barnabas, who had introduced him to the apostles 
 (Acts ix. 27.), the right hand of Christian fellowship ; 
 that Paul, with Barnabas as his companion and helper, 
 should go to the heathen, they (James, Peter, and 
 John) going to the circumcision. 
 
 in the singular number, he asks — " Have we not power to eat and to 
 drink ? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other 
 apostles, and as the brethren of our Lord, and Cephas ? Or I only and 
 Barnabas, have vi^e not power to forbear working?" (ix. 4 — 6.) It 
 may perhaps be urged, that when St. Paul says — " Have we not power 
 as other '■• (rather "the other," ol Xoiithi) "apostles," he in- 
 cludes Barnabas with himself under the word "We," and consequently 
 by implication calls Barnabas an apostle. But (1) I see no suiRcient 
 ground for including Barnabas under the word " we " in the two first 
 questions ; and, (2) if Barnabas were included, it would not follow, that 
 St. Paul called him an apostle. Suppose he had written — " I and Bar- 
 nabas have we not power, as (the) other apostles, and as the brethren of 
 our Lord and Cephas " — would it follow that Barnabas, as well as Paul, 
 was an apostle ? Being himself an apostle, St. ' Paul would necessarily 
 speak of the twelve as " the other apostles, " whether Barnabas were an 
 apostle or not. 
 
 ^ "Fellowship" — Koivavias—the word does not import equality 
 (1 Cor. i. 9. and 1 John i. 3) ; nor, necessarily, any thing more than that 
 communion and fellowship which ought to subsist between all Christians. 
 (Phil. i. 5.) 
 
AFTER OUR LORD's ASCENSION. 99 
 
 Lastly, if we examine the proceedings of Paul and 
 Barnabas during the journey on which they were sent 
 from Antioch, we shall not find Barnabas exercising 
 any authority, or doing any act, peculiar to an apostle. 
 The miraculous punishment inflicted on Ely mas the 
 sorcerer was inflicted by Saul alone, who is then for the 
 first time called Paul (Acts xiii. 8 — 11). Both Paul 
 and Barnabas, indeed, preached (Acts xiii. 5, 43, 46, 
 47; xiv. 1, 7, 14, 22, 25); both of them shook the 
 dust off their feet against the inhabitants of a city 
 which had expelled them (Acts xiii. 50, 5]); both 
 wrought miracles (Acts xiv. 3): but these were parts, 
 as we have seen, of the commission given to the seventy 
 disciples, as well as of that given to the apostles. They 
 also " ordained ^ them elders in every church." (Acts 
 xiv. 23) ; that is to say, they laid hands on the indi- 
 viduals, thereby appointing them elders ; but presby- 
 ters also, either alone or jointly with the apostle — for 
 the present purpose it is immaterial whether alone or 
 jointly — laid hands on Timothy when he was ordained ^ 
 (1 Tim. iv. 14, and 2 Tim. i. 6.) 
 
 The result is this. We find no mention made of any 
 
 ^ [ follow here the established version, which I think right. Another 
 interpretation has been put upon the passage, which still less attributes 
 to Barnabas an act of apostolic authority— The passage and this interpre- 
 tation will be considered hereafter (ch. vii.) 
 
 2 It is not material to the present purpose, whether " the laying on 
 of the hands of the presbytery " ( 1 Tim. iv. ] 4. ) was when Timothy 
 was ordained presbyter, or when he was ordained to some other office, or 
 whether the laying on of the apostle's hands (2 Tim. i. 6.) was at the 
 same, or another time. Both questions will be considered hereafter. 
 (See ch. vii.) 
 
 F 2 
 
100 APOSTLES APPOINTED 
 
 appointment of Barnabas to the apostleship, either im- 
 mediately by our Lord as in the case of the first twelve 
 and of Paul, or mediately through the drawing of lots 
 as in the case of Matthias : no mention of any exercise 
 of or claim to apostolic authority by Barnabas himself : 
 no mention of him as an apostle except in the two pas- 
 sages already quoted from the Acts. Those passages 
 (Acts xiv. 4, 14) may be interpreted ^ as simply referring 
 to the special mission, on which he and Paul had been 
 sent, and in which they were then engaged ; and, in 
 
 ^ The brethren, who with Titus were the bearers of St. Paul's 2nd 
 Epistle to the Corinthians, are by the apostle called " the messengers " 
 {aTr6s-o\oi, apostles) " of the churches," (2 Cot. viii. 23.) So he calls 
 Epaphroditus the " messenger " {aTr6s-o\oi/, apostle) of the Philippians, 
 (Phil. ii. 25. See iv. 18.) This is ver}- difierent from the appellation, 
 which, in the same epistle to the Corinthians (2 Cor. i. 1.) as well as in 
 other epistles, (Eph. — Col — Gal. — 1 and 2 Tim.) he assumes to himself, 
 " an apostle of Jesus Christ." An apostle, a messenger, of Jesus Christ 
 is one office; an apostle, a messenger, of the churches, another. He 
 calls himself, indeed, also " the apostle of the Gentiles," meaning that 
 he was sent to the Gentiles ; but this is the only passage (as far as I am 
 aware) in which the word has that construction. In the passage, " t?iei/ 
 are the messengers of the churches " (2 Cor. viii. 23.), the context shows 
 that the persons were messengers chosen and sent by the churches to 
 travel with St. Paul and take charge of the alms raised by the churches 
 (lb. 18 — 23.) : and, when the apostle wrote to the Philippians — " I sup- 
 posed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and com- 
 panion in labour, and fellow soldier, but your messenger (apostle), and 
 he that ministered to my wants " (Phil. ii. 25.)— it is clear, both from 
 the passage itself, and from St. Paul afterwards mentioning that he had 
 " received of Epaphroditus, the things" which were sent from the 
 Philippians (iv. 18.), that he called Epaphroditus their "messenger," 
 simply as having been sent by them with relief to his necessities while a 
 prisoner at Rome. The same apostle speaks of two, " who are of note 
 among the apostles." But I do not conceive, that this includes them in 
 the number of the apostles. 
 
101 
 
 the absence of all mention either of his being appointed 
 an apostle or of his exercising the apostolic office, I 
 conceive, that they ought to be so interpreted; and 
 that Barnabas is not to be considered as an apostle in 
 the same sense as Paul and the twelve, but as being 
 with Paul a messenger or apostle " sent forth by the 
 Holy Ghost/ '^ on a special mission, " whereunto" 
 He had " called them :" and I am the more confirmed 
 in this opinion, by the peculiar manner in which Mat- 
 thias was appointed and " numbered with the eleven, 
 apostles ; '^ by the miraculous mode in which Saul was 
 called to the apostleship by our Lord himself; and by 
 the remarkable terms in which St, Paul, subsequently 
 to this mission, writes of himself '^ as of one born out 
 of due time " (1 Cor. xv. 8.) in the very epistle in 
 which (as we have seen) he strongly asserts his apostle- 
 ship — circumstances indicating, that he only had been 
 added to the number of the apostles, after it had been 
 specifically completed to twelve by the appointment of 
 Matthias. 
 
 It has, indeed, been thought that Barnabas was 
 appointed an apostle to supply the place of James 
 whom Herod had put to death, as Matthias was 
 appointed to fill the office from which Judas by trans- 
 gression fell. But there is ijo intimation in Scripture 
 of this being the case. 
 
 On the whole, I conclude, that, when once the 
 
 ^ The apostolic commission given to the twelve and to Saul is never so 
 spoken of in Scripture. Our Lord himself sent the twelve — himself sent 
 Saul. 
 
102 APOSTLES APPOINTED 
 
 number of apostles was completed to twelve by the 
 appointment of Matthias, no addition was made to it 
 except by the extraordinary call of Saul : nor was any 
 subsequent vacancy supplied or to be supplied. The 
 office has expired, so far as it was distinct from that of 
 other ministers of the gospel. No minister now pos- 
 sesses the qualifications, which St. Peter required in 
 the choice of an apostle in the place of Judas. To no 
 minister is that infallihle guidance of the Holy Spirit 
 now vouchsafed, which our Lord promised to his apos- 
 tles, and which was essential to the due exercise of 
 many branches of the authority which he conferred 
 upon them. 
 
 The apostolic office was, we may observe, in every 
 case, conferred by our Lord himself — on the twelve 
 first appointed during his ministry on earth, on Mat- 
 thias by his determining the lot in answer to the 
 prayer of the disciples, on Saul by an immediate re- 
 velation from heaven — in every case, without human 
 intervention, except in so far as in the case of Mat- 
 thias the disciples set up Barsabas and Matthias. 
 The inference which I deduce is, that the apostolic 
 office was personal to those thus appointed, and not by 
 them to be transmitted to others ; not to be trans- 
 mitted to others in the plenitude in which it was con- 
 ferred on them, though (as we have already in part 
 seen, and shall more fully see in the sequel) they were 
 both authorized to transmit to (or constituted instru- 
 ments for conferring on) others some of the powers 
 with which they were intrusted, and also commissioned 
 
AFTER OUR LORD'S ASCENSION. 103 
 
 to commit to others some of the duties with which 
 they were charged. Their office was, in several most 
 important particulars which have been noticed, not 
 only personal to themselves, but distinct from, and 
 superior to, the office of every other minister of the 
 gospel. The superiority of their office is further 
 obvious from the tone of authority in which their epis- 
 tles are written. St. Peter, indeed, addressing the 
 elders, calls himself " also an elder.''^^ (1 Pet. v. 1.) 
 And St. John, writing when he was probably the only 
 surviving apostle, styles hinself " the elder." (2 John 
 i. 3 John i.) We shall hereafter examine what the 
 office of elder was. It is sufficient for the present to 
 observe, that the apostles, though elders, were more 
 than elders — they were evangelists" — they had the 
 care, charge, and government of all the churches (2 
 Cor. xi. 28. James i. 1. 1 Peter i. 1. 2 Peter i. 1.)— 
 they had, under the infallible guidance of the Holy 
 Spirit, authority both to legislate and to judge and to 
 rule, not in any one particular or local church — but in 
 every church. 
 
 ^ Gr. b avfiTTp^aQ-uTcpos the co-elder. 
 ^ It was St. Paul's object to preach the gospel where it had not before 
 been preached. (2Cor. x. 13 — 16.) 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 MIRACULOUS POWERS. 
 
 Our Lord, in his last discourse with his apostles, 
 before his crucifixion, promised to " send unto " them 
 '' from the Father, the Spirit of truth,'' " the Com- 
 forter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father'' would 
 " send in " our Lord's " name" (John xv. 26 ; 
 xiv. 26) : and, shortly before his ascension, he renewed 
 and confirmed the promise ; " Behold, I send the 
 promise of my Father upon you : but tarry ye in the 
 city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from 
 on high." (Luke xxiv. 49.) " Ye shall be baptized 
 with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." (Acts i. 5.) 
 About the same time, and probably on the same 
 occasion, our Lord gave a promise extending beyond 
 the apostles : " These signs shall follow them that 
 believe ; In my name they shall cast out devils ; they 
 shall speak with new tongues ; they shall take up ser- 
 pents ; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall 
 
MIRACULOUS POWERS. 105 
 
 not hurt them ; they shall lay hands on the sick, and 
 they shall recover/^ (Mark xvi. 17, 18.) 
 
 The promise specially made to the apostles, was 
 exactly performed not many days after our Lord^s 
 ascension : and, on the same occasion, the promise of 
 signs to " follow them that believe,^' was (if I mistake 
 not) begun to be performed. 
 
 Immediately after the narrative (which has already 
 been considered) of the eleven apostles and other dis- 
 ciples (in number about an hundred and twenty) 
 being assembled, and appointing two, out of whom 
 Matthias was chosen by lot to succeed Judas in the 
 apostleship, and of his being " numbered with the 
 eleven apostles '^ (Acts i. 13 — 26.) ; the inspired his- 
 torian proceeds : 
 
 " And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, 
 they were aU with one accord in one place. And 
 suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a 
 rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where 
 they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven 
 tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 
 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and 
 began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave 
 them utterance.^' (Acts ii. 1 — 4.) 
 
 On this occasion, all the disciples who were as- 
 sembled were " filled with the Holy Ghost :" but it is 
 not clear, whether any but the twelve apostles, were 
 then gathered together. I am inclined to think, that 
 the same individuals were together on the day of Pen- 
 tecost as on the occasion recorded immediately before, 
 
 F 5 
 
106 MIRACULOUS POWERS. 
 
 viz. when Matthias ^' was numbered with the eleven 
 apostles."'^ 
 
 The expression^ — " they were all with one accord 
 in one place ^' — refers more naturally to those who 
 had been assembled on the former occasion, than 
 to the apostles who, though mentioned in the verse 
 immediately preceding, are mentioned only as " the 
 eleven apostles " with whom Matthias was then 
 numbered. 
 
 The prophecy, besides, of Joel, which Peter quoted 
 as foretelling that outpouring of the Spirit (Acts ii. 
 16 — 18.), would have been but partially fulfilled on 
 that occasion, unless it had rested on women as well 
 as on men : but, as there were women ^ among the dis- 
 ciples assembled at the appointment of Matthias 
 (Acts i. 14, 15.), it was fully accomplished on the day 
 of Pentecost, if the same disciples were then as- 
 sembled. 
 
 Peter also, on a subsequent occasion when he ad- 
 dressed '' the apostles and brethren " at Jerusalem in 
 vindication of his having eaten with Cornelius and his 
 friends, said (in reference to this outpouring of the 
 Spirit on the day of Pentecost) : " God gave them '^ 
 (Cornelius and his friends) " the like gift as he did 
 unto us, who believed." (Acts xi. 1 — 4, 15 — 17.) Unto 
 us WHO BELIEVED — he did not say, unto us apostles; 
 whence we may reasonably infer, that, on the day of 
 
 ^ Women were endued witli the Spirit of prophecy under the 
 Christian (Acts xxi. 9.), as well as under the Mosaic dispensation. 
 (Ex. XV. 20. Judges iv. 4.) 
 
MIRACULOUS POWERS. 107 
 
 Pentecost, others besides the apostles received the gift 
 of tongues. 
 
 But the question is not very important. For, when 
 the extraordinary outpouring of the Spirit on the day 
 of Pentecost had drawn together a great multitude, 
 the twelve stood up ; and Peter addressed the multi- 
 tude, and preached Jesus risen from the dead and as- 
 cended into heaven, the eleven standing by him and 
 thereby joining in his testimony. Thus the twelve 
 apostles, as distinguished from any others who may 
 have been assembled with them, began to execute their 
 apostolic commission, bearing witness publicly of Jesus 
 and the resurrection : and the Lord set his seal to their 
 commission and confirmed the word spoken by the 
 conversion of three thousand souls. (Acts ii. 14 — 41.) 
 
 I think it, therefore, the more probable opinion, that 
 the other disciples, who had been assembled with the 
 eleven apostles at the appointment of Matthias, were 
 also assembled with the twelve on the day of Pentecost ; 
 and that these disciples, while they recognised the 
 apostolic authority of Peter and the eleven as entitling 
 them to take the lead, partook with them (though not 
 in equal measure) of the outpouring of the Spirit and 
 the gift of neiv tongues. 
 
 We are now naturally led to consider more particular- 
 ly the extent of the promise — " these signs shall follow 
 them that believe^' — and the first question is, whether 
 it is a promise in perpetuity to the church, or only for 
 a season. The inquiry is important : and it comes ap- 
 propriately in this place ; for the apostle says : " God 
 
108 MIRACULOUS POWERS. 
 
 hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily 
 prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then 
 gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of 
 tongues. " (1 Cor. xii. 28.) If then the promise were 
 in perpetuity, we might distinguish the true church by 
 *' the signs '^ which " follow them that believe ; " we 
 should find in the true church supernatural gifts either 
 of prophecy, or of miracles, or of healings, or of 
 tongues : and we should have classes of ministers in 
 the church who (independently of any human designa- 
 tion) would carry about with them the testimonials of 
 their divine commission — But, if the promise was only 
 for a season, then we have not this criterion of the true 
 church : and, if prophets and miracles and healings 
 and tongues (as well as apostles) were to cease, the 
 difi'erent orders of permanent ministers in the church, 
 which we shall have to consider, will be much reduced 
 m number. 
 
 Now this inquiry may, I think, be brought to a short 
 issue ; because it can be shewn, that no provision was 
 made for perpetuating supernatural gifts in the church. 
 These gifts (as we have seen) were bestowed on the 
 apostles, and on others also : on the seventy disciples, 
 and (it seems) on the disciples assembled with the 
 apostles at the day of Pentecost. But in no instance 
 is it recorded, that any one, except our Lord himself or 
 one of his apostles, conferred or professed to confer 
 these gifts on others : nor is any instance recorded of 
 even an apostle conferring or professing to confer on 
 any other individual the power to transmit to others 
 
MIRACULOUS POWERS. 109 
 
 the supernatural gifts bestowed on himself. On the 
 contrary we shall, upon inquiry, find it strongly im- 
 plied in Scriptm'e, that no one but an apostle had 
 power to confer any supernatural gift ; and that even 
 an apostle could not transmit that power to another. 
 We shall be brought, I think, necessarily to this con- 
 clusion by examining the events recorded in the eighth 
 chapter of Acts. 
 
 After the martyrdom of Stephen, there arose " a 
 great persecution against the church which was at Je- 
 rusalem ; and they were scattered abroad throughout 
 the regions of Judseaand Samaria, except the apostles." 
 Then Philip (not the apostle') '' went down to the 
 city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them," and 
 wrought miracles among them. The people believed 
 and were baptized : and, among others, Simon, " which 
 beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched 
 the people of Samaria," " was baptized," and ^^ con- 
 tinued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the mira- 
 cles and signs which were done. Now when the 
 apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria 
 had received the word of God, they sent unto them 
 Peter and John : who, when they were come down, 
 prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy 
 
 ^ The apostles remained at Jerusalem, while the other disciples were 
 scattered abroad (1.); of which other disciples, this Philip was one 
 (4, 5.) And we trace him in this eighth chapter to Caesarea (40.); 
 where we afterwards find residing " Philip the evangelist, which was 
 one of the seven" (Acts xxi. 8.) — viz. of the seven chosen to administer 
 the alms of the church at Jerusalem (Acts vi. 1 — 5.) — obviously the 
 same individual. 
 
110 MIRACULOUS POWERS. 
 
 Ghost : (for as yet he was fallen upon none of them ; 
 only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 
 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received 
 the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through 
 laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was 
 given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also 
 this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may 
 receive the Holy Ghost.^' (Acts viii. 1 — 19.) — he meant 
 not the graces, but the miraculous gifts, of the Holy 
 Ghost. His ^' heart ^' was " not right in the sight of 
 God." (ib. 31.) He had been observing the miracles 
 wrought by Philip ; but he was unable to discern in 
 believers, still less did he covet, the graces of the Holy 
 Spirit, Simon's cupidity was excited ; and he desired 
 to purchase not only the power to perform miracles, 
 but power to confer that gift on others. Philip, though 
 he wrought miracles himself, neither conferred nor 
 professed to confer on others any supernatural gift. 
 Simon preferred not to him any application similar to 
 that which he preferred to the apostles. It was not 
 till the apostles came to Samaria, that supernatural 
 gifts were bestowed on those who had not (as Philip 
 had) previously received them. Then the apostles by 
 imposition of hands (with prayer] conferred on believers 
 the Holy Ghost — miraculous powers. It is clear, from 
 the whole narrative, that to the apostles, and to the 
 apostles only, all parties looked as the instruments^ 
 for communicating supernatural gifts. 
 
 ^ To the power of communicating supernatural gifts, as exclusively 
 apostolic, and evidencing his own apostolic authority in opposition to the 
 
MIRACULOUS POWERS. Ill 
 
 While, however, on this and other occasions the 
 apostles, by imposition of hands, conferred supernatural 
 gifts, they neither on this nor on any other occasion 
 gave, or claimed authority to give, to any other in- 
 dividual power to confer such gifts on others. The in- 
 ference is, that they were not authorized to transmit 
 this power to others ; and consequently that no pro- 
 vision was made for perpetuating miraculous powers 
 in the church.^ 
 
 The Holy Spirit, it is true, was, on several distinct 
 occasions after the ascension, poured out without the 
 laying on of an apostle's hands — first, on the day of 
 Pentecost — next, when Peter and John, being released 
 
 Judaizing teachers who had "bewitched" the Galatians, St. Paul seems 
 to appeal when he writes : " He therefore that ministereth to you the 
 Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the 
 law, or by the hearing of faith." (Gal. iii. 5,) He says indeed (not 
 " by laying on of my hands, " but) "by the hearing of faith." Perhaps 
 the Holy Spirit had been given after he had preached to the Galatians, as 
 after Peter had preached to Cornelius and his friends. 
 
 ^ Bishop Kaye (in the History of the Church illustrated by the writ- 
 ings of Tertullian, p. 98.) says, "To adopt the language of confidence 
 on such a subject, would be a mark no less of folly, than presumption ; 
 but I may be allowed to state the conclusion to which I have myself been 
 led, by a comparison of the statement in the book of Acts, with the 
 writings of the Fathers of the second century. My conclusion is, that the 
 power of working miracles was not extended beyond the disciples, upon 
 whom the apostles conferred it by imposition of their hands." His Lord- 
 ship means, I presume, that such persons had no power further to trans- 
 mit it : for he could not mean to say, that, in the times of the apostles, no 
 disciples except those on whom they laid their hands possessed miraculous 
 powers. I think he ably and effectually disposes of what the Fathers 
 who lived in the middle and end of the second century, and at a later 
 period, say respecting miracles. (lb. p. 9B, QQ. et seq.) 
 
112 MIRACULOUS POWERS. 
 
 from imprisonment, returned to their own company — 
 and again, when Peter preached to Cornelius and his 
 friends. St. Paul, also, after enumerating " diversities 
 of gifts/' adds : " all these worketh that one and the 
 self same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he 
 will." (1 Cor. xii. 4—11.) Whence it may be in- 
 ferred, that the Holy Spirit, in those days, not un- 
 frequently conferred supernatural powers without any 
 human intervention. Still, as the apostles (and they 
 alone) were invested with authority to confer on others 
 by imposition of hands miraculous gifts, and as they 
 were not empowered to transmit that authority to 
 others, we may reasonably conclude that the promise 
 of such gifts, whether with or without intervention of 
 an apostle, was limited to the lives of the apostles and 
 of those on whom (during our Lord's ministry or the 
 ministry of his apostles) such gifts were conferred : and, 
 while it would be presumptuous to say, that the Spirit 
 who " divideth to every man severally as he will " 
 has wholly and for ever withdrawn his miraculous 
 gifts from the church, we have no ground for con- 
 sidering miraculous powers as a mark distinguishing 
 the true church from the apostacy ; but on the contrary 
 we are warned against "false prophets,'^ who ''shall 
 shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, 
 even the elect" (Mark xiii. 22.) ; ggainst that "Wicked" 
 One, " whose coming is after the working of Satan 
 with all power and signs and lying wonders " (2 Thess. 
 ii. 8, 9.) ; against the " beast " who " doeth great 
 wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven 
 
MIRACULOUS POWERS. 113 
 
 on the earth in the sight of men, and deceiveth them 
 that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles 
 which he hath power to do/' (Rev. xiii. 13, 14.) Mira- 
 culous powers were conferred on the church — not in 
 perpetuity, or as a sign to distinguish the true from an 
 apostate church, but for a season, as a testimony of the 
 truth of the gospel both to Jews and Gentiles, while 
 the infant, persecuted, church needed such a sign. 
 The traitor Judas, as well as the other apostles, was 
 endued with power to work miracles. 
 
 Another question respecting miracles is this : whether 
 an individual, on whom power to work miracles had 
 been conferred, could exercise it on any occasion, and 
 at his own discretion : and I think there are several 
 passages in Scripture, from which it may be inferred 
 that the gifted individual could then only exercise 
 his gift and perform a miracle, i when influenced so to 
 do by the Holy Spirit, and inspired with undouhting 
 faith that the miracle would be wrought according to 
 his word or in answer to his prayer ; analogous to the 
 case of the prophets, who " spake as they were moved 
 by the Holy Ghost.'^ (2 Peter i. 21.) 
 
 ^ I do not know, that it is necessary to except any miracles as having 
 been wrought by the gifted person unconsciously. The sick, indeed, were 
 cured by "the shadow of Peter passing by" and overshadowing them 
 (Acts V. 15.) ; and from Paul's " body were brought unto the sick hand- 
 kerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them ; and the evil 
 spirits went out of them." (Acts xix. 12.) And we are not informed, 
 whether, on these occasions, the apostle was conscious " that virtue had gone 
 out of him," as our Lord was when the woman was healed by touching 
 his garment." (Mark v. 27—30.) 
 
114 MIRACULOUS POWERS. 
 
 In the instances of miraculous punishment inflicted 
 on Ananias and Sapphira, St. Peter evidently spake 
 under the guidance of the Holy Spirit ; for it was 
 only by express revelation that he knew the falsehood 
 with which he charged them. (Acts v. 1 — 10.) And 
 St. Paul, in foretelling the blindness which immediately 
 fell on Elymas, was, we are expressly told, "filled 
 with the Holy Ghost.'' (Acts xiii. 9—11.) 
 
 In like manner in working miracles of mercy, the 
 apostles and disciples (we shall find) acted under 
 special guidance from above. 
 
 St. Paul writes to the Philippians, respecting their 
 messenger Epaphroditus, who had ministered to his 
 wants during his imprisonment at Rome. " He was 
 sick and nigh unto death ; but God had mercy on 
 him ; and not on him only, but on me also, lest I 
 should have sorrow upon sorrow. I sent him therefore 
 the more carefully, that, when ye see him again, ye 
 may rejoice, and that I may be the less sorrowful." 
 (Phil. ii. 25 — 28.) It should seem from this passage, 
 that the apostle, richly as he was endowed with mira- 
 culous powers, and much as he desired the restoration 
 of Epaphroditus to health, did not work a miracle in 
 his favour ; but that God (in answer doubtless to the 
 apostle's prayer) raised Epaphroditus up in the usual 
 course of his Providence. His recovery was not, as 
 in the cases of miraculous cures, perfect : his health 
 still required care. 
 
 While our Lord was on the mountain of transfigura- 
 tion, a lunatic was brought to his disciples to be cured. 
 
MIRACULOUS POWERS. 115 
 
 and they could not heal him. Our Lord, having 
 come down, cast out the devil. ''Then came the 
 disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we 
 cast him out ? And Jesus said unto them. Because of 
 your unbelief : for verily I say unto you, If ye have 
 faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto 
 this mountain. Remove hence to yonder place ; and it 
 shall remove ; and nothing shall be impossible unto 
 you/' (Matt. xvii. 14—21.) 
 
 When the disciples marvelled at the fig-tree, which 
 had withered at our Lord^s word, Jesus " said unto 
 them. Verily 1 say unto you. If ye have faith, and 
 DOUBT NOT, ye shall not only do this which is done to 
 the fig-tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, 
 Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea ; it 
 shall be done. And all things, whatsoever ye shall 
 ask in prayer believing, ye shall receive." ^ (Matt. xxi. 
 17—22.) 
 
 The inability of the disciples to heal the lunatic is 
 ascribed to their unbelief : and, both on that occasion 
 and on the occasion of the blighted fig-tree, power to 
 
 ^ These words were addressed to the disciples, who accompanied our 
 Lord in his walks between Jerusalem and Bethany previously to his last 
 passover, and consequently addressed to the apostles, his only stated at- 
 tendants. The parallel passage in St. Mark, however, is expressed in 
 terms rather more general : " Have faith in God. For verily I say unto 
 you, that whosoever shall say unto this mountain, be thou removed, 
 and be thou cast into the sea, and shall not doubt in his heart, but 
 shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass ; he 
 shall have whatsoever he saith. Therefore I say unto you, what things 
 soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive tliem^ and ye 
 shall have themr (Mark xi. 22—24.) 
 
116 MIRACULOUS POWERS. 
 
 remove mountains ^ was promised to the disciples^ pro- 
 vided they had faith. On the occasion of the withered 
 fig-tree, our Lord required in his disciples for the 
 working of miracles undouhting faithj while on the 
 occasion of their failure to cure the lunatic, he required 
 only '^ faith as a grain of mustard seed : '' but faith, 
 though small, may be unwavering, free from doubt ; 
 and such faith seems to be required in those endued 
 with power to perform miracles ere they can exercise it. 
 This will be illustrated by what occurred, when 
 Peter walked on the sea. He said to Jesus, " Lord, 
 if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. 
 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down 
 out of the ship, he walked on the water to go to Jesus." 
 (Matt. xiv. 28, 29.) Thus far Peter's faith, though 
 small — not equal to a severe trial — was free from doubt. 
 " But when he saw the wind was boisterous, he was afraid ; 
 and beginnmg to sink, he cried, saying. Lord, save me." 
 His weak faith was now shaken. " He was afraid.^' He 
 
 * " To remove mountains'' seems to have been a proverbial expression 
 for "to do very difficult things: " and these promises have by some com- 
 mentators been considered as referring, though specially^ not exclusively to 
 the case of miracles (See Scott on the passage)— as including a pro- 
 mise to every true believer, that by faith he shall be enabled to overcome 
 obstacles in his way to heaven, as difficult for the natural man to overcome 
 as to remove a mountain. This view of the promise is countenanced by 
 a similar promise made on another occasion, when the apostles, feeling 
 the difficulty of obeying our Lord's command to forgive a repenting 
 brother though he trespass against them seven times in one day, " said 
 unto the Lord, Increase our faith. And the Lord said. If ye had faith 
 as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamore tree, Be thou 
 plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea ; and it should 
 obey you." (Luke xvii. 3 — 6.) 
 
MIRACULOUS POWERS. 117 
 
 doubted. His faith indeed did not altogether fail — he 
 still believed Jesus to be able to save him, and cried to 
 him for help — but he doubted his own power to walk 
 on the sea — perhaps he doubted whether he was 
 authorized to make the attempt. " He was afraid ; 
 and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save 
 me. And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, 
 and caught him, and said unto him, thou of ltttle 
 FAITH, wherefore didst thou doubt." (Matt. xiv. 30, 31.) 
 
 I conclude, therefore, that an individual endued 
 with power to work miracles, could then only exercise ^ 
 it, when influenced so to do by the Holy Spirit, and 
 inspired with undoubting faith in his power to exercise 
 it, or in the efficacy of the prayer which he was 
 prompted to offer up. 
 
 Sometimes indeed faith was required in the person 
 seeking to be healed, or to have a miracle performed. 
 (Mark ix. 14—27. John xi. 39—44.) But this was 
 probably the ground, on which in such cases the gifted 
 individual was led to believe, that he was authorized 
 to exercise his gift. Paul, it is recorded, " steadfastly 
 beholding" the cripple at Lystra, ^^and perceiving 
 that he had faith to be healed,^^ wrought the miracle, 
 and healed the man. (Acts xiv. 8 — 10.) This faith, 
 however, faith in the individual to be healed, does not 
 seem to have been always required. To the lame man 
 who lay at the beautiful gate of the temple, Peter with 
 
 ^ Whether a gifted individual was ever made the unconscious instru- 
 ment of w^orkirig a miracle, it is not important to determine, as I have 
 already remarked. 
 
118 MIRACULOUS POWERS. 
 
 John said " Look on us. And he gave heed unto 
 them expecting to receive something of them ^' — 
 not a cure, but " an alms " which he had asked. (Acts 
 iii. 2 — 5.) Yet the apostles miraculously healed him: 
 and, though Peter ascribed the cure to the '' name ^' of 
 Jesus " through faith in his name '' — " yea the faith 
 which is by him/' (Acts iii. 16.) — this faith, as the 
 whole narrative imports, was not the faith of the 
 cripple, but the faith of the apostles wrought in them 
 by Jesus himself. (^ -jr/rt? h ^* uvrov) 
 
 Before I conclude this subject, I must notice a pas- 
 sage, which bears on the question of miracles, and to 
 which refeirence has already been made when the pro- 
 mise of remitting and retaining sins was examined. It 
 requires careful consideration. 
 
 " Is any sick among you ? let him call for the elders 
 of the Church ; and let them pray over him, anointing 
 him with oil in the name of the Lord ; and the prayer 
 of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise 
 him up ; and if he have committed sins, they shall be 
 forgiven him.^^ (James v. 14, 15.) 
 
 Independently of the context, the passage itself con- 
 tains clear marks, that the promise relates to the case 
 of miraculous cures. The apostle directs the elders 
 to anoint the sick in the name of the Lord — so the 
 apostles themselves, when sent forth by our Lord en- 
 dued with power ^' to heal all manner of sickness," 
 (Matt. X. 1.) had "anointed with oil many that were 
 sick, and healed them.'' (Mark vi. 13.) Again— the 
 promise is — " the prayer of faith shall save the sick '^ 
 
MIRACULOUS POWERS. 119 
 
 — it is made therefore to such prayer^ to prayer accom- 
 panied (I conceive) with that undouhting faith, which, 
 as we have seen, our Lord required as necessaay to the 
 working of miracles. St. James adds : " and if he 
 have committed sins, they shall be forgiven hira.^^ 
 Now the apostle Paul declares, that '^ all have sinned " 
 (Rom. iii. 23) ; and the apostle John, that " if we say 
 that we have not sinned, we make ^^ God " a liar, and his 
 word is not in us.'^ (1 John i. 10). When therefore, 
 St. James puts it hypothetically — " if he have com- 
 mitted sins '' — he means, " if he have committed sins 
 for which his sickness is a chastisement'^ — then, in 
 answer to the prayer of faith offered up by the elders, 
 the temporal chastisement will be removed. 
 
 This is the interpretation, which, independently of 
 the context, the passage would require : and it is 
 strongly confirmed by the verses which immediately 
 follow. 
 
 " Confess your faults one to another, and pray one 
 for another that ye may be healed. The effectual ^ fer- 
 vent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Elias 
 was a man subject to like passions as we are, and 
 he prayed earnestly that it might not rain : and it 
 rained not on the earth by the space of three years and 
 six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven 
 gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.^^ 
 (v. 16—18.) 
 
 The withholding first, and then the granting, of rain 
 
 ^ Gr. evepYou^eVjj— which Parkhurst renders " inspired, " inwrought 
 by the Holy Spirit. 
 
120 MIRACULOUS POWERS. 
 
 in answer to the prayer of Elijah, was clearly miracu- 
 lous. In neither case is his prayer recorded in the 
 Old Testament : but, in each case, his prophecy is re- 
 corded ^ of what would happen. He " said unto Ahab, 
 As the Lord God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, 
 there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but accord- 
 ing to my word. '•' (I Kings xvii. 1.) And, after the 
 slaughter of the prophets of Baal, he told Ahab that 
 the rain was coming : and it came. (1 Kings xviii. 41 — 
 45.) This reference, therefore, to Elijah and miracu- 
 lous events strongly confirms Parkhurst^s rendering of 
 the passage immediately preceding — viz. '^ The in- 
 spired prayer of a righteous man availeth much " — for 
 it was to illustrate this doctrine that the apostle cited 
 the case of Elijah. The passage therefore refers, at 
 least primarily , to miraculous cures. 
 
 The apostle, indeed, seems to have had a wider 
 meaning. The direction, that the sick man should 
 send for the elders is general : and a blessing, a spiri- 
 tual blessing, might be expected from their counsel and 
 prayers, even though no one of them should be com- 
 missioned to perform a miraculous cure. The direction 
 also, which we find in the midst of the passage — 
 " Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for 
 another, that ye may be healed '^ — is still more general. 
 The confession is not directed to be made to the elders. 
 
 ^ Whether he prayed, when " he cast nimself own upon the earth, 
 and put his face between his knees'" (1 Kings xviii. 42.), we are not in- 
 formed : and he had previously said to Ahah " there is a sound of 
 abundance of rain." (lb. 41.) 
 
MIRACULOUS POWERS. 121 
 
 as distinguislied from other Christians ; nor are theiy- 
 intercessory prayers exclusively to be sought. 
 
 We cannot interpret the passage as a promise, that 
 in every case the elders should be enabled to heal the 
 sick by praying over him and anointing him with oil — 
 such a promise would virtually enable the elders to 
 confer immortality on whom they would. The promise 
 of a miraculous cure is only to the " prayer of faith " 
 — of that faith, to which our Lord ascribes power to 
 '^ remove mountains.^' This limitation of the promise is 
 confirmed by the case of Epaphroditus, who doubtless 
 sent for Paul in his sickness and had the benefit of the 
 apostle's prayers and was restored to health, but does 
 not appear to have been raised up by a miraculous cure.^ 
 
 This promise, therefore, is not made in perpetuity to 
 the church. It was to last only while miracles 
 continued. 
 
 It may also be observed, that the direction is to send, 
 not for one who has the gift of healing, not for an 
 elder, but for ^' the elders of the church/' We may 
 reasonably infer, that the apostle had two objects in 
 view. The sick man would at all events have their 
 pastoral instruction and spiritual consolation and inter- 
 cessory prayers : and might be led to repent and to 
 seek and obtain forgiveness of his sins through the 
 blood of the cross, even should he not be raised up to 
 health. But among these elders there might be one 
 or more endued with the gift of healing, and enabled 
 to offer over him " the prayer of faith : " then the sick 
 
 ' Phil. ii. 25— 28. See ante. 
 G 
 
12.2 MIRACULOUS POWERS. 
 
 man would be " raised up." Miraculous powers were 
 bestowed on the early churcli in great abundance. One 
 main object of the visit of Peter and John to the 
 church of Samaria was to confer on the disciples the 
 gifts of the Spirit (Acts viii. 14—17) : and, when Paul 
 on his second visit to Ephesus found there certain dis- 
 ciples, in number about twelve, his first step (after 
 giving them fuller and more explicit instruction and 
 baptizing them) was to lay " his hands upon them/^ 
 whereupon ^^ the Holy Ghost came on them : and they 
 spake with tongues, and prophesied." (Acts xix. 1 — 7.) 
 We may also infer from his first epistle to the Corin- 
 thians, and from his epistle to the Ephesians, that the 
 gifts of the Spirit abounded in the churches of Corinth 
 and of Ephesus (1 Cor. xii, xiii, xiv. Eph. iv) ; and 
 from his epistle to the Galatians, that miracles were 
 wrought in the churches of Galatia. (Gal. iii. 5.) And, 
 though the office of elder was distinct from that of one 
 w4io wrought miracles, we may reasonably conjecture, 
 that, in each church, some at least of the elders were 
 appointed from among those previously endued with 
 supernatural powers, or were afterwards endued there- 
 with. When, therefore, a sick man, in those days, called 
 for " the elders of the church,^^ there would probably 
 come among them some, who, if directed by the Holy 
 Spirit, and enabled to offer up '' the prayer of faith,^' 
 would obtain for him a supernatural cure. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE SEVEN. 
 
 The first appointment, after our Lord's ascension, of 
 ministers in the church, which we find recorded in 
 Scripture, is that of the " seven,^' the proceedings res- 
 pecting whom are related in Acts vi. 
 
 I propose considering this appointment separately, 
 and in the first instance, not only because it is the 
 first, but because the particulars both of the appoint- 
 ment and of the duties belonging to the office are fully 
 set forth ; and further because it seems to me to have 
 been an office of a special and temporary nature, though 
 to that of deacon in the primitive church some similar 
 duties appertained. 
 
 At first the disciples at Jerusalem had " all things in 
 common" (Acts ii. 44, 45. iv. 32.) : though even then 
 it was not required of every disciple to bring his 
 whole property into the common stock. (Acts v. 3, 4.) 
 The apostles, originally, managed (either personally or 
 g2 
 
134 THE SEVEN. 
 
 by others) the common property (Acts iv. 34 — 3) : 
 but^ " when the number of the disciples was multiphed, 
 there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the 
 Hebrews^ because ^ their widows were neglected in the 
 daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multi- 
 tude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not 
 reason that we should leave the word of God, and 
 serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among 
 you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost 
 and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. 
 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to 
 the ministry of the word.^' (Acts vi. 1 — 4.) The multi- 
 tude accordingly chose " Stephen, a nian full of faith 
 and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and 
 Nicanor,and Timon, andParmenas, and Nicolas, a prose- 
 lyte of Antioch : whom they set before the apostles : and 
 when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them/^ 
 (Acts vi. 5, 6.) Thus the apostles devolved on these 
 seven men (either alone or jointly with others) ^ " the 
 daily ministration," i. e. the distribution of pecuniary 
 aid out of the common property, in providing for the 
 wants of the poorer members. Were I to select a 
 
 ^ " A murmuring .... because," Greek yo-yyvatios . . . ort, which 
 y\-\a.y (perhaps) be rendered, " a muttering [or ' complaining '].... 
 that," so as neither to affirm or deny the truth of the complaint. 
 
 - It has by some (see Archbishop Whateley on the Kingdom of Christ, 
 p. 84 — 89, and the extract there given from the Encyclopaedia Metropoli- 
 tana on Ecclesiastical History) been thought that these seven were Gre- 
 cians added to Hebrews, to whom the charge of the property had previously 
 been committed. But we hear nothing of these Hebrews: nor is the 
 question material to the present inquiry. 
 
THE SEVEN. 125 
 
 word descriptive of their office, I should call them 
 treasurers or stewards. The community of goods, 
 which gave rise to this appointment, does not seem to 
 have continued long ; probably it ceased when the 
 disciples were scattered, upon the persecution which 
 followed the martyrdom of Stephen. (Acts viii. 1.) 
 We read nothing more of this community of goods in 
 scripture ; but we have frequent mention of contribu- 
 tions made, or to be made, by the disciples in one part 
 of the world, to relieve the wants of the brethren in 
 another part (Acts xi. 29, 30 ; xxiv. 17 ; Rom. xv. 26; 
 and 1 Cor. xvi. 1 — 4 ; and 2 Cor. viii. 1 — 21 ; ix. 
 1 — 12) ; and these contributions are (particularly in the 
 epistles to the Corinthians) mentioned in terms which 
 necessarily import that the disciples (even those re- 
 siding in one place, or united into one church) had 
 not then all things in common. The various exhorta- 
 tions also to the rich, scattered throughout the apostolic 
 epistles, clearly show that there were then in the 
 Christian churches rich and poor ; and consequently 
 that community of goods did not then exist. And, 
 with the community of goods, the special office of the 
 seven would cease, as having arisen out of the circum- 
 stance of the disciples at Jerusalem having at first 
 had, in a sense, all things in common. 
 
 In fact, the office (at least as far as " the seven " 
 were concerned) seems to have ceased when Stephen, 
 one of the seven, suffered martyrdom and the disciples, 
 except the apostles, were thereupon scattered abroad. 
 On that occasion, Philip went to Samaria ; and we 
 
126 THE SEVEN. 
 
 thence trace him to Csesarea (Acts viii. 1 — 6, and 28 — 
 40); where, at a much later period (St. Paul's last 
 journey to Jerusalem), we find him residing (Acts 
 xxi. 8). The other five, or the survivors of them, 
 were probably scattered at the same time. We hear 
 nothing more of them, or of any persons appointed to 
 supply their place. The office, the '' daily ministra- 
 tion/^ if it continued, could be exercised only by persons 
 residing at Jerusalem. 
 
 Subsequently to this scattering, and not very long 
 after, we find that the disciples at Antioch, " every 
 man according to his ability, determined to send relief 
 unto the brethren which dwelt in Judsea : which also 
 they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of 
 Barnabas and Saul.^' (Acts xi. 29, 30.) On this pas- 
 sage, we may observe, 1st, that the common property 
 of which " the seven " were the stewards was by this 
 time exhausted, as the brethren in Judsea needed re- 
 lief; 2ndl3r, that the disciples of Antioch were of 
 different ahility to contribute, and consequently had 
 not all things in common ; and 3rdly, that they sent 
 their contributions, not to the seven, or their succes- 
 sors, but to the elders. ^ If the office of ^^ the 
 seven ^' had continued to this time, we should have 
 expected the money to have been sent to those who 
 then held the office. 
 
 But somei at least, of the seven held and exercised 
 another ministry in the church, besides that to which 
 
 ^ This is the first mention made of elders in the Christian church — who 
 these elders were, we shall have to consider hereafter. 
 
THE SEVEN. 127 
 
 they were appointed over '^ the daily ministration.'^ 
 " Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders 
 and miracles among the people : '' and ^' there arose 
 certain" men ^^ disputing with him ; '* and they were 
 not able " to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which 
 he spake/' ( Acts vi. 8 — 10.) Philip is expressly called 
 " the evangelist '^ (Acts xxi. 8) : and he did the work 
 of an evangelist. He preached the gospel, wrought 
 miracles, cast out devils, and administered baptism. 
 (Acts viii. 5 — 12.) 
 
 There is, however, no ground for supposing that the 
 seven, when they were chosen by the multitude and 
 the apostles laid their hands on them, derived from 
 this imposition of hands their commission to preach, 
 or baptize, or perform miracles, or do the work of an 
 evangelist. The plain meaning of the narrative is, 
 that, by the laying on of the apostles' hands and prayer, 
 the seven were set apart (not to the ministry in gen- 
 eral, but) to the specific office to which they had been 
 elected by the multitude, to the administration of the 
 goods of the church : and it is distinctly stated, that 
 they were so elected, as being already '' full of the 
 Holy Ghost,'^ that is, endued with miraculous gifts. ^ 
 Probably they were either of the seventy disciples, 
 whom our Lord had commissioned during his ministry 
 
 ' Such is the meaning of the expression — " filled with the Holy Ghost " 
 — in Actsii. 4, and xiii. 9; though, in other places (see Acts xiii. 52), it 
 may mean endued with the graces of the Spirit. In the passage under con- 
 sideration, the apostles meant, endued ivith miraculous gifts; for they re- 
 ferred to something which the brethren could discern and judge of. 
 
128 THE SEVEN. 
 
 on eartb, or of the disciples on whom the tongues had 
 sat on the day of Pentecost. 
 
 From the whole narrative of the appointment of 
 " the seven," though the precise office to which they 
 were appointed does not now exist in the church, we 
 may draw the following conclusions. 
 
 1. It is desirable that the higher ministers of the 
 church should, as far as practicable, be relieved from 
 the charge of its secular concerns ; and that the money 
 of the church should be entrusted to persons chosen 
 by the church, though it may be expedient that their 
 choice be guided by the advice, and confirmed by the 
 sanction, of superior ministers.^ 
 
 2. Yet such an office is not incompatible with the 
 ministry. 
 
 3. Even when the office is temporary, the indivi- 
 duals elected may be set apart to it by prayer and 
 imposition of hands —as Barnabas and the apostle 
 Paul were set apart for a special and temporary mis- 
 sion by prayer, and the laying on of hands of " cer- 
 tain prophets and teachers " at Antioch.^ 
 
 ' When, at a subsequent period, the churches of Macedonia and Corinth 
 raised a contribution for the relief of the saints at Jerusalem, the money 
 was taken to Jerusalem by brethren chosen by the churches, who accom- 
 panied St. Paul with it to Jerusalem. The apostle refused to take the 
 charge upon himself, thus " providing for honest things, not only in the 
 sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men." It does not appear, that 
 the apostle interfered in the choice of these "messengers of the churches," 
 cither by previous advice or by subsequent sanction. (1 Cor. xvi. 3, 4, and 
 2 Cor. viii. 1-4, 16— 23.) ^ See ante, chap. iv. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 
 
 The word {hdKovo<;), which in our authorized version is 
 sometimes anglicised as deacon, and at other times 
 rendered minister, and occasionally servant, is a word 
 of very wide and general meaning. It is applicable 
 to one who in any way serves another : and it is in the 
 New Testament applied to the highest as well as to 
 the lowest officers of the church, and to women as well 
 as to men. While St. Paul mentions Phebe as ^' a 
 servant of the Church ^^ at Cenchrea (Rom. xvi. 1.) ; 
 he asks the Corinthians — " Who is Paul, and who is 
 Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed ? '^ (1 Cor. 
 iii. 5.) He speaks also of others as ministers of God 
 (1 Thess. iii. 2.), ministers in the Lord (Eph. vi. 21. 
 Col. iv. 7.), ministers of Christ (Col. i. 7.); and of him- 
 self as a minister of the gospel (Col. i. 23.), a minister 
 of the church (Col. i. 24, 25), a minister of the New 
 Testament (2 Cor. iii. 6). 
 
 G 5 
 
130 DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 
 
 The same apostle, in two different epistles, furnishes 
 us with an enumeration of ministers then recognized 
 in the church. 
 
 The one enumeration is in his first epistle to the 
 Corinthians. '' God hath set some in the church, first 
 apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after 
 that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, govern- 
 ments,^ diversities of tongues.''^ (1 Cor. xii. 28.) 
 
 The other enumeration is in the epistle to the Ephe- 
 sians. " He " (Jesus) " gave some, apostles ; and 
 some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and some, 
 pastors and teachers. ^^ (Eph. iv. 11.) 
 
 * In this enumeration St, Paul distinguishes " governments " from 
 " apostles." This, I think, alone would throw great doubt on the opinion 
 expressed by the Rev. William Goode, in his valuable work on " The 
 Divine Rule of Faith and Practice " (p. 63), viz. that " there is some 
 evidence " that (those whom he calls) the " presidents of the churches," 
 " had the title of Apostles." He refers to Rom. xvi. 7, where the ex- 
 pression iirta-nixoL iv Tots airoa-rSKois — " of note among the apostles" — 
 occurs. Surely this means, not " apostles of note," or " distinguished 
 apostles," but " men received among or by the apostles with respect and 
 distinction." He also quotes (p. 64.) the expression arrSa-roAoi €KK\r)(ricov 
 (2 Cor. viii. 23), which I cannot but think is properly translated, in our 
 authorized version " messengers of the churches," being brethren " chosen 
 of the churches to travel," with the contribution raised by them for the 
 saints. (See 18— 21 .) Though St. Paul calls himself " the apostle of the 
 Gentiles," i. e. to the Gentiles, the twelve are never called " apostles of 
 THE CHURCHES," but either " apostles " simply, or " apostles of Jesus 
 Christ," &c. This observation will apply also to the onl}^ other passage 
 quoted by Mr. Goode from scripture, viz. where St. Paul, writing to the 
 Philippians, calls Epaphroditus vixSsv airoaroKov (Phil. ii. 25), " your 
 messenger," (according to the authorized version). He also had been 
 sent by the Philippians to minister to the apostle's wants (ib.) I see, 
 therefore, no ground for considering him as president or ruler of the Phi- 
 lijipian church. 
 
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 131 
 
 Now it has been shewn/ that no provision was made 
 for perpetuating in the church supernatural gifts : and 
 they have long since ceased. Omitting, therefore, those 
 whose office consisted in the exercise of such gifts, we 
 shall reduce the first enumeration to apostles, teach- 
 ers, helps,^ governments : and the second enumera- 
 tion to apostles, evangelists, pastors and teachers — 
 the pastors and teachers being combined together as 
 one class. 
 
 It has also been shewn,^ that the apostles neither 
 professed, nor were commissioned, to transmit to others 
 the apostolic office. They were not commissioned to 
 transmit to others that authority, the right exercise of 
 which required the infallible guidance of the Holy 
 Spirit — a guidance promised to them in the execution 
 of their apostolic office, and promised to them only. 
 The apostolic office, therefore, in so far as it was dis- 
 
 ^ See ch. iii. 
 ^ There has been much diversity of opinion as to the meaning of the 
 word {avriMi^(is) translated " helps." See the word in Rose's edition 
 of Parkhurst's Lexicon. Macknight's interpretation, as there given — 
 " helpers," " speaking by inspiration to the edification of the church " — 
 makes them the same with the " prophets," who are distinguished by the 
 apostle in the same enumeration : and I see no ground for Vitringa's in- 
 terpretation, as given also by Parkhurst — " persons having the gift of in- 
 terpreting foreign languages." If either of these interpretations were 
 adopted, the " helps " must also be omitted in reducing the first enumera- 
 tion to ministers, whose office does not consist in the exercise of superna- 
 tural gifts. But I agree with Parkhurst in explaining the word by its 
 cognate, avTiAa/x^duea-Oai-, as used in Acts xx, .85, where it is translated 
 " to support : " and that the office of the " help " wafi principally to help 
 the infirm and sick, though it may also include otherivise assisting superior 
 ministers. ^ See ante, ch. ii. 
 
132 DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 
 
 tinct from that of other ministers, expired with the 
 apostles. 
 
 Again, the *^ evangelists " mentioned in the second 
 enumeration were missionaries, whose office it was to 
 go among the heathen, preach the gospel, and form 
 new churches ; and who were also occasionally sent 
 from place to place to execute commissions given them 
 by the apostles -} and in this they were distinguished 
 from the resident ministers of settled churches. 
 
 Omitting, therefore, apostles and evangelists (apostles 
 because their apostolic office ceased with them — evan- 
 gelists because they were missionaries, not stated min- 
 isters of any one church), we have remaining (as resi- 
 dent ministers of settled churches, whose offices were 
 of a nature to be permanent ) in the first enumeration 
 (1) governments, (2) teachers, (3) helps ; and in the 
 second enumeration pastors and teachers. We might 
 from this comparison^ alone be led to conjecture that 
 
 ^ Evangelists, according to Parkhurst, were " assistants to the apostles 
 in propagating the gospel, and whom accordingly they sent from place to 
 place, to execute such particular commissions as they thought proper to en- 
 trust them with." Evangelists sometimes were in this way assistants to 
 the apostles, as we shall see Timothy and Titus to have been : but this was 
 not (I think) always the case ; for " Philip the evangelist" did, without 
 (as far as appears) any specific direction from an apostle, the work of a mis- 
 sionary, preaching, baptizing, and performing miracles. See Acts viii. 
 1 — 13, 26 — 42 ; xxi. 8 ; and the observations thereon, ante, ch. v. 
 
 - Perhaps we may consider the " governments " of the first enumera- 
 tion as including both the " evangelists," and (in so far as they were 
 rulers) the " pastors" of the second. The " teachers" of both enumera- 
 tions will then coincide : and there will only remain the " helps " of the 
 first, without a correlative in the second, enumeration. 
 
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 133 
 
 the office of ruling was not always separated from 
 that of teaching ; and that the pastors were in some 
 measure rulers as well as teachers of their respective 
 flocks; while the care which a shepherd (the literal 
 pastor) has to exercise over his sheep, would render 
 this conjecture the more probable. But, if we examine 
 the later epistles of St. Paul, those to Titus and Timo- 
 thy/ we shall find this conjecture confirmed; and we 
 shall trace in the elder the pastor and teacher, both 
 ruling and instructing the disciples committed to his 
 charge ; and in the deacon the " help/^ the assistant 
 to the elder : while in the narrative of the journey, 
 which Paul and Barnabas took together among the 
 churches in an extensive circuit, we find it recorded 
 that they ordained them elders in every city (Acts 
 xiv. 23), no mention being made of any other minister; 
 so that these elders must have exercised some rule over 
 the disciples in these cities as well as taught them. 
 
 The epistle to Titus was written to him, when the 
 apostle had left him in Crete to '' set in order the 
 things that" were '^wanting, and ordain elders in 
 every city.^' (Tit. i. 5.) Deacons are not mentioned in 
 this epistle, nor any other minister distinct from the 
 elder. We find, indeed, an '^ overseer " mentioned (in 
 the authorized version bishop (ib. 7) ; but it is suffi- 
 cient to cite the whole passage, to shew that the words 
 
 ^ The epistles to the Ephesians and to the Corinthians were written 
 before, and the epistles to Titus and Timothy after, St. Paul's first im- 
 prisonment at Rome. (See Paley's Horae Paulinae, and Tate's Continuous 
 Hist, of St. Paul.) 
 
134 DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 
 
 elder and overseer are used mterchangeably. ^' 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 blameless, the husband of one wife, having faith- 
 ^' ful children, not accused of riot, or unruly. For an 
 '^ overseer,'^ (bishop, in the authorized version) " must 
 "be blameless;" &c. (ib.5— 7.) 
 
 The same apostle uses the same words interchangeably 
 in his first epistle to Timothy, written when he had 
 gone into Macedonia, having desired Timothy to re- 
 main at Ephesus, and committed to him a charge over 
 the church of that city. (1 Tim. i. 3, 4.) In that 
 epistle the apostle gives to Timothy very particular 
 directions as to the qualifications which he should re- 
 quire in an " overseer " {bishop hi the authorized 
 version) (iii. 1 — 7), and in a deacon (ib. 8 — 13) ; and 
 also instructions as to Timothy's behaviour towards an 
 "elder" (1 Tim. v. 1, 17—20) : but, unless the apostle 
 uses interchangeably the words overseer and elder, he 
 is silent on the one hand as to the appointment and 
 qualifications of an elder ; and silent on the other hand 
 as to Timothy's behaviour towards an overseer. Surely 
 it were strange, that the apostle should give Timothy 
 very precise directions respecting the character of those 
 to be appointed overseers, but none respecting his be- 
 haviour towards them when appointed— also very 
 minute directions respecting his behaviour towards 
 elders, but none respecting the character of those to be 
 appointed to that office : yet such is the case, unless 
 
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 135 
 
 we consider him as using interchangeably in this epistle 
 the words overseer and elder. That he does so use 
 them cannot be doubted^ if we refer to his charge to 
 the " elders'^ of the church of Ephesus, wherein he 
 exhorts them to take heed " to all the flock over the 
 which the Holy Ghost " had '^ made '^ them " over- 
 seers^' ^ (Acts XX. 17, 28) ; and to his epistle to Titus, 
 obviously written about the same time and with the 
 same subjects in his mind.^ 
 
 It is obvious to any one reading this first epistle to 
 Timothy, that both elders and deacons were then recog- 
 nized ministers of the church at Ephesus : and, though 
 the same apostle makes no mention of deacons in his 
 directions to Titus respecting the churches of Crete, 
 we may reasonably conjecture, that before he left Titus 
 in the island to " set in order the things that" were 
 " wanting," (Tit i. 5,) he had verbally given him all 
 necessary directions on that point. Indeed the office 
 of deacon, and the obvious expediency of having such 
 ministers in the church, might then be so well under- 
 stood ^ as to render any particular direction unnecessary. 
 
 On the whole I think it is clear, that, when these 
 epistles to Titus and Timothy were written, elders and 
 deacons were the recognized ministers of churches set- 
 tled by the apostles. 
 
 ^ "Overseers." So the authorized version, and well ; though it ren- 
 ders the same word " bishop " in the epistles to Timothy and Titus, and 
 also in Phil, i. 1. 
 
 2 See Paley's Horae Paulinse, Ch. xiii. No. ii. 
 
 3 St. Paul, writing to the Philippians, addresses "the bishops," 
 (overseers) "and deacons," (Phil. i. 1.) 
 
136 DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 
 
 The office of an elder was to be to the church what 
 a shepherd or pastor is to his flock ^ — to feed the peo- 
 ple committed to his charge with the bread of life ; to 
 lead them to the living waters of salvation ; to go 
 before them and guide them : to overlook them and 
 rule them ; to watch over them, and guard them 
 against " grievous wolves/^ false teachers '^ speaking 
 perverse things/' who (as the apostle foretold) would 
 enter among the sheep. (Acts xx. 28 — 31.) In general 
 — the office of an elder was to teach and to rule the 
 church committed to his care. St. Paul notices both 
 these duties, when he writes to Timothy : " Let the 
 elders that rule well be counted worthy of double 
 honour,- especially they who labour ^ in the word and 
 doctrine." (1 Tim. v. 17.) St. Peter also exhorts the 
 elders : '^ Feed the flock of God which is among you, 
 taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but 
 willingly ; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind ; 
 neither as being lords over God's heritage,* but being 
 
 ^ St. Paul charged the elders of Ephesus iroifxaiveiv r^v iKKX-naiav 
 (Acts XX. 17, 28.) and St. Peter exhorts the elders generally noi^ctz/ere 
 T^ ivvjxiv irdifxviovTaQ^ov. (1 Pet. v. 1,2.) — " Shepherdize the church," 
 " the flock of God." 
 
 - " Honour," tz/u:^— whether it should be rendered " honour,'" or (as 
 some think) " reward," is immaterial for our present purpose, the main- 
 tenance of ministers not being under consideration, 
 
 ^ " They who labour," o\ KOTriMvres, from Koiriata — " to toil, labour 
 even to great fatigue and weariness." (Rose's Parkhurst.) " They who 
 LABOUR in the word and doctrine," are contrasted, not with those who do 
 not preach at all, but with those who taJce no pains in preaching and 
 teaching : so that I see no ground for the notion sometimes drawn from 
 this passage, that there were ruli7ig elders, who did not preach the gospel. 
 
 ^ " Neither as being lords over God's heritage." So the translators 
 
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 137 
 
 ensamples to the flock.'' (1 Pet. v. 1 — 3.) They were 
 not only to feed the flock, but to take the oversight 
 thereof, that is, as rulers ; for so the caution implies — 
 not " as being lords over God\s heritage/' They were 
 to rule the brethren, not indeed as lords rule their ser- 
 vants, but as parents rule their children : and they 
 were to be shepherds to the sheep of Christ, feeding 
 them with the word of God. 
 
 There is one other office of the elders noticed by St. 
 James (v. 14, 15), that of working a miraculous cure 
 by praying over the sick man and anointing him with 
 oil in the name of the Lord. But this part of their 
 office has ceased with the power to work miracles. ^ 
 
 The duties of a deacon are not in Scripture laid 
 down so definitively as those incumbent on the elder. 
 The original word, which is anglicised ^' deacon '' in 
 the first epistle to Timothy, is (as we have seen) ap- 
 plied in other passages of Scripture sometimes to the 
 highest, and sometimes to the lowest, officers of the 
 church : but, as the word is used in that epistle, the 
 office of deacon is clearly distinct from that of elder : 
 and the very names of elder and deacon indicate, that 
 the elder was the superior, and the deacon the subor- 
 dinate, minister. There is little in the epistle to 
 
 of our authorized version have rendered : /xrjS' biS KaTUKvpievoures rwu 
 KKrjpwv. Some interpreters, not liking the word KXripcov to be applied to 
 the laity, construe it as meaning, not the people of God, but the property 
 of the church : a construction wholly out of harmony with the context, 
 unless we degrade the expression — " feed the flock of God" — to a secular 
 sense, as referring to the alms of the church. 
 
