^%TTc^; mf: m t;^. mmmw wm W^^. ^m^:^ m^MMm, from t^e fei6rart of in (glemori? of 3ubge ^amuef (giiffer QSrecftinribge ^eeenfeb 61? ^amuef (^liffer (grecftinribge feong to t^ feifirari? of (Princeton C^eofogicaf ^emindrj BV 670 .05 Onderdonk, Henry U. 1789- 1858. Episcopacy examined and r '^^ V ij Hi 1 n /-. .^ ^^^^w^' ^ EPISCOPACY EXAMINED RE-£XAMI]V£D, COMPRISING TUB TRACT "EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE/' CONTROVERSY CONCERXINO THAT PUBLICATION. We make this humble motion, that the regiments on both Bides may be dischargetl out of tlie /itUl, mid the point disputed by dint of holy Scripture; id verum quod primum.— l'lie Dicinee who urgtted vdth Charle* I. in the hie of Wi^hU NEW-YORK: PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL TRACT SOCIETY Depository, Press Buildings, No. 46 Lumber-street, in rear of Trinity Church. Printed at the Protestant Episcopal Press, No. 46 Lumber-street. 1835. CONTENTS. Page, Introduction, v Tract, " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," . . . . . 1 Postscript to " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," .... 29 Appendix. — Notes to " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," . . 37 Timothy an Apostle, 47 Review of " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," .... 53 Answer to that Review, 93 Essay— on the Gluestion— When did Paul place Timothy over the Church at Ephesus 1 114 Second Review of " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," &c., . . 130 Answer to the Second Review, 175 Review, from the Biblical Repertory, of " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," 200 Answer to the Third Review, 229 Dissertation on the False Apostles mentioned in Scripture, . '' . 267 ADVERTISEMENT. The Essay, " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," had been pub- lished more than three years, before an attempt was made to reply to it. Early in the year 1834 it was reviewed in the " Quarterly Christian Spectator," by the Rev. Albert Barnes, of Philadelphia. This review was immediately followed by an answer, in the " Protestant Episcopalian," by Bishop H. U. On- derdonk. Of this answer a further review appeared in the periodical first mentioned, in the spring of the present year, by the same Rev. Author; which was replied to by Bishop Onderdonk in the " Protestant Episcopalian " for June. For the full information of the Christian public, on the subject of Episcopacy, so far as these productions throw light upon it, the whole of them are now republished, in order, the reviews and replies from the respective journals, by the Protestant Episcopal Tract Society. Another review of " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," having appeared in the " Biblical Repertory," for April, 1835, that also^ and the reply of Bishop Onderdonk, are republished by the Society. Two short pieces on the Apostleship of Timothy, from the " Protestant Episcopalian," are inserted, after the Tract and its Appendix, that the whole of that argument may likewise be before the reader. A Dissertation on the case of the False Apostles is appended at the close of the publication. (iii) FURTHER ADVERTISEMENT. Since the second reply to Mr. Barnes was printed in the "Protestant Episcopalian," we have observed, in turning casually over the pages of his little volume, that he has there extracted at large, what he merely referred to in the first edition of his first review, the argument of the late Dr. Wilson, that Timothy was placed at Ephesus by Paul at the time the latter fled from that city, in consequence of the riot or "uproar" mentioned in Acts XX. 1. We did not deem it necessary to answer a mere reference to an argument contained in a different work from the one then before us. But as the full reprint of it may seem to make our reply incomplete, particularly to the assertion of Mr. Barnes, which he of course deems more fully illustrated by the extract from Dr. Wilson, that Timothy was placed at Ephe- sus only " temporarily," we refer, in return, to the arguments of Macknight, concerning the date of the first epistle to him, and his connexion with the church in that city. (See his Pre- face to the Epistle, sect. 2 ; and Life of Paul, cTiap. xi.) We also ask the reader's attention to an essay on the subject, from the " Protestant Episcopalian," for May, 1831 ; which is here reprinted after our answer to Mr. Barnes' first review. dom will give it a lesson not to be forgotten in a century. And, as episcopacy is more adverse than non-episcopacy to setting in motion popular currents, or to taking advantage of them, thai ecclesiastical system is less likely to fall into such an error. Moreover, when we add to this consideration, that all free governments must desire, from their very nature, to keep popu- lar influence and impulse to themselves, we may securely affirm, that episcopacy is peculiarly adapted to free government : not affecting mere popularity, it leaves that field of competition en- tirely to politicians. Whatever be the reverence and attachment felt towards oiu: bishops, they can seldom, probably never, attain to general notoriety and favour in any branch of civil affairs ; none of them have thus far sought any thing of the kind ; out of their ecclesiastical sphere, their influence, other than pertains to all virtuous citizens, will ever be but small, or harmless, or exceedingly transient. An arbitrary government may indeed find the case different. If the people at large are prostrated by or to the civil power, they may be equally or more subservient to ecclesiastical domination ; in which case, bishops (like all reli- gious leaders) may sometimes prove less tractable than that government desires. But are not such interferences as likely to be favourable to the subject, and his few rights, as against them? And, whether this suggestion be granted or denied, the operation of episcopacy in and on an arbitrary government is not the point before us. — We assert that the allegation that episcopacy is, in any sense, unfavourable to free civil government, is in- eorrectj both in theory and in fact, and that the whole objection EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 5 IS irrelevant to the inquiry, whether episcopacy be according to the word of God. 2. Another of these extraneous considerations is — the com- parative standing in piety, as evinced by the usual tokens of moral and spiritual character, of the members respectively of the episcopal and non-episcopal Churches. This question is highly important in itself; but it has no bearing on the argument for or against episcopacy. We have the authority of our Sa- viour for the utter moral and spiritual worthlessness of the Scribes and Pharisees of his day : but we have also his authority for declaring that, in spite of their bad character, they " sat in Moses' seat:"*^ and that the people were therefore bound to obey them, while yet they were to avoid following their evil example. Suppose, then, the reader were persuaded that all the bishops in the world were " hypocrites," &c. &c., and that all episcopal Churches were in a corresponding state of degradation, still if Scripture be alleged for the claim that " bishops sit in the apostles' seats," it is but right, in testing that particular claim, that there be no reference whatever to the personal character of bishops, or to any real or supposed want of spirituality in the Churches under their government. Our Saviour clearly taught, in the passage alluded to, the entire distinctness of these two questions. Balaam also was a wicked man, but a true prophet.** The sons of Eli, bad as they were,«^ ceased not to be priests. The Israelites at large were often corrupt and idolatrous ; but they never lost their standing as the earthly and visible Church, till their dispensation was superseded by that of the gospel. Those, therefore, who even maintain that episcopacy is essential to the being of a Church, are not to be worsted by the extraneous argument now before us, the comparative standing in piety of Episcopalians and Non-Episcopalians. And, though the present writer subscribes not to that extreme opinion, his moderation nas no affinity with the illogical temperament of mind which allows the question of comparative piety to be obtruded upon the investigation of the simple point — is episcopacy to be found in Scripture ? In justice, however, to Episcopalians, he deems it proper to add, that he does not believe they will suffer by any comparison of their character with those of other denominations. 3. A further suggestion, allied to the one last mentioned, and like it extraneous to the scriptural claim of episcopacy, is — that the external arrangements of religion are but of inferior im- portance, and that therefore all scruple concerning the subject before us may be dispensed with. Now, that there are, in the word of God, things more important, and things less important, is unquestionable ; and that the sin of omitting a lesser duty is not so deep as that of omitting a greater, will be allowed. Still, the least sin is sin. Perhaps there was no part of the old law a Matt, rsiii. 2. b Num. zxii. to ixiv. and xxxi. 16. c 1 Sam. ii. 1* 6 EPKCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. that stood lower in the scale of importance than " paying tithes of mint, anise, and cummin ;" yet our Saviour declared to the Jews that even this was a duty which they " ought not to leave undone.'"^— Can then episcopacy, though regarded as an affair of the merest outward order, be rated lower than these insignifi- cant tithes ? If it cannot, it has a sufficient claim to consideration ; high as we deem the obligation to conform to episcopacy, it is enough for the present branch of our argument, that it "ought not to be left" unheeded. 4. An apparently formidable, yet extraneous difficulty, often raised, is— that episcopal claims unchurch all non-episcopal de- nominations. By the present writer this consequence is not al- lowed. But, granting it to the fullest extent, what bearing has it on the truth of the simple proposition, that episcopacy is of divine ordinance? Such a consequence, as involving the exclusion from the covenant of worthy persons who believe themselves in it, is unquestionably fraught with painful reflections, and that to the serious of both parties : but so are many undeniable truths. Considerations of this kind cannot affect any sound proposition. — Some other considerations, not without value, here present themselves. If Job lived about the time of Moses, or later, he was not in the Church ; yet he was eminently pious, and in fa- vour with God : and the same, with some qualification, may be said of his friends. Balaam was not in the Church, yet he was an inspired prophet. Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, a ser- vant of the true God, of whose sacrificial feast, Moses, Aaron, and the elders of Israel participated, « was not in the Church. The descendants of Jethro, who lived with Israel,f and must have shared the benefit of the divine oracles, belonged not, we think, to the Church, but were uncircumcised, at least for many centuries : and, under the name of Rechabites, these people thus living with Israel, though not of Israel, and calling themselves "strangers," were highly commended by the Deity, at the very time he passed a severe censure on his Church or covenant peo- ple.^ The countenance given to other proselytes of the gate,'» is a further illustration to the same effect— -ui^r. that, though ^1 who hear the gospel are bound to enter the Church by baptism, yet if any, honest in their error, think they are not thus bound, there is Scripture for the assertion, that worthy professors of the true religion, innocently without the covenant-pale, are accepted with God.— Viewing, therefore, the objection before us in even its largest form, it is not of a kind to be driven away from decorous consideration. To say that other denominations of d Matt, xxiii. 23. Luke xi. 42. e Exod. xviii. 11, 12. f Judges i. 16., ir. IL g Jer. XXXV. The question whether tlie descendants of Jethro were circumcised and belonged to the Church, is discussed, and a negative conclusion drawn, in the Protestant Episcopalian, for October, 1830, p. 368. Should, however, any reader Incline to a different opinion, he will please regard as omitted so much of the above argument as is involved in that question : it affords only an incidental illustration of the subject, without having the least bearing on our main point. h See Hammond on Matt, xxiii. 15., and Calmet's Dictionary. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 7 Christians belong not to the Church, by no means impUes that they are cast out from the mercy of God through the Saviour — or, that they are inferior to the Church in moral and spiritual character — or even, that they are not superior in these respects to its members. Still, none of these concessions, supposing even the last of them were made, can render void the divine appointment of the Church, the divine command to " all na- tions," and of course to all mankind, to be united with it, or the scriptural evidence for episcopacy as the divinely sanctioned or- ganization of its ministry. Many Episcopalians, however, disclaim the unchurching of those who disallow the episcopal model of the sacred orders. Their reasons for doing so pertain not to the present field of controversy. They think that episcopacy is a sufficiently dis- tinct question, to be separately carried into Scripture, and there separately investigated. They think that its scriptural claims can be sufficiently proved to make its rejection a clear contra- vention of the word of God, of the intimations there given us concerning his will in this matter. And, if this amount of proof can be offered for the point before us, what serious and con- scientious believer will ask for either more evidence, or for its embracing other points, with which the question of episcopacy is not essentially involved ? 5. We proceed to other extraneous matter, which, though scarcely plausible even in appearance, is almost uniformly dwelt upon by both parties in this controversy. It is — the adducing of the authority of individuals, who, though eminent both for learning and piety, seem at least to have contradicted themselves, or their public standards, on the subject of episcopacy; ana who therefore are brought into the fore-ground by either side as may serve its turn. Now, is it not clear, that the only effect of appeals to such authorities is to. distract sound investigation and the unbiassed, search for truth? If the writers in question absolutely contradict themselves or the standards they have assented to, their authority in the case is void ; if they seem io do so, their opinions cease to be convincing ; they should there- fore, all of them, be surrendered. The consistency of such in- dividuals is a question for their biographers ; it may also belong to the Churches which acknowledge them as leaders ; but it cer- tainly is not relevant to the main issue concerning the claims, whether of episcopacy or of parity. A similar rule will apply to all cases of instability or indecision concerning truth. Men of the highest standing for information, for integrity, and in public confidence, are not only fallible, but are often in situations of such perplexity, that they attach themselves to an opinion, or select a course of conduct, without perhaps sufficient inquiry or insight into the case ; which opinion or conduct may be at the time, or may afterwards be found, somewhat at variance with their more deliberate judgments. In public life especially, such difficulties are very appalling. The present writer would not » EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. regard the mistakes of this sort into which the eminent indivi- duals he now has in mind may have fallen, as blemishes which men are called upon to censure, much less to exaggerate or vilify j let it suffice that we do not imitate them ; their and our Master, we doubt not, remembers in mercy that we all are but dust. — Most of the principal reformers are to be enumerated under this head of our subject, Luther, Melancthon, Cranmer, Calvin, Beza; we need not extend the list ; they have all been somewhat in- consistent on the subject of episcopacy ; not much so perhaps to a candid, or at least to a mild judgment ; yet enough to impair the authority of their individual opinions in regard to the scrip- tural constitution of the ministry. — Another class of illustrious and good men have been yet more inconsistent ; those who, be- longing to the Episcopal [English] Church, and acting in the various grades of her ministry, not excepting the highest, were the friends of parity, or at least were not friendly to the episco- pacy in or under which they acted. In regard to these also, let it be conceded that even Episcopalians will not criminate them. But let them not be quoted as having authority in this contro- versy, no, not the least ; for, however innocent may have been the motive of their inconsistency, that unfortunate quality is too visible to allow their opinions on this subject to have, as such, the least weight in an impartial mind. — A third class may be here added; those who dianged their deliberate sentiments concerning the claims of episcopacy ; among whom Bishop Stillingfleet is conspicuous. Perhaps, in such cases, the later and maturer opinion should be regarded as outweighing the earlier one abjured. But Ave prefer setting them both aside, as having none of the authority due to the individual decisions of the learned. The arguments indeed of all the above classes of persons are worth as much as they ever were, and may be again adduced, if they have not been refuted. And what they placed in their respective public standards, or allowed to be so placed, cannot be retracted, till it be denied as solemnly as it was affirm- ed. But their individual changes of opinion, or vacillations, or concessions, ought not to be deemed of any force whatever, for or against either party.* We reject, therefore, this whole extra- neous appendage of the controversy before us. The inquirer after truth has nothing to do with it. Let the admirers of these i Should it be argued, that, from the inconsistency with which these learned and pious men have expressed themselves on this subject, we may infer their belief in the non-importance or uncertainty of the point here controverted — I answer, that such a conclusion is not warranted by the premises. If these eminent persons had deemed the question nugatory, they would have said so plainly. Or, if any of them give such intimations, that is a separate question, extraneous to the one now before us, and we have answered it in a previous paragraph, marked 3. These persons, however, generally take sides respecting episcopacy, but do not inflexibly adhere to them. The true inference therefore is, either that they were not entirely consistent, or that they had not full information or full mental discipline in this argument Take any view of their case, and it will be found that their opinions cannot, as such, have Weight in our controversy. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 9 eminent individuals endeavour to clear away the slight shades thus resting upon their memories ; it is a proper, it is even a pious undertaking ; and it may, in some of the cases, have been done sufficiently for personal vindication. But nothing of this kind can make them rank as either authorities or guides in the present controversy. Appealing to every candid and impartial mind for the sound- ness of the above rule, we would add — that the rule applies to the fathers, as much as to later ornaments of the Church. One, at least, of the fathers has written in a contradictory manner concerning episcopacy. It will indeed be with reluctance that our non-episcopal brethren surrender Jerome, their chief, if not only authority among these ancient Christian writers. But it "Will be hard to show that he was in no degree inconsistent in his views of episcopacy ; it is impossible to show it in such a manner as may, without question, claim to be convincing to both parties.'' Believing this ourselves, and believing also that it will appear self-evident to most who are duly informed, we appeal to the calm and conscientious decision of the reader, whether the opinions of Jerome must not be set aside, as having no authority in the main issue before us. His opinions, we say, for he asserts nothing as a fact, on his personal knowledge ; and much of what he does assert is contrary to the testimony of ear- lier fathers. 6. The last objection we shall notice, as, however plausible, not affecting the ultimate decision of our controversy, is — that though the examples recorded in Scripture should be allowed to favour episcopacy, still that regimen is not there explicitly cojn^ manded. Now, this allegation may be fully conceded on our Dart, without endangering the final success of our cause. We say, may be conceded; for if episcopacy be allowed to be the model exempUfied in Scripture, it was of course to tkat model the apostle alluded when he desired the brethren to " remember, obey, and submit themselves to those who had the rule over them, who had spoken to them the word of God, and who watched for their souls ;'" which passages, we may justly affirm, were, in that case, an inspired command to acknowledge a ministry constituted on the episcopal scheme. Without surren- dering this argument, we may, in the present stage of the dis- cussion, proceed without it. Let then any candid and conscientious believer say, whether a mere hint or intimation contained in Scripture, (always ex- k Jerome, as quoted in favour of parity, is glaringly inconastent. On the episcopal side, however, some writers endeavour to reconcile his incongruous opinions. (See Bishop White on the Catechism, p. 466 ; and Dr. Cooke's Essay, p. 101. [p. 283, 2d ed.] &c.) But the fact speaks for itself that he is usually adduced on both sides of this controversy. Enough to prove his inconsistenc}'- may be found in Potter on Church Government, p. 180, Amer. Eidit. ; in Bishop Hob art's Apology, p. 179, &c. ; in Bo wden's Letters ; in the Episcopal Manual, p. 38 ; and in the ProtestofU Episcopalian, No. 3. p 90, 97, 98. i Heb. xiU. 7, 17, 10 EPlSCOPACy TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. cepting what refers to things or circumstances declared to be transient, or such in their nature,) though it have not the force of an express command, is not sufficiently binding on every servant of God ? St. Paul says of the Gentiles, " these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves ;"™ they had not the positive revealed law, yet the light of nature, which only hiti- raates what we ought to do, but does not specifically prescribe it, was " a law" to them, having sufficient obligation to make its suggestions their duty, and to give those suggestions full author- ity in " their conscience :" and surely the hints recorded by the Deity in his word are not inferior in obligation to those afforded in his works. Take a few examples. There is no record of a command to observe a sabbath, during the whole antediluvian and patriarchal ages ; will it then be alleged that the mere de- claration that God " blessed and sanctified the seventh day"° did not sufficiently imply that it was the divine will that the seventh day should be kept holy ? Again : there is no recorded com- mand, in all that early period, to observe the rite of sacrifice, and thus express faith in the great truth, that sin is remitted only by the shedding of blood ; shall we then presume — will it be pre- sumed, by m.y whose chief controversy with us is concerning episcopacy— that the records of the example of Abel in the an- tediluvian age, and of those of Noah, Abraham, &c., afterwards, were not sufficient intimations from God that to offer this sacra- mental atonement was a duty?° Yet again: will any humble Christian deny, that the mere fact of the creation for each other of one man and one woman, is sufficient to show that polygamy is contrary to the will of God ?p To proceed to the New Testament. There is no positive command for infant baptism ; but, its analo- gy with circumcision, "J the declaration that little children are models for conversion,'" the direction to suffer them to come to Christ, since of such is the kingdom of God,« the records of the baptism of "households" or families,* and the declaration that "children are holy" or saints" — are not these sufficient, whether as examples or as intimations^ to satisfy us of the dic- tate of inspiration in this matter, and to authorize us to regard infant baptism as resting on scriptural authority ? And will not the same mode of reasoning be decisive concerning the change of the day of rest and devotion from the seventh to the first ?' m Rom. ii. 14, n Gen. ii. 3. o It" it be alleged that the " skins" (Gen. iii. 21.) in which the Deity clothed Adam and Eve, were from sacrificed animals, and that the record of that fact is the same as divine appointment and a positive command — we admit the fact, but deny that the inferences are thus identical with it. All that appears in that passage is an example of sacrifice. The obligation and permanency of the rite were but presumed from tliat example, as in the otlier instances mentioned. This record is but an intimation re- specting such a duty : yet an intimation of that sort was, we contend, imperative. p Gen. i. 27. ii. 24. v. 2. Mai. ii. 15. Matt, xix, 4, 5. Mark x. 6. q Col. ii. 11, 12. Rom. iv. 11, 16. Gal. iii. 7; r Matt, xviii. 3. s Mark x. 14. Matt. xix. 14. Luke xviiL 16. t Acts xvi. 15, 33. 1 Cor. i IG- i\ 1 Cor. vii. 14. V John XX. 1, 26. Acts ii. 1—4. xx. 7. 1 Cor. xvi. 2. Rev. i 10. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTDRE. 11 Now, to apply this body of reasoning : Is it claiming too muchj if the above illustrations be duly weighed, to assert that the mere example of the apostolical Church in regard to the model of the sacred ministry is obligatory, as an intimation of the divine will, without any explicit enactment ? And if that example, as de- duced from Scripture, be episcopacy, nay, be episcopacy rather than parity — if the balance of sound interpretation favour epis- copacy ever so little more than any other scheme — will the duty of conforming, if possible, to that ministry be evaded ? can such conformity be, in this case, refused in foro conscientice. animoque integro 7 The above remarks, if allowed their due force, will greatly simplify the controversy before us, and will help us to investi- gate the bearing of Scripture upon it, with a clear judgment and an unsophisticated love of truth. Let then all extraneous topics be now^ forgotten ; let none of them again make their appearance in this discussion. II. Proceeding to the second department of our essay — an exhibition of the scriptural evidence relating to this controver- sy — we begin by stating the precise point at issue. Passing by the feeble claim of lay-ordination and a lay-ministry, which, we suppose, will scarcely pretend to rest on either scriptural com- mand or example, we consider this issue as between two systems only, episcopacy, and parity or the presbyterian ministry.^ Parity declares that there is but one order of men authorized to minister in sacred things, all in this order being of equal grade, and having inherently equal spiritual rights. Episcopacy de- clares that the Christian ministry was established in three orders^ called, ever since the apostolic age, Bishops, Presbyters or Elders, and Deacons ; of which the highest only has the right to ordain and confirm, that of general supervision in a diocese, and that of the chief administration of spiritual discipline, besides enjoy- ing all the powers of the other grades. The main question be ing thus concerning the superiority of Bishops, and the rights of the next order being restricted only so much as not to be in- consistent with those of the highest, we need not extend our investigation of Scripture beyond what is requisite for this grand point. If we cannot authenticate the claims of the episcopal office, we will surrender those of our Deacons, and let all power be confined to the one office of Presbyters. But, if we can esta- blish the rights of our highest grade of the ministry, there can be little dispute concerning the degrees of sacred authority as- signed by us to the middle and lower grades. This is a further clearing of our argument, not indeed from extraneous or irrele- vant matter, but from questions which are comparatively unim- portant. w Other denominations besides those called Presbyterians practise presbyterian nrdination, as the Congregationalists, Baptists, Ac. The ordination also of tie Lu- therans and Methodists is presbyterian, Luther and Wesley (and Dr. Coke, the source of Methodist orders in this country) having only been Presbyters. 12 EPISCOPACY TESTED BT SCRIPTURE. The main issue then is— whether Presb)rters (or, more strictly, Presbyters alone) have a scriptural right to ordain, or whether the agency of a minister of higher grade than Presbyters is not essential to the due performance of that act ? Whichever way this great issue be decided, all subordinate questions go with it, if not necessarily, yet because they will no longer be worth con- tending for, by either party. As some readers of this essay may not be familiar with the episcopal controversy, it is proper to advert to the fact, that the name "Bishop," which now designates the highest grade of the ministry, is not appropriated to that office in Scripture. That name is there given to the middle order, or Presbyters ; and all that we read in the New Testament concerning " Bishops,"* (in- cluding, of course, the words " overseers," and " oversight,"^ which have the same derivation,) is to be regarded as pertaining to that middle grade. The highest grade is there found in those called " Apostles,"^ and in some other individuals, as Titus, Timothy,* and the "angels" of the seven Churches in Asia Minor, who have no official designation given them ; all which positions will be made good in the progress of this essay. It was after the apostolic age, that the name " Bishop" was taken from the second order and appropriated to the first ; as we learn from Theodoret, one of the fathers.^ At first view, this difficulty respecting the names of the sacred orders may appear formida- ble ; but, if we can find the thing sought, i. e. an office higher than that of Presb>i;ers or Eldei*s, we need not regard its naiiie. Irregularity in titles and designations is of so frequent occur- rence, yet occasions so little actual confusion, that it ought not to be viewed as a real difficulty in the case before us. Examples to this effect crowd upon us. The original meaning of ' emperor' (imperator) was only a general, but it was afterwards appro- priated to the monarch ; and the original meaning of ' Bishop' was only a Presbyter, but the name passed from that middle grade to the highest. There are, again, the ' president' of the United States, 'presidents' of colleges, and ' presidents' of soci- eties ; there are the ' governor' of a commonwealth, ' governors' of hospitals, and the ' governor' of a jail ; there are ' ministers' of state, and ' ministers' of religion ; there are ' provosts' of col- leges, and ' provosts-martial i' there are ' elders' (senators) in a I Philip i. 1. 1 Tim. iii. I, 2. Tit. i. 7. In 1 Pet. iL 25. tJie word "bishop" is figuratively applied to our Saviour ; as " minister" [deacon] is in Rom. xv. 8 ; and "apostle" m Heb. iii 1. It is worthy of note, that in the last passage, " apostle and Iiigh priest" are coupled together, as " bishop and shepherd," or pastor, are in the first y Acts XX. 28. 1 Pet v. 2. z That the apostles alone ordained will be proved. In 1 Cor. iv. 19^22 ; v. 3 — 8. 2 Cor. ii 6; vii. 12; x. 8; xiii. 2, 10; and 1 Tim. i. 20, are recorded inflictions and remissions of disciplive performed by an Apostle, or threatenings on his part, although there must have been Eldera in Corinth, and certainly were in Ephesus. a Timothy is iisually supposed not to have the name " apostle" given to him in Scripture, and our main argument conforma to that supposdtion, b See Note A. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 13 legislature, ' elders' (aldermen) in a city government, ' elders' (Presbyters) in the Churcli, and lay 'elders' in some denomina- tions ; there were ' consuls' in Rome and in France who were supreme civil magistrates, and there are ' consuls' who are mere commercial agents ; there are ' captains' with a certain rank in the army or militia, ' captains' witii much higher rank in the navy, and ' captains' with no legal rank ; in France, ' monsieur' and ' madame' are (or were) among the highest titles in the court, and are also the common appellation of respect among all ranks of the people. Here, one would say, is an almost un- limited confusion of names or designations ; yet this confusion is but apparent ; there is no real or practical difficulty in the use of them ; custom renders it all easy and clear. So, a little re- flection and practice will enable any of our readers to look in Scripture for the several sacred offices^ independently of the names there or elsewhere given them. Let us say, in analogy with some of the above examples, that there are Bishops of parishes and Bishops of dioceses ; and when we find in the New Testament the name " Bishop," we must regard it as meaning the Bishop of a parish, or a Presbyter ; but the Bishop of a diocese,* or the highest grade of the ministry, we must there seek, not under that name, and independently of any name at all. We are inquiring for the thing, the fact, an order higher than Pres byters : the name is not worth a line of (controversy. There was at least as much difference between the inferior kings, Herod, Archelaus, and Agrippa, and the supreme king Cesar,*' as there is between the Presbyter-bishops of Scripture and the Bishops who succeed the Apostles ; the mere title " king," common to all these, was far from implying that they were all of one grade. One irregularity in regard to the application of names is par- ticularly worthy of notice. The word " sabbath" is applied in Scripture to only the Jewish day of rest ; by very common use however it means the Lord's day. Now, " the sabbath" is abo- lished by Christianity, and the observance of it discounten«anced;^ yet ministers of Christian denominations are constantly urging their Christian flocks to keep " the sabbath," Does any confu- sion of the mind result from this confusion of names 1 we sup- pose not. All concerned understand, that in Scripture the word means the Jewish sabbath, while out of Scripture the same word is commonly applied to the Christian sabbath. Let the same justice be done to the word " Bishop," In Scripture, it means a Presbyter, properly so called. Out of Scripture, according to the usage next to universal of all ages since the sacred canon was closed, it means that sacerdotal order, higher than Presby- ters, which is found in Scripture under the title of " Apostle."— c One having power to govern many churches and clergymen, whether fixed \/ a diocese or not. d Matt. ii. 1, 22. Acts xxvi. 2, xvii. 7. John xix. 15. c Col. ii. 16, 17. Gal. iv. 10. 2 14 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. When a Christian teacher who enjoins the observance of the day which he calls " the sabbath" is asked for his New-Testa- ment authority, he has to exclnde all the passages which contain that word, giving them a different application, and go to other passages wiiich do not contain it ; and he argues that he seeks the tking-, not the name. And, when we Episcopalians are ask- ed for inspired authority for " Bishops," we do the very same ; we give a different application to the passages which" contain that W0rd, and build on other passages, which teach the fact of the existence of episcopacy, M'ithout that appellation. Thus secured by an example which is in high esteem with our oppo- nents generally, may we not hope that they will withhold their censure from this portion of our argument ? Another irregularity of the same kind occurs in regard to the word " Elder." It is sometimes used for a minister or clergyman of any grade, higher, middle, or lower •/ but it more strictly signifies a Presbyter.^ Many words have both a loose and a specific meaning. The word " angel" is often applied loosely ;•» but distinctively it means certain created spirits. The word " God" is applied to angels,' and idols,"^ and human personages or magistrates ;' but distinctively it means the Supreme Being. The word " Deacon" means an ordinary servant, a servant of God in secular affairs, and any minister of Christ ; but a Chris- tain minister of the lower grade is its specific meaning.'" So with the word " Elder ;" it is sometimes applied to the clergy of any grade or grades ; l3ut its appropriate application is to minis- ters of the second or middle order. The above remarks, it is hoped, will enable those who feel an interest in consulting Scrip- ture on the subject before us, to do so without any embarrass- ment from the apparent confusion of official names or titles. To this appeal to Scripture in regard to the question between episcopacy and parity, we now proceed. That the apostles ordained, all agree : that Elders (Presbyters) did, we deny. We open this branch of our argument with the remark, that — Apostles and Elders (distinctively so called) had not equal power and rights. And we demonstrate this proposi- tion from Scripture in the following manner. — These two classes of ministers are distinguished from each other in the passages which speak of them as " Apostles and. Elders,"" or M'hich enu- merate " Apostles and Elders and brethren," or the laity. « If " priests and levites," if " Bishops and Deacons,"? are allowed f Apostles are called ' Elders' in I Pet v. 1. 2 John 1, and 3 John 1. Deacons are certainly included in that designation in 1 Tim. v. 19., and probably in Acts xiv. 23. xxi. 18. and James v. 14. and possibly in Acts xi. 30. g Acts XV. 6, 23. Tit. i 5. Acts xx. 17. 1 Pet. t. 1. h Acts xii. 15. Rev i. 20. ix. 14. i Deut X. 17. Pa. xcvii. 7. cxxxvi. 2. k Exod. XI. 3 xxiii. 21, &c. 1 Exod. vil 1. xxii. 28. Ps. IxxxiL 1, 6. cxxxviil 1. John x. 35. m Sec Parkhurst on AiaKovoi. n Acts xv. 2, 4, 6, 22 ; xvi 4. o Acts XV. 23. P Philip i. 1. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIFTQRE. . 15 to be distinct orders, if '- Apostles and brethren,"'^ are also allow- ed to be distinct orders, then on the same principle, that the con- junction is not exegetical, " Apostles and Elders" may fairly be accounted distinct orders likewise. And as, in the expression *• Apostles and Elders and brethren," severalty is unquestionably implied between the latter of these three classes and the others, it must as clearly be intended between the former two. Apos- tles were therefore one class, and Elders another class, just as the laity were a third class. — Now, the Apostles were not thus distinguished because they were appointed by Christ personally; for some are named " Apostles" in Scripture who were not thus appointed, as Matthias, Barnabas, and probably James the bro- ther of the LoRD,^" all ordained by merely human ordainers ; Silvanus also and Timothy are called " Apostles f^ and, besides Andronicus and Junia, others could be added to the list.