 * This passage has been examined, ante, chap. iv. 
 
138 DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 
 
 Timothy, beyond the proper meaning of the word 
 deacon, to point out the specific nature of the dea- 
 con^s office : but we may infer from the proper 
 meaning of the word, that he was an assistant to the 
 elder. It was probably the office of the deacon, to 
 perform those duties connected with the church which 
 the elder committed to him, and which would princi- 
 pally relate to the temporal concerns of the church, the 
 administration of its alms, the care and relief of the 
 sick, the aged, the infirm, and the poor. Even if this 
 were the utmost extent of the deacon's office, such 
 assistants would be very needful to the elders, who 
 would be thereby enabled to give themselves more fully 
 to their spiritual duties, and especially to the ministry 
 of the word : whether the deacon was also to preach or 
 teach does not appear. The apostle is silent on that 
 point ; nor does he require in the deacon (as he does 
 in the elder) any qualification peculiarly connected with 
 such duties. Yet the concluding direction, which the 
 apostle gives to Timothy respecting deacons, seems to 
 lead to the conclusion, that the deacon was allowed to 
 preach. 
 
 "They^' (the apostle writes) '^ that have used the 
 office of a deacon well, purchase to themselves a good 
 degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ 
 Jesus.^^ (1 Tim. iii. 13.) The apostle^s meaning seems 
 to be, that persons, by so using the office of a deacon, 
 acquire further qualifications fitting them for a higher 
 post if they are not previously so qualified, and give 
 evidence of that fitness. This would be peculiarly the 
 
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 139 
 
 case, if, either generally or under limitations, they had 
 preached the gospel — they would have had a good 
 training for the office of elder, when they had thus 
 " used the office of a deacon well." 
 
 Such, so far as we can discover in scripture, were 
 the respective offices of elder and deacon. There is 
 no distinct direction, either permitting or forbidding 
 the individual to divest himself of the office. There is, 
 however, a passage, which (though in its primary sense 
 it may apply to disciples in general) seems to intimate 
 that no one is fit for the ministry, who does not give 
 up all intention of returning to merely secular em- 
 ployment.^ One said to Jesus, " Lord, I will follow 
 thee : but let me first go and bid them farewell, which 
 are at liome at my house. And Jesus said unto him : 
 No man, having put his hand to the plough, and 
 looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." (Luke 
 ix. 61, 62.) We also find that John (whose surname 
 was Mark) having travelled with Paul and Barnabas 
 as their " minister," and having afterwards quitted 
 them at Perga during their journey, Paul refused to 
 take him with them on a second journey, thinking " it 
 not good to take him with them, who departed from 
 them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the 
 work." The apostle persisted in this determination, 
 though Barnabas (who was related to John Mark) was 
 
 ' Of course ministers are not prohibited from working for a mainte- 
 nance, where it is not otherwise provided for them, as St. PauPs example 
 shows. (See Acts xviii. 1—3; xx. 34 ; and 1 Cor. iv. 12 ; and 2 Thess. 
 iii. 7— 10.) But this will be considered hereafter. See post, ch. xi. 
 
140 DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 
 
 SO bent on having him as their companion in travel, 
 that, separating himself from St. Paul, he took John 
 Mark with him. (Acts xiii. 5, 13 ; xv. 37 — 39 ; and 
 Col. iv. 10.) The apostle Paul was afterwards recon- 
 ciled to John Mark, and seems to have recognized him 
 as a minister (Col. iv. 10, 11) ; and the apostle may- 
 have refused in the first instance to take John Mark a 
 second time with him as a minister or assistant, lest he 
 should again desert him. 
 
 From St. Paul's first epistle to Timothy, it has been 
 shown that elders and deacons were then the recog- 
 nized ministers of settled churches : but neither in that 
 epistle nor in his epistle to Titus (though expressly 
 written with reference to the settlement — the one of 
 the church of Ephesus, the other of the churches in 
 Crete), do we find any direction respecting any other 
 class of ministers.* It will, however, on further ex- 
 
 ' It has been thoiight, that the " widows " mentioned by St. Paul were 
 " an order of deaconesses," " regularly appointed to particular functions in 
 the earliest churches." ( Abp. Whateley on the Kingdom of Christ, p. 128, 
 129.) This opinion, I presume, is founded on 1 Tim. v. 1—16. There 
 certainly was in the church at Ephesus, when that epistle was written, a 
 select "number" of widows (see ver. 9) : and it has been observed, that, 
 as St. Paul directs none to " be taken into the number under threescore 
 years old," this could not be a mere selection of objects of charity. (Scott, 
 in loc.) Yet, while specific directions were given by the apostle as to the 
 character of those to be chosen, and the works of charity already performed 
 by them, no specific functions are assigned to them. And from the whole 
 context, I rather think, that these widows were primarily objects of 
 Christian charity, permanently and fully maintained b}^ the church at 
 Ephesus, but that it was also expected of them that they should devote 
 themselves to the good works in which they had previously exercised 
 themselves. This view explains the exclusion of younger widows. But, 
 
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 141 
 
 amination, appear that Titus and Timothy had, each of 
 them, authority given to him by the apostle distinct 
 from, and superior to, that of elder. And it remains 
 to be inquired, what was the nature of that authority ; 
 and whether there was, in the churches settled by the 
 apostles, any class of ministers superior to those of 
 elder and deacon ; in short, whether in those churches 
 there were three distinct classes of ministers —bishops 
 (in the modern sense of the word), elders (or presby- 
 ters), and deacons.^ 
 
 In wi'iting to Titus, the apostle addresses him simply 
 as " Titus, mine own son after the common faith " 
 (i. 4) ; an address which seems to import, that Titus 
 had been converted under the apostle^s ministry, and 
 which at all events designates no office. The same 
 apostle, writing at an earlier period to the Corinthians, 
 says : " Whether any do inquire of Titus, he is my 
 partner and fellow-helper concerning you'' (2 Cor. viii. 
 23) : but this expression (and I find no other applied 
 to Titus bearing on the inquiry) merely points him 
 out as a minister of the gospel. He seems to have 
 been an evangelist. Though the designation of 
 evangelist is not expressly given to him, we find, in 
 some of St. PauFs earlier epistles, several notices 
 
 in any view of the passage, they were not ministers in the sense iinder 
 consideration. 
 
 '■ Here and elsewhere, when I speak of distinct classes of ministers, or 
 of the threefold ministry, I mean simply a distinction between ministers 
 in respect of authority and office, irrespective of any question whether to 
 each class a different divine commission is entrusted. 
 
142 DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 
 
 of Titus being employed in duties peculiar to the 
 office.' 
 
 We must, therefore,, look into the epistle itself; and 
 from the instructions given to Titus, deduce, as far as 
 practicable, the nature of that office or authority which 
 he was to exercise in Crete. The apostle expressly 
 says, " 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.^^ 
 (i. 5.) This was an authority obviously more extensive 
 than that of an elder. Again : " Speak thou ^' (the 
 apostle writes) ^^ the things which become sound doc- 
 trine " (ii. 1.) ; into the particulars of which he then 
 enters (ii. 2 — 14), adding : " these things speak, and 
 exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man 
 despise thee.^' (ii. 15.) Further authority the apostle 
 (in the same epistle) confers on Titus. "A man that 
 is an heretic after the first and second admonition 
 reject ; knowing that he that is such is subverted, 
 and sinneth, being condemned of himself.^^ (iii. 
 10, 11.) An heretic, Titus was to " reject :" ^ and this 
 authority does not appear to have been given to elders 
 — the elders (or overseers) whom Titus was to appoint 
 were '^ to convince the gainsayers.'^ (i. 9.) 
 
 ' See 2 Cor. ii. 13 ; vii. 6, 7, 13—15, viii. 6, 16 ; xii. 18 ; Gal. ii. 1. 
 
 2 Ordain — Karoo-T^Tjs — " appoint " — the word has no etymological 
 reference to laying on of hands. 
 
 ^ Gr. irapanov — the same word as is used by the apostle, when he 
 exhorts Timothy to " refuse profane and old wives' fables" (1 Tim. iv. 7) ; 
 to " refuse" the younger widows (ib. v. 11) ; to " avoid" foolish and un- 
 learned questions (2 Tim. ii. 23) ; and when he warns the Hebrews that 
 they " refuse not him that speaketh" (Heb. xii. 25). 
 
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 143 
 
 Such was the commission given to Titus : and it 
 clearly included power over all the congregations in 
 Crete, and authority to ordain, or (if I may be allowed 
 a less ecclesiastical word) to appoint elders in every 
 city in the island. The duties^ therefore, of his office 
 were those of a modern bishop ; but I think his com- 
 mission in Crete was temporary — not permanent. 
 
 It appears from the epistle itself, that, when Titus 
 had accomplished the object for which the apostle had 
 left him in Crete, when he had set in order the things 
 that were wanting, and had appointed elders in every 
 city (Titus i. 5) he was to quit the island and proceed 
 to other scenes of labour.^ He was to join the apostle in 
 the winter at Nicopolis. '^ When I shall send Artemas 
 unto thee, or Tychicus,^ be diligent to come unto me at 
 Nicopolis : for I have determined there to winter.^'' 
 (Titus iii. 12). Nor does this epistle furnish any inti- 
 mation, that the apostle intended him, after this visit, 
 to return to his charge in Crete. In fact we find that 
 he was afterwards ^ at Rome with th e apostle during 
 
 ' This was the opinion of Whitby, as quoted by Scott (Introduction 
 to the Epistle to Titus). See also Tate's Continuous History of St. Paul, 
 pp. 120, 121, 123. 
 
 ^ It has been conjectured, that either Artemas or Tychicus was to suc- 
 ceed Titus in Crete (Tate's Continuous History, 123) ; but the conjecture 
 seems to me to rest on a very slender foundation. Tychicus we find 
 afterwards sent by the apostle from Rome to Ephesus (2 Tim. 12). If 
 either Artemas or Tychicus was appointed bishop of Crete, it does not 
 follow that Titus had first been so. 
 
 ^ The Epistle to Titus was written between St. Paul's two imprison- 
 ments; the second to Timothy during his last. (See Tate's Continuous 
 History of St. Paul, p. 123.) 
 
144 DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 
 
 his second imprisonment, and that he went from Rome 
 to Dalmatia. (2 Tim. iv. 10). We have no later men- 
 tion made of Titus ; and 1 conclude, that the commis- 
 sion with which he was left in Crete, though episcopal 
 in its nature, was, as regarded that island, temporarj^ 
 He was an evangelist. 
 
 The apostle in his first epistle to Timothy addresses 
 him nearly in the same terms as Titus — ^^ Timothy, 
 my own son in the faith,'^ (1 Tim. i. 2) — giving him 
 no other designation^ in this epistle — nor elsewhere 
 any designation importing a permanent office in any 
 local church. But the instructions given to him in 
 this epistle invested him with authority over the church 
 of Ephesus clearly episcopal in its nature, though (it 
 seems) not permanent in duration. 
 
 The apostle, leaving Ephesus and going to Macedo- 
 nia, had requested Timothy " to abide still at Ephesus," 
 
 ^ So in his second epistle he addresses him — " Timothy, my dearly 
 beloved son ;" and in several epistles to the churches, the apostle joins 
 Timothy's name with his own in the salutation, generally calling him 
 " our brother" (2 Cor. i. 1 ; Col. i. 1 ; Philem. 1) ; and in one epistle call- 
 ing himself and Timothy "servants of Jesus Christ" (Phil. i. 1). Else- 
 where he calls Timothy his " work-fellow" (Rom, xvi, 21), his "brother, 
 and minister of God," and his " fellow-labourer in the Gospel of Christ" 
 (1 Thess. iii. 2). The word {aovkp'yos)^ used in each of these latter pas- 
 sages, is of frequent occurrence in the epistles of St. Paul ; and the con- 
 nection in which it stands as regards Timothy (especially in the last-cited 
 passage) seems to import that Timothy was an assistant to the apostle, 
 and that he preached the gospel, as the apostle did. He was an evange- 
 list, and accordingly the apostle exhorts him to " do the work of an 
 evangelist" (2 Tim. iv. 5). None, however, of these various appellations, 
 assign to Timothy anj'- permanent office in any local church. 
 
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 145 
 
 that he might " charge some that they teach no other 
 doctrine, neither give heed to fables and endless genea- 
 logies'' (1 Tim. i. 3, 4) : and now, by this epistle, the 
 apostle confirms the request ; and also gives Timothy 
 very full and minute directions as to his teaching and 
 his conduct in the church during the apostle's absence, 
 exhorting him to carry those directions into effect with 
 authority.' Among other particulars, he instructs 
 Timothy to oppose false teachers and false doctrine 
 (1 Tim. i. 3—7, 18—20; iv. 1—7; vi. 3—5). He 
 also, as we have seen, lays down the qualifications re- 
 quired in elders (whom he also calls overseers, or, as 
 the word is rendered in our authorized version, bish- 
 ops), and in deacons respectively (iii. 1 — 13) : and he 
 cautions Timothy against laying hands suddenly on 
 any man (v. 22) — thereby implying, that he had au- 
 thorized Timothy to ordain elders and deacons, or at 
 least elders, by imposition of hands. He had also 
 given Timothy authority over the elders. This is 
 clearly implied in the cautions, which the epistle con- 
 
 ' These directions include instructions as to public worship (1 Tim. ii. 
 1—9) ; as to the behaviour of women in the church, and their dress (ib. 
 9 — 15) ; as to his treatment of the elder and younger men, of the elder 
 and younger women, and of widows (ib. v. 2, 3) ; as to the way in which 
 children, grandchildren, and the church respectively (the latter especially 
 in regard to the widow's fund) should treat widows, whether aged or 
 young (ib. 4 — 16) ; as to the behaviour of servants or slaves to their mas- 
 ters (ib. vi. 1, 2); and as to the liberality which the rich should exercise 
 (ib. 17 — 19). These instructions the apostle expected Timothy to urge 
 on the church with authority — "These things command and teach. Let 
 no man despise thy youth" (1 Tim. iv. 11, 12), " These things give in 
 charge" (1 Tim. v. 7). " These things teach and exhort" (1 Tim. vi. 2). 
 " Charge them that are rich in this world," &c. (1 Tim. vi. 17.) 
 
 H 
 
146 DIFFERENT CLASSES OP MINISTERS. 
 
 tains respecting the exercise of this authority, " Rebuke 
 not an elder, but intreat him as [you would] a 
 father/' ^ (v. 1.) " Against an elder receive not an accu- 
 sation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that 
 sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear." (ib. 
 19, 20). Timothy, therefore, was to receive an accu- 
 sation (if tendered) against an elder ; but he was to 
 receive it in the presence of witnesses. If he was to 
 receive an accusation, he was of course to act upon it : 
 he was to judge of its truth or falsehood : and, if the 
 elder had sinned, Timothy was to rebuke him publicly. 
 This, I think, is the import of the direction. The 
 words " them that sin " are, indeed, general ; but the 
 connection refers them principally, if not exclusively, 
 to the accused elder. The apostle, it is true, had pre- 
 viously said, " Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as 
 a father." But this direction, I conceive, related only 
 to those minor and less open faults, which might fall 
 under Timothy^s own observation without becoming 
 matter of public scandal or formal accusation. In 
 such cases Timothy was not to rebuke, but to endea- 
 vour by mild entreaty to reclaim the offender. In the 
 case of open and notorious sins, especially if brought 
 before him by formal accusation, he was to proceed 
 publicly, and censure publicly. Timothy was, there- 
 fore, invested by the apostle with authority over the 
 church of Ephesus ; authority not only to ordain elders 
 
 ^ Gr. irapoKc£\e{ ds irarepa — The elder is the father, not Timothy. The 
 elder was as a father to the church : and as such Timothy was to entreat 
 him. 
 
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 147 
 
 and deacons, but to govern and (when necessary) cen- 
 sure them. 
 
 It has, however, and I think on good grounds, been 
 questioned, whether the commission given by the apostle 
 to Timothy respecting the church of Ephesus in par- 
 ticular was more than temporary. 
 
 It has been sufficiently established by those who 
 have examined the subject, that St. Paul left Titus in 
 Crete and Timothy at Ephesus, in the interval between 
 his two imprisonments at Eome ; and that his epistle 
 to Titus, and his first epistle to Timothy were both 
 written shortly afterwards, and bear marks of having 
 been written, the one about the same time as the other^ 
 
 ^ See Paley's Horas Paulinae, ch. xi., and Tate's Continuous History 
 of St. Paul, p. 1 19— 124, and 160—162. In thus fixing the date of these 
 epistles, thej'- follow Bishop Pearson. Others have held that the first 
 epistle to Timothy was written shortly after the apostle had left Ephesus 
 in consequence of the tumult in that city. If this were the case, it would 
 be clear that the apostle did not confer on Timothy any permanent office 
 in the church of Ephesus when he left him there. The apostle had, 
 before the tumult, purposed to visit Macedonia, and had sent thither 
 Timothy and Erastus (Acts xix. 21, 22). From Ephesus St. Paul went 
 into Macedonia and Greece : and, after he had so spent not many months, 
 we find Timothy and others accompanying him into Asia, and going before 
 and tarrying for him at Troas. (Acts xx. 1—7.) If Timothy, when the 
 apostle quitted Ephesus on account of the tumult, had been left there as 
 diocesan bishop, should we have so soon found him absent from his charge, 
 accompanying the apostle in his travels ? Again : in the solemn address, 
 which the apostle shortly afterwards delivered at Miletus to the elders of 
 the church of Ephesus, there is no allusion, even the most remote, either 
 to Timothy or to his oversight of the church. The apostle, after speak- 
 ing at length of his own labours, particularly among them, and of his own 
 prospect of suflfering, addresses them as those whom the Holy Ghost had 
 made overseers {iTri(XK6trovs) over the flock, yet he is silent as to Timothy 
 having laid hands on any of them. He warns them of false teachers, 
 H 2 
 
148 DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 
 
 — while St. PauPs second epistle to Timothy was ob- 
 viously written during his second imprisonment at 
 Rome.i 
 
 Taking then as the date of the first epistle to Timo- 
 thy^ the interval between the apostle^s two imprison- 
 ments, I find nothing in that epistle which conclusively 
 indicates, whether the authority committed by the 
 apostle to Timothy was that of a settled diocesan bishop 
 over the church at Ephesus, or the authority of an 
 evangelist. But there are, in this epistle, passages 
 strongly leading to the conclusion, that Timothy^s 
 commission was that of an evangelist : and he is, in 
 the apostle^s second epistle to him, expressly ex- 
 
 who should arise among them ; he exhorts them to watch, and commends 
 them to the grace of God : but he gives them no counsel to seek advice 
 of Timothy, as the overseer or bishop whom he had appointed over them. 
 (Acts XX. 17 — 35.) It is difficult to reconcile this address with the sup- 
 position that the first epistle to Timothy had been previous]}', and not 
 long previously, written : and (I conceive) impossible to reconcile it with 
 the opinion that Timothy was at that time bishop of Ephesus. If this 
 epistle was written in the interval between the apostle''s being driven from 
 Ephesus and his addressing the elders of that church at Miletus, 
 Timothy's authority at Ephesus must have ceased before that address — 
 not indeed (as we might have expected from the epistle, iii. 14, 15) on 
 the apostle's returning (for he had not returned) to Timothy at Ephesus, 
 but on Timothy joining him in Greece. That Timothy was not bishop 
 of Ephesus, in the modern sense of the term, at the time of St. Paul's 
 first imprisonment at Rome, may also be inferred from the epistle to the 
 Philippians, written (see Phil. i. 13 and ii. 24) during that itnprisonment. 
 Timothy joins him in the salutation (Phil. i. 1 ) ; Timothy was, therefore, 
 at Rome with him ; and the apostle mentions his intention to send 
 Timothy shortly, not to Ephesus, but to Philippi (ii- 19). 
 
 ^ See Paley's Horae Paulinae, ch. xii. No. i., and Tate's Continuous 
 History of St. Paul, p. 125—128. I ara not aware of any controversy as 
 to the date of this second epistle to Timothy. 
 
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 149 
 
 horted to '^ do the work of an evangelist." (2 Tim. 
 iv. 5.) 
 
 St. Paul, after the usual salutation^ begins, ^' As I 
 besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went 
 into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that 
 they teach no other doctrine, neither give heed to fables 
 and endless genealogies, which minister questions, 
 rather than godly edifying which is in faith : so do." 
 (1 Tim. i. 3, 4). The apostle in this passage requested 
 Timothy to remain at Ephesus for a special purpose, 
 implying that, but for such request, Timothy would 
 have gone with him into Macedonia. All this is in 
 perfect harmony with the notion of Timothy^s being an 
 evangelist. But, had Timothy been bishop of Ephe- 
 sus, the apostle would have had no occasion to be- 
 seech Timothy to remain there ; nor would he have so 
 limited the purpose for which he left him in that city. 
 
 The apostle then gives Timothy more extended direc- 
 tions, most of them as applicable to any other church 
 as to that of Ephesus (1 Tim. i. 5 to iii. 13) : and 
 adds — " These things I write unto thee, hoping to 
 come unto thee shortly : but if I tarry long, that thou 
 mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in 
 the house of God, which is the Church of the living 
 God.-" (ib.iii. 14, 15). The apostle seeius to have left 
 Timothy at Ephesus, hoping to return to him soon : 
 and he still had this hope when he wrote this epistle. 
 But he now found that he might be detained longer 
 than he expected : and he therefore gave Timothy these 
 directions that he might know how to behave himself 
 
150 DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 
 
 in " the churcli of the living God/' This is just the 
 sort of letter we might have expected the apostle to 
 write to an evangelist, whom he had left behind him, 
 expecting soon to join him again ; and who, if longer 
 separated from the apostle, might need further direc- 
 tions as to his conduct, whether in the Ephesian or in 
 any other branch of " the church of the living God.'^ 
 But the apostle would scarcely have so expressed him- 
 self, if he had previously ordained Timothy bishop of 
 Ephesus, and given him (as he would in that case have 
 given him) full instructions respecting his office, either 
 before or at his ordination thereto. 
 
 These passages lead us to the inference, that the 
 apostle had left Timothy at Ephesus as an evangelist, 
 not as bishop (in the modern sense of the word) of the 
 church in that city : and this inference is confirmed by 
 an examination of the second epistle to Timothy, written 
 during the apostle's second imprisonment at Rome. 
 
 In that epistle, the apostle, while he exhorts Timo- 
 thy to " do the work of an evangelist" (2 Tim. iv. 
 5), takes no notice of the church at Ephesus, or of any 
 connection as then subsisting, or having ever subsisted 
 between it and Timothy. He calls Timothy to 
 Rome, without expressing any regret at having occa- 
 sion to summon him from his bishopric, and without 
 any intimation that Timothy would soon return to his 
 charge. He writes thus : " Do thy diligence to come 
 shortly unto me : for Demas hath forsaken me, having 
 loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessa- 
 lonica; Crescens to Dalmatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. 
 
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 151 
 
 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him 
 with thee : for he is profitable to me for the ministry. 
 And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus. The cloke that 
 I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring 
 with thee, and the books, hut especially the parchments. 
 .... Do thy diligence to come before winter.^' (2 Tim. 
 iv. 9 — 13, 21). This is just the way in which the 
 apostle would, under the circumstances detailed, write 
 to an evangelist, to whom he might wish to give his 
 final instructions before suffering (as he was then ex- 
 pecting^ to suffer) martyrdom : but no one, who has 
 studied St. Paul's other epistles, would have expected 
 him, without further explanation, or further directions 
 than this, to call away a bishop from his diocese. 
 
 We must therefore, consider both Timothy and Titus, 
 not as bishops settled in any city or diocese with au- 
 thority limited to a particular district, but as evange- 
 lists, who sometimes accompanied the apostle in his 
 travels, assisting him in his labours; and at other 
 times were employed by him in different places to 
 preach the gospel among the heathen, settle Christian 
 churches, ordain elders, and exercise for a time episco- 
 pal authority over the elders as well as over the dis- 
 ciples. 
 
 Titus and Timothy were not diocesan bishops : but 
 the office, which each of them held, establishes the 
 fact, that a class of ministers distinct from and supe- 
 rior to both elders and deacons, and invested with a 
 
 1 See 2 Tim. iv. 6—8. 
 
152 DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 
 
 superintending authority over both elders and deacons^ 
 is consistent with the practice of the primitive church 
 as established by the apostle ; and even if we could 
 discover in scripture no instance of diocesan episcopacy, 
 we could not thence conclude that such an institution 
 is unscriptural in principle. But we are not left with- 
 out instances in the New Testament of diocesan epis- 
 copacy. A little consideration will shew, that the 
 angels of the seven churches in Asia were bishops of 
 those churches. 
 
 In the Apocalypse we find the apostle John directed 
 by our Lord to write seven epistles in our Lord's name, 
 one to the angel of each of ^' the seven churches whicV^ 
 were " in Asia.^' (Rev. i. ii. iii.) The angel of the 
 church was clearly a minister of the church, a messen- 
 ger or ambassador of God to the church. He was 
 either the only minister, or the chief or ruling minis- 
 ter — not one of a body — or how was the individual 
 addressed to be known ? ^ The church of Ephesus, 
 one of these seven churches, had before this time (as 
 we have already seen) several elders. The angel, 
 therefore, of the church of Ephesus must have been, 
 not one of the elders undistinguished from the others, 
 but an individual, who then had the rule and oversight 
 over both the elders and the church. The same ad- 
 dress being used in the epistles to the other six churches, 
 we may infer that the angels of those churches also 
 held each a similar office therein. The commendation 
 
 ^ This is forcibly put by Mr. McNeile in his Lectures on the Church. 
 
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 153 
 
 also given by our Lord to the angel of the church of 
 Ephesus, for having '^ tried them which" said they 
 were '^ apostles and^' were " not^^ (Rev. ii^ 2), and still 
 more the reproofs given by our Lord to the angel of 
 the church of Thyatira, for suffering a false prophetess 
 to teach and seduce the servants of Christ (ii. 20), shew 
 that the angels had authority in their respective 
 churches, for the due exercise of which they were re- 
 sponsible to the great Head of the church. Hence we 
 may conclude that, when St. John wrote the Apoca- 
 lypse, diocesan episcopacy existed in all- the seven 
 churches of Asia : and, although we do not find in that 
 book the precise nature of their authority, we may 
 reasonably infer, that it was similar to that which 
 Timothy had previously exercised over the church of 
 Ephesus, — similar in its nature, but more fixed and 
 permanent. 
 
 If it be asked how it appears that the angel was a 
 2)ermanent minister of the church, that he was not an 
 elder appointed for a limited time to preside over his 
 brethren, and then to be succeeded by another elder, 
 my answer is this : First, we have no analogy in the 
 New Testament for such an alternation of authority 
 
 ^ To the angel of the church of Pergamos the apostle is directed to 
 write : " I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them 
 that hold the doctrine of Balaam. ... So hast thou also them that hold 
 the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes." (Rev. ii. 14, 15.) This sounds like 
 a reproof of the ruler of the church for suffering such heresies ; but it 
 may be a reproof of the church itself, and I therefore do not press it. 
 
 2 I think this a fair inference : but it is sufficient for my argument, if 
 the church of Ephesus alone be shown to have been episcopal when the 
 apostle wrote the Apocalj-pse. 
 
 H 5 
 
154 DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 
 
 among the ministers of any local church. Secondly, 
 and principally, the commendation given to the angel 
 of the church of Ephesus, and the reproof given to the 
 angel of the church of Thyatira, shew that their autho- 
 rity was permanent and exclusive — otherwise the elders 
 as a body ruling their respective churches, not their 
 temporary president, would have been commended or 
 reproved for the due or negligent exercise of their au- 
 thority. The commendation, indeed, of the angel of 
 the church of Ephesus is mixed up with other com- 
 mendation, which seems rather to apply to the church 
 at large, than to its ruler. (Rev. ii. 1 — 6.) But the 
 reproof to the angel of the church of Thyatira is fol- 
 lowed, first by threatenings against the followers of the 
 false prophetess, and then by an address to the other 
 members of the church, who are thus distinguished from 
 the angel (Rev. ii. 20 — 24). The reproof is not to the 
 angel merely as representing the whole church, but 
 first to the angel, and then to ^' the rest '' of the 
 church. The fault of the church was, that it listened 
 to the false prophetess — but that she was suffered to 
 teach, was the fault of the rulers, or ruler — and as one 
 only is addressed in the singular number, that one, the 
 angel J must have been the chief ruler. 
 
 The result of this investigation of the difiierent pas- 
 sages in the New Testament, from which we might 
 deduce the several classes of ministers in the primitive 
 church, is this, viz., that there were as resident minis- 
 ters of some local or particular churches, bishops, 
 elders, and deacons ; and, as ministers 7iot attached to 
 
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 155 
 
 any one churchy evangelists : that at first this threefold 
 distinction of bishops, elders, and deacons, does not 
 appear to have prevailed, at least universally, the 
 words bishop and elder being used interchangeably in 
 St. PauPs epistles and in the Acts of the apostles : and 
 that there is no scriptural evidence of bishops (as dis- 
 tinguished from elders) having, in the time of the 
 apostles, been introduced into any but the seven apoca- 
 lyptic churches. One, at least, of these seven churches 
 (the church at Ephesus) had several elders, and proba- 
 bly consisted of several congregations or particular 
 churches. We may conjecture the same to have been 
 the case with the other six. So, at an earlier period, 
 the church of Philippi had, besides deacons, more than 
 one bishop or elder. (Phil. i. 1.) And, from the ex- 
 pression, " the presbytery,^^ used by St. Paul in writing 
 to Timothy (1 Tim. iv. 14), we may infer that the 
 elders of each local church acted together as a body for 
 some purposes in superintending that church. Whether 
 in each congregation, or particular church, there was a 
 distinct elder, and whether any congregation had more 
 than one elder, are questions which I do not discover 
 any thing in scripture to determine. 
 
 No other class of ministers, except bishops, elders, 
 and deacons, and except ministers whose offices were 
 not intended to be perpetuated, and except evangelists 
 whose office was of a missionary character, can be traced 
 in the New Testament. The apostle Paul, indeed, 
 writes to Timothy : " The things that thou hast heard 
 of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou 
 
156 DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 
 
 to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also^' 
 (2 Tim. ii. 2). This passage will (in the following chap- 
 ter) be fully considered in another connection. For 
 the present purpose, it is sufficient to observe, that 
 there exists not now, nor has for centuries existed, any 
 class of ministers in the Christian church — distinct 
 from bishops and elders (presbyters, priests, as they 
 are now called) — which even claims ' to have received 
 these sayings of the apostle Paul in direct succession 
 from Timothy : and that consequently these " faithful 
 men^^ either did not constitute a distinct order of 
 ministers, or were a temporary class of ministers in- 
 stituted or selected for a special purpose, and under 
 special circumstances, and not intended to be per- 
 petuated when that purpose should have been accom- 
 plished and those circumstances should have ceased to 
 exist. 
 
 In examining the institution by our Lord of baptism 
 and the Lord's supper,- it was observed that to provide 
 for the due administration of those ordinances was part 
 of the commission entrusted by Him to his apostles. 
 The apostles (as we have seen) did appoint ministers, 
 and in particular ordain elders in the churches which 
 they founded : and they did thereby provide for the 
 administration, of those ordinances : and though we 
 find in scripture no direction assigning the administra- 
 tion of either the one or the other ordinance to any 
 order or orders of ministers exclusively, there are some 
 
 ^ Of course I admit no such claim in any, nor is it made by any Pro- 
 testant ministers, ^ See ch. ii. 
 
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 157 
 
 incidental notices on the subject which it will be proper 
 to consider in this place. 
 
 Our Lord, as we have seen,^ just before his ascension 
 commanded his apostles : " Go ye, therefore, and 
 teach '^ [make disciples of] " all nations, baptizing 
 them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Ghost : teaching them to observe all things 
 whatsoever I have commanded you.'^ (Matt, xxviii. 19, 
 20.) This passage seems to connect the administration 
 of baptism with the preaching of the word. Yet the 
 apostle Paul considered the preaching of the gospel as 
 an office superior to that of administering baptism. 
 '' Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the 
 gospeV' (1 Cor. i. 17). "I thank God that I bap- 
 tized none of you, but Crispus and Gains; lest any 
 should say that 1 had baptized in mine own name. And 
 I baptized also the household of Stephanas : besides, I 
 know not, whether I baptized any other" (1 Cor. i. 
 14 — 16). By whom were the other members of the 
 Corinthian church baptized ? probably by other minis- 
 ters who preached the gospel among them : for it can 
 scarcely be supposed, that, when baptism was princi- 
 pally administered to adults, and the admission of an 
 unbelieving or worldly member into the church might 
 have been attended with very serious evils, private 
 Christians were indiscriminately allowed, of their own 
 authority and on their own judgment, to administer to 
 any one they pleased this initiatory ordinance. Yet I 
 
 ' Ante ch. ii., where the two questions have been examined; {\)hy 
 tohom^ and (2) to whom baptism was to be administered. 
 
158 DIFFERENT CLASSES OP MINISTERS. 
 
 can discover no express restriction of the administra- 
 tion to any order of ministers or even to ministers 
 exclusively. 
 
 In examining^ the circumstantial accounts, which 
 the inspired writers give us, of the institution of the 
 Lord^s Supper, we found nothing to determine by 
 whom it should be administered — nothing beyond this, 
 that (as the language used imports) the apostles were 
 commissioned to provide for its due and perpetual 
 administration. They were so commissioned : yet we 
 find, neither in the Acts of the Apostles, nor in the 
 apostolic epistles, any specific direction, as to any 
 order of ministers, to be exclusively intrusted with 
 this office. The apostle Paul writes to the Corinth- 
 ians : " The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not 
 the communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread 
 which WE break, is it not the communion of the body 
 of Christ ? For we, being many, are one bread, and 
 one body : for we are all partakers of that one bread.'' 
 (1 Cor. X. 16, 17.) In this passage, the apostle uses 
 the word we, first for those who administer, and then 
 for those who partake of, the Lord's supper. He in- 
 cludes himself in both classes, and all who communi- 
 cate in the latter. From the first use of the word we 
 may not unreasonably infer, that the apostle's custom 
 (when present) was himself to bless the wine and 
 break the bread ; while by the latter use of the same 
 ivord we are precluded from inferring, that in the 
 
 ^ See ante ch. ii. 
 
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 159 
 
 former use of it any exclusive meaning was attached to 
 it, or that none but the apostles and their successors 
 were authorized to administer it. So far as any con- 
 clusion can be drawn from this passage, it is this — that, 
 when the Lord^s supper was administered in the 
 time of the apostles, the wine was blessed and the bread 
 broken by the minister who presided in the congrega- 
 tion — by the elder — by the overseer, or bishop, if 
 present — by an apostle, if one were in the assembly. 
 And this conclusion is countenanced by what is re- 
 corded to have taken place at Troas : ^' Upon the first 
 day of the week, when the disciples came together to 
 break bread, Paul preached unto them. . . . And as 
 Paul was long preaching," Eutychus " fell down from 
 the third loft, and was taken up dead. And Paul 
 went down, and fell on him, and embracing /mn, said. 
 Trouble not yourselves ; for his life is in him. When 
 he therefore had come up again, and had broken 
 bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till 
 break of day, so he departed.^^ (Acts xx. 6 — 11.) The 
 disciples, according to their custom, had come together 
 " to break bread " (that is, to partake of the Lord's 
 supper), and St. Paul (though probably there were 
 elders in the church of Troas ') brake bread — admin- 
 istered (it seetns) the Lord^s supper. Such a practice 
 would be in conformity with our Lord^s example, who, 
 presiding at his ow7i table, blessed and brake the 
 
 ^ The apostle had previously been there twice. See Tate'8 Continuous 
 History of St. Paul, p. 37, 66, 73, and compare 2 Cor. ii. 12 with Acts 
 xvi. 8, 9 and xx. 4 — 6. 
 
160 DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 
 
 bread, and blessed the wine : and some such regula- 
 tion would obviously be requisite for the good order of 
 the church, and to prevent those disorders, which the 
 apostle reproved in the Corinthians — " when ye come 
 together .... into one place, this is not to eat the 
 Lord^s supper. For in eating, every one taketh before 
 other his own supper : and one is hungry, and another 
 is drunken." (1 Cor. xi. 20, 21.) Whether, if no 
 elder or minister of higher rank were present in the 
 congregation, the Lord's supper was administered in the 
 apostolic church, cannot (it seems to me) be determined 
 absolutely from scripture. We find on the one hand 
 no distinct prohibition, nor on the other any recorded 
 instance, of a such practice. We read, indeed, of the 
 early Christians " continuing daily with one accord in 
 the temple, and breaking bread from house to house " 
 (Acts ii. 46), worshipping God in the temple of Jeru- 
 salem, and (as some with great probability of truth 
 understand the passage) celebrating the Lord's supper, 
 sometimes in one private house and sometimes in ano- 
 ther : but an apostle or an elder might be present on all 
 these occasions. The twelve were then all in Jerusalem; ^ 
 and probably there were elders also, as we find, not 
 long afterwards, mention made of elders at Jerusa- 
 
 ^ The statement of the disciples " breaking bread from house to house" 
 follows immediately the narrative of the outpouring of the Spirit on the 
 day of Pentecost, when all the twelve were present (Acts ii.) : and after- 
 wards, when the disciples at Jerusalem were scattered by the persecu- 
 tion on Stephen's martyrdom, the apostles still continued at Jerusalem 
 (Acts viii. 1). Hence I infer, that at tlds time the twelve apostles were 
 all at Jerusalem, or generally residing there. 
 
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 161 
 
 lem (Acts xi. 30). Though, however, we have neither 
 recorded practice, nor specific direction in Scripture to 
 settle the question, yet, as the apostles appointed elders 
 in every church which they founded, and thereby made 
 (as they were commissioned to make) adequate provi- 
 sion for the administration of the Lord's Supper, we 
 cannot reasonably imagine, that it was ever in their 
 days administered except by an elder or a minister 
 having rule over the disciples. 
 
 This, however, has been considered low ground to 
 take in respect of ministerial authority : and it has 
 been contended,^ that the power of administering the 
 Lord's Supper has been committed exclusively to the 
 apostles and to those who derive a commission from 
 them in unbroken succession. To support this propo- 
 sition, one writer 2 speaks of the minister's " hands" 
 
 ^ Tracts for the Times, No. 4 and 35. 
 ^ See Tracts for the Times, No. 4. The writer of another tract quotes, 
 in support of the same proposition, the following passage. ^ Let a man so 
 account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries 
 of God. (1 Cor. iv. L) When such a passage is quoted (see Tracts for the 
 Times, No. 35, p. 2) for such a purpose, two propositions, neither of which 
 is true, are tacitly assumed : 1st. that by " us" the apostle meant the apostles 
 and their successors ; 2dly. thatby "mysteriesof God" he meant sacmwzer^fs, 
 or the Lord's Supper. These assumptions are both of them unfounded. 
 (1.) St. Paul is speaking exclusively of himself, and defending his own au- 
 thority, in opposition to the schismatic teachers who were drawing away 
 from him the Corinthian disciples. This is clear from the context : and 
 he immediately adds ; " Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man 
 be found faithful ; but with me it is a very small thing, that I should be 
 judged of you or of man's judgment" — thus, by the change of person 
 from the plural to the singular, showing (as indeed is manifest from the 
 whole context) that he is throughout speaking of himself individually. 
 (2.) The "mysteries of God" are the sublime truths of the gospel. The 
 
162 DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 
 
 as conveying " the sacrifice/' and afterwards cites — 
 " No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he 
 that is called of God, as was Aaron'' (Heb. v. 4) — 
 thus misapplying to the Christian ministry and the 
 Lord's supper, what the apostle Paul says of the Aaronic 
 priesthood and sacrifices. The apostle, in this passage 
 and the context, is treating, not of the Christian min- 
 istry or sacraments, but of the high-priesthood of 
 Christ, as having superseded that of Aaron, and with 
 it all sacrifices for sin : nor could we, from the pas- 
 sage, even if the Lord's supper were a sacrifice within 
 its meaning, deduce any inference, but that it was to 
 be administered only by one " called of God " to the 
 office ; it being left undetermined how the call was to 
 be evidenced ; for certainly the Christian ministry is 
 not hereditary, as was Aaron's priesthood. But in 
 the institution of the Lord's supper, as recorded in 
 scripture, there is (as we have seen *) nothing in any 
 way indicating that it is a sacrifice for sin, or in any 
 proper sense a sacrifice. It is a thankful memorial 
 of the Great Sacrifice, which Jesus once for all offered 
 on the cross for the sins of the whole world. It is 
 not the officiating minister, who exclusively, or even 
 principally, shows the Lord's death in breaking the 
 bread and blessing the wine : but the disciples are 
 they, who as often as they eat that bread, and drink 
 
 word mystery {ixvariipiov) is constantly used by St. Paul in this sense 
 (1 Tim. iii. 9, 16, and Col. ii. 2, and I Cor. xv. 51, and xiii. 2) ; while it 
 is never used in Scripture for the Lord's Supper, as will be seen on con- 
 sulting Rose's Parkhurst, where all the passages in which the word occurs 
 are collected. ^ Ante ch. ii. 
 
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 163 
 
 that cup, " do show the Lord's death till he come.^' 
 (1 Cor. xi. 26.) 
 
 Under the Christian dispensation there is no sacri- 
 fice for sin, but the one sacrifice once offered on the 
 cross ; no sacrificing priest.^ On this point, St. Paul's 
 argument, from the fifth to the tenth chapter (both 
 inclusive) of his epistle to the Hebrews, is decisive. 
 His argument is this — that Jesus, the High Priest of 
 our profession, our High Priest abiding for ever, has 
 offered up himself once for all, as a full, perfect, and 
 sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the world, has 
 ascended up on high, and now sits at the right hand 
 
 ^ The word " priest" has unhappily crept into the Church as a 
 corruption of " presbyter" or elder. The authorised version of the 
 New Testament has not adopted the corruption : and in it, conse- 
 quently, the priest (tepei/y, sacerdos) is clearly distinguished from the 
 elder or presbyter {irpeaSvTfpos) ; the former being a minister of the 
 Israelitish, the latter of the Christian, church. The Rhemish Testa- 
 ment has in several passages (Acts xiv. 23, and xv. 2, and 1 Tim. v. 
 17, 19, and Tit. i. 5, and James v. 14) rendered irpecrSvTepos, priest — 
 for what purpose is obvious. Mr. Keble, in the P ostscript to the 3rd 
 edition of his Sermon on Tradition, p. 94, note 2 (I quote from the 4th 
 edition), cites Rom. xv. 15 thus : " The grace that is given me of God, 
 that I should be the Minister (Xeirovpyhv) of Jesus Christ unto the 
 Gentiles, ejcercising the piiesfs office {Upov^ovvTo) in respect of the gospel 
 of God : that the offering up {irpoacpeph) of the Gentiles might be accept- 
 able, BEING SANCTIFIED BY THE HoLY GhOST : {T]yLa(Tp.hr\ iv IINETMATI 
 
 'Ann) " — the italics and capitals are his — and he adds, " In which pas- 
 sage are four or five liturgical words." But the expression, " Exercising 
 the priest's office in respect of the gospel," conveys no very intelligible 
 idea : " ministering the gospeP' (as the words are rendered in the autho- 
 rised version) has a very clear meaning, viz. preaching the gospel. "• The 
 offering up of the Gentiles" is their being set apart to the service of God. 
 But surely the apostle did not mean, that he offered up either the gospel 
 or the Gentiles as a sacrifice to God ! 
 
164 DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 
 
 of God, ever making intercession for his people : that 
 he has thus abolished the sacrifices of the Mosaic law, 
 and with them the Aaronic priesthood, which was ap- 
 pointed to offer them up : and that, while those sacri- 
 fices never could take away sin, and were only types 
 and shadows of his one sacrifice, that sacrifice of 
 Himself was so sufficient, that there was no need for 
 its being offered again. This great and fundamental 
 doctrine of the sufficiency of the one offering of Jesus 
 Christ for sin, while the inefficacy of the Mosaic sacri- 
 fices was evidenced by their being ofteii offered, is 
 urged on the Hebrews by the apostle in various forms, 
 and with an earnestness of repetition, evincing the 
 importance which he attached to it. ^^ Christ " (he 
 says) " is not entered into the holy places made with 
 hands, which are the figures of the true; but into 
 heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God 
 for us : NOR yet that he should offer himself often, 
 as the high priest entereth into the holy place every 
 year with the blood of others ; for then must he often 
 have suffered since the foundation of the world : but 
 NOW ONCE in the end of the world hath he appeared, 
 to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And 
 as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after 
 this the judgment : so Christ w^A-S once offered to 
 bear the sins of many ; and unto them that look for 
 him shall he appear the second time without sin unto 
 salvation. For the law having a shadow of good things 
 to come, and not the very image of the things, can 
 never with those sacrifices which they offered year by 
 
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 165 
 
 year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 
 For then would they not have ceased to be offered ? " 
 (Heb. ix. 24—28; x. 1, ^.) ''It is not possible 
 that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away 
 sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he 
 saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a 
 body hast thou prepared me : in burnt-offerings and 
 sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said 
 I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written 
 of me,) to do thy will, God. Above when he said, 
 Sacrifice and offering and burnt-offerings and offer- 
 ing for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure 
 therein ; which are offered by the law ; then said he, 
 Lo, I come to do thy will, God. He taketh away 
 the first, that he may establish the second. By the 
 which will we are sanctified through the offering of 
 the BODY of Jesus Christ once ^ for all. And every 
 Priest standeth daily ministering and offering often- 
 times the same sacrifices, which can never take away 
 sins : but this man, after he had offered one sacri- 
 
 ^ The word in the original is strong — not simply o7ra| — but i(pdira^ — 
 which in the authorised version is well rendered " once/or a/Z." St. 
 Paul's argument is conclusive against the doctrine taught in the creed of 
 pope Pius the IVth, that " in the mass there is offered to God a proper and 
 propitiatory sacrifice ;" that there is therein " made a conversion of the 
 whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance 
 of the wine into the blood'' of Christ : and it is equally conclusive against 
 every notion of any sacrifice (other than that of praise and thanksgiving) 
 being offered in the Lord's Supper. The argument shows every such 
 dogma to be as derogatory to the one sacrifice offered by Jesus on the 
 cross, as the adoption by Gentiles converted to Christianity of the Mosaic 
 
166 DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 
 
 ncE for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of 
 God/' (x. 4 — 12.) " For by one offering he hath 
 PERFECTED for ever them that are sanctified." (x. 14.) 
 There remains, therefore, no further sacrifice, in the 
 proper sense of the word, to be offered up under the 
 Christian dispensation — no sacrifice, except the sacri- 
 fice of '^ a broken spirit" (Psalm li. 17), the " sacrifice 
 of praise,' ' which Christians are exhorted to offer to 
 God continually (Heb. xiii. 15), " spiritual sacrifices," 
 for the offering up of which all true Christians are ^^ an 
 holy priesthood," " a royal priesthood" (1 Pet. ii. 
 5 and 9). For such sacrifices the church of Christ 
 needs no other priesthood on earthy than that which 
 
 sacrifices would have been. Repeatedly had the Lord's Supper been 
 celebrated in the interval between His crucifixion and the writing of the 
 epistle to the Hebrews ; and, if in the Lord's Supper there were any 
 proper and propitiatory sacrifice^ that sacrifice had on each of these occa- 
 sions been offered up, so that Jesus Christ had been often offered up as a 
 sacrifice before the apostle wrote to the Hebrews : yet he not only de- 
 clares to them repeatedly and in various forms, that Christ toas once 
 offered to bear the sins of many ; but he shows why (though the high 
 priest after the order of Aaron offered oftentimes the same sacrifices) it was 
 not necessary for Jesus to offer himself often. Once sufficed, because bi/ 
 his one offering He hath " perfected for ever them that are sanctified." 
 From the repetition of the Mosaic sacrifices, the apostle conclusively 
 argues, that the laiv could never thereby " make the comers thereunto 
 perfect." If the sacrifice of the cross were in any sense repeated in the 
 Lord's Supper, if " a proper and propitiatory sacrifice" were therein 
 offered, it would equally follow from the frequent repetition of the Chris- 
 tian sacrifice, that the gospel could never by that sacrifice make the comers 
 thereunto perfect — a conclusion little short of blasphemy — wickedly dero- 
 gating from our Lord's atonement — and in direct contradiction to St. 
 Paul's doctrine respecting our Lord's one sacrifice and its full efficacy. 
 
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF MINISTERS. 167 
 
 alike belongs to all its members : and accordingly no 
 mention is made in the New Testament of any order 
 of men set apajt as priests {lepaq, sacerdotes) in the 
 Christian church. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS : AND THEREIN OF 
 ORDINATION. 
 
 We have now traced the introduction of evangelists, 
 bishops, elders, and deacons into the Christian church. 
 There were other ministers, whose offices, founded 
 simply on the exercise of supernatural gifts, ceased 
 when miraculous powers ceased in the church. Our 
 concern is only, 1st, with evangelists, who were not 
 attached to any particular or local church, though at 
 times invested with a temporary authority over some 
 local church, while at other times they accompanied 
 and assisted the apostles in their travels ; and 2ndly, 
 with bishops, elders, and deacons, who were settled 
 ministers of local or particular churches. Let us 
 now inquire what light scripture throws on the ap- 
 pointment of these ministers, under which term I 
 include both the selection of the individual for the 
 office ; and, where the nature of the office requires it. 
 
APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS. 169 
 
 his ordination or the designation of him or setting of 
 him apart for the office. And, as in this inquiry we 
 shall find instances of ministers ordained with imposi- 
 tion of hands, it may be useful first to consider shortly 
 the principal occasions, whether relating to temporal or 
 to ecclesiastical matters, on which that rite is in scrip- 
 ture recorded to have been used. 
 
 We find imposition of hands to have been used on 
 occasions such as the five following. 
 
 1. The apostles conferred, as we have seen, super- 
 natural gifts by laying on of hands : but such gifts 
 were, without imposition of hands, conferred by our 
 Lord on the twelve and on the seventy ; and, after his 
 ascension^ by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on 
 the day of Pentecost, and at the conversion of Corne- 
 lius and his friends. 
 
 2. Sometimes miraculous cures were wrought with 
 imposition of hands. And our Lord himself on several 
 occasions laid his hands on the sick, and healed them. 
 (Mark vi. 5. Luke iv. 40; xiii. 13.) He also pro- 
 mised to his disciples that they should lay hands on 
 the sick, and the sick should recover (Mark xvi. 18). 
 Ananias laid his hands on Saul, and Saul recovered his 
 sight (Acts ix. 17, 18). Paul laid his hands on Pub- 
 lius, and healed him of a fever and bloody flux (Acts 
 xxviii. 8). But imposition of hands was not necessary 
 for this purpose. Our Lord, on many occasions, only 
 spoke the word, and the sick — though sometimes ab- 
 sent — were healed. (Matt. viii. 5 — 13. Mark ii. 3 — IS; 
 
 I 
 
 / 
 
170 APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, 
 
 Luke xvii. 12—19. John v. 1—9 ; ix. 1—7.) The sick 
 also were healed by Peter, as he passed by and over- 
 shadowed them (Acts v. 15) : and from Paul's " body 
 were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, 
 and the diseases departed from them, and the evil 
 spirits went out of them.^^ (Acts xix. 12.) No case, 
 indeed, is recorded, in which an evil spirit was cast 
 out with the laying on of hands— probably to prevent, 
 as far as possible, any appearance of intercourse with 
 devils. 
 
 3. Sometimes the conferring of spiritual benefits 
 was accompanied with imposition of hands : as when 
 our Lord laid his hands on the children which were 
 brought to him, and blessed them (Mark x. 13 — 16). 
 But that prayer, without imposition of hands, may be 
 effectual to the obtaining for others of spiritual bless- 
 ings, is clear, both from the many examples of inter- 
 cessory prayer, and from the repeated exhortations to 
 the duty, which occur in the New Testament. 
 
 4. On some occasions individuals were set apart, by 
 imposition of hands, for some special and temporary 
 work, as in two cases which have been already consi- 
 dered — that of the Seven on whom the apostles laid 
 their hands (Acts vi. 1 — 6) ; and that of Paul and 
 Barnabas, who (though Paul was already an apostle) 
 were, by express direction of the Holy Ghost, set apart 
 by the church at Antioch for a special mission, cer- 
 tain prophets and teachers — not any apostle — laying 
 hands on them. But imposition of hands does not 
 appear to have been the universal, if indeed it was the 
 
AND THEREIN OF ORDINATION. 171 
 
 general, practice on such occasions. (See Acts viii. 14 ; 
 xi. 29, 30; XV. 2, 3, 22,30.) 
 
 5. We have, in the Old Testament, instances of 
 permanent offices in church and state being conferred 
 by imposition of hands (Numb. viii. 10; xxvii. 18 — 
 23) : and, in one of these instances, Moses was com- 
 manded to lay his hands on Joshua, who is at the 
 same time called ^' a man in whom is the Spirit '^ 
 (Numb, xxvii. 18). But imposition of hands does not 
 appear to have been the universal practice, and anoint- 
 ing seems to have been a more usual rite, under the 
 Mosaic dispensation. (Exod. xxviii. 41 ; xxx. 30, 31 ; 
 xl. 13, 15, 16. Lev. viii. 12 ; xvi. 32. Numb. iii. 3. 
 and 1 Sam. x. 1 ; xvi. 12, 13; and 2 Sam. ii. 4; v. 3 ; 
 and 1 Kings i. 34, 39 ; xix. 15, 16 ; and 2 Kings ix. 
 3, 6.) On no one occasion — not even when the 
 twelve apostles were appointed, nor when the seventy 
 disciples were sent forth — is oar Lord recorded to have 
 conferred office or authority by laying his hands on the 
 individual. Nor (as far as appears) was either Matthias 
 or Saul appointed by imposition of hands to the 
 apostleship.i 
 
 Such are the principal purposes for which imposition 
 of hands is in scripture recorded to have been used : 
 but for no one of such purposes does it appear to have 
 been invariably used. 
 
 Let us now examine, what we can discover in the 
 New Testament respecting the appointment of evan- 
 
 ^ See ante ch. iii. 
 I 2 
 
172 APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, 
 
 gelists, bishops, elders, and deacons. It is remarkable, 
 that, although we find recorded in the Acts of the 
 Apostles the appointment by them of elders, and 
 though we find in the epistles to Timothy and Titus 
 various directions respecting the appointment by those 
 evangelists of elders (sometimes called bishops, or 
 overseers) and of deacons, we have nowhere in scrip- 
 ture any direction as to the manner in which the min- 
 istry should be perpetuated. There is, indeed, one 
 passage, which is often quoted as containing such a 
 direction ; but, on examination, it will be found not to 
 bear such an interpretation. Keference has been al- 
 ready made to it. 
 
 " The things that thou hast heard of me among 
 many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful 
 men, who shall be able to teach others also." (2 Tim. 
 ii. 2.) 
 
 There is in this passage nothing importing that 
 those, whom the " faithful men " were to teach, were 
 to be themselves teachers ; nothing indicating Jww 
 the ministry was to be perpetuated. If, therefore, 
 with some commentators, we understand the apostle as 
 simply directing Timothy to instruct and appoint 
 " faithful men ^^ to be ministers of the gospel, we have 
 no new class of ministers, no mode of transmitting 
 the ministry, pointed out. If, on the other hand, we 
 consider (as the passage would more naturally lead us 
 to consider) the apostle as directing Timothy " to 
 commit to faithful men '' the truths which Timothy 
 had heard the apostle publicly and authoritatively 
 
AND THEREIN OF ORDINATION. 173 
 
 teach, he is obviously not speaking of any then known 
 class of ministers under the denomination of " faithful 
 men ; '' for he says, " faithful men," without the 
 article, clearly pointing to a selection which Timothy 
 was to make. The men so to be selected might be 
 chosen from among the then recognized ministers of the 
 church ; but they were not, as a class, the same with 
 the elders, or the same with the deacons, mentioned in 
 the apostle's former epistle to Timothy. The " faithful 
 men," whom Timothy was to select for this specific 
 purpose, were to be (if a class at all) a new class of 
 ministers. Did then the apostle, in this passage, 
 direct Timothy to appoint, for the first time, " angels " 
 (bishops, as distinguished from elders) in the churches? 
 This is the only interpretation which can make the 
 passage bear on a perpetuation of the ministry. But 
 can such an interpretation be reasonably put on the 
 passage? Would the apostle, when first directing 
 Timothy to establish this new class of ministers, a 
 class superior to both elders and deacons — would the 
 apostle have given to Timothy no further instruction 
 respecting the duties or qualifications of bishops, than 
 that they were to be " faithful men,'^ and ^' able to 
 teach others ? " Would he have been less particular, 
 or less minute, than he had been in his former epistle 
 respecting elders, whom he also calls overseers ? 
 Would he have said nothing to Timothy respecting 
 the authority of a bishop to rule both elders and 
 deacons ? 
 
 I conclude that the "faithful men" mentioned in 
 
174 APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, 
 
 this passage were not, as a class, the same with bishops, 
 elders, or deacons, or with any or all of those classes 
 — but men to be selected for the particular purpose of 
 transmitting to others the great truths of the gospel, 
 which Timothy had heard the apostle teach publicly 
 and authoritatively. The apostle was making provi- 
 sion, ?2o^ /or ^crpe^wa^iw^ the ministry, but for spread- 
 ing and preserving (until the canon of Scripture should 
 be completed* and copies sufficiently multiplied) the 
 knowledge of divine truth with as much accuracy as 
 could be obtained through the instrumentality of fal- 
 lible men. In the doctrine, which St. Paul taught 
 publicly and authoritatively, he was (as well as in his 
 epistles) preserved from all error by the inspiration of 
 the Holy Spirit : - but he had doubtless occasion to 
 give many directions which, though important to the 
 welfare of the church in the apostolic age, were not in- 
 tended to be of perpetual obligation ; and the passage 
 under consideration contains no intimation, that either 
 Timothy or the " faithful men " should be preserved 
 from error (indeed the caution given as to the charac- 
 ter of the men to be selected for the purpose seems to 
 imply their liability to error) in transmitting the truths 
 which Timothy had heard of the apostle — or that this 
 method of transmitting those truths should be conti- 
 nued in perpetuity, or beyond those to whom the 
 
 ^ St. John had not then written either his Gospel or the Apocalypse, 
 and probably not one of his three epistles. 
 
 ^ See ante ch. iii. St. Paul also tells the Thessalonians, that " the 
 word of God, which" they had " heard of" him was not " the word of 
 men but .... the word of God." (1 Thess. ii. 13.) 
 
AND THEREIN OF ORDINATION. 175 
 
 " faithful men ^^ should teach them. • Such a method^ 
 without a perpetual miracle, could not preserve divine 
 truth in its purity : and the further it proceeded from 
 the original fountain, the more corrupted the stream 
 would become. Accordingly God, in his wisdom, has 
 given us the Holy Scriptures, in which are contained 
 all things necessary to salvation. In these inspired 
 writings those things, which for a time were through 
 Timothy committed orally to " faithful men, or such 
 of those things as were of perpetual obligation, are 
 still more faithfully recorded and preserved. We have 
 no trace in the present day of any class of ministers, 
 depositaries of traditions handed down from the apostle 
 Paul through Timothy: nor have we any reason to 
 suppose, that such a class of men continued beyond 
 those, whom the " faithful men " selected by Timothy 
 taught. With them, we may conclude, this method of 
 transmitting the truths of the gospel ceased, being su- 
 perseded by the written word, which about the same 
 time was completed and recognized as the rule of faith 
 |ind practice.^ 
 
 This passage, therefore, has no reference to the per- 
 petuating of the ministry, or to the appointment of 
 any permanent class of ministers in the church : and 
 we are left to gather the scriptural principle respecting 
 
 ^ St. Peter clearly intimates, that to the written word alone we can 
 trust for the preservation of the truth. " I will not be negligent to put 
 you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them .... 
 Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have 
 these things always in remembrance." (2 Pet. i. 12, 15.) 
 
176 APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, 
 
 the mode of appointing ministers from other passages 
 in the New Testament. 
 
 Now we may, from the Acts of the Apostles and from 
 the epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, gather 
 some intimations as to the appointment of elders, dea- 
 cons, and evangelists : but I can find nothing in scrip- 
 ture respecting the mode of appointing bishops (in the 
 modern sense of the word, as distinguished from elders) 
 or (in the language of the Apocalypse) " angels. '^ The 
 setting apart, however, of Paul and Barnabas to their 
 missionary journey,^ suggests, that an elder, when ap- 
 pointed bishop, should be set apart to his 7iew office 
 by prayer with imposition of hands, though it does not 
 establish the necessity of his being so set apart, still 
 less of his being ordained or consecrated by another 
 bishop. 
 
 The first mention of elders in the Christian Church 
 occurs, when the disciples at Antioch having " deter- 
 mined to send relief to the brethren which dwelt in 
 Judaea .... sent it to the elders by the hands of Bar- 
 nabas and Saul'^ (Acts xi. 29, 30). Who these elders 
 were, or when or how appointed, we are not informed : 
 but we afterwards find the elders at Jerusalem meeting 
 with the apostles "to consider of" the question about 
 circumcision^ and joining with the apostles and brethren 
 in the letters communicating the judgment of the coun- 
 cil on that question (Acts xv. 6, 23). Probably they 
 were of the seventy, or of those on whom the Holy 
 Spirit had descended on the day of Pentecost. 
 