* Nor were the Apostles thus distinguished because they had seen our liORD after his resurrection; for "five hundred brethren" saw him." And, though the twelve Apostles were selected as special witnesses of the resurrection, yet others received that appellation who were not thus selected, as Timothy, Silvanus, Andronicus, Junia, &c. Nor were the Apostles thus distinguished because of their power of working miracles ; for Stephen and Philip, who were both Deacons, are known to have had this power.^ — It follows, therefore, or will not at least be questioned, that the Apostles were distinguished from the Elders because they were superior to them in ministerial power and rights.'' And, con- sidering the nature of inherent rights — that they cannot (ex-cept in the way of punitive discipline) be taken away or justly sus- pended, but are always valid — we do not allow that this superi- ority of the Apostles was but transient, that they kept full power from the Elders for a time, and conceded it to them afterwards: "What is given in ordination, is given unreservedly : and, as it is never ;except for discipline) retracted, or suspended, or modified q Acts xi. 1. r Acts i. 26 ; xiv. 4, 14. Gal. L 19. Compare the latter with Mark vi. 3, and John vii. 5 ; and see Hammond on St. James' epistle, and Bishop White on the Catechism, p. 431. 6 See 1 Thess. ii. 6, compared with i. 1. Paul, Silvanus, (or Silas,) and Timothy, are all included as "Apostles." In verse 18, Paul speaks of himself indi- vidually, not probably before. It is not unusual, indeed, for St. Paul to use the plural number of himseJf only ; but the words "Apostles" and "ourownsow^" (verse 8.) being inapplicable to the singular use of the plural number, show that the three whose names are at the head of this epistle, are here spoken of jointly. And thus, Silas and Timothy are, with Paul, recognized, in this passage of Scriptm-e, aa " Apostles." t It will here be sufficient to remark, that in 2 Cor.xi. 13, and Rev. ii. 2, "false Apostles" are spoken of These could not have been, or have pretended to be, any of the eleven, or of the five next above mentioned, or Paul. Their assuming there- fore the title of ' Apostles' shows that there were enough others who had this title to make their pretended claim to it plausible. And those others must, have been ordain- ed, not by Christ, but by vien who had his commission. — Calvin allows Arv dronicus and Junia (Rom. xvi. 7.) to have been Apostles. Instit. b. IV. c. iii. sect. 5. Ii 1 Cor. XV. 6. v Acts vi. 8 j viii. 6. w See note z, on page 12, 16 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. by the giver or givers, and particularly, as in the case o' the first " Elders" there is no record, and no evidence whatever, of any public decree or private agreement relating to such a re- traction, or suspension, or modification, we cannot but regard that theory as mere hypothesis ; and against the taking for granted of any mere hj'^pothesis, all sound reasoning protests. — We repeat, therefore, that the " Apostles and Elders" were of distinct orders j as truly so, as -^vere the " brethren" or laity a third class, different from both the others. If these views of Scripture and of the nature of inherent rights of office, be allowed, as we think they ought to be, tlien we have proved in favour of episcopacy, tliat there was originally a sacred oflice superior to that of " Elders" or Presbyters. And this is substantiating nearly the whole episcopal claim. But the defenders of parity reject these our views of Scripture and of ©flicial rights, and build tiieir system on the theory which we have pronounced to be mere hypothesis. While they grant the superiority of the Apostles, they contend that the subordination of the Elders was but a transient regulation, required by the exi- gencies of the then new Church ; and that as churches became settled, the whole ministerial power rested in the Elders, no part of it being any lonsrer withheld from them. The proof they allege is, that the ""^Elders" are said in the New Testament to have ordained and exercised full government and discipline. In answer we assert, 1. that there is no scriptural evidence that "Elders" ever obtained or exercised the right [or the complete right] of ordination ; but that, 2. there was continued, as had begun in tlie Apostles, an order of ministers superior to the Elders. Both these assertions we can prove. And under the latter head it will appear that Elders did not exercise discipline over the clergy. I. There is no scriptural evidence that mere Elders [Presby« ters I ordained. Excluding a few unavailing appeals to Scripture made by some of our opponents, but which we think will be allowed to have the effect of weakening their cause,* there are but two pas- sages which can even plausibly be claimed in favour of presby- terian ordination. Yet by neither of these passages can that practice be substantiated. The first is Acts xiii. 1, 2, 3. Five persons called " prophets and teachers," at Antioch, among whom Barnabas is named first, and Saul last, are directed by the Holy Ghost, " separate me Barnabas and Saul for the icorA: whereuntolhave called them;" which the other three accordingly did, by fosting and prayer, and the imposition of hands, and then sent them away. This transaction is sometimes presumed to have been the ordination of Barnabas and Saul to the one sacred order of parity ; and as it was performed by those who were only " prophets and teach- X i\s the facts, that there was more than one ordainer in Acts i. 26. and xir. 23L The answer is, that the ordainers were Apostles, not mere Presbyter.s. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 17 ers," it is claimed as a scriptural example of presbylerian ordi- nation. But this claim may be unanswerably refuted. 1. Bar- nabas and Saul are themselves here called " prophets and teach- ers," and are said to have " ministered to the Lord," as well as the other three ; of course, if these three were in orders, the other two were likewise, before this laying on of hands. This transaction, therefore, if an ordination, must have been a second and of course higher one ; which is inconsistent with parity. If it was not an ordination, as it certainly was not, it was a mere setting apart of those two Apostles to a particular field of duty, which has no bearing on the question before us. 2. Paul had been a preacher long before this occurrence,'' and Barnabas also ;^ which facts, together with that of their " ministering to the Lord," as already mentioned, are proof positive that they held the sacred commission before this laying on of hands: which of course, we repeat, must have been either a second and higher ordination, which is fatal to parity, or else no ordination, but only a separation to a particular field of duty, to a special " work." 3. That this transaction at Antioch related only to a special missionary " work," will be found sufficiently clear by those who will trace Paul and Barnabas through that work, from Acts xiii. 4. to xiv. 26. where its completion is recorded — " and thence sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recom ■ mended to the grace of God for the \Dork which ihey fulfilled^ This " work," their missionary tour, being " fulfilled," all was fulfilled that had been required by the Holy Ghost when he had them " separated," or " recommended to the grace of God," " for the work to which he had called them." This call, there- fore, this separation, this work^ related only to a particular mis- sion. And this laying on of hands was no ordination, but a lesser ceremony, which has no bearing on the controversy between parity and episcopacy. 4. The most explicit proof that this was not an ordination, is found in Gal. i. 1. where Paul de- clares himself to be " an Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father." Not of men, neither bi/ man : is not such language an absolute exclusion of all Imman agency in Paul's ordination ? What other language could add to its strength? None but that which immediately followsi^^y Jesus Christ and God the Father." Paul having been made an Apostle by the Saviour in person, when he appeared to him on the road to Damascus,* it could not have been that the transaction at Antioch was his ordination.'' — And if in his case that ceremony y Acts ix. 20—22, 27—29. z Acts xj. 23, 26. a Acts xxvi. 16, 17, IS. b The following additional proofs are worthy of notice. 1. In Rom. i. 5. 1 Cor. i. 17. and 1 Tim. i. 1. Paul asserts that his apostolical commission was fiom Christ, 2. In the first verses respectively of 1 Cor. 2 Cor. Ephes. Col. and 2 Tim. he de- clares himself an Apostle " through" or "by the will of God." 3. In Gal. i. 17. spejJcing of the period " immediately" after his conversion, he says that he went not to those who "were Apostles before him;" of course he r^arded himself aa an Apostle at that period, and from the moment that Christ had appeared to him. 1 In 1 Tim. ii. 7. he asserts his apostleship with a strong asseveration — " whc-e- 2* 18 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. meant not ordination, it of course meant it not in the case of Barnabas. When the latter had been made an Apostle, we know not ; neither do we know when James the brother of the Lor^, Silvanus, Timothy, &c. were admitted to that office. Tliis first claim to Scripture in behalf of presbyterian ordina- tion cannot therefore be substantiated ; inasmuch as an act of ordination is not, and cannot be implied in the passage appealed to. Should any mink otherwise, they must not only refute the above arguments, but make it appear also from Scripture that the supposed ordainers were mere Presbyters ; for the appella- tions " prophsts and teachers" are far from settling this point. If Barnabas and Paul, to whom those titles are given, are to be regarded as laymen about to be ordained, why not regard the other three as laymen also, holding a lay ordination? the one may as well be taken for granted as the other ; for we read that laymen and even lay- women " prophesied" in the age of inspiration. *= Or if the three supposed ordainers called "prophets and teachers" were clergymen, they may have been Apostles, superior to Elders, since Silas is called both a " prophet" and an " Apostle"'^ and the prophets are called the '' brethren" of the Apostle John;« the Apostle Paul calls himself a " teacher."^ Be- sides ; it has been shown that Paul, here classed with " prophets and teachers," was also at this time an Apostle ; and does not this fact afford presumptive argument that the other four whose names stand above his in the list contained in the passage, were also of apostolic rank? In view of these many difficulties, we may securely affirm, that it is impossible to bring any evidence whatever that this transaction at Antioch was an ordination by Presbyters. We have, indeed, shown that it was not an ordina- tion of any kind. And we therefore dismiss the claim of non- episcopalians to this passage of the New Testament. Only one other passage is claimed for presbyterian ordination — " 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.) This is regarded by our non-episcopal brethren as the record of a presbyterian ordination. Let us inquire, how- ever, whether the transaction \oas an ordination ? and whether, if so, it was a presbyterian ordination? Was the laying on of hands on Timothy here mentioned, an unto I am ordained a preacher and an Apostle, (/ speak the truth in Christ and lie not,) &c." Had his ordination been performed by men, it would have been well known, as in ordinary cases ; had it been performed, as alleged, at Antioch, it would have had peculiar publicity, and such a mode of asserting it would have been out ot place and even improper in St. Paul. But his commission . having been given him by Christ personally, and the men present at the time not understanding the words then pronounced, (Acts xxii. 9.) it was both natural and correct, in declaring that he was thug commissioned, to use solemn asseverations and pledge his veracity. Thia was enough for ordinary purposes. The final proof of his d^Iaration and his asseve- rations was the performance of miracles. e 1 Cor. xi. 5. Acts xix. 6. and xxi. 9. ' d Acts XV. 32. 1 These, ii. 6. comp. with L 1. eRev. xxiLS. fl Tim, 11.7. 2Tim.i. lU EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTrRE. 19 ordination ? It cannot, at least, be proved. And, comparing Scripture with Scripture, are we not justified in regarding it as a transaction similar to the one we have just seen in the case of Barnabas and Saul? In both cases there was the ceremony of the imposition of hands. And the dictation of the Holy Ghost to the " prophets" in the one case, corresponds with the " prophecy," or inspired designation of the individual in the other case ; a designation previously adverted to by St. Paul, ^' this charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies wliich went before on thee."^ We submit this view of the transaction performed by those called the " presbytery" to the candid judgment of our readers. If they should allow that it probably refers to an inspired separation, of one already in the ministry, to a particular field of duty — to the " charge com- mitted to him" in form by St. Paul, corresponding with " the work" to which Saul and Barnabas were separated — a practice which must of course have ceased with the gi£t of inspiration — they will see that it was not an ordination that was performed by the " presbytery," but only a " recommending of Timothy to the grace of God for the work he was to fulfil." The ordina- tion of Timothy may be alluded to by St. Paul in the second epistle, " the gift of God, which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands."'^ If so, it Avas an ordination by an Apostle, as is the uniform record elsewhere in the New Testament. If not, then Timothy's ordination is nowhere specifically mentioned, but is to be inferred, as in other cases : and, in this view, both these passages are unconnected with the controversy before us. But our non-episcopal bretliTcn generally regard the passage in question as referring to the ordination of Timothy. Let us meet them on this ground. Was it a presbyterian ordination ? We first reply, that emi- nent authority has declared the word " presbytery" to mean the office to which Timothy was ordained, not the persons who ordained him ; so that the passage would read — " with the lay- ing on of hands to confer the presbijterate,''^ or presbytership, or the clerical oflice : in which view, the ordainer of Timothy was St. Paul himself, as mentioned in the clause just quoted from the second epistle. On this point, we adduce a passage from Grotius. Speaking of Presbyters laying on their hands near those of a Bishop, he proceeds — " I do not dare to bring in confirmation of this, that expression of Paul's of the imposition of the hands of the presbytery, because I see that Jerome, Am- brose, and other ancients, and Calvin, certainly the chief of all the moderns, interpret ' presftyfermm' in that place not an assem- bly, but the office to which Timothy was promoted : and indeed he who is conversant with the councils and the writings of the fathers, cannot be ignorant ihaX^ presbyterium,'' as ^ episcopaius^ and ' diaconatus' are the names of offices. Add that it appears g 1 Tim. i. 18. See also M'Knxght's note on the passage. h 2 Tim., i, 6. 20 EPISCOPACY TESTED By SCRIPTURE. that Paul laid hands on Timothy."' By this interpretation of the word " presbytery" — that it means not the ordainers, but the office conferred— we remove all appearance of discrepancy be- tween that passage and the one in which Paul speaks of the im* position of his hands. And, to make the least of the above opinion of several fathers, and Calvin, and Grotius, does not their au- thority render doubtful the application of the passage before us to a body of presbyterian ordainers ? — Should it be said, however, that the word " presbyterate or presbytership" proves Timothy to have been then orciained a Presbyter merely, we would neu- tralize that argument by appealing to 1 Thess. ii. 6, (comp. with i. 1.) where he is called an "Apostle." We would also advert to the fact, that however distinct may have been the three above Latin names for the three grades of sacerdotal office, those names of office were, in the Greek, and at an earlier period, applied but loosely. At least, they were so in the New Testament. Thus we read, 'i this ministry [deaconship'] and aposileship'''^ for the office to -which Matthias was admitted : " I am the apos- tle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office" [my deaconsliip^'] " the ministry [^deaconship'] which I have received," " approving ourselves as the ministers [deacons'] of God,"' are passage? applied by St. Paul to himself ; we also read, ^' who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers [deacons'] by whom ye be- lieved ;""* and " do the work of an evangelist^ make full prool of thy ministry" [deaconship,] " thou shalt be a good minister I deaco7i'\ of Jesus Christ," are admonitions addressed to Timo- thy." These passages, not to cite here other like ones, while they may be said to go far towards proving that if there be only one sacred order, it must be the order of Deacons, answer irre- fragably all that might be suggested to the disadvantage of episcopacy from the application of the word " presbytery" to the sacred office to which Timothy was ordained: since, ifpre&< byterate or presbytership means that he was but a Presbyter, deaconship must mean that lie, and Matthias, and Paul, and Apollos, were but Deacons. In short, as all experienced inter- preters are aware, and as in this controversy Episcopalians always assert, we look not to Scripture for official naines of any kind, but only for official powers ; and Timothy, we there find, has a higher degree of power than the word Presbijterium, as distinguished from Episcopaius and Diaconatus, would allow him. The word " presbytery" then, according to the mode ol interpretation now before us, though it refer to office, does not designate a subdivision of office, but alludes generally to the clerical office conferred on Timothy. But, granting to our opponents that " the presbytery" means here, not the office given to Timothy, but, as they contend, a body of Elders, and that his ordination is the transaction referred i See Dr. Cooke's Essay, p. 192. [363, 2d ed.\ k Acts i. 25. 1 Rom. xi. 13. Acts xx. 24. 2 Cor. vi. 4. ml Cor. hi. 5. n 2 Tim. iv. 5, 1 Tim. iv. 6. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 21 to — we again meet them on the question, was it a presbyterian ordination ? And here we ask — of whom was this ordaining " presbytery" composed ? for the whole question centres in the meaning of that word. A presbytery means a body of Elders ; and taken alone, it can be interpreted of any kind of Elders. Those, for example, who think they find in Scripture what are called ruling-elders, may regard this presbytery as having been made up of them ; and, if they were not contradicted by other passages they might here claim a shadow of proof for lay-orders. Others may assert that the grade called Presbyters made up this presbytery. Or, as St. Peter and St. John call themselves " Elders,"" this presbytery may have consisted of Apostles. Or, lastly, it may have been composed of any two of the kinds of Elders mentioned, or of ail the three kinds uniting in the imposition of hands on Timothy ; there may have been ruling- elders and Presbyters, or Presbyters and one or more Apos- tles, or ruling-elders and one or more Apostles, or ruling- elders and Presbyters and Apostles. There are then no less than seven modes, if we seek no further evidence, in which this "presbytery" may have been composed. Or, if we exclude ruling-elders, there are three modes in which it may have been formed ; of Presbyters only, of Apostles only, and of one or more Apostles and Presbyters united. The mere expression " presbytery" therefore, does not explain itself ^ and cannot of itself be adduced in favour of parity. If, however, it be urged, that the specijic meaning of the word " Elder" should have the preference, so as to place Presbyters only in this ordaining '' presbytery,*' we answer — that the spe- cijic meaning of the title of an individual officer is far from extending necessarily to the similar title of a body or an office. We have just noticed an objection kindred with this ; but it may not be improper to add some further illustrations of the uncer- tainty of official names. Thus we say, the Jewish " priesthood," including in that term, with the priests, the superior order of high-priests, and the inferior one of levites. Thus also we have the phrases, " ministry [literally deaconship'] of reconciliation," and the expressions "that the ministry [deaconship'] be not blamed," " seeing we have this ministry" [deaconship,] " putting me into the ministry" [deaconship;] and more especially " Apostles, prophets, evangelists," &c. are all said to have been given "for the work of the ministry" [deaconship ;]p in all which passages the word deaconship, ^laKovia, the appellation strictly of a sacred body of men, or of their office, includes, nay signifies chiefly, those who were superior to Deacons. The word "presbytery" therefore, being no more definite than " ministry or deaconship," cannot explain itself in favour of our opponents. It can only be defined " a body of clergymen."'' o 1 Pet. V. 1. 2 John 1. 3 John 1. p 2 Cor. V. 18. vL 3. iv. 1. 1 Tim.i. 12. Ephes. iv. 11, 12. q The word " presbyterate or presbytership" also means, as just shown, nothing 22 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTCRE. And these clergj^men may have been in part or entirely Apos- tles, who were superior to Presbyters, It is evident, therefore, we repeat, that this passage, z/ it refer to an ordination, cannot he interpreted without light from other Scriptures. To this light, thereibre, we refer. , The " presbytery," we have seen, may have consisted of Apostles only, or of one or more Apostles joined with others. In conformity with this suggestion, we find St. Paul writing to Timothy, " that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands."'" Now, the same reasons which make the passage respecting the laying on of the hands of the presbytery apply to ordination — the same reasons will make this other passage, respecting the putting on of PauVs hands, apply to that identical ceremony ; unless indeed a second and higher ordination be here supposed, M'hich however destroys parity, and which of course parity cannot adduce in its own behalf. In the ordination, therefore, of Timothy, Paul had at least a share ; that Apostle laid on his hands, whoever else be- longed to the ordaining " presbytery." It cannot of course be claimed as a presbyterian, but was an apostolic ordination. And thus the allegations of our opponents from this passage, in sup- port of the ordaining powers of mere " Elders," are overturned. We have proved that Presbyters alone did not perform the ordi- nation, granting the transaction to have been one, but that an Apostle actually belonged, or else was added for this purpose, to the body called a "presbytery. "» It is worthy also of note, that St. Paul makes the following distinction in regard to his own agenc}"^ and that of the others in this supposed ordination — " hy the putting on of my hands" — ^'with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." Such a dis- tinction may justly be regarded as intimating that the virtue of the ordaining act flo^ved from Paul ; while the presbytery, or the rest of that body if he were included in it, expressed only consent. On the whole : Can it be denied, that a cautious and candid interpretation of the two passages said to relate to the ordina- tion of Timothy, requires that a minister be present who holds the [ordinary and uninspired portion of the] rank and rights of an Apostle, to give ordaining power to any body called a pres^ by tery ? \Vere there even no explicit evidence in our favour in the other parts of Scripture, the episcopal theory would be at least as good a key as that of parity to the meaning of the word more specific than "the clerical office." The •word " bishopric" (Acts i. 20.) has, on the same principles, no stricter signification. The present writer is not aware of any instance in Scripture in which the specific meaning of a name of office has necessarily the preference; perhaps the word " apostleship" is an exception; it is used only'of those known to have been Apostles. r 2 Tim i. 6. s Ignatius, well known for his zeal for episcopacy, and martyred about the yea? 110, calls the Apostles the '-'presbytery of the Church." Episi. to the Philadei' phians, Sect. 5. EPISCOPACY TESTED EV SCRIPTURE. 23 " presbytery." And considering the above distinction of " by'' and '• with," our theory is obviously the better of the two. Yet here the non-episcopal argument from Scripture is exhausted. Its strongest proof has been demonstrated to be but barely con- sistent with parity, while it is more consistent with episcopacy. We dismiss therefore the claim of our opponents to this, the only passage of Scripture, besides the one before dismissed, to which they could raise any pretensions. Let our readers now be reminded, that we before showed "Apostles and Elders" to have been distinct classes of ministers, as distinct as were the " brethren" or laily from both. That the former ordained, is allowed on all hands, and is clear from Scrip- ture.' But w^e have now demonstrated that there is no inspired authority for the claim that mere Elders [Presbyters] ordained — none, at any period of the apostolic age. Of course, there is no scriptural proof that such Elders have the right to ordain. To ad- duce evidence of their enjoying such a right, was incumbent on parity ; but having failed to do so, it cannot ask of us to allow such a right without evidence. It cannot be proved, and it is not to be allowed without proof, that mere Presbyters either performed the ordinations mentioned in Scripture, or are there said to have the right to perform such acts. This position cannot be overturned. 2. All that is now incumbent on episcopacy is— to show that the above distinction between Elders and a grade superior to them, in regard especially to the power of ordaining, was so perse- vered in as to indicate that it was a permanent arrangement, and not designed to be but temporary To this final branch of our argument, which is also an independent and very prominent argument for episcopacy, we now proceed. Let any one read Acts xx. 28 to 35, and consider well what St. Paul there gives as a charge to the jEZder^ (Presbyters or Pres- byter-bishops) of Ephesus. Then let him read the two epistles to Timothy, and reflect candidly on the charge which the same Apostle gives to him personally, Timothy at Ephesus. And, after this comparison of the charges, let him decide whether Scripture does not set that one individual above those Elders, in ecclesiastical rights, and particularly in regard to the power of ordaining. — Or, if such an inquirer feel any doubt as to the positiveness with which the superiority of Timothy is asserted, let him conscientiously determine what are the intimations ot Scripture on this subject — which way the balance of proof in- clines. To us the proof seems absolute ; but it is enough for a rightly disposed mind that it only preponderate. Examine then, these two portions of the New Testament j and first, that relating to the Elders. In Acts XX. 28, &c. the Elders of Ephesus are charged — to take heed to themselves — to take heed to all the flock o^er which t Acts i. 26. ri. 6. xiv. 23. 2 Tim. i. 6. 24 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. the Holy Ghost had made them overseers — to feed the Church of God — and, remembering the Apostle's warnings for three years, to watch against the grievous wolves that would assail the flock, and against those from among themselves who would speak perverse things. These are the four points (or three, if the second and third be united) of the admonition left with them by St. Paul ; to which another may be added, from verse 35, concerning industry, and charity to the " weak." Now, what is there in this admonition or charge which shows that these Elders had the power of clerical dicipline 1 surely nothing. They are to be cautious themselves, and to watch against false teachers; but no power is intimated to depose from oflice either one of their own number, or an unsound minister coming among them. They are to " feed," or perhaps (as the word is sometimes translated) rule* the Church ; i. e. they are to " tend it as shepherds."' The "Church" of course means here the " flock" before mentioned, or the laity ;'' for shepherds do not tend or rule shepherds, unless it be that there are superior shepherds among them, who have received such authority from their common master or employer. Government of the clergy, therefore, these Elders had not, as far as appears, within their own body. And not a trace or hint is there of their having had the right to ordain. We may here add, that the right of these Elders to govern and ordain cannot be claimed as resulting from construction or implication; for every passage in Scripture which asserts or intimates power over the clergy, gives that power to Apostles, or else to Timothy and Titus, or to the " angels" of the seven Churches in Asia; and these cannot be proved to have been mere Presbyters, but w'^re, as we have shown in regard to the Apostles, and are now .showing in regard to the rest, distinct and superior oflicers. Constructive or implied powers can only be inferred in the absence of positive evidence ; and as there is positive evidence in other passages, nothing of implication can be valid here. The positive evidence is against parity ; nor can construction be resorted to for its relief. — Nor is a resort to such construction suggested by the spirit of Paul's address to these Elders, since the theory which asks no construction is quite as congenial with its several expressions as that which requires it. On the episcopal theory, indeed, there can be no final authority over the clergy without a Bishop ; but it is not contrary to that theory, that Presbyters, in such a case, exercise much spiritual discipline over the laity : they may repel from the communion, which is a very high act of "ruling;" and, there being no Bishop, there can be no appeal from such a sentence. Among lis, a diocese without a Bishop " rules the flock" in many respects a See Ndle B. V See Parkhuhbt on votnaivu. •w As in Acts xv. 4, 22. It is simply possible tliat Deacons are Included in Buch EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 25 "but has no final or executive authority over its clergy; and Ephesus was without a Bishop when Paul addressed the Elders, Timothy not having been placed over that Church till some time afterwards.^ As therefore the episcopal theory suits this address perfectly, without a resort to constructive or implied powers, such a resort in behalf of the Elders is unnecessary, is gratuitous, and, of course, is an unsound mode of interpretation. The functions then of the Elders of Ephesus, as developed in Acts XX. were only pastoral ; they were to feed, tend, rule, the fock^ and take heed to them, and, watching for them, were to warn them against false teachers. As St. Pauf elsewhere expresses the duty of Bishops, (Presbyter-bishops,) they are to " take care of the Church of GoD;"y the " Church" meaning of course the laity, as just observed in regard to Acts xx. 28. Or, as St. Peter expresses that duty, they are to "take the oversight" of the "Jlock^^ which they "feed."^ These, we believe, are all the rights named in Scripture as belonging to Elders. Whatever higher privileges are there specified or adverted to (except the bare possibility of their having been united with Paul in the " presbytery" which is supposed to have ordained Timothy) are invariably ascribed to Apostles, or to the other persons before mentioned, as Timothy, Titus, and the "angels" of the seven Churches. Compare now with this sum total of power assigned in Scrip- ture to mere Elders or Presbyters, that of Timothy at Ephesus, the very city and region in which those addressed by Paul in Acts XX. resided and ministered. Look through the two epistles addressed to that individual by the great Apostle, and mark the explicit manner in which the right of governing the clergy and of ordaining is ascribed to him personally — every part of both epistles being addressed to him in the singular number—" this charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy" — " these things write I unto thee, that thoiL mightest know how to behave thyself in the house of God" — " if thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things."* Observe the same address to him in the sin- gular number when clerical government and discipline are spo- ken of — " that ihoit, mightest charge some that they teach no other (no false) doctrine" — " against an Elder receive not [thou] an accusation, but before two or three witnesses" — " them [those of the Elders thus accused] that sin, rebuke [thou'] before all, that others also may fear" — " I charge thee .... that thoic observe these things [these rules of clerical discipline, &c.] without preferring one before another, doing nothing by par- tiality."'' Observe particularly his right to ordain — the qualifi- cations of Bishops (Presbyter-bishops) and Deacons are ad- X The date of the placing of Timothy at Ephesas is discussed in M'Knight on the EptRtles, Vol. IV. p. 156 ; in the Church Register for 1827, Nos. 13 to 17; and ia the Protestant Episcopaliaui for May, 1831. y 1 Tim. iii. 5. z 1 P«t V. 2. a 1 Tim. L 18 ; iii. 14, 15 ; iv. 6. b 1 Tim. i. 3 ; r. 19, 20, 2L 3 26 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. dressed to him, " these things write I unto thee^^'—he is after- wards admonished, in regard to the ordaining of these two infe- rior orders, " lay [thou'] hands suddenly on no man" — and again, " the things which thou hast heard of me, the same commit tJwic to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also,"*^ i. e. to liien who are both sound in the faith and apt to teach. Observe, moreover, that, while to the Elders of Ephesus Paul alludes to ministers who would " speak perverse thmgs^''^^ yet gives not a hint of their exercising discipline upon such offenders, to Timo- thy he mentions that very error, and in terms entirely equiva- lent, as having occurred at Ephesus, calling it the " teaching of other or false doctrine,^^ and desires hiin to check it — " that thoic mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine"— and it is afterwards added, respecting the clergy who thus or otherwise were in fault, " them that sin, rebuke thou.^^^ Teach ing " other doctrine" and speaking " perverse things" are one and the same offence ; the correction of it is no where commit- ted to the Elders ; to Timothy it is here expressly committed. Is it not evident, abundantly evident, that Timothy had su- preme power over the clergy at Ephesus, and the full right to ordain ? Comparing these many passages, and the tenor and spirit of the entire epistles, with the before cited address to the Elders of Ephesus, can any one require stronger proof of epis- copacy, or stronger disproof of parity ? Did not the ministry at Ephesus consist of three orders— Timothy first, the Elders (or Presbyter-bishops) ne?vt, and Deacons last ? — it clearly did. Compare again that address, and all that is recorded of mere Elders, with the epistle to Titus. Examine his powers in the island of Crete. To him- are specified the due qualifications of a Presbyter-bishop or Elder,^ His clear credential from the Apostle Paul is, " for this cause left I thee in Crete, that thoit shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and [that thou shouldest] ordain Elders in every city, as I had appointed thee" — and again, " a man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, [do thou'] reject:"'' ordination, admonition, and rejection, (or degradation and excommunication,) are all committed to Titus personally. The Elders, as already seen, had no power given them to " reject" those who should "speak perverse things" or " heresy ;" Titus had that power.' All this agrees perfectly with the case of Timothy. And nothing like it can be shown, any where in Scripture, of any who are there distinctively called Elders or Presbyters. Is it not clear, then, that the recorded powers of Titus make him an officer of a grade superior to that which we must assign, resting only on the sa- cred record, to such Elders ? This is episcopacy. c 1 Tim. iii. 1—14. d 1 Tim. v. 22. 2 Tim. ii. 2. e Acts xx. 30. f 1 Tim. i. 3; v. 20. g Tit. i. 6—9 h Tit. i. 5 ; iii. 10. i The expression "perverse thiji^s," the teachers of which the Elders had no power to condemn, agrees with that used respecting the heretic, "such is subverted," whom Titus had power to reject. The words are, Suirrpafiiitva and e(eaTf>a-KTai. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTDRE. 27 Compare, yet again, all that is recorded of Elders, with the epistles to the " angels" of the seven Churches of Asia> Each of ^those Churches is addressed, not through its clergy at large, but through its " angel" or chief officer ; this alone is a very strong argument against parity and in favour of episcopacy. One of those Churches was Ephesus ; and when we read con- cerning its angel, " thou hast tried them which say they are Apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars,"' do we require further evidence that what Timothy, the chief officer there, was in the year 65, in regard to the supreme right of discipline over the clergy, the same was its chief officer when this book was written, in the year 96 1 Let us examine also other passages. In each of these small epistles, the " angel" is made responsible individually for the errors of the respective Churches, and is commended individually for their respective merits ; and this, although there must have been several or many Elders in each of those Churches, as there were in Ephesus thirty or forty years before.™ Observe the emphatic use of the singular number in the address to each of the angels—" I know thy works,"" is the clear and strong language directed to them all successively, im- plying the responsibility, not of a Church at large, or of its cler- gy at large, but of the head or governor individually. To the same effect we read, as commendations of these angels—" thou boldest fast my name"—" thou hast a few names which have not defiled their garments" — " I have set before thee an open door"— *' thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word"" — and, on the other hand, they are thus rebuked—" I have a few things against thee'^ — " because thou hast them that hold the doctrine of Balaam" — " thou sufferest that woman Jezebel ... to teach, &c."— " if thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief" •— " thou art neither hot nor cold."p Similar to these are the warnings of Christ to these " angels," all implying their indi- vidual responsibility for the faults of the Churches,—" remember tthou'] from whence thou art fallen, and repent {thoul and do tlwu'] the first works"—" repent {thou'] or else I will come unto thee quickly"—" be [thoiC] watchful, and strengthen \thou'] the things which remain"—" hold \thou\ fast that which thou hast" — " be [thou'\ zealous, and repent [^/low].