 ^ See ante ch. iii. 
 
AND THEREIN OF ORDINATION. 177 
 
 We have, however, in the Acts of the Apostles a 
 particular account of the appointment of elders in other 
 places. It occurs near the end of the missionary jour- 
 ney of Paul and Barnabas, to which reference has been 
 already made. '' Paul/' says the inspired historian, 
 " departed with Barnabas to Derbe. And when they 
 had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught 
 many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, 
 and Antioch, confirming the souls of the disciples, and 
 exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we 
 must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom 
 of God. And when they had ordained them elders in 
 every church, and had prayed with fasting, they com- 
 mended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.^' 
 (Acts xiv. 19 — 23). I have quoted the passage at 
 length, as it stands in the authorized version, in order 
 to shew by the connection and context, that Paul and 
 Barnabas are the persons, and the only persons, of 
 whom the sacred historian is writing, when, according 
 to that version he says : " And when they had ordained 
 them elders in every church, and had prayed with fast- 
 ing, they commended them to the Lord.'^ The connec- 
 tion is still more clear in the original, which would be 
 more literally rendered : " And having ordained [or 
 appointed] for them * elders in every church, and hav- 
 ing prayed with fasting, they commended them to the 
 
 ' " Having ordained for them — x^ 'POTOfrjo-avres Se avrols — the parti- 
 ciple Avith the dative case avrois " to" or " for them," not eauroTs " to" 
 or "for themselves," as it would have been, if those, over whom these 
 elders were appointed, had themselves appointed or elected them, 
 
 I 5 
 
178 APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, 
 
 Lorcl/^ The word^ which our translators have rendcEed 
 ^' ordained,^' has given rise to much controversy. It 
 properly, and according to its etymology, means, to ex- 
 tend the hand ; and hence, to choose hy lifting up the 
 hands. But it is also used by the best Greek writers, 
 as well as by others, for to elect in general by that or 
 any other method, and even for to appoint without any 
 election by suffrage :^ and in this particular instance it 
 is clear from the grammatical construction, that the 
 appointment or election (whichever of these terms be 
 used) of these elders was made —not by the disciples — 
 but by Paul and Barnabas for the disciples. I also 
 
 ' Wolfius says — " x^'-poTOvelv est fersuffragia creare sive eligere . . Sed 
 alii ne sufFragia quidcm, tanquam ad electionem necessaria, hac voce innui 
 existimant." He then refers to Borsins in Collatione ad H. L. and 
 Knatchbull in notis ad H. L., and Eunapius, and Lucian, and Bilson de 
 perpetua Christi gubernatione, and Hug. Grotius de Imperio Sumniarum 
 Potestatura circa sacra. Wolfius adds — " Fortassis tamen non errant qui 
 electionem banc seu constitutio7iem cum impositione manuum conjunctani 
 fuisse avbitrantur. Earn enini jam turn receptam fuisse, ex 1 Tim. v. 22, 
 patere illi existimant"' [That epistle was written after St. Paul had 
 left Timothy at Epbesus and gone to Macedonia : a period subsequent to 
 the events recorded in Acts xiv.] " quamvis negari itidem non possit, 
 tum presbyteros, tum episcopos etiam sine ea constitutes fuisse.'' (Wol- 
 fius in loc.) 
 
 Suicer says : " to x^ 'po^overj/ in prima et propria significatione designat 
 electionem, quae fit per suffragia manuum extensione data : notat eligere 
 ad episccpatum nimirum ex usu Ecclesiastico, atque talis electio etiam a 
 populo olira facto ut demonstravimus in voce ^ETriaKoiros, Num. ii. 1 sub. 
 lit. ba." — He gives no instance of such popular election in the times qft/ie 
 apostles.— He also proves by examples from Xenophon and others, that 
 XeipoTcve7u is used simply for co?istituere, creare, designare. The com- 
 pound is clearly used in the Acts, where election by suffrage cannot be 
 meant: '' unto witnesses chosen before of God" (TrpoKex^i'POTOuri/j.iPois 
 iinh Toy 0eov» (Acts x. 41.) 
 
AND THEREIN OF ORDINATION. 179 
 
 think, that the word translated " ordained '' does in 
 this place include the notion of imposition of hands ; 
 or rather, that it was selected on this occasion, because 
 the appointment was made with imposition of hands — 
 selected in preference to various other words ^ used else- 
 where in the New Testament to express an appointment 
 when unaccompanied with that rite. The word, it is 
 said, and (I presume) truly said, is in no instance used 
 by any good Greek writer for to appoint by imposition 
 of hands — neither, it should be added, is there any 
 other word 2 used in good Greek writers, by which that 
 compound notion could have been expressed ; and con- 
 sequently, as he who lays his hand on another must 
 for that purpose stretch it out, St. Luke might (with 
 great propriety) use a word, which means primarily to 
 stretch forth the hand, and secondarily to elect or ap- 
 point , as a proper word to express an appointment by 
 laying on of hands. But it is not material, whether 
 Paul and Barnabas ordained hy imposition of hands 
 
 ^ " He"' Jesus " ordained twelve" (Mark iii. 14). " The Lord ap- 
 pointed other seventy." (Lukex. 1.) " Of these men , . . must one be 
 ordained" (Acts i. 21, 22). "He" (Pharaoh) "made him" (Joseph) 
 " governor over Egj^pt and all his house" (Acts vii. 10). In these four 
 passages, the words translated respectively ordained^ appointed^ ordained, 
 made, are all, in the original, different both from each other, and from 
 X^ipoTovelu. The appointment in each case was, as far as appears, with- 
 out imposition of hands. 
 
 2 There is no Greek word compounded of x^'P and riOrjiJii-^ and, though 
 Xeipo9ecria is used for imposition of hands by ecclesiastical writers, I do 
 not find the word in the Index to Stephens' Lexicon ; though in the an- 
 nexed Glossary there is " x^^podearia Gestus, Gestu." It may also be 
 observed, that, in ecclesiastical writers, x^^poTovia, as well as x^^poGfaia, 
 is used for ordination in its ecclesiastical sense. (Suicer in verbo.) 
 
180 APPOINTMENT OF MINISTEHS, 
 
 the elders whom they appointed on this missionary 
 journey ; because we shall find, that before the apostle 
 wrote his first epistle to Timothy, imposition of hands 
 had become a recognized form of ordination in the 
 church. The important circumstances to be noticed 
 in this transaction are, that these elders were api^ointed 
 by Paul and Barnabas, not by the people : and that, if 
 they were ordained or appointed with imposition of 
 hands, it was by Paul the apostle and Barnabas his 
 companion in the mission that hands were laid on them. 
 
 Except in the epistles to Timothy and Titus, we find 
 nothing more on the appointment of elders, nothing 
 at all on the appointment of deacons ; for, as we have 
 seen, the seven appointed to take charge of the daily 
 ministration of the alms of the church were not deacons 
 in the sense of jpermanent ministers of a particular or 
 local church. 
 
 To Timothy the apostle writes — " Lay hands sud- 
 denly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's 
 sins : keep thyself pure'' (1 Tim. v. 22) : and, as the 
 principal part of this epistle consists of directions to 
 Timothy respecting elders and deacons, their duties and 
 qualifications, and the authority which he was to exer- 
 cise over them, we may conclude that, in this caution, 
 the apostle refers to ordination. To what else could 
 he refer ? Not to the conferring of any temporal or 
 spiritual blessing unconnected with office, still less to 
 the conferring of any supernatural gift. To such mat- 
 ters there is no allusion in the epistle : a caution so 
 solemn seems scarcely necessary against suddenly con- 
 
AND THEREIN OF ORDINATION. 181 
 
 ferring a temporal or spiritual benefit unconnected with 
 office : and the power of conferring on others a super- 
 natural gift was, as we have seen, vested exclusively in 
 the apostles, and not by them transmissible to others. 
 We may, therefore, conclude that the apostle referred 
 in this passage to ordination ; and the necessary in- 
 ference is, that imposition of hands at ordination was, 
 when the apostle wrote this epistle, a practice so well 
 known and established, that to lay hands on a man, 
 and to ordain him, were convertible terms. Both 
 elde^"!:. and deacons are mentioned in this epistle : and 
 we may presume, that the caution given by the apostle 
 applies to the ordination both of elders and of deacons. 
 And, as the directions respecting the qualifications of 
 elders and deacons, as well as the caution against pre- 
 cipitate ordination, are given to Timothy, not to the 
 church, while no hint occurs of any one having any 
 right to interfere with Timothy in the choice or ap- 
 pointment of ministers, we may conclude that the 
 whole appointment, while he continued there, rested 
 with him — especially, as, when the choice of " the 
 seven '' was referred to the people, the proceedings are 
 minutely detailed (Acts vi. 1 — 6). 
 
 To Titus the same apostle writes — " For this cause 
 left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order 
 the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every 
 city, as I had appointed thee'^ (Titus i. 5). The word 
 here rendered ordain^ does not etymologically contain 
 
 ^ The same word is translated to make in Acts vii. 10 and in Heb. vii. 
 28 : and it is a compound of the word translated to appoint in Acts i. 23. 
 
182 APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, 
 
 any allusion to imposition of hands, and may properly 
 be translated appointed. It obviously includes the 
 whole appointment — both the selection of the indivi- 
 dual, and his designation (whether with or without 
 imposition of hands) to the office. There is nothing 
 further in this epistle to Titus relating to the appoint- 
 ment (except some directions as to the qualifications) 
 of ministers — no allusion to the people interfering 
 therein. It wholly rested with Titus. 
 
 There remain two, and (as far as I am aware) only 
 two, other passages relating to the appointment of 
 ministers — both of them in St. PauFs epistles to Timo- 
 thy, and both referring (I think) to the ordination of 
 Timothy himself as an evangelist. " Neglect not the 
 gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, 
 with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery" 
 (1 Tim. iv. 14). " Stir up the gift of God, which is in 
 thee by the putting on of my hands" (2 Tim. i. 6). 
 There is a similarity of expression in these two pas- 
 sages, which leaves little room to doubt, that the 
 apostle in both referred to the same gift and the same 
 imposition of hands — ^joint imposition of hands, there- 
 fore, by the apostle and the elders : and a little con- 
 sideration will confirm this view of the passages, and 
 shew that they both refer to the office of an evangelist 
 which Timothy held when these epistles were written. 
 
 The word translated gift, though more frequently 
 used to express a gift of some supernatural power, is 
 elsewhere used by the apostle in a general sense (Rom. 
 xii. 6—8), to include the '* ministry,''' and "teaching/' 
 
AND THEREIN OF ORDINATION. 183 
 
 and '' exhortation/^ as well as " prophecy/^ Now it 
 has been shewn^ that the authority to confer on another 
 a supernatural power was limited to the apostles ; and 
 (while on several occasions the apostles exercised this 
 power) we find no instance of an elder even joining 
 with an apostle in conferring any supernatural power 
 by imposition of hands. We cannot, therefore, but 
 conclude, that the gift which the apostle, in his first 
 epistle to Timothy, mentions as having been bestowed 
 on Timothy '' with the laying on of the hands of the 
 presbytery" — no allusion being made in t/?at epistle to 
 the apostle having joined therein — was not the gift of 
 any supernatural power ; but the ministerial office, ac- 
 companied (no doubt) with an abundant supply of the 
 enlightening and sanctifying influences of the Holy 
 Spirit to qualify him for the due execution of its 
 duties. Nor can the gift, which the apostle in his 
 second epistle to Timothy mentions as being in Timo- 
 thy by the "putting on of" his own " hands,'^ and 
 which he exhorts him to '^ stir up,^ be a gift of mira- 
 culous powers : because (as we have seen-) such powers 
 could be exercised only under the special direction of 
 the Holy Spirit indicating that the occasion had oc- 
 curred for performing a miracle, and consequently it 
 did not belong to the possessor of such a gift to stir it 
 
 ^ To stir xa^—aua^wTTvptiv — " to revive a fire which is almost dead, and 
 hidden under the ashes" ( Parkhurst) — a remarkable word — obviously ap- 
 plicable to the graces, rather than to the extraordinary gifts, of the Spirit 
 — to faith, love, and zeal, rather than to prophecy or the working of 
 miracles. ^ See ante ch. iv. 
 
184 APPOINTMENT OP MINISTERS, 
 
 up. The gift, therefore, which St. Paul mentions in 
 his second, as well as the gift which he mentions in 
 his first epistle to Timothy, must have been the minis- 
 terial ofiice and the gracious influences of the Holy 
 Spirit connected with it, not the gift of any miraculous 
 power. And this conclusion is established by the con- 
 sideration, that, while both epistles contain ample direc- 
 tions and earnest exhortations touching the exercise of 
 his ministry and the cultivation of the graces essential 
 thereto, no allusion is made in either of the epistles to 
 miraculous powers, nor is any intimation given in 
 scripture of Timothy having wrought any miracle. 
 
 The result therefore is, that in each passage the 
 apostle refers to the ministerial office, and the graces 
 necessary for its due exercise. Nor will it be difficult 
 to shew, that the office, to which in both cases he refers, 
 was one and the same — the office of an evangelist, who 
 generally accompanied the apostle in his travels, and 
 (without being the settled minister of any particular or 
 local church) was occasionally sent by him to, or left 
 by him at, some place with a superintending or episco- 
 pal authority over its church or churches. The apostle 
 Paul found Timothy at Lystra, where he became a dis- 
 ciple ; and Paul took him to travel with him, having 
 first circumcised him because his mother was a Jewess 
 (Acts xvi. 1 — 3). We afterwards, and previously to 
 the apostle's first imprisonment at Rome, find Timothy 
 often the companion of St. Paul; but sometimes left 
 behind him, and at other times sent before him, appa- 
 rently on business (though on what particular business 
 
AND THEREIN OF ORDINATION. 185 
 
 is not mentioned) connected with the spread of the 
 gospelj (Acts xvi. to xx. both inclusive, passim). And 
 the apostle, in several of his epistles v^^ritten during 
 this period, speaks of Timothy in terms importing that 
 he was his assistant^ in the ministry, and sometimes 
 joins Timothy's name with his own in the salutation 
 (1 Thess. i. 1, and iii. 2, and 2 Thess. i. 1, and 1 Cor. 
 xvi. 10, and 2 Cor. i. 1, 19). We next find Timothy at 
 Rome with the apostle during his first imprisonment ; 
 for in three of the epistles written during that period 
 his name is joined in the salutation with that of the 
 apostle (Philip, i. 1, and Col. i. 1, and Philem. 1), and 
 in one of those epistles the apostle expresses an inten- 
 tion of sending Timothy to Philippi to learn the state 
 of the church in that city (Philip, ii. 19). All these 
 employments were such as properly belonged to an 
 evangelist. At a still later period we find Timothy 
 left at Ephesus by St. Paul with a special authority 
 over the church in that place.- 
 
 It was while he was so left at Ephesus, that the apostle 
 wrote to him his first epistle ; and it was at a still later 
 date, during St. PauPs second imprisonment at Rome, 
 that the apostle wrote his second epistle to Timothy. 
 Now, if we examine that second epistle from the begin- 
 ning to the end, we shall discover no trace of any new 
 ministry having, during the interval between the two 
 epistles, been conferred on Timothy. The apostle ex- 
 
 ^ See ante ch. vi. 
 2 As to the dates of St. Paul's epistles, see Tate's Continuous History 
 of St. Paul. 
 
186 APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, 
 
 horts him "to do the work of an evangelist ^ and 
 the whole of the second epistle relates to the duties of 
 an evangelist, acting more peculiarly as the apostle^s 
 assistant, — duties precisely of the same description as 
 those performed by Timothy before he was left at Ephe- 
 sus by the apostle. It must, therefore, have been be- 
 fore the date of the first epistle, that the hands both of 
 the apostle and of the presbytery were laid upon Timo- 
 thy. But we can trace no new ministry conferred on 
 Timothy, from the time when he v/as taken by the 
 apostle as his companion in his travels (Acts xvi. 1 — 3) 
 to the time when the same apostle left him at Ephe- 
 sus (1 Tim. i. 3) — unless the charge and authority 
 which the apostle then gave him over the church in 
 that city, be considered as a new ministry. If, there- 
 fore, the hands of the presbytery were laid on Timothy 
 without the apostle joining therein, it must have been 
 either when the apostle took him at Lystra to accom- 
 pany him on his travels, or when the apostle left him 
 at Ephesus. Is it in the least probable, that, on either 
 occasion, the elders without the apostle laid hands on 
 Timothy ? Is it probable, that the apostle, having 
 selected Timothy for his assistant in the ministry, 
 should leave it to the elders of Lystra to ordain him to 
 that office ? Is it probable that the apostle, leaving 
 Timothy at Ephesus, with authority to regulate the 
 church and correct abuses which had crept into it, 
 should have committed to the elders of that church the 
 ordination of Timothy to such an office, without himself 
 joining in the imposition of hands ? 
 
AND THEREIN OF ORDINATION. 187 
 
 The two passages relate, then, to the same ordina- 
 tion — to an ordination of Timothy (before the date of 
 St. Paul's first epistle to him), by the laying-on of the 
 hands both of the apostle and of the presbytery. Was 
 this ordination performed at Lystra, when Paul chose 
 Timothy for his assistant ; or at Ephesus, when the 
 apostle left him there with a superintending or epis- 
 copal authority ? Not, I think, on the latter, but on 
 the former, occasion. The apostle, in \iisji)'st epistle, 
 does not mention his having himself laid hands on Ti- 
 mothy, unless he included himself in ^^the presbytery:" 
 but surely he would have more specifically mentioned 
 the imposition of his own hands, if he had joined with 
 the elders of Ephesus in so conferring on Timothy 
 authority over the church in that city. Further : 
 the exhortation — " Neglect not the gift that is in 
 thee, which was given thee by prophecy with the laying 
 on of the hands of the presbytery " — occurs in the 
 midst of other exhortations, pointing out the means 
 which Timothy was to use for maintaining spiritual 
 life in himself, and so prospering in the ministry, 
 while the apostle mentions the particular purpose for 
 which he had left Timothy at Ephesus, in an earlier 
 part of the epistle, without the most distant allusion 
 to ordination. (1 Tim. i. 3, et seq.) Surely, if on 
 that occasion the apostle and the presbytery of Ephesus 
 had laid their hands upon him, the apostle would not 
 have omitted all reference to the circumstance, when 
 detailing the purpose for which he left Timothy be- 
 hind. 
 
188 APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, 
 
 Thus, I think, we have legitimately arrived at the 
 conclusion, that there was no imposition of hands, 
 when the apostle left Timothy at Ephesus with autho- 
 rity over the church in that city ; and that we must 
 refer to some earlier ordination the laying on Timothy 
 of the hands both of the presbytery and of the apostle. 
 Probably this ordination took place at Lystra, when 
 Paul would have Timothy " to go forth with him ; 
 and took and circumcised him/' (Acts xvi. 3.) 
 
 The result, therefore, of the investigation is this. 
 The apostle and the presbytery joined in ordaining 
 Timothy, by imposition of hands, to the office of an 
 evangelist, the apostle having first selected him for the 
 office. 
 
 Such were the measures taken by the apostles to 
 provide a ministry, a permanent ministry, in execution 
 of our Lord's last command, and in reliance on his 
 last promise.^ They appointed, from time to time, 
 other ministers to preach the gospel and administer 
 baptism, some of whom were expressly directed to 
 appoint other ministers. But we find no rule laid 
 down by the apostles, either authorizing any one class 
 of ministers to appoint or ordain others, or limiting 
 that authority to any one class. 
 
 We have, however, some intimations, from which a 
 principle may be gathered on the subject. On the 
 one hand, we have no instance recorded in scripture of 
 any minister being appointed or ordained without the 
 
 ^ Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. 
 
AND THEREIN OF ORDINATION. 189 
 
 concurrence, either of an apostle, or of an individual 
 (like Titus) specially directed by an apostle to ordain 
 elders in a particular district, or of an individual (like 
 Timothy) invested by an apostle (though it may be 
 only for a time) with authority over a local church 
 and its elders. On the other hand, elders (as we have 
 seen) were rulers and overseers ; and we find the 
 apostle speaking of the ministry, to which he and the 
 presbytery had ordained Timothy, as a gift given to 
 Timothy " by prophecy, with the laying on of the 
 hands of the presbytery " (1 Tim. iv. 14)— language 
 which the apostle would scarcely have used, if the 
 presbytery were in all cases, and under all circum- 
 stances, incompetent alone to ordain. The pririciple, 
 which I should deduce from these intimations is, that 
 the authority to appoint ministers is 7iot a distinct and 
 separate commission^ but an authority incident to the 
 office of those ministers, who have supreme rule either 
 (as the apostles had) over the whole church,^ or over an 
 independent church ; ^ an authority which such rulers 
 may exercise either personally, or by others whom they 
 may commission to exercise it. On this principle we 
 see at once how it was, that, while Paul sometimes 
 ordained elders himself in conjunction with Barnabas, 
 and at other times left an evangelist in a city, or sent 
 an evangelist to an island, with a commission to regu- 
 
 ^ " That" (writes the apostle Paul) " which cometh upon me daily, 
 the care of all the churches." (2 Cor. xi. 28.) 
 
 * Of course, by " independent church," I do not mean exclusively, or 
 even principally, an independent congregation: but a church, whether 
 local or particular (see ch. i.) not dependent upon any otlier church. 
 
190 APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, 
 
 late churches for a season^ and ordain in them elders, 
 and while we find the presbytery joining with him in 
 ordaining an evangelist, we have, in scripture, no 
 instance of elders ordaining w^ithout the concurrence of 
 an apostle. The elders, at that time, were rulers in 
 their respective churches, but rulers subordinate to 
 the apostles, or to one of the apostles, even where 
 there was no bishop over them. But, after the death 
 of the apostles, there remained no earthly ruler over 
 the universal church. The evangelists had only tem- 
 porary authority, first over one church, and then over 
 another church committed to their charge by an 
 apostle. The bishops had authority each only over his 
 own church, and that authority was supreme: but, 
 w^hen a church had no bishop,^ its elders had no supe- 
 rior; and consequently, they (or rather the presby- 
 tery) had in that church supreme rule, to which 
 (according to the principle deduced) authority to ap- 
 point ministers was incident. The principle, I con- 
 ceive, leads us to the conclusion, that, after the death 
 of all the apostles, the presbytery of each episcopal 
 church were, on the death of their bishop, competent 
 (as supreme rulers for the time being of that church) 
 to choose a successor, and to set him apart for his 
 ofiice by imposition of hands. The principle also, in 
 the case of several episcopal churches being (as in the 
 
 ^ There is no evidence in Scripture, that, before the apostles ceased to 
 govern the churches, there was established in each church a bishop over 
 the elders : but this will further be examined in the following chapter. 
 Even in an episcopal church the case supposed in the text would arise on 
 the bishop's death. 
 
AND THEREIN OF ORDINATION. 191 
 
 present day) federally united, admits of each bishop 
 being, in respect of its application, considered as su- 
 preme ruler of his own church ; and it admits of the 
 presbytery of each church being, in respect of the 
 appointment of its bishop, subjected to regulations and 
 restrictions, and not considered (while without a 
 bishop) as supreme rulers of their own church, inde- 
 pendently of the bishops of the other churches so united 
 with it. 
 
 Hitherto the appointment of ministers has been 
 considered as one act, including both the choice and 
 the ordination of the individual : and such, as we 
 have seen, it was generally ^ in the time of the apostles; 
 though Timothy seems to have been chosen by St. Paul, 
 and ordained by both him and the presbytery. But 
 the ordination of a minister has, in later times, been 
 considered as something distinct from the choice, par- 
 ticularly in respect of the appointment of bishops : 
 and so much has (especially of late) been written on 
 ordination and its effects^ that it seems necessary to 
 consider it more specifically and distinctly. 
 
 The minister of the gospel is a servant of Christ, an 
 ambassador of God; and, as such, he receives his au- 
 thority from God himself. The gospel is a message 
 from God; and from him only can the minister of 
 Christ receive the " ministry of reconciliation." Our 
 Lord himself declared : " He that entereth not by the 
 
 ^ The appointment of the Seven is not an exception ; the office to 
 which they were appointed being that of treasurer or almoner of a special 
 fund. See ante ch. v. 
 
193 APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, 
 
 door into the sheepfold .... is a thief and a robber." 
 And — " I am the door of the sheep." (John x. 1, 2, 7.) 
 The same principle was implied in the injunction 
 given by our Lord to his apostles — '' Pray ye there- 
 fore the Lord of the harvest, that He will send forth 
 labourers into his harvest." (Matt. ix. 38). It was 
 also implied in the language of the apostle Paul, when 
 he addressed the elders of Ephesus (whom probably he 
 had himself ordained) as those whom " the Holy 
 Ghost" had "made" "overseers" over the flock 
 (Acts XX. 28). And the same apostle declares, that 
 " God hath set " " in the church," not only " apostles " 
 and " prophets," but " teachers " (1 Cor. xii. 28) : that 
 Christ " gave some, apostles ; and some, prophets ; 
 and some, evangelists ; and some, pastors and teachers" 
 (Eph. iv. 11.) — He gave the pasfoys and teachers as 
 he gave the apostles. The office of man, therefore, is 
 not to give the ministry of reconciliation ; but to set 
 apart him who is believed to have already received it. 
 The office of an ecclesiastical ruler, in ordaining ano- 
 ther to the ministry of a deacon or of an elder, is first 
 to inquire and examine with all diligence, whether the 
 candidate is a fit person for that ministry, whether it 
 may reasonably be concluded that he is called thereto by 
 the Holy Ghost ; and, if satisfied on these points, then, 
 secondly, to set him apart thereto by imposition of 
 hands, and with prayer that he may be filled with all 
 the gifts of the Holy Spirit needful for the due per- 
 formance of his ministry. Such previous investigation 
 is in this case the duty of the ecclesiastical ruler, ac- 
 
AND THEREIN OF ORDINATION. 193 
 
 cording to St. Paul's directions to Timothy, " Lay 
 hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of 
 other men^s sins Some men^s sins are open be- 
 forehand, going before to judgment; and some men 
 they follow after. Likewise the good works of some 
 are manifest beforehand ; and they that are otherwise 
 cannot be hid '^ (1 Tim. v. 22, 24, 25) — some men^s 
 characters are well known ; but the characters of others 
 are hidden, yet capable of being ascertained on diligent 
 inquiry. 
 
 Ordination, therefore, to the office of deacon or 
 elder, is a recognition (so far as fallible man can re- 
 cognize) that the individual ordained has been called by 
 the Holy Spirit to take upon himself the office ; and a 
 solemn setting of him apart to it with prayer and im- 
 position of hands. Such an ordination, involving such 
 a recognition, the ecclesiastical ruler must have an 
 absolute and uncontrolled discretion to withhold ; 
 though, in respect of conferring it, the church over 
 which he presides may restrict him by prescribed rules 
 and conditions. But, in regard to the appointment of 
 an elder to the office of a diocesan bishop, the case is 
 somewhat different. The elder has already been re- 
 cognized by the competent authority as a minister of 
 Christ. He is already both pastor and overseer. 
 When appointed to the office of bishop, he is still only 
 pastor and overseer ; but with this difference, that he 
 now is pastor and overseer over elders as well as their 
 flocks, and has also authority to ordain ministers which 
 an elder [while there is a bishop over him) has not. 
 
 K 
 
194 APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS 
 
 When, therefore, an elder is appointed bishop over his 
 co-elders, there is no evident necessity that he should 
 be again ordained, nor have we found that it is re- 
 quired in scripture : but it is obviously proper^ that 
 he should be set apart to his new office with imposition 
 of hands and prayer, not indeed as being inwardly 
 called by the Holy Spirit to the office, but as having 
 been duly chosen or nominated thereto according to 
 the order of the church. Hence we may distinguish 
 between the ordination of an individual to be deacon 
 or elder, and the ordination (or as it is usually and 
 more properly called the consecration) of an elder to 
 the office of bishop. In the former, a divine call ^o 
 the ministry, in the latter a human appointment only 
 to the office, is recognized ; while in both the indivi- 
 dual is solemnly set apart to the work. In the latter 
 case, it is not necessary that the selection and consecra- 
 tion should belong to the same individual or individuals. 
 Ordination to the office of deacon or elder may in 
 some measure serve the purpose of credentials to the 
 minister. Our Lord himself gave both to his apostles 
 and to the seventy, not only the ministry of the word, 
 but credentials of that ministry, power to work mira- 
 cles. The minister has now no such credentials. Yet, 
 when the rulers of the (fhurch solemnly set him apart 
 for the ministry, they testify their belief that God has 
 called him to the office ; and the minister so ordained 
 will be received as such, by other churches in com- 
 munion with that church by whose ruler or rulers he 
 has been ordained. 
 
AND THEREIN OF ORDINATION. 195 
 
 And here — since the only true call to the ministry 
 is by God himself, and ordination does not confer, but 
 recognizes as already conferred, " the ministry of re- 
 conciliation '^ — a question arises how far ordination is 
 essential to the lawful exercise of the ministry : but 
 some other subjects must be considered before this 
 question can be fully examined. 
 
 K 2 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE QUESTION AS TO THE THREEFOLD MINISTRY AND 
 ORDINATION FURTHER CONSIDERED. 
 
 We have proceeded thus far in our investigation. 
 We have traced in the time of the apostles, the intro- 
 duction of the three classes of ministers attached to 
 settled churches, viz. bishops, elders, and deacons ; but 
 they were introduced gradually; nor can we find that 
 within that period they were universally introduced. 
 At first we find only two of these classes — the elders 
 who are sometimes called pastors, and sometimes over- 
 seers^ or bishops — and the deacons -} and so (as far as 
 appears in scripture) things continued, until after 
 St. Paul's first imprisonment. During this period the 
 apostles exercised a general superintending authority 
 
 ' See Acts xx. 17 — 29. 
 ^ In the epistle to the Philippians, written (see i. 7, 13 ; ii. 24) during 
 the apostle's first imprisonment at Rome, he addresses the " Bishops and 
 Deacons" (i. ] ), mentioning no other order of ministers. 
 
THE THREEFOLD MINISTRY. 197 
 
 over all the churches; and St. Paul especially over 
 those of the Gentiles. During this period the churches 
 settled in different cities appear to have been independ- 
 ent of each other, but externally united, in so far as 
 they were under the rule of the apostles, or one of 
 them : and we find no ordination of a minister to his 
 office mentioned without an apostle joining in the im- 
 position of hands. 
 
 As to the next period, the interval between St. Paul's 
 first and second imprisonment at Rome, our scriptural 
 information is derived exclusively from the epistle to 
 Titus and the two epistles to Timothy. To those evan- 
 gelists, whom the apostle commissioned to exercise for 
 a time, an authority episcopal in its nature over certain 
 local churches — Titus over the churches in Crete, Tim- 
 othy over the church at Ephesus — he gave directions 
 respecting elders, whom he calls interchangeably elders 
 and bishops (or overseers), and respecting deacons. 
 But we find no mention made in scripture of elders or 
 bishops either being authorized to ordain or exercising 
 (without the concurrence of an apostle) such authority,^ 
 while authority to ordain was clearly given by the 
 apostle both to Titus and to Timothy. This commis- 
 sion, given to Titus and Timothy respectively, was a 
 further step towards diocesan episcopacy : but it was 
 not diocesan episcopacy in the modern sense of the 
 word. 
 
 At a later period, however, we find episcopacy intro- 
 
 ^ The apostle Paul concurred in the laying on of the hands of the 
 presbytery mentioned in 1 Tim. iv. 14. (See the preceding chapter.) 
 
198 THE THREEFOLD MINISTRY 
 
 duced into each of the seven churches of Asia Minor : 
 but neither then, nor at any later period can we trace 
 in scripture its introduction into other churches. Our 
 scriptural information respecting the episcopacy of 
 these seven churches, is derived exclusively from the 
 Apocalypse :^ and it is derived incidentally only, and 
 by inference from the epistles which the apostle John 
 was directed to write to the respective '' angels ^^ of 
 those churches. These angelsy as we have inferred- 
 from the directions given to them, were the bishops or 
 presiding and ruling ministers, each of his own church, 
 subordinate still to the apostle, but independent (as 
 far as appears) of each other. Nothing, however, is 
 said in the Apocalypse of ordination : nor does it con- 
 tain any intimation how or by whom the " angels " had 
 been appointed ] or by what means, on a vacancy in 
 the office, a successor was to be appointed. 
 
 We may therefore conclude, first, that a church, 
 having a threefold ministry of bishop, elders and dea- 
 cons, is conformable to the plan ultimately introduced 
 with apostolic sanction into the churches of Asia Minor, 
 and consequently consistent with the will of God : 
 secondly, that such a form of church government is 
 the hestf where the circumstances of the church do not 
 essentially differ from those of the seven Asiatic 
 churches : and thirdly, that a church possessing that 
 form of government ought not to depart from it with- 
 out clear and strong grounds, such as an obvious ne- 
 cessity for the preservation of the true faith. 
 
 ^ Rev. i. ii. iii. See ante, ch. vi. - Ante ch. vi. 
 
AND ORDINATION. 199 
 
 But we cannot conclude from any practice of the 
 apostolic church as recorded in the New Testament, 
 either first that a church sound in apostolic doctrine, 
 but wanting the threefold ministry, is not a true 
 church of Christ : or secondly, that a church having 
 both apostolic doctrine and a threefold ministry, but 
 whose bishops cannot trace back an uninterrupted suc- 
 cession to an apostle, is not a true church of Christ. 
 
 Some, however, insist on a threefold ministry of 
 bishop, elders, and deacons, as essential to a duly con- 
 stitutfed church. They contend that in the seven Apo- 
 calyptic churches the apostles have left us this model ; 
 and that we are bound to imitate the example, which 
 an apostle has set us as superintendent of the Christian 
 church. 1 At the same time it is admitted, that the de- 
 tails of this model are not fully sketched out in scrip- 
 ture ; and that for some of those details we must have re- 
 course to uninspired writers. But this is to carry much 
 too far the obligation of apostolic example. AYhere an 
 apostle^s conduct (as a ruler of the church) is expressly 
 set forth as an example or the principle of it is laid 
 down in scripture, we are bound to imitate that con- 
 duct, in the one case, universally — in the other, so far 
 as the principle will carry us. Even where we are 
 neither expressly directed to such conduct as an ex- 
 ample, nor informed of the principle on which the 
 apostle acted, it is the part of wisdom to follow the 
 example under circumstances substantially the same. 
 And, if we can trace the same line of conduct univer- 
 
 ^ See Hey's Authority of a Threefold Ministry. 
 
200 THE THREEFOLD MINISTRY 
 
 sally pursued by the apostles under a great variety of 
 circumstances, we may reasonably infer that it is set 
 forth generally (I do not say universally) as our ex- 
 ample. But we do not find in scripture that episcopal 
 government or the threefold ministry was universally 
 established by the apostles ; nor, where we find it 
 established, do we find the principle explained, or the 
 circumstances stated which led to its introduction. 
 Apostolic example, besides, to be binding must be so 
 far detailed in scripture that we may be able to follow 
 it without instruction from other sources. But we are 
 not informed how the " angels ^^ of the seven churches 
 were appointed : nor is any instance recorded in scrip- 
 ture of a vacancy occurring in the office. Let those 
 who contend that the example of the apostles in this 
 matter is our rule, shew us the rule. What was the 
 course to be adopted on the first vacancy, which, after 
 the death of the last surviving apostle, occurred in the 
 office of " angel " of one of the apocalyptic churches ? 
 To whom did the choice of a successor belong ? Was 
 it essential that such successor, if already an elder, 
 should be set apart to his new office by imposition of 
 hands ? and, if this ordination was essential, by whom 
 was it to be conferred ? by the elders of the church ? 
 Or, could it be conferred only by episcopal hands ? 
 And, if episcopal ordination was essential to constitute 
 an " angel " of the church, to which bishop or bishops 
 did such ordination appertain ? Might the elders of 
 the vacant church elect a new bishop, and then select 
 one of the neighbouring bishops, and apply to him to 
 
AND ORDINATION. 201 
 
 lay hands on the bishop elect ? Would the rejection 
 by such bishop of the individual, whom they had 
 chosen, be conclusive against their choice ? or might 
 they present him first to one bishop and then to ano- 
 ther ? These are questions to which no answer can be 
 deduced from apostolic example or apostolic precept as 
 recorded in scripture : and we have consequently no 
 apostolic example to guide us as to the mode of 
 appointing bishops — none that can be binding on 
 the church. Should we have been left without either 
 example or precept as to these particulars, if epis- 
 copacy had been essential to the constitution of a 
 church ? 
 
 Others insist that no one but a bishop deriving his 
 authority from an apostle, through an unbroken suc- 
 cession of bishops, can confer valid ordination to the 
 ministry. They consider ordination as the conferring 
 of a divine commission. No one, they say, can be an 
 ambassador for Christ, to no one is committed the 
 ministry of reconciliation, unless he has received his 
 commission from God. No one, now that miracles 
 have ceased, has received his commission from God, 
 unless it has been transmitted to him in regular un- 
 broken succession from the apostles, to whom alone our 
 Lord gave both the commission and also authority to 
 transmit it to others. On some the apostles conferred 
 the commission to preach the gospel and administer 
 the sacraments, but without authority to transmit this 
 commission : on others they conferred the authority 
 both to minister and to transmit this power of ordma- 
 K 5 
 
202 THE THREEFOLD MINISTRY 
 
 tion in perpetuity. Those who received the commis- 
 sion only were called elders, and sometimes in the 
 apostolic age overseers or bishops : those on whom the 
 apostles conferred the further authority of ordination 
 were called first angels, and afterwards bishops — the 
 latter word not being, after the time of the apostles, 
 applied to elders. This succession of bishops has been 
 continued to the present day : and no one has received 
 a commission' to preach the word or administer the 
 sacraments, who has not been ordained by a bishop to 
 whom the power of ordination has been transmitted in 
 unbroken succession from the apostles. This is what 
 is properly called the doctrine of apostolical succes- 
 sion : though many talk of apostolical succession who 
 attach to the phrase no such exclusive meaning. The 
 legitimate deduction from this doctrine is that the 
 bishop makes the clergy God^s ministers :^ that no one 
 not so ordained really administers the sacrament -of 
 
 ^ " The Lord Jesus Christ gave His Spirit to His Apostles : they in 
 turn laid their hands on those who should succeed them ; and these again 
 on others ; and so the sacred gift has been handed down to our present 
 Bishops, who have appointed us [presbytersj as their assistants, and in 
 some sense representatives," (Tracts for the Times, No. 1, p. 2.) 
 
 " He" [the bishop] " could not give what he had never received. It is 
 plain then that he but tratismits ; and that the Christian Ministry is a suc- 
 cession. And if we trace back the power of ordination from hand to hand, 
 of course we shall come to the Apostles at last .... we must necessarily 
 consider none to be really ordained, who have not tJms been ordained." 
 (lb. p. 3.) 
 
 - " It is the Bishop who makes us Clergymen God's Ministers. He is 
 Christ's instrument ; and he visibly chooses those whom Christ chooses 
 invisibly, to serve in the word and sacraments of the church." (Tracts 
 for the Times, No. 10, p. 3.) 
 
AND ORDINATION. 203 
 
 baptism or the Lord^s supper, though he may go regu- 
 larly through the form prescribed by our Lord-.^ 
 
 The phraseology of " apostolical succession " is no- 
 where to be found in scripture, nor any equivalent 
 phraseology, and the argument, on which this doctrine 
 is founded, rests on the common sophism of using the 
 same word in two different senses. A commission 
 sometimes means the authority committed, sometimes 
 the credentials by which that authority is vouched. 
 The ministerial authority (as has been shown) is given 
 by God alone : the credentials, and the credentials 
 only, and that in a limited sense, may be given by 
 man ; and it is only by confounding the credentials 
 with the authority under the ambiguous word ^'^ com- 
 mission,^^ that a semblance of argument in favour of 
 the doctrine of apostolical succession is adduced. If 
 the minister's authority is immediately derived from 
 God, calling him to the ministry by the Holy Spirit, 
 strong reasons may still be assigned to show that (under 
 ordinary circumstances) the individual, who believes 
 
 ^ " A person not commissioned from the bishop may use the words of 
 Baptism, and sprinkle or bathe "v#th water, on earth.; but there is no pro- 
 mise from Christ, that such a man shall admit souls to the Kingdom of 
 Heaven. A person not commissioned may break bread, and pour out 
 wine, and pretend to give the Lord's Supper, but it can afford no com- 
 fort to any to receive it at his hands, because there is no warrant from 
 Christ to lead communicants to suppose that while he does so here on 
 earthy they will be partakers in the Saviour's heavenly Body and Blood. 
 And as for the person himself, who takes upon himself without Avarrant 
 to minister in holy things, he is all the while treading in the footsteps of 
 Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, whose awful punishment you read of in the 
 book of Numbers. (Compare Numb. xvi. with Jude ]].)" (Tracts for 
 the Times, No. 35, p. 3.) 
 
204 THE THREEFOLD MINISTRY. 
 
 himself to be so called^ should wait to have his call 
 authenticated by those who have competent authority 
 to do so; but it does not follow, that such authority 
 must be derived in regular succession from the apostles : 
 and, if we carry with us this distinction between the 
 minister's authority and his credentials, we shall at 
 once see, that all the texts usually cited in support of 
 the doctrine of apostolical succession, utterly fail in 
 this object. 
 
 The principal texts usually cited are the follow- 
 ing— 
 
 1. ^' Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers 
 of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.^^* 
 (]' Cor. iv. 1.) God " has given to us the ministry of 
 reconciliation ; to wit, that God was in Christ, recon- 
 ciling the world unto himself, . . . and hath committed 
 unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are 
 ambassadors for Christ." (2 Cor. v. 18—20.) These 
 passages relate primarily to the apostles ; and doubt- 
 less they also describe the office of the Christian min- 
 ister. But it is not easy to see how they can furnish 
 an argument in favour of a|)ostolical succession; on 
 the contrary, they lead to the conclusion, that the 
 " ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of 
 God" receive, not from man, but from God himself, 
 their commission, '^ the ministry — the word of recon- 
 ciliation." 
 
 ' It has been shown (ante ch. vi.) that it cannot be deduced from this 
 passage, that to the apostles and those deriving authority from them a 
 commission to administer the Lord's Supper is exclusive!}'- given. 
 
AND ORDINATION. 205 
 
 2. " How shall they preach, except they be sent ? " 
 (Rom. X. 15.) The legitimate conclusion is, that the 
 preacher must be sent — but by whom? On this 
 question the passage is silent. What bearing has this 
 text on apostolical succession ? 
 
 3. " All power is given unto me in heaven and in 
 earth. 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 you: and, 
 lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the 
 world." (Matt, xxviii. 18—20.) This command and 
 the promise annexed have been already examined.^ 
 The command includes a commission to make a provi- 
 sion for perpetuating the ministry in the church ; but 
 it prescribes no particular scheme for that purpose : and, 
 if the apostles, in the execution of this commission, 
 had appointed — which they did not — popular election 
 (independent of ministerial controul) for the choice of 
 ministers, such an appointment would not have been 
 inconsistent with the command — so destitute is the 
 passage in itself of sanction for the doctrine of aposto- 
 lical succession — in itself : for if the apostles had 
 established apostolical succession as the rule of the 
 church, that rule would undoubtedly have been bind- 
 ing. The question is, whether they did establish such 
 rule. The passage under consideration proves the 
 authority of the apostles to establish, but neither itself 
 
 ^ See ch. ii. 
 
206 THE THREEFOLD MINISTRY 
 
 establishes, nor proves that they established, the prin- 
 ciple or rule of apostolical succession. The command 
 is general and unlimited : the promise is annexed to 
 the command, and belongs to all who obey it — to all, 
 who, being sent forth by our Lord, being moved by the 
 Holy Spirit, and acting in conformity to apostolic dis- 
 cipline, preach the same gospel which the apostles 
 preached, and baptize with the same baptism with which 
 they baptized. 1 
 
 * Surely it is both strange and sad to find such a text not only itself 
 narrowed, but used to cut down and pare away the blessed promises of 
 the gospel — " Our Saviour in His prayer before His sufferings, in ch. 
 xvii. of St. John, plainly had an eye to the command he purposed to 
 give them, when he was going to be taken out of their sight : which 
 command we read in the last three verses of St. Matthew. The prayer 
 was ' not for the Apostles alone, but for all who should believe on Him 
 THROUGH THEIR WORD : that they all might be one.' For whom was 
 this prayer offered ? Not for all who any how should believe in Christ, 
 but ' for them who should believe on Him through the word of the 
 Apostles:' i.e. for the very same persons described in the other text: 
 ' Go ye and teach (or, as it is in the margin, make Disciples, or Chris- 
 tians, of) all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the 
 Son, and the Holy Ghost.' Those whom he had before prayed for, he 
 here in effect orders to be taught or made Disciples, by persons having 
 Apostolical authority. But these very same Disciples are to be one and 
 all baptized. For our Lord's words are quite express: ' Make Chris- 
 tians of them by baptizing them ;' so that if we are to go by these words, 
 it is quite plain that persons unbaptized cannot properly be called Chris- 
 tians ; and if we compare the same words with the other text, it seems 
 very doubtful whether such persons are included in the meaning of our 
 Saviour's gracious intercession." (Tracts for the Times, No. 40, p. 9.) 
 I have given the passage at length, with the capital letters as they are 
 printed in the original, lest I should have misunderstood, or seem to have 
 misunderstood, the writer's meaning. And first I would ask, on what 
 ground he represents our Lord's words as being : " Make Christians of 
 them BY baptizing them ?''"' The original is : — ixaQrir evaare 'ardpira to 
 ebvT}, ^anrt^ovTes outss 4is to ovojxa re Tlarphs Koii ts 'Tt5 Kai tS 'Ayie 
 
AND ORDINATION. 207 
 
 4. " Receive ye the Holy Ghost : whose soever sins 
 ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose 
 
 rirevfiaTos* AiSacKoi'Tes oures Tr]pe7u 'ardura '6aa iuereiKdfJLrjv vfuv — 
 literally—' "• Make all nations disciples, baptizing them in the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to 
 observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." There is no 
 more reason for foisting in the word " by," than there would be for in- 
 troducing it in such passages as the following — " Jesus went about all 
 the cities and villages, [by] teaching in their synagogues." (Matt. ix. 
 35.) And, if there were any ground for inserting the word, then the 
 words of our Lord would be, not—" Make disciples of them by bap- 
 tizing them ;" but — " Make disciples of them by baptizing them and by 
 teaching them." But let this pass. If I understand the drift of the 
 writer, it is this : That our Lord's gracious intercession was exclusively/ for 
 those who should " be taught or made disciples by persons having aposto- 
 lical authority ;" and that " it seems very doubtful whether" persons un- 
 baptized " are included in the meaning of our Saviour's gracious inter- 
 cession ;" and (may I not add?) that baptism is invalid unless adminis- 
 tered by one having apostolical authority ; and that no one (see Tract, 
 No. 12) has apostolical authority, unless he be episcopally ordained. 
 Now I would ask respecting the natives of the South Sea Islands, who 
 have been taught and baptized by persons not episcopally ordained, and 
 have through their instrumentality been brought to believe in Christ — 
 are they, or are they not, " included in the meaning of our Saviour's 
 gracious intercession ?" Are they to be excluded from the promise : 
 " He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life .^" (John iii. 36.) 
 Again — If an individual, reading the Bible, is led to believe on the Son 
 of God without any ministerial teaching — and such things have hap- 
 pened — wall the writer of the Tract venture to say, that such a believer 
 " hath" ?iot " everlasting life ;" that he is not " included in the meaning 
 of our Saviour's gracious intercession;" that "it is doubtful" whether 
 he be included therein, unless he be baptized by a minister episcopally 
 ordained, though he have no opportunity of obtaining such baptism ? The 
 terms — " through their word" — are obviously misinterpreted. The 
 word of the apostles was, and derives its efficacy from being, the 
 word of God (1 Thess. ii. 13) : and it is impossible that any one 
 " any how should believe in Christ" except through the word of God, 
 which is the incorruptible seed of the new birth ( 1 Pet. i. 23). The 
 Scriptures of the New Testament are at once the word of God, and the 
 
208 THE THREEFOLD MINISTRY 
 
 soever sins ye retain, they are retained." (John xx. 22, 
 23.) This passage also has ah-eady been examined ; and 
 it has been shown to have been addressed to the apostles 
 exclusively J and to belong in its primary, and full, and 
 proper meaning to the apostles alone ; and it is only 
 in a qualified sense that it can be applied to any other 
 ministers of the gospel. To other ministers it belongs 
 so far only as they preach the same doctrine which 
 the apostles preached. ^ It belongs to them, therefore, 
 as deriving, not their commission, but their doctrine, 
 from the apostles. 
 
 5. " No man taketh this honour to himself, but he 
 that is called of God, as ivas Aaron." (Heb. v. 4.) 
 This passage could scarcely mislead any one, except as 
 it is in the Tracts for the Times separated from the 
 context, and cited immediately after two other pas- 
 sages each from a different epistle, and without any 
 reference to the epistles from which they are taken. 
 " How shall they preach, except they be sent V " Let a 
 man so account of us, as of the Ministers of Christ, and 
 Stewards of the mysteries of God." '^ No man taketh 
 
 word of the apostles : and it is strange indeed, that a learned member of 
 a learned university should implicitly restrict the terms " their word" to 
 the word spoken by the apostles or by ministers authorized by them, and 
 exclude the written word of the same apostles— the word of God recorded 
 by them. I have been led to extend this note to (perhaps) a dispropor- 
 tionate length, from a conviction of the importance of showing, how 
 Scripture may be distorted and misrepresented, and made to bend to a 
 particular system — and how it has been distorted and misrepresented to 
 make it support the doctrine of Apostolical Succession as enunciated in 
 the Tracts for the Times— and the mischief of such distorting and mis- 
 representing. ^ See ante, ch. ii. 
 
AND ORDINATION. 209 
 
 this honour to himself, but he that is called of God, as 
 was Aaron /^ ^ Reading these passages in succession, 
 who would not (unless he either recollected the context 
 or searched the passages out in his Bible) suppose, 
 that in the last of them the apostle was speaking of 
 " the honour " of the Christian ministry ? But what 
 do we learn from the context ? Of what honour was 
 the apostle writing to the Hebrews ? Of honour be- 
 longing, under the Mosaic law, to the " High Priest/^ 
 " who ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to 
 offer for sins/^ (Heb. v. 1^ — 3.) The text has no ap- 
 plication, nor does the apostle apply it, to the Christian 
 ministry : for (as has already been shown,- and as the 
 apostle argues at great length in this very epistle) 
 there is, under the Christian dispensation, no minister 
 " to offer " sacrifice " for sins," either for his own sins 
 or for those of the people. But suppose it to be ap- 
 plied by analogy — there is no analogy (and much of 
 misinterpretation has arisen from fancying an analogy) 
 between the priesthood of Aaron and his descendants 
 and the Christian ministry — suppose the passage ap- 
 plied by analogy to the Christian ministry, what can 
 be deduced from it ? That no one ought to take upon 
 himself the Christian ministry, " but he that is called 
 
 ' So the three passages are printed in succession in Tract, No. 4, p. 5. 
 The inverted commas, indeed, would show to an attentive reader that they 
 did not, in Scripture, stand in immediate juAta-pusitiofi ; but there is 
 nothing to point out the fact, that thej^ are taken and brought together from 
 three different epistles, viz., Rom. x. 15, and 1 Cor. iv. 1, and Heb. v. 4 ; 
 nor is the reader enabled by a reference to turn to any one of the passages 
 and see the context. ^ See ante, ch. vi. 
 
210 THE THREEFOLD MINISTRY 
 
 of God/^ Who denies that position ? The apostle adds, 
 " as was Aaron/' i. e. by God himself, not hy succes- 
 sion : and immediately proceeds — ^' So also Christ 
 glorified not himself to be made an High Priest ; but 
 he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day have I 
 begotten thee/'' (Heb. v. 5.) The apostle is evidently 
 speaking of the high priesthood of Aaron the type, 
 and the high priesthood of Christ the antitype ; and 
 of a direct call by God in both cases : not of the 
 priesthood of the sons of Aaron, and their call thereto 
 by natural descent, or of the Christian ministry which 
 has nothing analogous to that descent. 
 
 6. " This do in remembrance of me." (1 Cor. xi. 
 24.) This text has already been examined in consi- 
 dering the administration of the Lord^s supper : and it 
 has been shown,' that, the command being a command 
 to partake of the bread and wine as well as to admi- 
 nister them, nothing can be inferred from it as to the 
 individuals by whom it was to be administered. 
 
 7. '^Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine 
 of Christ, let us go on unto perfection ; not laying again 
 the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of 
 faith toward God, and of the doctrine of baptisms, and 
 of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the 
 dead, and of eternal judgment." (Heb. vi. 1, 2.) It is 
 questionable,^ whether, in this passage, the " laying on 
 
 ^ Ante, ch. ii. See also ante, ch. vi. 
 ^ Some expositors explain the whole passage as referring to instructions 
 contained in the Old Testament (see Scott in loc.) : and there seems con- 
 siderable ground for this interpretation. 
 
AND ORDINATION. 211 
 
 of hands ^' has any connection with ordination : but, if 
 the apostle did in this passage refer to ordination, we 
 learn from it nothing as to the individuals authorized 
 to ordain, still less as to the doctrine of apostolical 
 succession. 
 
 These passages, and 2 Tim. ii. 2. (which has been al- 
 ready shown not to refer to the ordination of ministers), 
 are, as far as I am aware, the principal passages cited 
 in support of the doctrine of apostolical succession. 
 Others there may be of a similar description. They 
 will all be found, either (like Heb. v. 4) not to refer 
 to the Christian ministry; or (like other passages 
 which have just been examined) to refer to Christian 
 ministers, without any mention of ordination or suc- 
 cession. 
 
 I have, for several reasons, entered thus fully into 
 the examination of the principal passages cited in sup- 
 port of the doctrine of apostolical succession. 
 
 In the first place, it is important to remark to what a 
 lamentable perversion of scripture, the notion of apos- 
 tolical succession, as propounded in the Tracts for the 
 Times, has led. Sometimes authority given to the 
 apostles exclusively, promises made to them exclusively, 
 have —without the slightest scriptural warrant, and 
 (in some instances) in violation of the plainest rules of 
 interpretation, and in opposition to other clear pas- 
 sages in scripture — been quoted as belonging also to 
 those, whom the person quoting them (not the scrip- 
 ture) designates as "the successors of the apostles." 
 And thus authority and privileges are claimed for the 
 
212 THE THREEFOLD MINISTRY 
 
 clergy of the present day, which belonged only to the 
 apostles. At other times a promise made to the apos- 
 tles in perpetuity, and expressed in terms ample enough 
 to include all ministers who preach the truth and ad- 
 minister baptism according to our Lord^s institution, 
 is restricted to the apostles, and to those who can by 
 episcopal ordination trace back their commission to 
 them. And thus churches are unchurched, in which 
 the doctrine of the apostles is faithfully taught, and 
 the sacraments are administered according to Christ's 
 institution. At other times a promise, clearly intended 
 for all who believe in Jesus, is limited to those who 
 have been taught and baptized by men deriving autho- 
 rity by succession from the apostles. And thus true 
 members of Christ's spiritual body are cut off from the 
 comfort, and consolation, and encouragement of pro- 
 mises which the Great Head of the church intended 
 for them. Surely these are bitter fruits, which should 
 make us at least distrust the root out of which they 
 grow. 
 
 In the next place the doctrine of apostolical succes- 
 sion (in the sense now under discussion) makes men 
 ministers of God, who have no real claim to the title. 
 A man, who disbelieves or explains away the mysteries 
 of the gospel, may apply to the bishop for ordination ; 
 may subscribe articles directly opposed to his own 
 opinions ; may declare in the presence of God, that he 
 believes himself to be " inwardly moved by the Holy 
 Ghost to take that office upon" him — not knowing or 
 believing that there is any Holy Ghost : and the bishop 
 
AND ORDINATION. 213 
 
 deceived by his prevarication, may ordain him.' Ac- 
 cording to the doctrine of apostolical succession, the 
 bishop by imposition of hands makes him God^s minis- 
 ter ! ^ Surely this is a strange perversion of ideas ! The 
 bishop, it is true, deceived by the man^s prevarication, 
 gives him what may purport to he credentials of his 
 being God's minister : but he gives him nothing more. 
 The individual may afterwards repent of his sin ; and 
 may be led by the Holy Spirit to believe, to love, and 
 zealously to preach those blessed truths of the gospel, 
 which at the time of his ordination he disbelieved. 
 Then — and not before — he receives his ministerial 
 commission, his ministerial authority. Then he is 
 made — not by the bishop, but — by God himself, a 
 minister of God, an ambassador for Christ. Till then 
 he is in a situation similar to that of an individual, 
 who, forging the royal signature, should, by means 
 thereof, obtain from the keeper of the great seal, letters 
 patent appointing him to an office which the sove- 
 reign had never conferred upon him. Such an one 
 
 ' This is not an imaginary case — it lias happened, and may happen 
 again. See Scott's Force of Truth, and the Life of the Rev. Thomas 
 Scott, by the Rev. J. Scott. 
 
 ^ *' It is," says a writer in the Tracts for the Times, " the bishop who 
 makes us clergymen God's ministers. He is Christ's instrument; and 
 he visibly chooses those whom Christ chooses invisibly, to serve in the 
 Word and Sacraments of the Church." (Tracts for the Times, No. 10, 
 p. 3.) Is it meant to say, that the bishop is in this respect infallible.^ 
 that he never ordains any one whom Christ has not chosen invisibly ? 
 If not, what is the effect of ordination, when in this respect the bishop 
 errs. 5^ Does he ^Aew make the man God's minister .^^ The passage can 
 scarcely mean any thing but that the bishop makes all whom he ordains 
 God's ministers. 
 
214 THE THREEFOLD MINISTRY 
 
 would have the seeming credentials, the patent, but 
 not the office. 
 
 3rdly. The scriptural authority belonging to the 
 true ministers of Christ is in danger of being disre- 
 garded, when attempts are made to carry it beyond its 
 scriptural limits. 
 
 The question now recurs, of which the consideration 
 was postponed — How far is ordination essential to the 
 lawful exercise of the ministry ? In default of ex- 
 press scriptural authority on this question — for the 
 two passages ^ usually cited in support of an affirma- 
 tive answer, have been shown to have no reference to 
 the ordination of Christian ministers — we have traced 
 the example of the apostles : and we have found,^ that, 
 in their time, imposition of hands became the recog- 
 nized mode of appointing elders and deacons ; that no 
 such appointment is in scripture recorded to have 
 been made, except by or with the concurrence of an 
 apostle, or an individual specially authorized by him ; 
 and that (nevertheless) the ordination of Timothy by 
 the laying on of the hands both of the apostle and of 
 the presbytery, is spoken of in terms which lead to the 
 conclusion that power to ordain is incident to the office 
 of supreme ecclesiastical ruler. It is, therefore, from 
 apostolic practice, obvious that, in ordinary circum- 
 stanceSy an individual, believing himself to be called 
 of God to minister in the w^ord and doctrine, should 
 apply for ordination before he takes the office upon 
 himself. Still the question thus far remains unde- 
 
 ^ Heb. V. 4, and Rom. x. 15. ^ See ante, ch. vii. 
 
AND ORDINATION. 215 
 
 cided — Is ordination, in every case, and under all cir- 
 cumstances, essential to the lawful exercise of the Chris- 
 tian ministry ? There are some passages in the New 
 Testament J which may throw light on this question. 
 
 The apostles, as we have seen, were invested by our 
 Lord both with a general legislative power over the 
 church, and with authority to make provision for the 
 preaching of the word and the administration of the sa- 
 craments, throughout the world, and to the end of time. 
 By virtue of this authority, they might have laid down a 
 rule, prohibiting any disciple from taking upon himself 
 the ministry, without first being ordained thereto. But 
 we find no such rule recorded : while we find, on one 
 occasion, our Lord giving to his apostles instructions, 
 from which we should anticipate that they would, in 
 the exercise of the authority entrusted to them, ab- 
 stain from laying down such a prohibition, as being 
 contrary to their Lord^s will. 
 
 The occasion, to which I refer, is when the apostle 
 John told our Lord : " Master, we saw one casting 
 out devils in thy name, and he foUoweth not us : and 
 we forbad him, because he followeth not u&. But 
 Jesus said, Forbid him not : for there is no man which 
 shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak 
 evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our 
 part." (Mark ix. 38 — 40.) From the parallel passage 
 in St. Luke (ix. 49, 50) it appears, that this incident 
 occurred in the interval between the mission of the 
 twelve apostles and the mission of the seventy dis- 
 ciples. There is no intimation, that, at that period. 
 
216 THE THREEFOLD MINISTRY 
 
 our Lord had^ by external designation, conferred super- 
 natural powers on any but the twelve apostles : still 
 less, that he had, hy external designatiorij appointed 
 the individual to the office of an exorcist ; and, had 
 the individual been so appointed, it is utterly impro- 
 bable, either that the apostles would have forbidden 
 him, or that Jesus would, in his reply to John, have 
 omitted to notice the circumstance. Yet we cannot 
 doubt that the exorcist was inwardly moved by the 
 Holy Spirit to cast out devils. Otherwise our Lord 
 would not even indirectly have sanctioned his pro- 
 ceedings, and the exorcist would probably have met 
 with a disaster similar to that which befell the sons of 
 Sceva, when the evil spirit, whom without authority 
 they had adjured in the name of Jesus, " answered 
 and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know ; but who 
 are ye ? And the man in whom the evil spirit was 
 leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed 
 against them, so that they fled out of the house naked 
 and wounded." (Acts xix. 13—16.) On this passage 
 it is obvious to remark, that the authority of the ex- 
 orcist mentioned in the gospels of St. Mark and St. 
 Luke was vouched by the obedience of the evil spirits 
 to the commands which he pronounced in the name of 
 Jesus : and that, in this respect, his case is distin- 
 guished both from that of the sons of Sceva, and from 
 the case of an individual preaching the gospel without 
 having either supernatural gifts or external designa- 
 tion. While, therefore, our Lord^s injunction on this 
 occasion — " Forbid him not" — and the reason assigned 
 
AND ORDINATION. 217 
 
 by him for the injunction, rebuked the exclusive dis- 
 position manifested by his apostles, and should caution 
 us against condemning as an intruder any individual 
 who may preach the truth as revealed in scripture, 
 and to whose ministry the Holy Spirit may set his 
 seal by the conversion of sinners ; yet he, who, with- 
 out either the sanction of external designation, or the 
 voucher of supernatural gifts, takes upon himself the 
 ministry of the word, cannot, when he first takes it 
 upon himself, be certain that his ministry will receive 
 the attestation of the Holy Spirit. He may have mis- 
 taken the suggestions of his own imagination for the 
 call of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Besides these intimations of our Lord's will, there 
 are passages in the Acts of the Apostles and in the 
 apostolic epistles bearing on the question. 
 
 On the martyrdom of Stephen '^ there was a great 
 persecution against the church which was at Jerusa- 
 lem ; and they were all scattered abroad throughout 
 the regions of Judsea and Samaria, except the 
 APOSTLES.'^ And " they that were scattered 
 abroad, went every where preaching the word.^' 
 (Acts viii. 1, 4.) And " they which were scat- 
 tered ABROAD upon the persecution that arose about 
 Stephen, travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and 
 Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the 
 Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus 
 and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, 
 spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. 
 And the hand of the Lord was with them : and a 
 
218 THE THREEFOLD MINISTRY, 
 
 great number believed, and turned unto the Lord." 
 (Acts xi. 19 — 21.) The persons thus scattered were 
 the general body of disciples belonging to the church 
 at Jerusalem/ people as well as ministers — the apostles 
 being alone specially excepted — yet they preached ^ the 
 gospel ', and ^' the hand of the Lord was with them/' 
 converting many by their ministry, and thereby stamp- 
 
 ' " There was a great persecution against the church which was at 
 Jerusalem ; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of 
 Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles " (Acts viii. 1). It seems to me 
 difficult to limit, as some (see Scott in loc.) have limited, this scattering to 
 the disciples not habitually residing at Jerusalem, but assembled there at 
 the Feast of Pentecost, and retained there by the events of that day. 
 But whether so limited or not, the persons so scattered comprised others 
 besides ordained ministers. 
 
 ^ The words, indeed, in both passages, translated preach, are not 
 KrypvVa-etj/, but either cvayycKi^caOai, or Aa\e?»': and it has been con- 
 tended that they mean, not public, ministerial, authorised preaching, but 
 private teaching. The etymology of the words Ktipixra-eip and cvayye- 
 \i^€(r9ai (which latter word is used both in the first passage and the 
 second time that the word preach occurs in the second passage) points out 
 no such distinction between them ; the one being derived from K-fjpv^ 
 a herald, the other from ayye\os a messenger. Nor is the distinction 
 warranted by the usage of the sacred writers. The latter is the word 
 used by the angel in announcing our Lord's birth to the shepherds (Luke 
 ii. 10). It is the word used by St. Paul, when speaking of the mission, 
 on which our Lord had sent him—" not to baptize, but to preach the 
 
 gospel " (1 Cor. i. 17) — " It pleased God to reveal his Son in me 
 
 that I might preach him among the heathen " (Gal. i. 15, 16). The two 
 words K-npvaaeiv and ivayycXt^eadai are used interchangeably by St. 
 Luke, when he relates that our Lord sent forth the twelve K-npvcraeiv r^v 
 €a(n\eiav t& ©eS and afterwards records that they went forth euo77e- 
 Ki^6/xevot (Luke ix, 2, G); and the words rhv \6yov \a\e?v a,nd rhv 
 Xpiarhv K-qpvaaeiv and rhv Xpurrhu Karayy4k\€iv are used interchange- 
 ably by St. Paul. (Philip, i. 14 — 16,) Any one therefore of these ex- 
 pressions 7nay mean public preaching : though the two, used respecting 
 the men scattered by the persecution, do not necessarily mean so. 
 
AND ORDINATION. 219 
 
 ing it with his approbation. This passage, however, 
 must not be pressed too far. These men preached to 
 unbelievers ; and, when '' a great number believed, 
 and turned unto the Lord,^^ " then " (the inspired his- 
 torian proceeds) "tidings of these things came unto the 
 ears of the church which was in Jerusalem : and they 
 sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as An- 
 tioch." (Acts xi. 22.) The lesson to be derived from 
 this passage is this — Christians, who by the providence 
 of God are cast among unbelievers, may, though unor- 
 dained, make known to them, privately or publicly, 
 according to circumstances, the gospel ; but, when a 
 church begins through their ministry to be formed, 
 they should send for pastors and teachers to the 
 church from which they came. 
 
 Further light will be thrown on this subject, if we 
 examine what is recorded of Apollos. " A certain Jew 
 named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, 
 and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. Thi« 
 man was instructed in the way of the Lord ; and being- 
 fervent in spirit, he spake and taught diligently the 
 things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of 
 John." (Acts xviii. 24—26.) Hitherto he had not 
 received Christian baptism — yet he " was instructed 
 in the way of the Lord, .... and taught the things of 
 the Lord.^' He taught th^m publicly : for " he began 
 to speak in the synagogue : whom when Aquila and 
 Priscilla had heard, they took him imto them, and 
 expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly," 
 (ib. 26.) — taught him (no doubt) the meaning of 
 L 2 
 
220 THE THREEFOLD MINISTRY, 
 
 Christian baptism, and the duty of receiving it. Hith- 
 erto his example can furnish no precedent. He was 
 not even a baptized disciple —his knowledge, and con- 
 sequently his teaching, was imperfect — his preaching 
 was confined to the Jews and their synagogue. But 
 Aquila and Priscilla " expounded unto him the way of 
 God more perfectly. And when he was disposed to pass 
 into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the dis- 
 ciples to receive him : who, when he was come, helped 
 them much which had believed through grace : for he 
 mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, 
 showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ.^^ (ib. 
 27, 28.) We have it here distinctly recorded, and with 
 implied approbation, that Apollos preached Christ 
 publicly. Had he been ordained ? When ? By 
 whom ? He was not ordained before his arrival at 
 Ephesus, for he then knew only John^s baptism : 
 when he arrived at Ephesus, Paul had left that city. 
 We have no other intimation of any apostle having 
 visited Ephesus before Apollos went to Corinth; and the 
 only instruction in Christian doctrine, which Apollos is 
 recorded to have received at Ephesus, was from Aquila 
 and Priscilla. He went thence to Corinth with letters 
 of introduction from the brethren : but we have no hint 
 of his having gone with authority from an apostle. At 
 Corinth he argued " publicly '' with the Jews, and 
 *' mightily convinced^' them ; and thus he " helped them 
 much which had believed through grace." (ib. 27, 28.) 
 
 Thus far we trace Apollos preaching Christ publicly 
 to the Jews, without having been (as far as we can 
 
AND ORDINATION. 221 
 
 discover) ordained to the ministry. At a subsequent 
 period ^ the apostle recognizes A polios as a minister, 
 who, like himself, had laboured in the church at Co- 
 rinth. " Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but 
 ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave 
 to every man. I have planted, Apollos watered ; but 
 God gave the increase.^^ (1 Cor. iii. 5, 6.) Apollos ap- 
 pears to have travelled much ; and he may, during the 
 interval of his going from Ephesus to Corinth and the 
 date of St. PauFs first epistle to the Corinthians, have 
 met with an apostle, and been ordained by him. We 
 cannot conclude that he was not ordained, from the si- 
 lence of St. Luke in the Acts, for even the baptism of 
 Apollos is not recorded. 
 
 The case, therefore, of Apollos is that of an unor- 
 dained individual preaching, and with success, to un- 
 believers; but we have no sufficient ground for con- 
 cluding, that he ministered in a settled Christian 
 church without having been first ordained. 
 
 In these two instances — first, of those who were 
 scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about 
 Stephen; and secondly, of Apollos —individuals, who 
 (as far as we can discover) had not been ordained to 
 the ministry, preached the word either principally or 
 exclusively to unbelievers : and that these individuals 
 had not unlawfully taken upon themselves this office, 
 is manifest from the terms in which the sacred histo- 
 
 * See Paley's Horae Paul. ch. iii. No. 2, and Tate's Continuous History 
 of St. Paul, p. 61 -as to the first epistle to the Corinthians being of a 
 later date. 
 
222 THE THREEFOLD MINISTRY, 
 
 rian records the fact, and the success with which their 
 labours were blessed. 
 
 It may then, I think, be concluded that, in the time 
 of the apostles, individuals not ordained to the ministry- 
 did sometimes preach the word to unbelievers ; and 
 that, in so doing, they did not act unlawfully. It is 
 not, however, clear that such individuals preached 
 fuhlicly in settled Christian churches : and, if they 
 did occasionally so minister, it would not thence follow, 
 that whosoever will may, without any external sanction, 
 take upon himself the ministerial office. The general 
 principles on which every society must be built, and 
 the principles laid down in scripture, are alike opposed 
 to such a notion. 
 
 That no society can be held together without govern- 
 ment, without order, without some regulations allotting 
 to its different members the posts which they are re- 
 spectively to occupy, and the duties which (as regards 
 the society) they are to perform, is a proposition too 
 obvious to require either discussion or illustration. 
 And, since in a Christian church all cannot rule nor 
 can all teach, and since both for ruling and teaching 
 are required knowledge and other qualifications not 
 possessed by every one, it necessarily follows that this 
 proposition is applicable to every Christian church; 
 and the principles, on which the proposition rests, are 
 so applied in scripture. The following passages are in 
 point. 
 
 " Let all things be done decently and in order '' 
 (1 Co?, xiv. 40). " Obey them that have the rule 
 
AND ORDINATION. 223 
 
 over you, and submit yourselves : for they watch for 
 your souls ^' (Heb. xiii. 17). "As we have many mem- 
 bers in one body, and all members have not the same 
 office : so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and 
 every one members one of another ^^ (Rom. xii. 4, 5). 
 " There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 
 And there are differences of administrations, but the 
 same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, 
 but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But 
 the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to 
 profit withaP^ (1 Cor. xii. 4 — 7)> The apostle then 
 enumerates various gifts of the Spirit, and concludes : 
 "But all these worketh that one and the self-same 
 Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. For 
 as the body is one, and hath many members, and all 
 the members of that one body, being many, are one 
 body : so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all 
 baptized into one body, whether we he Jews or Gen- 
 tiles, whether we he bond or free ; and have all been 
 made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not 
 one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because 
 I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it there- 
 fore not of the body ? And if the ear shall say. Be- 
 cause I am not the eye, I am not of the body ; is it 
 therefore not of the body ? If the whole body were 
 an eye, where were the hearing ? If the whole were 
 hearing, where were the smelling. But now hath God 
 set the members every one of them in the body, as it 
 hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, 
 where were the body ? But now are they many mem- 
 
224 THE THREEFOLD MINISTRY, 
 
 bers, yet one body ^' (ib. 8—20). The application 
 intended by the apostle is obvious. If all were teach- 
 ers, where were the learners ? If all were rulers, 
 where were those who are to obey ? The apostle has 
 himself made the application. " Are all apostles ? are 
 all prophets ? are all teachers ? are all workers of 
 miracles ? Have all the gifts of healing ? do all speak 
 with tongues ? do all interpret ? '' (ib. 29, 30.) 
 
 God appoints different individuals to different offices 
 in the church : and he, who intrudes himself into an 
 office to which God has not called him, either wilfully 
 sins or grievously errs. How shall an individual, en- 
 tering the ministry, avoid this error ? The Holy Spirit 
 calls an individual to the ministry by disposing him to 
 seek the office from love to Christ and the souls of 
 men ; and by enduing him with qualifications suitable 
 to the office. Of this disposition no one can finally 
 judge but himself,' though an experienced Christian — 
 especially if himself a minister — may greatly assist 
 him in deciding the question. But the disposition is 
 not alone a sufficient warrant for undertaking the 
 office : he must also possess the necessary qualifications, 
 or he is not (at least as yet) called to the office. And 
 of the question, whether he be duly qualified for the 
 office, he can seldom himself be a competent judge. 
 
 ^ St. Paul appeals to the converts among the Corinthians as " the seal" 
 of his " apostleship" (1 Cor. ix. 2). So one, who has actually exercised 
 the ministry, may, in some cases, point to those who have been converted 
 under his ministry as evidence of his having been called to it by the Holy 
 Spirit : but I am now speaking of the ground which an individual, before 
 he has exercised the ministry, may have to conclude that he is called to it. 
 
AND ORDINATION. 225 
 
 We are, therefore, both by the reason of the thing, and 
 by the practice of the church in the time of the apos- 
 tles, led to the general principle : that he who believes 
 himself to be called to the work of the ministry, should 
 (under ordinary circumstances ) resort, before he takes 
 the office upon himself, to those whom God in his pro- 
 vidence has set over the church, for their sanction. I 
 say, under ordinary circumstances, because the in- 
 stances which have been noticed, show, that the general 
 principle admits of exceptions, at least in respect of 
 preaching the gospel among the heathen. But, under 
 ordinary circumstances, the general principle is recog- 
 nized in scripture as well as founded in reason : nor 
 should any one rashly say, that he is bound to obey 
 what he considers as the call of the Holy Spirit ; he 
 may mistake the call, and such a mistake would be a 
 serious one. 
 
 Such is the principle on which the individual, who 
 takes upon himself the office of a minister, should in 
 ordinary cases seek ordination from the rulers of the 
 church. But there is no scriptural authority for hold- 
 ing, that either the threefold ministry, or an unbroken 
 succession from an apostle in the ordination of minis- 
 ters, is necessary to constitute a church of Christ. The 
 only essential characteristics of a true church, which 
 can be deduced from scripture, are the holding fast of 
 apostolic doctrine in its purity, the administration of 
 the sacraments in conformity to our Lord^s institution, 
 and the faithful ministry of pastors set apart to teach 
 and rule the flock. 
 
 L 5 
 
2.26 THE THREEFOLD MINISTRY, 
 
 But before I quit tliis subject of tbe ministry, I 
 must shortly notice the opinion of those who reject 
 altogether the setting apart, in any way, of individuals 
 to the Christian ministry. This opinion is so opposed 
 to the example of our Lord, who set apart first twelve 
 apostles, and then seventy other disciples to preach the 
 gospel; so opposed to the practice of the apostle Paul 
 in ordaining elders as recorded in the book of Acts, 
 and to the instructions given by the same apostle both 
 to Timothy and Titus respecting the appointment of 
 ministers; so opposed to the constitution of the apos- 
 tolic churches, which were exhorted to obey their rulers : 
 that it might seem to require no further discussion. 
 But, as the opinion is not new, and has of late been 
 revived and propagated with much earnestness, I will 
 shortly notice the principal texts by which, I conceive, 
 its advocates would attempt to support it. 
 
 (1.) Ye are "an holy priesthood" (1 Peter ii. 5). 
 " Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood ^' 
 (ib. 9). He "hath made us kings and priests unto 
 God and his Father " (Rev. i. 6). These texts prove, 
 that there is no order of men set apart in the Chris- 
 tian church from the other members to be priests 
 (iepe??) in the sacerdotal sense : they do not prove, that 
 individuals are not to be solemnly set apart to the 
 ministry. And St. Peter, in the same epistle from 
 which the two first texts are taken, distinctly recog- 
 nizes the office of an elder. " The elders " (he writes) 
 " which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, 
 .... feed the flock of God which is among you, taking 
 
AND ORDINATION. 227 
 
 the oversight thereof ^^ (1 Pet. v. 1, 2). He addresses 
 the elders as distinct from the people, and having the 
 " oversight ^' of them. 
 
 (2.) " And they shall not teach every man his neigh- 
 bour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the 
 Lord : for all shall know me, from the least to the 
 greatest ^^ (Heb. viii. 11). This passage is part of a 
 prophecy of Jeremiah (xxxi. 34), which St. Paul quotes 
 to prove that the Christian covenant has superseded 
 the Mosaic (Heb. viii. 6—13) : but the apostle does 
 not say, nor is it implied in his argument, that the 
 whole of the prophecy had then been accomplished. 
 The time is not yet come, when ^' all shall know '^ the 
 Lord " from the least to the greatest :" and until that 
 time is come, the prophecy is still future, the Christian 
 ministry and its teaching are requisite. 
 
 (3.) " Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and 
 ye know all things " (1 John ii. 20). " The anointing 
 which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye 
 need not that any man teach you : but as the same 
 anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and 
 is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall 
 abide in him" (ib. 27). These texts must be consi- 
 dered in connection with the context. The apostle 
 had been telling those whom he addressed, of " anti- 
 christs.^' " They went out " (he wrote) " from us, but 
 they were not of us ; .... they went out, that they 
 might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 
 But ^^ (he immediately adds) " ye have an unction from 
 the Holy One, and ye know all things ^^ (ib. 19, 20). 
 
228 THE THREEFOLD MINISTRY. 
 
 Then, after noticing the doctrine of antichrist, and 
 after an exhortation (" Let that . . . abide in you, which 
 ye have heard from the beginning ") with a promise, he 
 proceeds, '' These things have I written unto you con- 
 cerning them that seduce you " (ver. 26) : and im- 
 mediately adds ; " But the anointing," &c. (ver. 27). 
 The obvious meaning of the two texts now under con- 
 sideration (ver. 20 and 27) is, that the disciples, to 
 ivhom he then wrote, had been so well taught by the 
 Holy Spirit the fundamental truths of the gospel, es- 
 pecially those which the antichrists of that day denied, 
 that they needed not to be further taught them by 
 man : but this in no way renders the office of the Chris- 
 tian minister unnecessary, or the setting apart of indi- 
 viduals to it unscriptural. The words are not addressed 
 to all, or even to the generality of professing Chris- 
 tians : and the office of a minister of Christ is not 
 only to '' preach the word," but to " reprove, rebuke, 
 exhort" (2 Tim. iv. g); to "put" the brethren "al- 
 ways in remembrance of" the things concerning their 
 everlasting salvation, even " though" they " know them, 
 and be established in the present truth " (2 Pet. i. 12). 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 SCHISM. 
 
 In the time of the apostles, no jealousy appears to 
 have been entertained of the formation of new churches. 
 On the contrary, it was matter of joy and thankfulness, 
 when brethren proclaimed the gospel, and converts 
 were made, and congregations were gathered from 
 among unbelievers (Acts viii. 4 — 8; xi. 19 — 23; xxi. 
 18 — 20). The schism reproved in scripture is division 
 in a settled Christian church ; separation ^ from its ap- 
 pointed ministers ; disobedience to its rulers, while the 
 
 ^ Archbishop Whateley has well observed, that separation from the 
 church to which an individual belongs is not implied in merely joining 
 and becoming a member of another church, " except when there is some 
 essential point of difference hetween the two churches ;"" and that " when 
 there is none, a man's becoming a member of another church on changing 
 
 his residence this is the very closest conformity to the principles 
 
 and practice of the apostles." He refers to the letters of recommendation 
 mentioned in 2 Cor. (Kingdom of Christ, p. 193, n.) 
 
230 SCHISM. 
 
 church, the ministers^ the rulers continue sound in 
 doctrine, and scriptural in worship. 
 
 That schism (in this sense of the word) is a sin, 
 appears from St. Paul's epistles. " Every one of you 
 saith, I am of Paul ; and I of Apollos ; and I of Ce- 
 phas ; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided ? was Paul 
 crucified for you ? or were ye baptized in the name of 
 Paul?^' (1 Cor. i. 12, 13.) " While one saith, I am 
 of Paul ; and another, I am of Apollos ; are ye not car- 
 nal, and walk as men V (1 Cor. iii. 4.) Thus he re- 
 proves the Corinthians for schism, though unconnected 
 with error in doctrine. The same apostle lays down 
 the following precepts : " Obey them that have the 
 rule over you, and submit yourselves : for they watch 
 for your souls ^^ (Heb. xiii. 17). "We beseech you, 
 brethren, to know them which labour among you, and 
 are over you in the Lord, and admonish you ; and to 
 esteem them very highly in love for their worths sake. 
 And be at peace among yourselves " (1 Thess. v. 
 12, 13). 
 
 We should, however, observe the reasons assigned 
 for these precepts — " for they watch for your souls '^ 
 — " for their work's sake.'' If, then, those who have 
 rule over us do not watch for our souls, do not labour 
 among us in the gospel of Christ, we may respect their 
 office, but we cannot " esteem them very highly " " for 
 their work's sake :" and on further examination we 
 shall find, that the obedience due to ecclesiastical, as 
 well as that due to civil, rulers has its limit s.^ The 
 
 ^ On one occasion our Lord said : " The Scribes and the Pharisees sit 
 
SCHISM. 231 
 
 civil, as well as the ecclesiastical, ruler derives his 
 authority from God. To both the principle is applica- 
 ble : " A¥e ought to obey God rather than men '^ (Acts 
 V. 29). This principle was applied by the apostles to 
 the " council ^^ (ib. ^7.) which possessed both ecclesi- 
 astical, and (in subordination to the Romans) civil au- 
 thority. Ecclesiastical, as well as civil, rulers are men 
 — fallible men. They are the teachers, as well as the 
 rulers, of the church : and even in the time of the 
 apostles there were false teachers, against whom the 
 disciples are warned (2 Cor. xi. 4 — 15. Gal. i. 6 — 9; 
 and 1 John ii. 18, 19; iv. 1 ; and 2 John 7 — 11). 
 The coming also of ^' false teachers," who " privily " 
 should " bring in damnable heresies," is foretold by 
 St. Peter (2 Pet. ii. 1). Nor is the warning given 
 merely with respect to unauthorized, unordained teach- 
 ers. Had the warning been limited to such teachers, 
 the disciples would not have been told to examine their 
 doctrine, or the fruits of their doctrine : they would 
 have been directed — unless their mission were authen- 
 ticated by miraculous gifts — to inquire by what autho- 
 
 in Moses' seat : all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that ob- 
 serve and do ; but do not ye after their works : for they say, and do not." 
 (Matt, xxiii. 1 — 3.) But on another occasion he bade his disciples: 
 " beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees" — beware 
 of their " doctrine" (Matt. xvi. 11, 12) : and on another he reproved the 
 pharisees and the scribes for " making the word of God of none effect 
 through" their " traditions." (Mark vii. 13.) The result of these our 
 Lord's instructions is— that, whatever spiritual authority the scribes and 
 the pharisees might possess as sitting in Moses' seat, they were to be 
 obeyed only so far as their teaching agreed with the law of God as given, 
 and His will as revealed, by Moses and the prophets. The application 
 to ecclesiastical rulers under the Christian dispensation is obvious. 
 
232 SCHISM. 
 
 rity they taught. Do the apostles give the disciples 
 any such direction ? 
 
 The apostle Paul cautions the Corinthians against 
 those who should preach ^' another Jesus^ whom'' 
 he had '' not preached '' (2 Cor. xi. 4). '' Such/"' he 
 says, " are false apostles, deceitful workers, trans- 
 forming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And 
 no marvel ; for Satan himself is transformed into an 
 angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his 
 ministers also be transformed as the ministers of 
 righteousness" (ib. 13—15). To the Galatians he 
 writes : " I marvel that ye are so soon removed from 
 him that called you into the grace of Christ unto 
 ANOTHER GOSPEL : which is not another ; but there 
 be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel 
 of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, 
 PREACH ANY OTHER GOSPEL uuto you than that which 
 we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As 
 we said before, so say I now again, If any ma7i preach 
 any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, 
 let him be accursed (Gal. i. 6 — 9). What can be more 
 decisive ? No human authority — no, not that of an 
 apostle — not even an angel from heaven, is to be lis- 
 tened to, if he preach another gospel, than that which 
 Paul preached — nay, the apostle pronounced such a 
 preacher ^' anathema." Surely then we are not to lis- 
 ten to such a preacher, being neither apostle nor angel, 
 however clearly he may trace back his commission to 
 an apostle through every link of the chain, or however 
 high a rank he may hold in the visible church. 
 
SCHISM. 233 
 
 Again, St. John exhorts the disciples : " Believe no 
 every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of 
 God : because many false prophets are gone out into 
 the world '^ (1 John iv. 1). He does not tell the dis- 
 ciples to examine whether these teachers have derived 
 their commission from an apostle — an inquiry which 
 in those early days of the gospel might have been made 
 with ease and certainty — no ! he tells them to '^ try 
 the spirits." And how ? By their doctrine. " Here- 
 by " (he adds) " know ye the Spirit of God : Every 
 spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the 
 flesh is of God : and every spirit that confesseth not 
 that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God : 
 and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have 
 heard that it should come ; and even now already is it 
 in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have 
 overcome them : because greater is he that is in you, 
 than he that is in the world. They are of the world : 
 therefore speak they of the world, and the world hear- 
 eth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God 
 heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. 
 Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of 
 error" (ib. 2—6). We have here two tests, whereby 
 to distinguish the true from the false teacher, the 
 spirit of truth from the spirit of error. The true 
 teacher " confesseth," the false teacher " confesseth 
 not, that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." The 
 spirit of truth "heareth" the apostles, derives its doc- 
 trine from them : " the spirit of error" " heareth not" 
 the apostles, doth not derive its doctrine from them. 
 
234 SCHISM. 
 
 According to St. John, therefore, the disciples are to 
 examine whether the doctrine, not whether the com- 
 mission, is apostolic. 
 
 In another epistle the same apostle writes — " Many 
 deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not 
 that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a de- 
 ceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we 
 lose not those things which we have wrought, but that 
 we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, 
 and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not 
 God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he 
 hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any 
 unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not 
 into your house, neither bid him God speed : for he 
 that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil 
 deeds" (2 John 7 — 11). Such is the direction which 
 St. John gave to " the elect lady and her children " 
 (ib. 1) — not a direction to inquire into the commission 
 of such teachers — but a direction to shut their door at 
 once against the deceivers, simply on the ground of 
 their doctrine. 
 
 If we are not to receive such teachers into our 
 house, surely we are not to join their congregations : 
 and, though the injunction in terms applies only to 
 those teachers who confess not that Jesus Christ is 
 come in the flesh, it establishes the principle of trying 
 a teacher by his doctrine : while the anathema pro- 
 nounced by St. Paul, when writing to the Galatians, 
 extends to all who " preach any other gospel .... than 
 that which " he had " preached." 
 
SCHISM. 235 
 
 These repeated injunctions, to beware of false teach- 
 ers ; to try the spirits, to judge of teachers by their 
 fruits ; to examine the doctrine taught, whether it be 
 conformable to that of the apostles ; clearly shew, 
 that the obedience and submission due to those, who 
 ^' have the rule " over us in the church, is not a blind 
 obedience and submission to them merely because in- 
 vested with ecclesiastical authority. 
 
 There are also passages in scripture, which clearly 
 shew us that churches may apostatize and be cast off, 
 and which distinctly warn us of the danger of clinging 
 to an apostate church. 
 
 Our Lord himself threatened to remove the candle- 
 stick of the church of Ephesus, unless it repented 
 (Rev. ii. 5) ; and to " spue '^ the church of Laodicea 
 " out of' his " mouth." (Rev. iii. 16.) 
 
 St. PauFs prophecy of the " man of sin '^ also is a 
 warning, that w^e should neither blindly obey ecclesias- 
 tical rulers, nor continue in an apostate church. He 
 there foretold, that there should '• come a falling 
 away '' — an apostacy — " and that man of sin '^ should 
 '^ be revealed, the son of perdition j who opposeth and 
 exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is 
 worshipped ; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of 
 God, shewing himself that he is God.'' (2 Thess. ii. 
 3, 4.) It is foreign to my present purpose to point 
 out, how accurately the apostle's language describes 
 the apostate church of Rome : it is sufficient to ob- 
 serve, that some ecclesiastical power or ruler is clearly 
 intended. St. Paul says of this '^ man of sin," that 
 
236 SCHISM. 
 
 " he as God sitteth in tlie temple of God ; ^^ and, that 
 we may the better recognize him, the apostle further 
 describes him as that '^ wicked" one, '^ whose coming 
 is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs 
 and lying wonders." (ib. 8, 9.) And what does the 
 apostle say of those who should adhere to this " man 
 of sin " ? " And with all deceivableness of unright- 
 eousness," he adds, " in them that perish ; because 
 they received not the love of the truth, that they might 
 be saved. And for this cause God shall send them 
 strong delusion, that they should believe a lie : that 
 they all might be damned who believed not the truth, 
 but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (ib. 10 — 12.) 
 An awful warning, that ecclesiastical rulers were to be 
 expected, whom to follow is to follow them to our 
 everlasting ruin. 
 
 Further — There is the prophecy respecting " Baby- 
 lon the Great," and the warning — " Come out of her, 
 my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that 
 ye not receive not of her plagues." (Rev. xviii. 4.) It is 
 not necessary for my present purpose to inquire, whether, 
 under the name of " Babylon the Great," papal Home is 
 foretold. It is enough for my argument, that a profes- 
 sedly Christian, but really idolatrous, church is intended. 
 That an idolatrous power is foretold, no one disputes. 
 The offence, with which " Babylon the Great '* is 
 peculiarly charged (Rev. xvii. 1 — 5), is described in 
 terms which are constantly used in the Old Testament 
 to express the idolatry of apostate Jews or Israelites — 
 rarely, if ever, to express the idolatry of the heathen. 
 
SCHISM. 237 
 
 The command to '^ come out of her^^ is given to the 
 intent that God's people " be not partakers of her 
 sins.'* It is, therefore, not a command to come out of 
 the local limits of Babylon, whatever city be meant by 
 that name ; but a command to come out from ^' her 
 sins," not to be " partakers of her sins '^ — of her ido- 
 latry in particular. It was not to be expected that the 
 people of God could be entangled in idolatry avoivedly 
 heathen. Professing Christians might, from fear of 
 heathen persecution, apostatize, and deny the faith. 
 But this is not the sin against which the people of 
 God are here warned. They are exhorted to ^^ come 
 out from " " Babylon the Great " — not cautioned 
 against joining her. It is implied, that some of them 
 would be found in her, being, for a time, deceived by 
 her : and " the voice from heaven '' calls on them to 
 ^' come out of her " — a warning to come out of some 
 professedly Christian church, which should have apos- 
 tatized into idolatry. 
 
 If, therefore, a church apostatize from the doctrine 
 of our Lord and his apostles as revealed in scripture, 
 or " pervert the gospel of Christ," or teach ''another 
 gospel which is not another," or depart from our 
 Lord's institution in the administration of baptism or 
 the Lord's supper ; if it " confess not that Jesus Christ 
 is come in the flesh ; " if it teach or practise idolatry or 
 the worship of demons or dead men : in all and each 
 of these cases separation is a duty. Such separation 
 is not schism, except on the part of those who, by 
 obstinately teaching unscriptural doctrine or persisting 
 
238 SCHISM, 
 
 in unscriptural rites, render it necessary for the people 
 of God to "come out of their corrupt and anti- 
 christian communion. Those who remain in the 
 apostate church, not those " who come out of her/' 
 are the schismatics. Such was the case when the re- 
 formation from Popery took place. 
 
 But a church may retain " the form of sound words," 
 may continue sound and scriptural in the doctrine 
 which it professes, in its worship, and in the adminis- 
 tration of the sacraments ; and yet the minister, whom 
 it appoints over us, may preach doctrine fundamentally 
 opposed to its scriptural doctrine ; he may " preach 
 another gospel " than that which Paul preached, 
 " another Jesus ^' whom that apostle did not preach ; 
 he may teach a doctrine at variance with " the doc- 
 trine of Christ," which the apostle John taught. It is 
 not our duty to listen to such a minister : and, if 
 the rulers of the church do not rectify the evil, we may 
 seek the bread of life elsewhere. If, either in such a 
 case, or where the church to which we belong does not 
 supply to us the means of grace in the place where we 
 reside,* we join another communion which holds fast 
 " the faith once delivered to the saints," this is not 
 schism. 
 
 ^ In various parts of this country the established church has been 
 iinable to furnish an adequate supply of ministers for the rapidly in- 
 creasing population. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE VISIBLE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. 
 
 We have now finished our inquiry into the constitu- 
 tion of particular and local churches, as exhibited in 
 scripture : and it has appeared, that in some cases 
 several congregations or particular churches were 
 united together into one local church, eitker under a 
 bishop, elders, and deacons, or (without a presiding 
 bishop) under elders, (then sometimes caUed also 
 bishops or overseers) and deacons. We have now fur- 
 ther to inquire, in what manner these local churches 
 were, during the lives of the apostles, connected with 
 each other, and whether any further progress was 
 made during that period towards the organization of a 
 visible universal church, or any directions were given 
 by the apostles respecting the constitution or govern- 
 ment of such a church. 
 
 While the twelve continued at Jerusalem, they ex- 
 ercised their apostalical authority over neighbouring 
 
240 THE VISIBLE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. 
 
 churcheSj sometimes alone and sometimes conjointly 
 with the elders or with the church at Jerusalem. Thus, 
 ^^ when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard 
 that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent 
 unto them Peter and John/' by imposition of whose 
 hands disciples in that city received the Holy Ghost. 
 (Acts viii. 14 — 17.) Afterwards, they, who had been 
 scattered by the persecution which arose on the mar- 
 tyrdom of Stephen, preached the gospel at Antioch ; 
 ^'' and a great number believed, and turned unto the 
 Lord. Then tidings of these things came unto the ears 
 of the church which was at Jerusalem : and they sent 
 forth Barnabas " to Antioch. Barnabas went to An- 
 tioch ; and then fetched the apostle Paul from Tarsus 
 to that city. '' And it came to pass, that a whole year 
 they assembled themselves with the church, and taught 
 much people. And the disciples were called Christians 
 first at Antioch'' (Acts xi. 19 — 26). At a later period 
 a dissension arose in the church at Antioch respecting 
 circumcision ; and they sent Paul and Barnabas and 
 others " to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders, 
 about this question." A meeting (which has been 
 called the council ^ of Jerusalem) was held : and letters 
 were written in the name of " the apostles and elders 
 and brethren," in which their decision was expressed. 
 These letters were received with joy by the Christians 
 at Antioch; and were afterwards delivered in other 
 cities, to be kept as " the decrees " " that were or- 
 
 ' The details of the proceedings of this meeting will presently be exa- 
 mined ; and the question considered— who deliberated thereat? 
 
THE VISIBLE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. 241 
 
 dained of the apostles and elders which were at Jeru- 
 salem/^ (Acts XV. 1 — 31 ; xvi. 4.) As the decrees of 
 the apostles, they were of course binding on all the 
 churches : and the concurrence of the elders and breth- 
 ren at Jerusalem would recommend them to churches, 
 which had received the gospel from that of Jerusalem. 
 But it does not appear whether those churches con- 
 sidered themselves as in any way dependent upon the 
 church at Jerusalem, except when acting conjointly 
 with the apostles. The churches subsequently founded 
 by St. Paul, the churches in particular of Asia Minor 
 and Greece, were, as far as we can discover in scrip- 
 ture, independent of each other. Yet (as we may 
 gather from the salutations in the apostolic epistles,^ 
 and from the letter written by the brethren at Ephesus 
 to those in Achaia exhorting them to receive Apollos,- 
 and from St. PauPs allusion ^ to " epistles of commen- 
 dation'^) the different churches of Christ were then in 
 communion with each other. They had " one bap- 
 tism : " and they were " all partakers of that one 
 bread.^' There was a bond of union, a connection be- 
 tween them ; the bond of " one faith,^' and the unity 
 of Christian love (Eph. iv. 4, 5 ; and 1 Cor. x. 17; 
 Rom. xvi. 4) ; a bond also, a connection, arising out 
 of the authority exercised by the apostles over different 
 churches, more particularly by St. Paul over the 
 
 ' See particularly Rom. xvi. 1, 2, 16, and I Cor. xvi. 10, 19, 20, and 
 2 Cor. xiii. 13; Philip, iv. 21, 22 ; Col. iv. 10, 15, and 1 Pet. v. 13; and 
 see also 2 Cor. viii. 
 
 2 See Acts xviii. 27, 28. 3 gee 2 Cor. iii. 1. 
 
 M 
 
242 THE VISIBLE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. 
 
 churclies of the Gentiles. Epistles, wliich St. Paul 
 wrote to one churcli, he directed to be read in another 
 (Col. iv. 16, and 1 Thess. v. 27). Again—" So ordain 
 I '^ (wrote the same apostle) " in all the churches." 
 "That which cometh on me daily, the care of all 
 the churches." (1 Cor. vii. 17; 2 Cor. xi. 28.) The 
 expression "«// the churches'' is general: h\xihQ seems 
 to have left the care of the churches of Judsea to the 
 other apostles, he and Barnabas going to the heathen, 
 James, Peter^ and John to the circumcision (Gal. ii. 9) . 
 Again — to the Corinthians St. Paul wrote : ^' I praise 
 you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and 
 keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you." 
 (1 Cor. xi. 2.) " Concerning the collection for the 
 saints, as I have given order to the churches of Gala- 
 tia, even so do ye." (1 Cor. xvi. 1.) The churches 
 also of Judaea, having been the first settled, and having 
 the apostles (except St. Paul) residing among them for a 
 time, seem to have set an example which was followed 
 by other churches. " Ye, brethren " (wrote St. Paul to 
 the Thessalonians), " became followers of the churches 
 of God which in Judsea are in Christ Jesus." (1 Thess, 
 ii. 14.) And, in general, the authority exercised by 
 the apostles preserved, to a certain extent, uniformity 
 of practice among different churches. " We have no 
 such custom " (wrote St. Paul to the Corinthians), 
 " neither the churches of God." (1 Cor. xi. 16.) But 
 this very expression shews, that there was then no 
 visible universal church. Had such a church then 
 existed, the apostle would scarcely have so written — 
 
THE VISIBLE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. 243 
 
 but rather — "We have no such custom, neither the 
 UNIVERSAL (the catholic) church of God/^ 
 
 There was, in the time of the apostles, this bond of 
 union among the churches. But, except as the churches 
 were all subject to the general superintending authority 
 of the apostles, I cannot discover in the New Te^^ta- 
 ment any organization of an universal visible church, 
 whether considered as consisting of all the members of 
 each independent church, or as combining the different 
 local churches into a federal body. The apostles have 
 left no directions on record, by what form of govern- 
 ment all professing Christians are to be joined to- 
 gether in one visible church, or how different local 
 churches are to be federally united: nor did they 
 attempt to appoint successors, in whom their general 
 superintending authority over the churches should vest. 
 When the last surviving apostle died, that authority 
 ceased ; and we find no substitute for it provided in 
 scripture. We find, indeed, a superintending autho- 
 rity given to Timothy over the church at Ephesus, and 
 to Titus over the disciples in the different cities of 
 Crete : and we find mentioned the " angels ^' or 
 bishops, of the seven churches of Asia : but we find no 
 rulers (except the apostles) over these bishops, nor any 
 provision for calling general councils. 
 
 During the lives of the apostles there was no one 
 head on earth of the visible universal church. Every- 
 where in scripture Christ is spoken of as the Head of 
 his church (Eph. i. 22; iv. 15). The apostles were 
 all on an equality. Our Lord (as we have seen) repeat- 
 M 2 
 
244 THE VISIBLE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. 
 
 edly reproved claims to pre-eminence among the twelve 
 whom he himself had appointed. St. Paul was recog- 
 nized by the other apostles as an apostle on an equality 
 with themselves ; and to him was peculiarly committed 
 the apostleship of the Gentiles by our Lord himself, as 
 the apostles James and Peter and John acknowledged 
 (Gal. ii. 9). To the apostles, indeed, our Lord committed 
 the supreme rule over his church : but, while they 
 acted in harmony and concert with each other, they 
 do not appear to have adopted any plan for exercising 
 jointly this authority. On one occasion, and one oc- 
 casion only, they met in council to decide on a 
 question which had arisen in the church ; and it is 
 necessary carefully to examine the proceedings on 
 this occasion, and inquire whether they form a pre- 
 cedent for holding general councils after the death of 
 all the apostles. But, for this purpose, we must trace 
 shortly the previous history of the church, and its state 
 at the time when the council was held ; though many 
 parts of this history have already been separately no- 
 ticed, as bearing upon other questions. After the day 
 of Pentecost, the church at Jerusalem, under the im- 
 mediate superintendence of the apostles, increased 
 rapidly in numbers till the martyrdom of Stephen 
 (Acts ii. to vi. passim). Then " there was a great 
 persecution against the church which was at Jerusa- 
 lem j and they were all scattered abroad throughout 
 the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the 
 apostles ; " and they " went everywhere preaching the 
 word.^^ They ^' travelled as far as Phenice, and 
 
THE VISIBLE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. 245 
 
 Cyprus, and Antioch/' (Acts viii. 1, 4; xi. 19.) 
 Meanwhile Saul, the persecutor, had been converted, 
 and called to be an apostle (Acts ix. 1 — 22). " Then 
 had all the churches rest throughout all Jud^a and 
 Galilee and Samaria, and were edified ; and walk- 
 ing in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the 
 Holy Ghost, were multiplied. ^^ (Acts ix. 31.) Parti- 
 cular notice is taken of the respective churches in the 
 cities of Samaria and Antioch : and both appear to 
 have been very considerable. (Acts viii. 5 — 8, 12, 
 14—17; xi. 20—25.) From the church at Antioch, 
 Paul and Barnabas were, by express direction of the 
 Holy Spirit, sent forth on a missionary journey, in 
 which they travelled through Cyprus ^ PamphyUa, 
 Pisidia, and Lycaonia^ and ^^ ordained them elders 
 in every church : " and, when they had accomplished 
 this work, they returned to Antioch, " and there abode 
 long time with the disciples.^^ (Acts xiii. xiv.) 
 
 From this survey of the progress of the gospel we 
 learn, that, before the return of Paul and Barnabas to 
 Antioch, there were already churches established 
 throughout Judaea, Galilee, and Samaria ; in Cyprus, 
 Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Lycaonia; and that there 
 were disciples, probably churches, in Phenice. 
 
 It was afterwards, and while Paul and Barnabas 
 abode at Antioch, that certain men came down from 
 Judaea, and taught the disciples in that city, that, un- 
 less they were circumcised after the manner of Moses, 
 they could not be saved. " When, therefore, Paul and 
 Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with 
 
246 THE VISIBLE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. 
 
 them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and 
 certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto 
 the apostles and elders about this question .... And 
 when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received 
 of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they 
 declared all things that God had done with them. But 
 there rose up certain of the sect of the pharisees which 
 believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise 
 them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. 
 And the apostles and elders came together for to con- 
 sider of this matter. And when there had been much 
 disputing, Peter rose up ;" and, after reminding those 
 who were assembled of the circumstances of the con- 
 version of Cornelius and his Gentile friends, asked — 
 " Why tempt ye Go(l, to put a yoke upon the neck of 
 the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were 
 able to bear ? But we believe that through the grace 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as 
 they. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave 
 audience to Paul and Barnabas, declaring what mira- 
 cles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles 
 by them." James then addressed the brethren ; and 
 concluded in these words — '^ My sentence is, that we 
 trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are 
 turned to God : but that we write unto them that they 
 abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, 
 and/ro?7^ things strangled, and/ro?/i blood. For Mo- 
 ses of old time hath in every city them that preach 
 him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. 
 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole 
 
THE VISIBLE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. 247 
 
 church, to send chosen men of their own company to 
 Antioch with Paul and Barnabas : namely y Judas sur- 
 named Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the 
 brethren : and they wrote letters by them after this 
 manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send 
 greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles 
 in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia : Forasmuch as we 
 have heard that certain which went out from us have 
 troubled you with words, subverting your souls, say- 
 ing. Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law : to 
 whom we gave no such commandment : it seemed good 
 unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send 
 chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and 
 Paul, men who have hazarded their lives for the name 
 of Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and 
 Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. 
 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, 
 to lay upon you no greater burden than these neces- 
 sary things : that ye abstain from meats offered to 
 idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and 
 from fornication : from which if ye keep yourselves, 
 ye shall do well. Fare ye well '' (Acts xv. 1 — 29). 
 
 The council being thus concluded, Paul and Barna- 
 bas returned with Judas and Silas to Antioch, and de- 
 livered the epistle to the disciples, which when " they 
 had read, they rejoiced for the consolation " (Acts xv. 
 30, 31). Afterwards Paul and Silas " went through 
 Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches. Then came 
 he to Derbe and Lystra,^^ cities of Lycaonia ,i and he 
 
 ^ Acts xiv. 6. 
 
248 THE VISIBLE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. 
 
 took Timothy to travel with him. " And as they went 
 through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for 
 to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders 
 which were at Jerusalem. And so were the churches 
 established in the faith, and increased in number daily. 
 Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the 
 regions of Galatia," &c. (Acts xv. 40, 41 ; xvi. 1 — 6.) 
 
 Let us now examine this narrative. 
 
 The question about circumcision was raised by some, 
 who had gone to Antioch from the church at Jerusa- 
 lem, but to whom that church had given no such ^ 
 commission. The church, indeed, at Jerusalem in 
 their letter admitted, that these men " went out '^ from 
 them ; but, after adverting to their doctrine, denied 
 having authorized them to go to Antioch and teach 
 such doctrine. These men seem to have represented 
 themselves as teachers from Jerusalem; and the dis- 
 ciples at Antioch probably concluded that they came 
 with authority from the twelve apostles, and were thus 
 perplexed between the authority of these new teachers 
 and that of Paul. It was, therefore, natural to appeal 
 to the twelve and to the church also at Jerusalem, from 
 which the disciples at Antioch had first received the 
 word, and from which these new teachers (though un- 
 
 ^ The expression used respecting them by the church at Jerusalem in 
 their circular letter is — oh e dieTeiXd/xe^a — literall3% '•' to whom we gave 
 no commandment" — where the authorised version supplies the word 
 " such'" — " to whom we gave no S7j,ch commandment ;" viz. to teach such 
 doctrine. This may be the meaning. But I rather think, the church 
 intended to disavow having sent them at all, or given them any com- 
 mission. 
 
THE VISIBLE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. 249 
 
 commissioned) had come. And, though Paul, by vir- 
 tue of his apostolic authority, might have decided the 
 question himself, the peace and prosperity of the whole 
 Christian church was much better consulted, by refer- 
 ring the matter to " the apostles and elders " at Je- 
 rusalem. 
 
 The question was referred, not to the apostles only, 
 but to " the apostles and elders " at Jerusalem, to the 
 apostles — the appointed rulers of the universal church 
 — and to the elders — the rulers and pastors under 
 them of the church which was at Jerusalem. Though 
 the apostles, by virtue of their power to bind and to 
 loose, had authority of themselves to decide this ques- 
 tion, the reference to " the apostles and elders '' was 
 obviously a wise measure. The doctrine taught by the 
 new teachers was a doctrine " subverting ^' the " souls " 
 of those who received it : and yet it was one, in favour 
 of which Jewish prejudice ran strong. A decision, 
 therefore, of the question by the unanimous opinion 
 both of the apostles and of the elders of the church at 
 Jerusalem (most of them probably, if not all, con- 
 verted Jews,) was obviously best calculated to settle it 
 to the satisfaction of all parties, and restore harmony 
 to the churches. 
 
 " The APOSTLES and elders came together for to 
 consider of this matter.^' These, it should seemj con- 
 stituted the whole deliberative body of the council. 
 To them only the question was by the church at An- 
 tioch referred : they only are mentioned as having 
 come together "to consider of this matter; ^^ and, 
 
 M 5 
 
250 THE VISIBLE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. 
 
 without noticing any others as present, the inspired 
 historian immediately adds : " And when there had 
 been much disputing, Peter rose up and said unto 
 them." Yet others were present. We afterwards 
 find, that *' all the multitude gave audience to Bar- 
 nabas and Paul : '' and the letters sent by the council 
 were written in the name of " the apostles and 
 ELDERS AND BRETHREN.'^ Thc brethren, therefore, 
 were present as well as the apostles and elders. They 
 also acquiesced in the opinion expressed by Peter and 
 James, though they do not appear to have taken any 
 part in the discussion. The letters were written with 
 the concurrence of '^ the apostles and elders" and 
 " the whole church," and in the name of " the apostles 
 and elders and brethren" — though the letters are 
 afterwards mentioned as " the decrees," " that were 
 ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Je- 
 rusalem." (Acts xvi. 4, 5.) 
 
 A council thus constituted — a council comprising all 
 those to whom our Lord had given power to *' loose " 
 and to " bind " — a council assembled to consider 
 whether the Gentiles should be loosed from or bound 
 by the ritual law of Moses — was, in pronouncing its 
 unanimous decision, well entitled to say : *' It seemed 
 good to the Holy Ghost, and to us.^' But such lan- 
 guage becomes no council that has been since holden ; 
 because, since the death of the apostles, no council has 
 been or can be holden, whose decisions have the pro- 
 mise made to the apostles : *^ Whatsoever ye shall 
 bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatso- 
 
THE VISIBLE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. 251 
 
 ever ye shall loose on eartli shall be loosed in heaven/^ 
 (Matt, xviii. 18.) 
 
 Does this council, in other respects — in its constitu- 
 tion and proceedings — exhibit a model for subsequent 
 councils ? Can it be considered as a general council ? 
 In one point of view it was rather a council or synod 
 of the church which was at Jerusalem — for Paul and 
 Barnabas and their companions were sent '^ to Jeru- 
 salem unto the apostles and elders about '^ the ques- 
 tion of circumcision : and they were, at Jerusalem, 
 '' received of the church, and of the apostles and 
 elders.'^ In another point of view, it was a general 
 council — for it comprised all the apostles, all the ap- 
 pointed rulers of the universal church. But it can 
 scarcely be considered as a general council in any 
 other sense. While it comprised all the elders of the 
 church which was at Jerusalem, it comprised but few 
 members of the church of Antioch, none of the brethren 
 from Phenice, no representatives (except the apostles 
 and elders that were at Jerusalem) of the churches of 
 Judaea, Galilee, and Samaria, no member of the 
 various churches in Cyprus, Pamphylia, Pisidia, and 
 Lycaonia, over which Paul and Barnabas had appointed 
 elders. Guided, as this council was, by the then rulers 
 of the universal church— rulers to whom the Holy 
 Spirit had been granted in such fulness as to preserve 
 them from all error in what they authoritatively taught 
 or authoritatively decreed — its unanimous decision 
 could not but be binding on all the churches. The 
 letters, accordingly, of the council were addressed to the 
 
253 THE VISIBLE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. 
 
 brethren in Syria and Cilicia, as well as to the brethren 
 in Antioch who had sent the deputation; and the 
 decrees were delivered to other churches also " for to 
 keep/^ (Acts xv. 23 ; xvi. 4.) But, as this council 
 comprised not one diocesan bishop (indeed diocesan 
 bishops, as distinguished from elders, were then un- 
 known in the church), nor even an elder fi'om any 
 church except the churches of Jerusalem and iVntioch 
 (though there were then many other churches with 
 their elders), it presents no model for subsequent gen- 
 eral councils. If the principle on which its proceed- 
 ings were conducted were followed, elders would be 
 admitted to deliberate, and the laity to concur in the 
 decision. But, in truth, it was a council peculiarly 
 constituted, which furnishes neither model, nor pre- 
 cedent, nor principle for any other. 
 
 The messengers of the church of Antioch were sent 
 to '' the apostles and elders '^ which were at Jerusalem 
 for their judgment on the controversy which had arisen. 
 '^ The apostles and elders,^^ to whom the question was 
 so referred, deliberated and decided upon it. The laity 
 were present : and, without joining (as far as appears) 
 in the discussion, assented to and concurred in the deci- 
 sion, which is still called the decree of " the apostles 
 AND ELDERS. ^^ 'It docs uot foUow, that, when a council 
 meets to deliberate on the affairs of the general church, 
 or when a synod of a particular church meets to deli-* 
 berate on its own concerns, the laity are to be excluded 
 from taking a part in the deliberations : nor, on the 
 other hand, can the precedent be altogether relied 
 
THE VISIBLE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. 253 
 
 upon, as requiring their concurrence to give validity to 
 the decision. 
 
 In scripture, therefore, we find no individual marked 
 out as head on earth of the universal church, no plan 
 laid down of a council to govern it, no constitution de- 
 lineated for it. 
 
 It has by some been stated, that when a local or 
 territorial church sent forth evangelists or missionaries 
 to convert the inhabitants of another city or country, 
 and those evangelists or missionaries succeeded in 
 forming a new church, such new church regarded the 
 one from which it received the gospel, as the mother 
 church ; that its ministers paid obedience to the pre- 
 siding minister of the mother church ; and that, in this 
 manner, the bishop as well as the elders and deacons 
 of a new church became ecclesiastically subject to the 
 bishop of the mother church. This may, in some in- 
 stances, have been the case. But I can find no such 
 organization in scripture. When the question arose 
 respecting circumcision, the appeal was made by the 
 church at Antioch, not to the church at Jerusalem, 
 but " to the APOSTLES AND ELDERS '^ which wcrc at 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 Nor, indeed, except in the cases of Samaria and of 
 Antioch and of the churches settled by Paul and Bar- 
 nabas when sent forth by the church of Antioch (xlcts 
 viii. 1 — 17; xi. 19 — 26 : xiii. and xiv.), do we find in 
 scripture any churches established by persons sent 
 forth hy another church? The other Gentile churches 
 
 ' The apostle Paul, indeed, while preaching at Corinth received sup- 
 
254 THE VISIBLE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. 
 
 — the churches of Ephesus, Corinth, Colosse, Philippi, 
 and Thessalonica — were settled by St. Paul, acting on 
 his own authority as apostle ; not as sent on any mis- 
 sion by any other church. These were distinct churches, 
 not subordinate to any other church : and over them 
 Paul, " the apostle of the Gentiles," appears to have 
 exercised almost exclusive authority (Rom. xi. 13, and 
 1 Cor. vii. 17; xi. 2, 34; xvi. 1—3, and 2 Cor. xi. 6; 
 xiii. 2, 10). 
 
 We cannot, therefore, trace (independently of apos- 
 tolical superintendence) external unity in the time of 
 the apostles beyond this ; that, in various cities, the 
 different congregations were united into one local 
 church. To this extent, as we have seen, external 
 unity had then proceeded : and this precedent fur- 
 nishes us with a principle for further extending this 
 unity where circumstances lead the way — where, for 
 example, a mother church retains authority over neigh- 
 bouring churches which have sprung out from it, or 
 where the various churches scattered throughout a 
 country under a Christian government are united into 
 one national church. The precedent is the stronger in 
 favour of extended union, because the apostles carried 
 the system of combination as far as it could be carried 
 in their time, when all their proceedings were exposed 
 
 port from other churches (2 Cor. xi. 7 — 12) : but he was not sent by tJiese 
 churches. And other brethren, travelling to preach the gospel to the 
 heathen, were helped on their way by the disciples (3 John S— 8), as 
 Paul hoped to be helped by the Corinthians to proceed to regions beyond 
 them (2 Cor. x. 15, 16). But in neither case was the preacher considered 
 as sent forth by the church. 
 
THE VISIBLE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. 255 
 
 to the suspicion of a civil government avowedly heathen, 
 and were watched by the Jews with hostile jealousy. 
 And^ as we know from prophecy that all " the king- 
 doms of this world " shall " become the kingdoms of 
 our Lord, and of his Christ ^^ (Rev. xi. 15), we may 
 look forward to a period, when the whole world will 
 be both civilly and ecclesiastically under one Chris- 
 tian government, and the church of Christ will be 
 one and universal, externally and visibly, as well as 
 spiritually. At present, while the governments of 
 different nations have not even federal union, it seems 
 impracticable for the churches of different nations to 
 be united under odc ecclesiastical government ; but 
 towards this blessed result (that of the Church of 
 Christ being one visibly as well as in spirit) unity in 
 each national church is obviously an important step : 
 and I cannot but think, that, when the apostles formed 
 the different congregations of a city into one local 
 church, they set us an example, and pointed out the 
 way in which we should, under the divine blessing, 
 proceed towards the attainment of unity in the univer- 
 sal church. The territorial system is that to which 
 their example directs our attention. But this system 
 must be constructed with safeguards and regulations, 
 without which it may starve instead of feeding the flock, 
 — create instead of preventing schism. It is essential 
 to the right working of the system, that each district 
 should not be too large, either in extent or population, 
 for the pastor appointed to it, or to him and the assist- 
 ant minister or ministers appointed to labour with him. 
 
256 THE VISIBLE UNIVERSAL CHURCH. 
 
 It is essential, that, while the pastor is protected 
 against officious interference on the part of his supe- 
 rior, the controlling authority in the church should 
 have power not only to remove a minister who persists 
 in preaching fundamentally erroneous doctrine, but also 
 to supply, by nominating an assistant, the deficiency of 
 a minister who imperfectly performs his duty whether 
 from age or infirmity, or from negligence, ignorance, 
 or incompetency. When so constructed, the territorial 
 system,* will, under the divine blessing, proceed to- 
 wards the attainment of unity in the universal church. 
 The territorial system, whether under episcopalian or 
 presbyterian government, has a principle of combina- 
 tion which the congregational system has not. When 
 churches avowing the congregational or independent 
 system meet together in synod, they depart from their 
 own principle and verge towards presbyterianism : while, 
 on the other hand, friendly intercourse and Christian 
 love between national churches, holding the great truths 
 of the gospel, and administering in conformity to scrip- 
 ture the Christian sacraments, though dififering in some 
 particulars of external discipline, cannot but be regarded 
 as a happy movement towards the external unity of the 
 visible church. 
 
 ' I am simply speaking of a system, which assigns to a minister the 
 pastoral charge of a district, without entering into the question how far 
 and under what limitations he should be allowed to exclude other minis- 
 ters — a question of which we find no solution in Scripture. The autho- 
 rity to exclude has in this country been allowed and exercised to an 
 extent which has created, instead of preventing, schism. 
 
CHAPTER XI. 
 
 DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH, MAINTENANCE OF 
 MINISTERS, AND NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 The church, such as it was immediately after the day 
 of Pentecost, well corresponded with its title — " the 
 church of God ''—" the kingdom of God.'' '' They 
 continued,'' says the inspired historian, " stedfastly 
 in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in 
 
 BREAKING OF BREAD AND IN PRAYERS. . . And all that 
 
 believed were together, and had all things in common ; 
 and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them 
 to all men, as every man had need. And they, continu- 
 ing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking 
 bread from house to house, did eat their meat with glad- 
 ness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having 
 favour with all the people. And the Lord added daily 
 to the Church such as should be saved." (Acts ii. 
 42 — 47.) There was stedfastness in apostolic doctrine, 
 and Christian love, and the partaking of the Lord's 
 
258 DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 Supper, and the worship of God ; but in all these par- 
 ticulars we find a lamentable falling away afterwards, 
 even in the time of the apostles ; — false doctrine (Gal. i. 
 6 — 8, and 1 John iv. 1 — 3, and 2 John 7, and Jude 4), 
 schism, disorders both in administering the Lord's 
 Supper and in public worship. (1 Cor. i. 11 — 17, 
 xi. 17 — 22, xiv. 5 — 40.) There was also in the Pente- 
 costal church community of goods : but this practice of 
 the primitive church at Jerusalem was (as we have 
 seen') not intended to be perpetuated; nor, when 
 other churches were settled^ was it introduced into 
 them. But departure from " the apostles' doctrine 
 and fellowship,^' and disorder in the administration of 
 the sacrament or in pubHc worship, are, whenever 
 noticed in Scripture, marked with apostoUc censure : 
 and the churches of Judaea are, in one of the earliest ^ 
 of St. Paul's epistles which have been handed down to 
 us, held forth as an example for the imitation of other 
 churches. He commends the brethren of Thessalonica 
 for being '^ followers of the churches of God which in 
 Judaea are in Christ Jesus." (1 Thess. ii. 13, 14.) At 
 a later period, the same apostle, after censuring as un- 
 becoming a practice which had crept into the church of 
 Corinth, adds : " We have no such custom, neither the 
 churches of God." (1 Cor. xi. 16.) There was obvi- 
 ously, at this time, a certain measure of uniformity in 
 the customs of different churches. The apostles regu- 
 lated the practice of the different churches, delivering 
 
 ^ See ante, ch. v. 
 ^ See Tate's Continuous History of St. Paul, p. 50. 
 
DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH. 259 
 
 to them " ordinances " to *' keep " (1 Cor. xi. 2) ; of 
 which a specimen is preserved to us in the same epistle 
 (1 Cor. xiv. 26 — 40) — the general principle being : 
 " Let all things be done unto edifying ; " " Let 
 all things be done decently and in order" (ib. 26, 
 40). This general principle is obviously applicable to 
 every church, in every age, and under all circum- 
 stances : but the customs, prevalent generally through- 
 out the churches, are held forth by the apostle as cus- 
 toms which other churches would do well to follow, 
 rather than as customs which (except when resting on 
 moral grounds) they were absolutely bound to adopt. 
 
 Each church, of course, had authority within itself 
 to enforce its own practice,^ so far as it was consistent 
 with Christian principle, and necessary to the preserva- 
 tion of order ; and the special reproofs and directions, 
 which the apostle gives to the Corinthian church re- 
 specting their assemblies for public worship and the ad- 
 ministration of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. xi. 4, 5, 17 — 
 34, xiv. 5 — 40), necessarily imply, that the church 
 had power to rectify the abuses which he censured. 
 But the discipline, of which we read in the New Testa- 
 ment as exercised or to be exercised by the church 
 over its members, relates principally to controversies 
 between individuals, and to offences requiring the 
 censure of the church. 
 