- Apostle Thomas into Edessa, where he performed miracles, preached, and ordained : but he is himself called an " Apostle" many times in this work ;p which decides that he also was in the highest order of the ministry. The name of the other was Pantaenus, who Avas at first a teacher of divinity at Alexandria, in Egypt. The following is recorded of him : " He is said to ra SoCRATBS Ecdes. Hist. Lib. I. ch. xiv. being chap, xviii. after the GJresk The same transaction is mentioned in Eusebius' Life of Constantine, Lib. 111. ch. Ivi. " their city, (HehopoHs,) which was blinded with superstition, was become tlie Church of God, and filled with Priests and Deacons, a,nd they had a Bishop to govern them." n EusEB. Hist. Lib. VI ch. vii. xlii. Lib. II. ch. i. Lib. III. ch. xx. Lib. IV. ch. xiv. o Ibid, Lib. III. ch. iv— xi— xix— xxxii. Lib. IV. ch. v— xix. Lib. V. ch. xi. Lib. Vl. ch, iy. Lib. VII. ch. xxxi. Lib. VIII. ch. i. &c. &c. p Lib. II. ch. i. Lib. I. ch. xiv. ; see particularly what there followa an epistia eajd tc have been written by our Saviour. 34 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. have showed such a willing mind towards the publishing of tlie doctrine of Christ, that he became a preacher of the Gospel unto the eastern Gentiles, and was sent as far as India. For there were, I say, there were then many Evangelists^ prepared for tills purpose, to promote and to plant the heavenly word with godly zeal, after the guise'i of the Apostles. Of these Pantaenus, being one, is said to have come into India."'' On this extract, which we believe completes the evidence on the subject before us, contained in Eusebius, these two remarks suggest themselves. 1. It is not said that this Evangelist, Pantaenus, or- dained ; he may, like the emperor Constantine, have procured ordination by others for the clergy set over the churches he founded. 2. Taking for granted even that he did ordain, we read that he " planted the heavenly word after the guise cf the Apostles,'''' conforming to their model or standard ; of course his ordinations were after the apostolical example, which has been fully shown in the above essay, and was certainly believed by Eusebius, to have been according to the episcopal scheme. Such ordinations he could not have performed without being a proper Bishop himself. We think then that parity gains nothing by going tc^ Eusebius for an account of the office and powers of Evangelists. On the contrary, the gain, such as it is, is on the side of episcopacy. After what has now been said, no impartial person will, we think, contend that Eusebius meant to say that all Evangelists (of all grades) had the power of ordaining. If, however, such a proposition be maintained concerning this father, we neutralize the evidence thus claimed, by counter-evidence of the same kindy that of an ancient but uninspired author, who, in conformity with Scripture, asserts that there were among the Evai^elists persons who had no right to ordain. We quote from Ham- mond :* — " For, as the office of Evangelist, being to preach to unbelievers, requires not the donatior of all the episcopal powers^ mz. of ruling, nor the power of ordination necessarily,, because when the Evangelist hath planted the faith, the Apostle himself may come and confirm, and ordain Bishops, as we see in Sama- ria, Acts viii. 17. (and therefore the author of the Commentaries on the Epistles under St. Ambrose's name, saith on thi« place, Quamvis non sint sacerdotes, evangelizare tamen poss^mt sine cathedra, quemadmodum Stephanus et Philippus, though they be not priests, [that is. Bishops,] yet they may evangelize with- out a chair:) so the donation of that superior power doth not yet make them cease to be Evangelists." Stephen and Philip, both Deacons, and having no right to ordain, or to occupy the episcopal " chair," are yet, we see, reckoned Evangelists by this writer. Stephen, who we know died a Deacon, is called by him an Evangelist. And Philip, who when called in Scripture an q fiinrjiiarof, conformity to a model, example, or standard ; copy; close imitadoa. r Lib. V. cli. ix. being ch. x. in the Greek. B On Ephes. iv 1 1 : note b. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 35 Evangelist, is also denominated " one of the seven?^ Deacons, is said by this writer to have been, equally with Stephen, " Avithout a chair" of sacerdotal office. This tlien is. uninspired proof, to be added to that of revelation, that Evangelists had not, merely as such, the right to ordain. And taking into view the whole of this sort of proof, the definition v.diich we quoted above from an eminent Presbyterian divine, will, we think, be allowed to be, in this respect, too unqualified. This appeal to the fathers has been made only to meet our opponents on their own ground, in their attempt to define from those writings a word, the meaning of which cannot be clearly- made out from Scripture. We have shown that what the fathers add towards its elucidation, is entirely in our favour. Returning to Scripture, we conclude with yet another answer to the assertion of parity — that the superior powers of Timothy, being founded on his being an " Evangelist," were to be exer- cised only during the early and unsettled state of the Church at Ephesus. And here we shall take the case according to parity's own shovv'ing. Most Presbyterian controvertists (as also, indeed, many other writers) suppose Timothy to have been placed at Ephesus so early as at the sudden departure of Paul for Mace- donia after the riot there.^ His duty, as an Evangelist, was (say anti-episcopalians) to settle the affairs of the then new Church in that place. If so, be it remembered, he soon performed one part of what (they say) Avas required of him as such an extraordina- ry officer ; he soon ordained Eldei-s in that city or region which (they say) was before destitute of them ; for its Elders are ad- dressed by Paul in less than a year after his flight from Ephe- sus." These Elders, be it next remarked, are there declared (they say) to have power to " rule" the flock and their own body, besides that of ordaining. If so, the government of that Church was fully organized : and thus was fulfilled the othei part of the function of Timothy, as a special and extraordinary officer. Of course that extraordinary officer, the Evangelist, was no longer required ; the Ephesian Church had obtained a body of Elders, competent, if any such body is, and at least said by parity to be competent, to ordain and " rule." Nay, Paul, it is alleged, had cAar^ed these Elders to "rule the Church of God." It surely was time for Timothy, if a mere Evangelist, to "pass on to other countries and nations." Now, how does this obvious cessation of their need of the sup- posed extraordinary officer, agree with the undeniable fact that the second epistle was written to him almost seven years after the supposed date of his being placed in Ephesus, and more than six years after the interview of Paul with its Elders — this same Timothy still exercising his ecclesiastical powers in that city ? In the second epistle, and that only — eleven years after the first preaching of Paul in Ephesus,^ more than nine years t Acts xix. 23, &c. ; xx. 1. 1 Tim. i. 3. u Actsxx 17. t Acts xthj. 19 86 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. after the establishment of a Christian body there distinct from the Jews,^ nearly seven years after the supposed commission to Timothy to settle their affairs, and more than six years after Paul addressed their Elders— in that late second epistle, and that only, is Timothy called an "Evangelist," and desired to "do the work" of such a functionary. That is (says parity) Timothy was still required for the purpose of ordaining,^ although there had so long been Elders there competent to ordain ! Timothy (says parity) .was still required for the governing of that body of clergy, although that body had had, for so considerable a period, an intrinsic ecclesiastical power to " rule" its own mem bers ! Is it not obvious then, that the_ two hypotheses of parity, that concerning the right of mere Presbyters to ordain and govern, and that concerning the rights of Evangelists, are inconsistent with each other ? The Evangelist Timothy (they are forced to say) held restrained till at least the year 66, the power to " rule," which Paul had charged the Elders to exercise in the year 60 ! Or else, they must say that the Evangelist Timothy supplanted, in the year 66, the rights of the Elders who had been planted in Ephesus by the same Evangelist Timothy, in the year 59 or 60 ! May we not ask, when did he, or any other apostolical man, plant those rights again ? Does not the scriptural evidence on these points leave the supposed rights of Presbyters either with- held or taken from them, without a hint that the restriction or deprivation was afterwards removed ? And may we not justly declare, that such incongruities in the best theory of our oppo- nents — for they certainly have none better, or as good — are something very like an absolute disproof of parity, and, of com-se, a strong indirect proof of Episcopacy ? w Acts xix. 9. X In the second epistle to Timothy, as well as in the first, allusion is made to his m-daining power ; see 2 Tim. ii. 2 : and in another place, after urging him to "do the work of an Evangelist," the Apostle adds, " make full jjroof [fulfil all the parts] of thy ministry," which of course included ordaining. 2 Tim. iv. 5. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 37 APPENDIX. NOTE A— PAGE 12. Refer to Potter on Church Government, p. 175. Amer. eeing opposition. either active or passive. And thus episcopacy had and has authority through all these periods ; its authority is permanent, down to the present age of the world. One direction, grounded on latter-day defections, is particularly wor- thy of notice ; " from such turn [thou] away," or as otherwise translated, " such turn [thou] away." (2 Tim. iii. 5. See M'Knight.) In the former sense, the passage recognises an authoritative discountenance or rejection oi false teachers, or of false flocks with their teachers, to be exercised by an individual church officer " in the last days." In the latter sense, it recog- nizes, more explicitly, the power of excommunicating such persons, as residing in such an indi^idual officer, in these periods. In either sense, epis- copacy is recognized, as existing and having authority " in the last days" — in other words, as a permanent institution, and of permanent obligation. NOTE E— PAGE 28. ' The Plea of NccesHty. It is due to our discussion, to add a few remarks on the question — whether necessity will justify a departure from the apostolical or scriptural ministry, or the instituting of a new ministry where that cannot be obtained '? On this subject, the first point to be determined is, what is * necessity' 1 — ' Absolute necessity' to assume the functions of the ministry never can exist; salvation is not indissolubly connected with the offices of a pastor ; the sacraments are not absolutely, but only "generally necessary to salvation," those who cannot obtain them not being required to par feake of them. — Difficulties long insupera- ble, preventing the attainment of an important object, form the next species of ' necessity/ and that which is usually referred to in this argument. And here several questions arise — are the difficulties insuperable — have they beon long insuperable — is the object so important as to justify deviation from an institution allowed to be divine ? There should be no reasonable doubt on either of these points. In our opinion, the last of the above questions can never be justly answered in the affirmative; no plea can be strong enoxigh to release us from divine appointments. What Goo has instituted for his Church he will preserve in his Church, and diflfuse though it, till the institution be abrogated by him, or is about to be so. This appears to us so clear a dictate of faith, so funda- mental a religious truth, that we vsdll not argue for it ; it is an axiom, or at least an undeniable postulate. And it ought to settle the whole matter. But we shall carry the discussion through. As then to the other two questions — we doubt whether the difficulty of ob- taining an apostolic ministrj^, has ever been insuperable for any greater period than might naturally and fairly be allowed for the purpose — and we deny that the difficulties, be they what they might, have ever been long insupera- ble. And thus far, having used only the phrase apostolical or scrijrtural miriistry, we suppose that Parity agrees with us. We now lemind our readers that we have, in our essay, proved the apos- tolical ministry to be episcopacy. And, to come at once to the great case, we think it doubtful whether Luther and his associates, and Calvin and his associates, were prevented from obtaining episcopacy by difficulties strictly insuperable. It is well known to those acquainted vdth ecclesiastical his- tory, that Novatian, a schismatic Bishop, induced three obscure Bishops to consecrate him :* and. fmong the multitude of papal Bishops, could not * MiLNER, Vol. I. p. 351. and EusEBirs, Book 6. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 41 those Reformers have found three, elevated or obscure, to give them the suc- cession, or else to join with them, and preside over their purified Church 1 and this, without resorting to the culpable methods ascribed to Novatian 1 if this was not clearly impracticable, our present argument has all that it asks. Again : it is known to the readers of church history, that Frumen- tius, after collecting together a few Christians in India (perhaps Abyssinia,) and converting some of the natives, applied to Athanasius, Bishop of Alexan- dria in Egjrpt, for a Bishop to govern them, and ordain pastors for them :♦ and could not the Reformers alluded to, failing with Romish Bishops, have gone or sent, to the Greek, or other Eastern churches, for the episcopal suc- cession 1 did they ever make the experiment 1 Yet again : it is recorded, that the Bohemian Church obtained episcopacy from the Waldenses :t and could not the Reformers above mentioned have obtained it from either the Waldenses or the Bohemian fraternity'? did they attempt to do so, although these Christian communities were as much opposed to the Pope as themselves *? In fine : Did either of those Reformers use any efforts whatever for this purpose 1 if not, how can the difficidty be called insupera- ble '? or how can it be made the basis of the plea of necessity 1 Now, be it recollected, we question not the motives of these eminent servants of God j we believe them to have been pure ; but, on that point, they and we stand or fell only to our common master ; motives have nothing to do vfith the claims of truth. All that we assert is, that be the diflSculties what they might in procuring episcopacy, it is doubtful whether they were insuperable ; and that if they were not insuperable, the case of ' necessity ' did not exist. We may indeed carry this part of our argument yet further, and ask, whether any difficulty of magnitude can be Sieged — if we may draw, from the fol- lowing quotations from Milner, the conclusion, that Bishops so fiaendly to Luther would have consecrated him 1 " . . . . John Thurzo, Bishop of Bres- law in Silesia. This good prelate was descended from a noble family in Hungary, and is said to have been the very first papal Bishop who, in liis dio- cese, was favourable to the revival of pure Christianity Luther, on the occasion of his decease, says in a letter to a friend, ' in this faith died John ThurzO) Bishop of Breslaw, of all the Bishops of this age the very best.' " "The pious Thurzo died in August, 1520; but the reformation does not appear to have materially suffered from this loss. His successor, Jame» of Saltza, trode in his steps. This Bishop appointed .... John Hesse .... a dear friend of Luther, to preach the gospel in the church of St:. M. Magdalen- at Breslaw. Hesse not only explained and enforced the great truths of Chris- tianity from the pulpit, but for eight days together, in a public disputation, defended the same, and exposed the papal dogmas concerning the mass and the ceUbacy of the clergy"*^ — ^to the joy of Luther, and the vexation of the Pope. Bishops thus friendly to Luther and his cause, and thus appointing to a conspicuous station one of his dear and zealous friends — could they not have been prevailed on to consecrate him 1 They were, of course, under the usual promises of fidelity to the Romish Church ;. but these could have been no stronger in their particular cases, no more binding, than those of all the fibrst Reformers, whether Bishops or Presbyters ; who all held such obligations to be dissolved, when they came to perceive that the vital corruptions inflexibly maintained by that Church required their separation from it. We therefore suggest the douot, whether there was axiy difficulty of magnitude in the way of Luther's obtaining episcopacy for his Church. * SocBATES, B. 1. c. xix. and Milneb.VoI. II. p. 110. t Commenias, quoted in Bowdsn's Letters, Vol. II. p. 79. Vol. III. 332, 342- [VoL 1. p. 223. U. p. 163, 2d ed.] t MiLNEH, Vol. V. p. 259, 260. . 42 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. The above considerations render almost unnecessary a notice of our remain- ing propt>sition — that insuperable difficulties did not long exist. We pro- ceed however to the proof. Luther separated from the Church of Rome in 1520 ; the protest on which the name Protestant was founded, was made in 1529; the Confession of Augsburgh dates 1530.* Now, to say nothing of the possibihty of getting the episcopal succession in England under Henry VIII, who died in 1547, or under Edward VI, the Church in Sweden was fully reformed in 1527, and that in Denmark in 1539 ;t both were reformed under Lutheran influence ; and both retained episcopacy. Will then any considerate person deny, that, had efforts been made, the succession might have been obtained from Sweden not "long" after Luther abjured tlie papal authority, and before the period when the name Protestant and the Augs- burgh Confession gave the finish to the Lutheran Church 1 Or, if that Church had obtained episcopacy ten years afterwards, when Denmark could have given it to them, would that have been waiting "long" for a divine institu- tion 7 Where then is the evidence on which the plea of 'necessity' is grounded ! — Let the reader be reminded, that we are not discussing, in this note, the claims of the ministry which those great reformers established ; that is done in our essay. Neither are we arguing here with those who deny episcopacy to be a scriptural institution ; they have no occasion for the plea of ' necessity.' Neither do we now touch the question, whether this point of external order is of importance ; on that subject, our essay has, we presume, said enough ; and those who plead ' necessity' allow, by so doing, the im- portance of the rule departed from on that account. The present note is intended for those who grant the apostoUc origin of episcopacy, and its obli- gation, except in the one case of ' necessity,' reasonably defined. And to these we say, that there is no evidence that such ' necessity/ concerning the p(»nt before us, has ever existed. On the subject of ' supposed necessity' (supposed by the persons originally concerned) it is impossible to argue, because the case cannot be defined ; one person calling that ' necessity' which another denies to be so. When the difficulty appears great, those who yield to it are, we doubt not, excused by a merciful God ; and they ought to be fully and readily excused by men. But this mild judgment of persons does not establish either the correctness of their opinions, or the validity of their acts. Least of all, can the ' supposed necessity' which may formerly have led to a deviation from divine institutions, be a sound plea for persevering in that deviation after the ' supposed necessity' has ceased. It has now been shown, we think, that there never was any real * necessity' for dispensing with epis- copacy. But, allovmig for former periods all that is ever claimed on thai score, there has been no difficulty at all in procuring a protestant episcopate, or else in finding one to conform to and unite with, since the Scotch Bi^ops consecrated Bishop Seabury, the first on our American Ust. NOTE F--PAGB29. The great petitio principii of our opponents is, that the whole apostolic function, as distinguished from that of Presbyters, was transient. For this supposition, there is neither proof nor hint in Scripture. Inspiration was transient ; but in no other respect can the apostleship be shown to have lost its original completeness, Timothy, Andronicus, and Junia, are called Apostles ; but there is no evidence that they were inspired ; and though Silvanus, also denominated an Apostle, was a " prophet" (Acts xv. 32.) it * MosHEiM, VoL IV. p. 50, 71, 8^ t Ibid., Vol. V. p. 79, 82. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 4Z Will be allowed, we presume, that this does not imply that he possessed the higher inspiration of the more eminent apostolic fraternity. Of the sophism here censured, there are many lesser exemplifications in the argument of Parity, as may be seen in the following statement. Parity never can prove, but always takes for panted one or more of the following points — 1. that because the name " Bishop" is applied, in Scripture, to the second order of the ministry, there is no higher order there mentioned — 2. that the transaction in Acts xiii, was the ordination of Barnabas and Saul — 3. that the word " presbytery" means, not an office, but a body of Elders, and — 4. of Elders strictly, without an Apostle, or — 5. if an Apostle was with them, that he had no more ordaining power than they — 6. that evangelis^ts had, as such, supreme power over new churches and their clergy — 7, that no indi\iduais but the proper Apostles had such authority over churches and their clergy after their affairs were settled — 8. that the epistles to Timothy were meant for all the clergy in Ephesus — 9. that Timothy had supreme authority in Ephesus only as an evangelist, not as an Apostle, or as such a successor of the Apostles as was afterwards called a Bishop — 10. that Titus was an evangelist — IJ. that each of the seven Churches of Asia con- sisted of but one congregation — 12. that the " angels" were but pastors of single congregations — 13. that they were but moderators of bodies of Presby- ters, &c. &c. Some of these points are always taken for granted, in the anti-episcopal argument intended to rest on the basis of Scripture. We deny them all, and aver that Scripture furnishes no evidence, less or greater, tiifect or indirect^ towards si^bstantiating them. NOTE O— PAGE 29. On tJie objection — that monarchy, as much as episcopacy, is set forth in Scripture. It has been alleged, that as clear authority is found in Scripture for mo- narchical government and its perpetuity, as for episcopacy and its perpetuity, *' submit yourselves to the king as supreme," (1 Pet. ii. 13.) being as strong a precept as ** submit yourselves to them that watch for your souls," which we have appUed to the episcopal ministry set forth in the New Tes- tament. This allegation, however, is easily refuted. — 1. Where it is said that the king or Roman emperor was supreme, it is also declared that this was the ordinance of man ; and it h because it was " the ordinance of man" that submission to the emperor was enjoined. The office was " the creation (xTicei) of man." Of course, man may change that office for another, and thus substitute a republican for a royal or imperial government. But the Christian ministry is the appoir lanent or creation of God ; so, at least, parity believes as well as we ; and with parity is our controversy, not with the feeble claim of lay orders, or the creation of ministers by mere human au- thority. To suppose the ordinance of man, because recognized and enjoined in Scripture, to be as perpetually binding as the ordinance of God, there recognized and enjoined, and not retracted, is, we think, absurd. — 2. Should it be further obje is obligatory, to the exclusion of the latter ; (parity, p. 39 ;) and that the position cannot be evaded, that Episcopacy is permanently binding, ' even to the end of the world."' p. 39. TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 87 here. It is admitted on all hands, that there is somewhere in the Church a right to ordain. Episcopalians, with singular boldness, in not a few instances with professed^ and in all with real exclusiveness, maintain that this power lies only in the bishop. They advance a claim to certain rights and powers ; and if that' claim is not made out, the argument is at an end. The power of ordination must remain with those over whom they have set up the power of jurisdiction and control. This claim, as we have seen, is not made out. If from the authority of the New Testament, they cannot succeed in dividing the ministers of religion into various ranks and orders, it follo\Vs that the clergy remain on an equality. On this point, also, they are compelled, as we conceive, to admit the whole of our argument. So manifest is it, that the sacred writers knew of no such distinction ; that they regarded all ministers of the Gospel as on a level ; that they used the same name in describing the functions of all ; that they addressed all as having the same Episcopal, or pastoral supervision, that the Episcopalians, after no small reluctance, are compelled at last to admit it. They are driven to the conclusion that the term hishcyp in the New Testament, does not in a single instance designate any such officer as now claims exclusively that title. Thus Dr. Onderdonk says, that " that name (bishop) is therCj (i. e. in the New Testament) given to the middle order., or pres- byters ; and ALL that we read in the New Testament concerning * bishops,^ (including of course the words * overseers,'' and ' over- eight^'' which have the same derivation,) is to be regarded as pertaining to that middle grade. It was after the apostolic age that the name ' bishop' was taken from the second order and appropriated to the first." p. 12. This admission we regard as of inestimable value. So we believe, and so we teach. We insist, therefore, that the name bishop should be restored to its primitive standing. If men lay claim to a higher rank than is properly expressed in the New Testament by this word, we insist that they should assume the name apostles. As they regard themselves as the successors of the apostles; as they claim that Timothy, Titus, Andronicus, Junia, were called apos- tles, why should not the name be retained? The Christian community could then better appreciate the force of their claims, and understand the nature of the argument. We venture to say, that if the name " apostles" were assumed by those who claim that they are their successors. Episcopacy would be soon " shorn of its beams," and that the Christian world would dis- abuse itself of the belief in the scriptural authority of any such class of men. We admit that if " the thing sought" (p. 12) were to be found in the Scriptures, we would not engage in a contro- versy about the mere name. But we maintain that the fact here conceded is strong presumptive proof that " the thing sought" is not there. The name, therefore, is to be given up ; that is, it is conceded by Episcopalians, that the name bishop does not 88 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY any where in the New Testament designate any such class of men as are now clothed with the Episcopal office. We remark, now, that the thing itself is practically abandoned by Episcopalians themselves. If other denominations can be true churches,, (see the remark on p. 6, that the Episcopal claims do not " unchurch all Non-episcopal denominations,") then their ministers can be true ministers, and their ordinances valid ordi- nances. Their ministers may be ordained without the impo- sition of the hands of" a bishop;" and thus the whole claim is abandoned. For what constitutes " Non-episcopal denomina- tions" churches, unless they have a valid ministry, and valid ordinances ? Still further. It is probably known to our readers, that even ordination is never performed in the Episcopal Church by the bishop alone. In the " Form and Manner of Ordering Priests," the following direction is given. " The bishop with the priests [presbyters] present, shall lay their hands severally upon the head of every one that receiveth the order of priest- hood 5 the receivers humbly kneeling, and the bishop saying : Receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of OUR hands,^^ &c. We know that there is among them a difference of opinion about the reason why this is done. One portion regard the bishop as the only source of authority.* The other suppose that the presence and act of the presbyters express the assent and confidence of the churches, and that it is essential to a valid ordination. But, whichever opinion is maintained, it is, 171 fact, a Presbyterian ordination. If not, it is an unmeaning and idle ceremony ; and the presence of the presbyters is mere pageantry and pomp. We have now passed tlirough the argument. Could we enter farther into it, we could prove, we think, positively, that there were no ministers in the apostolic churches superior to pres- byters "in ministerial powers and rights;" and that a pres- bytery did actually engage in an ordination, and even in the case of Timothy.f But our argument does not require it, nor have we room. We have examined the whole of the claims of Episcopalians, derived from the New Testainent. Our readers will now judge of the validity of those claims. We close, as Dr. Onderdonk began, by saying, that if the claim is not made out on scriptural authority, it has no force, or binding obligation on mankind. Who can resist the impression, that if the New Testament had been the only authority appealed to in other times, Episco- pacy would long since have ceased to*urge its claims, and have sunk away, with other dynasties and dominations, from the notice of mankind ? On the basis which we have now examined, this vast superstructure, this system which has heretofore spread over the entire Christian world, this system which, in some * Hooker's Ecc, Pol. book yii. S 6. t 1 Tim. iv. 14. TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 89 periods at least, has advanced most arrogant claims, has been reared. The world, for ages, has been called to submit to vari- ous modifications of the Episcopal power. The world, with the single exceptions of the Waldenses and Albigenses, did for ages submit to its authority. The prelatical domination rose on the ruins of the liberties of cities, states, and nations, till all the power of the Christian world was concentrated in the hands of one man—" the servant of the servants of God !" The exercise of that power in his hands is well known. Equally arrogant have been its claims in other modifications. The authority has been deemed necessary for the suppression of divisions and heresies. " The prelates," says Milton, " as they would have it thought, are the only mauls of schism." That power was felt in the days when Puritan piety rose to bless mankind, and to advance just notions of civil and religious liberty. Streams of blood have flowed, and tears of anguish have been shed, and thousands of holy men have been doomed to poverty, and want, and imprisonment, and tears, as the result of those claims to supremacy and validity in the Church of God. It may surprise our readers to learn, that all the authority from the Bible which could be adduced in favor of these enormous claims, has now been submitted to their observation. And we cannot repress, the melancholy emotions of our hearts, at the thought that such power has been claimed, and sttch domination exercised by man,, on so slender authority as this ! We have little love for controversy — we have none for denunciation. We have no war to wage with Episcopacy. We know, we deeply feel, that much may be said in favor of it, apart from the claim which has been set up for its authority from the New Testament, Its past history, in some respects^ makes us weep ; in others, it is the source of sincere rejoicing and praise. We cannot forget, indeed, its assumptions of power, or hide from our eyes the days of the Papacy, when it clothed in sackcloth the Christian world. We cannot forget the days, not few, or unimportant, in its history, when even as a part of the Protestant religion, it has brought "a numb and chill stupid- ity of soul, an inactive blindness of mind, upon the people by its leaden doctrine ;^ we cannot forget " the frozen captivity" ©f the Church, " in the bondage of prektesj"* nor can we remove from our remembrance the suflferings of the Puritans, and the bloody scenes in Scotland. But we do not charge this on the Episcopacy of our times. We do not believe that it is essential to its existence. We da not believe that it is its inevitable tend- ency. With more grateful feelings, we recall other events of its history. We associate it with the brightest and happiest days of religion, and liberty, and literature, and law. We remember that it was under the Episcopacy that the Church in England took its firm stand against the Papacy ; and that this ♦ Milton. 8* 90 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY was its form when Zion rose to light and splendor, from the dark night of ages. We remember the name of Cranmer, — Cranmer, first, in many respects, among the reformers ; that it was by his steady and unerring hand, that, under God, the pure Church of the Saviour was conducted through the agitating and distressing times of Henry VIII. We remember that God watched over that wonderful man; that he gave this distin^ guished prelate access to the heart of one of the most capricious, cruel, inexorable, blood-thirsty, and licentious monarchs that has disgraced the world ; that God, for the sake of Cranmer, and his Church, conducted Henry, as " by a hook in the nose," and made him faithful to the Archbishop of Canterbury, when faithful to none else ; so that, perhaps, the only redeeming trait in the character of Henry, is his fidelity to this first British prelate under the Reformation.* The world will not soon forget the names of Latimer, and Ridley, and Rodgers, and Bradford j names associated in the feelings of Christians, with the long list of ancient confessors " of whom the world was not worthy," and who did honor to entire ages of mankind, by seal- ing their attachment to the Son of God on the rack, or amid the flames. Nor can we forget that we owe to Episcopacy that which fills our minds with gratitude and praise, when we look for examples of consecrated talent, and elegant literature, and humble devoted piety. While men honor elevated Christian feeling ; while they revere sound learning ; while they render tribute to clear and profound reasoning, they will not forget the names of Barrow and Taylor, of Tillotson, and Hooker, and Butler; — and when they think of humble, pure, sweet, heavenly piety, their minds will recur instinctively to the name of Leigh- ton. Such names, with a host of others, do honor to the world. When we think of them, we have it not in our hearts to utter one word against a Church which has thus done honor to our race, and to our common Christianity. Such we wish Episcopacy still to be. We have always thought that there are Christian minds and hearts that would find more edification in the forms of worship in that Church, than in any other. We regard it as adapted to call forth Christian energy, that might otherwise be dormant. We do not grieve that the Church is divided into different denominations. To all who hold essential truth, we bid God speed ; and for all such we lift our humble supplications to the God of all mercy, that he will make them the means of spreading the Gospel around * It n»jr be proper here to remark, that Gramner by no means entertained the modern views of the scriptural authority of bishops. He would not have coincided with the claims of the tract which is now passing under our review. He maintained "that the appointment to spiritual c^ces belongs indifferently to bishops, to princes, or to the people, aocorc^ng to. the pressure of existing circum^nces. He afhr^ned the original identity of bishops and presbyters ; and contended that nothing more than mere election, or appointment, is essential to the sacerdotal office, without con« eecration or any other solemnity .^Z^e Bm' Lif^ of Cranmer, vol, i. p. 197, TESTED BV SCRIPTURE, 91 the globe. We ourselves could live and labor in friendliness and love, in the bosom of the Episcopal Church. While we have an honest preference for another department of the great field of Christian action ; while providential circumstances, and the suggestions of our own hearts and minds, have conducted us to a different field of labor ; we have never doubted that many of the purest flames of devotion that rise from the earth, ascend from the altars of the Episcopal Church, and that many of the purest spirits that the earth contains, minister at those altars, or breathe forth their prayers and praises in language consecrated by the use of piety for centuries. We have but one wish in regard to Episcopacy. We wish her not to assume arrogant claims. We wish her not to utter the language of denunciation. We wish her to follow the guidance of the distinguished minister of her Church, whose book we are reviewing, in not attempting to " unchurch" other denominations. We wish her to fall in with, or to go in advance of others, in the spirit of the age. Our desire is that she may become throughout,— as we rejoice she is increasingly becom- ing, —the warm, devoted friend of revivals, and missionary operations. She is consolidated ; well marshalled ; under an efficient system of laws ; and pre-eminently fitted for powerful action in the field of Christian warfare. We desire to see her what the Macedonian phalanx was in the ancient army ; with her dense, solid organization, with her unity of movement, with her power of maintaining the position which she takes; and with her eminent ability to advance the cause of sacred learn- ing, and the love of order and of law, attending or leading all other churches in the conquests of redemption in an alienated world. We would even rejoice to see her who was first in the field at the Reformation in England, first, also, in the field, when the Son of God shall come to take to himself his great power ; and whatever positions may be assigned to other denominations, we have no doubt that the Episcopal Church is destined yet to be, throughout, the warm friend of revivals, and to consecrate her wealth and power to the work of making a perpetual aggresr won oil the territories of sia and of death. ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP "EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE." OcR readers will recollect that at various periods since this tract first appeared, now more than three years ago, we have reminded all concerned that it had not been answered. At length, however, a champion appears, to take up the gauntlet throwa down, and do battle for— really we cannot say for what — but against the claims of Episcopacy. He advances to the field with the courtesy of a perfect knight, saying so many civil things of his opponent, that we regret that the withholding of his name deprives us of the opportunity of being personally courteous in return. This, however, we can see, though his armor is closed, and this we say with unfeigned gratification, that he is a gentleman of elevated feelings and honorable principles. And now to the discussion. The Reviewer has fixed upon one point in the line of argument in the tract, and on it directed his main attack. Our reply must, of course, correspond. First^ however, we offer some preliminary observations. Because the author of the tract* rested the claims of Episco- pacy finally on Scripture— because he fills a high oflSce in the Church— and because the tract is issued by so prominent an ■ Episcopal institution as the " Press," the Reviewer seems to think that Episcopalians are now to abandon all arguments not drawn directly from the holy volume. Not at all. The author of the tract, in his sermon at the consecration of the four bishops. in October, 1832, advocated Episcopacy, besides on other grounds, on that of there being several grades of office in the priesthoods of all religions, false as well as true, and in all civil magistracies and other official structures, — and, in his late charge, he adverted to the evidence in its favor contained in the fathers. And the " Press," at the time it issued the tract, issued also with it, in the " Works on Episcopacy," those of Dr. Bowden and Dr. Cooke, which embrace the argument at large. There is no reason, therefore, for thinking that, however a single writer may use selected arguments in a single publication, either he or other Episcopalians will (or should) narrow the ground they • Bishop H. U. Onderdonk. r93> 94 ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF have usually occupied. The fathers are consulted on this subject, because the fabric of the ministry which they describe forms an historical basis for interpreting Scripture. And gene- ral practice, in regard to distinct grades among officers, throws a heavier burden of disproof on those whose interpretations are adverse to Episcopacy : this latter topic we shall again notice before we close. The reviewer thinks that, in discussing the exclusive claims of Episcopacy, " the burden ofpT'oofWes wholly on its friends." But the correctness of this assertion depends on the sense in which the phrase " burden of proof" is taken. In a loose way, it may be said that the burden of proof so far lies on him who advances a proposition, i. e. on him who happens to make the first assertion in any given discussion, as that he must adduce arguments for his opponents to reply to ; and it is sometimes one of the arts of controvertists to manoeuvre upon this rule. But the rule is only technical : it may further an orderly discus- sion, but it does nothing more toward the development of truth. We suppose the reviewer to mean this sense of the phrase, as he speaks of nothing more than the •' specific assertion^' of the tract; but, in this sense, the tract fulfilled its duty in giving proofs. The " burden of proof" has, however, a meaning far more important. It is the opposite of the " presumptive argu- ment." In some cases, the presumptive argument is clear, and it holds its ground till disproved ; and in such a controversy, the burden of proof is a burden indeed. In other cases, it is doubtful on which side the presumptive argument lies, and then it is a waste of time to talk about the burden of proof. Does the reviewer think that the presumptive argument is clearly Sigamst the exclusive claims of Episcopacy? Let him go to Ignatius, in the age next the apostolic, and read about the " bishop, pres- byters, and deacons" — he puts on such language a Presbyterian construction — while Episcopalians put on it theirs; does this give him a clear presumption? Does it throw the burden of proof on us ? Let him go to the period when the Reformation began — then all the Christian world was Episcopal — ^he excepts^ though we do not, the Waldenses ; does this grand fact give a presumption against Episcopacy? Let him, again, look on Christendom now, and estimate the majority of Episcopalians as he pleases— a vast majority it is, by any estimate ; does he find in such a state of things any clear consideration that throws the burden of proof on the exclusive advocates of the Episcopal ministry? We judge not. We rather think it would not be difficult to show that this " burden," so far as these topics mty be allowed to decide it, lies upon the impugners of Episcopacy. We therefore most respectfully suggest to the reviewer, that it probably lies — on a minority in controversy with a majority, i. e. on Non-episcopalians — on those who left Episcopacy at the Reformation— on those who, to make Ignatius interpret the Scriptures relating to the ministry as they do, adduce, not fact 1 EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTDRE. 96 or evidence, or even the historical chain of proof, but merely their own interpretation of those Scriptures, as the key to Ignatius. We were much pleased to find the reviewer agreeing, in the main at least, to the exclusion of extianeous arguments from this controversy, as proposed and largely insisted on in the tract—" to most of the observations under these several heads, we give our hearty assent" Yet such is human forgetfulness, in even the best of men, that he strays once or oftener into every one of these extraneous or inconclusive arguments, as a few exemplifications, under the heads given in the tract, will show. 1. The notion that Episcopacy is adverse to civil free' dom, is extraneous and irrelevant : does the reviewer " assent" to excluding this notion ? He says, " If the New Testament had been the only authority appealed to in other times. Episcopacy would long since have .... sunk away with other dynasties and dominations, from the notice of mankind." 2. Another extraneous argument is the accusation that Episcopalians are not pious enough : does the reviewer " assent" to putting this imputation out of view? He says of Episcopacy, in certain former periods, "Even as a part of the Protestant religion, it has brought ' a numb and chill stupidity of soul, an inactive blindness of mind, upon the people, by its leaden doctrine ;' we cannot forget ' the frozen captivity' of the Church, ' in the bondage of prelates.' " 3. That the external appointments of Christianity are of inferior moment, is, argues the tract, another irrelevant matter : does the reviewer " assent" to having this plea set aside? He says, "We regard it as a matter of very little moment, in what particular church the spirit is prepared for its eternal rest." 4. That some Episcopalians unchurch the Non-episcopalian denominations, is an extraneous argument: does the reviewer " assent" to keeping it out of the discussion? He says, " Whether their arguments are such as to render appropriate the description of all people but the members of Episcopal Churches, as left to ' thfe uncovenanted mercies of God ;' whether they are such as to prompt, legitimately, ... to the modest use of the term ' the Church,' with an exclusive reference to themselves,* must now be left to the judgment of our readers." 5. Referring to authorities, on either side, who are thought to have contradicted themselves, is, according to the tract, irrelevant, extraneous, and even futile : does the reviewer "assent?" He adduces the opinions of Cranmer, concerning "the original identity of bishops and presbyters," and that neither " consecration, nor any other solemnity," is essential to make a minister of Christ; while yet Cranmer sanctioned our Ordinal, which declares that Goo " appointed divers orders of ministers in the Church ;" and which decrees that no man shall ♦ Twice, in his second paragraph, the reviewer uses the term " the Church," with, apparently, an exclusive reference to Presbyterisms. 98 ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP officiate " in this Church," without " Episcopal consecration or ordination;" contradiction enough, we apprehend, to set aside Cranmer's authority on this point. 6. The tract argued that a scriptural "Amf or intimation" was enough, in matters of a permanent kind, without an explicit command, and that to argue otherwise is inconclusive: does the reviewer " assent" to this? He asks repeatedly for "explicit proof" of Episcopacy, and thinks that Episcopalians can do nothing without it. Thus, in regard to all the six arguments set aside in the tract, the excision of which was " assented " to, " mostly " indeed, yet " heartily," by the reviewer, he has been so unfortunate as to forget him- self, and employ the mutually condemned weapons. "We do not say that he has employed them unkindly, or, any but the last of the six, as essential to his cause ; all we remark is, that those who " assent " to that preliminary portion of the tract ought not to use them at all. These topics are valueless to the sound reasoner — among the weaker brethren, some of them are apt to produce irritation. Another preliminary remark may be offered. The reviewer takes no side on the question of valid ordination. Judging from his very flattering notice of the Episcopal Church, he may be an Episcopalian in principle, on the ground of expediency. Judg- ing from the periodical in which his review appears, he may be a Congregationalist in sentiment, and may regard lay orders as good. Judging from his writing against the tract, which argues only against a Presbyterian ministry, " passing by the feeble claim of lay-ordination," he may be a Presbyterian. But he makes no profession of his opinion on this subject. He says j — "The question after all might be, whether it was the design of the Apostles to establish any particular form of church govern- ment," including, of course, any particular rule of ordination — and he adds, " This question we do not intend to examine now, neither do we design to express any opinion on it." Now he has a right, if he chooses, in attacking other opinions, to reserve his own ; but it is much the same right that a rifleman has to fight behind a tree — it is a lawful act, but not indicative of peculiar valor. In the pursuit of abstract truth, the sentiments of the investigators are httle to the purpose. But when a question has immediate reference to practical arrangements, it is strictly rele- vant to ask an objector to any one system, what system he proposes as a substitute ; because the issue, when practical, is a complex one, including not only the questions raised upon the system attacked, but those also that may occur concerning the one brought forward in its place. To oppose one plan, and yet name no other, is not to treat the matter practically. The reviewer says, " If Episcopalians cannot make good their claims in reference to the bishop, it follows of course that all ministers are on an equality." True, but it does not follow that all called ministers are such ; the question would still be open between presbyterian ordination, lay-ordination, election to the ministry EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 97 without ordination or laying on of hands, and assuming the office without either election or ordination. Let any one duly consider the respective principles of the tract and the review, concerning good order in the Church— the one presents a sys- tem for maintaining it, the other opposes that system, yet offers none whatever in its place, it leaves the ministry open to any and every claimant, — let any one, we say, consider this differ- ence between the two productions, and then determine whether the tract and its system have not been allowed to hold a material advantage by this indecision or this reserve of the reviewer. While on this point, we must notice a contradiction, or some- thing very like one, into which the reviewer has fallen. In one paragraph, " It would not prove Episcopacy to be of divine origin, could its friends show that Presbyterianism is unfounded in the Scriptures ; or that Congregationalism has no claims io support ; or that Independency is unauthorized ; or even that lay-ordination is destitute of direct support" — yet, in another paragraph, " It is admitted on all hands, that there is somewhere in the Church a right to ordain." Now, a right to ordain is a divine right, be it exercised as it may : if Scripture is so inter- preted as to give that right to laymen, or to presbyters, or to bishops, the right is rested on Scripture, whether its support be "direct" or indirect; and, if sustained by Scripture, it is of "divine origin." The reviewer declares this right to exist "somewhere in the Church." Yet he argues that if all kinds of ordination were overturned except the Episcopal, it would not prove the latter to be of " divine origin." In other words, he argues that all sorts of ordinations may be without authority, and so the right to ordain exists nowhere, while yet it does exist somewhere. If the reviewer denies this conclusion from his premises, he must speak more plainly concerning " lay-ordina- tion," and say whether it has " indirect support" in Scripture. For ourselves, we think that if there be an ordaining power somewhere, yet not in either of the other alleged places of deposit, it must be in the bishops. And now we proceed to the main objections to the tract, as urged by the reviewer. These relate to two points. 1. The as- sertion, in the tract, " That the Apostles ordained, all agree." 2. The inference or assumption, in the tract — after stating the distinction between " the apostles and elders," and after show- ing that this distinction did not arise from other causes — " It follows, therefore, or will not at least be questioned, that the apostles were distinguished from the elders because they were superior to them in ministerial power and rights." 1. To the assertion, " That the apostles ordained, all agree," the reviewer objects, " If this means any thing to the purpose, it means that they ordained as apostles ; or that they were set apart to the apostolic office for the purpose of ordaining." Fes- Una lente, not too fast. Episcopalians believe undoubtedly that 9 98 ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP they ordained " as apostles," and that they were " set apart for the purpose of ordaining," besides other purposes. But neither of these points were involved in that portion of th& argument of the tract— where the fact that the apostles Ordained was mentioned merely as a fact^ without regard to the why or how. This mere fact was assumed, as agreed to by all ; yet it was proved also from Scripture, on a subsequent page. Then followed the next proposition in the train, " That elders (presbyters) did [ordain], we deny" — which second proposition is made good as tlie tract proceeds — nor does the reviewer gain- say it, upon evidence, though he ' thinks' he could, ' if his argu- ment required it, or if he had room.' Here, let our readers recollect, that the argument of the tract is with Presbyterians only, not with those who maintain lay-orders, and that it was of course unnecessary to deny that laymen ordained. The facts relating to Episcopacy and parity were first to be ascertained, as the basis of the argument— the structure to be erected on that basis was a different affair. And the two great facts, that apos- tles ordained, and that presbyters did not, were so sufficiently ascertained in the tract, that the reviewer does not controvert either of them, by stating facts of a contradictory sort. To the facts only should attention be given in the first place, and no construction or reasoning should be intermixed with the develop- ment of them. If, after this development of facts, it should be argued or denied that the apostles ordained " as apostles," or were set apart for that " purpose" among others, very well — only let the assertion or denial wait till the foundation is laid. The tract, in the portion of it under consideration, draws no inference from the two facts mentioned, but proceeds to an entirely different line of argument to prove ministerial imparity. It quotes the expression, from the record of the council held at Jerusalem, " apostles and elders," and asserts that it shows the two sets of persons so named to have been as distinct from each other, as were the laity from both, in the passage " apostles, and elders, and brethren" — and from the former, in the passage " apostles and brethren" — adding, " apostles were therefore one class, and elders another class, just as the laity were a third class." This seems clear enough, nor does the reviewer ques- tion it. The tract then proceeds to show, that the apostles were not thus distinguished because appointed by Christ personally — nor because they had seen our Lord after his resurrection — nor only (as the tract further states, though the reviewer forgets that it does so,) because they were special witnesses of that event — nor because they worked miracles — for sustaining all which propositions reasons are given. It then draws the conclusion, that the apostles were thus distinguished from the elders because they were " superior to them in ministerial power and rights." This is the line of argument which introduces the reasoning against parity. And it brings us to the second of the main objections to the tract, offered by the reviewer. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 99 2. In bringing this portion of the Episcopal argument to the inference mentioned, apostolic pre-eminence, the author of the tract says—" It follows, therefore, [from the premises just enu- merated,] or at least will not be questioned, that the apostles were superior to the elders in ministerial power and rights." Here are two assertions—'' it follows" — " or it will not be ques- tioned" — either is sufficient for the reasoning of the tract. The assertion " it follows," means, of course, ' if the previous statement holds good;' and that in this case the inference is just, the reviewer does not controvert. And it would be difficult to do so ; for, so far as we recollect, every other point in which distinction could even plausibly be claimed for the apostles, had been set aside by the tract, (as the reader will see in our para- graph next but one above,) leaving only the one distinction of " ministerial" superiority. The inference, therefore, that this was the distinction implied in the expression " apostles and elders," is neither forced nor unreasonable, it follows justly from the premises stated. And when it is considered that the distinc- tion was made in an ecclesiastical council, it will be acknow- ledged that this ground for it was the most natural one that could be assigned. But it was important to add, that the ministerial superiority of the apostles " would not he que&tionedy Yet here the reviewer* is all astonishment ! Here is a link of straw in the argument of the tract, whatever be the material of the rest of the chain ! What ! trust any portion of the proof of Episcopacy to an asser- tion that " will not be questioned !" Even so : the author of tj^e tract has been guilty of this most egregious oversight, and he must submit to the due castigation. We shall see. But first let the reviewer speak for himself. " He next attempts to show, that this distinction [between * apostles and elders'] was not made because they [the apostles] * were appointed by Christ personally,' nor because ' they had seen our Lord after his resurrection ;' nor ' because of their power of working miracles :' and then the writer adds, ' It fol- lows, therefore, or will not at least be questioned,^ — a qualifica- tion which, by the way, seems to look as if the writer had him- self no great confidence in the consecutiveness of the demon- stration,—' that the apostles were distinguished from the elders because they were superior to them in ministerial power and rights.' This is the argument, and this is the whole of it. On the making out of this point, depends the stupendous fabric of Episcopacy. Here is the corner-stone on which rests the claims of bishops ; this the position on which the imposing and * At this point of our manuscript we receive a copy of the RevHlew, separate from the rest of the periodical in which it appeared, and entitled "Examination of 'Epis- copacy Tested by Scripture.' " We ought therefore, perhaps, to say " examiner," instead of " reviewer." But as the latter word is commonly used in such aiticles as the present, we retain it. 100 ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP mighty superstructure has been reared. Our readers will join with us in our amazement, that this point has not been made out with a clearer deduction of arguments, than such as were fitted to lead to the ambiguous conclusion — ' It follows, there- fore, or .' " Now, what will be the reviewer's " amazement," when we assure him that " this is the whole of his argument" affecting the tract ! Yet such is the case: for the reasonings, throughout his article, are much the same with those usually brought against Episcopacy; and where not the same, they are so much minus the former ground, which the tract left far behind in proceeding with its inductive demonstration, as we deem it, of that form of the ministry. No one, for three years, brought those old reason- ings against the tract— no one, till the reviewer fancied he had discovered a weak spot in it, and might therefore reproduce some of them with effect. Here, then, is the grand — we may say the one point of contest ; for if we can make good our cause here, we may leave the rest of the old matter of the review, or so much of it as we please, where it has reposed for three years. The present is only a start in its slumber. " Amazement !" Does the reviewer deny the assertion, that " it will not be questioned that the apostles were superior to the elders in ministerial power and rights ?" we should be " amazed" if he did— ought we to be " amazed" that he neither denies nor allows it? His uninitiated readers, however, will understand his article as contradicting the tract on this point. He says, iiWeed, with Non-episcopal writers generally, that the apostles held only an extraordinary and temporary power over other ministers ; but this is not the point in that portion of the argu^ ment of the tract ; which was only to show the fact that the apostles were superior to them, leaving to subsequent investiga- tion to decide whether this superiority was temporary or not, extraordinary or not. Is it not, then, a fact, that the apostles were " superior to the elders in ministerial power and rights ?" was it not fair to say, that this assertion would " not be ques- tioned ?" To settle this matter we shall adduce Non-episcopal authorities, and in sufficient number, we trust, to satisfy our readers; merely adding, that we do not recollect any who "question" it, unless they question or deny also an ordained ministry— unless they are other than Presbyterians (proper,) with whom only the tract was in controversy. In substantiating this assertion by the authorities we shall quote, we apprize our readers that they include " evangelists" with the apostles, and that they regard the superior powers of both as extraordinary and temporary. Their allowing rights over the clergy to evangelists, shows that they did not regard those rights as confined to the thirteen principal Apostles— which is something for Episcopacy. Their opinion that these rights were extraordinary and transient, has no bearing on the simple/act that they existed. With the Non-episcopal tone of EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 101 the language of these writers we have, in using them for this fact, nothing to do. The late Dr. Wilson. " But it so happens, that the conformity in duties between the diocesan bishop and the apostle and primitive evangelist ; and the contrast of the oversight of an individual church by its presbyters, with an Episcopate in after ages; are now adopted as arguments to prove, contrary to the verity of facts, that diocesan bishops are actually the successors in office of the apostles and evangelists, and not of the presby- ters in the churches." (p. 252.) That is, the apostles and evan- gelists held an " office" the " duties" of which conformed to those of diocesan bishops ; of course they were superior to pres- byters in ministerial power and rights. Again, speaking of the office of Timothy, as an evangelist, "This office was superior to that of pastors even teachers." (p. 253.) Again : " There is little more propriety in bringing the apostolic office down to a level with that of presbyters or bishops, or of elevating the latter to the grade of the former, than of supposing every governor an alderman, or every alderman a governor of a state, because commissioned by such." (p. 268.) Dr. Miller. " It is evident, from the whole tenor of Scripturej. that the apostolic character was superior to that of the evan-. gelists : and Paul, especially, always addresses Timothy and Titus in a style of authority.''^ Again, " We hold that all the authority over other ministers, with which the apostles and evangelists were vested, was extraordinary, and necessarily arose from the sacred canon not being yet complete, and the Church not yet settled." (pp. 107, 108, 1st edit.) That is : the elders were inferior to the evangelists in " vested" authority, and these inferior to the apostles---greatly superior then must the apostles have been to the elders ^in " vested" authority— so " we hold," says Dr. Miller, we Presbyterians. To this eminent divine, then, the author of the tract may transfer the responsi- bility of saying, that " the ministerial superiority of the apostles will not questioned," by that denomination, — their "vested" official superiority.'^ Dr. Campbell. " No doubt they [the apostles] may be styled bishops or overseers, but in a sense very different from that in which it is applied to the inspector [presbyter-bishop} over the inhabitants oi a particular district. They were universal bishops ; the whole Church, or rather, the whole earth was their charge-, and they were all colleagues one of another." (p. 77.) Matthew Henry. " The officers which Christ gave to his Church were of two sorts ; extraordinary ones, advanced to a hig^herofdce in the Church; such were apostles, prophets, and evangelists. The apostles were chief And then there * We have somewhat amplified this paragraph in the reprint to give us the ben^t of Dr. Miller's name against the Biblical Repertory for April, 1835. 5* 102 ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF are ordinary ministers, employed in a lower or narrower sphere, as pastors and teachers." (On Eph. iv. 11.) The Divines who argued with Charles /., in the Isle of Wight, J' Those that would carry it (Episcopacy) higher, endeavored to imp it into the apostolical office and so the apostolical office, (excepting the gifts, or enablements confessed only extra- ordinary) is brought down to be Episcopal, and the Episcopal raised up to be apostolical. Whereupon it follows that the highest officers in the Church are put into a lower orb; an extraordinary office turned into an ordmary distinct office, con^ founded with that which in the Scripture is not found, a tempo- rary and an extinct office revived." (p. 6.) In other words, those divines allow the official, i. e. the " ministerial" superiority of the apostles over presbyters to have been even greater than that claimed by bishops-^but this latter claim they reject. Calvin. " So those twelve individuals, whom the Lord chose to promulgate the first proclamation of his Gospel to the world, preceded all other in order and dignity." Again ; " By ' evan- gelists' I understand those who were inferior to the apostles in dignity, but next to them in office^ and who performed similar functions." (Inst. b. 4, c. 3, s. 4, 5.) Thus, from Calvin downward, it is proved to he the belieJ of Presbyterians, as is asserted in the tract, that " the apostles were distinguished from the elders because they were superior to them in ministerial power and rights." No Presbyterian, in the proper sense of the appellation, "questions" it— none that we know of— though some, into whom we have just looked, are not explicit on this particular point. As to this superiority having been part of the extraordinary prerogative of the thirteen Apos- tles, we refer to the tract itself, where it is shown that the pre- eminence of certain officers in the Church over elders is recog- nised in other individuals, and as perpetual. We may add a word or two, on this point, as we proceed. So far, then, the tract is safe : nay, those who are versed in the Episcopal controversy will think this part of our labor supererogatory ; but many, we are sorry to say, know little of the argument concerning this branch of the institutions of our Lord— and these may learn that there was no cause for the " amazement" of the reviewer. We have now further to remark, that the reviewer says that the passage we quoted from him contains the "whole" argu- rnent of the tract on the point just discussed. This is an over- sight. The tract, at this very point, referred to a previous note, which reads thus : — " That the Apostles alone ordained will be proved. In 1 Cor. iv. 19-21 ; V. 3-5 ; 2 Cor. ii. 6 ; vji. 12 ; x. 8 ; xiii. 2, 10 ; and 1 Tim. i. 20, are recorded inflictions and remissions oi discipline performed by an Apostle, or threatenings on his part, although there must have been elders in Corinth, and certainly were in Ephesus." (Tract, p. 12.) EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 103 This note, as referring to several passages of Scripture, should be considered as part of the argument of which the reviewer inadvertently says, he gives " the whole of it " — the argument, in the tract, for the ministerial superiority of apostles over elders. Let us examine this note in detail, and see how much proof to this effect it condenses in a few lines. There must have been elders in Corinth when the epistles were written to them. We prove this by the language of Paul »— " As a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon." We prove it by the language, hyper- bolical indeed in the number, yet decisive of the fact — "Though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ." We prove it by the language, in reference to the right of the clergy to be main- tained by their flocks — " If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather?" We prove it by the fact that the " Lord's Supper " was celebrated in that church, which required an elder, at the least. We prove it by the language, concerning some of the Corinthian teachers — •" Are they minis- ters q/" Christ I am more." Not only then do we say, with the author of the tract, " there must have been elders in Corinth," but we assert it positively, there were, at the time Paul wrote the two epistles to that church. Yet, without noticing these elders in the matter, so far as the epistles show, though they doubtless were noticed and consulted as much as courtesy and their pastoral standing made proper — without putting the matter into their hands, or even passing it through their hands, Paul threatens, inflicts, and remits disci- pline among the people of their charge. This is a " ministerial " act. And Paul's doing it himself, instead of committing it to the elders, shows that he, an apostle, was " superior to them in ministerial power and rights." This conclusion is unavoidable, if the fact be sustained. Let us then look to the fact— our readers, we trust, will accompany us patiently. " But / will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power, For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. What will ye 1 shall /come to you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?" (1 Cor. iv. 19-21.) Here is " power " and " a rod," to be exercised under God's " kingdom " or sovereignty, and by one man, an apostle, if those who were " puffed up " did not humble themselves. Here is church discipline threatened, not by or through the elders, but b)' an apostle individually, and with the rod in his hands. '• For / verily, as absent in body but present in spirit, have judged (in the margin determined) already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed. In the name of our Lord Jesos Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 104 » ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP To deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus*" (lCk)r. v.3-5.) Here is an act of church discipline, nothing less than excom- munication ; and who inflicts it ? the elders at Corinth ? By no means. Paul does it. The Apostle "judges" and determines to "deliver to Satan" the unworthy Christian— and to do it when that church, and "his spirit" were assembled together, himself being in that sense present when his sentence was exe- cuted. Who read his sentence in the assembly, we are not informed ; probably one of the elders. Who ejected the man personally, if that mode of executing the sentence was added to the reading of it, we are not told. It is enough that the "judg- ment," the decision, the authority for the discipline, was that of an apostle alone, and evinced his superiority, in ministerial functions, to the elders of that church. The excommunication led, of course, to the exclusion of the man from the friendship and kind offices of the brethren ; and this is called bis " punish- ment inflicted of many," in the passage we are next to quote. " Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. To whom ye forgive any thing, /forgive also ; for if /forgave any thing, to whom / forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person q/" Christ." (2 Cor. ii. 6, 10.) Here is a remission of discipline, not by the elders, but by an apostle ; he pronounces the punishment to be " sufficient." The brethren forgive the scandal of the man's conduct, he having become penitent j and Paul forgives him, by removing the sen- tence. . They forgave as men and fellow Christians — he forgave " in the person of Christ." With such illustrations of an apostle's power to threaten dis- cipline, to inflict discipline, and to remit discipline, we shall understand the force of the other passages in the epistles to the Corinthians, referred to in the note we have quoted from the tract " Wherefore, though I wrote unto you, I did it not for his cause that had done the wrong, nor for his cause that suffered wrong, but that our care for you in the sight of God might appear unto you." (2 Cor. vii. 12.) "But though I should boast somewhat more of our authority^ (which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction,) I should not be ashamed." (2 Cor. x. 8.) " I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were present the second time ; and being absent, now I write to them which here- tofore have sinned, and to all other, that if I come again / will not spare." " Therefore I write these things being absent, lest being present /should use sharpness, according to \\ie power which, the Lord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction." (2 Cor. xiii. 2, 10.) EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 105 So much for the Corinthian church and its elders. The ^reviewer was certainly mistaken when he said he had given " the argument" of the tract, " the whole of it," for the assertion that " the apostles were distinguished from the elders because they were superior to them in ministerial power and rights." He gave but a fraction of it. Now turn we to the further proof of that assertion, alluded to in the tract, in the case of the church at Ephesus. There " cer- tainly were" elders in Ephesus, when Paul wrote the first epistle to Timothy. We prove this fact from the language, " That thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine:" teachers then there were in that cliurch, public teachers, author- ized teachers, and such are not the ruling elders or deacons of parity, nor, (except under the bishop's license,) the deacons of Episcopacy ; therefore both these parties, the only ones con- cerned with the tract, must agree that they " certainly " were elders or presbyters. We prove it by the Apostle's condemna- tion of Hymeneus and Alexander, for " making shipwreck con- cerning faith," i. e. making shipwreck in teaching the faith, teaching it publicly and with authority — and these teachers were elders, for the reasons just given. We prove it also from the fact that there were elders at Ephesus, when Paul said to them, in Acts xx., " Grievous wolves shall enter in among you , . . also of your ow7i selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things ; " Paul thus declaring that the false teaching at Ephesus would be by elders, and would occur afterward, it not having occurred as yet: that the false teaching would be by elders, seems decisive in favor of the assertion that the false teaching there was by elders, as we have just maintained: that the false teaching was yet to occur, when there were already elder^ in Ephesus addressed by Paul, in Acts xx., is proof that that church had its elders when this evil indoctrination had occurred, which was the case when Paul first wrote to Timothy, as our extracts from that epistle show. This latter argument we consider final: the epistle enumerates, as errors then existing there, " fables, endless genealogies, swerving from charity and faith to vain jangling, questions and strifes of words, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called;" yv«(r£w?, perhaps gnosticism, as Hammond argues. This was the state of things at Ephesus, when Paul wrote the epistle. But when he addressed the " elders," in Acts xx., he spoke of nothing of the sort as having existed, or as existing then, but only as to exist at a future time. If then there were elders there before these mischiefs appeared, there "certainly were" when they were afterward developed— ^i. e. when Paul wrote the first epistle to Timothy. Well then — is the discipline of the church at Ephesus intrusted to these elders? Nothing like it. As in the case of the Corinthians, that " power was given by the Lord " to an 106 ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF apostle, and only an apostle exercised it. Read the proof of this fact. " Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander j whom / have delivered tinto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." (1 Tim. i. 2a) It is the apostle that inflicts the discipline ; the elders do not appear in the matter. And discipline is a " ministerial " function ; and excommunication its highest exercise. Again, therefore, we repeat, that this part of the tract must have escaped the reviewer's notice, when he declared that he had given its "whole argument" for the " ministerial superior- ity" of the apostles. Perhaps it would have been better had the author of the tract expanded his note, so as to have presented the argument more at length, or have given it in a larger form in the appendix. But the note, as it stands, adverts to every point that here occupies three or more of our pages. As to the plea that the apostles exercised these rights and powers as extraordinary officers, not to be continued in the Church, we remark, in the first place, that it is an admission that they had these rights and powers. It is the usual plea of Non-episcopal writers, as we have shown, and having brought this fact to the recollection of the reviewer, he will be "amazed" at himself we think, for having been " amazed" at the assertion of the tract, that it " would not be questioned." But, in the next place, the plea is not a sound one, for these powers and rights passed beyond the thirteen Apostles to other men, as Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, and the angels of the seven Asian churches j see the tract. Not so fast, says parity ; these, or some of them, werg " evangelists," and they also were extraordinary and tem- porary officers ; to which we reply, that Timothy alone is called an evangelist in Scripture, the rest are not. Perhaps, however, the reviewer thinks, and if so, we agree with him, that the tract has routed the plea commonly rested by Non-episcopalians on the title " evangelist," as he does not name the word, but merely says that Timothy and Titus had a " temporary " function in regulating churches and ministers. This was certainly prudent in him, for the postscript to the tract has fairly given that plea to the winds. But let the re^'iewer examine where his neio position leaves him. Thus,— Timothy and Titus have but tem- porary duties, not because they are evangelists, but because they do not remain permanently in one station, call it a diocese, or any thing else — we ask, then, do elders, or did they, remain permanently in one station, call it a parish, a congregation, a church, or what you please 1 if not, then elders also, by the same argument, exercised only a temporary function, and so we have 710 ministry left. Take Apollos, for example ; was he not an elder, at the least ? is he not called a " minister " by Paul, and did he not " water" at Corinth what Paul had planted ? if the reviewer says he was more than an elder, he contradicts the EPISCOPACV TESTED BV SCRIPTURE. 