 Our Lord himself gave directions respecting contro- 
 
 * The questions as to the administration of baptism, by whom and to 
 wliom it was administered, and as to the Lord's Supper, by whom it was 
 administered, have already been examined. Ante, ch. ii, vi, and vii. 
 
260 DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 versies between his disciples, in a passage which has 
 been already considered.^ When milder methods of 
 obtaining redress had been tried in vain, the injured 
 party was to " tell it to the church ;" and, if the 
 offender should neglect to ^' hear the church," then the 
 complainant might regard him as '^ a heathen man and 
 a publican ;" he was at liberty to seek redress as he 
 would against a heathen ; probably also the church 
 would exclude the offender from its communion till he 
 had submitted to its decision. The church, to which 
 the complaint was to be made, was (as we have seen) 
 either the particular or local church to which the of- 
 fender belonged : but our Lord did not specify whether 
 the church as a body, or its minister, or an arbitrator 
 appointed by the church, was to hear the complaint 
 and adjudicate it. St. Paul is more explicit on these 
 points. He wrote thus to the Corinthians. 
 
 " Dare any of you, having a matter against another, 
 go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints ? 
 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world ? 
 and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye un- 
 worthy to judge the smallest matters ? Know ye not 
 that we shall judge angels ? how much more things 
 that pertain to this present hfe ? If, then, ye have 
 judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to 
 judge who are least esteemed^ in the church. I speak 
 
 * I refer to Matt, xviii. 15 — 18, which has been considered, ante ch. ii. 
 
 - " Those who are least esteemed" t^s 4^8d^ev'qfi4v85 — which (it has 
 been thought) may mean private judges, or arbitrators appointed by the 
 parties ; such as are said to have been in use among the Jews. But the 
 apostle seems rather to speak of persons set to judge by the churchi 
 
DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH. 261 
 
 to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man 
 among you ? no, not one that shall be able to judge 
 between his brethren ? But brother goeth to law with 
 brother, and that before unbelievers. Now therefore 
 there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to 
 law one with another. Why do ye not rather suffer 
 yourselves to be defrauded ? Nay, ye do wrong, and 
 defraud, and that yo^ir brethren." (1 Cor. vi. 1 — 8.) 
 Great corruptions existed in the church of Corinth : 
 brother defrauded brother ; and the injured party, in- 
 stead of following our Lord's directions, went to law 
 with the offender, and that before the unbelievers, be- 
 fore the unjust, not before the saints. The apostle 
 reproves both parties, and (it seems) the church also ; 
 the offender for his fraud, the injured brother for going 
 to law, the church for not appointing a proper person 
 to judge between the brethren. In order that our 
 Lord^s injunctions might be carried into effect, the 
 apostle intimates that the Corinthians should appoint 
 a " wise man,'^ one "able to judge between his breth- 
 ren," to execute that office. He does not himself inter- 
 fere in the choice ; nor does he refer it exclusively to the 
 rulers of the church ; he addresses himself to the Co- 
 rinthian Christians in general. At the same time, the 
 tenor of his observations shows the gravamen of his 
 censure to have been, that Christian brethren went to 
 
 than of arbitrators chosen by the parties in controversy : and I think, 
 that the word is properly rendered in the authorized version, but that 
 the sentence should be read as a reproof—" Now, if ye have judgments 
 of things pertaining to this life, ye set them to judge who are least 
 esteemed in the church?" 
 
262 DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 law witli eacli other before unbelievers. By such con- 
 duct they brought scandal on then* profession^ and 
 exhibited themselves as actuated by worldly motives, 
 not by that love to the brethren which was the badge 
 of their discipleship — conduct whereby the progress of 
 the gospel was impeded. In courts, also, established 
 by a heathen government, judges presided who were 
 heathen, and whose proceedings and judgments were of 
 necessity conformable, not to the Christian rule or the 
 law of God, but to heathen laws and to heathen prin- 
 ciples. Such a tribunal could not justly settle differ- 
 ences between Christians; and, if the testimony of 
 Christians were required before such a tribunal, the 
 witnesses might be called upon to swear by them who 
 were no gods. We may, however, infer from St. Paul's 
 reasoning, that, when the government of a country has 
 become avowedly Christian, when Christianity is held 
 to be part and parcel of the law of the land, and the 
 judges are at least by profession Christians,^ the 
 
 ^ Now that some are eagerly seeking to unchristianize our yet pro- 
 fessedly Christian legislature, it deserves consideration what effect such 
 an organic change may have on our courts of law. If Jews are admitted 
 into the legislature, can any reason remain for not raising them to the 
 bench?— nay, if admitted into the House of Lords, they will thereby 
 become members of the supreme court of justice. I say nothing of the 
 incongruity of a minister of the gospel offering up (as the case might 
 happen) prayers in a congregation consisting exclusively of the speaker 
 and clerks, all of the Jewish persuasion, and consequently blasphemers 
 of that holy name in which the prayers are offered up — this incongruity 
 has no bearing on the subject now under discussion: but I ask, whether 
 a Christian could, consistently with our Lord's injunction as interpreted 
 by St. Paul, go to law with a Christian before a Jew, or a professed 
 unbeliever ? 
 
DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH. 263 
 
 directions of our Lord in this particular are observed 
 in the spirit, if not in the letter also, by those, who, 
 before they go to law, endeavour, by private repre- 
 sentation and the intervention of Christian friends, to 
 bring about a reasonable accommodation. 
 
 Such are the directions contained in the New Testa- 
 ment for settling the disagreements which may arise 
 between Christians. Provision is also made for the 
 exercise of discipline by the church over its members. 
 The offences in respect of which, under apostolic au- 
 thority, we find this discipline exercised or directed to 
 be exercised, may be generally classed as (1) offences 
 against the moral precepts of the law or the gospel ; 
 (2) schism ; (3) heresy, or departure from the funda- 
 mental doctrines of the gospel. The discipline exer- 
 cised was exclusion from the church and from Christian 
 fellowship, and on repentance re-admission ; this ex- 
 clusion, in the case of ministers, involving deposition 
 or suspension from the ministry, while ministers pos- 
 sibly were sometimes silenced without being excom- 
 municated. This will appear on an examination of the 
 different particulars. 
 
 1. The case of the incestuous member of the Co- 
 rinthian church, which has already been fully consi- 
 dered ^ in connection with another subject, is a case in 
 which we find exhibited both the exclusion and the re- 
 admission of one who had committed a great and 
 scandalous sin — we find in this case a solemn excom- 
 
 ^ See ante, ch. ii. 
 
264 DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 inunication and a subsequent absolution on repentance. 
 Again — to the Thessalonians St. Paul writes : " We 
 command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every 
 brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tra- 
 dition which he received of us :^' and, after explaining 
 what he meant by walking disorderly — " there are 
 some which walk among you disorderly, working not 
 at all, but are busy bodies " — and giving some appro- 
 priate exhortations against such conduct, he adds, 
 " if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note 
 that man, and have no company with him, that he may 
 be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but 
 admonish him as a brother." (2 Thess. iii. 6, 11, 
 14, 15.) 
 
 2. St. Paul gave to the Romans a general direction 
 as to schismatics. " Mark them which cause divisions 
 and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have 
 learned; and avoid them." (Rom. xvi. 17.) Avoid 
 them — a command which seems necessarily to involve 
 exclusion from the church, at least from the society of 
 Christians. 
 
 3. With regard to heretics, we have St. PauPs 
 direction to Titus. *' A man that is an heretic after 
 the first and second admonition reject." (Tit. iii. 
 10.) The rejection ^ commanded in this passage im- 
 ports exclusion from the church. The same apostle 
 
 * " Reject" — •Ko.po.i.rov. The word clearly means to refuse admission 
 into the class of widows, in 1 Tim. v. 11, and to reject, in Heb. xii. 25, 
 and in 1 Tim. iv. 7- 
 
DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH. 265 
 
 warns Timothy to hold " faith and a good conscience ; 
 which some having put away concerning faith have 
 made shipwreck : of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexan- 
 der ; whom '^ (the apostle adds) '^ I have delivered 
 unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme ^^ 
 (1 Tim. i. 19, 20.) He had excluded them from the 
 church, the kingdom of God ; and they had in conse- 
 quence become the slaves of Satan, the prince of this 
 world. He had excommunicated them, in order to 
 bring them to repentance. 
 
 It is necessary further to examine, hy whom, in these 
 several cases, this discipline was exercised. In the 
 case of the offending member of the Corinthian church, 
 the apostle Paul himself pronounced the sentence of 
 excommunication (1 Cor. v. 3 — 5) : and afterwards (as 
 in such a case no one else could remit the sentence) 
 solemnly forgave him in the name of Christ (2 Cor. ii. 
 10). But the church might themselves have excom- 
 municated the offender : for the apostle severely re- 
 proved them for not having done so (1 Cor. v. 1, 2). 
 In like manner the direction respecting those who 
 caused divisions is given to the brethren generally at 
 Rome ; and the direction respecting any brother, who 
 walked disorderly, or disobeyed the apostle's word by 
 his epistle, is given to " the church of the Thessalo- 
 nians." In cases, therefore, of this description — 
 offences of the two first classes committed by private 
 Christians — each church has authority, and it is its 
 duty, to excommunicate the offender, unless on warn- 
 ing and expostulation he repent : and, though the 
 
266 DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 apostle in these passages does not specify in what 
 manner the. church is to exercise this authority, yet, 
 from the directions which the same apostle gave to the 
 Corinthians respecting controversies between disciples, 
 we may conclude that it is to be exercised, not by the 
 church or congregation assembled as a body, but either 
 by its rulers or by a judge appointed for the purpose 
 — the particular mode of constituting the tribunal 
 being left to the church or its rulers. In all the 
 recorded cases of the third class, the sentence was 
 pronounced or to be pronounced by a superior ruler — 
 it was pronounced by the apostle in the cases of Hy- 
 menseus and Alexander ; and it was to be pronounced, 
 in the case of a heretic, by Titus, to whom the apostle 
 had given authority over the churches of Crete. We 
 may conjecture, though it does not distinctly appear, 
 that Hymenseus and Alexander were ministers; and that 
 in speaking of '^ a man that is an heretic," the apostle 
 referred principally to teachers of false doctrine. There 
 are obvious reasons why the congregation should not 
 take upon itself to excommunicate or depose their 
 minister; though, if the minister preaches doctrine 
 fundamentally opposed to the gospel which the apostle 
 preached, the congregation (as we have seen) are re- 
 quired to withdraw from his ministry ; and Christians 
 are forbidden to receive him into their houses. 
 
 It should further be observed, that, if there is no 
 scriptural authority for a minister being deposed or 
 suspended except by a superior ruler, then there is no 
 provision made in scripture for the case of a supreme 
 
DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH. 267 
 
 minister of an independent church — its bishop, for ex- 
 ample — falling into heresy or any scandalous sin ; 
 though it is obvious, from the many warnings con- 
 tained in the New Testament against false and wicked 
 teachers, that such cases were to be expected. It was 
 left to the church to find a remedy for such cases, as 
 they should arise : and we have here a further particu- 
 lar, in which the apostles have not been directed to 
 leave on record a minute delineation of the constitution 
 of the church. 
 
 It is important, before we quit this subject, to re- 
 mark — jirst, that, though an apostle in a very few 
 special cases inflicted miraculous punishment, such 
 power was neither transmitted to any other individual 
 nor committed to any church ; nor was any temporal 
 consequence annexed to excommunication beyond the 
 loss of Christian society — exclusion, not from the com- 
 mon offices of humanity, but only from the closer and 
 more affectionate ties of Christian brotherhood ; and, 
 secondly i that the discipline of excommunication was 
 exercised with the utmost tenderness towards the 
 offender, having for its two-fold object his reformation, 
 and the preservation of the purity of the church. 
 
 That the power of miraculous punishment was re- 
 stricted to the apostles, and was by them exercised 
 only in special cases, and under special direction, has 
 been already shewn -} and that the excommunicated 
 member of a church was not to be excluded from the 
 
 Ante, ch. iv. 
 
 N 2 
 
268 DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 common offices of humanity or from dealings in ordinary 
 matters of business^ may be inferred from our Lord's 
 direction : " Let him be unto thee as an heathen man 
 and a pubhcan^' (Matt, xviii. 17), as interpreted by the 
 parable of the Samaritan : and the same principle is 
 distinctly laid down by the apostle^ when, after direct- 
 ing the Thessalonians to ^' have no company with '^ 
 any man that obeyed not his word by that epistle, he 
 adds ; " Yet count him not as an enemy, but admo- 
 nish him as a brother" (2 Thess. iii. 14, 15). The 
 direction respecting a man of immoral character who 
 " is called a brother " — " with such an one no not to 
 eat" (1 Cor. v. 11) — forbids, not the common trans- 
 actions of business or acts of common humanity, but 
 friendly intercourse — such intercourse as would en- 
 courage the offender, or expose the gospel to be blas- 
 phemed. 
 
 The passage also, just cited from the second epistle 
 to the Thessalonians, shews the tenderness towards the 
 offender, with which the discipline of the church was 
 exercised in the time of the apostles. The principle is 
 further illustrated by the apostle^s direction to Titus 
 respecting ^' a man that is an heretic. '^ He was sim- 
 ply to reject '^ him — and that not till ^^ after a first and 
 second admonition." In the same spirit the same 
 apostle writes to the Galatians : " If a man be over- 
 taken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such 
 an one in the spirit of meekness" (Gal. vi. 1). Even 
 when he threatened some among the Corinthians with 
 
 ^ " Reject*"— as to the meaning of this word, see ante, p. 264. 
 
DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH. 269 
 
 chastisement by the exercise of his miraculous powers 
 as an apostle^ he spoke of that power as given him by 
 our Lord " to edification^ and not to destruction '^ 
 (2 Cor.xiii. 2,3, 10; x. 1—8). 
 
 Both objects of excommunication are specified by 
 the apostle, when directing the Corinthians to concur 
 in his sentence of excommunication against the inces- 
 tuous member of their church. He commands them, 
 as he had himself judged, " to deliver such an one 
 unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the 
 SPIRIT MAY BE SAVED in the day of the Lord Jesus " 
 (1 Cor. V. 5) : and asks — '^ Know ye not that a little 
 leaven leaveneth the whole lump ? Purge out therefore 
 the old leaven ^^ (ib. 6, 7). So when he excommuni- 
 cated Hymenseus and Alexander, it was '^ that they " 
 might " learn not to blaspheme" (1 Tim. i. 20) : and 
 doubtless he also contemplated in this proceeding the 
 benefit of the church ; for, writing (in his subsequent 
 epistle) to Timothy, respecting some, that " their word 
 will eat as doth a canker," he added, " of whom is 
 Hymenseus and Philetus : who concerning the truth 
 have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; 
 and overthrow the faith of some" (2 Tim. ii. 17. 18). 
 To prevent Hymenseus and Alexander from overthrow- 
 ing the faith of others could not but be one object, 
 which the apostle had in view when he excommuni- 
 cated them. 
 
 The next subject of inquiry is — what light the scrip- 
 tures throw on the question, so much agitated in the 
 present day, of the maintenance of ministers. 
 
270 MAINTENANCE OF MINISTERS. 
 
 That those, who preach the gospel, are to be pro- 
 vided with a competent maintenance, is clearly laid 
 down in the New Testament ; and a reason is assigned, 
 which commends itself to every man's sense of justice : 
 " the workman is worthy of his meat " (Matt. x. 10) — 
 '^the labourer is worthy of his hire '^ (Luke x. 7). In 
 the directions ^ which our Lord gave first to the twelve 
 apostles (Matt, x.9 — 15, Luke ix. 3 — 5), and afterwards 
 to the seventy disciples, he commanded them to " carry 
 neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes " (Luke x. 4 — 12) 
 while travelling on the journey on which he then sent 
 them ; but to claim the hospitality of those to whom 
 they came. These heralds of the gospel were, indeed, 
 endued with power to work miracles in attestation of 
 their divine mission : but the ground, on which our 
 Lord rested their claim to be hospitably received and 
 entertained, is equally applicable to every faithful 
 minister — " the labourer is worthy of his hire.'' iVnd 
 this ground remained unshaken, though, as has been 
 observed, our Lord gave them other directions, when a 
 more extensive commission was entrusted to them. 
 
 Accordingly, on this principle, the apostle Paul as- 
 serts his own right, and the right of all who preach 
 the gospel, to live of the gospel : " Who goeth a war- 
 fare at any time at his own charges ? Who planteth a 
 vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? Or who 
 feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock ? 
 .... If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it 
 
 ' These directions have been already considered, ante, eh. ii. 
 
MAINTENANCE OF MINISTERS. 271 
 
 a gi'eat thing if we shall reap your carnal things ? 
 If others be partakers of this power over you, are not 
 we rather ? Nevertheless we have not used this power ; 
 but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the Gospel 
 of Christ. Do ye not know that they which minister 
 about holy things live of the things of the temple ? 
 and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the 
 altar ? Even so hath the Lord ordained that 
 
 THEY WHICH PREACH THE GOSPEL SHOULD LIVE OF 
 
 THE GOSPEL. But I havc used none of these things : 
 neither have I written these things, that it should be 
 so done unto me : for it were better for me to die, 
 than that any man should make my glorying void." 
 (1 Cor. ix. 7—15.) 
 
 The apostle^s declaration of our Lord^s will, '' that 
 they which preach the gospel should live of the gos- 
 pel,'^ is not weakened, but strengthened, by his refusal, 
 under special circumstances, to receive maintenance 
 from a church in which he was ministering — the very 
 exceptions which he made, and the reasons which he 
 assigned for those exceptions, establish the general 
 principle. At Corinth he wrought at his occupa- 
 tion of a tent-maker (Acts xviii. 1 — 3) ; and " that 
 which was lacking to '^ him " the brethren which came 
 from Macedonia supplied.^' (2 Cor. xi. 9.) He chose 
 rather to '^ suffer all things, lest '^ he " should hinder 
 the Gospel of Christ : " yet he asserted the power to 
 belong to him, though he ^' used" it not. (1 Cor. ix. 
 12.) " I have preached to you " (he wrote to the Co- 
 rinthians) " the Gospel of God freely. I robbed other 
 
273 MAINTENANCE OF MINISTERS. 
 
 churches^ taking wages of them, to do you service. . . . 
 In all things I have kept myself from being burden- 
 some unto you, and so will I keep myself. As the 
 truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this 
 boasting in the regions of Achaia. Wherefore ? Be- 
 cause I love you not? God knoweth. But what I 
 do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from 
 them which desire occasion ; that wherein they glory, 
 they may be found even as we." {^l Cor. xi. 7 — 12.) 
 The same apostle assigns another reason for having 
 laboured for his own support while preaching the 
 gospel at Ephesus. ^^ I have coveted " (he declared in 
 his charge to the elders of Ephesus) " no man's silver, 
 or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that 
 these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and 
 to them that were with me. I have shewed you all 
 things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the 
 weak." (Acts xx. 33 — 35.) He assigns the same as 
 one of his reasons for maintaining himself, while he 
 preached the gospel to the then infant church of Thes- 
 salonica — but he assigns a further reason also, in terms 
 of exquisite tenderness. " Neither at any time used 
 we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloke of co- 
 vetousness ; God is witness : nor of men sought we 
 glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we 
 
 MIGHT HAVE BEEN BURDENSOME, AS THE APOSTLES 
 
 OF Christ. But we were gentle among you, even as 
 a nurse cherisheth her children : ^ so being affection- 
 
 ^ This expression refers obviously to the church of Thessalonica when 
 in its infancy. At a later period, " the brethren" " from Macedonia," 
 
MAINTENANCE OF MINISTERS. 273 
 
 ately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted 
 unto you, not the Gospel of Christ only, but also our 
 own souls, because ye were dear to us. For ye remem- 
 ber, brethren, our labour and travail : for labouring 
 night and day, because we would not be chargeable to 
 any of you, we preached unto you the Gospel of God/^ 
 (1 Thess. ii. 5 — 9.) " We behaved not ourselves dis- 
 orderly among you ; neither did we eat any man^s 
 bread for nought ; but wrought with labour and tra- 
 vail night and day, that we might not be chargeable 
 to any of you: not because we have not power, 
 but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow 
 us. For even when we were with you, this we com- 
 manded you, that if any would not work, neither should 
 he eat.'' (2 Thess. iii. 7—10.) 
 
 Thus did the apostle, writing both to the Corinthians 
 and to the Thessalonians, strongly assert his " power,'' 
 his right,^ to live of the gospel; while, at the same 
 time, he explained the reasons which had induced him, 
 in their cases, to forego the right. Nor did he assert 
 the right on behalf of the apostles only. The principle, 
 on which he asserts it, applies to all the preachers of 
 the gospel ; and in some of the passages quoted he ex- 
 pressly claims it for them. In other epistles he lays 
 down, without any reference to his own case, the duty 
 of maintaining the ministers of the gospel as incum- 
 
 among whom probably were some from Thessalonica, supplied what he 
 lacked at Corinth. (2 Cor. xi. 9.) 
 
 ' The Greek word i^ovala has this sense in these passages, as in Heb. 
 xiii. 10. Comp. Rev. xxii. 14. 
 
 N 5 
 
274 MAINTENANCE OF MINISTERS. 
 
 bent on tliose to whom they minister. '^ Let him that 
 is taught in the word communicate unto him that 
 teacheth, in all good things/' (Gal. vi. 6.) " Let the 
 elders that rule well be counted worthy of double 
 honour, especially they who labour in the word and 
 doctrine. For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not 
 muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The 
 labourer is worthy of his hire.'' (1 Tim. v. 17, 18.) 
 It is not necessary to decide, whether (as some think) 
 the word translated " honour " should in this passage 
 be rendered " wages " or " reward : ' ' for, even retain- 
 ing the established version, it is clear that the apostle 
 applies to the elders the scriptural doctrine, that '^ the 
 labourer is worthy of his hire." 
 
 These passages fully prove '^ that they which preach 
 the gospel should live of the gospel ; " and that the 
 duty of providing them with a maintenance lies on 
 those who hear the word, when (as in the time of the 
 apostles) no other provision is made for the purpose. 
 But the duty is not limited to the maintenance of the 
 minister by those to whom he ministers. The supply, 
 indeed, which the brethren from Macedonia furnished 
 to St. Paul, while preaching the gospel at Corinth, 
 may, perhaps, be considered as an expression of Chris- 
 tian love, rather than the performance of a strict (or 
 what moralists call a perfect) obligation. But the 
 same apostle, in the same epistle in which he declared 
 his resolution not to accept from the Corinthians a 
 maintenance while preaching the gospel to them, ex- 
 presses his " hope," that, when their '' faith is in- 
 
MAINTENANCE OF MINISTERS. 275 
 
 creased/^ he " shall be enlarged by " ^ them^ " to 
 preach the gospel in the regions beyond '^ them (2 Cor. 
 X. 15, 16). More distinctly still St. John wrote to the 
 well-beloved Gains — '^ Thou doest faithfully whatso- 
 ever thou doest to the brethren, and to strangers ; 
 which have borne witness of thy charity before the 
 church : whom if thou bring forward on their journey 
 after a godly sort, thou shalt do well : because that for 
 his name's sake they went forth, taking nothing of 
 THE Gentiles. We therefore ought to receive such, 
 that we might be fellowhelpers to the truth." (3 John 
 5 — 8.) The apostle here intimates, that missionaries 
 would go forth to preach the gospel to the Gentiles ; 
 that, till the Gentiles became converts to the faith, 
 these ministers would receive from them no support ; 
 and that it is the duty of Christians to be fellow-helpers 
 with such ministers, bringing them forward on their 
 journey, and furnishing them other assistance while 
 their circumstances need it. The same principle, fairly 
 carried out, imposes on the wealthier Christian the 
 duty of contributing from his wealth to the religious 
 instruction of his poorer brethren. 
 
 While the apostles thus plainly asserted the minister's 
 right to a maintenance, and enjoined on the disciples 
 the duty of providing that maintenance, they abstained 
 from enforcing the performance of the duty by any 
 other method than that of apostolical precept and moral 
 suasion. They prescribed no rule by which the contri • 
 
 ^ " Enlarged by" — so the established version. In the margin, " mag- 
 nified in. " 
 
276 MAINTENANCE OF MINISTERS. 
 
 bution of each disciple should be fixed — still less did 
 they threaten with ecclesiastical censures those who 
 should neglect their duty in this particular.* St. Paul 
 even chose to forego his claim in his own case on se- 
 veral occasions, rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. 
 Yet the very words, in which the apostle asserted his 
 right, seem to imply that he had authority to enforce 
 it. " If others be partakers of this power [i^sa-iaq) 
 over you, ai^e not we rather ? '' (1 Cor. ix. 12.) " Not 
 because we have not power" [e^aaiav) (S Thess. iii. 9). 
 And power obviously belongs to every society to ex- 
 clude from its privileges those, who will not contribute 
 to its burthens : while a Christian society should in no 
 case without necessity exercise this power, and never 
 should exclude any one who from poverty cannot con- 
 tribute. It is one peculiar glory of Christianity, that 
 '' to the poor the gospel is preached." Hence results 
 a duty incumbent on the rich, to provide the means of 
 Christian instruction and Christian worship both for 
 themselves and for the poor. 
 
 During the time of the apostles, all the governments 
 of the earth were heathen. To them therefore no pre- 
 cept could be addressed respecting the support of a 
 
 ^ Our Lord indeed declared to his apostles : " Whosoever shall not 
 receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or 
 city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be 
 more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judg- 
 ment than for that city" (Matt. x. 14, 15). And when he sent forth the 
 seventy, he pronounced a similar punishment against any city that should 
 not receive them. (Luke x. 10—12.) But the apostles do not appear to 
 have exercised this power for enforcing a maintenance from Gentiles. 
 
NATIONAL CHURCH. 277 
 
 Christian ministry. The churches of Christ in those 
 days were of necessity voluntary societies : but it does 
 not thence follow, that they were always so to continue, 
 or that it is not the duty of a Christian government to 
 secure to its people the means and opportunities of 
 Christian worship and Christian instruction. 
 
 This brings us to the last remaining question — Is it 
 the duty of a Christian government to maintain a Na- 
 tional Church ? The affirmative has, by different 
 writers, been established by arguments so unanswer- 
 able,' that T hesitate to enter upon the discussion, lest 
 I should weaken the force of what has already been 
 written : but my review of the Christian Church, as 
 exhibited in scripture, and of the instruction which 
 scripture furnishes for the guidance of states and indi- 
 viduals in respect of the Church, might seem incom- 
 plete, if I left this topic wholly unnoticed. Direct 
 precept, indeed, or example on this question, from o\u- 
 Lord and his apostles, we do not find recorded ; nor 
 could we expect to find either precept or example re- 
 specting the especial duties of a Christian ruler, as a 
 Christian, since, when the gospel was promulgated, no 
 Christian government existed. Yet we find laid down 
 in scripture general principles, from which it may be 
 satisfactorily deduced, that it is the duty of a Christian 
 ruler to maintain a national Church for the pure wor- 
 ship of God and the preaching of the gospel. 
 These scriptural principles are the following — 
 1 . It is the duty of the ruler to promote the welfare 
 
 * See (among others) McNeile's Lectures on the Church, Lect. iv. 
 
278 NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 of his subjects by every lawful method, according to 
 the power with which he is entrusted — and when I 
 speak of the ruler, I mean the individual or individuals, 
 whether one or many, to whom, by the laws and con- 
 stitution of the country, is entrusted the supreme au- 
 thority, executive or legislative. 
 
 2. The most eflPectual method, in which the ruler can 
 promote the welfare of his subjects, is by providing for 
 the worship of God and the teaching of true religion 
 throughout the nation ; — and, consequently, 
 
 3. It is the duty of a Christian ruler to provide (as 
 far as the authority committed to him by the constitu- 
 tion enables him to provide) for the support of a na- 
 tional Church, wherein God may be worshipped ; and 
 by the ministers whereof Christianity may be taught, 
 according to the truth of scripture, throughout the 
 length and breadth of the land, so that every subject 
 may have the opportunity, if he will use it, of joining 
 in such public worship, and hearing the gospel 
 preached. 
 
 I. The first of these propositions obviously follows 
 from St. PauFs doctrine respecting the ruler — " the 
 power." " He is the minister of God to thee for 
 good.'^ (Rom. xiii. 4.) The apostle is speaking of the 
 ruler^s office, though, when he wrote, the ruler's power 
 was often abused, and made an instrument of oppres- 
 sion. From the ruler's office, from the object for 
 which he is appointed of God, his duty necessarily 
 results. 
 
 II. The truth of the second proposition, as a scrip- 
 
NATIONAL CHURCH. 279 
 
 tural principle, will appear from the following consi- 
 derations. 
 
 1. If we would have the blessing of God rest upon a 
 nation, God must be worshipped by the people in sin- 
 cerity and truth. To this effect we have both the 
 plain declaration of scripture, that " righteousness ex- 
 alteth a nation : but sin is a reproach to any people " 
 (Prov. xiv. 34) — and those examples also, which are in 
 scripture written for our admonition. Repeated pro- 
 mises of temporal prosperity are made to the Israelites, 
 on condition of their obedience to the law of God, and 
 adherence to his appointed worship ; and calamities 
 the most fearful are repeatedly denounced against 
 them, in case they should prove disobedient, and espe- 
 cially in case of their departing from the worship of 
 Jehovah into idolatry ^ — while the exact fulfilment 
 both of these promises and of these threatenings is re- 
 corded in the historical books of the Old Testament. 
 The Israelites, indeed, were under a peculiar dispensa- 
 tion. But " these things - happened unto them for 
 ensamples : and they are written for our admonition, 
 upon whom the ends of the world are come " (] Cor. 
 x. 11) — for our admonition as individuals, and for our 
 admonition also as a nation, an admonition both to 
 
 ' See particularly Deut. xxviii. 
 ^ The apostle had just been speaking of the sins of the Israelites 
 while travelling in the wilderness, and the judgments inflicted on them 
 in consequence thereof; but the same observation equally applies to all 
 the dealings of God with them as recorded in Scripture — for the same 
 apostle, in another epistle, says : " Whatsoever things were written 
 aforetime were written for our learning." (Rom. xv. 4.) 
 
280 NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 rulers and to subjects. Promises made to the Israel- 
 ites as a nation, and woes denounced against them as 
 a nation, blessings bestowed and judgments inflicted 
 upon them as a nation, if ensamples at all, cannot but 
 be ensamples to nations and their rulers. 
 
 The dealings of God with other nations, as well as 
 with the Israelites, are recorded in Scripture. It was 
 on account of the iniquity of the Amorites, that the 
 Lord cast them out before the children of Israel. God 
 gave not their land to Abram — for in his time " the 
 iniquity of the Amorites " was " not yet full" — but 
 God promised to give it to his descendants " in the 
 fourth generation " after Israel should have gone into 
 Egypt (Gen. xv. 16); and he did cast out the Amo- 
 rites, who had done '' very abominably in following 
 idols " (1 Kings xxi. 26). It was, indeed, the deter- 
 minate counsel of God to give the land of Canaan (of 
 which the Amorites were a principal nation) to the 
 seed of Abraham for a possession : but this He did in 
 a way consistent with all His glorious attributes. He 
 cast out the inhabitants of Canaan, because their ini- 
 quity was full. He gave them time for repentance, 
 not casting them out, till their abominable idolatry 
 and the wickedness connected with it was at its height: 
 and then He at once inflicted just judgment upon 
 them, and performed His promise to Abraham. In 
 what glorious harmony do the faithfulness, justice, and 
 long-suff'ering mercy of God shine together throughout 
 the whole transaction ! 
 
 2. If we would have good laws obeyed, the people 
 
NATIONAL CHURCH. 281 
 
 must be instructed in true religion, which both teaches 
 uprightness, integrity, and honesty, and holds forth 
 such motives to just dealing between man and man as 
 are incomparably more constraining than prisons and 
 scourges and scaffolds. This is too plain to need any 
 proof: and so is my next remark. 
 
 3. If, where the people have a share or influence in 
 the legislature, we would have good laws made, the 
 people must be instructed in true religion, which alone 
 gives wisdom to legislate in conformity with the will 
 of God, and consequently for the maintenance of truth 
 and justice. 
 
 III. The third proposition is the obvious conclusion 
 from the other two — the conclusion at least, which 
 those cannot fail to draw, who acknowledge Christianity 
 as taught in the Bible to be the true^ and the only true 
 religion — and with such only I am now arguing. Yet 
 there are those, who, some on one ground and some on 
 another, deny the conclusion, while (at least in a gene- 
 ral way, and in some sense or another) they admit the 
 premises. The objections may be classed and an- 
 swered as follows. 
 
 1. Some contend that the establishment of a na- 
 tional church in connection with the state' is not the 
 
 ' Since this was written my attention has been called to the opinion of 
 the late Dr. Arnold, that the State should be the Church, or (in other 
 words) the church and state should be one society, rather than two allied 
 societies. (See Life of Dr. Arnold, passim, and especially vol. ii. p. 142.) 
 That the state should in every thing act on the principles of the gospel, 
 I agree : but it seems to me another and widely diiferent question, how 
 this object is to be secured — a question involving many questions — 
 
283 NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 right mode of promoting Christian worship or Christian 
 instruction. What other method they would have the 
 ruler adopt, they do not tell us : and it is sufficient to 
 meet this objection with the observation, that under 
 the Mosaic dispensation God appointed this very plan 
 of a ministry set apart for the purpose as the best plan 
 for perpetuating among his chosen people the pure 
 worship of himself and the knowledge of his will. This 
 was, indeed, a peculiar dispensation ; and I therefore 
 do not argue that all its peculiarities are to be followed 
 by a Christian government, that conformity (for exam- 
 ple) to the national worship should be enforced by tem- 
 poral penalties ; but the establishment of the Levitical 
 ministry furnishes the broad principle, that the best 
 method, by which the worship of God and the know- 
 ledge both of his will and of the sanctions and motives 
 by which it is enforced can be maintained in a nation, 
 is a ministry set apart for the purpose and provided by 
 law with a maintenance. 
 
 2. It is objected, that great difference of opinion 
 prevails respecting the right form of Christian worship 
 and the substance of Christian doctrine ; and that to 
 compel an individual to pay for the support of a reli- 
 
 whether those who are set apart to minister in holy things should, and 
 to what extent, and how, be allowed to interfere in the general legisla- 
 ture and government — whether to them alone should be entrusted all 
 legislation affecting the church — whether there should be one legislature, 
 and how composed, for church and state? These are questions left (as 
 far as I see) undecided in Scripture, and which will probably not be 
 solved till the " kingdoms of this world" " become the kingdoms of our 
 Lord and of his Christ." 
 
NATIONAL CHURCH. 283 
 
 gion, to which he conscientiously objects, is a violation 
 of the rights of conscience, and partakes of the nature 
 of persecution. A satisfactory answer to this objection 
 has been given, derived from our Lord^s command to 
 the Jews to pay tribute to Csesar (Matt. xxii. 21). 
 This he enjoined, though it was notorious that out of 
 the imperial revenues, sums were paid for the support 
 of idolatrous worship ! and our Lord thereby esta- 
 blished the principle, that it is the duty of the subject 
 to pay whatever taxes are imposed by " the powers that 
 be ;" and that the responsibility of applying the money 
 so raised rests, not with those who pay the taxes, but 
 with the government. Where indeed, as in this free 
 country, the people have either a share in or an influ- 
 ence over the government, it is not only lawful for an 
 individual, but in general it is his duty, so to use the 
 political power or influence with which he is intrusted 
 as to prevent or check (so far as in him lies) any appli- 
 cation, which he may judge wrong, of the public reve- 
 nue — to prevent or check its being applied to support 
 any false religion, or to carry on any unjust war, or to 
 further any other wicked purpose. Doing this he dis- 
 charges his own conscience from all responsibility as 
 to the application of the public revenue ; and, to what- 
 ever purpose it may be applied by those to whom the 
 application belongs, he is (in obedience to the apostle's 
 express command) bound to render " tribute to whom 
 tribute is due ; custom to whom custom. '' (Rom. 
 xiii. 7.) 
 
 3. Others, while they admit that the ruler should 
 
284 NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 (or at least may) enforce the contributions of his sub- 
 jects for the support of places of Christian worship and 
 the maintenance of Christian ministers, contend that 
 he has no authority to judge between different systems 
 assuming the name of Christianity, but should allow 
 each individual to choose among different denomina- 
 tions that to the support of which his contribution 
 shall be applied. According to these objectors the 
 ruler has authority to decide, that Christianity is the 
 only true religion— the only religion, which as ruler he 
 ought to support or countenance — and yet has no 
 authority to judge which, among the various forms of 
 religion calling themselves Christian, is the religion of 
 Christ. On what principle this opinion can rest, it is 
 not easy to discover. It overlooks the fact, that of 
 these various forms of religion, though all bearing the 
 name of Christian, some are so diametrically opposed 
 to others that both cannot be true — one must be fun- 
 damentally erroneous : that, under the name and guise 
 of Christianity, there exists a system of gross idolatry 
 and superstition ; and another system also, which robs 
 Christ of his glory and authority as one with the 
 Father, and his gospel of its essential and distinguish- 
 ing doctrines. Even in the apostle's days, there were 
 those v/ho preached '^ another gospel which is not ano- 
 ther" — no gospel at all — and on whom St. Paul pro- 
 nounced an anathema (Gal. i. 6 — 9). And we are ex- 
 pressly warned against " false teachers," " who privily " 
 should " bring in damnable heresies, even denying the 
 Lord that bought them " (2 Pet. ii. 1) ; against some 
 
NATIONAL CHURCH. 285 
 
 who, in the latter times, should " depart from the 
 faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of 
 devils,' speaking lies in hypocrisy/' (1 Tim. iv. 1, 2.) 
 If therefore the ruler draw no line of distinction be- 
 tween different systems bearing the name of Christian- 
 ity, he will inevitably give his sanction and the support 
 of the state not only to those ministers who preach 
 the gospel which Paul preached, but to those also who 
 preach " another gospel '' — to " false teachers," ^^ who 
 privily " " bring in damnable heresies, even denying 
 the Lord that bought them " — to apostate priests, 
 who preach for doctrines the commandments of men, 
 give " heed to seducing spirits," and superadd to the 
 worship of God the worship of demons. No precau- 
 tions, indeed, either on the part of the civil ruler or 
 of the church can altogether prevent false teachers 
 from creeping " unawares " into the ministry. But 
 the intrusion of such ministers into a pure branch of 
 Christ^s holy universal church is one thing ; the na- 
 tional support of a religion, which (though called Chris- 
 tian) is Antichristian in doctrine, or idolatrous and 
 superstitious in worship, is another. The sin, in the 
 one case, rests with the intruder, except so far as it 
 may sometimes be shared by the negligent ruler of the 
 church ; it rests, in the other case, with the civil go- 
 vernment. 
 
 4. Others, while they admit that the ruler should 
 establish a national religion, hold that it should be the 
 
 ^ Gr. daifxaviav — of daemons — demigods — deified men. 
 
286 NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 religion of the majority. Let us examine, whither this 
 principle fairly carried out will lead us. If the ma- 
 jority of the nation be heathen or Mahomedan, the 
 ruler, though by profession a Christian, must support 
 (as the case may be) heathenism or Islamism. If the 
 majority of the nation belong to the apostacy foretold 
 by the apostle Paul {2 Thess. ii. 3), the ruler must sup- 
 port that apostacy, as the national religion, though the 
 apostacy or its head be the " man of sin,'^ " the son 
 of perdition who opposeth and exalteth himself above 
 all that is called God,^^ " that Wicked . '. . . whom the 
 Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and 
 shall destroy with the brightness of his coming ; eveti 
 him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with 
 all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all 
 deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish.^^ 
 (2 Thess. ii. 3 — 10.) If the majority of the nation 
 adhere to the Babylon of the Apocalypse (Rev. xvii.), 
 the ruler must set up the religion of Babylon as that 
 of the state, regardless of the warning voice from 
 heaven — " Come out of her, my people, that ye be not 
 partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her 
 plagues.^^ (Rev. xviii. 4.) To those, who, calmly con- 
 templating these consequences,^ can still cling to the 
 
 ^ It has been clearly shown, by Protestant commentators, that the 
 marks both of the apostacy foretold in the second epistle to the Thessa- 
 lonians, and of the Babylon described in the Apocalypse, are the dis- 
 tinctive marks of the Papacy ; but it is foreign to my present purpose to 
 enter into this question. Whatever be the apostacy foretold by St. 
 Paul, or the Babylon seen in vision by St. John, my argument is equally 
 conclusive against the principle, in opposition to which I urge it. 
 
NATIONAL CHURCH. 287 
 
 principle that the ruler should support, as the national 
 religion, that religion which the majority prefer — be it 
 what it may, or at least if it be nominally Christian — 
 it is useless to offer further argument. 
 
 5. Others object, that, if it is the duty of a Christian 
 ruler to provide for the nation Christian instruction 
 and the opportunities of Christian worship, it is equally 
 the duty of a Mahomedan ruler to maintain Islamism, 
 and of a heathen ruler to maintain polytheism and 
 idolatry. And they imagine, that they have thus over- 
 thrown the principle of a national church by deducing 
 from it an absurd consequence. But no such conse- 
 quence can be deduced from it. It does not follow, 
 that, because a Christian ruler does right when he 
 supports the true religion of Jesus Christ as the 
 national religion, a Mahomedan ruler therefore does 
 right when he supports the religion of the false pro- 
 phet, or a heathen ruler when he supports idolatry and 
 polytheism. He, and he only, acts right, who both 
 has a right rule of conduct and observes that rule ; 
 and the objection now under consideration rests on a 
 tacit assumption of a false proposition. It assumes 
 either that each man's conscience, whether well or ill 
 informed, is a right rule to him, or that it matters not 
 whether a man follow a right or a wrong rule, provided 
 he think it a right rule. Lay aside the erroneous 
 assumption, and the objection falls to the ground. 
 The Christian ruler, who adopts the pure gospel of 
 Christ for the national religion, does right, because he 
 both has a right rule of conduct and observes it ; while 
 
288 NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 neither the Mahomedan ruler supporting Islamism, nor 
 the heathen ruler supporting idolatry and polytheism, 
 acts right, because his rule of conduct is wrong, how- 
 ever strictly he may take it for his guide. Would 
 then the Mahomedan or heathen ruler act right, if he 
 established Christianity ? Certainly not, so long as 
 he did not believe in Christianity, for in so doing he 
 would depart from the rule which (though erroneously) 
 he believes to be right. His is the unhappy condition 
 common to every one in respect of those things, con- 
 cerning which his conscience is ill-informed. He does 
 wrong, if in those things he acts according to his 
 conscience,' because his conscience is in error : he does 
 wrong if he acts against his conscience, because he 
 violates what he believes to be the right rule. 
 
 I enter not into the many questions which arise out 
 of the connection between church and state, and are 
 involved in the establishment of a national church — 
 such as — the relation in which a church so established 
 stands to the state — the extent to which the state may 
 be entitled to interfere in the appointment of ministers 
 to offices or stations in the church — the extent to 
 which the state may be entitled to controul the dis- 
 
 ' Paul " verily thought with" himself that he " ought to do man}' 
 things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth ;" and so thinking he 
 persecuted the disciples. But in this he (after his conversion) speaks of 
 himself as having been " a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious," 
 who " obtained mercy because" he "did it ignorantly in unbelief:"' and 
 le adds, "that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of 
 whom I am chief." (Acts xxvi. 9—11 and 1 Tim. i. 13, 15.) He needed, 
 and obtained, mercy for the sin. 
 
NATIONAL CHURCH. 289 
 
 cipline, canons, legislation, and judicature of the 
 church — the nature and (if any) the limits of religious 
 toleration. On these and similar questions, as affect- 
 ing a Christian government, nothing can be found in 
 Scripture beyond such general principles as I have 
 already noticed. 
 
 It is, however, necessary to observe, that those 
 general principles do not authorize a Christian govern- 
 ment to impose on any one conformity to the national 
 church,^ or to attach to excommunication any civil 
 consequences 2 — still less do they authorise the church, 
 or any individual, to withhold from the excommunicated 
 person the common offices of humanity.^ I think non- 
 
 ^ Our Lord declared. : " My kingdom is not of this world" (John xviii. 
 36) : and his apostle Paul : " The weapons of our warfare are not car- 
 nal." (2 Cor. X. 4.) A time, indeed, is foretold when " the kingdoms 
 of this world" will " become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ" 
 (Rev. xi. 15) : but conformity to the gospel of Christ will then be volun- 
 tary, not constrained. 
 
 ^ Formerl}' excommunication by our spiritual courts not only disabled 
 the party from suing in the temporal courts, but subjected him to im- 
 prisoment under a writ " de excommunicato capiendo" — a practice de- 
 rived (I conceive) from popish times: but by the act of 53 Geo. III. 
 cap. 127, it has been stripped of all its civil consequences except such im- 
 prisonnment (not exceeding six months) as the spiritual court shall award : 
 and I conceive the court would not inflict this penalty, except to enforce 
 compensation for a temporal injury involved in the ecclesiastical offence. 
 It may deserve consideration from the legislature, whether some further 
 alteration should not be made. 
 
 2 To this day, in those parts of Ireland where popery predominates, if 
 a man be excommunicated and " cursed from the altar" by the priest, 
 his infatuated neighbours (even if they abstain from personal violence) 
 withhold from him, not only the charities of Christian brotherhood, but 
 all the offices of common humanity ; withdraw from all intercourse with 
 him ; refuse to " buy or sell" of him or to him ; and by this persecution 
 
 O 
 
290 NATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 conformity should not be treated as an offence : but 
 I must guard myself against being misunderstood, by 
 adding, first, that while I express no opinion on the 
 expediency of excluding from political or official power, 
 either nonconformists in general, or those who hold 
 particular doctrines, I do not consider such exclusion 
 as a penalty in the proper sense of the word : and 
 secondly, that I think it is the duty of every govern- 
 ment, to repress the teachiiig of such doctrines as are 
 clearly subversive of morality, and tend to dissolve the 
 bonds of society. 
 
 nften compel him to quit his parish and sometimes his native land. Cai^ 
 this be the religion of the " Prince of Peace ?" of Him who said : " If" 
 thj- brother will not "• hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen 
 man and a publican" — not as an enemy, an outcast from society ? • Or is 
 it the apostacy foretold, Rev. xiii. 17? 
 
PART II. 
 
 THE EVIDENCE 
 
 RESPECTING 
 
 THE ALLEGED "FACT" 
 
 OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 
 
 EXAMINED. 
 
 O 2 
 
APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE QUESTION GENERALLY CONSIDERED AND 
 STATED. 
 
 In the first number of the Tracts for the Times, en- 
 titled " Thoughts on the Ministerial Commission, re- 
 spectfully addressed to the Clergy/' the writer — '^ a 
 Presbyter" — thus expresses himself. 
 
 ^' I fear we have neglected the real ground on which 
 our authority is built, — our apostolical descent. 
 We have been born, not of blood, nor of the will of the 
 flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.* The Lord 
 Jesus Christ gave his Spirit to his Apostles ; they in 
 turn laid their hands on those who should succeed 
 them ; and these again on others ; and so the sacred 
 gift has been handed down to our present bishops, who 
 
 ' This is another instance, in which the writers of the Tracts tacitly, it 
 not expressly, appropriate to ordained ministers texts belonging to every 
 true Christian. See John i. 12, 13. 
 
294 THE QUESTION GENERALLY 
 
 have appointed us as their assistants, and in some 
 sense representatives." 
 
 In other words — our Lord gave his Spirit to his 
 apostles : they in turn laid their hands on, and thereby 
 transmitted the same sacred gift to, others who should 
 succeed them ; and these again to others : and so the 
 sacred gift, which our Lord gave to his disciples, has 
 been transmitted to our present bishops, who have ap- 
 pointed the presbyters to assist them in some parts of 
 their sacred oiffice. 
 
 Siich is the doctrine. Now how much of this can 
 we deduce from scripture ? 
 
 1. Our Lord breathed on his apostles, and gave 
 them his Holy Spirit, in his miraculous powers, in his 
 infallible guidance, in his sanctifying grace, thereby 
 qualifying them for the due execution of the apostolic 
 office, and the right exercise of the apostolic authority, 
 which he had previously conferred upon them. But 
 on no occasion is he recorded to have laid his hands 
 upon them. 
 
 2. The apostles laid their hands on many individuals, 
 healing some, conferring supernatural gifts on others, 
 settmg others apart to the office of deacon or elder or 
 evangelist : but it is not recorded in scripture, that 
 they laid their hands on any one individual ivho should 
 Hucceed them ; or that they transmitted, or intended to 
 transmit, to any others the same apostolical office, or 
 the same apostolical authority, or the same sacred gift, 
 which our Lord had conferred on themselves. When 
 they conferred on any other -individual any super- 
 
CONSIDERED AND STATED. 295 
 
 natural gift, it was without giving him any power of 
 transmitting it further : and when they confeiTed on 
 others any office or authority, it was an office or au- 
 thority inferior and subordinate to their own. 
 
 3. The presbytery joined with the apostle Paul in 
 laying hands on Timothy : and Barnabas joined with 
 the same apostle in ordaining elders in various cities. 
 Timothy again laid hands on others, and so did Titus : 
 but this each of them did, not as a successor , hut as 
 an assistant, to the apostle. Timothy was exhorted 
 '^ not " to " neglect," but to " stir up, the gift" v/hich 
 was in him by the laying on of the hands both of the 
 apostle and of the presbytery : but we find no direc- 
 tion given to him to hand down this gift to another. 
 
 Such is the result of the inquiry prosecuted in the 
 former part of this v/ork : and it is at once obvious 
 how far the evidence of scripture falls short of the 
 statement in the Tract. The question therefore arises 
 — Is evidence from any other quarter admissible to 
 supply the deficiency ? to show, that the apostles laid 
 their hands '^ on those who should succeed them,'' and 
 so handed down to them the same apostolical office, 
 the same apostolical authority, or the same sacred gift 
 which our Lord had conferred on the apostles ? 
 
 The question is anticipated in the Tract ' entitled 
 ^' The Grounds of our Faith." The writer supposes an 
 objector to say — " but after all, there is very little 
 about episcopacy in Sc7'ipiure'' —s.nd, in the course 
 
 ^ Tracts for the Times, No. 45. 
 
296 THE QUESTION GENERALLY 
 
 of discussing this objection, observes : " Let us sup- 
 posCj for the sake of argument^ that Episcopacy is in 
 fact not at all mentioned in Scripture : even then it 
 would be our duty to receive it. Why ? Because the 
 first Christians received i\.'' If this be a satisfactory 
 reason, it would follow, that it is our duty to receive 
 ivhatever the first Christians received. 
 
 Let us pause for a moment, and consider whither 
 this extraordinary principle would lead us. It would 
 impose on every Christian the duty, not of studying 
 '' the Holy Scriptures which are able to make *^ him 
 " wise unto salvation," but of becoming acquainted 
 with the ecclesiastical history of the early church j and, 
 as this is wholly out of the power of the great bulk of 
 the laity, they must take that history on the credit of 
 the clergy, or rather of the few among them who have 
 made themselves acquainted with the subject ! Nor is 
 this all. When, scripture being silent, we have ascer- 
 tained by laborious inquiry what institutions the first 
 Christians received, we are to receive the same institu- 
 tions without regard to difi'erence of circumstances. 
 Whether we live in a torrid or temperate or frigid 
 zone, whether under a heathen or Christian govern- 
 ment, whether under an absolute despotism or a wild 
 democracy or a free and mixed constitution, whatever 
 be our customs and manners, our greater or less ad- 
 vance in civilization and arts and science and litera- 
 ture, still all churches must for ever and every where 
 have the same institutions ! 
 
 But what I am more concerned to notice is the mis- 
 
CONSIDERED AND STATED. 297 
 
 chievous and unscriptural doctrine advanced in support 
 of this proposition. The writer of the Tract antici- 
 pates, as well he may, an objection, and endeavours to 
 meet it. 
 
 " It may be urged, that we Protestants believe the 
 Scriptures to contain the whole rule of duty. Cer- 
 tainly not ; they constitute a rule oi faith, not a rule 
 oi practice ; a rule of doctrine, not a rule of conduct 
 or disciplined^ 
 
 Let us now contrast this teaching with that of St. 
 Paul. " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, 
 and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correc- 
 tion, for instruction in righteousness : that the man of 
 God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto 
 ALL GOOD works/' ^ The apostle clearly teaches us 
 that the scriptures contain a complete rule of duty — a 
 rule of 2^ractice as well as of faiths To teach other- 
 wise is in effect to set aside the authority of scripture, 
 and to teach for " doctrines the commandments of 
 men : " and those who so teach — " in vain do they 
 worship " God.^ For if scripture do not contain in 
 every respect a complete rule of duty, we must learn 
 our duty from the commands, or impositions, or prac- 
 tices, of men. 
 
 But, by way of exemplifying the insufficiency of 
 scripture, the writer proceeds — " Where {e. g.) are we 
 told in Scripture that gambling is wrong ? or agam 
 suicide ? ^' It is truly painful to find such questions 
 
 ' 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17. ^ jvi^rk vii. 7. 
 
 O 5 
 
298 THE QUESTION GENERALLY 
 
 proposed by meu of learning and professing the gospel. 
 The second question any well-taught child would an- 
 swer by — " Thou shalt not kill : " and as to the ques- 
 tion^ " Where are we told in scripture that gambling- 
 is wrong?" — it may be answered by another — Can 
 the gambler say: " Whether" I "eat or drink," 
 whether I throw the dice or shuffle the cards, whether 
 in the twinkling of an eye I plunge myself or my 
 friend into utter destitution, or " whatsoever" I " do," 
 I " do all to the glory of God" ^ ? When the gambler 
 strips his neighbour of his estate without cause and 
 without equivalent, does he love his neighbour as him- 
 self ? ^ Does he — can he — do this " in the name of 
 the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father 
 by him" •^? 
 
 But the climax of the writer's argument still re- 
 mains. He proceeds — 
 
 " Our Article is precise : ' Holy Scripture con- 
 taineth all things necessary to salvation, so that what- 
 soever is not read therein, &c., is not to be required of 
 any man, that it should be believed as an article of 
 faith.''' 
 
 Indeed our Article "^ is precise, rather too precise, 
 when fairly quoted, for the anti-scriptural doctrine at- 
 tempted to be deduced from it. The reader shall judge 
 for himself. 
 
 " Holy scripture containeth all things necessary to 
 salvation : so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor- 
 
 1 1 Cor. X. 3L ' Matt. xxii. 39. 
 
 ^ Col. iii. 17. ^ Article vi. 
 
CONSIDERED AND STATED. 299 
 
 may be proved thereby , is not to be required of any 
 man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith; 
 or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.'" 
 
 Of the two clauses printed in italics the latter is 
 wholly omitted in the Tract ; and for the former an 
 ^x'. is substituted. The first, if inserted at lengthy 
 would have answered the questions respecting gamb- 
 ling and suicide. The last clause, as contradistin- 
 guished from its alternative ( ^^ that it should be 
 believed as an article of the faith ''), proves that our 
 Reformers held scripture to be a rule of practice as 
 v/ell as 0^ faith — in other words, to contain a complete 
 rule of duty, 
 
 I come back, then, to the question, whether, if the 
 doctrine of apostolical succession, as being " the real 
 ground on which ^' ministers^ ^' authority is built,^^ is 
 ^' not read " in scripture, ^' nor may be proved thereby," 
 it can be legitimately established by other evidence : 
 and the answer clearly is — No ! 
 
 I have examined this question fully, for two reasons. 
 
 First — I thought it important, to refute at once the 
 iinscriptural position, that the scriptures " do not con- 
 tain the whole rule of duty "—a position, which, once 
 admitted, necessarily leads to the substitution of men^s 
 commandments for the word of God, hands over each 
 layman's conscience to the dictation of the priest, and 
 ultimately conducts to the apostacy of Rome. 
 
 Secondly— I was unwilling to enter into an exami- 
 nation of the historical evidence respecting the alleged 
 " apostolical descent " of the episcopal clergy of the 
 
300 THE QUESTION GENERALLY 
 
 present day, or (as it is called in another Tract) " the 
 fact of the apostolical succession/^ without first showing 
 that such historical evidence, even if it established the 
 fact beyond all controversy, would not (scripture being- 
 silent) prove the doctrine. 
 
 This alleged "fact " is perhaps most distinctly 
 stated, and its application to the doctrine of apostoli- 
 cal succession most fully brought forward, in the 
 Tract ' entitled : " The Episcopal Church Apostolical." 
 The " position " laid down by the writer of that Tract 
 is this — 
 
 " That the Apostles appointed successors to their 
 ministerial office, and so on to the present day ; —and 
 further, that the Apostles and their Successors have in 
 every age committed portions of their power and au- 
 thority to others, who thus become their delegates, and 
 in a measure their representatives, and are called Priests 
 and Deacons." 
 
 Then (tacitly taking it for granted that the power of 
 ordination was never committed to the priests) he ar- 
 gues, that " the Presbyterian Ministers have assumed 
 a power which was never entrusted to them. They have 
 presumed to exercise the power of ordination, and to 
 perpetuate a succession of ministers, without having 
 received a commission to do so. . . . If they may ordain 
 without being set to do so, others may teach and preach 
 
 without being sent If an imposition of hands is 
 
 necessary to convey one gift, why should it not be to 
 
 ^ Tracts for the Times, No, 7. 
 
CONSIDERED AND STATED. 301 
 
 convey another ? '^ This argument obviously assumes 
 that a transmitted commission is necessary in both 
 cases ; and it falls to the ground, if I have coFrectly de- 
 duced from scripture * that the authority to ordain 
 belongs to the supreme rulers of the church for the 
 time being, as such. At all events, the necessity for 
 such transmission should have been proved from scrip- 
 ture ; which it has not been. 
 
 The writer then proceeds — 
 
 "1. As to the fact of the Apostolical Succession, i. e. 
 that our present Bishops are the heirs and representa- 
 tives of the Apostles by successive transmission of the 
 prerogative of being so, this is too notorious to require 
 proof. Every link in the chain is known, from St. 
 Peter to our present Metropolitans. Here then I only 
 ask, looking at this plain fact by itself, is there not 
 something of a divine providence in it ? Can we con- 
 ceive that this Succession has been preserved, all over 
 the world, amid revolutions, through many centuries, 
 for nothing ? Is it wise or pious to despise or neglect 
 a gift thus transmitted to us in matter of fact, even if 
 Scripture did not touch upon the subject ? 
 
 " 2. Next consider how natural is the doctrine of a 
 Succession. . . . 
 
 '^ 3. Lastly, the argument from Scripture is surely 
 quite clear enough to those, who honestly wish direc- 
 tion for practice. . . ." 
 
 Thus three grounds are taken : 1st. The alleged 
 
 ' See part i. ch. vii. 
 
302 THE QUESTION GENERALLY 
 
 " fact ; " 2ndly. The consideration, " How natural is 
 the doctrine of a succession ; '' and, 3dly. The argu- 
 ment from scripture. The examination of evidence re- 
 lating to the alleged " fact ^' is the subject proposed in 
 this part of the work. The argument from scripture 
 is in this Tract ^ made to rest solely on one passage — 
 Matt, xxviii. 19, 20 — this and all the principal passages 
 bearing on the question have been examined ; and they 
 have been shown ^ not to establish the doctrine of 
 apostolical succession, as taught in the Tracts for the 
 Times. And, if a commission derived in succession 
 from the apostles cannot from scripture be proved to 
 be essential to the lawful and effectual exercise of the 
 Christian ministry, then the consideration — ^' How 
 natural is the doctrine of succession,^^ or " the fact " 
 (if it exist) " of the apostolical succession " — is nothing 
 to the purpose. Yet with many the argument will have 
 weight. 
 
 As to the doctrine of a succession being natural, 
 the case is thus put — ^^ When an individual comes to 
 me, claiming to speak in the name of the I\iost High, 
 it is natural to ask him for his authority. If he re- 
 plies, that we are all bound to instruct each other, this 
 reply is intelligible ; but in the very form of it excludes 
 the notion of a ministerial order, i. e. a class of persons 
 set apart from others for religious offices. If he ap- 
 peals to some miraculous gift, this too is intelligible, 
 
 ^ Other passages are quoted in other Tracts of the same series : but 
 the principal (if not all) of these have been examined in part i. eh. viii. 
 - Part i. ch. viii. 
 
CONSIDERED AND STATED. 303 
 
 and only unsatisfactory when the alleged gift is proved 
 to be a fiction. No other answer can be given, except 
 a reference to some person, who has given him license 
 to exercise ministerial functions ; then follows the 
 question, how that individual gained his authority to 
 do so. In the case of the Catholic Church, the person 
 refeiTcd to, i. e. the Bishop, has received it from a 
 predecessor, and he from another, and so on, till we 
 arrive at the Apostles themselves, and thence our Lord 
 and Saviour. It is superfluous to dwell on so plain 
 a principle, which in matters of this world we act upon 
 daily.'' (Tracts for the Times, No. vii. p. 3.) 
 
 Now in this short argument there is scarcely a sen- 
 tence that will bear examination. " When an indivi- 
 vidual comes to me, claiming to speak in the name of 
 the Most High,'' and to announce some new revelation 
 of his willy it is, indeed, " natural to ask him for his 
 authority ; " it is the only course consistent with 
 common sense : and, in such a case, no answer will be 
 satisfactory, but an appeal to some miraculous gift, 
 and even that appeal will be " unsatisfactory " not only 
 " when the alleged gift is proved to be a fiction," but 
 until it proves itself or is clearly proved to he a rea- 
 lity. But, " when an individual comes to me, claiming 
 to speak in the name of the Most High," as the jninis- 
 ter of a revelation the inspired record of which I 
 hold in my hand, — and this is now the actual state 
 of the case — then my only natural, my only ra- 
 tional, course is to refer to that record, and examine 
 vv'hether it sanctions the individual's claim to ministe- 
 
304 THE QUESTION GENERALLY 
 
 rial authority. We are brought back therefore to scrip- 
 ture : and, as we do not there find the doctrine of apos- 
 toUcal succession, the reply of the claimant as founded 
 upon it is unsatisfactory. 
 
 But we are told that the principle of tracing back 
 the minister's commission through a series of bishops 
 to the apostles themselves, and thence to our Lord 
 and Saviour, is a " plain '^ '^ principle, which in 
 matters of this world we act upon daily.'' This I deny. 
 When the sovereign on the throne claims our obedience, 
 we do not feel it necessary to trace back his genealogy 
 through centuries past, and to inquire whether he is 
 the legitimate successor to the first sovereign who ruled 
 the country. We should be in a strange position in- 
 deed, if every one withheld his allegiance till he could 
 thus satisfy himself of the legitimacy of the sovereign's 
 title. Nor would the great body of Christians be in a 
 less perplexing position, if the minister's authority 
 and the validity of his ministrations depended on his 
 having been ordained by a bishop, who had received 
 his authority to ordain "from a predecessor, and he 
 from another, and so on, till we arrive at the apostles 
 themselves, and thence our Lord and Saviour." 
 When an individual, " who comes to me claiming to 
 speak in the name of the Most High,'' tells me that a 
 licence to exercise the ministerial functions has been 
 given to him by the bishop, who has received au- 
 thority so to do '* from a predecessor,^ and he from 
 
 ^ This strange expression, " a predecessor," must not be passed by 
 unnoticed. Had the writer said in plain terms " Ids predecessor," it 
 
CONSIDERED AND STATED. 305 
 
 another, and so on, till we arrive at the apostles them- 
 selves, and thence our Lord and Sii viour ; " am I to 
 take all this statement upon the credit of the individual 
 himself who makes it ? If so, I may as well receive him 
 at once as a minister on his own word, without asking 
 for his authority. Am I then to satisfy myself by other 
 evidence that he was ordained by a bishop, who can trace 
 his authority through bishops back to an apostle ? 
 That were an inquiry impracticable to all professing 
 Christians, except perhaps one in a million. But the 
 writer tells us, that the ^' fact of the apostolical succes- 
 sion, i. e. that our present bishops are the heirs and 
 representatives of the apostles by successive transmis- 
 sion of the prerogative of being so ^^ " is too notorious 
 to require proof." This is an easy mode of establish- 
 ing what we desire to have received as a fact : and 
 many will receive it, with whom boldness of assertion 
 supplies the place of proof. Yet vv^e are clearly enti- 
 tled to call for evidence of the alleged " fact of the 
 apostolical succession." 
 
 Before, however, I enter into the examination of 
 evidence on that question, it may be proper to con- 
 
 would have occurred to every one, that no bishop of the present day has 
 received his authority from Jiis predecessor, the bishop by whose death 
 the see had become vacant. In what sense, I would ask, when a bishop 
 of London elect is consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury and 
 two other bishops, can he be said to receive his episcopal authority from 
 " a predecessor?'" In what sense is any one of the consecrating bishops 
 " a predecessor" to the bishop consecrated ? But some such phraseology 
 was necessary to give some colour to the analogy between a succession of 
 bishops and a succession of hereditary sovereigns. An argument cannot 
 be worth much which requires such a misapplication of terms. 
 
306 THE QUESTION GENERALLY 
 
 sider what other answer, than an appeal to apostolical 
 succession, a minister of the gospel can give, when in- 
 terrogated respecting his authority. He may give this 
 answer — ^' Here is the Bible, the word of God him- 
 self,^ the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
 truth. Examine what directions are there given re- 
 specting the appointment of ministers, and what doc- 
 trine they are required to teach. See whether my ap- 
 pointment has been made in conformity with those 
 directions : compare my teaching with the doctrine 
 therein contained : and examine by these tests whether 
 or not I am a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ." 
 This test of scriptural doctrine may not suit those 
 ministers, however regularly ordained, who " pervert 
 the Gospel of Christ ;" ^ who add to, or take from, the 
 word of God ; v/ho make it void by their traditions ; 
 who " preach another gospel '' than that which Paul 
 preached, ^^ which is not another " — but it is the only 
 test, by which in these latter times Christians can de- 
 tect the false pretences of him, " whose coming is after 
 the working of Satan with all power and signs and 
 lying wonders " ^ — for he too appeals to apostolical 
 succession, and claims obedience as sitting in the chair 
 of St. Peter — it is the only test, by which we can dis- 
 tinguish the "false teachers" foretold by St. Peter,"* 
 
 ' 1 assume (as the writer of Tract 7 must by his answer to the question 
 assume) that the inquirer is a professing Christian, who receives the 
 Bible as the word of God. How the question should be answered, when 
 proposed by an avowed unbeliever, is another consideration. The answer 
 given in the Tract will not, in such a case, suffice. 
 
 2 Gal. i. 7. 2 2 Thess. ii. 9. ' 2 Pet. ii. L 
 
CONSIDERED AND STATED. 307 
 
 and (as directed by St. John) " try the spirits whether 
 they are of God/' ^ 
 
 I now proceed to examine the alleged " fact of the 
 Apostolical Succession, i. e. that our present Bishops 
 are the heirs and representatives of the Apostles by 
 successive transmission of the prerogative of being so." 
 We are told, not only that " every link of the chain is 
 known from St. Peter to our present Metropolitans j" 
 but "that this Succession has been preserved, all over 
 the world, amid many revolutions, through many cen- 
 turies ;" ^ that ^' it is only the Bishops, who have ever 
 been called by the title of successors" [to the apostles] 
 " and that there has been actually a perpetual succes- 
 sion of these Bishops in the Church, who alone were 
 always esteemed to have the power of sending other 
 Ministers to preach and administer the Sacraments." ^ 
 
 The alleged " fact,^' then^ " of the apostolical suc- 
 cession " (as taught in the Tracts for the Times) com- 
 prizes in effect two distinct propositions : 
 
 First : There has, from the tinie of the apostles, 
 been a succession of bishops, an order of ministers 
 distinguished from presbyters and deacons, and exer- 
 cising as such the exclusive authority of ordaining 
 other ministers. 
 
 Secondly : This exclusive authority has from the 
 first been conferred on each bishop by some other 
 bishop, to whom it had previously been transmitted 
 
 ' 1 John iv. 1. 
 2 Tracts for the Times, No. 7. The whole passage has been already 
 quoted m this chapter. ^ Tracts for the Times, No. 15, p. 2. 
 
308 THE QUESTION GENERALLY CONSIDERED. 
 
 from an apostle either immediately or through a series 
 of bishops : and the authority has in each case been 
 conferred hy a new imposition of episcopal hands dis- 
 tinct from any previous ordination which the individual 
 may receive to the office of deacon or presbyter. 
 
 It is important to keep both these propositions in 
 mind. Unless both be proved, the allegedL ^' fact of 
 the apostolical succession " is not established in evi- 
 dence. It is not established by merely proving (if it 
 can be proved) that there has been always in the 
 church a threefold ministry — in each church a bishop, 
 presbyters, and deacons; and that by the bishop alone 
 the right to ordain was for many centuries exercised. 
 If it be not further proved, that a presbyter, though 
 regularly and canon ically elected or nominated to the 
 office of bishop over a local church, always received a 
 new ordination from some other bishop, before he took 
 upon himself the episcopal office and proceeded to 
 ordain other ministers,^ the alleged ''fact of the 
 apostolical succession " remains destitute of evidence : 
 while, even were the " fact '' proved beyond all pos- 
 sibility of doubt, the doctrine and the consequences 
 deduced from the doctrine would still (as we have 
 seen) not be thereby established. 
 
 Bearing in mind these observations, let us now in- 
 quire, w^hat evidence w^e can discover in the early 
 fathers respecting the alleged /ac^. 
 
 ^ That a bishop elect has no such authority till consecration, is a neces- 
 sary consequence of the doctrine of succession, and is accordingly assumed 
 in the Tracts for the Times, No. 5. See particularly pp. 12, 13. 
 
CHAPTER 11. 
 
 THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 The earliest writings, not inspired, left us by fathers 
 of the Church, are those of the fathers called aposto- 
 ^ lical, as having known one or more of the apostles : and 
 of these fathers the principal are Clement of Rome, 
 Ignatius, and Polycarp. 
 
 Clement, the '[ fellow-labourer " of St. Paul (Phihp. 
 iv. 3), is stated to have been the writer of the epistle ' 
 addressed by the church of Rome to the church of 
 Corinth : and there seems no ground to question the 
 statement, though his name is not mentioned in the 
 epistle. But, for reasons to be mentioned hereafter, I 
 think he was not, when he wrote it, bishop of Rome. 
 
 ' I refer exclusively to the epistle of which Archbishop Wake has 
 given a translation in the first part of his " Genuine Writings of the 
 Apostolic Fathers." There is a second epistle (apparently of less authen- 
 ticity) which he relegates to the secor<d part of the same work. 
 
310 THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 It appears, from internal evidence, to have been written 
 after the martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul, 
 and before the destruction of Jerusalem : for it men- 
 tions their martyrdom (sect. 5) ; and makes allusion to 
 the temple-services as if still subsisting (sect. 41). 
 
 The tone of the letter is throughout that of one in- 
 dependent church to another, and clearly proves that 
 no primacy was claimed by R-ome for some years at 
 least after the death of the apostle as whose successor 
 the pope now claims it. The epistle contains not a 
 single allusion to any bishop either of Rome or of 
 Corinth : and thence arises a doubt, w^hether there 
 was at that time a bishop of either church. So far as 
 concerns the church of Rome, the question will better 
 be considered when we have had before us other cir- 
 cumstances bearing upon it : but the epistle itself will, 
 upon examination, sufficiently confirm the doubt in re- 
 spect of the Corinthian church. 
 
 The Corinthians had " put out some who lived re- 
 putably among '' them " from the ministry '' (sect. 44); 
 and had " revolted against the elders '' ^ (sect. 47) ; 
 and one great object of this epistle, as appears on the 
 face of it, was to put an end to this dissension (sect. 
 48) . Now, if there had been at this time a bishop of 
 Corinth ordained to the episcopate by an apostle or 
 by a bishop so ordained, what arguments would Cle- 
 ment have addressed, what advice would he have given, 
 to the church of Corinth ? Surely he would have re- 
 
 ^ Gr. (TTa(Tid^€iv wpos rhvs vpeaSvTepovs — " be led into a sedition 
 against its priests." ( Wake, ) 
 
CLEMENT OF ROME. 311 
 
 minded the Corinthians, that their elders derived their 
 authority, not from the Corinthians themselves, but 
 from the apostles through their bishop, and therefore 
 could not be deposed without the bishop's authority. 
 Surely Clement would have urged on the Corinthians 
 the duty of following and obeying their ministers till 
 so deposed. But Clement makes not the most distant 
 illusion to any ecclesiastical ruler superior to the de- 
 posed elders, or to any one among the elders as having 
 authority over the others : nor could we from this 
 epistle alone discover, that there then were any mini- 
 sters in any Christian church except elders — called in 
 the epistle sometimes elders, sometimes overseers (or 
 bishops) — and deacons. 
 
 The course which Clement takes in reference to the 
 dissension is this. He tells the Corinthians how the 
 apostles provided ministers for the churches, which 
 they gathered from among the heathen. Jesus Christ 
 (he says) " was sent by God, the apostles by Christ ; 
 so both things were done in good order,^ according to 
 the will of God. For having received their commands, 
 and being thoroughly assured by the resurrection of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, and convinced by the word of 
 God, with the fulness of the Holy Spirit, they went 
 abroad, publishing that the kingdom of God was at 
 hand. And thus, preaching through countries and 
 cities, they appointed the first fruits of their conver- 
 sion to be overseers and ministers of such as should 
 
 ^ " So both things were done in good order," iyevavro ovu a/xcpSrepa 
 ivrdKTus. " So both were orderly sent." (Archbishop Wake.) 
 
312 THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 afterwards believe/ having first proved them by the 
 Spirit (sect. 42). 
 
 In this passage only two orders are mentioned — 
 overseers and ministers — or (as the Greek words have 
 long since been Anglicised) bishops and deacons, the 
 same two orders as are mentioned by St. Paul, when 
 he addresses his epistle to the " saints in Christ Jesus 
 which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons ^' 
 (Phil. i. 1.) — the pastors (that is to say) who fed and 
 watched over the flock, and the ministers who served ; 
 the former order (as we have seen) - being in the Acts 
 of the Apostles and in the epistles of St. Paul called 
 interchangeably overseers and elders. Thus far this 
 epistle, as regards the different orders of ministers, 
 concurs with the inference deduced ^ from those por- 
 tions of the New Testament, which (like this epistle) 
 were written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem ; 
 the Apocalypse (in which we discovered * another class 
 of ministers, " the angels of the churches '') having 
 been written after that event. But I am unable to 
 trace in scripture any appointment, by way of antici- 
 pation, of " bishops and ministers over such as should 
 afterwards believe" The practice of the apostles, as 
 far as it can be deduced from scripture, was to appoint 
 elders, and sometimes deacons also, for those who 
 already believed; and thus to form them into a Chris- 
 
 ^ " Overseers and ministers of such as should afterwards believe," 
 eVtcr/ft^TTOus Koi ^iaK6vovs roov fxeXXdvTcou iris-eveiv. " Bishops and minis- 
 ters over such as should afterwards believe." (Archbishop Wake.) 
 
 ^ Part i. ch. vi. ^ Part i. ch. vi. and vii. "* Part i. oh. vi. 
 
CLEMENT OF ROME. 313 
 
 tian church or congregation : and, in making these 
 appointments, they chose the individuals (as Clement 
 truly says) under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 After laying this foundation, Clement quotes the 
 scripture * as saying : " I will appoint their overseers 
 in righteousness, and their ministers in faith : " refers 
 to the manner in which Moses (that ^' there might be no 
 division in Israel," or ^^ emulation" "among the tribes 
 concerning the priesthood") proceeded to the appoint- 
 ment by lot of the tribe of Aaron (sect. 42, 43) ; and 
 then enters directly on the case of the deposed min- 
 isters. " And our apostles knew by our Lord Jesus 
 Christ that there would be a strife for the overseer- 
 ship. ^ Wherefore having a perfect foreknowledge of 
 this^ they appointed those who are before mentioned, 
 and then gave direction,^ how, when they should die, 
 other approved men should receive in turn their of- 
 fice. We cannot, therefore, think that those have been 
 justly cast out of their office, who were appointed by 
 them, or afterwards by other eminent men, the whole 
 
 ' The reference seems to be to Isa. Ix. 17, which in our authorized 
 version stands thus : " I will make also thy officers peace, and thine ex- 
 actors righteousness." It is unnecessary to comment on Clement's appli- 
 cation of the passage. 
 
 ^ Gr. inl t5 ovSfiaros Trjs eTTio-KOTT^s— literally, " upon the name of 
 the overseership" or " episcopate." The meaning seems to be " a con- 
 tention for the name or office of overseer or bishop :" and accordingly in 
 the Tracts for the Times the words are rendered " for the episcopate." 
 (No. 3, p. 8). 
 
 ^ Gr. inivofirfu — which Wake renders " direction," and the writer of 
 the Tract for the Times, No. 3, " an orderly succession" — on what 
 ground I know not. 
 
 P 
 
314 THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 churcli consenting, and who ministered unblameably 
 to the flock of Christ with humiUty, quietly, and disin- 
 terestedly, and were for a long time commended by 
 all. For it will be no small sin in us, if we cast those 
 out of their overseership, who have unblameably and 
 holily fulfilled the duties of it.^ Blessed are the elders, 
 who, having finished their course already, have obtained 
 a fruitful and perfect discharge : for they have no fear 
 lest any one should turn them out of the place ap- 
 pointed for them. For we see that you have removed 
 some, who conduct themselves well, from the office which 
 they have adorned by their irreproachable behaviour." - 
 In this passage there is no reference to any bishop 
 of Corinth ; no direction to submit to him the matters 
 in controversy between the Corinthians and their de- 
 posed elders ; no complaint that the bishop had not 
 been consulted as to their deposition. The words 
 ojfice and overseership (or episcopate) are used inter- 
 changeably for the office of those whom the Corinthians 
 had deposed; viz. the " elders" against whom, as we 
 have seen, the Corinthians had revolted (Sect. 47). 
 Those ministers, therefore, were such as in Acts (xx. 
 17, 28) are called interchangeably '^elders" and "over- 
 seers." Nor is there any allusion in the epistle to any 
 minister of higher rank. The conclusion is inevitable, 
 that, at this time, there was no bishop of Corinth, as 
 distinguished from the elders ; that St. Paul, who 
 founded the church of Corinth, never introduced into 
 
 ^ " Fulfilled the duties of it,"" irpoc^viyKovras ra Swpa— literal!}', 
 " offered the gifts." 2 ggg Appendix iv. 
 
CLEMENT OF ROME. 315 
 
 it the threefold distinction of bishop, presbyteri, and 
 deacons. 
 
 But t\iQ first part of the passage, as far as the words 
 '' in turn their office/^ has been quoted in the Tracts 
 for the Times/ as the " testimony of St. Clement, the 
 associate of St. Paul (Phil. iv. 3) to the apostolical suc- 
 cession." The writer has (1.) omitted the rest of the 
 passage, from which it would have appeared that the 
 " overseership " (or ^^ episcopate "), of which Clement 
 writes, is the office of an elder, fiot of a bishop as dis- 
 tinguished from a presbyter. And (2.) the writer of 
 the Tract has not informed his readers, that the minis- 
 ters, whose appointment by the apostles Clement had 
 previously mentioned, vrere " overseers and deacons '^^ 
 {(TiiaKOTiovt; Koct hiaKovov^), no distinction being drawn be- 
 tween bishops (or overseers), and elders. 
 
 The passage, therefore, even if we knew what the 
 " direction '' was of which Clement speaks as given by 
 the apostles, would bear no testimony in favour of 
 apostolical succession as transmitted exclusively through 
 bishops, in contradistinction to elders. But the direc- 
 tion is not handed down to us. Nor are we informed 
 who were the " eminent men, by whom some of the 
 ejected ministers had been appointed, or how vacan- 
 cies were to be supplied among the '^ eminent men," 
 or whether the consent " of the whole church " was 
 necessary to their appointment of a minister. Two 
 things, however, are clear. First, the direction, what- 
 
 * No. 3, p. 8. ^ See § 42, which I have quoted, ante, 
 
 P 2 
 
316 THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 ever it was, is not recorded in scripture ; and therefore 
 is not perpetually binding on the churches. Secondly : 
 no one of these " eminent men " was bishop (in the 
 modern sense of the word) of the church of Corinth, 
 or had any authority over its elders : for we have not 
 in this epistle the slightest intimation of any of these 
 '' eminent men'^ having concurred in the deposition 
 of the elders, though the writer could not have passed 
 it over in silence, if there had been such concurrence 
 — nor is it mentioned as an aggravation of the sin of 
 the Corinthian church, that they had deposed elders 
 without their bishop's sanction, — as unquestionably it 
 would have been if such had been the fact. 
 
 On the whole, this epistle to the Corinthian church 
 affords no evidence in favour of the alleged ''fact of 
 apostolical succession :'' but, on the contrary, furnishes 
 by implicatiou strong evidence, that, at the time when 
 it was written, the Corinthian church had several elders 
 or overseers, but no ecclesiastical ruler over those elders 
 — no bishop, in the modern sense of the word ; and 
 consequently that the apostle Paul did not introduce 
 the threefold ministry into all the churches which he 
 founded. 
 
 The next writer after Clement among the apostolical 
 Fathers is Ignatius. He was bishop of Antioch ; and 
 was there apprehended in the course of Trajan's perse- 
 cution,^ and carried to Rome, where he suffered. All 
 his genuine epistles now extant (seven in number) were 
 
 ^ A.D. 107 (Waddington's History of the Church, p. 7). 
 
IGNATIUS. 317 
 
 written during this journey, and are therefore later in 
 date than any of the inspired writings.^ 
 
 Of these epistles, one is addressed to the Church of 
 Rome, and is silent as to the constitution of that 
 church. It contains no allusion to any minister of the 
 church of Kome : but, as prudential reasons might re- 
 strain him from making any such allusion while the 
 persecution was raging, I draw no inference from this 
 circumstance. 
 
 Of the other six epistles of Ignatius, one is addressed 
 to Poly carp, bishop of the church of Smyrna ; the other 
 five to the several churches respectively of Tralles, 
 Magnesia, Ephesus, Philadelphia, and Smyrna — all 
 situated in Asia — the three latter being Apocalyptic 
 churches. It is clear from these epistles, that in all 
 these five churches the threefold ministry then existed; 
 whence a confirmation arises of the interpretation, 
 which assigns to the " angels " of the Apocalyptic 
 churches the rank of bishops as distinguished from 
 presbyters. But in these epistles, though Ignatius 
 applies to ministers in general, and especially to 
 bishops, language such as the inspired writers do 
 not apply to them, and ascribes to bishops authority 
 such as the apostles did not claim for themselves, he 
 is silent on the question of apostolical succession in 
 the Tractarian sense. Some may be surprized at 
 this statement, who have been carried away by his in- 
 
 ' See Archbishop Wake's Preliminary Dissertation. I examine these 
 epistles the more minutely, because translations of them are given in the 
 Tracts for the Times. 
 
318 THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 flated language, and have not carefully examined his 
 expressions. 
 
 The following passage will illustrate my statement. 
 It is taken from his epistle to the church at Smyrna. 
 
 " But avoid divisions as the beginning of evils. ^ 
 Follow your bishop, all of you, as Jesus Christ followed 
 the Father ; and the presbytery as ye would the apos- 
 tles. Respect the deacons as ye would the command- 
 ment of God. Let no one do any of the things per- 
 taining to the church separately from 2 the bishop. 
 Let that be esteemed a well-ordered eucharist, which 
 is administered either by the bishop, or by him to 
 whom he has committed it. Wherever the bishop is, 
 there let the body of believers be, even as wherever 
 Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic church. ^ Sepa- 
 rately from the bishop it is lawful neither to baptize, 
 nor to celebrate the communion :* but whatever he 
 judges right, that also is well-pleasing unto God, that 
 all which is done be safe and firm" (Ep. ad Smyrn. 
 sect. 8). 
 
 The first sentence of this passage clearly shows (and 
 indeed it is obvious from the preceding part of the 
 epistle) that the great object of Ignatius in exhorting 
 the Smyrnseans to follow their bishop, was to prevent 
 
 ' Jacobson includes these words in § 8. They are included in § 7 botli 
 by Wake and in the Records of the Church, No. vii. 
 
 2 " Separately from"— so Wake. Gr. x^pts— " Without" (Tracts for 
 the Times, Records of the Church, No. vii.). 
 
 ^ It may be well to observe what Ignatius' notion was of the Catholic 
 Church, namely, " Wherever Christ Jesus is." 
 
 * " To celebrate the Communion" — aydiniv ironlv. 
 
IGNATIUS. 319 
 
 divisions in their churchy and to preserve them from a 
 fatal heresy' into which some of them had fallen. 
 With this view he writes : " Follow your bishop, all of 
 you, as Jesus Christ followed the Father " — separate 
 not yourselves from your bishop, quit not the church 
 which he governs. Such is his exhortation : but he 
 rests it not on the alleged fact of apostolical succession 
 in the episcopal line — for he adds — ^' and the presby- 
 tery as ye would the apostles. '■* 
 
 Ignatius is writing, not of the source or origin of 
 ministerial authority, but of gradations in rank and 
 jurisdiction among ministers, placing first the bishop, 
 then the elders, and last of all the deacons. He as- 
 signs, I admit, to the bishop absolute authority, as 
 well as superiority of rank. But he does not rest 
 on apostolical succession the bishop^s claim to this 
 authority or to this rank ; he does not appeal to " that 
 warrant" to which the writer of Tract No. 4 appeals on 
 behalf of himself and other " priests commissioned, 
 successively, from heaven," as marking them, " exclu- 
 sively, for GoD^s AMBASSADORS " — the warrant of or- 
 dination, of episcopal ordination. He is altogether 
 silent as to the mode in which the bishop of the church 
 of Smyrna, its elders, and its deacons had been ap- 
 pointed or commissioned. These things, it may be 
 said, were known to the Smyrnieans. Unquestionably 
 it was known to them how their ministers had been 
 
 ^ He charges the heretics with asserting, that our Lord suffered only 
 " in appearance" (§ 2, 4), and with abstaining from the Lord's Supper, 
 and from prayer (§7). 
 
320 THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 appointed : and on that account we have the more 
 reason to conclude, that if the mode of appointment 
 had marked them out " exclusively for God's ambas- 
 sadors/' Ignatius would in support of his argument, 
 have appealed to this " warrant." But he does not 
 appeal to it : and all we can infer from the passage is, 
 that as nothing pertaining to the church was (in his 
 opinion) to be done separately from the bishop, no 
 elder or deacon was to be appointed without his con- 
 currence. The rule (whatever be its authority) cannot 
 apply to the appointment of a bishop on a vacancy ; 
 for, when the church is without a bishop, the concur- 
 rence of the bishop cannot be had : and the rule does 
 not preclude a successor being appointed, whether by 
 the elders, or by the whole church ; nor does it require 
 as essential to such appointment the concurrence of 
 the bishop of another church. 
 
 The meaning of the whole passage will perhaps more 
 clearly appear, if we inquire what we are to understand 
 by the expression (which repeatedly occurs in Ignatius) 
 XU)^)q T8 iiria-KOTrov, " without,'' or " separately from, the 
 bishop." " Separately from the bishop it is lawful nei- 
 ther to baptize, nor to celebrate the communion." 
 This cannot mean that it is not lawful for any one but 
 the bishop, or that it is not lawful for any one in the 
 bishop's absence, to administer either sacrament : for 
 Ignatius had just before said — *^ Let that be esteemed 
 a well-ordered eucharist, which is administered either 
 by the bishop or by him to whom he has committed 
 it " — or (as Archbishop Wake renders the word) ^^ has 
 
IGNATIUS. 321 
 
 given his consent." Ignatius is obviously speaking, 
 not of the validity of the sacrament as a means of 
 grace, but of the lawfulness or regularity of its admi- 
 nistration. That all things might be " done decently 
 and in order/' v^^hatever was done in the church — the 
 administration especially of the sacraments, and a for- 
 tiori {though Ignatius does not specify it) the ordina- 
 tion of ministers — was to be done under the direction 
 and sanction of the bishop. When he wrote, the dio- 
 cese of each bishop was small : the Lord's sapper 
 would usually be administered by the bishop himself ; 
 and, when he could not be present, he commissioned 
 (as I infer from the passage) an elder to administer it 
 in his place. Such a practice would tend to preserve 
 order and unity in the church ; but it would not im- 
 ply, that ministers, deriving a commission in succession 
 from an apostle, had exclusively an authority to admi- 
 nister the Lord's supper. We can see good reason, 
 why, in the time of Ignatius, the administration of 
 both sacraments should be retained under the controul 
 of the bishop, where the church had a bishop ; that no 
 unfit candidate might be admitted into the church by 
 baptism,^ and that a baptized member who had dis- 
 graced his profession might at once be excluded from 
 
 ^ This principle is adopted by our own church as to adult baptism — 
 " When any such persons, as are of riper years, are to be baptized, timely 
 notice shall be given to the bishop, or whom he shall appoint for that 
 purpose, a week before at the least, by the parents, or some other discreet 
 persons ; that so due care may be taken for their examination, whether 
 they be sufficiently instructed in the principles of the Christian Religion." 
 So the Rubric directs : but no one, I presume, would hold, that the bap- 
 P 5 
 
322 THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 the communion of the cliurch. If this was the prac- 
 tice of the Asiatic churches when Ignatius wrote, the 
 meaning of the whole passage is obvious. It may be 
 thus paraphrased : "Avoid the schisms into which those 
 heretics, who have separated from your bishop, would 
 lead you. Adhere to your bishop, elders, and deacons. 
 Let every thing that pertains to the church be done 
 under the bishop^s direction. Let there be no baptism, 
 no Lord^s supper administered, apart from him, with- 
 out his sanction. Consider no eucharist as adminis- 
 tered according to due order, which is not administered 
 either by the bishop, or by some one whom he has 
 authorized. Thus will you preserve unity among your- 
 selves, and avoid the communion of heretics who di- 
 vide the church." 
 
 Whether this be the precise meaning of the passage 
 or not, one thing is clear — that, however high it exalts 
 the bishop's authority, it furnishes no evidence of the 
 alleged ''fact of apostolical succession." It does not 
 prove, that bishops (as distinguished from presbyters) 
 have always had exclusively power to ordain other 
 ministers. It does not prove that every bishop, though 
 already ordained presbyter, received a new and distinct 
 ordination from some other bishop authorizing him to 
 ordain others. It merely proves, that, in a church 
 having a hishoj), freshyterSj and deacons, it is {ac- 
 cording to the opinion of Ignatius) unlawful to ordain 
 
 tism would be invalid, however irregular it might be, if administered 
 without such previous notice. Did Ignatius mean more than our Rubric, 
 when he said it was not lawful to baptize separately from the bishop ? 
 
^ IGNATIUS. 323 
 
 without the bishop's concurrence : and even this we 
 infer merely from the general terms which he uses — 
 for he does not mention ordination. 
 
 In other epistles Ignatius urges subjection, obe- 
 dience, or reverence, sometimes to the bishop, presby- 
 ters, and deacons (Ep. to Polyc. sect. 6), sometimes to 
 the bishop and presbyters (Ep. to Eph. sect. 2), some- 
 times to the bishop (Ep. to Magn. sect. 13). But, 
 while in one epistle he represents the presbyters as 
 being " in the place of the council of the apostles ^■' 
 (Ep. to Magn. sect. 6), and in another enjoins subjec- 
 tion and reverence to them '^ as to the apostles of Jesus 
 Christ " (Ep. to Trail, sect. 2 and 3) ; he no where 
 applies such language to the bishop, or speaks of 
 bishops as successors or representatives of the apostles. 
 Of the bishop he writes to the Magnesians in the same 
 connection, as '' presiding in the place of God^' (Ep. 
 to Magn. sect. 6). This distinction of language ascribes 
 higher rank to the bishop than to the presbyters ; but 
 is such as Ignatius would not have used, if he had con- 
 sidered the bishop as the only successor of the apostles/ 
 the only Christian minister through whom apostolical 
 succession can be transmitted. 
 
 Nor indeed can I, in the epistles of Ignatius, dis- 
 cover any intimation as to the way in which ministers 
 were in his time appointed, except the obscure passage 
 in his epistle to the church of Smyrna which has been 
 
 * Yet we are told in the Tracts for the Times, that " it is only the 
 Bishops who have ever been called by the title of Successors" to the 
 apostles. (No. 15, p. 2.) 
 
324 THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 already examined : but I find one passage, which inti- 
 mates, that (in his opinion) the essential thing is, not 
 external designation by man, but a sending forth of the 
 minister by God himself. The passage, to which I 
 refer, is in the opening of his epistle to the church at 
 Philadelphia. 
 
 " Ignatius, which is also Theophorus, to the church 
 of God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, which is 
 in Philadelphia of Asia, which has obtained mercy, 
 and is established in godly concord, and rejoices con- 
 tinually in the passion of our Lord, and has in his 
 resurrection been fully replenished with all mercy : 
 which also I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, which 
 is our eternal and abiding joy, especially if they be 
 in unity with the bishop, and the presbyters and dea- 
 cons who are with him, appointed according to the 
 mind of Jesus Christ ; whom he has settled according 
 to his own will in firmness by his Holy Spirit : which 
 bishop, I know, obtained that public ministry among 
 you, not of himself, neither by men, nor out of 
 vain-glory, but in the love of God the Father and the 
 
 Lord Jesus Christ My soul esteems his mind 
 
 towards God happy, knowing it to be fruitful in all 
 virtue, and perfect." (Ep. ad Philadelph.) 
 
 " Deacons appointed according to the mind of Jesus 
 Christ " — a bishop who obtained his ministry " not of 
 himself, neither by men " — what are we to infer from 
 these expressions ? The first expression, if consistent 
 with the notion of a transmitted commission, by no 
 means implies it : and the second expression, a bishop 
 
♦ IGNATIUS. 325 
 
 not by men (an expression obviously borrowed from St. 
 PauPs respecting himself ^) is scarcely to be reconciled 
 with such a notion. It is also obvious, that the church 
 which he thus addressed, with its bishop, elders, and 
 deacons, was sound in the faith. Would Ignatius 
 have so addressed a church whose bishop was unsound 
 in doctrine ? 
 
 It is important to bear this passage in mind, while 
 we examine another passage in the same epistle. 
 
 " As many as are of God, and of Jesus Christ, these 
 are with the bishop. And as many as shall with re- 
 pentance return into the unity of the church, these also 
 shall be of God, that they may live according to Jesus 
 Christ. Be not deceived, brethren; whosoever fol- 
 loweth one that createth schism, he inheriteth not the 
 kingdom of God ; whosoever walketh in another doc- 
 trine,> he agrees not with the passion of Christ. Use 
 your diligence therefore to partake of the same eucha- 
 rist ; for there is but one flesh of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ ; and one cup in the unity of his blood ; one 
 altar, as also there is one bishop, together with the 
 presbytery and the deacons, my fellow-servants ; that 
 so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to the will 
 God.'' (Ep. to Philadelph. sect. 3 and 4.) This pas- 
 sage expresses the opinion which Ignatius entertained 
 of the danger of those who separated from the church 
 
 1 Gal. i. 1. 
 2 " In another doctrine"— eV aWorpia. yuc^jxr} — " after any other opi- 
 nion" (Wake) — "by another man's opinion" (Rec. of the Church, No. x). 
 See also Jacobson's note. 
 
326 THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. * 
 
 which was then at Philadelphia ; a church sound in 
 doctrine, which had a bishop, presbyters, and deacons, 
 and the mind of whose bishop Ignatius knew to be 
 '^ fruitful in all virtue, and perfect/' 
 
 It further expresses the opinion of Ignatius, that 
 there was then at Philadelphia only that one church 
 (for the passage in his epistle to the Trallians next to 
 be examined shews that by '^ altar '^ he means church) ; 
 and that there was in that city no partaking of the Lord's 
 supper except in communion with that church. But 
 the passage does not import, either that the bishop had 
 received his commission by apostolical succession ; or 
 that, if he had fallen into erroneous doctrine, and the 
 presbyters had on that account separated from him and 
 held fast the faith, those who continued in communion 
 with the presbyters would not, in his opinion, have 
 constituted a church, or could not truly have received 
 the Lord's supper at the hands of those presbyters. 
 On the contrary, in the same epistle, Ignatius had (as 
 has been already ^noticed) told the Philadelphians that 
 their bishop had not obtained his ministry " by men : " 
 and in a subsequent passage he writes : " If any one 
 shall expound Judaism unto you, hearken not unto 
 him ; for it is better to receive the doctrine of Christ 
 from one that has been circumcised, than Judaism 
 from one that has not. But if either the one or the 
 other do not speak concerning Christ Jesus, they 
 are unto me, but as monuments and sepulchres of 
 the dead, upon which are written only the names of 
 men," (ib. 6) — a passage in which Ignatius clearly 
 
IGNATIUS. 327 
 
 considers the doctrine taught as the test of the true 
 minister. 
 
 Similar observations may be made on the following 
 passage, from which also it is evident that by " one 
 altar," Ignatius means one church, " He that is within 
 the altar is pure ; [but he that is without J that is, he 
 that does any thing independently of the bishop and 
 presbytery and deacon, is not pure in his conscience : " 
 (Ep. to Trail, sect. 7). Ignatius addressed this church 
 at Tralles also, as " beloved of God the Father of Jesus 
 Christ," "elect and worthy of God, having peace through 
 the flesh and blood and passion of Jesus Christ : " 
 and, immediately before the passage just cited, he had 
 warned the Trallians '* to use none but the Christian 
 nourishment, and to abstain from the strange herb, 
 which is heresy." (sect. 6.) 
 
 In this same epistle to the Trallians a passage occurs 
 which, though I suspect it to be spurious,^ I will not 
 pass unnoticed. " Let all reverence the deacons, as 
 Jesus Christ ; as also the bishop, being the son of the 
 Tather ; and the presbyters, as the council of God, and 
 the college of the apostles [or, a college of apostles]. 
 Apart from these a church is not called [or, it is not 
 called a church]." (Sect. 3). Such is as Hteral a trans- 
 lation, as I am able to give, of a passage obviously cor- 
 rupt. In substance Ignatius says, or is made to say, 
 that a body of professing Christians, apart from the 
 bishop, elders, and deacons, is not properly called a 
 
 ' See the original and some remarks upon it in Appendix v. 
 
328 THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 church : an observation, which he might naturally 
 make with reference to the heretics, against whom he 
 afterwards warns the Trallians (sect. 6 and 7). But, 
 even if he meant generally that the threefold ministry 
 is essential to the constitution of a Christian church, 
 we have only the opinion of Ignatius, even admitting 
 the passage to be genuine ; an opinion also not involv- 
 ing the doctrine of apostolical succession, it being ob- 
 vious that the threefold ministry may exist and be per- 
 petuated, though a presbyter on being raised to the 
 rank of bishop receive no imposition of episcopal 
 hands. 
 
 I am not aware, that I have omitted any passage ' in 
 Ignatius bearing on the alleged " fact of apostolical 
 succession :" and I think I may conclude with confi- 
 dence, that he gives no testimony in support of it. 
 
 Shortly after and almost contemporaneously with 
 the epistles of Ignatius, Polycarp (then bishop of 
 the church at Smyrna^) wrote an epistle to the church 
 at Philippi. He writes in the name of himself and of 
 " the presbyters that are with him ;" but he does not 
 style himself bishop. Of himself he speaks in terms, 
 emphatically distinguishing between St. Paul and him- 
 self : and he refers to the epistle which the apostle had 
 written to the Philippians, as that by reading which 
 they might edify themselves in the faith. "^ This epistle 
 
 ^ See Appendix vi., written since the text, in consequence of the ap- 
 pearance of Mr. Cureton's edition of a Syriac version of three of the 
 Epistles of Ignatius. ^ Euseb. Ecc. Hist. lib. iii. cap. 36. 
 
 ^ The passage, though not bearing directly on the present question, is 
 
POLYCARP. 329 
 
 of Polycarp contains not a single allusion to a bishop 
 of Philippi. We find in it exhortations to the deacons, 
 and to the elders respectively, touching their respective 
 duties (sect. 5 and 6) : and he admonishes the Philip- 
 pians to be " subject to the elders and deacons, as unto 
 God and Christ^' (sect. 5). Can we believe, that, if 
 at this time there had been a bishop of Philippi, Poly- 
 carp would have passed him over without notice ? that, 
 when he enjoined subjection to the elders and deacons, 
 he would have said nothing of subjection to the bishop ? 
 Again — he exhorts the elders to abstain from ^' un- 
 righteous judgment ;" to be '' not easy to believe any 
 thing against any" (sect. 6): yet he gives them no 
 direction to consult their bishop in their judgments. 
 Is it not manifest, that, when Polycarp wrote, the 
 elders were the supreme rulers of the church at Phi- 
 lippi ? 
 
 From the whole tenor of this epistle I conclude, 
 that the constitution of the church of Philippi was the 
 same when Polycarp wrote, as when the apostle Paul 
 
 too important to be wholly omitted. " These things, my brethren, I have 
 not taken the liberty of myself to write unto you concerning righteous- 
 ness, but you yourselves before encouraged me to it ; for neither can I, 
 nor any other such as I am, come up to the wisdom of the blessed and 
 renowned Paul, who, being himself in person with you, did with all 
 exactness and soundness teach tlie word of truth ; and, being gone from 
 you, wrote an epistle to you ; into which, if you look, you will be able 
 to edify j'ourselves in the faith that has been delivered unto you, which 
 is the mother of us all" (§ 3). Here Polycarp refers to the apostle's 
 teaching as " with all exactness and soundness," and to the apostle's 
 epistle for edification in the faith, acknowledging himself and others such 
 as he was to be unable to come up to the apostle's teaching ; not even 
 hinting that the apostle's teaching required the church's explanation. 
 
330 THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 addressed his epistle " to all the saints in Christ Jesus 
 which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons " 
 — the " bishops '' (or overseers) of the apostle being 
 the " elders ^^ of Polycarp : and, consequently, that the 
 threefold ministry was not introduced by St. Paul into 
 all the churches which he founded, nor universally in- 
 troduced even in the apostle John's time. 
 
 The other writings, which Archbishop Wake consi- 
 ders (whether or not on sufficient grounds) as " genu- 
 ine " writings of the apostolical fathers, contain no 
 allusion either to the doctrine or to the alleged "fact 
 of apostolical succession.^' 
 
 Let us, therefore, now sura up and bring together 
 the conclusions deduced from the epistles of Clement, 
 Ignatius, and Polycarp. 
 
 The only passage in these epistles, in which any re- 
 ference is made to the mode of appointing ministers ^ is 
 in Clement, and is so vague and obscure as to throw 
 no light whatsoever on the question of apostolic suc- 
 cession : while Ignatius, urging strongly in his several 
 epistles to the Asiatic churches subjection to the 
 bishop, presbyters, and deacons, and especially exalting 
 the bishop's authority, deals in general and extravagant 
 declamation, never alludes to any apostolic commission 
 as being transmitted to the bishop, and is altogether 
 silent on the alleged "fact of apostolical succession," 
 which (had it been a fact) must have been known to 
 him, and would have furnished him with arguments 
 for his purpose much stronger than any he uses. 
 
 So far, indeed, is Ignatius from representing the 
 
THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 331 
 
 bishops as the successors (and the only successors) of 
 the apostles, that he applies no such terms to them, 
 but represents the elders as being " in the place of the 
 council of apostles :" while Polycarp is wholly silent as 
 to apostolical succession. 
 
 Lastly. Though from the epistles of Ignatius to 
 the three apocalyptic churches of Ephesus, Philadelphia, 
 and Smyrna, and the two other Asiatic churches of 
 Tralles and Magnesia, it is clear, that the threefold 
 ministry then existed in those five churches : there 
 arises from the epistles of Clement and Polycarp a 
 strong (I might say, an irresistible) inference, that the 
 threefold ministry was neither introduced by St. Paul 
 into aW the churches founded by him, nor introduced 
 universally till after the death of the apostle John. 
 
 How the conclusion so deduced from Clement and 
 Polycarp bears on the question of apostolical succession 
 may deserve further explanation. The introduction of 
 the threefold ministry (even if it had been unwersally 
 introduced) by the apostles into the different churches, 
 would not alone (as I have already observed) prove the 
 alleged ''fact of apostolical succession," even as regards 
 bishops appointed in the earliest times after the age of 
 the apostles : but conversely, if the facts be (as we 
 cannot but infer from Clement and Polycarp) that the 
 apostle Paul founded the churches of Corinth and Phi- 
 lippi without appointing a bishop over either of them, 
 and that when Polycarp wrote (after the martyrdom of 
 
 * There is no evidence in Scripture, that it was introduced by him into 
 any church. As to the bishops of Rome, see post, ch. iv. 
 
332 THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. 
 
 the apostles Peter and Paul, and the death of St. John) 
 the church of Philippi was still without a bishop, these 
 facts militate strongly against the view of apostolical 
 succession as advocated in the Tracts for the Times. 
 The churches of Corinth and Philippi were obviously 
 (when these epistles respectively were written) inde- 
 pendent churches. Clement (in the name of the church 
 of Rome) writes to the church of Corinth, and Polycarp 
 writes to that of Philippi, as to an independent church, 
 offering advice, not claiming authority over them. If 
 then these two* churches were settled by St. Paul 
 without appointing over them any bishop, by whom 
 but by elders had their ministers been ordained, when 
 they no longer had the superintendence of an apostle ? 
 And if, in a church which had no bishop, the elders 
 had authority to ordain, the notion of a divine commis- 
 sion, transmitted exclusively through a succession of 
 bishops, falls to the ground. Nor is the exercise of 
 this authority by the elders of a church so constituted 
 at variance with the practice, which Ignatius enforces 
 on episcopal churches, that nothing be done without 
 the bishop. 
 
 On the whole, the apostolical fathers (the principal 
 witnesses to whom the writers in the Tracts for the 
 Times appeal) not only supply no evidence in support 
 of the alleged ''/act of apostolical succession,^^ but fur- 
 nish strong inferences against it. 
 
 ^ It will hereafter appear (see post, ch. iv.) that the church of Rome 
 was in the same condition. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 JUSTIN MARTYR TO ORIGEN. 
 
 After the apostolic fathers, follow Justin Martyr and 
 Irenseus in the second century, Tertullian and Clement 
 of Alexandria about the close of the second and the 
 beginning of the third century, and Origen, who flou- 
 rished in the third century. 
 
 Justin Martyr throws no light on the question of 
 apostolical succession. His principal work (his Apo- 
 logy) is addressed, not to Christians, but to heathen. 
 He is (as we should therefore naturally expect) silent 
 on the constitution of the church : but, in one passage, 
 he describes the practice of the brethren in baptism, 
 in the Lord's supper, and in their public worship on 
 Sunday.^ He does not mention by whom baptism 
 was administered : but he speaks of the bread and the 
 cup of wine and water, as blessed ^ by the president 
 
 '" Sunday" — f)\'8 rifxtpa. ^ " Blessed"— tS ivxapisriQivTos. 
 
334 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 of the brethren ^ and given by the deacons to those 
 present ; of the scriptures being read_, and of an ex- 
 hortation being delivered by the president, " when the 
 reader has ceased." (Ap. Lib. i. sect. 61 — 67, pp. 
 79—84.) 
 
 We have, in this passage, the president, the reader 
 as distinguished from him, and the deacons. Probably 
 by the " president " he meant the same minister as in 
 the epistles of St. Paul is called sometimes presbyter 
 or elder, and sometimes bishop or overseer, words 
 which I do not find used by Justin. The president 
 was clearly the ruling, or chief minister. But I build 
 no argument against apostolic succession on the term 
 so used by Justin : for it may fairly be said, that Justin 
 adopted the word " president" as more intelligible to 
 those whom he addressed, than ^'presbyter" or " over- 
 seer." All that 1 deduce from the passage, and from the 
 circumstance of Justin no where else mentioning either 
 bishop or elder, is, that he furnishes no evidence in 
 favour of the alleged " fact of apostolical succession," 
 or even of the threefold ministry. 
 
 Iren^us, who was bishop of Lyons in the latter 
 part of the second century,- wrote against the various 
 heresies then prevalent in the church, — heresies begun 
 principally by Valentinian_, ^larcion, Cerinthus, and 
 Basilides. He charges the heretics with rejecting the 
 authority of scripture, and with alleging " that the 
 
 ^ This officer he calls in the first instance 6 nposs-ws rwp a^eKfwv, 
 and afterwards simply 6 7rpo6rci;s. 
 
 2 About A.D. 178 (Waddington's History of the Chxirch, p. 73). 
 
IRENiEUS. 835 
 
 truth cannot be found from it by those who are igno- 
 rant of tradition/^ " Truth '^ (he says) " according to 
 them, is sometimes in Valentinian, sometimes in Mar- 
 cion, sometimes in Cerinthus, and then in Basihdes, 
 .... but when we again appeal to the tradition, which 
 is from the apostles, and is preserved in the churches 
 by the successions of presbyters ; they oppose tradi- 
 tion, saying that they are superior, not only to the 
 presbyters, but even to the apostles.^' (Contr. Hser. lib. 
 iii. cap. 2. vol. i. p. 174, 175.) To settle, therefore, 
 the question, whether the churches with which he was 
 in communion, or the heretics, had apostolic authority 
 for their doctrine, Irenseus reasons thus : — 
 
 '' All who desire to see the truth may behold the 
 tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the 
 whole world in every church : and we can furnish a 
 list of those ^ who were by the apostles constituted 
 bishops in the churches, and of their successors unto 
 ourselves, who have taught no such doctrine, nor 
 known it, as these men rave about. For if the apostles 
 had known hidden mysteries, which they taught to the 
 perfect, separately and secretly^ from the rest, they 
 would have delivered them even principally to those 
 to whom they committed the churches themselves. . . . 
 But since it would be too long ^ in such a volume as 
 
 ^ " Habemus annumerare eos." 
 2 It is obvious that Irenaeus did not admit of there being any doctrine 
 which the apostles taught to the perfect ( " perfectos docebant") secre^. 
 He recognised no " doctrina arcani." 
 
 ^ " It would be too long" — " Valde Jongum est." 
 
336 IREN^US. 
 
 this to enumerate the successions of all the churches, 
 we show how the tradition of the church founded and 
 established at Eome by the two most glorious apostles 
 Peter and Paul, the greatest and most ancient church, 
 and known to all, that tradition which it has from 
 the apostles '' " has come down to us through suc- 
 cessions of bishops ; and we thereby confound all 
 those, who by any means hold things they should not, 
 whether as pleasing to themselves, or through vain 
 glory, or through blindness and .wrong judgment.^ 
 For with this church on account of its higher rank 
 every church must unite ; ^ that is, those who are 
 everywhere the faithful, in which that tradition which 
 is derived from the apostles is always preserved by 
 those who are everywhere/^ He then enumerates 
 twelve bishops of Rome,^ interspersing some remarks 
 not material to our present purpose ; and adds : " In 
 this order * and in this doctrine ^ both the tradition 
 
 ^ " Confundimus omnes eos, qui quoquo modo, vel per sibi placentia, 
 vel vanam gloriam, vel per caecitatem, et malam sententiam, praeterquam 
 oportet coUigunt." Perhaps the last clause should be rendered — " as- 
 semble otherwise than they should" — instead of " holding things they 
 should not." See the next quotation in the text. 
 
 ^ " Necesse est oninem con venire Ecclesiam." Perhaps it should be 
 rendered, " the whole church must unite" — which would better suit the 
 explanation : " those who are faithful in every place." 
 
 * His list begins with Linus, Anacletus, and Clement. But of this 
 more hereafter, ch. iv. 
 
 * " Order" — Tc{|6t — which in the Latin version is strangely rendered 
 " ordinatione." 
 
 ^ " Doctrine" — SiSaxjf. So all the MSS. of Eusebius (in which alone 
 the Greek of this passage is preserved): but Dr. Burton thinks, that 
 Irenaeus wrote ^laZox^. 
 
IRENiEUS. 337 
 
 preserved in the church from the apostles ^ and the 
 preaching of the truth has come down to us.^^ (Cont. 
 H«r. lib. iii. cap. 3. vol. i. p. 175, 176.) 
 
 This is an important passage. It shows what Ire- 
 nseus, the earliest writer (as far as I know) who speaks 
 of succession of bishops from the apostles, understood 
 by the expression ; and that he attached to it no such 
 meaning as, in the Tracts for the Times, is annexed to 
 " apostolical succession.^' The essential idea involved 
 in the " fact of apostolical succession '' as asserted 
 and explained in those Tracts is — not that there was 
 (though this idea is included) a regular succession of 
 bishops in the primitive churches from the time of the 
 apostles, but — that each of these bishops received a7i 
 episcopal commission from an apostle either immediately 
 or by successive transmission through other bishops. 
 Now as to any such episcopal commission, or any such 
 transmission, and indeed as to the manner in which or 
 the persons by whom bishops were in his time appointed, 
 Irenieus is wholly silent : and the fact of a church being- 
 able to exhibit a list of its successive bishops from the 
 time of the apostles raises no inference as to the 
 manner in which, or the persons by whom, the epis- 
 copal office and authority was conferred on those 
 bishops, any more than the naked fact of England 
 or Poland having, during any given period of years, 
 been governed by a succession of kings, determines 
 the manner in which such kings succeeded each other. 
 
 ^ " The tradition preserved in the church from the apostles," t] re 
 Q 
 
338 IREN^US. 
 
 In the one case, we know, it has been, though not with- 
 out interruption, by hereditary descent; in the other 
 it was (while Poland had a king) by election. 
 
 Nor can it be inferred from the use which Irenseus 
 makes of the fact of succession, that the bishops, of 
 whom he speaks, received any ordination or consecra- 
 tion to the office from any other bishop. His argu- 
 ment would rather lead to a contrary inference. His 
 argument runs thus — The apostles founded certain 
 churches, and placed bishops over them. These bishops 
 have in each of these churches been succeeded by 
 others in regular order to the present time, and we 
 can enumerate them all. The tradition or doctrine 
 which was taught by the apostles has been " preserved 
 in " these " churches by the successions of presbyters." 
 This doctrine, therefore, is to be received and kept : 
 not the doctrine taught by heretics, who have separ- 
 ated from these churches and cannot so trace back 
 their doctrine to the apostles. Such in substance is 
 the argument of Irenseus : an argument built, not on 
 any apostolic commission supposed to have been trans- 
 mitted from the apostles through a succession of 
 bishops, but on the probability that the doctrine of 
 the apostles would be most accurately preserved in 
 those churches, over which an apostle had originally 
 placed a bishop, and which from the time of that first 
 bishop had had regular '' successions of preshytersj' 
 and " successions of bishops.'' He uses both expres- 
 sions, obviously resting his argument on such a 
 succession of ministers, however perpetuated, as 
 
IREN.EUS. 339 
 
 continues and carries on the church in which they 
 minister. 
 
 There is one other passage in a later book of the 
 same treatise of Irenseus, which requires to be noticed. 
 
 " We ought to obey those presbyters who are in the 
 church, who have succession from the apostles as we 
 have shown ; ^ who, with the succession of the episco- 
 pate, received according to the Father^s pleasure the 
 sure gift of the truth. But the others, who depart 
 from the principal succession, and assemble in any 
 place, we should hold suspected, or as it were heretics, 
 and of evil opinion ; or as it were creating schisms, 
 and puffed up, and pleasing themselves ; ^ or again as 
 hypocrites, who act thus for the sake of gain or vain- 
 glory. All these have fallen from the truth. And 
 heretics indeed, bringing a strange fire to the altar of 
 God, that is, strange doctrines, shall be burnt with 
 fire from heaven, like Nadab and Abihu. But those 
 who rise up against the truth, and exhort others against 
 the church of God, remain in the infernal regions, 
 being swallowed up in an earthquake, as were those 
 about Corah, Dathan, and Abiram. But those who 
 divide and separate the unity of the church receive 
 
 ^ He refers, I conceive, to the passage already cited. 
 2 " Eis qui in Ecclesia sunt Presbyteris obandire oportet, his qui suc- 
 cessionem habent ab Apostolis sicut ostendimus; qui cum Episcopatus 
 successione charisma veritatis certum, secundum placitum Patris accepe- 
 runt. Reliquos vero, qui absistunt a principali successione, et quocunque 
 loco colligunt, suspectos habere, vel quasi haereticos, et malae sententiae, 
 vel quasi scindentes, et elatos, et sibi placentes."— Co/%e?'e is used for 
 " to assemble " by Tertullian (De fuga in Persecutione, c. 14). 
 Q 2 
 
340 IREN^US. 
 
 from God the same punishment as Jeroboam. But 
 those who by many are beheved to be presbyters, but 
 serve their own lusts, and set not the fear of God be- 
 fore them in their hearts, but treat others with con- 
 tumely, .... and do evil in secret, and say, ' No one 
 
 seeth us,^ are convicted by the word From all 
 
 such then we ought to depart ; but to adhere to those, 
 who both keep, as we said before, the doctrine of the 
 apostles, and with the order [or rank] of the presby- 
 tery hold forth sound speech and a blameless life ^ to 
 
 the confirmation and reproof of others Where 
 
 therefore any one finds such, Paul instructing us says : 
 God hath set some in the church, first apostles, se- 
 condarily 'prophets, thirdly teachers. Where there- 
 fore the gifts of the Lord have been conferred, there 
 we ought to learn the truth, from those with whom is 
 that succession of the church which is from the apostles, 
 and with whom is manifest a correct and irreproach- 
 able behaviour, and unadulterated and incorruptible 
 discourse.^^ ^ (Cont. Hser, Lib. iv. cap. 26. vol. i. 
 262, 263.) 
 
 In this passage, Irenseus first speaks of those " Pres- 
 byters WHO HAVE SUCCESSION FROM THE APOSTLES 
 
 as '' he had before " shown, who with the succession 
 OF THE Episcopate received according to the Father^s 
 
 ^ " Cum presbyterii ordine sermonem sanum, et conversationem sine 
 ofFensa prsestant." 
 
 - Ubi igitur charismata Domini posita sunt, ibi discere oportet verita- 
 tem, apud quos est ea quae est ab Apostolis Ecclesise successio, et id quod 
 est sanum et irreprobabile convcrsationis, et inadulteratuni et incorrupti- 
 bile sermonis constat. 
 
IREN^US. 341 
 
 pleasure the sure gift of the truth." He had before 
 (as we have seen) contended, that the doctrine of the 
 apostles was preserved in those churches in which 
 there had been a succession of bishops from the 
 apostles, but without laying down any rule or principle 
 according to which that succession had been kept up. 
 He now refers to that succession, and calls the bishops 
 of those churches presbyters,'^ who had with the suc- 
 cession of the episcopate received the sure gift of the 
 truth — thus using the words '' bishops " and " pres- 
 byters" interchangeably. He then contrasts these 
 bishops or presbyters with " the others who depart 
 from the principal succession," i. e. the succession 
 of which he had been speaking. Then, after de- 
 nouncing judgments against heretics who bring in 
 '^ strange doctrines," and against those who " divide " 
 " the unity of the church," and after speaking of 
 *' those who by many are believed to be presbyters, 
 but serve their own lusts," he says : " From all such 
 then we ought to depart ; but to adhere to those, who 
 both keep, as we said before, the doctrine of the apostles, 
 and with the order [or rank] of the presbytery hold 
 forth sound doctrine and a blameless life." The lan- 
 guage of the whole context requires us to include 
 among these teachers, adherence to whom he incul- 
 cates, the bishops whose succession he had just before 
 mentioned, and with them the elders of the same 
 
 ^ If any one think that Irenaeus here speaks of presbyters, as distinct 
 from bishops, the argument against apostolical succession in the episcopal 
 line exclusively is only thereby strengthened. But I would not strengthen. 
 my argument by putting on the passage a sense, which I do not think 
 belongs to it. 
 
342 TERTULLIAN. 
 
 churches : that is to say, the teachers, whom he after- 
 wards describes as " those with whom is that succes- 
 sion OF THE CHURCH which is from the apostles, and 
 with whom is manifest a correct and irreproachable be- 
 haviour and unadulterated and incorruptible discourse." 
 The succession, of which he speaks throughout the 
 passage, is a succession of the church, i. e. such a suc- 
 cession of ministers (whether bishops or presbyters) 
 in a church as continued and carried on in the church 
 from the time of the apostles to the time when he wrote : 
 but he says nothing as to the mode in which that suc- 
 cession had been continued or brought down to his 
 time ; while the ministers, whom he exhorts men to 
 follow, are those, who, with this succession, " keep 
 the doctrine of the apostles " and lead holy lives. 
 
 Irenseus, therefore, in these passages furnishes no 
 evidence in favour of the alleged " fact of apostolical 
 succession '' in the Tractarian sense. Nor have I dis- 
 covered in liis writings any evidence in support of it. 
 
 Tertullian was made a presbyter of the Church of 
 Carthage about a. d. 192 : and sometime (probably 
 about seven years) afterwards he seceded from the 
 church, and adopted the opinions of the Montanists — 
 a sect of enthusiasts and ascetics. ^ 
 
 ' See Waddington, Hist, of the Church, pp. 35, 69. — Bp. Kaye, in his 
 History of the Church in the second and third centuries, illustrated by 
 the writings of Tertullian, has endeavoured to distinguish TertuUian's 
 works into (1.) those which he probably wrote while he was yeta member 
 of the church; (2.) those which he certainl}' wrote after he became a 
 Montanist; (3.) those which he probably wrote after he became a Mon- 
 tanist ; and (4.) those as to which nothing certain can be pronounced, 
 whether he wrote them before or after he became a Montanist. (Bp. 
 Kaye, p. 61 — 63.) When I refer to this distinction, I must be under- 
 
TERTULLIAN. 343 
 
 Id a work, probably written before his secession, he 
 says that " the chief priest, who is the bishop, has the 
 right of giving '' baptism. " Next the presbyters and 
 deacons, not however without the bishop^s authority, 
 for the sake of the honour of the church/^ He allows 
 the right to the laity also ; but as a right to be exer- 
 cised in urgent cases only (De Bapt. cap. 17). I do 
 not find,^ that he draws any other distinction between 
 the respective powers and offices of the bishop, presby- 
 ter, and deacon .2 
 
 TertuUian further states, that in those churches over 
 which the apostles had placed a bishop, the line of 
 bishops could be traced back from the bishops of his 
 day to the bishop so appointed, and that by the exist- 
 
 stood as following Bishop Kaye's authority. In several passages, I avail 
 myself of his translation. 
 
 ^ Bp. Kaye says : " How clearly soever the distinction between the 
 Bishop and the other orders of clergy may be asserted in the writings of 
 TertuUian, they afford us little assistance in ascertaining wherein the dis- 
 tinction consisted." (Hist, of the Church, &c. p. 236.) 
 
 ^ In a work ( De Corona Militis, cap. 3), written when certainly a Mon- 
 tanist, he speaks of profession being made before baptism " under the hand 
 of the antisteSi'*'' and of the Eucharist being received only from the hand 
 oi the. presidents (those who preside). 
 
 And in another work, respecting which nothing certain can be pro- 
 nounced, whether it was written before or after he became a Montanist, 
 TertuUian, after mentioning meetings where the scriptures were read, 
 says that there also a divine censorship was exercised ; and that '* the 
 older members, men of tried piety and prudence," presided, " having ob- 
 tained that dignity not by purchase, but by acknowledged merit." (See 
 App. vii. and Kaye's Hist. &c. pp. 222, 223.) This latter passage, even 
 if TertuUian wrote it while a member of the church, only imports that 
 when questions of excommunication or ecclesiastical censure were decided, 
 the whole church was present, and some elder members of approved char- 
 acter, whether clerical or lay — for the word is " seniores," not " presby- 
 ter! " — presided. 
 