107 parity he would defend, for he then makes two orders in the ministry ; if he calls him an evangelist, he retreats from his new f)osition, of not adducing that title, and so falls under the demo- Ishing ^ower of the postscript to the tract. Well, then, does Apollos, an elder at the least, remain stationary at Corinth, or in any other patish, church, or congregation? No: he had left Corinth when Paul wrote the first epistle to the church there ; he had gone elseWhete ; yet not even then to be stationary, for Paul desired to bring him back to Corinth,, and he himself meant to come back " when he should have convenient time." (1 Cor. xvi. 12.) Here are three successive points occupied in the ministry of [elder] Apollos, down to the year 59. The next we read of him is in the year 65, when he was on a "journey " or voyage, from some place not mentioned, to Crete, and was to proceed on from Crete to (probably) Nicopolis** Similar migrations could be traced in the ministry of various other per- sons named in the Acts and the Epistles ; as Erastus, Tychicus, Trophimus, Crescens, Sopater, &c., &c. ; and, provided, the reviewer will allow that they were elders at the least, which " will scarcely be questioned," we suppose, of the most of them, and will not put in the plea that they were evangelists, which is precluded by his new position, then there will be so many more cases in proof, that elders were as little fixed in one station as were Timothy and Titus. At all events, we have the case of Apollos to this effect. And the result is this alternative — iC Timothy and Titus had only temporary superior functions, because they exercised them in more than one place, the elders had only a temporary function for the same reason ; and then we have no ministry left : if, however, the functions of the elders were permanent, though they moved from place to place, the superior functions of Timothy and Titus were also permanent, in spite of this same objection ; and thus we have Episcopacy a permanent institution in the Church. Our deepest thanks, therefore, are due to the reviewer, for co-operating with the tract in brushing away this rubbish of the parity argument — that portion of it which is made out of the name evangelist — and resting the discussion on the mere fads of the case. This is, indeed, a happy agreement — a real advance toward settling the controversy between Episcopalians and Presbyterians ; for the latter will scarcely take the ground of no ministry ; and, if they do not, the only alternative is Episco- pacy^ as we have just seen. Let any candid Presbyterian renounce the evasion of calling Timothy and Titus evangelists, and he will have a straight-forward and unincumbered argu- ment. The apostles were " superior to the elders in ministerial power and rights." Timothy and Titus were also superior to the elders in those respects. The "angel" of the church at * Titus ill. 12, 13. The reviewer has peculiar ideas of the time of Paul's visit to Nicopolis, when he connects this passage with Gul. ii. 1. 108 ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF Ephesus, where there had long been elders, was superior to them ; for he alone is addressed as " trying" false apostles, and the church there is called Ms " candlestick," not theirs : and this case brings the " superior " office down to the year 96. Further, the other six "angels" must have resembled the one at Ephesus. Nor is there a particle of scriptural evidence that this "superior" office was to cease ; not a particle, though those who filled it may not then have been fixed in one station or dio- cese ; as also there is not a particle of evidence that the office of the elders was to cease, though they too were not always fixed in one station or parish. Nay, the fact that inspired epistles were written to Timothy, Titus, and the seven " angels," and made part of the New Testament, for 'permanent use in the Church — epistles which recognise the right to ordain and inflict discipline on both clergy and laity, as existing in the " superior" officers, but do not recognise this right in the elders — this fact alone proves the " superior" office, i. e. Episcopacy, to have been intended for permanency. Add to this, that Timothy was to "keep this commandment [the 'charge' given, him as a ' superior ' officer in the church] till the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ ;" which implies that there were to he such officers as Timothy, to keep the same " charge," till Christ should appear— till the end of the world. Let any candid Presbyterian examine this train of proof, particularly as stated more fully in the tract, leaving out of the question, as the reviewer does most creditably, the evasion concerning " evangelists," and he will wish, at least, to be an Episcopalian. We have finished the main discussion we proposed. We have defended, and we hope to purpose, the portion of the tract chiefly assailed by the reviewer. We have shown that the only link supposed to be weak, the grand link, "the point, on the making out of which depends the stupendous fabric of Episco- pacy," the " corner-stone, on which rest the claims of bishops;" we have shown that this now very distinguished link in the chain of the tract's inductive proof of Episcopacy, is firm as steel. This done, all the work incumbent on us is performed. There is no more necessity for coping with the common and diff"usive arguments against us, which may appear subsequently to the tract, than there was for it to notice all arguments of this kind that had appeared before. No one, we believe, has blamed the tract for pushing on its train of inductive reasoning, without regarding these interminable discussions ; and no one can blame us, if we now say to the reader, " Go to the tract itself, read it carefully and with impartiality, and then decide, before God and your own conscience, whether it does not prove Episcopacy from Scripture." He who will do it this justice, will want no other arguments for that ministry, and will fear none against it. Our duly therefore is sufficiently discharged. But rather than be uncivil to one whom we suspect to be a new comer into this field of controversy, we will extend our EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 109 article, and notice some of his other remarks, more especially those in which he has somewhat of novelty, or differs from the most of his predecessors. He says that the apostles were ordained, as such, early in our Lord's ministry. He regards the words addressed to them, after the resurrection, as recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, " Go ye into all the world," &c., as but " instructions," not as per- taining to a fresh ordination to a higher office. But he omits entirely the record of John, relating to that subsequent period. "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you .... receive ye the Holy Ghost : whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." This looks very like the substance of an ordination — the eleven are " sent ; " they receive the " Holy Ghost," in the ecclesiastical sense, we presume, just as the elders of Ephesus were " made overseers [presbyter-bishop^^] by the Holy Ghost ;" and they are told that they have the power of absolving true penitents, the nature of which power in the clergy is foreign to our present discussion. Are we not right in thinking that an ordination is here % Would the reviewer, having asserted the previous ordination of the apostles, would he, or would he not, if this passage had occurred to him, have seen a second ordina- tion in it? If he had, he would have seen that which is fatal to the rule of parity, that there is but one order in the ministry. The reviewer asks for explicit proof that Paul or the twelve were invested with superiority of office; we might ask him, in return, for explicit proof of their investment with the power of ordaining. He infers their right to ordain from the facts of Scripture, and we also infer their superiority of office from the same kind of evidence. Both inferences are unavoidable. [The right of Timothy and Titus, individually, to ordain, is recorded 3 that they did ordain is therefore justly presumed.] The reviewer, in order to show what ke thinks was the point in which the apostles excelled the elders in the matter in ques- tion, dwells largely on the fact that they were special witnesses of our Lord's resurrection ; and with the help of Capital and Italic letters, he has certainly made a showy argument. But nobody denies that they were the special witnesses, or that they were thus distinguished from the elders, as well as from others called apostles ; the tract gave due attention to both these parti- culars. The point is, was this distinction the one that led to the expression " apostles and elders?" Surely not. Among those apostles was Barnabas, and perhaps Silas, (Acts xiv. 14 ; xv. 2, 4, 22 ; 1 Thess. i. 1 ; ii. 6,) neither of whom was a special wit- ness of the resurrection. Besides : the expressions, " apostles and elders," •' apostles, and elders, and brethren," are used with immediate reference to the council at Jerusalem, and the reviewer is more acute than we pretend to be, if he can say why, in a council acting on questions concerning '• idols, blood, things 10 IIQ ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP Strangled, and licentiousness," the special witnesses of the resur- rection should, as such, have peculiar authority. We really thiniv the tract argues with more consistency, when it says that the apostles were ministerially above the elders. [For the " pro- bability " that there was a third James, see Hammond.] On the point of the Apostleship of Timothy, the reviewer thinks he was not included in the expression, " We '. . . . the apostles of Christ," in 1 Thess. ii., which epistle begins, " Paul, and Silvanus, [Silas,] and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians "—Why ?— Because it is said just before, "We had suffered, and were shamefully entreated at Philippi," and Timothy, he asserts, was not at Philippi at the time these severities were endured. Now, we argue these passages the other way ; we think they, of themselves, prove that Timothy was at Philippi, and " suffered, and was shamefully entreated," though he was not beaten and put in prison, as Paul and Silas were. We turn also to the history in the Acts, (xvi., xvii.,) where we find that before going to Philippi, " Paul would have Timothy to go forth with him;" and after leaving Philippi, Timothy was with him at Berea, without a word or a hint that he had left Paul, or returned to him in the meantime. The evi- dence is all on our side, and connecting that in the epistle with that in the Acts, it is conclusive. The reviewer says, " We would respectfully ask the author of this tract, where he finds an intimation of the existence of an order of ' clergy at large,'' in these churches," the seven churches in Asia. We " respectfully " answer, that he has not said one word of " an order of clergy at large," but has only spoken of the "clergy at large" in those churches, an expression which we are " amazed " to see misunderstood. His remark is — " Ob- serve the emphatic use of the singular number in the address to each of the angels ; ' I know thy works,' is the clear and strong language directed to them all successively, implying the respon- sibility, not of a church at large, or of its clergy at large, but of the head or governor individually." The reviewer is first, we believe, in imagining an " order of clergy at large," though he does not believe in his own imagination. And now, we would " respectfully ask " in return, Why does the reviewer " lay oitt of view the case of the ' elders at Ephesus,' " when considering the case of the "angel" at Ephesus? Were there no pastoral elders [presbyter-bishops] in that church, in the year 96, though Timothy had been there so long previously, thirty years or more, " intrusted with the right of ordination ! ! " If there were such elders there in that year, 96, as there certainly was also an " angel," then our Lord's directing an epistle concerning the state of the church, and the trying of false apostles, to the " angel " individually, and not to the elders at large, or to the " clergy at large," i. e. including the angel with the rest, is a good argument for Episcopacy. The alternative thus reached, is, either Timothy committed a much grosser oversight than EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. Ill will be ascribed to him, in not ordaining pastoral elders in that city, or the reviewer has committed an oversight of some mag- nitude, in " laying out of view " those elders, in his argument upon the case of the seven churches. We frank^ acknowledge that we do not understand what the reviewer means (p. 79) in recognising as a question, respeotmg the elders at Ephesus, mentioned in Acts xx., " whether they were ruling- elders, or presbyters, ordained to preach as well as to rule." They are there called " overseers " or bishops ; we regard such persons as presbyter-bishops, the second order, and Presbyterians give the name bishop to their only order of clergy proper. If ruling elders are bishops also, then they have two orders of bishops, which destroys parity. Equally above our comprehension is it, that the reviewer, after thus recognising " ruling elders," should say in the next para- graph but one, " There are but two orders of ministers spoken of, or alluded to, in the epistles [to Timothy,] bishops and deacons." Are not ruling elders "spoken of" in those epistles, according to Presbyterian interpretation ? If Presbyterian dea- cons are " ministers," are not Presbyterian ruling elders, who rank above them, " ministers " also ? Here again we are sadly in the dark. If the reviewer disallows the office of a ruling elder, dis- allowed also by his opponent, why recognise it in his argument? and why say that the epistles of Ignatius, full as they are of " bishop, presbyters and deacons," seem to [his] eyes to be a plain straight-forward account of the existence of Presbyterian- ism in his time?" If he allows that office, why intimate that it is not part of the " ministry " of his denomination, while that of a Presbyterian deacon is ? The reviewer says that if our bishops, claiming to be the suc- cessors of the apostles, were to assume the name " apostles," Episcopacy would soon be " shorn of its beams." Very likely. They have lost that name since the first century : those of the present day are not responsible for the change : yet it no doubt was wisely made. Let us try the converse of the proposition. Presbyterian ministers of the thorough sort claim likewise to be successors of the apostles ; suppose then that they were to assume that name, what would become of the " beams " of Presbyterianism? Again, the reviewer favors the idea that the "^ angels^ were pastors of the churches, presbyters on a parity with each other;" suppose then Presbyterian pastors were to assume the name of " angels," the Angel of the church in Arch- street, the Angel of the church in Pine-street, the Angel of the church in Washington-square, would the "beams" of their churches be less in jeopardy than those of our church would be from the titles, the Apostle of the church in Pennsylvania, the Apostle of the church in Virginia, the Apostle of the church in Tennessee? The reviewer thinks that as presbyters lay on hands with the bishop when a presbyter is ordained, " it is in fact, a Presbyte- 112 ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP rian ordination." We think otherwise. When Presbyterians ordain, the theory is, so we understand their writers,* that the authority comes from that one of their presbyters who presides on the occasion, the others being present to express the consent of the Church, in other words, as a canonical or church regula- tion lo prevent any one man from performing so important an act by himself alone. This is Presbyterian ordination ; the authority flows, not from a presbytery, but from a Presbyterian 'presbyter. So precisely in the case of our ordinations. The authority flows from the bishop ; the presbyters lay on hands to denote the consent of the Church, to show that the bishop acts canonically, and not according to the mere impulse of his individual will. And this is Episcopal ordination, because the act derives its virtue from the bishop. Ordination by one pres- byter would be valid among Presbyterians, and the ordination of a priest by the bishop alone would be valid among Episcopa- lians ; but neither would accord with church regulations. One word more concerning the " burden of proof," as con- trasted with the " presumptive argument." The tract claimed no presumption in its favor, in seeking for the scriptural proofs of Episcopacy. We do — a presumption founded on common sense, as indicated by common practice. Set aside parity and Episcopacy, and then look at other systems of office, both reli- gious and civil, and you find several grades of officers. In the Patriarchal Church there was the distinction of "high-priest" and " priest." (Heb. v. 10 ; vi. 20.) In the Jewish Church, (com- mon sense being in this case unquestionably divinely approved,) there were the high-priest, priests, and Levites. Among Pagans and Mahommedans there are various grades in the office deemed sacred. Civil governments have usually governors, a president, princes, a king, an emperor, &c., as the heads of the general, or state, or provincial magistracies. In armies and navies there is always a chief. If the reviewer should claim exceptions, we reply they are exceptions only, and very few in number. The general rule is with us. That general rule next to universal is, that among officers there is a difference of power, of rights, of rank, of grade, call it what you will. And this general rule gives a presumption that such will also be the case in the Chris- tian Church. We go to Scripture then with the presumptive argument fully against parity. If we should find in Scripture neither imparity nor parity, still common sense decides for the former. If we find the tone of Scripture doubtful on this point, imparity has the advantage, common sense turning the scale. If we find there intimations, less than positive injunctions, in favor of imparity, common sense, besides the respect due to Scripture, decides for our interpretation of them. And if any thing in Scripture is supposed to prove or to justify parity, it must be very explicit to overturn the suggestion of common * See Form of Government, chap. 14, sect. 12. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 113 sense. The "presumptive argument," then, is clearly with us, and the " burden of proof" lies on parity. We have exceeded the limits to which we intended to confine ourselves — and though there are some other points in the review which we are tempted to notice, we must be content with extracting part of its truly elegant and courteous tribute to the Episcopal Church. " We remember that it was under the Episcopacy that the Church in England took its firm stand against the Papacy ; and that this was its form when Zion rose to light and splendor from the dark night of ages. We remember Cranmer, — Cranmer first, in many respects, among the reformers ; that it was by his steady and unerring hand, that, under God, the pure Church of the Saviour was conducted through the agitating and distressing times of Henry VIII. We remember that God watched over that wonderful man ; that he gave this distinguished prelate access to the heart of one of the most capricious, cruel, inexora- ble, blood-thirsty, and licei^tious monarchs that has disgraced the world ; that God, for the sake of Cranmer, and his Church, conducted Henry, as ' by a hook in the nose,' and made him faithful to the Archbishop of Canterbury, when faithful to none else." " She [the Episcopal Church] is consolidated ; well mar- shalled; under an efficient system of lawsj and pre-eminently fitted for powerful action in the field of Christian warfare. We desire to see her what the Macedonian phalanx was in the ancient army ; with her dense, solid organization, with her unity of move.ment, with her power of maintaining the position which she takes; and with her eminent ability to advance the cause of sacred learning, and the love of order and of law, attending or leading all other churches in the conquests of redemption in an alienated world. We should even rejoice to see her who was first in the field, at the Reformation in England, first, also, in the field, when the Son of God shall come to take lo himself his great power," &c. A truly splendid eulogium on our Church, — and one which does credit to the candor, the benevolence, the superiority to prejudice, of the elevated mind that conceived it. and the honorable frankness which gave it public utterance. With the feelings of such a heart as that of the author of these paragraphs, we have, we can have, no controversy whatever — we rather desire to copy them more perfectly ourselves, and be taught more of the grand duty of love by an opponent who so nobly and so delightfully exemplifies it. We v/ould only ask — If Episcopacy is to be found the "first" in the Church, at the second advent of the Son of Man, is it probable that he left no Episcopacy in the Church, when his first advent terminated. H. U. O. 10* ESSAY, On the QdestioNj — When did Paul place Timothy over the Church at Ephesus 7 The date of this event is of some interest to those who examine the controversy between Episcopacy and parity. It is very far, however, from being essential to the Episcopal cause, as a few remarks will show. Parity alleges, — such at least is its usual and most advantageous view of the case, — that Timothy was placed at Ephesus before there were any clergy there, and that his functions were to ordain a supply of them, and settle the new church. To this Episcopacy replies, that, even granting there were no clergy there at the date assumed, it is evident, from the epistles to Timothy, that he individually had supreme power, both in governing and ordain ng, and that there is no evidence that this anipreme power of that in- dividual chief officer passed afterward to the body of clergy, or was in any respect modified or restricted j and that besides this want of evidence that parity took the place of this arrange- ment equivalent to Episcopacy, the second epistle affords positive proof that it did not, since in that epistle, when there certainly were clergy at Ephesus, Timothy is still addressed individually, and as the head of its church. Episcopacy further declares, that it is not to be taken for granted that there were no clergy at Ephesus, at even the earliest date of Timothy's being placed there by St. Paul ; and moreover, that the proper date of this event is later, when there were at that place the elders addressed by Paul, (in Acts xx.,) with others to keep up or increase their number. And an irrefutable argument for Episcopacy is drawn from comparing that address to the Ephesian elders, which con- tains not a hint of their right to ordain and exercise clerical dis- cipline, with the epistles to Timothy individually, as connected with the same church, which recognise those rights as existing in him in all fulness and perfection. It will thus be seen, that the question concerning the proper date of the placing of Timothy at Ephesus, though not vital in this controversy, is yet one of much interest. Three dates of this event have been suggested, and, as far as the present writer's information extends, three only. St. Paul writes, "I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia," (1 Tim. i. 3;) of course the date to be assigned must be consistent with some journey of that apostle into Mace- donia. Of Paul's journeys into that region, after the founding of a church at EJphesus, there were three. The first was after a riot had driven him from that city.* The second was soon after, ♦ Acts XX. 1. This journey had been intended by Paul, (1 Cor. xvi. 5, 6,) but the riot hastened his departure. ( 114) TIMOTHY AT EPHE3DS. 115 when having been in Greece, he returned to Syria circuitously, through Macedonia, on account of the machinations of the Jews, (Acts XX. 3.) The third was still later, after his first imprison- inent in Rome, when he again visited the eastern churches, as will be shown under the proper head of this essay. We shall borrow a portion of the following remarks from Macknight's preface to the First Epistle to Timothy, and from several pieces entitled " Timothy at Ephesus," in the Church Register, for March and April, 1827. 1. Presbyterian controvertists generally, as also many other writers of high authority, favor the opinion, that Paul placed Timothy at Ephesus when he fled from that city, and went into Macedonia, after the riot mentioned in •Acts xix. 23-41. And they allege, in behalf of parity, that there were then no clergy in the Ephesian church, and that Timothy was to ordain a sup- ply of them, in his supposed temporary relation to that church as an evangelist. As to Timothy's having had supreme power in Ephesus, or any where else, merely as an evangelist, a full refutation of that opinion will be found in the postscript to " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," contained in the Protestant Episcopalian for Decem- ber, 1830 ; that essay is now circulating as a tract. As to there having been no clergy in Ephesus when Paul fled thence, after the " uproar," into Macedonia, it is an assertion infinitely improbable. He had now been there " three years." He had previously made a short stay in that city ; after which, Apollos " taught diligently there the things of the Lord," having Aquila and Priscilla to help him, and so advanced the great cause, that some were called " the brethren." (Acts xviii. 19:-28.) When Paul reached them again, some who had received only John's Iraptism, were baptized in the name of Jesus, with a will- ingness which showed that Christianity had taken root among them, (Acts xix. 1-5.) After three months, Paul " separated the disciples" from the synagogue, ( Acts xix. 9 :) and when Jewish con- verts would bear any thing like such a separation, they certainly were past the most difficult part of their noviciate, and some of them either were, or could soon be, prepared for the ministry. Shall we believe, then, that Paul would leave this Christian church, now fully severed from the synagogue, for two years, or nearly three, without providing It ministers, when he knew the dangers to which he was constantly exposed ? Shall we believe that, when " the word of God had mightily grown and prevailed" in that city, he would send away Timothy and Eras- tus, (Acts xix. 22.) without having ordained others, or else doing it without delay? The supposition Is not credible. Nor is it countenanced by other parts of the holy record : for that apostle and Barnabas had ordained elders, in other Asiatic cities. In much less than two years, (Acts xlv. 23.) Long before Paul fled from Ephesus, clergymen must have been appointed for that church; it not, he made less provision for the numerous converts in that 116 TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. most important city, than was made for fewer converts in cities less important ; which is a supposition infinitely improbable. As to there having been no clergy in Ephesus when Timothy was placed there, be the date of that occurrence early or late, we know to the contrary. St. Paul writes to him that he was placed there, " that he might charge some that they teach no other doctrine," (ITim. i. 3;) which implies that there were already teachers in that church, " some" of whom inculcated error. It follows, that many authorized teachers, or ordained clergymen, were in Ephesus when Timothy was directed to as- sume the superintendence of that body of Christians. As then these clergymen required such a superintendent among them, both to govern them, and to ordain others, it is rightly concluded that they had not within themselves the power of either ordina- tion or clerical discipline. And this destroys the claim of parity, and establishes that of Episcopacy. In this view, it may seem unnecessary to discuss the question, When was Timothy placed at Ephesus as the chief officer of its church ? But, as any one truth strengthens any other related to it, this point will now be considered. We assert that Timothy was not placed over the church at Ephesus when Paul fled thence to Macedonia, after the riot. Here let the point of the argument be distinctly noticed. Paul says, " I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia." Of course Timothy must have been there, or had his residence there at the time of this request, or else been so connected with that church as that it was his ecclesiastical home ; and his residence or ecclesiastical home was also to be therefor a considerable period afterward, or rather permanently, since there is no hint any where in Scripture, that his functions in Ephesus, when placed over that church, would at any time cease. Now, Timothy was 7iot at Ephesus when Paul fled, after the riot, into Macedonia. He and Erastus had been sent away some time previously to Macedonia, and Timothy also to Corinth, (Acts xix. 22 ; 1 Cor. iv. 17 ; xvi. 10 ;) and there is no evidence that he returned before the Apostle fled from Ephesus.* Nay, there is evidence of the contrary, as will readily appear. Thus: Paul wrote the first epistle to the Corinthians from Ephesus, and in it Timothy is spoken of as then on his mission [to Mace- donia first, and then] to Corinth ; he probably took this epistle, (1 Cor. iv. 17; xvi. 8, 10.) The second epistle was written after the riot and Paul's flight, which are there mentioned, (2 Cor. i. 8-10.) In the first epistle, several abuses among the Corinth- ians are censured ; and Paul would have heard from Timothy whether his censures were effectual, had he returned to the * St. Paul expected Timothy to "come unto him" from Corinth, but where, does not appear ; it may have been in Macedonia, as probably as in Ephesus. (I Cor. xvi. 5, 8, 10, 11.) TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. 117 Apostle while yet at Ephesus ; instead of which lie obtains the first Intelligence, not from Timothy, but from Titus, after reach- ing Macedonia. (2 Cor. ii. 13 ; vii. 6-16.) Titus, it appears, was returning from Corinth before Timothy, who also left there soon afterward, in time to meet Paul in Macedonia, where the two latter united in the second epistle to the Corinthians. (2 Cor. i. 1.) Let us notice more fully the above particulars. St. Paul flies from Ephesus to Troas, where he hoped to meet Titus, and get the intelligence from the Corinthians that he so much desired, (2 Cor. ii. 12, 13;) and this his looking for Titus only, implies that the Apostle scarcely expected that Timothy, who certainly cannot (without the clearest proof) be supposed to have aban- doned his mission to Corinth, had yet left the latter place; and this, obviously, further implies that he could not, at the date of the "uproar" which drove away Paul, have returned thence to Ephesus. Paul continues his journey from Troas to Macedonia, yet still has no tidings from the Corinthians, till Titus "comes" to him, and "comforts" his "cast down" spirit by the intel- ligence that he had rectified the abuses among those brethren. (2 Cor. vii. 6, &c.) Not once does Paul refer to any news from them, favorable or unfavorable, brought by Timothy. If these facts do not prove, in the absence of all intimations whatever to the contrary, that Timothy had not returned to Ephesus when Paul fled, no confidence can be placed in the strongest circum- stantial evidence. And if Timothy was not there, when Paul then " went into Macedonia," it could not be said that Paul then " besought him to cbide there still." In other words, it was not on the occasion of this departure of the Apostle for Macedonia that Timothy was placed over the church at Ephesus, Neither was Timothy so connected with Ephesus at that time, as to make it his ecclesiastical home ; for his principal duties were just now in Macedonia and Corinth; and even previously, his clerical connexion had rather been with Paul than the Ephe- sians. (Acts xix. 22.) Nor was he at Ephesus .for some time after; for he was with Paul awhile in Macedonia, when he join- ed in the second epistle to the Corinthians, and still with him in Greece, from a port of which region he and others sailed to rejoin that apostle at Troas; (Acts xx. 1-5;) and as Paul, in thus prosecuting his voyage to Jerusalem, did not go to Ephe- sus, (Acts XX. 16, 17,) and said nothing to the elders of that church whom he met at Miletus, of Timothy's being then left among them, we conclude with commentators in general, that the latter did not then tarry there, but went onward to Jerusa- lem with the great Apostle. 2. 'I'he next opinion is, tliat Timothy was placed over the Ephesian. church at a period some months later than the riot, when Paul, being prevented by the Jews from sailing directly from Greece to Syria, (as we have just seen.) went circuitously thither through Macedonia. (Acts xx. 3, 6.) We have shown, however, that Timothy was not in Ephesus at this time, nor so 118 TIMOTHY AT EPHE8US. specially connected with it as to make it his ecclesiastical home ; of course Paul could not with propriety say to him, "I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus." For this reason, we cannot allow this journey of Paul into Macedonia to have been the date of Timothy's being placed over the Ephesian church. Another argument of great force precludes the supposition that Timothy was placed there at any time before Paul deliver- ed his address to the clergy of that city, as stated in Acts xx. ; and this argument applies to both the present theory of the date in question, and the one we have before noticed. In that address Paul speaks of the errors and raisleadings of false teach- ers, as yet future ; he makes no complaint of them as t?ien existing in Ephesus; but says ihey "shall arise," and "shall enter m." (Acts xx. 29, 30.) But, in the first epistle to Timothy, he desires him to "charge some to teach no other doctrine," intimating that the false teachers had, at the date of that epistle, begun their mischievous proceedings; he enumerates as errors then existing there, fables, endless genealogies, swerving from charity and faith to vain jangling, questions and strifes of words, perverse disputings, profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called ; he also names Hymeneus and Alexander, whose doctrines had been so hurtful, that he had " delivered them unto Satan." (1 Tim. i. 3-6; vi. 4, 5, 20 ; i. 20.) Now, besides that it is wholly improbable that all these evils could have befallen the Ephesian church in the few months that elapsed between Paul's flight and his address to their elders, it is impossible that so much false teaching could have existed there at the very time he told the elders that the false teachers were yet to spring up. It follows unavoidably that the station- ing of Timothy there was subsequent to the address of St. Paul to the elders in Acts xx., and indeed that there must have been an interval of some duration, to allow so extensive a develop- ment of error and delusion among the Ephesian clergy. And hence, we again assert, that as both Paul's flight into Macedonia, and his going thiiher again from Greece, were previous to the address referred to, neither of those dates can be allowed for the placing of Timothy at Ephesus. To the present writer, this argument appears to have the force of demonstration. It is to be observed, however, that if this second date could be atlowed, there would be a remarkable proof of Episcopacy in the fact, that the first epistle to Timothy and the address to the elders would both have issued from the great Apostle at the same period, the one assigning Episcopal duties to Timothy, the other enjoining only pastoral duties on the elders. The Apostle would thus have deVivered^ simultaneously the records of the functions of each, showing that the one was superior, and the others inferior in the sacred oifice. But as the evidence is against the supposition that these two charges were delivered at the same time, this striking view of that proof of Episcopacy cannot be maintained. The substance, however, of that proof TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. 119 is fully ours; no ingenuity can impair the scriptuial demonstra- tion of Episcopacy founded on the comparison of the address to the elders as pastors, with the epistles to Timothy as supreme officer or bishop. 3. A third date for the connexion of Timothy with the Ephe- sian church has been mentioned, and this now claims our atten- tion. We assert that Timothy was in Ephesus some years after the above two dates, and that Paul liicewise " went" (or " was going," as the word may be translated,) into Macedonia after the two journeys thither already referred to. After that apos- tle's first imprisonment in Rome, is the date we assign as the only one that can be defended. We find it plainly recorded, that both he and Timothy were again at that later period in these eastern parts, though it is not mentioned in the Acts, as that book ends with Paul's first detention in the imperial city. The reader will see in the following proofs that Timothy was certainly in Ephesus, and that Paul probably " went," and cer- tainly " was going" into Macedonia after that apostle was first in Rome. Timothy was with him, be it recollected, in the latter city. (Phil. i. 1, 13.) We shall first adduce the evidence of their intention to go eastward from Rome, and then the evidence that they did so, first as regards St. Paul, and then as regards Timothy. Paul intended to visit Philippi in Macedonia after leaving Rome. He wrote to the Philippians when he was in that city, where his "bonds in Christ were manifest in all the palace," or " Caesar's court," as in the margin. He assures the church in Philippi, that he " trusted in the Lord that he would come shortly" to them ; nay, he writes more strongly, " I know that I shall abide and continue with you all . . . that your rejoicing may be more abundant ... by my coming to you again ;" he seems even to intimate the possibility of frequent visits, " That whether I come and see you, or else be absent." (Phil. i. 13 ; ii. 24; i. 25-27.) This is evidence suflicient that Paul designed going into Macedonia when he should leave Rome. Paul intended to visit Philemon after his release from Rome, and even ordered a " lodging" to be prepared for him in Colossej where Philemon resided.