34i TERTULLIAN. 
 
 ence of sucli a line of bishops in a church it might be 
 distinguished as of apostoUc foundation. Thence he 
 argues (as Trenseus had argued before him), that the 
 true doctrine of the apostles is that which is preserved 
 in the churches founded by them : anH he further 
 asserts that the writings of the apostles were preserved 
 uncorrupted in those churches and in the churches in 
 communion with them. Many passages to this effect 
 occur in the writings of Tertulliani^ but I have searched 
 in them in vain for any mention of the mode in which 
 this succession had been perpetuated in the churches 
 founded by the apostles, or of the mode in which either 
 the first or any subsequent bishop had been appointed 
 in the churches called apostolical but not so founded. 
 He furnishes therefore no evidence in favour of the 
 alleged ^' fact of apostolical succession '^ in the Tracta- 
 rian sense- of the words. 
 
 But I must not dismiss Tertullian's testimony as 
 altogether neutral on the question. He challenges the 
 heretics of his day to trace the origin of their churches 
 and the succession of their bishops, and to show that 
 their first bishop derived his authority from the apostles. 
 He speaks, as I have noticed, with great distinctness 
 (and that^ in more passages than one), of churches 
 founded by the apostles or by apostolical men, churches 
 over each of which they appointed the first bishop ; 
 
 ^ See Appendix viii. 
 2 On referring to App. viii. it will be seen, that Bingham has misin- 
 terpreted Tertullian, when he renders — " Ordo tamen episcoporum ad 
 originera recensus, in Johannem stabit autorem." " The order of bishops 
 when traced up to its original will be found to have St. John for one of 
 its authors." ^ See Appendix viii. 
 
TERTULLIAN. 
 
 345 
 
 and he speaks of churclies, which (being of much later 
 date) were not so founded^ but held the same faith as 
 such churches, and were therefore considered as being 
 also " apostolical churches :" while he calls the com- 
 munities, against which he writes, ^^ hsereses/^ heretical 
 communities, not being received into communion by 
 these " apostolical churches." There were, therefore, 
 in TertuUian's time, two classes of churches esteemed 
 apostolical, and actually in communion with each 
 other : 1st, those which could trace a succession of 
 bishops back to the time when they were founded by 
 an apostle or by an apostolical man ; and 2ndly, those 
 of later foundation, which were also recognized as apos- 
 tolical, because they held the same faith. Now if 
 each church of the latter class had received its first 
 bishop from a church of the former class, such a cir- 
 cumstance would scarcely have been overlooked by 
 Tertullian as falling in with his argument. But he is 
 silent as to the manner in which these later churches 
 were founded. Again — if every bishop of each of 
 these apostolical churches had, from its foundation to 
 the time of Tertullian, been ordained to his office by 
 some other bishop, by the bishop of some other church, 
 would not Tertullian have referred to this practice as a 
 bond of union distinguishing the apostolical churches ? 
 The silence of TertulHan on this point is to me very 
 expressive.^ It raises a strong presumption, that, 
 when a bishop died, his successor was appointed by 
 
 ' See particularly the second passage quoted in Appendix viii, and the 
 sentence beginning " Communicatio pacis." 
 
346 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 the churcli over which he was to preside, without any 
 interference of any other bishop ; and that, if ordained 
 to his office, he was ordained by the presbytery of his 
 own church — a presumption, I mean, that this was the 
 practice in many churches when Tertulhan wrote ; and 
 that, if at that time the practice to any extent prevailed 
 of a bishop elect being ordained by other bishops, such 
 practice was not universal, nor had existed continuously 
 from the time of the apostles. This consideration does 
 not neutralize Tertullian's testimony, but rather turns 
 it against the alleged ^^ fact of apostolical succession." 
 For the alleged fact is, that there has been an uninter- 
 rupted succession, not merely of bishops, but of bishops 
 each and all of them episcopally ordained to the office 
 of bishop, from the time of the apostles to the present 
 day. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria flourished between the 
 years 192 and 217. He succeeded Pantaenus in the 
 direction of the catechetical school in that city : and 
 he was (according to Jerome) a presbyter of the church 
 of Alexandria.' The testimony deducible from his 
 writings on the question of apostolical succession re- 
 sembles in character that drawn from the works of 
 Tertullian. 
 
 The principal passage bearing on the question is the 
 following, which is quoted by Eusebius.- " Listen to a 
 story that is no fiction, but a real history, handed down 
 
 ' See Bp. Kaye's Account of tlie Writings of Clement of Alexandria, 
 P-4. 
 
 ^ I have, in this passage, availed myself of the translation given in 
 Cxuse's Eusebius, p. 89. 
 
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 347 
 
 and carefully preserved, respecting the apostle John. 
 For after the tyrant was dead, coming from the isle 
 of Patmos to Ephesus, he went also, when called, 
 to the neighbouring regions of the Gentiles, in some 
 to appoint bishops, in some to institute entire new 
 churches, in others to appoint to the ministry some ^ of 
 those that were pointed out by the Holy Ghost. When 
 he came therefore to one of these cities .... and had 
 in other respects consoled his brethren, he at last 
 turned towards the bishop ordained (appointed"), and 
 seeing a youth of fine stature, graceful countenance, 
 and ardent mind, he said, " Him I commend to you 
 with all earnestness, in the presence of the church and 
 of Christ.^' The bishop having taken him and pro- 
 mised all, he repeated and testified the same thing, 
 and then returned to Ephesus. The presbyter taking 
 *' the youth home .... educated .... and at length 
 baptized him." The narrative then tells us, how the 
 youth was enticed to join a gang of robbers, and be- 
 came their captain ; and how the apostle, returning to 
 the same city, and having learnt of " the bishop " the 
 course taken by the youth, went after him and re- 
 claimed him (Quis Dives Salvetur, sect. 41, p. 959.) 
 
 Seeing the way in which the words bishop and pres- 
 byter are in this narrative applied interchangeably to 
 the same individual, it may be questioned whether Cle- 
 ment meant, that the apostle appointed bishops in the 
 
 ^ " In others to appoint to the ministry some" — '6-na Se KKiipip [kAtj^ov] 
 %va 76 nvo. KKrjpdiawP. 
 
 2 *' Appointed"— /co&eo-TWTt 
 
348 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 modern sense of the term, or ecclesiastical rulers, such 
 as are in Acts xx. called interchangeably elders and 
 overseers : and whether the clergy, whom he appointed 
 in some cities, were not simply deacons. But, if we 
 concede that the apostle appointed bishops as distin- 
 guished from elders and deacons, still the passage fur- 
 nishes no information, as to the mode in which the 
 successors of those bishojjs were appointed ; and con- 
 sequently no evidence as to the alleged '^fact of apos- 
 tolical succession," the transmission through bishops 
 exclusively (as distinguished from presbyters) of a divine 
 commission from the apostles. 
 
 In another passage Clement says : " It is possible 
 for a man even in the present day, who exercises him- 
 self in the commandments of the Lord, and lives per- 
 fectly and gnostically according to the gospel, to be 
 enrolled in the number of the apostles. Such a man 
 is the true presbyter of the church, and the true minis- 
 ter ifioLKovoq) of the will of God, if he does and teaches 
 that which is of the Lord ; not chosen (%e{/joTo>8/xevo?) by 
 man ; not deemed righteous, because a presbyter, but 
 enrolled in the presbytery, because righteous : although 
 he may not be honoured with the first place (TrpuTOKade- 
 ^pioi>) upon earth, yet he will sit down among the ^ four- 
 and- twenty thrones, judging the people, as John says 
 in the Apocalypse." Clement proceeds to remark, that 
 these four-and-twenty judges will be selected from the 
 most perfect members of the church, now composed of 
 
 ^ " Clement has here mixed up Apoc. iv. 4, xi. 16, with Matt. xix. 28, 
 or Luke xxii. 30." (Bp. Kaye.) 
 
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 349 
 
 Jews and Gentiles ; and then adds, " for the degrees 
 (at 'TTpoKotiai) in the church on earth, of bishops, presby- 
 ters, deacons, are, in my opinion, imitations of the 
 angelic glory, and of that dispensation which is said in 
 scripture to await all who, walking in the steps of the 
 apostles, live in perfect righteousness according to the 
 Gospel. These,^ according to the apostle, being raised 
 in the clouds will first minister (§taKovvjo-e<v), will then, 
 receiving an advancement in glory (for there are dif- 
 ferences in glory), be enrolled in the presbytery, until 
 they come unto the perfect man " "^ (Strom, lib. vi. 
 sects. 13, 14, pp. 793, 794). 
 
 The opinion expressed by Clement in this passage 
 is obviously inconsistent with the notion of a divine 
 commission transmitted from the apostles through a 
 succession of episcopal ordinations. I have cited, how- 
 ever, the passage — not for the sake of his opinion, to 
 which as here expressed I attach little weight, but — as 
 shewing, that, while there were in his time three de- 
 grees or ranks in the ministry (bishops, presbyters, and 
 deacons^), he includes the two highest under the gene- 
 ral word " presbyter,^^ and the office both of bishop 
 and presbyter under the word '^ presbytery." 
 
 So in another passage he writes — " He approves the 
 
 ' " 1 Thess. iv. 17 ; 1 Cor. xv. 41 ; Eph. iv. 13, are here mixed to- 
 gether," (Bp. Kaye.) 
 
 2 I have adopted Bishop Kaye's language in this extract together with 
 his two notes, and with the Greek words interspersed by him. (See Bp. 
 Kaye's Account of the Writings of Clement of Alexandria, p. 462, 463.) 
 
 3 Elsewhere he mentions bishops, presbyters, deacons, and xvidows. 
 (Psed. lib. iii. cap. 12, p. 309.) 
 
350 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 husband of one wife, whether he be a presbyter, or a 
 deacon, or a layman ^^ (Strom. Hb. iii. sect. 12, p. 552) 
 — using the words presbyter and deacon in contradis- 
 tinction to the layman, and consequently as including 
 all the clergy — the bishop, therefore, among the pres- 
 byters. 
 
 Again — in a third passage (Strom, lib. vii. sect. 1, 
 p. 830) he says, that the office of the presbyter is to 
 amend the soul, that of the deacon to minister^ — where 
 under the title of " presbyter,^^ the bishop is obviously 
 included, it being his office, as much as that of the 
 presbyter, to amend the soul. 
 
 In these three passages Clement is not putting for- 
 ward any peculiar opinion of his own as to the bishop 
 and presbyter being included under the general term 
 " presbyter :'* but obviously uses the words ^' presby- 
 ter'' and "presbytery'' in the sense in which they 
 were then commonly understood. In the two latter 
 passages he uses the word " presbyter" to include all 
 the clergy above the deacon : and, in the first, he uses 
 the words " presbyter " and " presbytery " respec- 
 tively to denote the highest minister and the highest 
 ministry in the church, while in the same passage 
 he distinguishes also between the degrees of bishop 
 and presbyter. It may, therefore, be reasonably in- 
 ferred, that, while the presbyters were distinguished 
 in office from the deacons, the bishop was distin- 
 
 * Bp. Kaye (in his Account of the Writings of Clement of Alexandria, 
 p. 462 — 464) gives this as the purport oi—r^y fxeu §6\TicoTtK^u ol irpecr- 
 Sirepoi cru^scnv et/cciva* t^v vitr]piTiK)]v 5e ol SidKovoi. 
 
ORIGEN. 351 
 
 guished from the other presbyters as being the chief 
 presbyter.'^ 
 
 The result, therefore, is, that Clement of Alexandria, 
 while he bears testimony to the existence of three de- 
 grees in the ministry, bears none in favour of the 
 alleged ''fact of apostohc succession;" but inferen- 
 tially rather furnishes evidence against it by including 
 bishops as well as elders under the commen title of 
 presbyters. 
 
 Origen was the pupil of Clement of Alexandria ; 
 and, at the age of eighteen, succeeded his tutor as 
 head of the catechetical school in that city. He was 
 then a layman ; and afterwards, before he was ordained, 
 he went to Palestine, where, at the request and (it 
 seems) in the presence of the bishops of Jerusalem and 
 Csesarea, he expounded the scriptures publickly in the 
 church. For this proceeding Demetrius, bishop of 
 Alexandria, expostulated with those bishops, who an- 
 swered him in a letter giving instances in which the 
 same thing had been done before. Recalled by Deme- 
 trius, Origen resumed his occupation in the school. 
 At a later period he was ordained presbyter by the 
 bishops of Jerusalem and Csesarea (Euseb. Eccl. Hist, 
 lib. vi. cap. 6, 19). 
 
 Origen repeatedly mentions bishops, presbyters, and 
 deacons;- and in one passage tells us that different 
 
 1 The conclusion which Bp. Kaye draws from the writings of Clement 
 is, " that the bishop was distinguished from the rest of the clergy : he 
 was in truth the chief presbyter." (Account of the Writings of Clement 
 of Alexandria, p. 464.) 
 
 2 Orig. in Num. Hom. ii. § 1, and in Ps. 37, Horn. i. § 1, vol. ii- 278, 
 
352 ORIGEN, 
 
 duties belong to a widow^^ a deacon, a presbyter, and a 
 bishop, those of the latter being the heaviest. ^ But as 
 to the difference of these duties, all that I gather from 
 his writings is, that the deacons^ were entrusted with 
 the money of the church ; and that the presbyters 
 were the senators, and the bishops the rulers of the 
 church.* 
 
 With regard to the mode of appointing bishops, I 
 find in Origen the three following passages. 
 
 1. '^ We invite those, who are powerful in speech 
 and live a pure life {€i^ iyte? x/jw/xeve?) to the govern- 
 ment (eTr) TO apx^ii^) of the churchcs : not admitting into 
 the government (aV a7roSe%o/A€voi) those who are fond of 
 power, but constraining those who from great modesty 
 are unwilling to undertake the pubhc care of the 
 church of God .... and if those rule well, who rule 
 in the church (oi ap^oyre? ev t^ eV/cXvjcnV), being called 
 prefects {Trpoa-Tarai) of our country according to God, I 
 
 681. Com. in Matt. scil. " Series veteris Interpretationis," § 10. Scil. 
 in Matt, xxiii. 1 — 3, vol. iii. 836. Orig. in Luc. Horn. xvii. vol. iii. 953. 
 
 ^ Elsewhere he speaks of virgins as a recognised class in the church. 
 (Orig. in Gen. Horn, xi, § 1, vol. ii. 89.) 
 
 ^ De Orat. § 28, vol. i. 253. In another passage, commenting on the 
 Song of Solomon, i. 17, he whimsically enough considers the bishops as 
 represented by the " beams," and the presbyters by the " rafters." 
 (Orig. in Cant. lib. iii. vol. ii. 69, 70.) 
 
 3 Com. in Matt. torn. xvi. § 22, vol. iii. 753. 
 
 * He speaks of " senators and rulers (gsAeurcDv Kot apx^^foov) of the 
 church." (Cont. Cels. lib. iii. § 30, vol. i. 466, 467.) By " rulers" he 
 means bishops, as will appear by the passages next quoted in the text ; 
 consequently by " senators" he means the presbyters, though perhaps he 
 may have had a peculiar reference to the twelve presbyters, who (as we 
 shall see) at that time formed a council to the bishop of Alexandria. 
 
ORIGEN. 353 
 
 mean of the cliureli," &c. (Cont. Cels. lib. viii. § 75, 
 vol. i. 798.) 
 
 2. " Even in the Church of Christ are found not 
 only feasts, .... but those also who love the first seats 
 at them, and do many things : first indeed that they 
 may be made deacons not such as the scripture men- 
 tions, but such as devour widows^ houses, and for a 
 pretence make long prayers : and they shall therefore 
 receive greater condemnation. And those, who wish 
 to be made such deacons, next go about to obtain ^ the 
 chief seats of those who are called presbyters. But 
 some not even satisfied with these intrigue very much^ 
 that they may be called bishops by men, which is 
 Rabbi ; when they ought to understand that he should 
 be made a bishop who is unblameable, and the other 
 things which follow, so that if he be not by men said 
 to be a bishop, he may nevertheless be one before God. 
 For he who has in himself the things which Paul enu- 
 merates respecting a bishop, although he is not a 
 bishop before men, is a bishop before God, although 
 he has not reached that rank^ by ordination of men. 
 As he is a physician who has learnt the science of me- 
 dicine, and is able to administer medicine as a physi- 
 cian, although the sick do not trust their bodies to 
 him" (Com. in Matt. " Series Veteris Interpretationis,' 
 sect. 12, viz. in Matt, xxiii. 1 — 6. vol. iii. p. 838). 
 
 ^ " Go about to obtain"—" Ambiunt." The Greek has not been pre- 
 served. 
 
 2 " Intrigue very much" — " Plurima machinantur/' 
 3 " Rank"—" Gradum." 
 
354 ORIGEN. 
 
 3. Commenting on Matt. xxi. 12, Origen says that 
 the three descriptions of persons therein mentioned 
 might be found in the Christian church, viz. — the 
 worldly-minded, who are given to buying and selling, 
 and seldom to prayer; the deacons, who misapply the 
 money of the church to their own use ; ^^ the bishops 
 and presbyters of the people who have been entrusted 
 with the chief seats, and as it were sell whole churches 
 to those to whom they should not, and who appoint 
 those whom they ought not rulers, they are those who 
 sell doves '^^ (Com. in Matt. tom. xvi. sect. 22, Vol. iii. 
 p. 753). 
 
 From the two first of these passages, and especially 
 from the canvassing and intriguing mentioned in the 
 second, we cannot but conclude, that, when Origen 
 wrote, it was usual for bishops to be chosen by the 
 church over which they were to preside, whether by 
 the clergy or by both laity and clergy does not appear; 
 while we may infer from the third passage, that they 
 were frequently at least elected by the elders. The 
 passage, indeed, might, at first seem to intimate that 
 the ruler, i. e. the bishop, of a church was appointed 
 by ^' the bishops and presbyters of the people, who " 
 had " been entrusted with the chief seats :^' but the 
 church, over which a bishop is to be appointed, has no 
 bishop of its own ; and the bishops of the neighbouring 
 churches could not with propriety be joined with the 
 
 ^ Gr. 'Ot 5e ras 7rpwTOKo0e5p:as ireiricrTerjixeuoi. tov \aov eVicr/coTroi 
 Kai vpeaSurepoi, Kai ooa-trepei aTro5i56fJi.€VOi o\as iKK\T]crias dis 6v xph, ««* 
 KaQicndvTas ovs ov ^i2 &pxoi'TaSj ovt6i iicriv oi irwXovuTes ras TreptcrT epas. 
 
ORIGEN. 355 
 
 presbyters of the vacant church as having been en- 
 trusted with the chief seats. We must, therefore, inter- 
 pret the latter clause of the passage (on the principle of 
 "reddendo singula singulis^^) thus. The bishops, "who 
 sell whole churches,^' making money by an improper 
 use of their episcopal authority ; and the presbyters, 
 who for filthy lucre's sake " appoint those whom they 
 ought not '' to be bishops and " rulers '' over them ; 
 these bishops and presbyters are " those who sell 
 doves " in the temple. There is so much obscurity in 
 the passage, that I do not rely upon this as the mean- 
 ing, and urge it as a proof that the elders appointed 
 their bishop : but this at least I may say, that, what- 
 ever is to be gathered from the passage as to the mode 
 then in use of appointing bishops, it can scarcely be 
 contended that, by an appointment so corrupt as Origen 
 describes, a divine commission was, or could be, trans- 
 mitted. 
 
 These three passages, therefore, furnish no evidence 
 in favour of the alleged " fact of apostolical succession:" 
 while— but that I refer to the Fathers for facts, not 
 for opinions — the second of them might be cited as 
 shewing, how little Origen thought of the necessity of 
 ordination. 
 
 There are other passages, • in which Origen speaks of 
 
 ' Philosoph. Prooemium. vol. i. 876— riepl 'Apx^", '^^ ^st De Prin- 
 cipiis. Praef. § 2, and lib. iv. § 9, vol. i. 47, 16b"— of which latter work, 
 Ilepi 'Apx^"* we have little left but a translation by Ruffinus, the fidelity 
 of which is (to say the least) very questionable, as is manifest from what 
 he says both in his general preface (vol. i. 45, 46), and in his preface to 
 the third book (ib. 107). 
 
356 ORIGEN. 
 
 succession from the apostles, but does not connect it 
 with episcopacy ; and in one of them (Philosoph. Prooe- 
 mium, vol. i. 876) he says that the Holy Spirit was 
 given in the church, " which ^^ (Holy Spirit) "the apos- 
 tles having first received it conferred on those who had 
 rightly {op6a<;) believed : of whom we being the suc- 
 cessors (^ia'^oxoi), and partaking of the same grace and 
 chief priesthood and doctrine (StSao-zcaX/a^-), and being 
 reckoned guardians of the church, have not slept at our 
 post, or withheld right instruction '' — thus including 
 himself, at most only a presbyter, among the successors 
 of the apostles J who partake of the chief priesthood.^ 
 
 The evidence, therefore, furnished by the writings of 
 Origen, is against, rather than for, the alleged " fact of 
 apostolical succession" — the alleged "successive trans- 
 missions'^ to bishops alone " of the prerogative of 
 being'^ " the heirs and representatives of the apostles." 
 
 ^ On the ground of this passage, the Benedictine Editor considers the 
 Philosophumena as falsely ascribed to Origen, though his name is pre- 
 fixed to it in four manuscripts. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 
 
 We have now arrived at Cyprian, who was appointed 
 bishop of Carthage about a.d. 250^ and suffered mar- 
 tyrdom, A.D. 258.* 
 
 In his writings we find several passages in which he 
 speaks of a succession of bishops from the apostles. 
 
 In one passage he writes thus. Of Christ, " we 
 read, saying to his apostles, and through them to all 
 his bishops, who succeed his apostles by a vicarious 
 ordination ; ' He that heareth you,' '' &c. quoting Luke 
 X. 16. (Ep. Ixvi. to Florentius alias Pupianus, sect. S. 
 vol. ii. 197.) 
 
 In another passage, after quoting Matt. xvi. 18, 19, 
 he says : " From thence, in a regular succession down- 
 wards, we date the ordination of bishops, and the course 
 
 ^ See Waddington's History of the Church, p. 35, 50. 
 
358 CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 
 
 of ecclesiastical administrations, so as that we under- 
 stand the church to be settled upon the bishops. ^ (Ep. 
 xxxiii. to the Lapsed, sect. 1, vol. ii. 81.) 
 
 By '^ ordination '^ in these two passages, Cyprian, I 
 conceive, means appointment ; 2 and by " vicarious 
 ordination " the appointment of one bishop in the 
 place of another — appointment not necessarily includ- 
 ing therein the idea usually attached to the English 
 word ordination^ viz. imposition of hands — at least not 
 necessarily importing imposition of a bishop's hands. 
 These passages, therefore, determine nothing as to the 
 77iode in which bishops had been appointed from the 
 time of the apostles : and consequently nothing as to 
 the alleged ^^ fact of apostolical succession '' in the 
 Tractarian sense. The following passage is the account 
 which Cyprian gives of the mode of appointing bishops, 
 which in his time prevailed in some churches. 
 
 It occurs in a letter written by Cyprian (in concur- 
 rence with others) to Felix, a Spanish presbyter, and 
 other members of the church, on the following occasion. 
 Basilides and Martialis, two Spanish bishops, had been 
 
 ^ In another epistle Cyprian speaks of bishops as successors of the 
 apostles. (Ep xl v. to Cornelius, § 2, vol. ii. 110.) 
 
 ^ Cj'prian clearly uses the word in the general sense of appointment in 
 the next passage which I propose to examine. The expression " vicari- 
 ous ordination" occurs also in a letter from Firmilian (bishop of Ceesarea 
 in Cappadocia) to Cyprian, where (after quoting Matt. xii. 19 and John 
 XX. 22, 23) he says " that the power of remitting sins was granted to the 
 apostles, and to those churches which they, when sent forth by Christ, 
 formed and founded, and to those bishops who succeeded them in a due 
 and regular course of vicarious ordination." (Cyprian's Works, Ep. Ixxv. 
 § 11, vol. ii. p. 259.) 
 
CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 359 
 
 deposed from their episcopal functions, '' as being 
 tainted with the guilt of idolatrous libels/ and having 
 their consciences burthened with the weight of divers 
 horrid crimes/^ Felix and others having consulted 
 Cyprian on the case of these two deposed bishops, Cy- 
 prian in this letter advises them not to " communicate 
 with a priest, who is a sinner : and (after quoting Hos. 
 ix. 4, and Numb. xvi. 26.) he proceeds : " Wherefore 
 a people, who would obey the rules of the gospel, and 
 approve their fear of God, should separate themselves 
 from a sinful bishop, and should not partake with a 
 profane priest in his sacrifices ; especially since the 
 chief power of choosing worthy priests, and of rejecting 
 unworthy ones, is lodged with them : which rule, we 
 see, proceeded originally from God^s authority, that a 
 bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, 
 in the most public manner^ and be approved as worthy 
 by the common suffrages of the whole body ; even as 
 our Lord commanded Moses in the book of Numbers,'^ 
 saying; ^Take iVaron thy brother, and Eleazar his son, 
 and bring them up unto the mount, before all the con- 
 gregation ; ^ and strip Aaron of his robe, and put it 
 upon Eleazer his son, and Aaron shall be gathered 
 
 ' Marshall (the translator) explains such a libel to mean a note to a 
 magistrate, acknowledging the subscriber to be a worshipper of Jupiter, 
 or Mars, &c, (See bis note g, vol. ii, p. 71.) 
 2 Numb, XX. 25, 26. 
 
 3 On these words Marshall (the translator) has the following note : 
 " Before all the congregation. So the Ixx ; and the 27th verse expresses 
 the transaction to have passed in this public manner, though the Hebrew 
 doth not represent it as so directed to Moses, v. 25." 
 
360 CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 
 
 unto his fathers, and shall die there.' God directs his 
 priest to be made so before all the congregation, and 
 thereby shews us, that he would not have the ordina- 
 tions of his bishops performed but in the presence, 
 and with the privity of the people ; that so, the crimes 
 of wicked men may be discovered, or the merits of 
 good men be celebrated and applauded, and that the 
 ordination may proceed regularly and fairly, which 
 hath first received the approbation of the whole body. 
 This rule, thus appointed of God, we find afterwards 
 observed in the Acts * of the Apostles, when Peter 
 spoke to the people upon the point of substituting 
 
 some one to be an apostle in the room of Judas 
 
 Nor do we find the apostles observing this rule in the 
 case of bishops and priests only, but even in the ordi- 
 nation of deacons; concerning which it is recorded in 
 their Acts,^ that ' The twelve called the multitude of the 
 disciples together, and said unto them,' &c. All this 
 diligence and caution, in calling the people together, 
 were therefore used, that no unworthy person might 
 creep into the service of the altar, or into any share of 
 the sacerdotal dignity. For, that unworthy persons 
 are sometimes ordained, not according to the will of 
 God, but through the rashness and presumption of 
 men, and that it is exceedingly displeasing to him, 
 when ordinations proceed not regularly, and as they 
 should do, he hath most plainly told us by Hosea"^ the 
 prophet, saying ; ' they have set up for themselves a 
 king, but not by me.' 
 
 1 Acts i. 15—23. 2 ii3^ yi 2—5. ^ pjos. viii. 4. 
 
CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 361 
 
 ^' Wherefore the rule which we have handed down 
 to us from God himself, and from the practice of his 
 apostles^ should be observed with all exactness ; as it 
 is indeed already amongst us, and generally amongst 
 the provinces here ; viz. That in celebrating our ordi- 
 nations, the neighbouring bishops of the province, 
 where a bishop is to be ordained for any people, should 
 meet upon the place, and choose a bishop in the pre- 
 sence of the people, who best know the lives and con- 
 versations of the several persons who may happen to 
 be named, and have had opportunities of observing 
 their behaviour and conduct. This rule, we find, you 
 took along with you, in the ordination of our colleague 
 Sabinus, who was unanimously chosen by the votes of 
 all the people, and the approbation of the bishops, who 
 were there assembled ; and so the episcopate was con- 
 ferred upon him, and he received imposition of hands 
 accordingly^, to succeed Basilides.^^ (Epist. Ixvii. Cyprian 
 and others to the Presbyter Felix and others in Spain, 
 sect. 1—3, vol. I. p. 201—204.) 
 
 On this passage many observations of importance 
 arise. 
 
 1. The rule, which Cyprian first lays down as having 
 " proceeded originally from God^s authority,^^ is " that 
 a bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, 
 in the most public manner, and be approved as worthy 
 of the common suffrages of the whole body : " and this 
 consent of the whole body is the point for which he is 
 throughout contending ; not ordination by or even with 
 the concurrence of other bishops. He then quotes several 
 
 R 
 
362 CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 
 
 scriptures as establishing this rule : and thence con- 
 cludes : " Wherefore the rule which we have handed 
 down to us from God himself^ and from the practice 
 of his apostles, should be observed with all exactness '^ 
 — obviously meaning, not that it had been handed 
 down by oral tradition,^ but that it was derived from 
 tlie command of God and the practice of the apostles, 
 recorded in the passages of scripture which he had just 
 quoted. Whether those passages establish the rule, 
 which he lays down, as a rule to be always observed in 
 the Christian church, may well — especially as regards 
 popular election — be questioned : - but I am dealing 
 with his statements of fact, not with his opinions. My 
 present observation is, that Cyprian does not say, that 
 the rule in question had been observed from the time 
 of the apostles. But, 
 
 2. He does say — '^ The rule . . . should be observed 
 with all exactness ; as it is indeed already among us, 
 and generally amongst the provinces here " — in this 
 
 ^ Cyprian allowed of no tradition except tlie written word. See 
 Appendix ix. 
 
 ^ It is quite clear from Numb. xx. 25, 26, that Eleazer was appointed 
 by God himself to succeed Aaron as high priest; and that the people 
 were called together to witness his being invested with the office, not to 
 controul or even concur in the appointment. This is the result of the 
 passage even if we adopt the words in the Septuagint, which are not 
 found in the Hebrew. Nor would the passage, however understood, 
 apply to the appointment of a Christian minister. The other two pas- 
 sages have already been considered. (Part i, ch. iii. and v.) The ap- 
 pointment of Matthias clearly furnishes no precedent : and it does not 
 follow from the appointment of the seven treasurers by the people, that 
 the same course is to be adopted in the appointment of bishops and elders, 
 or even of deacons. 
 
CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 363 
 
 part of Africa — clearly implying that the rule was not 
 even then, though in his opinion it ought to have 
 been, universally observed ; and also intimating that it 
 had not always existed even in his part of Africa. The 
 value of his opinion may be estimated by the argu- 
 ments on which it is founded : and the fact, that the 
 rule for which he contends had not always been ob- 
 served in his part of Africa, nor was even then univer- 
 sally received (perhaps not generally, except in his part 
 of Africa), is most important in the present inquiry. 
 That such was the fact is manifest from the guarded 
 mode, in which he states the existing practice. Had 
 the rule been universally or even generally observed, 
 Cyprian would not, by so restricted a statement, have 
 impaired his own argument. Jt cannot be doubted, 
 that the practice was, when he wrote, by no means 
 universal. It is the admission of an unwilling witness ; 
 and it agrees with the inference, which we drew from a 
 passage in Tertullian.^ 
 
 3. What is the rule for which Cyprian contends, 
 and which he says is observed in his part of Africa ? 
 '' That in celebrating our ordinations, the neighbouring 
 bishops of the province, where a bishop is to be or- 
 dained for any people, should meet upon the place, 
 and choose a bishop in the presence of the people, who 
 best know the lives and conversations of the several 
 persons who may happen to be named, and have had op- 
 portunities of observing their behaviour and conduct.^' 
 
 ^ See ante, ch. iii. 
 R 2 
 
361 CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 
 
 There is (it should be observed) a variation between 
 the rule thus laid down by Cyprian for the choice of 
 bishops^ and the account which he gives of the election 
 of Sabinus, whom he nevertheless considers as chosen 
 according to the rule. In the passage just cited he 
 assigns the choice to the neighbouring bishops , to be 
 exercised in the presence of the people. But in the 
 passage which immediately follows, he says that the 
 rule was observed in the appointment of Sabinus, w^hen 
 elected by the votes of the people, with the approba- 
 tion of the bishops present and of other bishops who 
 had recommended him by letter. Sabinus (he says) 
 '' was unanimously chosen by the votes of all the people, 
 and the approbation of the bishops, who were there 
 assembled, and who had written letters .... before- 
 hand on his behalf; and so the episcopate was con- 
 ferred upon him/' The concurrence of the people and 
 of the neighbouring bishops is the substance of the 
 rule, which (he says) was observed in his part of 
 Africa, and in the election also of Sabinus. By this 
 concurrence " the episcopate was conferred upon Sa- 
 binus, and he received imposition of hands.^^ The 
 point for which Cyprian contends is, not the im- 
 position of episcopal hands as essential to the con- 
 ferring of episcopal authority, — not the concurrence 
 even of the bishops, but the concurrence of the people, 
 as necessary to the valid appointment of a bishop. 
 He had before said of the people, that " the chief 
 power of chusing worthy priests^' (including, and 
 principally meaning, bishops as the context shows) 
 
CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 365 
 
 " and of rejecting unworthy ones^ is lodged with theoi : 
 which rule proceeded " originally from God^s authority. 
 On the question, whether popular election to the 
 Christian ministry is a practice pointed out by the 
 word of God, I have, in a former chapter,^ arrived at a 
 conclusion opposed to that of Cyprian : and I merely 
 cite these words to show, that (as a matter of fact) the 
 rule, which he represents as being then followed in 
 his part of Africa, gave the people an effective voice or 
 controul in the choice of a bishop ; and that it is in 
 support of this controul that his argument is directed, 
 not in affirmance of the necessity of episcopal ordina- 
 tion or of the concurrence of the neighbouring bishops. 
 4. The passage therefore in question, when exa- 
 mined with the context, leads us to the conclusion, 
 that, when Cyprian wrote, the custom of Carthage and 
 the neighbouring parts of Africa and of some parts 
 also of Spain ^ was, that, when a church had lost its 
 bishop, a successor was appointed by the people and 
 the neighbouring bishops assembled on the occasion — 
 whether the bishops proposed and the people con- 
 curred, or the people chose and the bishops approved, 
 is not material — the custom seems to have required 
 the concurrence of both parties, and especially (in 
 Cyprian's opinion at least) that of the people. But it 
 is also to be inferred from the passage, that the custopi 
 
 ^ See part i. ch. vii. 
 2 From other parts of his writings it should seem^ that a similar course 
 was in his time the usage of the church of Rome. ( Ep. Iv. to Antoniani, 
 § 5, vol. ii. 130, 131.) 
 
366 CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 
 
 had not always existed, nor had even then been adopted 
 every where. 
 
 5. Cyprian calls it the rule observed "in celebrat- 
 ing ^^ " ordinations/^ using the word rendered " ordi- 
 nations '^ to express a^^p ointment ; and he does not 
 represent it as being any part of the rule, that the 
 bishop, when elected, should be ordained by the bishops 
 present. He states, indeed, the fact, that Sabinus 
 was by the concurrence of the people and neighbouring 
 bishops chosen bishop of some place in Spain, and that 
 '^ so the episcopate was conferred upon him, and he 
 received imposition of hands accordingly to succeed 
 Basilides " — from whom he does not say ; though we 
 may presume that he received it — from the bishops 
 assembled, either alone or jointly with the presbyters of 
 the place. 
 
 But it does not thence follow, that, when a bishop 
 had been appointed according to the rule which Cyprian 
 had previously laid down, he always received imposi- 
 tion of hands : still less that such imposition of hands 
 was necessary to confer the episcopal authority. 
 
 Nor are we left to infer from the writings of Cyprian, 
 that the custom, stated by him as the custom in ap- 
 pointing bishops observed in his parts, did not then 
 prevail universally. We have distinct evidence, that, 
 in the church of Alexandria, a different custom pre- 
 vailed from the foundation of that church till after the 
 council of Nice, three quarters of a century later 
 than the time of Cyprian's appointment to the see of 
 Carthage. 
 
CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 367 
 
 Eutychius^ of Alexandria, after mentioning that 
 Mark the evangelist went and preached at Alexandria, 
 and appointed Hananias the first patriarch of that city, 
 adds : " Moreover he appointed twelve presbyters with 
 Hananias, who were to remain with the Patriarch, so 
 that when the Patriarchate was vacant they might elect 
 one of the twelve presbyters, upon whose head the other 
 eleven might place their hands and bless him [or, in- 
 voke a blessing upon him] and create him Patriarch, 
 and then choose some excellent man and appoint him 
 presbyter with themselves in the place of him who was 
 thus made Patriarch, that thus there might always be 
 twelve. Nor did this custom respecting the presbyters, 
 namely, that they should create their Patriarchs from 
 the twelve presbyters, cease at Alexandria until the 
 times of Alexander, Patriarch of x^lexandria, who was 
 of the number of the 318 [bishops at Nice]. But he 
 forbade the presbyters to create the Patriarch for the 
 future, and decreed that when the Patriarch was dead, 
 the bishops should meet together and ordain the Patri- 
 arch. Moreover he decreed that on a vacancy of the 
 Patriarchate, they should elect, either from any part of 
 the country, or from those twelve presbyters, or others, 
 as circumstances might prescribe, some excellent man, 
 and create him Patriarch. And thus that ancient cus- 
 tom by which the Patriarch used to be created by the 
 presbyters disappeared, and in its place succeeded the 
 
 ^ From the passage itself it appears that he wrote after the council of 
 Nice (a.d. 325), and consequently after the martyrdom of Cyprian. 
 
368 CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 
 
 ordinance for the creation of the patriarch by the 
 bishops/^ 1 
 
 Severus relates the proceedings on the death of 
 Theonas, one of these patriarchs, which happened many 
 years after Cyprian^s martyrdom ; and he tells us that 
 " the priests and people were collected together at 
 Alexandria, and laid their hands upon Peter, his son 
 in the faith and disciple, a priest, and placed him in 
 the Patriarchal throne of Alexandria, according to the 
 command of Theonas, in the tenth year of the emperor 
 Diocletian."- 
 
 The slight apparent discrepancy between these two 
 passages may easily be removed. Eutychius states the 
 rule or custom ; Severus relates concisely what actually 
 took place at one particular election. Eutychius men- 
 
 ^ The original is in Arabic. I have followed the translation given by 
 the Rev. William Goode in his " Divine Rule" (vol. ii. p. 80, 81), from 
 Selden's Latin version, which he gives in p. 81, n. 1. His reference is 
 to " Eutych. Patr. Alex. Ecclesiae suae orig. Ed. J. Selden. London, 
 1642. 4to. pp. 29—31." To Mr. Goode's important work I refer, both 
 for a vindication of Selden's version, and for a triumphant exposure of 
 the attempts made to explain away this passage. 
 
 2 The original is in Arabic. I have followed the translation giveii in 
 Goode's " Divine Rule" (vol. ii. p. 82). from the Latin version of Re- 
 naudot, which he gives in n. 3, viz. — " Congregatos fuisse Alexandriae 
 sacerdotes et plebem, manusque imposuisse super Petrum, filium ejus 
 spiritualem et discipulum, sacerdotem, eumque collocasse in solio Patri- 
 avchali Alexandrino juxta Theonas mandatum, anno decimo Diocletiani 
 Imperatoris." Mr. Goode's reference is "• Renaud. Hist. Patr. Alex, 
 p. 54. The extract is from a MS. work of Severus, De vit. et reb. gest. 
 Patr. Alex." It strikes me, that this MS. might, if examined, throw 
 much light on the subject. It may probably contain an account of the 
 appointment of some other patriarch. 
 
CYPRIAN AND LATER AVRITERS. 369 
 
 tions the twelve presbyters only^ in whom the appoint- 
 ment of the patriarch was vested, from whom the 
 patriarch was to be chosen, and of whom the remaining 
 eleven were to lay hands on his head. Severus says, 
 that the priests (sacerdotes) and people were assem- 
 bled — but Eutychius does not say, that the people were 
 excluded from being present at the appointment of a 
 new patriarch. Severus mentions the priests generally, 
 not particularly specifying the twelve presbyters ; nor 
 had he any occasion to specify them, as he does not 
 mention the election, but only the assembling, and the 
 laying on of hands, and the enthroning : we may, in- 
 deed, infer from the tenor of his narrative, that the 
 election, in the case of Peter, was merely formal, the 
 choice having been previously fixed upon him, as the 
 spiritual son and disciple of Theonas, and in pursuance 
 of his "command" (his recommendation probably). 
 Lastly Severus, if taken literally and strictly, would 
 seem to say, that the persons assembled, priests and 
 people, laid hands on Peter — but no one would under- 
 stand him to say, that every individual present laid his 
 hands on Peter — the plain meaning is, that those of 
 the individuals assembled, whose office it was, laid 
 hands on the patriarch elect, the others being assem- 
 bled to witness the transaction. 
 
 We have then in Eutychius, illustrated and confirftied 
 by Severus, distinct evidence of the existence of a cus- 
 tom in the church of Alexandria, differing altogether 
 from the custom mentioned by Cyprian as prevailing 
 among the African churches in his province — a custom 
 
 R 3 
 
370 CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 
 
 traced back to tlie time of Mark the evangelist — a cus- 
 tom which vested the election and creation of the 
 patriarch, in twelve presbyters without the concurrence 
 of any bishop. The eleven presbyters, who remained 
 after one of their number had been elected bishop, laid 
 their hands upon his head, and implored a blessing 
 upon him, thereby setting him apart for his new office, 
 as the " prophets and teachers " — not apostles or 
 bishops — which were in the church at Antioch, '^ fasted 
 and prayed and laid their hands on " Paul (an apostle 
 already) and Barnabas, and " seAt theui away," thus 
 separating them for " the work " to which the Holy 
 Ghost had " called them " ^ — the missionary journey 
 on which they went, as related immediately afterwards." 
 By this election and imposition oi presbyters' hands 
 the individual was, according to Eutychius, created 
 patriarch, invested therefore (without episcopal inter- 
 vention) with the full authority of the episcopal office, 
 and accordingly (as we learn from Severus) Peter, im- 
 mediately on being so appointed, was placed on the 
 patriarchal throne.^ 
 
 ^ Acts xiii. 1 — 3. See my observations on this passage, part i. ch. iii. 
 
 - Acts xiii. 4 to xiv. 26. See especially xiy. 26. 
 
 ^ This statement of Severus overturns the fancy of some persons, that 
 the rule mentioned by Eutychius related only to the election, and that 
 the Patriarch elect was afterwards ordained by bishops— a fancy, which 
 Mr. Goode on other grounds has shown to be without foundation. Bing- 
 ham quotes the three following passages relating to this custom of Alex- 
 andria. (Book ii. ch. xi. § 2.) 
 
 I. " Thej-^ were used to make no delay after the decease of a bishop, 
 but chose one presently, that they might not run into factions about tlic 
 choice of a successor." (Epiphanius.) 
 
CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 37 J 
 
 This view of the usage of the church of Alexandria 
 is confirmed by a passage in Jerome,,^ which, on ac- 
 count of its importance^ I quote at some at length. 
 
 After citing several passages from the Acts and the 
 Epistles, to show that '^ a bishop and a presbyter are 
 the same/' - he adds : " But that afterwards ^ one v^as 
 chosen to be over the rest ; this was done to prevent 
 schism, lest each one drawing the church of Christ 
 after him, should break it up. For &t Alexandria, 
 
 II. " Cyril of Alexandria was enthroned the third day after the death 
 of Theophilus." (Socrates, lib. vii. c. 7.) 
 
 III. " It was customary for the successor to Avatch over the dead body 
 of the deceased bishop, and to lay his right hand upon his head [manuni- 
 que dexteram ejus capiti suo imponere— i.e. to lay the right hand of the 
 deceased bishop upon his own head], and to hurj him v/ith his own 
 hands, and then take the pall of St. Mark, and so [tunc legitime— then 
 legitimately] sit ou his throne." (Liberatus Breviar. c. 20.) 
 
 From these passages it appears, that the election of a new Patriarch 
 took place with extraordinary rapidity, on one occasion in three days 
 after the death of the predecessor, generally before his burial. How 
 could bishops in that short interval be assembled to lay hands on him ? 
 The only allusion to ordination is, that the new Patriarch used to place 
 the hand of the deceased bishop on his own head. Surely this strange 
 proceeding would not have been noticed, and all mention of ordination 
 by a living bishop omitted, if such ordination there had been. Yet the 
 new Patriarch buries his predecessor with his own hands, and then puts 
 on the pall of St. Mark, and then legitimately/ sits down on his throne. 
 Is it reasonable, without a shadow of authority to conjecture, that he 
 aftertvards received the imposition of episcopal hands, and with it the 
 episcopal commission ? 
 
 ' Jerome was born about a.d. 345, or twenty years after the council of 
 Nice. (Waddington, 141,721.) 
 
 2 Audi et aliud testimonium, in quo manifestissime comprobatur 
 eundem esse Episcopum atque Presbyterum." He then quotes Tit. i. 5, 
 and 1 Tim. iv. 14, and 1 Pet. v. 1, and 2 John 1, and 3 John 1 — having 
 previously quoted Philip i. 1 and Acts xx. 28. 
 
 ^ " Quod autem postea." 
 
372 • CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 
 
 also,^ from Mark the evangelist to the bishops Hera- 
 clas and Dionysius^ the presbyters always called one 
 elected from among themselves, and placed in a higher 
 rank, their bishop ; just as an army may constitute its 
 general/ or deacons may elect one of themselves, whom 
 they know to be diligent, and call him archdeacon. 
 For what does a bishop do, with the exception of or- 
 dination, which a presbyter may not do.^ .... All are 
 successors of the apostles. . . presbyter and bishop, the 
 one is a name denoting age, the other dignity." * (Ep. 
 ad Evang. Ep. 146. tom. i. p. 1074.) 
 
 In this passage, Jerome not only confirms Eutychius^ 
 statement of the custom of the church of Alexandria, 
 but shows his understanding of the custom to be, 
 that the presbyters there exclusively appointed their 
 bishop ; and he further tells us how bishops were ori- 
 ginally introduced into the church. 
 
 He confirms the statement of Eutychius, though he 
 speaks of the custom as continuing (not till Alexander, 
 but) till Heraclas and Dionysius, bishops. He had 
 obviously not seen the statement either of Eutychius 
 or of Severus, or he would not have spoken of the 
 custom continuing till Heraclas and Dionysius, who 
 succeeded each other as bishops of Alexandria, and 
 were prior not only to Alexander and the council of 
 
 ' " Nam et Alexandrise." ^ " Imperatorem fliciat," 
 
 . ' I have followed Mr. Goode's translation (Divine Rule, ii. 83) thus 
 far, where he stops. 
 
 * Coeterum omnes Apostolorum successores sunt Presbyter ot 
 
 Episcopus, aliud setatis, aliud dignitatis est nomen." 
 
CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 373 
 
 Nice, but to Theonas and Peter.' He must have de- 
 rived his information from some other source_, probably 
 from some writer contemporary with Heraclas and 
 Dionysius, from whom (of course) he would only have 
 learnt that the custom had continued till their time ; 
 and he does not say that it then ceased. His, there- 
 fore, is testimony independent of those of Eutychius 
 and Severus, and probably derived from an earlier 
 source, from a source contemporary with the existence 
 of the custom. It leaves no room to doubt the ac- 
 curacy of the statements of Eutychius and Severus. 
 
 More than this — Jerome^s testimony establishes as 
 correct that view of the custom, which ascribes to the 
 presbyters from first to last the appointment of the 
 patriarch of Alexandria ; not only his election (unum 
 ex se electum), but his elevation to a higher rank : for 
 Jerome compares the proceeding to that of an army 
 constituting a general (imperatorem faciat) — which, 
 according to the Roman custom, was by acclamation — 
 or of deacons choosing an archdeacon. And the whole 
 tenor of the passage shows, that Jerome intended to 
 state the appointment of the bishops of Alexandria as 
 made without any episcopal interference or sanction. 
 On the custom so understood his argument is founded : 
 and it is intelligible on no other hypothesis. He asks 
 indeed ~" What does a bishop do, with the exception 
 of ordination, which a presbyter may not do ? " But 
 he does not ascribe this exception to any difference of 
 
 ^ See Eusebius Ec. Hist. lib. vi. cap. 35, and vii. 32. 
 
374 CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 
 
 apostolic commission between a bishop and a presbyter. 
 His position is^ that " the bishop and presbyter are 
 the same " — both " successors of the apostles,'^ suc- 
 cessors (not in the sense of a transmitted commission, 
 but) as holding in the church the same ofiice of pastors 
 and teachers, the bishop being placed '^ over the rest " 
 as their ruler. And this is obviously the ground of 
 the exception, it belonging to the bishop as chief ruler 
 of the church to ordain : an exception, therefore, 
 limited to the case of the church having a bishop, and 
 not precluding the presbyters (when the see is vacant) 
 from electing and laying hands (as those of Alexandria 
 did) on their new bishop. 
 
 Once more — Jerome's account of the introduction of 
 bishops, as distinguished from presbyters, deserves 
 serious attention. Jerome had his faults, and great 
 faults : but he was a man of extensive learning. He 
 argues from scripture, that " a bishop and presbyter " 
 are the same : and then adds that " afterwards one 
 was chosen to be over the rest^' — why ? — ^' to prevent 
 schism ;'' to form a bond of union between the pres- 
 byters, and again to facilitate union among the dif- 
 ferent churches. That he is right in his view of the 
 passages of scripture which he cites (Philipp. i. 1, and 
 Acts XX. 28 ; Tit. i. 5, and 1 Tim. iv. 14, and 1 Pet. v. 
 1, and 2 John 1, and 3 John 1), is (I think) clear,' 
 and will scarcely be disputed by any one, though an 
 advocate for episcopacy, who has carefully considered 
 
 ^ See part i. ch. vi. 
 
CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 375 
 
 the question : and what he adds, as a matter of fact, 
 respecting the purpose for which one presbyter was 
 " chosen to be over the rest ^^ is not inconsistent with 
 what we read in the epistles to the seven apocalyp- 
 tic churches, or with the facts which have been de- 
 duced from our examination of the fathers down to the 
 time of Cyprian. It is a statement, which implies a 
 gradual introduction of episcopacy into the churches, 
 first into one church and then into another, a statement 
 in perfect harmony with the result which I deduced 
 from an examination of several epistles of the apostolic 
 fathers,^ and at the same time utterly at variance with 
 the notion of apostolical succession by episcopal ordi- 
 nation. The purpose, however, for which principally 
 I quote this passage of Jerome, is not for his opinion 
 respecting the bishop and presbyter, but to confirm 
 the statement of Eutychius respecting the original cus- 
 tom of the church of Alexandria in the appointment of 
 its patriarchs, and to overturn the erroneous glosses 
 sought to be put upon it. 
 
 I now revert to that statement of Eutychius as in- 
 controvertibly correct, and as establishing, that from 
 the time of Hananias, who was appointed by St. Mark, 
 bishop of Alexandria, till after the Council of Nice — a 
 period of more than two centuries — the twelve presby- 
 ters of Alexandria elected from among themselves their 
 bishop or patriarch, and by their appointment of him 
 to the episcopal office (the other eleven laying hands 
 
 ^ See ante, ch. ii. 
 
376 CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS, 
 
 upon him) constituted him bishop or patriarch — the 
 ruler of their church — entitled (without any sanction 
 or confirmation by any other bishop) to perform all the 
 duties of the episcopal office. 
 
 It is further evident from the statement, that this 
 practice existed when there was no want of bishops to 
 ordain or consecrate (had that been thought necessary) 
 the patriarch. For Alexander (the patriarch who put 
 an end to the custom) is said to have transferred the 
 election to '' the bishops " — and may we not from this 
 expression, and from the title of patriarch ^ given to 
 the bishop of Alexandria, reasonably conclude, that 
 Alexandria was a mother church by which other 
 churches had been founded, with bishops of their own ? 
 Yet these bishops took no part in the appointment of 
 the patriarch, until after the Council of Nice. 
 
 Further : this custom was observed for more than 
 two centuries without objection being made to it --ob- 
 served, not in an obscure church, but in one of the 
 principal churches of the age, in the chief city and me- 
 tropolitan church of Egypt, in a church and city of 
 which the catechetical school successively under Clement 
 and Origen was renowned throughout the world. Its 
 patriarchs, thus created by the presbyters, were recog- 
 nized by other churches ; and we learn from the state- 
 
 ' I do not think we are to understand, that the bishop of Alexandria 
 was from the first called Patriarch : or that any such title was, in that 
 early age when the church of Alexandria was founded, given to any 
 bishop. It was probably given to the bishop of this church, and of other 
 Eastern churches, when they had become mother churches, having 
 founded others. 
 
CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 377 
 
 ment in Eutychius, that its patriarch Alexander was one 
 of the 318 bishops assembled at the Council of Nice. 
 
 What then is the effect of this one fact ? What is 
 the effect of this Alexandrian custom upon the ques- 
 tion of episcopal succession by episcopal ordination 
 from the time of the apostles ? 
 
 In the first place it confirms the objections which I 
 have offered to various passages in Irenseus, Tertullian, 
 Origen, and Cyprian, being received as evidence in 
 support of the alleged "fact of apostolical succession'^ 
 in the Tractarian sense of the word — those passages, I 
 mean, in which the writer either speaks in general 
 terms of succession or episcopal succession from the 
 apostles, or asserts that apostolical churches can enu- 
 merate the succession of their bishops from the first 
 bishop appointed by an apostle. It annihilates all 
 such passages as evidefice for such a purpose. The 
 Alexandrian patriarch — Heraclas, or Dionysius, or 
 Alexander — could with strict truth have talked of 
 episcopal succession in his church from the first bishop 
 appointed by Mark the evangelist, and have enume- 
 rated the succession of bishops of Alexandria from that 
 first bishop : and yet those bishops were " created '^ by 
 the presbyters ; they were not episcopally ordained to 
 the office of bishop.' 
 
 ^ An attempt may possibly be made to distinguish this case of the 
 church of Alexandria from modern Presbyterianism. The writer of 
 Tract 7 (from which I have quoted the assertion of the '•'• facV of Apos- 
 tolical succession) considers Priests and Deacons as intrusted by the 
 bishop with a portion only of his authority, and the episcopal system as 
 the result of this practice of delegation ; and he contends that " the 
 
378 CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 
 
 In the next place,, the Alexandrian custom makes a 
 gap in apostolical succession through episcopal ordina- 
 tion, which can never be filled up —breaks a link in 
 the supposed chain, which can in no way be replaced. 
 Even, if it could be shown that the custom was peculiar 
 to the church of Alexandria, how could any bishop of 
 the present day, tracing back his succession through a 
 series of bishops to an apostle, prove satisfactorily, that 
 no individual in that series had derived his episcopate 
 mediately or immediately from one of these Alexan- 
 drian patriarchs ? 
 
 But can it be shewn that the custom was, in the first 
 ages of Christianity, peculiar to the church of Alexan- 
 dria? Is it probable, that the evangelist St. Mark 
 should have there introduced an usage at variance with 
 
 Presbyterian ministers have assumed a power, which was never intrusted 
 to them :'' that " they have presumed to exercise the power of ordina- 
 tion, and to perpetuate a succession of ministers, without having received 
 a commission to do so." And he may possibly say of the twelve pres- 
 byters of the church of Alexandria, that they did receive from St. Mark 
 at first directly, and afterwards by successive transmission, a commission 
 both to create a Patriarch or Bishop on a vacanc}^ and to perpetuate their 
 own body : and that in this particular they had a commission beyond 
 that usually given to Presbyters. Supposing their case were peculiar^ it 
 would not affect my argument against the assertion in the Tract " as to 
 the fact of Apostolical Succession" by episcopal ordination, " that this 
 succession has been preserved, all over the world" — for it was not pre- 
 served in the church of Alexandria. But the peculiarit}'^, if any, of the 
 Alexandrian custom was, I conceive, not that presbyters " created" their 
 bishops, but that the appointment was restricted to a council or chapter of 
 twelve presbyters. It still remains for the advocates of " Apostolical Suc- 
 cession" in the Tractarian sense to prove, that the authority to ordain 
 does not belong to the supreme ruler or rulers for the time being of the 
 church, whether bishops or presb3^ters. 
 
CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 379 
 
 the practice of other churches ? The truth seems to 
 be, that the apostles laid down general principles for 
 the government of churches and the appointment of 
 ministers ; and that those principles were variously 
 carried out in different churches according to circum- 
 stances, resulting in some churches earlier, in others 
 later, in all ultimately in the threefold distinction of 
 ministers, as consonant with, but not essentially re- 
 quired by, those principles. 
 
 And here I might close the^ evidence. If the testi- 
 mony of the fathers of the three first centuries not only 
 fails to establish the alleged '' fact,^^ but raises a strong 
 presumption that in those times elders were frequently, 
 or in some churches, raised to the episcopate without 
 episcopal interference, the early links of the chain are 
 obviously wanting, the chain is broken, and it cannot 
 be repaired by any evidence, however decisive, that 
 a custom universally prevailed at a later period, for 
 every bishop to be set apart to his office by the laying 
 on of episcopal hands. But it may perhaps be asked, 
 why not proceed to Eusebius,^ the earliest ecclesiastical 
 historian now extant ? References to lost writings of 
 the fathers may be found in his history. Does he 
 throw no light on the mode in which bishops were 
 appointed in his own time, or in times before his own ? 
 Very little light indeed, and that little by no means 
 favourable to the notion of apostolical succession. He 
 
 ' He was made bishop of Caesarea in Palestine about a.d. 315, and 
 diedA.D. 339 or 340. ( Waddington's History of the Church, p. 86.) 
 He consequently survived the council of Nice fourteen or fifteen years. 
 
380 CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 
 
 does not, in his ecclesiastical history, mention any cus- 
 tom as having prevailed in the appointment of bishops; 
 he does not even allude ' to the Carthaginian, or to 
 the Alexandrian, usage : though he quotes the passage, 
 which has already been considered, in which Clement 
 of Alexandria relates how St. John, after his return 
 from Patmos to Ephesus, went about the neighbouring 
 regions of the Gentiles appointing bishops (Ecc. Hist, 
 lib. iii. cap. 23). Eusebius, however, mentions the 
 appointment of various individuals as bishops of differ- 
 ent churches at different periods ; and it may be useful 
 to notice the terms in which he mentions the appoint- 
 ment of several (among others) of the bishops of Rome. 
 
 1. Eusebius mentions in the following terms the 
 respective appointments of Linus, Anencletus, Clement, 
 Euarestes, Urbanus, and Stephen to that office. 
 
 " After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus 
 was the first that received the episcopate of the church 
 of the Romans '^ (Eccl. Hist. lib. iii. c. 2). 
 
 In the second year of Titus, " Linus, bishop of the 
 church of the Romans, who had held the office twelve 
 years, transferred" it to Anencletus'^ (ib. cap. 13). 
 
 In the twelfth year of Domitian, " Clement suc- 
 ceeded Anencletus ^^ ^ (ib. cap. 15). 
 
 ' He gives Cyprian's as-count of the way in which Novatius the schis- 
 matic got himself irregularly ordained bishop of Rome (in opposition to 
 Cornelius) by three Italian bishops. (Ecc. Hist. lib. vi. ch. 43.) Rut 
 he makes no comment on it as following out a custom. 
 ^ Or. TlapaSifiwrn. 
 
 ^ This statement does not agree with those of earlier writers. See 
 post, ch. iv. 
 
CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 381 
 
 In the third year of Trajan, Clement, bishop of 
 Rome, ^'committed the office to Euarestus, and de- 
 parted this hfe.^'^ (ib. cap. 34). 
 
 Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome, who died in the first 
 year of the second Antonine, was succeeded in the epis- 
 copate by Calhsthus, " who survived him five years, and 
 leff^ the church to Urbanus " (ib. lib. vi. cap. 21). 
 
 Lucius, bishop of Rome (in the reign of Gallus) " did 
 not hold the office quite eight months, when dying 
 he transferred^ it to Stephen ^^ (Ecc. Hist. lib. vii. 
 cap. 2). 
 
 The expression " left,^^ used in respect of Callisthus, 
 does not necessarily import that he nominated his suc- 
 cessor ; but, when we are told, that Clement committed, 
 and that Lucius (as well as Linus) transferred^ the 
 episcopal office, we cannot but understand, that in each 
 case the bishop appointed his own successor ; and at 
 the same time it is not intimated that he ordained the 
 individual whom he appointed. 
 
 2. In the reign of Gordian, Fabianus succeeded 
 Anteros as bishop of Rome ; and Eusebius gives the 
 following narrative of his appointment — ^' They say, 
 that Fabianus having come to Rome with some others 
 from the country, was staying there, and was in the 
 most remarkable manner, by divine and celestial 
 
 ' Gr. 'EvapeaTcp TrapaSes ttjj/ \ciTepyiav, avaKvei rhv Slou. The con- 
 struction of this sentence clearly imports, that Clement, having/irsf com- 
 mitted this charge to Euarestus, then died. 
 
 ^ Gr. /caraAetTret. 
 
 ^ Gr. ,u6TaS(5w(rt rhv Khrfpov. So Dr. Burton in the text. He gives 
 in a note, StaS/Scoai. 
 
382 CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 
 
 grace, advanced to the office. When all the brethren 
 had assembled in the church, for the purpose of 
 electing ^ him that should succeed in the episcopate, 
 and there being very many eminent and illustrious 
 men in the minds of many, Fabianus being present, 
 no one indeed thought of him. But they 2 relate, 
 further, that a dove suddenly flying down from on 
 high, sat upon his head, exhibiting a scene like 
 that of the Holy Spirit once descending upon our 
 Saviour in the form of a dove. Upon this the whole 
 body exclaimed, with all eagerness, and with one voice, 
 as if moved by the one Spirit of God, that he was wor- 
 thy ; and without delay they took and placed him upon 
 the episcopal throne " (lib. vi. cap. 29). Such is the 
 
 ^ " Electing."" So I render xeipoToj'ias — which Cruse renders " ordi- 
 nation." Siiicer says that rh x^^poToueiu in its primarj'^ and proper 
 signification means to elect by shoAv of hands ; that it denotes to elect by 
 suffrage to the episcopate, which formerly ("olim") was done by the 
 people. He shows that x^^poTovia is used in ecclesiastical writers for 
 election, and for ordination. The primary and proper signification of the 
 words — " election by show of hands"— obviously suits the passage in the 
 text better than " ordination" — the election being that in which " all 
 the brethren" had to take a part. 
 
 - " And there being .... thought of him. But they." So I render 
 TrXe'is-wv re iiTKpavwv Kai eVSJ^cov avSpoov toIs iroWols iv vtrovSK} virap- 
 x6vr<jiv, 6 ^a€iavhs irapcbv ovdevhs jxkv avdpunroov iis didvoiav -pei' S/xus 
 8^o?iu — which Mr. Cruse renders — " Though there Avere verj' many emi- 
 nent and illustrious men in the expectation of many, Fabianus being 
 present, no one thought of any other man. They." — This appears to me 
 an erroneous version. There is no " though" in the original : o ^a€iavhs 
 irapwv ovZevhs p\v avOpdonuv its ^iduoiav fjei cannot be rendered, " Fabi- 
 anus being present, no one thought of any other man :" and the /nh . . . 
 5e evidently contrast his not being thought of by men, with his being 
 appointed by God. 
 
CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 383 
 
 narrative of Eusebius : and thougli he guards it by — 
 '' they say " — *^ they relate " —he obviously believes 
 the tale ; for he entitles the chapter—" Of Fabia- 
 nus, how he was remarkably appointed bishop of the 
 Romans by God/^ Nor, indeed, except the irreve- 
 rent allusion to the descent of the Holy Spirit on 
 our Lord, is there any thing very improbable in the 
 narrative. A dove might have taken shelter in the 
 place where on this occasion the brethren assembled ; 
 and, being disturbed and alarmed by the concourse, 
 might have flown about and finally alighted almost 
 unconsciously on the head of Fabianus, when some 
 superstitious individual, observing the circumstance, 
 and calling perhaps to mind the circumstances of our 
 Lord^s baptism, exclaimed that he was worthy on 
 whose head the dove had alighted, and was (as often 
 happens in popular assemblies) joined by one and ano- 
 ther in the exclamation till the whole meeting concur- 
 red. If to this extent the narrative is true, then we 
 have a bishop, the immediate predecessor of Cyprian's 
 contemporary Cornelius,' placed on the episcopal throne 
 of Rome by the sudden acclamation of the whole as- 
 sembly- of Christians, without any episcopal ordination; 
 for he was " without delay '' placed on the episcopal 
 throne : and, even if the whole narrative be deemed a 
 fiction—- an early Romish legend— it shows the practice 
 of the age ; for the legend-writer would not have failed, 
 
 ^ See Waddington, 721. 
 ^ We are forcibly reminded of Jerome's comparison of the appointment 
 of a bishop to that of an Imperator quoted already in this chapter. 
 
38 i CYPRIxVN AND LATER WRITERS. 
 
 had such been the established course, to describe the 
 solemn imposition of episcopal hands before the bishop 
 elect was enthroned. Should it be said, that Fabianus 
 was ordained or consecrated bishop after being en- 
 throned, my reply is, that such an assumption is at 
 once devoid of all evidence, and so improbable that it 
 could not be received without the strongest proof. 
 AYhat more absurd on the hypothesis of apostolic suc- 
 cession in the Tractarian sense, than to place a man 
 formally in the episcopal chair, before he has received 
 his commission as bishop. Against such a proceeding 
 every consistent advocate of apostolic succession would 
 protest as a monstrous and profane intrusion. 
 
 If we place any reliance on Eusebius, can we believe, 
 that when these bishops of the church of Rome were 
 appointed, any such custom prevailed in that church 
 as Cyprian tells us existed in his part of Africa ? 
 
 But, before we quit Eusebius, we must compare his 
 account of the order in which the three first bishops of 
 Rome were appointed, with the accounts given by three 
 other wirters — by Irenseus and Tertullian who wrote 
 before him, and by Augustine who wrote at a later 
 period. 
 
 ] . Eusebius, as we have just seen, places them in 
 this order : Linus, Anencletus, Clement. He tells us, 
 that ^' after'' the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus 
 was the first that received the episcopate of the church 
 of the Romans : and he fixes the 12th year of Domi- 
 tian as that in which Clement succeeded Anencletus ' 
 
 1 Euseb. Eccl. Hist, lib- iii. cap. 2, 13, 15. 
 
CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 385 
 
 —a date subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem, 
 and consequently to the writing of the epistle ' which 
 Clement in the name of the church of Rome sent to 
 the church of "Corinth. 
 
 2. Irenseus gives the three bishops in the same order 
 as Eusebius ; and his is the earliest account of the 
 matter. But he tells us, that the apostles Peter and 
 Paul "committed the office of the episcopate to Linus" 
 (Irenseus, Lib. iii. c. 3. § 3,), therein differing from 
 Eusebius, who says that Linus " received the episco- 
 pate" " after their martyrdom," while he elsewhere ^ 
 quotes the account given by Irenseus. 
 
 3. Tertullian, who wrote nearly about the same time 
 as Irenseus, probably a little later, enumerating the 
 first bishops of several churches, says that Clement 
 was made bishop of Rome by Peter (De Prsescrip. adv. 
 Hseres. cap. 32). 
 
 4. Augustine gives the order of the same three 
 bishops thus : Linus, Clement, Anencletus (Aug. Ep. 
 165, as cited by Bingham, bk. ii. ch. 1, § 4). 
 
 Of these four authorities, it is evident, no two agree 
 with each other. There is, however, one point in 
 which they all agree — that Clement was, at one time 
 or another, bishop of Rome. This we may consider, 
 therefore, as a fact established by sufficient evidence. 
 Eusebius, the only one of the four authorities who 
 mentions dates, fixes Clement^s appointment in the 
 12th of Domitian, long after the martyrdom of the 
 
 ^ See ante, ch. ii. ^ Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. v. cap. 6. 
 
386 CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 
 
 apostles Peter and Paul. He tells us further, that the 
 letter from the church of Rome to the church of Co- 
 rinth was written by Clement (Ecc. Hist. lib. iii. cap. 
 16) : and I am not aware of any contradiction to this 
 statement. Now from internal evidence (as we have 
 seen ^) this epistle was written in the interval between 
 the martyrdom of those two apostles and the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem : and the writer no where mentions 
 either himself or any bishop of Rome. Clement, there- 
 fore, could scarcely have been at that time bishop of 
 Rome : nor is it probable that there was then a bishop 
 of Rome. This epistle, therefore, while it corroborates 
 the statement of Eusebius as to the date of Clement's 
 appointment to the bishopric of Rome, casts great 
 doubt on his account of Linus and Anencletus as 
 having been Clement's predecessors in that office : and 
 this doubt is greatly strengthened by the contradictory 
 statements of Tertullian and Augustine. 
 
 If we turn to St. Paul's epistles, we shall find further 
 reason for thinking, that, in his time, Clement and 
 Linus were not bishops, but evangelists. 
 
 Writing to the Philippians from Rome during his 
 first imprisonment, the apostle entreats some one, whom 
 he calls his " true yoke-fellow " — ^^ help those women 
 which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement 
 also, and with other my fellow-labourers " (Phil. iv. 3). 
 At this time, then, Clement was at Philippi, not at 
 Rome ; and the apostle writes of him as of a fellow- 
 
 * See ante, ch. ii. 
 
CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 387 
 
 labourer J probably an evangelist. In his other epistles 
 written at the same period from Rome (those to the 
 Ephesians, Colossians^ and Philemon ') the apostle does 
 not mention Clement, nor yet in the only letter extant 
 written by him during his last imprisonment at Rome 
 (the second epistle to Timothy ") . " Only Luke '^ 
 (writes the apostle, while looking forward to the crown 
 of martyrdom) — " Only Luke is with me'' (2 Tim. iv. 
 11). Can we believe that Clement_, or any other per- 
 son, was then bishop of Rome ? 
 
 Linus, indeed, he mentions in that his last epistle, 
 but only incidentally. ^' Eubulus greeteth thee, and 
 Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren '' 
 (2 Tim. iv. 21). Would the apostle have so written, 
 if Linus had then been bishop of Rome ? Yet Linus 
 may have been an evangelist, and as such known to 
 Timothy. 
 
 This reference to St. PauPs epistles, while it leads 
 us almost necessarily to the conclusion that neither 
 Clement nor Linus was appointed by him bishop of 
 Rome, suggests the following as the correct view of 
 the case. 
 
 It seems to me probable, that, till some years after 
 the martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul, there 
 was no bishop of Rome : that Clement and Linus (per- 
 
 * These three epistles and the epistle to the Philippians, and no other, 
 seem to have been written during St. Paul's first imprisonment at Rome. 
 (See Tate's Cont. Hist, of St. Paul.) 
 
 ^ This epistle, and no other, seems to have been written during the 
 apostle's second and final imprisonment at Rome. (See Tate's Cont. 
 Hist, of St. Paul.) 
 
 S2 
 
388 CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 
 
 haps Anencletus also) were evangelists, to whom (as 
 to Timothy and Titus) the apostle Paul committed 
 episcopal authority at one time over one city or dis- 
 trict, at another time over another : that, in this cha- 
 racter, both before and after the martyrdom of Peter 
 and Paul, they resided, sometimes one of them, some- 
 times another, at Rome — Linus being there at the time 
 when the apostle Paul suffered — and as evangelists 
 superintended, in the absence of all the apostles^ the 
 church in that city, exercising over it episcopal autho- 
 rity : that Clement at length, in the twelfth year of 
 DomitiaUj became the first bishop (the first settled 
 I'uler) of the church of Rome : and that, before he so 
 became bishop, while he was at Rome doing the work 
 of an evangelist, he wrote, in the name and with the 
 authority of that church, the epistle to the church at 
 Corinth. 
 
 That this is a probable view of the case is evident, 
 because it both accounts for the tenor of Clement^s 
 epistle to the church of Corinth, and furnishes a clue to 
 the discordancy between Irenseus and Tertullian. These 
 two writers ^ argued against the heretics of their time, 
 that those churches, which could trace back their ori- 
 gin to an apostle, were more likely to have preserved 
 apostolic doctrine, than churches of later date. They, 
 therefore, endeavoured to discover in certain churches 
 an unbroken series of bishops from the time of the 
 apostles, and in particular to exhibit such a series 
 
 ^ See ante, ch. iii. 
 
CYPRIAN AND LATER WRITERS. 389 
 
 in the church of Rome from the time of the apostles 
 Peter and Pauh Clement they both knew to have 
 been at one time bishop of Rome. Tertullian hastily 
 ascribed his appointment to St. Peter : but Ire- 
 nseus knew that Clement did not become bishop of 
 Rome till some time after St. Peter's martyrdom ; and 
 therefore interposed Linus and Anencletus between 
 Peter and Clement — there being probably thus much of 
 foundation for both statements, that Clement and Linus 
 were both of them evangelists, and had as evangelists 
 severally exercised episcopal authority over the church 
 of Rome at different times prior to the period when 
 Clement became bishop of Rome. 
 
 We have, therefore, on the whole, good ground to 
 conclude, that the apostles Peter and Paul did not, 
 before their martyrdom, appoint any bishop over the 
 church of Rome. Nor need this surprise us. We 
 have already,^ from the epistle of Clement to the 
 church of Corinth and that of Polycarp ^ to the church 
 of Philippi, gathered that the apostle Paul did not 
 introduce episcopacy (in the modern sense of the word) 
 into either of those churches ; and that the latter of 
 those churches, even subsequently to the death of St. 
 John, had no bishop ruling over it, but only presbyters 
 (the same class of ministers as St. Paul addressed by 
 the title of bishops or overseers) and deacons. 
 
 Episcopacy, therefore, or the threefold ministry of a 
 bishop presbyters and deacons, as distinguished from 
 
 ' See ante, ch. ii. - Ibid. 
 
390 CYPRIAN AND LATER AVRITERS. 
 
 a ministry of presbyters (all equal in authority) and 
 deacons^ was not introduced by the apostles into all 
 the churches which they founded. They have left us 
 no uniform example as to the institution of episcopacy. 
 No such example, as was shown in an earlier part of 
 this work^i can be traced in scripture : nor, as we have 
 now seen, can any such example be gathered from the 
 early fathers — even if it could, the circumstance of its 
 not being recorded in scripture would prove, that it 
 was not intended to establish a practice binding on all 
 churches and in all ages. 
 
 Another conclusion to be drawn from Eusebius is 
 this : — From the terms in which he relates the appoint- 
 ment of several of the early bishops of the church of 
 Rome, a strong presumption arises, that, in the two 
 first centuries, there existed in that church no settled 
 mode of appointing bishops, no invariable custom of 
 setting apart bishops to their office by imposition of 
 episcopal hands, and that some at least of its early 
 bishops were not so set apart. 
 
 ^ See part i. ch. viii. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 What then is the result of the evidence on the question 
 of apostolical succession ? 
 
 The alleged ^^ fact of the Apostolical Succession " (be 
 it remembered) isj ^' that our Bishops are the heirs and 
 representatives of the Apostles by successive transmis- 
 sion of the prerogative of being so. This " (we are 
 told) ^' is too notorious to require proof. Every link 
 in the chain is known, from St. Peter to our present 
 Metropolitans.^^ ^ In plain English, the allegation is 
 — not that there has been a regular succession of 
 bishops in our church from St. Peter to the present 
 metropolitans — but that an episcopal commission, 
 distinct from that of a j)reshyter, " the prerogative of 
 being " " heirs and representatives of the apostles/^ 
 has been transmitted to our present metropolitans j 
 
 ^ Tracts for the Times, No. 7, p. 2. 
 
392 CONCLUSION. 
 
 through a series of bishops, each of whom has received 
 it from his predecessor in the series^ hy ordination 
 (or consecration) to the episcopate. That this is the 
 meaning is clear from the terms of the proposition 
 itself, and from the whole tenor of the Tracts for the 
 Times. 
 
 It rests with those who make this assertion to prove 
 it. Those who call it in question are not required to 
 prove a negative. Yet it must be obvious to any one 
 who has carefully examined the evidence which has 
 been adduced from the early fathers, not only that 
 there is none in favour of the allegation, but that there 
 is much (to say the least) that raises strong presump- 
 tion against it. This will more fully appear on a 
 review of the evidence. 
 
 I. In the writings ^ of the fathers called apostolical, 
 we found no trace of this alleged fact ; though Clement 
 of Rome and Ignatius, had there been such a fact, 
 could scarcely have failed to appeal to it. The infer- 
 ence is clear and strong against the alleged " fact of 
 apostolical succession." This inference is further 
 strengthened by various passages," in which Ignatius, 
 while he distinctly refers to the threefold ministry, 
 and exalts very highly the bishop^s authority, is so far 
 from representing the bishops as the only successors 
 of the apostles, that he not only exhorts the disciples 
 
 ^ See ante, ch. ii. 
 - These passages occur in his epistles to Asiatic churches. No such 
 passage occurs in his epistle to the church of Rome. But of this here- 
 after. If any one reject these passages as interpolated, I am not con- 
 cerned to defend them. See Appendix vi. 
 
CONCLUSION. 393 
 
 to follow " the presbytery as '' they " would the 
 apostles," and enjoins subjection and reverence to the 
 presbyters " as to the apostles of Jesus Christ/' to 
 " the college of the apostles ; " but in his epistle to 
 the church of Philadelphia he uses language, which (to 
 say the least) it is not easy to reconcile with the notion 
 of a commission transmitted from the apostlei^ to the 
 bishop of that church. 
 
 In the epistles of Clement and Polycarp we found 
 ground to infer, that the apostles did not introduce 
 episcopacy into the churches of Corinth and Philippi. 
 But of this hereafter, under Division IV. 
 
 II. Proceeding to the writings ^ of Justin Martyr, 
 Iren£eus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Ori- 
 gen, we found in them no evidence in support of the 
 alleged " fact." We found, in some of them, passages 
 asserting that certain churches could enumerate then- 
 bishops in succession from the apostles, but neither 
 intimating how those bishops had been appointed, nor 
 alluding to any transmitted commission : and m one 
 of these passages (one in Tertullian) his argument 
 would have been greatly strengthened, if the fact 
 would have warranted him in appealing to such a 
 mode of apostolical succession as is asserted in the 
 Tracts for the Times, and to the transmission thereby 
 of an episcopal commission. From his silence on these 
 points, a strong inference arises, that no such succes- 
 sion or transmitted commission was known to him. 
 Nor is this all — for, 
 
 ' See ante, ch. iii. 
 S 5 
 
394 CONCLUSION. 
 
 1 . Both Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, in se- 
 veral passages, use interchangeably the words ^' bishop '' 
 and " presbyter : " in other passages, Clement (ob- 
 viously according to the common language of his day) 
 uses the word " presbyter '^ as including bishops, and 
 the word " presbytery " as including the office of a 
 bishop : and Irenseus speaks of '^ that succession of 
 the church which is from the apostles," and of " pres- 
 byters" " who have succession from the apostles," 
 " who with the succession of the episcopate received 
 according to the Father^s pleasure the sure gift of the 
 truth" — not, however, hinting how that succession 
 had been continued, and obviously not limiting it to 
 the episcopal line ; while in the same passage he plainly 
 intimates his opinion, that succession from the apostles 
 does not constitute a true presbyter without apostolical 
 doctrine and holiness of life. 
 
 2. In Irenseus and Tertullian we have discordant 
 testimony as to the first bishop of Rome ; but of this 
 hereafter, under Division IV. 
 
 III. We next ^ examined Cyprian, who wrote about 
 the middle of the third century. The result was, that, 
 in his time, a custom existed in some parts of bishops 
 being elected with the concurrence of the bishops of 
 neighbouring churches, and that these bishops some- 
 times ordained the bishop elect by imposition of hands : 
 but that this custom had not even then been univer- 
 sally adopted in all churches. Nor did it appear to 
 have prevailed from the time of the apostles, even in 
 
 ^ See ante, ch. iv. 
 
CONCLUSION. 395 
 
 those churches which then observed it. That the 
 custom mentioned by Cyprian was not universal, was 
 further estabUshed by passages from later writers ^ 
 (Eutychius, Severus, and Jerome), proving that, in the 
 church of Alexandria, a dififerent custom had from its 
 foundation been established by St. Mark, and was re- 
 tained till after the council of Nice in the fourth cen- 
 tury. In that church there was a council of twelve 
 presbyters, who, on the death of the bishop or patri- 
 arch, chose one of their own number to be his successor, 
 the other eleven laying hands upon him, and placing 
 him on the patriarchal throne. This custom was ob- 
 served in the church of Alexandria, a principal church 
 of Christendom, for above two centuries from its foun- 
 dation, and involved the appointment of a whole series 
 of bishops (or patriarchs), who were recognized as such 
 by the universal church, and one of whom was present 
 at the council of Nice. 
 
 IV. We examined,^ last of all, Eusebius. In his 
 ecclesiastical history (the earliest now extant) we found 
 no evidence in favour of the alleged fact, no notice of 
 the custom mentioned by Cyprian, or of any other 
 custom observed in the appointment of bishops ; on 
 the contrary — 
 
 1. From the terms, in which Eusebius relates the 
 appointment of several bishops of the church of Rome, 
 we deduced the inference, that, during the two first 
 centuries, there existed in that church no settled mode 
 of making such appointment, no invariable custom of 
 
 * See ante, cli. iv, 2 i\,[^^ 
 
396 CONCLUSION, 
 
 setting its bishops apart to their office by imposition of 
 episcopal hands. 
 
 2. From a comparison of his account of the first 
 bishops of Rome with the contradictory accounts of 
 them given by Irenseus, Tertullian, and Augustine, 
 combined with inferences previously deduced from the 
 epistles of Clement of Rome and Polycarp, and with 
 the way in which *St. Paul writes respecting Clement 
 and Linus, we came to the conclusion, that, until 
 some time after the martyrdom of the apostles Peter 
 and Paul, there was no bishop of Rome, or of Corinth, 
 or of Philippi : and that (though we had gathered from 
 the Apocalypse ' that episcopacy was in the time of 
 the apostle John introduced into many of the Asiatic 
 churches) it was not universally introduced into other 
 churches till a later period. 
 
 The general result of the inquiry then is, that the 
 alleged ^^ fact of apostolical succession," in the sense 
 in which it is alleged and explained in the Tracts for 
 the Times, is utterly unsupported by evidence : and 
 that the fair conclusion to be deduced from the early 
 fathers is against it. That conclusion comprises the 
 following particulars. 
 
 1. Episcopacy — in other words, the threefold min- 
 istry of a bishop presbyters and deacons — was not 
 introduced by the apostles into all the churches 
 founded by them : nor did it become the universal 
 form of church government till after the death of the 
 apostle John, as well as of the apostles Peter and Paul. 
 
 ' See ante, part i. ch. vi. 
 
CONCLUSION. 397 
 
 Hence arises the presumption, that, for some time after 
 the death of these apostles, the authority to ordain was 
 not limited to any particular order of ministers, but 
 was exercised in each church by the ruling minister or 
 ministers, whether bishop or elders. 
 
 2. There is no evidence for the hypothesis, that, 
 after episcopacy was introduced into a church, the suc- 
 cession of bishops was from the first kept on foot by 
 each successive bishop receiving ordination to the epis- 
 copate from the bishop of some other church who had 
 been ordained in like manner. The preponderance of 
 evidence is against this hypothesis. It clearly was 
 not so kept on foot in the church of Alexandria, whose 
 bishops or patriarchs (from its foundation by the evan<^ 
 gelist Mark till after the Council of Nice) were not 
 set apart to their office by the laying on of episcopal 
 hands. 
 
 3. As to the church of Rome, there is ground to 
 conclude, that it had no bishop till several years after 
 the martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul ; and 
 that, for some time after the introduction of episcopacy 
 into it, no settled custom prevailed as to the appoint- 
 ment of its bishops, or their being set apart to their 
 
 office. 
 
 I now leave it to the reader to form his own judgment 
 of the bold assertion—" As to ih^fact of the Aposto- 
 lical Succession, i. e. that our present Bishops are the 
 heirs and representatives of the Apostles by successive 
 transmission of the prerogative of being so, this is too 
 notorious to require proof. Every hnk in the chain is 
 
398 CONCLUSION. 
 
 known, from St. Peter to our present Metropolitans/' ^ 
 I leave the reader to form his own judgment, whether 
 *^ this Succession has been preserved, all over the world, 
 amid many revolutions, through many centuries/' ^ 
 
 To me the conclusion resulting from the evidence of 
 the early fathers is clear, that the alleged "fact of 
 apostolical succession '^ is " the baseless fabric of a 
 vision \" while, as was shown in the early part of this 
 work,^ the doctrine^ in support of which it is asserted, 
 is unscriptural ; and " the fact," therefore, of no value 
 even if it were a fact established in evidence. 
 
 What then is the practical result to be drawn from 
 the whole inquiry ? Let the advocates of either this 
 or the other ecclesiastical platform beware, how they 
 assign to their own views an importance not founded 
 in Scripture. Let them beware, how they rest ecclesi- 
 astical authority on an unscriptural foundation, or carry 
 it beyond its scriptural limits. Let those churches, 
 which hold fast " the faith once delivered to the saints," 
 hold it in " the bond of peace ; " exercise towards each 
 other Christian love and brotherly intercourse ; and not 
 deny to each other the character of a true church of 
 Christ merely on account of a difiPerence in their con- 
 stitution or in their orders of the ministry. 
 
 1 Tracts for the Times, No. 7, p. 2. ' * Ibid, pp. 2, 3. 
 
 ^ See part i. ch. viii. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 ON THE DATE OF ST, PAUL S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE 
 CORINTHIANS. 
 
 The date of this epistle is fixed by Paley (Horse Paulinse 
 cap. iii. No. 2, 3, 4, and 5,) towards the close of the 
 apostle's two years residence at Ephesus, recorded in the 
 1 9th chapter of Acts. It was clearly written at Ephesus, 
 or he writes : "I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost" 
 (1 Cor. xvi. 8.) ; it was written after several churches had 
 been established in that part of Asia, for he sends saluta- 
 tions from *' the churches of Asia" (ib. 19.); it was 
 written after the gospel had made considerable progress at 
 Ephesus, for he says : "A great door and effectual is opened 
 unto me " (ib. 9.) ; and consequently it was written, we 
 may reasonably infer, after those remarkable events, the narra- 
 tive of which St. Luke concludes with the observation — " so 
 mightily grew the word of Godandprevailed." (Acts xix. 20.) 
 It seems to have been written just after he had sent Timothy 
 and Erastus into Macedonia (ib. 22.), having himself 
 formed a plan (ib. 21.) of passing through Macedonia and 
 
400 APPENDIX. 
 
 Achaia to Jerusalem, for he writes to the Corinthians : I 
 have " sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, 
 and faithful in the Lord. . . . Now some are puffed up, as 
 though I would not come to you. But I will come to you 
 shortly, if the Lord will." (1 Cor. iv. 1 7—19.) The epistle 
 indeed does not notice Timothy as having been sent into 
 Macedonia on his way to Corinth ; but the apostle says : 
 " If Timotheus come, see that he may be with you with- 
 out fear." (1 Cor. xvi. 10.) He expected, therefore, his 
 letter, though written after Timothy's departure, to reach 
 Corinth before him ; an expectation easily accounted for by 
 the circuitous route which Timothy took, especially as he 
 had probably to spend some time in visiting the churches of 
 Macedonia. 
 
 H. 
 
 OUR LORD S INTERVIEW WITH THE ASSEMBLED DISCIPLES 
 ON THE EVENING OF HIS RESURRECTION. 
 
 ST. LUKE XXIV. ST. JOHN XX. 
 
 36 And as they [the two 19. Then the same day 
 
 disciples who had seen the at evening, being the first 
 Lord, when travelling to day of the week, when the 
 Emmaus] thus spake, Jesus doors were shut where the 
 himself stood in the midst disciples were assembled for 
 of them, and saith unto them, fear of the Jews, came 
 Peace be unto vou. Jesus, and stood in the 
 
 midst and saith unto them. 
 Peace be unto vou. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 401 
 
 37. But they were terri- 
 fied and affrighted, and sup- 
 posed that they had seen a 
 spirit. 
 
 38. And he said unto 
 them, Why are ye troubled } 
 and why do thoughts ai'ise 
 in your hearts ? 
 
 39. Behold my hands and 
 my feet, that it is I myself : 
 handle me, and see ; for a 
 spirit hath not flesh and 
 bones, as ye see me have. 
 
 40. And when he had 
 thus spoken, he shewed them 
 his hands and his feet. 
 
 41. And while they yet 
 beUeved not for joy, and 
 wondered, he said unto them. 
 Have ye here any meat } 
 
 42. And they gave him a 
 piece of broiled fish, and of 
 an honey-comb. 
 
 43. And he took it, and 
 did eat before them. 
 
 20. And when he had so 
 said, he shewed unto them 
 his hands and his side. Then 
 were the disciples glad, when 
 they saw the Lord. 
 
 2 1 . Then said Jesus unto 
 them again, Peace be unto 
 you : as my Father hath sent 
 me, even so send 1 you. 
 
 22. And when he had 
 said this, he breathed on 
 them, and saith unto them. 
 Receive ye the Holy Ghost : 
 
 23. Whose soever sins ye 
 remit, they are remitted 
 
402 APPENDIX. 
 
 unto them ; and whose 
 soever sins ye retain, they 
 are retained. 
 
 24. But Thomas, one of 
 the twelve, called Didymus, 
 was not with them when 
 Jesus came. 
 In harmonizing these two passages, I have stopped at 
 the 43rd verse in the passage from St. Luke. The 44th 
 verse begins with the words — " and he said unto them — " 
 which may relate to what he said on another occa- 
 sion ; and, as there is^ no break in the discourse from the 
 44th to the 49th verse both inclusive, we must either stop 
 at the 43rd verse, or go onto the 49th as if the whole 
 were said on the evening of the resurrection. But in 
 the 49th verse our Lord says, " I send the promise of 
 my Father upon you ; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, 
 until ye be endued with power from on high ; " which direc- 
 tion to tarry at Jerusalem, could not have been given on the 
 evening of the resurrection : for on the morning of the same 
 day our Lord had sent a message to his disciples by the 
 women, commanding them to meet him in Galilee (Matt, 
 xxviii. 9, 10.) ; and after this interview the eleven apostles 
 did meet him in Galilee in a mountain where he had 
 appointed them (Matt, xxviii. 16, 17.); and some of 
 the disciples while fishing on the lake of Tiberias, which 
 is in Galilee, (John vi. 1 .) had an interview with Jesus. 
 (John xxi. 1 — 14.) This direction, therefore, to tarry at 
 Jerusalem, and the whole conversation in which it is in- 
 cluded from 44 to 49 of Luke xxiv, must be referred 
 to an interview subsequent to the evening of the resurrec- 
 tion ; and the same evangehst obviously alludes to that 
 subsequent interview and direction, when (after mention- 
 ing that our Lord had been " seen " of the apostles " forty 
 days,") he tells us, that Jesus, " being assembled toge- 
 
APPENDIX. 403 
 
 ther with theniy commanded them that they should not de- 
 part from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the 
 Father ; which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John 
 truly baptized with water ; but ye shall be baptized with 
 the Holy Ghost not many days hence" (Acts i. 1 — 5.) — 
 not many days hence, an expression pointing out a much 
 shorter period than the "forty days" from our Lord's 
 resurrection to his ascension, shorter than the fifty days 
 from his resurrection to the outpouring of the Spirit on 
 the day of Pentecost. 
 
 III. 
 
 OUR lord's last commission to the apostles. 
 
 It is not easy to fix the date of the different discourses, 
 which our Lord held with the apostles after his resurrection. 
 
 St. John records no discourse subsequent to the meet- 
 ing at the sea of Tiberias. St. Luke (Acts i. 4 — 8.) re- 
 cords what our Lord said to the apostles immediately 
 before his ascension (ib. v. 9.) ; and also (Luke xxiv. 44 — 
 49.) what he said to them at some interview subsequent 
 to his appearance on the evening of the resurrection 
 (Appendix II.), and apparently immediately before " he 
 led them out as far as Bethany, and was parted from 
 them, and carried up into heaven." (Luke xxiv. 50, 51.) 
 
 St. Mark records a discourse (xvi. 15 — 18.) which 
 seems also to have been dehvered just before our Lord's 
 ascension ; for it is followed by the narrative of that 
 event — " So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, 
 he was received up into heaven." (ib. 19.) — and appar- 
 
404 APPENDIX. 
 
 ently connected with it : and (as it begins with the words, 
 "And he said") it is not necessarily connected with the 
 preceding narrative, for we have seen (Appendix II.) that 
 St. Luke (xxiv. 44.) commences in the same way a dis- 
 course of our Lord not dehvered at the time to which the 
 narrative immediately preceding it refers. 
 
 St. Matthew makes no mention of our Lord's ascension. 
 He closes his gospel with a discourse (xxviii. 18 — 20.), 
 *which, from the place which it so occupies in his gospel, 
 and the similarity of its subject matter to part of the dis- 
 course recorded by St. Mark immediately before the 
 ascension, we may reasonably infer to have been the same 
 discourse. 
 
 If I am right in these conclusions, then the four pas- 
 sages to which I have referred (viz. Acts i. 4 — 8. Luke 
 xxiv. 44 — 49. Mark xvi. 15—18. Matt, xxviii. 18—20.) 
 all relate to the same interview, viz. our Lord's interview 
 with his apostles immediately before his ascension. 
 
 If we consider St. Matthew and St. Mark as recording 
 the same discourse, their accounts of it are properly thus 
 harmonized by Dr. Doddridge. 
 
 "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and 
 preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth, 
 and is baptized, shall be saved : but he that believeth not, 
 shall be damned.'* (Mark xvi. 15, 16.) " Go ye there- 
 fore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : 
 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- 
 manded you : and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the 
 end of the world. Amen." (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.) "And 
 these signs shall follow them that believe : in my name 
 shall they cast out devils ; they shall speak with new- 
 tongues ; they shall take up serpents ; and if they drink 
 any deadlv thins:, it shall not hurt them ; thev shall lav 
 
APPENDIX. 405 
 
 hands on the sick, and they shall recover." (Mark xvi. 17, 
 18.) 
 
 St. Mark, it will be seen, records some promises and 
 threatenings not mentioned by St. Matthew ; but his 
 account of the commission given to the apostles is more 
 concise. 
 
 The only parts of the discourse recorded by St. Luke, 
 which refer to the apostohc commission, are these : — " and 
 he said unto them. Thus it is written, and thus it behoved 
 Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day : 
 and that repentance and remission of sins should be 
 preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Je- 
 rusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things." (Luke 
 xxiv. 46 — 48.) " Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in 
 Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the 
 uttermost part of the earth." (Acts i. 8.) The apostles 
 were to preach " repentance and remission of sins " in 
 the name of Christ ; this was the preaching of the gospel 
 mentioned by St. Matthew and St. Mark. They were 
 to be witnesses " unto " Christ, and more especially of his 
 resurrection. 
 
 IV. 
 
 ON THE FOURTY-FOURTH SECTION OF CLEMENT S EPISTLE. 
 
 This being considered by Tractarians as an important pas- 
 sage, and a scrap of it being quoted at the end of Tract 
 No. 3, I give (1) the original from Jacobson's edition, and 
 (2) Archbishop Wake's translation. 
 
 (1.) Kof* 01 uitoa-roXoi vjuuv iyvua-av Stars Kvpts r^Auv 'lri(rs 
 
406 APPENDIX. 
 
 X/JiCTTs, on €pi<; earai eV* tov ovofAaroq t'/j^ cVitr/coTr^?. A*a 
 TauT>jv o'yv t^v airtav 'n^oyvu<Tiv etXvjpoTe? r^'khav, Kctrea-rrja-av 
 
 rovpyiocv ocvruv, Te? ovv Karaa-taBivTaq vtv' CKihuVf ^ [jt,€ra^v 
 v(p^ eTepwv iXXoyifxav av^pSv, crvvevhoKyia-da-yjq t^^ iKKXyjcriaq 
 TraVy/^, Koci Keirovpy-^a-ccvraq a/xe/ATrroi^ tS •noi^vtcp tov 'Kpia-Tov 
 [/.era TO.iteivoippoa'vvriq, ^luvy^uiq, kcci a^avdvacoq, [/.erafActprv- 
 pTj/Acvof? T6 iroXXoiq "x^povoit; vtio itdi/rav, rsTOvq ov Si/cct/w? 
 vQfAi^O[Ji€v dito^cckeaQai ryjq Keirspytac. 'AfAocpTioc yap ov fxiKpa 
 tjia'iv ecTTai, iavrSi; dfxef/.itrcci; kcci oataq 7vpo<T€veyKOvraq ra^apa, 
 r^q eTTiO'KO'Tr^^ aitotdXcofAev. MaKdpioi ot itpootomopricravreq 
 •npea^vrepoi, ohiveq eyKapnov Kai reXeiav t<Ty/iV tt/v avd'kvtTiv' 
 oil yap ivXa^avrai [A'/i rn; avTovq [/.eraa-T'^a-'/i diro rov IdpvfAeve 
 avroiq Tonte. 'Opwixev yap oti ivtovq vf/Zn; y^eraydyixe KaXSq 
 TToXnevoixev [^ov<;~\ , e/c tr\qdy.iy^ina(; dvToiq TeTijM,>jjM.ej/vy? Keirspyiaf,. 
 (Clem, ad Cor. 1. 44.) 
 
 (2) " Our apostles knew, by our Lord Jesus Christ, that 
 there should contentions arise upon account of the minis- 
 try. And, therefore, having a perfect foreknowledge of 
 thi^, they appointed persons, as we have before said, and 
 then gave direction how, when they should die, other cho- 
 sen and approved men should succeed in their ministry. 
 Wherefore we cannot think that those may justly be 
 thrown out of their ministry who were either appointed by 
 them, or afterwards chosen by other eminent men, with 
 the consent of the whole church, and who with all lowh- 
 ness and innocency ministered to the flock of Christ, in 
 peace and without self-interest, and were for a long time 
 commended by all. For it would be no small sin in us, 
 should we cast off those from their ministry who holily, 
 and without blame, fulfil the duties of it. Blessed are 
 those priests who, having finished their course before 
 these times, have obtained a fruitful and perfect dissolu- 
 tion ; for they have no fear lest any one should turn them 
 
APPENDIX. 407 
 
 out of the place which is now appointed for them. But 
 we see how you have put out some who Hved reputably 
 among you from the ministry, which by their innocence 
 they had adorned." (Archbishop Wake's Translation.) 
 
 The first part of this passage is thus rendered in the 
 Tracts for the Times No. 3. 
 
 "The Apostles knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 that strife would arise for the Episcopate. Wherefore hav- 
 ing received an accurate foreknowledge, they appointed the 
 men I before mentioned, and have given an orderly suc- 
 cession, that on their death other approved men might re- 
 ceive in turn their office.'* 
 
 The word, here rendered "episcopate," and by Wake 
 " ministry " in his text and " bishopric " in his note, I have 
 translated (more literally) " overseership." The word admits 
 of this rendering : and the context proves that the office 
 of bishop, as distinguished from that of presbyter, is not 
 meant by the word in this place. But the Tractarian trans- 
 lator has omitted the rest of the section, and has not fur- 
 nished the passage in which Clement had mentioned the 
 men appointed by the apostles. 
 
 The words -ra^ irpoeipvjfAeveq are, however, more correctly 
 translated in the Tract than by Wake. 
 
 The word ittivoiA.^v, rendered " direction " by Wake, and 
 " orderly succession " in the Tract, has occasioned consider- 
 able discussion, as may be seen on referring to Jacobson's 
 note upon it — Wake in a note gives this translation — " Left 
 a list of other chosen and approved persons, who should 
 succeed them in the ministry." 
 
 I have in the text followed the Tract in translating 
 Xfirovpyia " office ; " but the result would be the same, if 
 with Archbishop Wake we render it " ministry." 
 
408 APPENDIX. 
 
 V. 
 
 ON A PASSAGE IN IGNATTUS' EPISTLE TO THE TRALLIANS. 
 
 The passage quoted in the text is thus given in Jacobson's 
 edition. 
 
 riavTe? ivrpmicrBccoiv tov(; 'biaKovovt;, uk; 'Irjcrovv Xpta-tov, odc, 
 Kai rov itria-KOtrov, ovtcc liov rov IlaTpo<;. rovq Be 'Koea-tvrepsq, 
 u^ arvvitpiQV ®€ov, kui ojq o-vv^etTfAOv aizoo'roXuv . Xwpt^ TStoov 
 
 Annexed, Mr. Jacobson gives the ancient version appa- 
 rently derived from a different text. The passage has sorely 
 perplexed commentators and translators, who all, as we 
 gather from Mr. Jacobson's note, treat the text as cor- 
 rupt : and many conjectural emendations have been sug- 
 gested. 
 
 Neither the translator in the '^ Records of the Church " 
 No. v., nor Archbishop Wake, has ventured to give a 
 literal version of rov inia-KCnQV, 'Ivza vlov rov Ilarpot;, the 
 former rendering it — " to the bishop as to the son of the 
 Father ; " the latter — " the bishop as the Father." Each 
 has obviously followed some conjectural emendation of the 
 text. 
 
 The passage, especially the part which relates to the 
 deacons and bishop, is obviously corrupt, and such as 
 Ignatius could not have written ; and the concluding 
 sentence is strange Greek. I strongly suspect that the 
 whole is interpolated. 
 
APPENDIX. 409 
 
 VI. 
 
 ON THE EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS. 
 
 In examining the epistles of Ignatius, I have not entered 
 into the controversy (which has long existed) as to their 
 genuineness. I have met the advocates of Apostolic Succes- 
 sion on their own ground ; and conceded the genuineness of 
 the seven epistles, the Greek of which has been edited by 
 Mr, Jacobson, and which have been long since translated 
 by Archbishop Wake, and a version of which is printed in 
 the Tracts for the Times under the division of Records of 
 the Church. But, since my observations on those epistles 
 were written, a work has appeared, entitled *' The Antient 
 Syriac Version of the Epistles of Saint Ignatius," and 
 edited by Mr. Cureton with an English translation and 
 other collateral matter. This version (which comprises 
 only three epistles, those to Polycarp, to the Ephesians, 
 and to the Romans) is found in some very antient Syriac 
 manuscripts lately brought by Mr. Tattam from a monastery 
 in the Desert of Nitria, and deposited in the British Mu- 
 seum : and it differs from the Greek of the epistles ad- 
 dressed to the same individual and churches in two re- 
 spects : first, several passages, some of them long passages, 
 which are found in the Greek, are wanting in the Syriac ; 
 and secondly, a passage is found in the Swiac version of 
 the epistle to the Romans, which, in the Greek, forms no 
 part of that epistle but constitutes the principal part of 
 the fourth and fifth chapters of the epistle to the Trallians. 
 
 Mr. Cureton, in his preface, discusses in a very able 
 argument the question between the Syriac version, and the 
 Greek text, which we have of the same three epistles : and 
 has come to the conclusion, first, that the passages want- 
 
 T 
 
410 APPENDIX. 
 
 ing in the Syriac version have been interpolated in the 
 Greek manuscript since that version was made ; and 
 secondly, that the passage, which in the Greek manuscript 
 forms the fourth and fifth chapters of the epistle to the 
 Trallians, is in its proper place in the Syriac version of the 
 ejDistle to the Romans. Mr. Cureton's arguments in general 
 appear to me satisfactory : and, if his conclusion is correct, 
 this circumstance strengthens the suspicions which have 
 long hung about passages in the other epistles of a similar 
 tendency to those interpolated in these three, and also 
 casts great doubt on the genuineness of the whole epistle to 
 the Trallians as it now stands in the Greek. 
 
 Such is the impression made on my mind by Mr. Cure- 
 ton's publication : but I would not be understood as ex- 
 pressing any decided opinion on the subject. I leave the 
 determination to those, who are more accustomed to such 
 inquiries. 
 
 Nor is a decision on the question material to my present 
 purpose. All the passages, to which I have referred in 
 discussing the epistles of Ignatius, are taken from those 
 four epistles which are not included in the Syriac version — 
 except two, the one being a passage found in the epistle 
 to Polycarp both in the Greek and in the Syriac ; the 
 other being an immaterial passage in the second chapter of 
 the epistle to the Ephesians as it stands in the Greek, but 
 which is not found in the Syriac. And the several passages 
 from the epistles to the Smyrneans, the Philadelphians, and 
 the Trallians on which I have commented, have (I trust) 
 been shown to afford no countenance to the doctrine of 
 Apostolical Succession, however high they exalt the 
 bishop's authority. They are, indeed, much stronger in 
 support of episcopal authority than any of the passages, 
 which are considered as interpolated because not found in 
 the Syriac ; and it was on that account, that I selected 
 them for examination. "WTiatever suspicion may, either 
 
APPENDIX. 411 
 
 from internal evidence or from the apparent interpolation 
 of similar passages in other epistles, rest upon them, I am 
 content, that the advocates of Apostolical Succession 
 should have the full benefit of them. They furnish (as I 
 think I have shown) no evidence in support of the alleo-ed 
 ^' fact of Apostolical Succession." 
 
 There is one point, which it remains for me to notice. 
 I have said, that I cannot, " in the epistles of Ignatius, 
 discover any intimation as to the way in which ministers 
 were in his time appointed, except the obscure passage in 
 his epistle to the church of Smyrna which has been already 
 examined." But Mr. Cureton, with reference to chapters 
 vii. and viii., of the epistle to Poly carp as they stand m 
 the Greek (though the passage is wanting in the Syriac) 
 says : "In these we find, besides other things, instructions 
 given to Poly carp by Ignatius as to the manner in which 
 he was to proceed in choosing one to be sent to Svria to 
 take his place." (Pref. xxvii.) It never occurred to me 
 to understand the passage as relating to the appointment of 
 a bishop of Antioch : nor, on consideration, do I see how it 
 can be so understood. These instructions, as translated 
 from the Greek in the Tracts for the Times, run thus. " It 
 is meet, O most blessed Polycarp, that thou shouldst call 
 together a holy council, and choose some one, well be- 
 loved and zealous, that he may be called God's Messeno-er ; 
 and to appoint him to go to Syria, that he may make man- 
 ifest your zealous love, to the glory of Christ. A Christian 
 is not master of himself, but is devoted to God's service. 
 This wor-k is God's, and your's, when you have accom- 
 plished it I salute all by name ; and especially the 
 
 wife of Epitropus, with her household and family. ... I 
 salute him who shall be chosen to go into Syria ; that the 
 grace of God may be with him alway." And this translation 
 gives sufficiently the purport of the Greek. Now the 
 person so to be chosen and sent to Antioch is called 
 
 T 2 
 
412 APPENDIX. 
 
 neither bishop, nor angel, but Geo^^of^o^, a messenger or 
 courier of God ; nor is any episcopal function assigned to 
 him. His only office is, "that he may make manifest'* 
 the " zealous love " of the church of Smyrna. Nor, as 
 the passage runs in the Greek, is there any intimation that 
 he was to go to Antioch to take the place of Ignatius. The 
 passage, indeed, as translated by Mr. Cureton from the 
 Syriac, stands thus. " The Christian has not power over 
 himself, but is ready to be subjected to God. I salute him 
 who is deemed worthy to go to Antioch in my stead, as I 
 charged thee " — the long passage in the Greek having in 
 the Syriac nothing to correspond to it but these two 
 sentences ; while the words, " in my stead, as I charged 
 thee," have nothing to answer to them in the Greek. In 
 a note on the words " as I charged thee," Mr. Cure- 
 ton says : "St. Ignatius alludes to his instructions to St. 
 Polycarp relative to sending a Bishop as his successor to 
 Antioch, which probably he had given him when they met 
 at SmjTna" (p. 88. n. 35.) Mr. Cureton does not, I con- 
 ceive, mean directions such as are represented in the Greek, 
 for these (he says) " seem more consonant with the practice 
 of rather later times." (Pref. p. xxviii.) Nor do I see any 
 very solid ground for considering the words as alluding to 
 the appointment of a successor to Ignatius. If such be 
 the allusion, the passage as it stands in the Syriac con- 
 veys no intimation how the successor was to be appointed, 
 or by whom he was to be " deemed worthy to go to Antioch 
 in " his " stead." We must take our choice between the 
 Syriac and the Greek. If we adopt the Syriac, we have 
 no hint as to the mode of appointment (even if the appoint- 
 ment was intended) of a successor to Ignatius. If, on the 
 other hand, we retain the Greek text, we have not the 
 slightest ground for considering that the person to be chosen 
 by the council was to succeed Ignatius or go to Antioch 
 in his stead ; but the direction would rather seem to be. 
 
APPENDIX. 413 
 
 that a council of the church at Smyrna should be called 
 together, to choose a representative of that church and 
 send him to Antioch, to the church of which city other 
 churches were sending representatives, " some bishops, 
 some priests and deacons " for a similar purpose, viz. to 
 " rejoice with them when met together, and glorify the 
 name" of God. (See Ign. Ep. to Philad. § 10.) Surely it 
 was not for the church of Smyrna to elect and send a 
 bishop to preside over the much more ancient church of 
 Antioch ! 
 
 VII. 
 
 TERTULLIAN ON DISCIPLINE. 
 
 " Cogimiir ad litterarum divinarum commemorationem 
 .... ibidem etiam exhortationes, castigationes, et censura 
 divina, nam et judicatur magno cum pondere, ut apud certos 
 de dei conspectu ; summumque futuri judicii prsejudicium 
 est, siquis ita deliquerit, ut a communicatione orationis et 
 conventus et omnis sancti commercii relegetur. Prsesident 
 probati quique seniores, honorem istum non pretio, sed 
 testimonio adepti." (Apol. cap. 39.) 
 
414 APPENDIX. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 TERTULLIAN ON SUCCESSION FROM THE APOSTLES. 
 
 The passages to which I allude in the text, are the three 
 following ; ^ the two first being found in a Treatise which 
 bishop Kaye considers as having probably been written 
 while TertuUian continued in the church ; and the third 
 being found in a work which he thinks was certainly 
 written after Tertullian became a Montanist, though I can 
 scarcely understand how the passage could have been 
 written by one who had seceded from the churches which 
 traced succession back to the apostles. 
 
 1. After quoting Matt. xiii. 37, 39, Tertullian argues 
 thus. " Ex ipso ordine manifestatur id esse dominicum et 
 verum, quod sit prius traditum. Id autem extraneum et 
 falsum, quod sit posterius immissum. Ea sententia mane- 
 bit adversus posteriores quasque hsereses Caete- 
 
 rum si quae audent interserere se setati apostolicse, ut ideo 
 videantur ab Apostolis traditse, quia sub Apostolis fuerunt ; 
 possumus dicere, edant ergo origines ecclesiarum suarum : 
 evolvant ordinem episcoporum suorum, ita per successiones 
 ab initio decurrente,- ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex 
 Apostolis, vel Apostolicis viris : qui tamen, cum Apostolis 
 perseveraverit, habuerit autorem et antecessorem. Hoc 
 enim modo ecclesise Apostolicse census suos deferunt, sicut 
 Smyrnaeorum ecclesia Polycarpum ab Johanne conlocatum 
 refert : sicut Romanorum Clementem ^ a Petro ordinatum, 
 id et proinde utique et cseterse exhibent, quos Apostoli '^ in 
 
 ' I have given in the notes some only of the various readings ; those 
 which seemed to me, to throw light on the text. 
 ^ " Decurrentem.'" Fran. Paris. Rigalt. 
 ^ Here Tertullian differs from Irenaeus. Sec part ii. chap. iv. 
 * " Ab apostolis." Franc. Paris. Rigalt. 
 
APPENDIX. 415 
 
 episcopatum constitutes, Apostolici seminis traduces hab- 
 eant. Confingant tale aliquid hseretici. Quid enim illis 
 post blasphemiam inlicitum est? sed etsi confinxerint, 
 nihil promovebunt. Ipsa enim doctrina eorum, cum Apos- 
 tolica comparata, ex diversitate et contrarietate sua pronun- 
 tiabit, neque Apostoli alicujus autoris esse neque Apostolici : 
 quia sicut Apostoli non diversa inter se docuissent, ita 
 et Apostolici non contraria Apostolis edi dissent : nisi illi 
 qui ab Apostolis desciverunt, et aliter prsedicaverunt. 
 Ad banc itaque formam provocabuntur ^ ab illis eccle- 
 siis, quae licet nuUam ^ ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis autorem 
 suum proferant, ut multo posteriores, quag denique 
 quotidie instituuntur : tamen in eadem fide conspirantes, 
 non minus Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate 
 doctrinae. Ita omnes haereses, ad utramque formam nostris 
 ecclesiis provocatae, probent se quaqua putant Apostolicas. 
 Sed adeo nee sunt, nee possunt probare, quod non sunt : 
 nee recipiuntur in pacem et communicationem ab ecclesiis, 
 quoquo modo Apostolicis : scilicet ob diversitatem sacra- 
 menti, nullo modo Apostolicae (De Prsescrip, Haeret. cap. 
 31, 32.) 
 
 I give this passage as I find it — I pass by for the present 
 the question, how far the variation between TertuUian and 
 Irenaeus respecting the first bishop of Rome may affect the 
 credibility of their evidence as to the fact of a regular suc- 
 cession of bishops from the time of the apostles to their 
 time. I merely observe, that the passage neither alludes 
 to any apostolical commission, nor in any way intimates 
 how the succession of bishops had been continued in the 
 churches which he calls Apostolical. The argument, which 
 he deduces from a succession of bishops beginning with 
 one constituted by an apostle, is simply this — that a church 
 having such a succession, is thereby proved to have been 
 
 1 " Probabuntur." Rigalt. - "NuUam." So in Ed. Semler. 
 
416 APPENDIX. 
 
 founded by an apostle ; and that a church so founded by 
 an apostle — not the bishop of that church — is the deposi- 
 tory of the apostle's doctrine. 
 
 That this is his argument will appear from the next 
 passage which I cite, and which is found earlier in the same 
 treatise. 
 
 2. After mentioning the appointment of Matthias and 
 his being added to the eleven surviving apostles, he says 
 of the apostles : " Primo per Judteam contestata fide in 
 Jesum Christum, ecclesiis institutis, dehinc in orbem pro- 
 fecti : eandem doctrinam ejusdem fidei nationibus promul- 
 gaverunt. Et proinde ecclesias apud unamquamque civitatem 
 condiderunt ; a quibus traducem fidei et semina doctrinse, 
 Cceterae exinde ecclesise mutuatse sunt, et quotidie mutuantur, 
 ut ecclesise fiant. Ac per hoc et ipsse apostolicse deputabun- 
 tur,' ut soboles Apostolicarum ecclesiarum. Omne genus- 
 ad originem suam censeatur necesse est ; Itaque tot ac tant?e 
 ecclesiae, una est ; ilia ab Apostolis prima, ex qua omnes. 
 Sic omnes primae, et omnes Apostolicae, dum una ; omnes 
 probant unitatem. Communicatio pacis, et appellatio fra- 
 ternitatis, et contessaratio hospitalitatis : quaj jura non alia 
 ratio regit, quam ejusdem sacramenti una traditio. Hinc 
 igitur dirigimus prsescriptionem : Si dominus Jesus Christus 
 apostolos misit ad prsedicandum, alios non esse recipiendos 
 praedicatores, quam quos Christus instituit, quia nee alius Pa- 
 trem novit, nisi fihus, et cui filius revelavit •? nee aliis videtur 
 revelasse filius, quam apostolis, quos misit ad prsedicandum ; 
 utique quod iUis revelavit. Quid autem prsedicaverint, id est, 
 quid illis Christus revelaverit : et hie prsescribam, non aliter 
 probari debere, nisi per easdem ecclesias, quas ipsi Apostoli 
 condiderunt, ipsi eis praedicando; tarn viva (quod aiunt) voce, 
 
 ^ " Deputantur." Paris. Rigalt. 
 
 ^ Tertullian obviously refers to Matt. xi. 27. ; but I see no reason 
 for restricting the words to the apostles, as he does. Our Lord used the 
 same language on the return of the seventy. Luke x. 22. 
 
APPENDIX. 417 
 
 quam per epistolas postea." (Praesc. in Hseret. cap 20, 21.) 
 In this passage TertuUian (I stop not to consider how 
 conclusively) argues, that the churches (he does not say the 
 bishops of the churches) founded by the apostles are the 
 depositories of the doctrine of the apostles : whence we 
 may infer, that, in the former passage, he mentions the 
 succession of bishops from the apostles merely as evidence 
 of a church having been so founded, 
 
 3. "In summa, si constat id verius quod prius, id prius 
 quod et ab initio, ab initio quod ab Apostolis ; pariter utique 
 constabit, id esse ab Apostolis traditum, quod apud ecclesias 
 Apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum. Videamus quod lac a 
 Paulo Corinthii hauserint ; ad quam regulam GaJatse sint 
 recorrecti ; quid legant Philippenses, Thessalonicenses, 
 Ephesii ; quid etiam Romani de proximo sonent, quibus 
 evangelium et Petrus et Paulus sanguine quoque suo 
 signatum reliquerunt. Habemus et Johannis alumnas 
 ecclesias. Nam, et si Apocalypsin ejus Marcion respuit ; 
 ordo tamen episcoporum ad originem recensus, in Johannem 
 stabit autorem. Sic et caeterarum generositas recognos- 
 citur. Dico itaque apud illas, nee solas jam Apostohcas, 
 sed apud universas, quse illis de societate sacramenti con- 
 fcederantur, id evangelium Lucse ab initio editionis suae 
 stare, quod cum maxime tuemur. Marcionis vero plerisque 
 nee notum, nuUis notum, ut non eodem natum.^ Habet 
 plane et illud ecclesias, sed suas, tam posteras quam adul- 
 teras, quarum si censum requiras, facilius apostaticum 
 invenias quam Apostohcum, Marcione scilicet conditore, 
 vel aliquo de Marcionis examine. Faciunt favos et vespse, 
 faciunt ecclesias et Marcionitse. Eadem autoritas eccle- 
 siarum Apostolicarum, caeteris quoque patrocinabitur 
 evangeliis, quse proinde per illas et secundum illas habe- 
 mus, Johannis dico et Mattheei ; licet et Marcus quod 
 
 ^ '• Eo damnatum." Paris. Rig. Fran. 
 
418 APPENDIX. 
 
 edidit Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus. Nam et 
 Lucse digestum, Paulo adscribere solent ; capit magistrorum 
 videri, quae discipuli promulgarint. Itaque et de his 
 Marcion flagitandus, quod ^ omissis eis, Lucse potius in- 
 stiterit ; quasi non et hsec apud ecclesias a primordio fuerint, 
 quemadmodum et Lucae ? . . . Igitur dum constet, haec 
 quoque apud ecclesias fuisse, cur non hsec quoque Marcion 
 attigit, aut emendanda, si adulterata; aut agnoscenda, 
 si integra ? Nam et competit, ut siqui evangelium perver- 
 tebant, eorum magis curarent perversionem, quorum 
 sciebant autoritatem receptiorem. ... In quantum ergo 
 emendasset, quae fuissent emendanda si fuissent corrupta ; 
 in tantum confirmavit non fuisse corrupta, quae non putavit 
 emendanda. Denique emendavit, quod corruptum existi- 
 mavit. Sed nee hoc merito ; quia non fuit corruptum. Si 
 enim Apostolica" (scil. the gospels written by Apostles) 
 "integre- decucurrerunt, Lucse autem, quod est secundum 
 nos, adeo congruit regulse eorum, ut cum illis apud ecclesias 
 maneat ; jam et Lucae constat integrum decucurrisse, usque 
 ad sacrilegium Marcionis. Denique ubi manus illi Marcion 
 intulit, tunc diversum et aemulum factum est Apostohcis." 
 (Adv. Marcion. Lib. iv. cap. 5.) 
 
 I have quoted this passage at length for several reasons. 
 1. To show that TertuUian, when he states that the 
 Apostolic churches can trace their line of bishops back 
 to the apostles, states it, not to prove episcopacy an apos- 
 tolical institution, but to prove that the churches from which 
 the heretics had seceded were of apostolic foundation ; and 
 thence to establish (against the errors and corruptions of 
 those heretics) the apostolicity of the doctrines of those 
 churches and the genuineness of the Scriptures received by 
 them. 2. To show, that this passage affords no evidence 
 in favour of Apostohcal succession in the Tractarian sense. 
 
 ^ "Quid.'" Cod. Wouwer. ^ "Integra." Latin. 
 
APPENDIX. 419 
 
 3. To shew that Bingham has misinterpreted the ex- 
 pression — " ordo tamen episcoporum ad originem recensus, 
 in Johannem stabit autorem," when (quoting it as evidence^ 
 that the order of bishops was " an original settlement 
 of the apostles themselves, which they made by divine 
 appointment,") he renders it — " the order of bishops 
 when traced up to its original will be found to have St. 
 John for one of its authors." The context proves, that 
 by " ordo episcoporum " Tertullian meant, not the order 
 of bishops as distinct from others of the clergy ; the sense 
 in which Bingham quotes the words — but the succession of 
 individual bishops, which in the churches founded by St. 
 John could be reckoned back from the time when Ter- 
 tullian wrote to the first bishop of each church appointed 
 by the apostle ; and for further evidence of this being 
 his meaning, I may refer to the use of the expresssion 
 " ordo episcoporum " in the first passage quoted in this 
 Appendix, and to the use of the word " census," both in 
 that passage and in this, in the classical sense of roll or 
 register. 
 
 ^ On the appointment of bishops by the apostles. See part i. chap, vi" 
 I am here discussing not the question of fact, but tha bearing of the 
 passage quoted by Bingham. 
 
420 APPENDIX. 
 
 IX. 
 
 CYPRIAN ON TRADITION AND SCRIPTURE. 
 
 Stephen bishop of Rome, writing against the rebaptism 
 of those who had received baptism from heretics, had 
 (as Cyprian tells us) said — " If any come over to us from 
 any heresy whatsoever, let no innovations be made in the 
 custom handed down to us from tradition ; and therefore 
 let such persons be received by imposition of hands, in 
 order to their penance." Cyprian, who held baptism by 
 a heretic invahd, quotes this statement as made by Stephen, 
 and replies, " Whence, I would ask, have we this tradition ? 
 Do we derive it from the immediate authority of our 
 Lord himself in the gospel ? Or cometh it down to us 
 from the directions of the apostles in any of their epistles ? 
 For God hath most plainly given us to understand 
 
 THAT his written WILL IS TO BE FOLLOWED." And, 
 
 after quoting Joshua i. 8. and Matt, xxviii. 20., he adds — 
 ' * If then there be any where extant, either in the gospel 
 itself, or in the epistles or acts of the apostles, an express 
 direction, that hereticks should not be baptized, but only 
 receive imposition of hands, in order to their penance, let 
 such an holy and heavenly tradition be, by all means, 
 observed." (Ep. Ixxiv. to Pompeius, Part ii. 245.) In 
 this passage, it is clear, Cyprian rejects aU tradition, except 
 the written w^ord. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 L. SeeUy, Printer. 
 
^^^- 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries 
 
 1 1012 01184 7433