* Colosse was in Phrygia, in Asia Minor, and sufficiently near Ephesus. Of course, it was Paul's inten- tion to visit the countries on that side the ^gean Sea, and in the neighborhood of Ephesus, after leaving Rome ; for the epistle to Philemon was written while Paul was yet a prisoner in that city. (See. v. 10.) Paul intended to visit the Hebrews after his release at Rome. He wrote the epistle to them from Italy, and says expressly, " I will see you," (Heb. xiii. 19, 23, 24.) The Hebrews were either ♦ Philem. 22. The proof that Philemon resided in Colosse will be seen by com- paring Philem. 2, with Col. iv. 17; in both which passages Archippus is named as a minister living at the place to which both epistles were sent; both being sent at tlie same time by Onesimus. (CoL iv. 9 ; Philem. 12.) 120 TIMOTHY AT EPIIESCS. the Jewish converts in Judea, or the Jewish converts at lal'ge. If those in Judea are meant, he promised to proceed to that country after leaving Italy. If those at large are meant, we are secure in saying there were vastly more of them east of Italy, than in any other direction; and, in this view, he promised to visit, after his release, the eastern countries of the Mediterranean ; and there were so many new churches, including Jewish con- verts, on both sides of the iEgean Sea, that we may justly regard his promised voyage as including them : among these churches, those at Ephesus and Philippi (in Macedonia) Vvcre conspicuous. Paul did visit Miletum or Miletus, after his release at Rome; he writes to Timothy that he had left Trophimus sick at that place. (2 Tim. iv. 20.) There was a Miletus near Ephesus, where Paul met the elders, and another in Crete. (See Calmet. Acts XX. 17.) If the former be here meant, then Paul, after leav- ing Rome, was in tlie very neigliborhood of Ephesus. But as, at the date of this second epistle, Timothy was himself in Ephesus, and Paul now again in Rome, he would not probably write to him respecting Trophimus if he were in that Miletus, so near Timothy's residence; and it therefore is more justly presumed that the Miletum in Crete was the place where Trophimus was left sick. If this latter was the Miletum intended, then Paul was again in Crete after his first imprisonment, for the date of this second epistle to Timothy, is his second imprisonment :* and if in Crete, he was among the eastern churches, and sufS- ciently near the iEgean Sea to visit its coasts, including Ephesus and Macedonia ; the latter visit he had almost positively promised the Philippians, as was shown in a former paragraph. Paul did visit Corinth after leaving Rome. Besides mention- ing to Timoth}', as above stated, tiiat he had left Trophimus at Miletum, he also says, in the same verse, " Erastus abode at Corinth." He could not mean that he had remained there ever since his mission to that city, six or seven years before, for Timothy had been often with Paul since that time, and would have been fully informed that Erastus had continued thus sta- tionary. No ; Paul connects the tarrying of Erastus at Corinth with his leaving Trophimus at Miletum, meaning that the two incidents had occurred at the same period, and recently. Hence Doddridge remarks, "It seems by this clause tiiat [Erastus] was in Paul's company when he parted with Timothy, as it is likely Trophimus also was. And, as none can suppose Paul would have mentioned these things to Timothy in this connexion, if they had happened many years before, (Acts xix. 22,) I look * 2 Tim. i. 8, Ig, 17; ii. ; ir. 6, 16. Paul had been in Crete on his first voyage to Rome as a prisoner. (Acts xxvii. 8.) But tliis was long before the date of this epistle; and the siclciiess of Trophlmns is mentioned as a recent occurrence. Be- sides, Timothy liad been with Paul in Rome since that landing in Crete, and would know of this sickness, had it tlion occurred, without any allusion to it in the epistle. Of course, Trophimus was left at Miletum afterward, i. e. subsequently to Paul's dischai'ge from his first imprisonment in Rome ; Paul l)eingthen again in Crete. TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. 121 upon this as a very material argument fo prove that he returned into these eastern parts, between his first and second imprison- ment at Rome ; though probably, if he ever saw Ephesus again, most of the ministers of that and the neighboring places, with whom he had the celebrated interview at Miletus, mentioned Acts XX., were either dead or removed." Paul did visit eastern parts after his first imprisonment at Rome. In Tit. iii. 12, we read that he had determined to spend a winter at Nicopolis. There were several cities of this name ; in Macedonia, in one or more of the neighboring provinces, and in Pontus in Asia Minor; it matters not, at present, which of them is here meant. When then was Paul in Nicopolis, or so near it as to " determine there to winter?" it was after leaving Titus in Crete. (Tit. i. 5.) Now, the first we know of Paul's being in Crete, was his landing there, when on his voyage to Rome ; then, however, he was a prisoner, and could have had no expectation of wintering in Nicopolis. It must, therefore, have been after his release at Rome, that he left Titus in Crete, having been again in that island. And subsequently to this, he was in or near the Nicopolis which he selected for his winter residence. This brings back that apostle from Rome to either Macedonia or Asia Minor ; and he doubtless revisited both these regions. Paul did visit Troas after his first imprisonment in Rome. He desired Timothy to bring thence his cloak, books and parch- ments. (2 Tim. iv. 13.) That he left them there after his first visit to Rome, is exceedingly probable ; for the last time he was at Troas before being a prisoner, was in A. D. 60; and we cannot suppose he would leave these things there till A. D. 66, when he wrote to Timothy to bring them ; we know that, while a prisoner, both in Cacsarea and Rome, he could send and receive mes- sengers freely. (Acts xxiv. 23 ; Phil. ii. 25; iv. 18; Eph. vi. 21 ; Col. iv. 7, 9, 10.) If to this probability we add the evidence already adduced, that Paul returned from Rome to the east, it will appear indisputable that he was at that period in Troas, and left there the things mentioned. Troas was near Macedonia, and on the same coast with Ephesus. Let us now recapitulate the evidence of Paul's return eastward from Rome. His intention was to visit Philippi, Colosse, the Hebrews. He actually was at Miletum, at Corinth, at or near Nicopolis, at Troas. All this we prove from Scripture. Who can doubt then that he was on the shores of the iEgean Sea, after his release from the tribunal of Caesar, when brought before it the first time ? Or, who will say that our evidence is insufficient, when we assert, that, as the first two dates assigned for his placing Timothy at Ephesus are indefensible, it must have been now, in these later voyages, that he committed that church to this his favorite son in the faith, and went on himself to Mace- donia? But we shall strengthen this body of argument by showing that Timothy also returned to the east, after being with Paul in Rome. 11 122 TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. Paul intended to send Timothy to Philippi, when he should be free to depart from Rome — " I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you ;" " him, therefore, I hope to send presently, so soon as I shall see how it will go with me." (Phil, ii. 19, 23.) Paul intended that Timothy should accompany him to the Hebrews — " Our brother Timothy is set at liberty, with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you." (Heb. xiii. 23.) From this passage it appears that Timothy had also been a prisoner in Rome, but was now released. At the moment of Paul's writing Timothy had, for a short time, left him ; according to Grotius, this excursion was into Gaul, but he was soon expected back to accompany Paul on his eastern voyage. Timothy actually was among the eastern churches, after leav- ing Rome. While in Rome, Paul writes to the Colossians con- cerning JVIarcus or Mark, — " If he come unto you, receive him :" (Col. iv. 10 :) which shows that Mark was expected lo go to Colosse. In the second epistle to Timothy, written after Paul's first, and during his second imprisonment, he writes—" Take Mark, and bring him with thee" to Rome. (2 Tim. iv. 11.) Mark, therefore, had gone to Colosse ; and Timothy was now again so near that place, that Paul desired the latter to summon the former, or " take" him on his way, to rejoin himself, again in bonds in Rome. Timothy actually was, after leaving Rome, so near Troas, on the iEgean coast, that Paul, in the second epistle to him, desired him to stop there for his cloak, books, and parchments, or else to obtain them from that place, and bring them with him to Rome, where the great Apostle was now again imprisoned. (2 Tim. iv. 13.) This, be it remarked, is positive evidence, depending in no degree on construction. And it renders it infallibly certain that Timothy was in the regions not far from Ephesus at this late period, the second epistle to him being of the date of A. D. 60. With such a positive basis, conjecture uses but moderate license in adding, that Timothy was in Ephesus itself, when this epistle was addressed to him. Timothy actually was, we now further assert, in Ephesus itself after being Paul's companion in his first imprisonment at Rome. The second epistle to him, written after that period, is still our authority. 1, Paul, as was not unusual with him, names the messenger by whom he sent this epistle, and says that he had despatched him to Ephesus — " Tychjcus have I sent to Ephesus." (2 Tim. iv. 12; see also Rom. xvi. 1 ; 1 Cor. iv. 17; xvi. 10; 2 Cor. viii. 16, 18 ; Eph. vi. 21 ; Phil. ii. 25 ; Col. iv. 7, 9 ; Philem. 12; also 1 Pet. v. 12.) 2, Paul, in this second epistle, desires Timothy to salute the family of Onesiphorus ; and this excellent person's ; residence was in Ephesus. (2 Tim. iv. 19 : comp. do. i. 16-18.) 3. In the first epistle, when Timothy was confessedly at Ephesus, Paul mentions Hymeneus and Alex- ander, as unfaithful ministers of that church ; in the second, TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. 123 epistle he again names the same persons to Timothy, (1 Tim. i. 20; 2 Tim. ii. 17 ; iv. 14 ; see also Acts xix. 33,) which implies that the latter was then also in that city. 4. Against this Alexander, a resident of Ephesus, though just then in Rome, opposing virulently the persecuted Paul, that apostle specially cautions Timothy, (2 Tim. iv. 14, 15,) which Implies that Tim- othy was even to continue in Ephesus after Alexander should return thither. Timothy actually was with Paul in these eastern parts, after their release at Rome. The language, "Erastus abode at Corinth, but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick," implies that the whole four had recently been companions somewhere in those regions, as is allowed by Doddridge in the extract already given. We may here put together some of the incidents now proTed, so as to throw much light on the proper date of the placing of Timothy at Ephesus. Paul and Timothy, with probably others, return from Rome to the eastern churches, visiting excursively among them, including Crete, where Titus was " left," and not forgetting Philippi. Erastus and Trophimus are then in com- pany with them on the shores of Asia Minor. They are in or near Ephesus. Paul desires Timothy to remain there as the head of that church, and proceeds without him through Troas to Macedonia, spending a winter at Nicopolis, in that province, or in Epirus. From Macedonia or Nicopolis, he goes on to Corinth, where Erastus remains, that city being his home. (Rom. xvi.) Thence he sails to Crete, where he leaves Trophi- mus sick at Miletus. And after that he is again at Rome, and again a prisoner, when he writes the second epistle to Timothy. Let the candid reader examine what has been offered under this third head, and determine whether this specification of some of the later travels of Paul, is not supported by sufficient scriptural evidence, and whether we have not here assigned the true date of the connexion of Timothy with the Ephesian church, as its ecclesiastical superior. Before proceeding, we ask the reader's further attention to another and interesting proof that Timothy went eastward, and to Ephesus, after he and Paul were at Rome, and that ihe first epistle to him was also written at this late date. We have seen that Timothy was imprisoned at Rome, and " set at liberty."* An allusion to his trial on this occasion, is found in ♦ Heb. xiii. 23. Some translate this expression " sent away," tlius denying that Timothy had been a prisoner ; but we can find nothing to outweigh the rendering of our translators, "set at liberty ;" with which also agree Beza, Hammond, Calmet, Doddridge, and many others. Why does Paul say to the Philippians, " I trust in tlie Lord Jesus, to send Timotheus shortly unto youl" (Phil. ii. 19.) He sent Epaphroditus, but Timothy he only trusis or hopes to send, using the same laiv guage as in regard to leaving Rome himself, " I trust in the Lord, that I myself shall come shortly." This mode of speaking confirms the opinion that Timothy was, like the Apostle, a prisoner in Rome at that period. Epaphras, another conj- panion of Paul, was also a prisoner with him at Rome. (Seo Philem. 23.) Sa like- 124 TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. the first epistle, (vi. 12,) " and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses." The words " professed a good profes- sion," may with equal propriety read " confessed a good confes- sion,^'' and TTiv Ka\rtv oiio^oyiav is SO translated in the next verse, concerning Christ. Such language at once presents the idea that Timothy was a confessor, a term afterward applied to those Christians who were tried or severely dealt with by their persecutors, but escaped with life; the name martyr being appropriated to those who suffered death in the cause of their religion. In this view of Timothy's suflferings we see the con- nexion between this verse and the next, viz. Timothy confessed a good confession before many witnesses, as the Saviour wit- nessed a good confession before Pilate. This confession of Timothy was of course connected with his imprisonment at Rome, (or in Italy,) for we nowhere read of his being in prison, or suffering peculiar persecution, or any persecution in which he was so prominent as to be a conspicuous confessor, in any other place.* This explanation of the passage before us will, we thinic, bear investigation. And the result is, that Timothy had been in Rome with Paul, and had returned to the east, before he was placed over the church at Ephesus, and before the first epistle was written to him. To the late date thus given to the first epistle to Timothy, and his being stationed in Ephesus to govern its church, " there are three plausible objections, (says Macknight,) which must not be overlooked. " 1. It is thought that if this epistle was written after the Apostle's release, he could not, with any propriety, have said to wise was Aristarchus. (See Col. iv. 10.) And these cases of the imprisonment of Paul's friends at that time, showing that such occurrences then took place, appear to us to settle the translation of the passage respecting Timothy, that he had been " set at liberty" from prison or arrest. • Commentators differ concerning the " profession" or " confession" of Timothy 5 some making it a baptismal profession ; some, a profession when he was ordained ; some, a profession throughout his ministry,, in the midst of opposition. None of these interpretations, however, agree with the comparing of Timothy's confession to that of Christ, in the next verse. Hence, other authors refer it to some Ephesian persecution of Timothy ; but of this, though much is recorded of Ephesian affairs, (Acts lix.) there is no evidence whatever. Aretius urges that it was a confession before heathen judges, in bonds, and with peril of life, " because the Apostle terms it Ka\y}v, a ' good' confession, that is, conspicuously excellent or illustrious, (specio- sam,) and attended with danger ; moreover, because he adds that this confession was made before many witnesses, that is, with intrepidity, all danger of life being dis- regarded." This author notices, likewise, that such were afterward cedled "con- fessore," and were next in estimation to martyrs. He assigns not the time or place of this "confession" of Timothy ; but, as the only time we hear of his being under restraint was when he was in Rome (Italy) with Paul, the evidence, all that we liave, favors our assertion that it was then and there that Timothy acquired the honor of ranking with "confessors." Calmet agrees that Timothy was a "con- fee«or" at the hazard of his life. Hammond regards the "confession" as a "great persecution for the faith of Christ." We may add, that the margin, being one of much excellence, of a Scotch edition of the Bible, refers from each of the passages, now under notice, to the other — from the " good confession" to the " set at liberty," and vice versa. 1 Tim. vi. 12 ; Heb. xiii. 23. TLMOTHY AT EPHESU3. 125 Timothy iv. 12, " Let no man despise thy youth?^ But it is re- plied, that Servius Tullius, in classing the Roman people, as Aulus Geilius relates, (1. x. c. 28,) divided their age into three periods. Childhood^ he limited to the age of seventeen : youth, from that to forty-six: and old age, from forty-six to the end of life. Now, supposing Timothy to have been 18 years old, A. D. 50, when he became Paul's assistant, he would be no more than 32, A. D. 64, two years after the Apostle's release, when it is sup- posed this epistle was written.* Wherefore, being then in the period of life which, by the Greeks as well as the Romans, was considered as youth, the Apostle with propriety might say to him, 'Let no man despise thy youth.' " 2. It is asked, What occasion was there, in an epistle written after the Apostle's release, to give Timothy directions concerning the ordination of bishops and deacons in a church where there were so many elders already ? (Acts xx. 17.) The answer is, the elders in the year 58 may have been too few for the church at Ephesus, in her increased state, in the year 65. Besides, false teachers had then entered, to oppose whom more bishops and deacons might be needed than w^ere necessary in the year 5^. Not to mention that some of the first elders having died, others were wanted to supply their places." [The reader will observe that this argument of Dr. Macknight's implies that elders or presbyter-bishops were not allowed to ordain ; for if they had had that power, those already in Ephesus could have ordained as many as the growing church required : nor would Timothy's staying there to ordain have secured a majority of sound minis- ters ; for the unsound elders, if they could have ordained, might have added to their numbers as fast as they pleased, and so have defeated this object. Dr. Macknight was an eminent Presbyte- rian divine.] " 3. Because the Apostle wrote to Timothy that he ' hoped to come to him soon,' (1 Tim. iii. 14,) it is argued, that the letter in which this is said, must have been written before he said to the Ephesian elders, (Acts xx. 25,) ' I know that all ye, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.' But, as it was no point of either faith or practice which he spake, he may well be supposed to have declared nothing but his own opinion, resulting from his fears. He had lately escaped the rage of the Jews, who laid wait for him in Cenchrea, to kill him. (Acts xx. 3.) This, with their fury on former occasions, [see also Acts xx. 22, 23, 24,] filled him with such anxiety, that in writing to the Romans from Corinth, he * Dr. Macknight's chronology differs from that of Bishop Lloyd, the one usually adopted, in that the former calculates the " fourteen years after," (Gat. ii. 1,) from the conversion of Paul, instead of his first visit to Jerusalem, three years later, (GaL i. 18.) According to Bishop Lloyd, Timothy became Paul's assistant, A. D. 53^ (Acts xvi. 3,) and the first epistle to him was written, A. D. 65. If Timothy was 18 years old at the first date, he was 30 at the second ; or if 21 at the first, he was 33 at the second. This latter age is but youth, in most men. 11* 126 TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. requested them to 'strive together with him in their prayers, that he might be delivered from the unbelieving in Judea.' (Rom. XV. 30, 31.) Further, that in his speech to the Ephesian elders, the Apostle only declared his own persuasion, dictated by his fears, and not any suggestion of the Spirit, I think plain from what he had said immediately before — ' Behold, I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things which shall befall me there ; save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying, that bonds and afflictions abide me.' Wherefore, al- though his fears were happily disappointed, and he actually- visited the Ephesians after his release, his character as an in- spired apostle is not hurt in the least, if, in saying ' he knew they should see his face no more,' he declared, as I have said, his own persuasion only, and no dictate of the Holy Ghost." Macknighty iv. p. 160. In regard to this latter objection, that Paul was to see the elders of Ephesus no more, it is further to be remarked that he may have never seen them again, or have been in Ephesus itself, although he visited other eastern churches, and other parts of tlje ^gean coasts. He may, when he " was going into Mace- donia," have been in a vessel which but touched at Ephesus; and so have left Timothy there, while he continued his voyage. Or, Timothy may, at that time, have been at Ephesus, and re- joined him in those parts, when Paul requested him to " abide" there "still.'* Or, without Timothy's thus rejoining him, Paul may have despatched a messenger or a letter to him, beseeching him to continue in that city ; the first epistle being afterward sent, as his full credentials in his high office. That Paul and Timothy revisited those regions after being in Rome, has, we think, been abundantly shown ; and either of the above suppo- sitions, each of them being perfectly natural, will meet the objection that Paul was to see the Ephesian elders no more. Doddridge, on this passage, observes — " I conclude that the Apostle had received some particular revelation, that, if he should ever return to these parts of Asia again, (as from IPhilem. 22, I think it probable he might,) yet that he should not have an op- portunity of calling at Ephesus, or of seeing the ministers whom he now addressed." As on the one hand there is good authority for interpreting the above declaration of Paul, (that he knew he would see those elders no more,) as being the mere suggestion of his apprehen- sions, (see Macknight, Hammond, Poole's Synopsis and Poole's Annot.) it is perfectly fair to suppose that both he and Timothy were now again in Ephesus, when he besought him to abide there as the head of its church. But if it be alleged, on the other hand, that this impression of Paul was prophetic and inspired, it is sufficient to say that be met Timothy or sent him a message, while somewhere near Ephesus, on his way to Macedonia, when, at the late period mentioned, he made this request of him. TIMOTHY AT EPHESUS. 127 We shall add one more valuable extract from Macknight. (IV. 157.) "When the Apostle wrote his first epistle to Timothy, 'he hoped to come to him soon.^ (iii. 14.) But from the history of the Acts, it is certain that in no letter written to Timothy after the riot, till his first confinement in Rome, could the Apostle say that he hoped to ' come to him soon.' He could not say so in any letter written from Troas, the first place he stopped at after leaving Ephesus : for at that time he was going into Macedonia and Achaia to receive the collections [for the poor brethren in Jerusalem] from the churches in these provinces. [Acts XX. 1 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 3, 4, 5.] Neither could he say so after writing his second to the Corinthians, from Macedonia: for in that epistle he told the Corinthians he was coming to them with the Macedonian brethren, who were commissioned to attend him in his voyage to Jerusalem with the collections, (2 Cor. xi. 4,) and that he meant to sail directly from Corinth to Judea. (2 Cor. i. 16.) [See also Rom. xv. 25, 26, written at Corinth.] As little could he write to Timothy, that he ' hoped to come to him soon,' when he altered his resolution on occasion of the lying in wait of the Jews, and returned into Macedonia; (Acts XX. 3 :) for he was then in such haste to be at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, that when he came to Miletus, instead of going to Ephesus, he sent for the elders of that church to come to him. (Acts xx. 16, 17.) When he arrived in Judea he could not write that he ' hoped to come to Ephesus soon :' for h^ was imprisoned a few days after he went up to Jerusalem. And having continued two years in prison at Caesarea, he was sent bound to Rome, where likewise being confined, he could not, till toward the conclusion of that confinement, write to Timothy that he ' hoped to come to him soon.' And even then he did not write his first epistle to Timothy : for Timothy was with him at the conclusion of his confinement. (Philip, ii. 19-23.)" * We feel confident that no ingenuity can overturn the mass of argument now adduced. And we therefore do not hesitate to answer finally the question, When did Paul place Timothy over the church at Ephesus? He did so when they both were among the eastern churches after his first imprisonment in Rome, and not before, the date being A. D. 65, according to Bishop Lloyd's chronology.* At that time there was a body of clergy in Ephesus, for there had been five years or more previously, (Acts xx. 17;) and over these Timothy was placed as the supreme oflicer, soon afterward called a bishop. It matters little indeed in reference to the Episcopal argument whether Timothy found clergy in * Of modern authorities, besides Macknight, — T. ScoU, A, Clarke, Bishop, Tomline, G. Townsend, and T. Hartwell Home, agree that the date of this epistle was after Paul's first imprisomaent in Rome, and about the year we have assigned. 128 TIMOTHY AT EPHESD8. Ephesus, when he took charge of the church with the power of ordaining and governing ; or whether there were none there as yet, and he was to ordain all that were required. In either case he would have the ordaining power, such as the apostles had, and such as presbyters (alone) are nowhere in Scripture said to possess. As, however, the truth is that there were clergy ('* teachers") in Ephesus when Timothy was placed there, we nave deemed it proper in the present article to illustrate and confirm this only sound view of the subject. We again, therefore, desire the reader to compare St. Paul's address to the elders of Ephesus, (Acts xx. 18-35,) with the epistles to Timothy, when afterward placed over them as their bishop. While the elders had no bishop, nothing was hinted of any ordaining or supreme clerical power in Ephesus. When, however, a bishop was afterward resident with them, those powers are fully recognised as existing there in the person of Timothy : he is to " lay on hands ;" he is to '• receive accusations against elders ;" he is to " charge them to teach no false doc- trine j" " this charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy." The elders are never once mentioned as having these rights, or as sharing them. If our opponents say that he superseded the elders for a time, we first ask the proof that the latter had such powers before he came among them; we next ask the proof that they resumed such powers on his relinquishing that church, if he ever did: but no proof can be found for either of these points. Why should there not be scriptural evidence for Pres- byterian ordination, and that evidence as strong and as clear as for the (so called) evangelical right of ordination existing in Timothy ? How is it, if evangelical ordination (so called) was but temporary, while Presbyterian ordination was to be perma- nent, that the former stands broadly and for ever on record, while the latter has not one particle of proof positive in the New Testament ? The Episcopal solution of these questions is the only sound one. 1. Ordination did not belong to evangelists merely as such, but to ministers of a fixed grade superior to elders or presbyters. 2. Ordination by these superior officers was not to be tempo- rary, but permanent ; and therefore tliis right, as possessed by such officers, of apostolical or Episcopal rank, stands broadly and for ever on record. 3. Ordination by inferior clergymen was never designed by Christ or the Apostles ; and therefore the New Testament affords it not a particle of proof positive. So clear is the Episcopal interpretation and view of these parts of Scripture. And it is worthy of note that the chief officer and the elders of the same church are thus set in contrast. Had indeed the address of Paul been to the elders of Antioch or Philippi, of Pontus or lUyricum, while the epistles were to Timothy in Ephesus, our argument would have been strong enough ; as showing that the office of the latter was superior to that of the TIMOTHY AT EPHE3U3. 120 former. But as both belonged to the one church of Ephesus, we have the stronger argument, that that identical officer Timo- thy, was superior to that identical body of elders, and exercised his powers over the very church to which they belonged. In the full enjoyment of these powers, ordaining and supreme government, and fixed at Ephesus, with the exception of a visit to the venerable Paul when expecting martyrdom, the holy record completes its notice of Timothy, his eminent and most beloved son in the Gospel. The functions of the apostles and of their first Episcopal brethren were sometimes diocesan and sometimes excursive ; a bishop may perform Episcopal duty either way. Timothy appears to have often performed excur- sive Episcopal offices. But, from the tone of the two epistles, from the charge to him to oppose false teachers, while it yet is intimated that false teaching would continue even to the " latter times,"— trom the warning given him respecting Alexan- der when he should return from Rome to Ephesus, — from the admonition to be faithful in his trust "till the appearing of Christ," i. e. till Timothy's own death, — from the intimation that his functions were to continue should Paul " tarry long," and its not being revoked in the second epistle, when he fully expected martyrdom,— from all these considerations, added to Paul's original request that he would remain indefinitely at Ephesus, we conclude, that from the time of that request, and when Scripture takes its leave of him, he was the diocesaa bishop of the church in that city, H. U. O. From the Quarterly Christian SpectatM-. REVIEW. Answer to a Review (in the Quarterly Christian Spectator) of ^^ Episcopacy Tested by Scripture ;'' first published in the Protestant Episcopalian for May, 1834. Philadelphia: Jesper Harding. 1834. pp. 19. When the review of the tract, " Episcopacy Tested by Scrip- ture," was prepared,* it was not our design to engage in a con- troversy on the subject there discussed. We well knew how unprofitable and how endless such a controversy might become; and we felt that we had more important business to engage our attention, than that of endeavoring to defend the external order of the Church. The subject attracted our notice, because, on two different occasions, the tract which was the subject of the review, had been sent to us, in one instance accompanied with a polite request, — evidently from an Episcopalian, — to give to it our particular attention ; because, too, the tract had been pub- lished at the " Episcopal Press," and it was known that it would be extensively circulated; because it had been the subject of no small self-gratulation among the Episcopalians, and had been suffered, notwithstanding the manifest complacency with which they regarded it, to lie unanswered ; but mainly, because it made an appeal at once to the Bible, and professed a willingness that the question should be settled by the authority of the Scriptures alone. This appeared to us to be placing the subject on new ground. The first emotion produced by the title of the tract was one of surprise. We had been so accustomed to regard this controversy as one that was to be settled solely by the authority of the fathers ; we had been so disheartened, and sickened by the unprofitable nature, the interminable duration, and the want of fixed bounds and principles, in that investigation ; we had seen so little reference made to the Bible, on either side of the question, that it excited in us no small degree of surprise to learn, that a bishop of the Episcopal Church should be willing to make a direct, decisive, and unqualified appeal to the New Testament. It was so unusual ; it gave so new a direction to the controversy ; it promised so speedy an issue, and one so little auspicious to the cause which the bishop was engaged in defending, that we were not unwilling to turn aside from our usual engagements, and to examine the proofs adduced in this somewhat novel mode of the Episcopal controversy. ♦ Christian Spectator, vol. vi. (130) REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW, ETC. 131 Shortly after our review was published, an "Answer" to the article appeared in the "Protestant Episcopalian," understood to come from the author of the Tract. With a copy of this, the writer of the review was politely furnished by Dr. Onderdonk. The "Answer" is marked with the same general characteristics as the Tract itself. It evinces, in genera], the same spirit of Christian feeling, and of candid inquiry; the same calm, col- lected, and manly style of argument ; the same familiarity with the subject; and the same habit, — by no means as common as is desirable, — of applying the principles of the inductive philo- sophy to moral subjects. To this general statement, perhaps, should be made a slight exception. A candid observer possibly would discern in the "Answer" some marks of haste, and some indications of disturbed repose,— possibly of a slight sensation in perceiving that the material point of the argument in the Tract, had not been as strongly fortified as was indispensable. As instances of this sensation, we might notice the train of remarks in pp. 8, 9, and especially in the following expressions : "The reasonings throughout his article," (the reviewer's,) "are much the same as those usually brought against Episcopacy; and vvhere they are not the same, they are so much minus the former ground," &c. "No one, for three years, brought these old reasonings against the Tract — no one, till the reviewer fancied he had discovered a weak spot in it, and might, therefore, re- produce some of them with effect." " The present is onty a start in its slumber." And again, on page 15, the author of the reply speaks of the reviewer as one whom he suspects " to be a new comer into this field of controversy," if not with the inten- tion, at least with the appearance, of designing to disparage the force of the arguments which the reviewer had urged. Now, it is unnecessary for us to remind Dr. Onderdonk, that the inquiry is not, whether the arguments are old or new, but whether they are pertinent and valid. Nor is the question, whether one is a " new comer" into this controversy. Arguments may not be the less cogent and unanswerable, for being urged by one who has not before entered the lists ; nor will arguments from the Bible be satisfactorily met by an affirmation that they are urged by one unknown in the field of debate. It may be proper, however, for us to observe, in self-vindication, that the arguments which we urged were drawn from no other book than the Bible. The " Tract" and the New Testament were the only books before us in the preparation of the article. The course of argument sug- gested was that only which was produced by the investigation of the Scriptures. Whether we have fallen into any train of thinking which has been before urged by writers on this sub- ject, we do not even now know, nor are we likely to know; as it is our fixed purpose not to travel out of the record before us, — the inspired account of the matter in the sacred Scriptures. If, however, the arguments which we have urged, be "the same with those which are usually brought against Episcopacy," (p. 8,) 132 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP it furnishes a case of coincidence of results, in investigating the New Testament, which is itself some evidence that the objec- tions to Episcopacy are such as obviously occur to different minds, engaged in independent investigation. When the reply appeared, it became a question with us whether the controversy should be prolonged. A perusal of the "Answer" did not suggest any necessity for departing from our original intention, not to engage in such a controversy. It did not appear to furnish any new argument, which seemed to call for notice, or to invalidate any of the positions defended in the review. Almost the whole of the "Answer" appeared to be simply an expansion of a note in the Tract, (p. 12, note z,) which, when the review was prepared, seemed not to furnish an argu- ment that required particular attention. The fact, too, that the7i the argument was expressed in a note, in small type, and at the bottom of the page, was an indication that it was not of much magnitude in the eye of the author of the Tract himself. Why it is now expanded, so as to constitute the very body and essence of the reply, is to us proof, that the subject, on the Episcopal side, is exhausted. This fact is of such a nature, as to impress the mind strongly with the belief, that henceforth nothing remains to be added, in the effort to "test Episcopacy by Scripture." In departing from our original purpose, it is our wish to reciprocate the kind feeling and candor of the author of the "Tract," and of the "Answer." Truth, not victory, is our object. We have but one wish on this subject. It is, that the principles upon which God designed to establish and govern his holy Church, may be developed and understood. We resume the subject with profound and undiminished respect for the talents, the piety, and the learning of the author of the Tract and Answer; and with a purpose that this shall he final, on our part, unless something new, and vital to the subject, shall be added. In this, as well as in all other things, our desire is, not to write one line, which, dying, — or in heaven, — we would wish to blot. Still, this desire, so deeply cherished, does not forbid a full and free examination of arguments. Our conscientious belief is, that the superiority " in ministerial power and rights," (Tract, p. 15,) claimed by Episcopal bishops, is a superiority known in the Episcopal churches only, and not in the New Testament; and this we purpose to show. In entering upon our examination of the "Answer," we may remark, that the scriptural argument for Episcopacy is now fairly and entirely before the world. On the Episcopal side, nothing material to be said, can remain. The whole argument is in the Tract, and in the Answer. If Episcopacy is not estab- lished in these, we may infer that it is not in tlie Bible. If not in the Bible, it is not " necessarily binding." (Tract, p. 3.) To this EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 133 conclusion, — that the whole of the material part of the scriptural argument is before the world, in these pamphlets, — we are con- ducted by the fact that neither talent, learning, zeal, nor time, have been wanting, in order to present it ; that their author en- tered on the discussion, manifestly acquainted with all that was to be said ; that the subject has now been before the public more than four years j (see advertisement to the Tract;) and that, during that time, it is to be presumed, if there had been any more material statements to be presented from the Bible, they would have appeared in the " Answer." There is much advantage in examining an argument, with the conviction, that nothing more remains to be said ; and that we may, therefore, contemplate it as an unbroken and unimproveable whole, without the possibility of any addition to the number of the arguments, or increase of their strength. On this vantage-ground we now stand, to con- template the argument in support of the stupendous fabric of Episcopacy in the Christian Church. In entering upon this examination, we are struck with — what we had indeed anticipated, — a very strong inclination, on the part of the author of the Tract, to appeal again to certain " ex- traneous" authorities, of which we heard nothing in the Tract itself, except to disclaim them. The Tract commenced with the bold and startling announcement, that if Episcopacy has not the authority of Scripture, it is not " necessarily binding." p. 3. *' No argument," the Tract goes on to say, " is worth taking- into the account, that has not a palpable bearing on the clear and naked topic, — the scriptural evidence of Episcopacy." p. 3. We have italicised a part of this quotation, to call the attention of our readers particularly to it. The affirmation, so unusual in the mouth of an Episcopalian, is, that no argument is worth TAKING INTO THE ACCOUNT, that does uot bear on the scriptural proof. Now we anticipated that if a reply was made to our review, from any quarter, we should find a qualification of this statement, and a much more complacent regard shown to the fathers, and to other ^^ extraneous considerations," (Tract, p. 4,) than would be consistent with this unqualified disclaimer in the Tract. The truth is, that the fathers are regarded as too material witnesses, to be so readily abandoned. The ' tradition of the elders,' has been too long pressed into the service of the Epis- copacy ; there has been too conscious a sense of the weakness of the scriptural proof, to renounce heartily, entirely, and for ever, all reliance on other proof than the New Testament. The '' Answer" would have lacked a very material feature which we expected to find in it, if there had been no inclination manifested to plunge into this abyss of traditional history, where light and darkness struggle together, and no wish to recall the testimony of uninspired antiquity, to the service of prelacy. Accordingly, we were prepared for the following declaration, which we quote entire, from pp. 3 and 4, of the Answer : — •' Because the author of the Tract rested the claims of Episco- 12 134 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP pacy finally on Scripture — because he fills a high ofiice in the Church — and because the Tract is issued by so prominent an Episcopal institution as the ' Press,' the reviewer seems to think that Episcopalians are now to abandon all arguments not drawn directly from the holy volume. Not at all. The author of the Tract, in his sermon at the consecration of the four bishops, in October, 1832, advocated Episcopacy, besides on other grounds, on that of there being several grades of office in the priesthoods of all religions, false as well as true, and in all civil magistracies and other official structures, — and, in his late Charge, he adverted to the evidence in its favor contained in the fathers. And the 'Press,' at the time it issued the Tract, issued also with it, in the 'Works on Episcopacy,' those of Dr. Bowden and Dr. Cooke; which embrace the argument at large. There is no reason, therefore, for thinking, that, however a single writer may use selected arguments in a single publication, either he or other Episcopalians will (or should) narrow the ground they have usually occupied. The fathers are consulted on this subject, because the fabric of the ministry which they describe forms an historical basis for interpreting Scripture. And general practice, in regard to distinct grades among officers, throws a heavier burden of disproof on those whose interpretations are adverse to Episcopacy: this latter topic we shall again notice before we close." This passage, so far from insisting, as the Tract had done, that no argument was worth taking into the account, except the scriptural proof, refers distinctly to the following points, which we beg leave to call " extraneous considerations,^'' as proof of Episcopacy. (1.) The fact, that there "are several grades of office in the priesthood of all religions;" (2.) That the same thing occurs " in all civil magistracies, and other official struc- tures;" (3.) The evidence of the fathers; and, (4.) "Other grounds," which the author informs us he had insisted on in an ordination sermon, in 1832. And in this very passage, he makes the following remarkable statement, which we propose soon to notice further, — " The fathers are consulted on the subject, be- cause the fabric of the ministry which they describe, forms an historical basis for interpreting Scripture." Slight circumstances often show strong inclinations and habits of mind. How strong a hold this reference to other "consider- ations" than the Scriptures, has taken upon the mind of the author of the Tract, and how reluctant he was to part with the " extraneous" argument from the fathers, is shown by the fact, that he again recurs to it in the " Answer," and presents it at much greater length. Thus on pp. 18, 19, at the very close of the Answer, we are presented with the following recurrence to the argument from other considerations than the Scriptures: — "One word more concerning the 'burden of proof,' as con- trasted with the ' presumptive argument.' The Tract claimed no presumption in its favor in seeking for the scriptural proofs EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 135 of Episcopacy. We do — a presumption founded on common sense, as indicated by common practice. Set aside parity and Episcopacy, and then look at other systems of office, both reJigious and civil, and you find several grades of officers. In the Patriarchal Church, there was the distinction of ' high priest' and ' priest.' In thie Jewish Church, (common sense being, in this case unquestionably, divinely approved,) there were the high-priest, priests, and Levites. Among Pagans and Mahomed- ans, there are various grades in the office deemed sacred. Civil governments have usually governors, a president, princes, a king, an emperor, &c., as the heads of the general, or state, or provin- cial magistracies. In armies and navies, there is always a chief. If the reviewer should claim exceptions, we reply, they are ex- ceptions only, and very few in number. The general ride is with us. That general rule, next to universal, is, that among officers, there is a difference of power, of rights, of rank, of grade, call it what you will. And this general rule gives a presumption that such will also be the case in the Christian Church. We go to Scripture, then, with the presumptive argument fully against parity. If we should find in Scripture neither imparity nor parity, still common sense decides for the former. If we find the tone of Scripture doubtful, on this point, imparity has the advantage, common sense turning the scale. If we find there intimations, less than positive injunctions, in favor of imparity, common sense, besides the respect due to Scripture, decides for our interpretation of them. And if any thing in Scripture is supposed to prove or to justify parity, it must be very explicit, to overturn the suggestion of common sense. The ' presump- tive argument,' then, is clearly with us, and the 'burden of proof lies on parity. Let the reviewer peruse the Tract again, bearing in mind the principles laid down in this paragraph, and he will, we trust, think better of it." These observations, it will be remembered, are made by the same writer, and in connexion with the same subject, as the declaration, that " no argument ls worth taking into the ac- count, that has not a palpable bearing on the clear and naked topic, — the Scriptural evidence of Episcopacy. ^^ Now, against the principles of interpretation here stated, and which the Tract led us to suppose were abandoned, we enter our decided and solemn protest. The question, — the only question in the case, is, whether Episcopacy " has the authority of Scrip- ture?" (Tract, p. 3.) The affirmation is, that if it has not "it is not necessarily binding." (p. 3.) The principle of interpret- ation, which in the Answer is introduced to guide us in this inquiry, is, that "the fathers are consulted on the subject, because the fabric of the ministry which they describe, forms an historical basis for interpreting Scripture." (Answer, p. 3.) In order to understand the bearing of this rule of interpretation it is necessary to know what it means. A "basis" is defined to be "the foundation of a thing; that on which a thing stands or 136 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF lies; that on which it rests; the ground-work or first principle; that which supports." Webster. "An historical basis" must mean, therefore, that the opinions, or facts of history, that is, in this case, the testimony of the fathers, constitute the foundation, the ground-work, or first principle of the interpretation of the Bible; or that on which such an interpretation rests, or by which it is supported. It would seem to follow, therefore, that unless we first become acquainted with this "historical basis," we are wholly in the dark about the proper interpretation of the Bible, and that our interpretation is destitute of any true support and authority. To this principle of interpretation, in this case, and in all others, the objections are obvious and numerous. (1.) Our first objection lies against the supposed necessity of having any such previously ascertained basis, in order to a just interpreta- tion of the oracles of God. We object wholly to the doctrine, that the Scriptures are to be interpreted by historical facts to be developed long after the book was written. The great mass ot men are wholly incompetent to enter into any such " historical" inquiry ; but the great mass of men are not unqualified to un- derstand the general drift and tenor of the New Testament. (2.) The statement is, that " the fabric of the ministry which they describe," is to be the basis of such interpretation. But who knows what the fabric of the ministry which they describe is? It is to be remembered, that the question is not respecting the ministry in the fourth century and onward: but the inquiry, — and the only one of material value in any supposition, — per- tains to the fathers previous to that period. And there every thing is unsettled. Prelacy claims the fathers in that unknown age. The Papacy claims the fathers there. Presbyterianism claims the fathers there. Congregationalism and Independency, too, claim them there. Every thing is unsettled and chaotic. And this is the very point which has been the interminable subject of contention in this whole inquiry, and from which we hoped we had escaped, by the principles laid down in the Tract. Yet the position naw advanced, would lead us again into all the difficulties, and controversies, and jostling elements, and contra- dictory statements, which have always attended the appeal to the fathers. If we are to wait until we have ascertained " the fabric of the ministry" which these fathers describe, before we have a "basis" for interpreting Scripture, we may close the New Testament in despair. (3.) This canon of interpretation is contrary to the rule which Dr. Onderdonk has himself laid down in the Tract itself (p. 3.) In that instance, the authority of the Scriptures was declared to be ample and final. And throughout the Tract there is a manifest indication of a belief, that the Bible is susceptible of interpretation, on the acknow- ledged rules of language, and the principles of common sense. We hailed such a manifestation, not only as auspicious to the cause of truth in regard to the claims of Episcopacy, but because it evinced the spirit to which the Church mv^t come,— of a EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 137 direct, unqualified, and final appeal to the Word of God,— to determine religious doctrine. To that standard we mean to adhere. And, as far as in us lies, we intend to hold it up to the view of men, and to insist on the great truth from which nothing shall ever divert us, and from which we fer- vently pray the Church may never be diverted, that we are not to look for the discovery of truth, by ascertaining ^r^i an "historical basis," or, a set of instruments by which we are to measure and adjust the proportions of truth which we find in the revelation of God. Without any design to disparage or under- value the fathers, whom we sincerely reverence, as having been holy, bold, and venerable men ; without any blindness, as we believe, to the living lustre of that piety which led many of them to the stake ; without any apprehension, that their testimony, when examined, would be found to be on the side of Episcopacy, —for it remains yet to be seen, that the fathers of the first two centuries ever dreamed of the pride and domination which sub- sequently crept into the Church, and assumed the form of pre- lacy and popery : without any thing to influence us, so far as we know, from any of these " extraneous" sources, we intend to do all in our power to extend and perpetuate the doctrine, that the ultimate appeal in all religious inquiry, is to be the Bible, and the Bible only. " The Bible," said Chillingworth, " is the religion of the Protestants." We rejoice to hear this sentiment echoed from the Assistant Bishop of Pennsylvania. And without mean- ing to insinuate, that this sentiment is not as honestly acted on hj^ Episcopalians as by any other denomination of Christians, we may add, that we deem the first sentence of the Tract worthy to be written in letters of gold, on the posts of every Episcopal sanctuary, and over every altar, and on the cover of every " Book of Common Prayer." " The claim of Episcopacy to be of Divine institution, and therefore obligatory on the Church, rests funda- mentally on the one question,— Has it the authority ofScripturel If it has not, it is not necessarily binding?'' (4.) Our fourth objection to this rule of interpretation is, that it is, substantially, that on which rests the papal hierarchy. We do not know that the Papist would wish to express his principles of interpretation in stronger language, than that "the fathers are consulted on this subject, because the fabric of the ministry which they de- scribe, forms an historical basis for interpreting Scripture." To us it seems, that this would express all that they ask ; and as we doubt not that Dr. Onderdonk would shrink from any approxi- mation to the Papacy, quite as firmly as ourselves, we deem it •lecessary merely to suggest the consideration, to render the objection at once satisfactory to his own mind. We object, also, to the principle of interpretation advanced on p. 18, of the Answer, which we have already quoted. The fact there assumed, is, that various orders of men are observable in civil governments, &c. ; and hence, that there is presumptive evidence, that such orders are to be found in the Scriptures. We 12* 138 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF are not ignorant of the purpose for which this fact is adduced. It is to show, that the *' burden of proof" does not lie so entirely on the Episcopalian, as we had affirmed in the Review. We admit, to some extent, the modifying force of the circumstances, so far as the ^' burden of proof" is concerned. But it merely lightens the burden ; it does not remove it. Presumption, in such a case, is not proof. When the fact affirmed relates to a doctrine of the Bible, it is not sufficient to say, that that fact occurred elsewhere, and therefore it must occur in the Bible. It is still the business of the Episcopalian, to prove his affirmation from the New Testament itself, that bishops are superior to other ministers of the Gospel, in ministerial power and rights. This is Ms affirmation ; this is the point which he urges ; this is to be made out from the Bible only; and assuredly the fact, that there are dukes, and earls, and emperors, and admirals, and nabobs, forms, at best, a i7ery5/i^/i^ presumption in favor of the affirmation, that the ministry of the Gospel consists of three 'orders.' But our objections may be further stated. So far as the 'presumption goes, it is not particularly in favor of EpiscopaA^y, as consisting in THREE order t of the clergy. For, (1.) The fact is not, that there are three orders observable every where. It is, that there are many orders and ranks of civil officers and of men. (2.) The presumption drawn from what has taken place, would be rather in favor of despotism, and the papacy. (3.) The presumption is equally met by the doctrine of Presbyterianism as by prelacy. Presbyterians hold equally to a division of their community into various ranks, — into bishops, and elders, and deacons, and peo- ple. The presumption, drawn from the fact that civil society is thus broken up, is as really in their favor, as in favor of Epis- copacy. (4.) The Congregationalist may urge it with the same propriety. His community registers the names of his minister, and deacons, and church, and congregation, each with distinct privileges and rights. If Dr. Onderdonk should reply to this, that his remark referred only to the distinction of " systems of office, both religious and civil," (p. 18,) and " that among officers, there is a difference of power and rights," (p. 19,) we reply, that the distinction of officers pertains to other churches, as well as the Episcopal. No Non-episcopalian, perhaps, can be found, who holds to a parity of office. He will refer, at once, to his minister, to his elders, to his deacons, as evincing sufficient disparity, to meet the full force of the presumption alleged by Dr. Onderdonk. But our main objection here, as before, is to the principle of interpretation. We respectfully insist, that it should be laid aside, as an "extraneous consideration," in the inquiry, whether Episcopacy " has the authority of Scripture." In our review, we stated that the burden of proof, in this inquiry, was laid wholly on the frtends of Episcopacy, (p. 7.) This point was so obvious, that we did not think it necessary to illustrate it at length. Nor do we now intend to do more than merely, by adverting to it, to recall it to the attention of our readers. The EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 139 author of the " Answer" has endeavored to remove this burden from himself and his friends, (p. 4, and p. 18.) This he has done, by attemptinsr to show that there is a presumptive argu- ment in favor of Episcopacy ; which presumption throws the task of proving the parity of the clergy on those who advocate it. Now we are not disposed to enter into a controversy on thiij point. To us it seemed, and still seems, to be a plain case, that where it was affirmed that the clergy of the Christian Church was separated, by Divine authority, into three grades, or orders, and that one of those orders had the exclusive right of ordina- tion, of discipline, and of general superintendence; it could not be a matter requiring much deliberation, to know where rested the burden of proof. If a man assumes authority over an army, demanding the subordination of all other officers to his will, it is not a very unreasonable presumption, that the burden of proof lies with him ; nor would it be the obvious course, to expect the entire mass of officers to show, that he had not received such a commission. We shall, therefore, feel ourselves to be pursuing a very obvious course, if we do not recognise the authority of Episcopal bishops, unless there is proof positive of their conimission. We may add further, that in the supposed case of the commander of the army or the navy, we should not regard that as a very satisfactory proof, which was pursued with as little directness and explicitness as are evinced in the argu- ment to establish the original domination and perpetuity of the prelatical office. And in this connexion we may remark, that it is perfectly immaterial, as to the main point, what may be the opinion of the man who calls the claim in question, or what may be the particular denomination to which he is attached. Whether he is an Independent, a Presbyterian, or a Congrega- tionalist, it may be equally true, that the bishop of the Episcopal Church is unable to make out his claims from the New Testa- ment. The only material point, in which all other denomina- tions are agreed, is, that the ministers of the New Testament are on an equality, in the respect under consideration ; that the power of ordaining, and administering discipline, and of super- intending the concerns of tjie Church, is intrusted to them, as equals, in opposition to the exclusive and exalted assumptions of a few, who claim the right to deprive them of these powers, and to make their ministrations null and void. And when claims of this order are advanced, — claims designed to dispossess the great mass of the ministry throughout the world, of the right of trans- mitting their office to others ; of exercising government and dis- cipline In their own pastoral charges; of superintending and controlling the affairs of the particular portion of the Church universal, with which they are specifically intrusted; when claims like these are presented, lending to degrade them from their office, to annihilate their authority, and to leave their charges without a ministry ;— -we may respectfully insist, that the proof of this should be drawn, by no circumlocution, from the Bible. 140 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP We wish to see, with great pertinency, the chapter, and the verse: we can with difficulty resist the impression that it should be done totidem verbis, or at least, so nearly so, that there could be no possibility of mistake. We may here remind our readers of the precise points which Episcopacy is called upon to make out. The first is, that the apostles were " distinguished from the elders, because they were superior to them in ministerial power and rights." (Tract, p. 15.) The second is, that this distinction " was so persevered in, as to indicate that it was a permanent arrangement." (Tract, p. 23.) These are independent propositions. One by no means follows from the other. Should the first be admitted, yet the second is to be established by equally explicit and independent proof. Nay, the second is by far the most material point, and should, as we shall show, be fortified by the most irrefragable arguments. The third point, indispensable to the other two, is, that there is no evidence in the New Testament, that presbyters, or elders, discharged the functions which are now claimed for bishops ; that is, that they either (1.) ordained, or (2.) exercised discipline, or (3.) exerted a general supervision. (Tract, p. 11.) Unless then it is shown, that not one of these functions was ever performed by presbyters, the Episcopal claim fails of support, and must be abandoned. These are independent positions, and a failure in one, is a failure in the whole. To a cursory review of what can be said on these points, we now propose to call the attention of our readers. The first claim asserted, is, that the apostles were " distin- guished from the elders, because they were superior to them, in ministerial power and rights." (Tract, p. 15.) The points of their alleged superiority, are, exclusive ordination, exclusive discipline, exclusive confirmation, and exclusive right of general superintendence. The question is, whether this is the nature of the superiority with which the apostles were intrusted ; or, which is the same thing, were these the purposes for which they were set apart to the apostolic office, and for which they loere called apostles? Dr. Onderdonk affirms it ; we take the liberty, most respectfully, of calling for explicit proof of it, from the New Testament. His direct proof is contained in a nut-shell. It consists of one expression of Scripture, (Acts xv. 2, 4, 6, 22 ; xvi. 4,)—" Apostles and elders," " apostles, and elders, and brethren ;" and a note on p. 12, of the Tract, and in the reply expanded to more than two pages, showing that, in his apprehension, they administered discipline. As this is the basis on which the whole fabric is reared, and as it embraces the very gest of the " Answer," we shall be pardoned for adverting to it with some particularity. We may then inquire, why the apostles were distinguished from the elders, or presbyters? Dr. Onderdonk affirms, that it was because they were "superior in ministerial power and rights." The argument on this subject, from the New Testament, is, that EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTCRE. 141 the two classes of men are distinguished from each other, (Acts XV. 2, 4, 6, 22 ; xvi. 4,) by the following expressions ; " apostles and elders," "apostles, and elders, a«J brethren." Now in re- gard to this proofs we beg leave to mai^e the following remarks : — (1.) That it is the ordy direct passage of Scripture, which Dr. O. is able to adduce, on the subject of the alleged superiority of the apostles. Its importance, in his view, may be seen from the fact, that it is not merely the only proof, but, that it is repeated not less than five times, in the space of less than a single page of the Tract, (pp. 14, 15,) and that it occupies a similar prominence in the Answer. The Tract has been written four years. Dili- gent research during that time, it would be supposed, might have led to the discovery of some other text, that had a bearing on the point. But the matter still rests here. There is no other text ; and the fabric is to be sustained on the solitary expression, " apostles and elders," " apostles, and elders, and brethren." (2.) What does this passage prove? It proves this, and no more, that there was a distinction of some sort between the apostles and elders, which is a point of just as much importance, as when we affirm that one class were called apostles and another called elders. But it is difficult for us to see how this determines any thing respecting the reasons of the distinction. In Ephesians iv. 11, the Apostle affirms that God gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; a7id some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers. Here a distinction is made out. But is the nature of the distinction thereby ascertained ? I speak of guineas, and doubloons, and guilders. I affirm a distinction, indeed; but is its nature ascertained? Have I determined that the guinea is, therefore^ superior in weight or value to the others ? (3.) We have never denied that there was a distinction between the apostles, and elders, and brethren. The very fact that they had the name apostles, shows that there must have been some distinction, or some reason why they were so called. Unusual discernment, or labored argument, surely, are not necessary to perceive this. But the very point is, what is the nature of this distinction? And this is to be settled, not by the use of the word, but by the statement in the New Testament ; and it is incumbent on the Episcopalian to show by proof-texts, that it was because the apostles were superior in the power of ordination, of confirmation, of discipline, and of general super- intendence of a diocese. Dr. Onderdonk affirmed^ that the name was not so given, because they were appointed by Christ personally; nor because they had seen the Lord after his resur- rection ; nor because they had the power of working miracles : and then observed, that " it followed, or would not be question- ed, that it was because they were superior in ministerial power and rights." (Tract, p. 15.) It seems not to have occurred to him, that they could be appointed to be witnesses of his entire ministry^ including the fact of his resurrection as a main point. 142 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP We took the liberty, therefore, of examining this matter, as very- material to the argument. We proved, (1.) That in the original appointment of the Apostles, there was no reference to their supe- riority in the powers of ordination, discipline, &c. (Review, p.lO.) This position we supported by the three separate accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luke. (2.) That no such thing occurred in the instructions of our Lord, after his resurrection from the dead. This also we confirmed, by an examination of the testi- mony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, in neither of whose gospels was there found a vestige of such instructions. (Review, p. 10.) (3.) That there was nowhere else in the New Testament, any account that what Dr. 0. affirmed as the peculiarity of the apostolic office, was known to the writers. This conclusion we rested upon our own examination, and the fact that Dr. O. had not adduced any such passage. (4.) That the reason of the appointment to the apostolic office was expressly q^rmed ; and that it was not that which Dr. 0. supposed it to be. We showed, (a) that it was expressly affirmed in the original appointment, (Luke xxiv. 48; Matt, xxviii. 18, 19,) that they should be witnesses of these things ; (Review, p. 12 ;) (b) that this was expressly provided for in the case of the election of one to fill the place vacated by Judas ; (Acts i. 21, 22 ;) (c) that this was the account which the Apostles uniformly gave of the design of their appointment; (see p. 13;) (d) that the same thing was again expressly provided for in the case of the Apos- tle Paul, and, that in order to a qualification for that office, he was permitted to "see the Just One," the Lord Jesus ; (Acts xxii. 14;) and, (e) that he himself expressly appeals to the fact, as a proof that he was fully invested with the apostolic office. (1 Cor. ix. 1, 2.) (See Review, p. 15.) In the course of the argument, we adduced not less than twenty explicit passages of Scripture, bearing directly on the point, and proving, beyond dispute, that this was the design of the appointment to the apostolic office. Our purpose in this was evident. It was to show, that the pecu- liarity of the apostolic office was of such a nature that it could not be transmitted to distant generations ; but that it had a spe- cific, yet very important design, which, as a matter of course, must cease. With deep interest, therefore, we opened the " Answer," to ascertain how this array of scriptural argument was met. We did not deem it unreasonable to suppose that there would be some new attempt to show, that the peculiarity of the apostolic office was to ordain; that the passages of Scripture on which we had relied were irrelevant; or, that other passages might be adduced in proof of what Dr. O. had affirmed to be the pecu- liarity of the apostolic office, and which we had respectfully denied. Our readers will join with us in our ' amazement,^ to find the following as the result of an examination of the "Answer." (1.) A solemn, and somewhat pompous re-adducing of the EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTDRE. 143 expression, (Acts xv.,) "the apostles and elders," " the apostles, ami elders, and brethren ;" (Answer, p. 7 ;) a passage main- taining still its solitary dignity, and reposing in the "Answer," as it had in the "Tract," in its own lonely grandeur. We could not restrain our ' amazement,' that no other passages were even referred to, on this material point ; and we came to the conclu- sion, that we had reached an end of the argument, so far as direct Scripture proof was concerned. (2.) We found a notice of our extended array of proof-texts, showing what was the design of the apostolic appointment, of a character so remarkable that we shall quote it entire. "The reviewer, in order to show what he thinks was the point in which the apostles excelled the elders, in the matter in question, dwells largely on the fact that they were special wit- nesses of our Lord's resurrection; and with the help of capital and italic letters, he has certainly made a showy argument. But nobody denies that they were the special witnesses, or, that they were distinguished from the elders, as well as from others called apostles, — the Tract gave due attention to both these parti- culars. The point is, Was this distinction the one that led to the expression, 'apostles and elders?' Surely not. Among those apostles was Barnabas, and perhaps Silas, (Acts xiv. 14 ; XV. 2, 4, 22 ; 1 Thess. i. 1 ; ii. 6,) neither of whom was a special witness of the resurrection. Besides, the expressions ' apostles and elders,' ' apostles, and elders, and brethren,' are used with immediate reference to the council at Jerusalem, and the reviewer is more acute than we pretend to be, if he can say why, in a council acting on questions concerning ' idols, blood, things strangled, and licentiousness,' the special witnesses of the resurrection should, as such, have peculiar authority. We really think the Tract argues with more consistency when it says that the apostles were ministerially above the elders." Answer, p. 16. Here, it will be observed, there is no notice taken of the texts which we had adduced, as irrelevant, or unsatisfactory in number, or as unfairly interpreted. Dr. Onderdonk, if he was the writer of the Answer, deemed it an ample notice of those texts to remark, that " with the help of capital and italic letters, he (the review- er,) had certainly made a showy argument." (Answer, p. 16.) That our argument was thus noticed, was, indeed, to us a mat- ter of ' amazement.' It was, however, an indication, of which we were not slow to avail ourselves, and the hold upon which we shall not be swift to lose, that our proof-texts were ad rem, and that they settled the question. When all that the Assistant Bishop of Pennsylvania deems it proper to say of our array of more than twenty explicit declarations of the Word of God, is, that by the help of capitals and italics, they constitute a "SHOWY argument," (we mean no disrespect, when we dis- play the word in a showy form,) we deem the conclusion to be inevitable, that our texts are just what we intended they should 144 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF be,— that they settled the question,— and, to use an expression from the favorite chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, we "rejoice for the consolation." Acts xv. 31. (3.) Though we were not met by any new proof-texts, or by any answer to our own, we were referred to the sentiments of the following distinguished men, viz. the late Dr. Wilson, Dr. Miller, Dr. Campell, Matthew Henry, ^- the divines who argued with Charles I. in the isle of Wight," and Calvin, to prove, that the apostles were superior to the elders, and the evangelists. (Answer, p. 10.) Respecting these authorities, we may be per- mitted to remark, (1.) that we shall probably not yield, out of regard to their names, to any persons. With us, they have all the authority which uninspired men can ever be allowed to have. The writer of the Review may be permitted to remark, perhaps, that he has occasion of peculiar respect for two of those venera- ble men. By one, — whose superior, in profound powers of reasoning, in varied and extensive learning, and in moral worth, he believes, is not now to be found among the living, in any American church, — he was preceded in the office which he now holds. At the feet of the other, it has been his privilege to sit, for nearly four years, and to receive the instructions of wisdom from his lips ; and, whatever skill he may have in conducting this argument on the government of the churches, he owes to the "basis" which was laid by those instructions. Whatever may be said, therefore, of these authorities adduced in the " Answer," will not be traced to want of respect for these vene- rable names. But, (2.) we may remark, that in this argument, the authorities of uninspired men are to be laid out of the ac- count. With all due deference to them, and to Dr. O., we must be permitted to believe, that their authority belongs to the " ex- traneous considerations," as well as that of the opinion of Cran- mer, (Answer, p. 5,) which, by common consent, it had been agreed to lay out of the controversy. (See Tract, pp. 3-10 : Review, p. 5.) Our wonder is, that after the disclaimer of relying on these extraneous considerations, in the Tract, the author of the Answer should have occupied nearly two pages, with the state- ments of these distinguished men. (3.) Their authority, even when adduced, does not bear on the point before us. The ques- tion is, whether the apostles were superior to other ministers of the Gospel, in ministerial power and rights? that is, in the power of ordination, confirmation, discipline, and general super intendence. 7'heir authorities adduced, prove only, that in the judgment of these venerable men, they were superior in some respects, to evangelists and teachers ; or, that there was a dis- tinction between them, — a point on which we make no denial. On the only question in debate, they make no affirmation. On the claims set up by Episcopalians, that the apostles were supe- rior in ordination^ &c., they concede nothing, nor did they believe a word of it. Having thus noticed the "Answer" on this part of our argu- EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 145 mcnt, we shall dismiss it. We do it by simply reminding oui readers, that the solitary text which undisputed learning, talent^ and zeal have discovered, during a period of more than four years, since the discussion first commenced, — the lonely Scripture proof of the sweeping claims, that the apostles only had the power of ordination, and that this was the peculiarity of the office, — stands forth in the Tract, and in the Answer: "the apostles and elders," " apostles, and elders, and brethren P' But the author of the "Answer" complains, (p. 11,) that we did not give the ' whole' of his argument on the subject ; and he refers to a note on p. 12 of the Tract, designed to show that the apostles had the power of administering discipline, and that therefore they were superior to the presbyters, or held a more elevated grade of office. The note is this :— "That the apostles alone ordained, will be proved. In 1 Cor. iv. 19-21 ; V. 3-5 ; 2 Cor. ii. 6 ; vii. 12 ; x. 8 ; xiii. 2, 10 ; and 1 Tim. i. 20 ; are recorded inflictions and remissions of disci- jdine performed by an apostle, or threatenings on his part, although there must have been elders in Corinth, and certainly were in Ephesus." This note he expands into an argument, which constitutes the most material part of the " Answer." It is incumbent upon us to examine it, and to ascertain how far it goes to settle the point under discussion. Before examining the particular cases re- ferred to, we would remind our readers that the purpose for which they are adduced, is to show that the apostles were superior to presbyters in power and rights ^ and the alleged proof is, that they administered discipline. To hear on the case, therefore, the passages must prove not only that thetf exercised discipline, but, (1.) That they did it as apostles, or in virtue of the apostolic office; (2.) That they did it in churches where there were presbyters ; and, (3.) That presbyters never administered discipline themselves. The second point here adverted to, is all that the author of the "Answer" feels himself called upon to make out. (Answer, pp. 11-13.) Now in regard to this point of the proof, we make the following general remarks: (1.) There were certainly, in all, fourteen apostles; and if we may credit the writer of these pamphlets, and reckon Timothy, and Barnabas, and Sylvanus, and Apollos, and Andronicus, and Junia, and Titus, and perhaps half a dozen others, there were somewhat more than a score invested with this office ; yet it is remarkable, that the only cases of discipline referred to, as going to prove the superiority of the whole college of apostles, are cases in which the Apostle Paul only was concerned. (2.) There are accounts in the New Testament of perhaps some hundreds of churches ; and yet, we meet with no instance of the kind of discipline relied on, except in the single churches of Corinth and Ephesus. It is incredible, that there should have been no other cases of discipline in these churches. But if there were, the presumption is, that they were settled without the interven- 13 146 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP tion of an apostle. (3.) These very cases, as we shall presently show, were cases in which Paul administered the rod of discipline in the churches where Titus and Timothy, — apostles also and bishops, — were present, by the showing of the author of the "Answer," and thus were acts of manifest disrespect for the authority of those prelates. And if the fact, that the discipline was administered where there were presbyters, (Answer, pp. 11, 12,) proves that the Apostle was superior to them, the same fact proves that he was superior to Timothy and Titus. The course of the argument urged by the author of the "Answer," would be, that Paul was disposed to assume the whole power into his own hands, and to set aside the claims alike of bishops and presbyters. It has a very undesirable looking toward the authority claimed by the Papacy. The two cases alleged as proof that the apostles only had the power of administering discipline, are those at Corinth and at Ephesus. Paul wrote fourteen epistles, and wrote them to eight churches. In all these epistles, and in all the numerous churches of which he had the charge, (2 Cor. xi. 28, " the care of all the churches,") these are the only instances in which he was called, so far as appears, to exercise discipline. We now inquire, whether he did it for the purpose of showing that the apostles only had this power ? The first case alleged, is that at Corinth. "In 1 Cor. iv. 19-21, &c., are recorded inflictions and remissions of discipline performed by an apostle, or threatenings on his part; although there must have been elders at Corinth." (Note z, Tract, p. 12.) The argument here is, that there must have been elders at Corinth, and yet that Paul interposed over their heads to inflict discipline. This is thewhole of the argument. (SeeAnswer, p. 11.) In reply to these, we observe : That there were elders, teach- ers, ministers, instructers in Corinth, we think is placed beyond a question, by the argument of the " Answer," and by the nature of the case. This fact we do not intend to call in question. The argument of the " Answer" from this fact, we state in the author's own words: — " Yet, without noticing these elders in the matter, so far as the epistles show — though they doubtless were noticed and consulted, as much as courtesy and their pastoral standing made proper — without putting the matter into their hands, or even passing it through their hands, Paul threatens, inflicts, and remits discipline among the people of their charge. This is a * ministerial' act. And Paul's doing it himself, instead of committing it to the elders, shows that he, an apostle, was ' superior to them in ministerial power and rights.' " p. 11. Further, if there were elders there, there was an " apostle," a prelatical bishop, according to the Tract, there also. This is shown by a quotation from the epistle itself, relating to this very- time, and in immediate connexion with the case of discipline. (1 Cor. iv. 17.) " For this cause, [that is, on account of your EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 147 divided and contending state,] have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church." Now, as it will not be pretended by Episcopalians that Timothy was not an "apos- tle," and as it is undeniable that he was at that time at Corinth, the argument will as well apply to set aside his right to admin- ister discipline in the case, as that of the elders. Borrowing, then, the words of the Answer, we would say : " Yet without noticing" this apostle " in the matter, so far as the epistles show, — though" he was "doubtless noticed and consulted, as much as courtesy and his" apostolical "standing made proper; without putting the matter into" his " hands, or even passing it through" his " hands, Paul threatens, inflicts, and remits disci' pline. This is a * ministerial' act. And Paul's doing it himself, instead of committing it to" Timothy, "shows, that he, an apos- tle, was superior to" him " in ministerial power and rights." Now no Episcopalian will fail to be at once deeply impressed with the fallacy of this reasoning, in regard to the " apostle" and " bishop" Timothy. And yet, it is manifestly just as perti- nent and forcible in his case, as it is for the purpose of the An- swer in regard to the elders of Corinth. It cannot be pretended that a difference existed, because the " elders" were permanently located there, and Timothy not ; for the argument of the " Tract" and the " Answer" is, that the apostles were superior as apostles, and therefore it made no difference on this point, whether they were at Corinth, or at Crete, or at Antioch ; they were invested with the apostolic office every where. Our con- clusion from this instance, and from the fact which we have now stated, is, that there was some peculiarity in the case at Corinth, which rendered the ordinary exercise of discipline by presbyters difficult ; which operated equally against any interfer- ence by Timothy ; and which called peculiarly for the inter- position of the founder of the church, and of an inspired apostle, — for one clothed with authority to inflict a heavy judgment, here denominated " delivering unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh," (1 Cor. v. 5,) — a power which could be exercised by none then in Corinth. Our next inquiry is, whether there are any reasons for this opinion ? The following we believe satis- factory : — (1.) Paul had founded that church, (Acts xviii. 1-11,) and his interference in cases of discipline would be regarded as pecu- liarly 'proper. There would be a natural and obvious deference to the founder of the church, which would render such an inter- position in the highest degree appropriate. We are confirmed in this view, because he puts his authority in this very case on such a fact, and on the deference which was due to him as their spiritual father. 1 Cor. iv. 15 — "For though ye have ten thousand instrncters in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus / have begotten you through the Gospel," 148 REVIEW— ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP (2.) The circumstances of the church at Corinth were such, evidently, as to render the ordinary exercise of discipline by their own elders impossible. They were distracted ; were rent into parties ; were engaged in violent contention ; and the authority, therefore, of one portion of the "teachers," and " instructers," would be disregarded by the other. Thus no united sentence could be agreed upon ; and no judgment of a party could restore peace. An attempt to exercise discipline would only enkindle parly animosity, and produce strife. (See chap. i. 11-17.) So great, evidently, was the contention, and so hopeless the task of allaying it by any ordinary means, that even Timothy, whom Paul had sent for the express purpose of bringing them into remembrance of his ways, (1 Cor. iv. 17,) could have no hope, by his own interference, of allaying it. It was natural that it should be referred to the founder of the church, and to one who had the power of punishing the offender. (3.) It is material to remark, that this was not an ordinary case of discipline. It was one that required the severest exer- cise of authority, and in a form which was lodged only with those intrusted with the power of inflicting disease, or, as it is termed, " of delivering to Satan for the destruction of the flesh." (1 Cor. v. 5.) Such cases would inevitably devolve upon the Apostles, as clothed with miraculous power; and such, beyond all controversy, was this case. It therefore proves nothing about the ordinary mode of administering discipline, '^'his case had reached to such a degree of enormity ; it had been suffered to remain so long ; it had become so aggravated, that it was necessary to interpose in this awful manner, and to decide it. Yet, (4.) The Apostle supposes that they ought to have exercised the usual discipline themselves. This is evident, we think, from a comparison of the following passages : 1 Cor. v. 9, 10, 11, 12, with V. 2. In these verses it is supposed, that they did them- selves usually exercise disciplme. Paul (verse 9) gave them the general direction, not to keep company with fornicators; that is, to exercise discipline on those who did. In verse 11, he asks them, in a manner showing that the aflirmative answer to the question expressed their usual practice, whether they did not "judge those that were within?" that is, whether they did not ordi- narily exercise discipline in the church ? And in verse 2, he sup- poses that it ought to have been done in this case; and as it had not been done by them, and the affair had assumed special enor- mity, he exercised the miraculous power intrusted to him, by inflicting on the offender a grievous disease. (Verses 4, 5; comp. 1 Cor. xi. 30.) (5.) It is evident that other churches did, in ordinary cases, exercise discipline without the intervention of an apostle. Thus the church in Thessalonica, where Episcopacy, with all its zeal, has never been able even to conjecture that there was a diocesan bishop, was directed to exercise discipline in any instance where EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 149 the command of the inspired Apostle was not obeyed. (2 Thess. iii. 14.) We shall soon make this point incontestible. (6.) The circumstances of the early churches were such as to make this apostolic intervention proper, and even indispensable, without supposing that it was to be a permanent arrangement. They were ignorant and feeble. They had had little opportunity of learning the nature of Christianity. In most cases, their found- ers were with them but a few weeks, and then left them under the care of elders ordained from among themselves. (Comp. Acts xiii. xiv. et passim.) Those elders would be poorly qualified to discharge the functions of their oiRce ; and they would be but little elevated, in character and learning, above the mass of the people. The churches must be imperfectly organized ; unac- customed to rigid discipline; exposed to many temptations; easily drawn into sin ; and subject to great agitation and excite- ment. Even a great many subjects which may now be consi- dered as settled, in morals and religion, would appear to them open for debate ; and parties, as at Corinth, would easily be formed, (Comp. Acts xiv. xv. ; Rom. xiv.; 1 Cor. viii.) In these circum- stances, how natural was it for these churches to look for direc- tion to the inspired men whq had founded them ? and how natural, that such persons should interpose and settle important and difficult cases of discipline? And after these obvious considerations, are we to suppose that the fact that the Apostle Paul, in two cases, and two such cases only are recorded, exer- cised an extraordinary act of discipline, is to be regarded as proof that this power appertained only to the apostolic ofiice, and was to be a permanent arrangement in the Church ? We confess our ' amazement,' that but two cases of apostolic inter- ference are mentioned during the long and active life of Paul ; and we regard this as some evidence that the churches were expected to exercise discipline, and actually did so, on their own members. (7.) We are confirmed in our views on this point from what is known to take place in organizing churches in heathen coun- tries at the present day. Since we commenced this article we were conversing with one of the American missionaries station- ed at Ceylon.* In the course of the conversation he incidentally remarked that the missionaries were obliged to retain the exer- cise of discipline in their own hands; and that, although the mission had been established more than fifteen years, yet the exercise of discipline had never been intrusted to the native converts. He further observed, that the missionaries had been endeavoring to find persons to whom they could intrust the dis- cipline of the church, as elders, but that as yet they had not found one. The native converts were still ignorant of the laws of Christianity ; they had sp little influence in the church ; they were so partial to each other, even when in fault ; that thus far, ♦ Rev. Mr. Winslow. 13* 350 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF discipline, though somewhat frequent acts of discipline were necessary, was retained in the hands of the missionaries. Sub- stantially the same thing must have occurred in the early churches in Asia Minor, in Syria and Greece. Will Dr. Onder- donk infer, that because Mr. Winslow, Mr. Poor, and Dr. Scud- der, in Ceylon, have found it necessary to retain the jpower of administering discipline, that therefore they are diocesan bish- ops, and that they do not contemplate that the churches in Cey- lon shall be other than prelatical ? If not, his argument in the case of the church in Corinth can be allowed no weight. We have now done with this instance of discipline. We have shown that all the circumstances of the case can be accounted for, without any such conclusion as that to which the author of the Tract is desirous to conduct it. We turn, there- fore, to his other case of discipline in the church at Ephesus. The case is thus stated in 1 Tim. i. 20—" Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander; whom / have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." His argument is, that "it is the Apostle who inflicts the discipline ; the elders do not appear in the matter. And discipline is a ministerial function, and excom- munication its highest exercise." (Answer, p. 13.) In reply to this case, we make the following observations. (1.) It occurs in a charge to Timothy,— Timothy, on the supposition of Episcopalians, an apostle co-ordinate with Paul himself; Timothy, prelate of Ephesus. If Timothy was an apostle and diocesan bishop, and if the exercise of discipline pertained to an apostle and bishop, why did Paul take the matter into his own hands? Why not refer it to Timothy, and repose sufficient confidence in him to believe that he was competent to fulfil this part of his Episcopal office ? Would it now be regard- ed as courteous, for the bishop of Ohio to interpose and inflict an act of discipltee on some Hymeneus or Alexander of the diocese of Pennsylvania? And would there be as cordial sub- mission of the bishop of Pennsylvania, as there was of the bish- op of Ephesus? If Timothy was at Ephesus, and if the case of discipline occurred at the time which Dr. O. supposes, this case appears to our humble apprehension, very much as if Paul regarded Timothy as neither an apostle nor a prelate. (2.) If the exercise of tjie authority in this case of discipline by Paul proves that the presbyters at Ephesus had no right to administer discipline ; for the same reason, it proves that Timo- thy had not that right. By the supposition of Episcopalians, Timothy was there as well as the presbyters. The assumption of the authority by Paul proves as much that it did not belong to Timothy, as that it did not belong to the presbyters. (3.) This was a case such as occurred at Corinth. It was not an ordinary act of discipline ; it was one which supposed the infliction of the judgment of God by a miraculous agency. "Whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." Compare this account with the record of the EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 151 in Corinth, (1 Cor. v. 5,) and it is evident' that this waar not an ordinary act of discipline, but was such as implied the direct infliction of the judgment of the Almighty. That such inflictions were intrusted to the hands of the Apostles we admit; and that Paul, not Timothy, inflicted this, proves that the latter was neither an apostle nor a prelate. (4.) Dr. Onderdonk supposes that this occurred at Bphesus, and while Timothy was there. But what evidence is there of this? It is neither affirmed that the transaction was at Ephe- sus, nor that Timothy was there. His argument proceeds on the assumption, that Timothy was bishop there when this epis- tle was written, and that the case of discipline occurred there. And the proof of this, would probably be the subscription at the end of the second epistle, and the " tradition of the elders." But that subscription has no authority ; and it is not to be assumed, but proved, that Timothy was there in the capacity of a prelate, or there at all when this epistle was written to him. The demonstration that a bishop only exercised discipline, it must be admitted, rests on slender grounds, if this be all. (5.) But if this case did occur at Ephesus, what evidence is there, that it occurred at the time that Bishop Onderdonk sup^ poses? The account in the epistle to Timothy by no means Axes the time of the transaction. " Whom I have delivered (irap/^wica) uuto Satan," &c. It was already done ; and the pre- sumption is, that it was done when Paul was himself present with them. It is morally certain that it was not an act of disci- pline that was then to be done. Our readers have now the whole case before them. Episco- pacy aflSrms, that prelates onty have the power of administering discipline. It affirms that the churches are prohibited from exercising it on their own members; that those appointed to preach the Gospel, to administer the sacraments, and to be pas- tors of the flock, and who may therefore be supposed to under- stand the cases of discipline, and best qualified to administer it, have no right to exercise this act of government over their own members ; but that this exclusive prerogative belongs to a stranger, and a foreigner, a prelatical bishop, whom the church- es seldom see, and who must be in a great degree unacquainted with their peculiar wants and character. All power of disci- pline in an entire diocese of some hundreds of churches, is to be taken away from the members themselves, and from the pastors, and lodged in strange hands, and committed to a solitary, inde- pendent man, who, from the nature of the circumstances, can have little acquaintance with the case, and possess few of the Sualifications requisite for the intelligent performance of this uty. And does the reader ask, What is the authority for this assumption of power? Why are the churches and their pastors disrobed of this office, and reduced to the condition of humble dependents at the feet of the prelate ? Let him, in astonish- ment, learn. It is not because there is any command to this 152 REVIEW— ANSWEH TO A REVIEW OP effect in the New Testament; it is not because there is any declaration, implying that it would be so; it is not by any affirmation that it ever wan so. This is the reason, and this is all:— The Apostle Paul in two cases, and in both instances ovei the heads of presbyters, (and over tlie head of Bishop Timothy, too,) delivered men "to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that they might learn not to blaspheme;" and, therefore, Bishop Onderdonk, and Bishop Griswold, and Bishop Doane, only have power to administer discipline in all the churches in Pennsylvania, and in the Eastern Diocese, and in New-Jersey ; and, THEREFORE, all the acts of'discipline exercised by Presbyte- rians, Methodists, Baptists, &c., in Pennsylvania and New- Jersey, and by the Congregationalists of New-England, are null and void. The disposal of such antecedents and consequents, may be safely left to all who hold, that "no argument is worth taking into the account, that has not a clear and palpable bear- ing on the naked topic, — the scriptural evidence of Episcopacy," (Tract, p. 3,) But we have not done with this subject. We are now prepared to show, not only that there is no evidence that the apostles exclusively exercised discipline, but that there is positive proof that all the acts of discipline were in fact exercised by the pres- byters of the churches. To put this matter to rest, we adduce the following passages of Scripture : Acts XX. 17, 28—" From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus, and called for the presbyters of the church, and said unto them : Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, {litiaK6-itovs) to feed, (Troi/iamtv like good shepherds, to provide for, watch over, and govern,) the church of God." It would be easy to show, that the word translated feed includes the whole duty which a shepherd exer- cises over his flock, including all that is needful in the super- vision, government, and defence of those under his care. Proof of this may be found in the following passages of the New Testament, where the word occurs iji the sense of ruling, or governing, including of course the exercise of discipline ; for how can there be government, unless there is authority for punishing offenders? Matt. ii. 6; John xxi. 16; 1 Pet. v. 2; Rev. ii. 27. " And he shall rule them {T:Qiyiavsi airoOf) with a rod of iron ;" an expression which will be allowed to imply the exercise of discipline. Rev. xii. 5; xix. 15. Comp. Ps. ii. 9;- xxiii. 1 ; xxvii. 12 ; xlvii. 13. And the Iliad of Homer may be consulted, passimi, for this use of the word. See particularly, 1.263; 11.85. 1 Pet. V, 2, 3 — "The presbyters who are among you I exhort, who am also a presbyter. Feed (roj^aVare) the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight (sTtiaKonowTes dis- charging the duty of bishops,) thereof, not by constraint, but will- ingly," &c. Here the very work which is claimed for prelates, is enjoined on presbyters; the very name which prelates assume, EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 153 is given to presbyters; and Peter ranks himself as on a level with them in the office of exercising discipline, or in the govern^ mentofthe church. It is perfectly obvious, that the presbyters at Ephesus, and the presbyters whom Peter addressed, were intrusted with the pastoral care to the fullest extent. It is obvious, that they were required to engage in all the work requi' site in instructing, directing, and governing the flock. And it is as obvious, that they were intrusted with a power and an authority in this business, with which presbyters are not intrust- ed by the canons of the Episcopal Church. "We respectfully ask. Whether the bishop of Pennsylvania, or New-Jersey, would now take 1 Pet. v. 2, 3, for a text, and address the " priests," or " second order of clergy," in these words, without considerable quafification — " The presbyters who are among you I exhort, who am also a presbyter. Feed (woiiidvaTt) the flock of God, hrieKOTtSvvrts discharging the duty of bishops over it, not by con- straint, neither as being lords over God's heritage. Heb. xiii. 7—" Remember them which have the rule over you: T&v fJYovniwv ifiuv, YOCR RULERS." Versc 17 — "Obey them that have the rule over you." (UeWccet to7s fiyoviiivotf {nfiv.} That bish- ops are here referred to, no one will pretend. Yet the ofl5ce of ruling certainly implies that kind of government which is co»- cemed in the administration of discipline. 1 Thess. V. 12— "We beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord." («aj rpoiarafilvovs ifiiov h Kvptr argument is, (1.) That Dr. O. admits, that the word rendered "feed," {minaheiv) may mean to rule: (Tract, 158 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OP pp, 24, 37.) (2.) That the idea of ruling^ is the one which is there specijically dwelt on. That he directs them to " feed," or exercise the office of a shepherd over them, that is, to guards defend, provide for them, as a shepherd does, in the care of his ilock. He directs them to watch against the grievous wolves which should come in, and against those who should rise up from among themselves, to secure parties, &c. (3.) There is no counsel given them about the proper mode of administering the sacraments, the peculiar duty of the "second order" of clergy. (4.) There is no expression of lamentation, that they had not a prelatical bishop ; or any intimation that they would 80on be furnished with one. (5.) It is evidently implied, that the number of these elders was considerable. They are address- ed as such ; and yet they are addressed as in charge of one *' flock," over which they had been placed. Now it is incredi- ble, that any considerable body of the " second order of clergy" should have been ordained in an infant church like Ephesus. And it is equally incredible, that z^Paul had so ordained them, he should have set them over one flock, in a single city, — colle- giate " rectors" in a single church in Ephesus,— under a " dio- cesan" also, of the single " flock," or church ; a diocesan not then present, and concerning whom not the slightest hint was dropped by Paul, either of lamentation or promise. So that, on the whole, one knows not at which, to be most surprised, — the number of assumptions indispensable to the purpose of " en- throning" the bishop Timothy at Ephesus, or the singular coolness with which Episcopalians urge all these assumptions, as if they were grave matters of historical record. In reference to the term "angel," as used in the Apocalypse, we have only to remark further, that the interpretation which makes it refer to a prelatical bishop, is so unnatural and forced, that Episcopalians are, many of them, themselves compelled to abandon it. Thus Stillingfleet, than whom an abler man, and one whose praise is higher in Episcopal churches, is not to be found among the advocates of prelacy, says of these angels — "If many things in the epistles be denoted to the angels, but yet so as to concern the whole body, then, of necessity, the angel must be taken as a representative of the whole body ; and then, why may not the word angel be taken by way of representa- tion of the body itself, either of the whole church, or, which is far more probable, of the consp.ssors, or order of presbyters in that church ? We see what miserable, unaccountable arguments those are, which are brought for any kind of government, from metaphorical or ambiguous expressions, or names promiscuously used." Irenicmn. In regard to this second point, which it is incumbent on Epis- copalians to make out, we are now prepared to estimate the force of these arguments. The case stands thus. (1.) There is no command in the New Testament, to the Apostles, to transmit the peculiarity of the apostolic office. If there had been, the EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 157 industry of Dr. Onderdonk would have called it to our attention. If the peculiarity of the office was to be transmitted, it was required that such a command should be given. (2.) There is no affirmation that it would be thua transmitted. If there had been, Dr. O.'s tract would not have been so barren on this point. And we ask him, whether it is credible, that the Apostles were bishops of a superior order, and that it was designed, that all the Church should be subject to an order of men, " superior in ministerial rank and power,'- deriving their authority from the Apostles; and yet, not the slightest command thus to trans- mit it, and not the slightest hint that it would be done ? We say again, Credat Judceits Apella I (3.) It was impossible that the peculiarity of the apostolic office should he transmitted. We have shown, not by assumptions, but by a large array of passages of Scripture, what that peculiarity was, — to bear wit- ness to the great events which went to prove that Jesus was the Messiah : we have been met in this proof, by the calm and dignified observation, that this was a "showy" argument ; and we now affirm, that the peculiarity of that office, as specified by Jesus Christ, by the chosen Apostles, by Paul, and by the whole college, could not be transmitted ; that no bishop is, or can be, a witness^ in the sense and for the purpose for which they were originally designated. (4.) We have examined the case of Timothy, of Titus, and of the angels of the churches. — the slender basis'on which the fabric of Episcopal pretension has been reared. We now affirm, (5.) That, should we admit all that Episcopalians claim on each of these points, there is not the slightest proof, as a matter of historical record, that the Episcopal office has been transmitted from prelate to prelate ; but that the pretended line has been often broken, and that no jury would give a verdict to the amount of five dollars, on proof so slender as can be adduced for the uninterrupted succession of prelates. As satisfactory evidence on this point, we repeat the following passage, .contained in the September number of this journal: " We are informed by many ancient historians, and very expressly by Bede, in his famous Ecclesiastical History, 'That at the request of Oswald, King of Northumberland, certain pres- byters came (in the seventh century) from Scotland into Eng- land, and ordained bishops; that the abbot, and other presbyters of the island of Hy, sent Aydan for this express purpose, declaring him to be worthy of the office of bishop, and that he ought to be sent to instruct the unbelieving and the unlearned.* He informs us, that ' those presbyters ordained him and sent him to England on this errand ; and that Finan, sent from the same monastery in the same island, succeeded him in the Episcopal office, after having been ordained by the Scottish presbyters.' " Upon this testimony of Bede, Baxter remarks, ' You will find that the English had a succession of bishops by the Scottish 14 158 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF presbyter's ordination ^ and there is no mention in Bede of any dislike or scruple of the lawfulness of this course.' The learned Dr. Doddridge refers us to Bede and Jones to substantiate the fact that, 'the ordination of English bishops cannot be traced up to the Church of Rome as its original ; that in the year 668, the successors of Austin, the monk, (who came over A. D. 596,) bein^ almost extinct, hy far the greater part of the bishops were of Scottish ordination, by Aydan and Finan, who came out of the Culdee monastery of Columbanus, and were no more than presbyter &? " And is it verily so, that the Episcopal blobd was thus early and extensively contaminated in England ? Is it verily so, that when the effects of pious Austin's labors had become almost imperceptible, the sinking Church was revived again by sending to Scotland for presbyters to come and ordain a midtitude of bishops? Then it is verily a fact, that Presbyterian ordination is one of the sturdiest pillars that support the vast fabric of the Church of England. No matter if only ten bishops were thus ordained, the contamination (if it be one) l-aving been imparted more than eleven hundred years ago, has had a long time to diffuse itself, and doubtless has dVffused itself so extensively from bishop to bishop, that not a single prelate in Great Britain can prove that he has escaped the infection. For what one of them can tell if he vvas not consecrated by bishops who were themselves consecrated by bishops, and they by other bishops, to whom all the ordaining power they ever had was transmitted from the presbyters of Scotland 7 But this is not the whole of the evil- As no one bishop can trace his Episcopal pedigree farther back perhaps than two or three centuries, so he cannot certainly know that any presbyter on whose head he has imposed , hands, lias received from him any thing more than Presbyterian ordination. Nor is this all the evil. The Pro- testant Episcopal bishops and presbyters in America are in the same plight ; for I am told that all their authority came from England. But as the English bishops who gave it lo them could not tlien, and cannot noiD, cerininly tell whence it came, so who knows but all the Episcopal ciergy in the United States of America are originally indebted lo the hands of Elder Aydan and Elder Finan for all their ministerial powers ? I tremble for all Protestant Episcopal churches on both conti- nents, if Presbyterian ordination be not valid and scriptural." (pp. 486, 487.) One point more in the argument for Episcopacy remains. It is, that none but prelates ordained. It is incumbent on Episco- palians to prove this, as essential to their argument. For if presbyters or elders exercised the office of ordaining, then the main point claimed for the superiority of bishops is unfounded. We aim, therefore, to show that there is positive proof that presbyters did ordain. We have shown, in the course of our argument, that they exercised the office of discipline, one of the EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 159 things claimed peculiarly for bishops ; we now proceed to show thai the office of ordaining- was one which was intrusted to them, and which they exercised. If this point be made out, it follows still further that the peculiarity of the office of the apos- tles was not that they ordained, and that the clergy of the New Testament are not divided into " three orders," but are equal in ministerial rank and power. The argument is indeed complete without this: for, unless Episcopalians can show, by positive proof, the superiority of their bishops to the right of ordination and disciplme, the parity of the clergy follows as a matter of course. The writer of these articles is a Presbyterian. But the argu- ment does not require that he should go largely into the proof of his own views on church polity. The object is to disprove Episcopacy. If this is disproved, it follows that the clergy are on an equality. If it is shown that the doctrine of the New Testament is, that presbyters were to ordain, it is a sufficient disposal of the "feeble claims of lay-ordination," and of all other claims. It will follow, that a valid ordination is that which is performed in accordance with the direction lh?it pres- byters should ordain. What particular churches besides the Presbyterian, accord in their practice with the direction, it is not our business to inquire. It is sufficient for our purpose that the Presbyterian and Congregational churches accord with that requirement, and follow the direction of the New Testament in the ordination of their ministry by presbyters, and in their min- isterial equality. This is all the reply that is necessary to the train of reflections in the "Answer." (pp. 5, 6.) We have seen, also, that Episcopal ordination is valid, not because it is performed by a prelate, but because it is, as we remarked, (Review, pp. 32, 33,) in fact a mere Presbyterian performance. In proof of the point now before us, therefore, we adduce 1 Tim. iv. 14— "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." Of this passage, which, to the common sense of mankind, affirms the very thing under discussion, it is evi- dently material for Episcopalians to dispose; or their claims to exclusive rights and privileges are for ever destroyed. We shall, therefore, examine the passage, and then notice the objec- tions to its obvious and common sense interpretation alleged by Dr. Onderdonk. We observe then, (1.) That the translation of the passage is fairly made. Much learned criticism has been exhausted, to very little purpose, by Episcopalians, to show, that a difference existed between " with," (Mera) in this place, and " by," (<5 And it is as certain, that-wjere they thus to use those terms, it would at once confound their orders and ranks, and reduce their ministers to equality. Do we ever see any approxi- mation in their addresses, and in. their canons, in this respect, to the ianguage and style of the New Testament? Do we ever hear of Bishop Tyng, or Bishop Hawks, or Bishop Schroeder, or Bishop Croswell ? Do we ever hear of Presbyter Ives, or Doane, or Onderdonk? How would language like this sound in the mouth of a prelatical bishop? Would not all men be amazed, as if some new thing had happened under the sun, in llie Episcopal Church ? And yet, we venture to presume, that the terms used in the New Testament to designate any office, may be used still. We shall still choose to call things by their true names, and to apply to all ranks and orders of men the terms which are applied to them by the Spirit of inspiration. And as the indiscriminate use of these terms is carefully avoided by the customs and canons of the Episcopal Church ; as there seems to have been a presentiment in the formation of those canons, that such iiwiiscriminate use would reduce the fabric to simple ' parity' of the clergy ; and as these terms can- mt be so used, without reducing these ' ranks and orders' to a scriptural equality, we come to the conclusion that the Apostles meant to teach, that the ministers of the New Testament arc equal in mmislerial rights and powers. We have now gone through this entire subject. We have examined, we trust, in a candid manner, — we are sure with the kindest feelings toward our Episcopal brethren, — every argu- ment which they have to adduce from the Bible, in favor of the claims of their bishops. We have disposed of these arguments step by step. We have done this, remembering that these are ALL the arguments which Episcopacy has to urge from the Bible. There is nothing that remains. The subject is exhausted. Episcopacy rests here. And it is incumbent on Episcopacy to show^ not to affiTm^ that our interpretation of those passages is not sustained by sound principles of exegesis. The burden of proof still lies on them. 'J'hey assumed it, and on them it rests. They affirm that enormous powers are lodged in the hands of the prelate, — every thing pertaining to ordina- tion, to discipline, to the superintendence of the Christian Church. They claim powers tending to degrade every presbyter in the world to the condition of a dependent and inferior office ; strip- ping him of the right of transmitting his own office, and of administering discipline among his own flock. They arrogate powers which go to strip all otiier presbyters, except Episcopa- lian, of any right to officiate in the Church of God; rendering their ordination invalid, their administrations void, and their 15 170 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF exercise of the functions of their office, a daring and impious invasion of the rights of the priesthood, and a violation of the law of Christ. The foundation for these sweeping, and certainly not very modest claims, we have examined with all freedom. The argument for prelacy may be summed up in a word. It consists in the text, — the solitary text, — " the apostles and elders," "the apostles, and elders, avd brethren," joined to a circuitous train of reasoning remote from common apprehen- sion, and too abstruse for the guidance of the mass of men. Step by step we have followed them in their circuits ; argument after argument we have patiently displaced ; and at the conclu- sion, we may ask any person of plain common sense, to place his finger on that portion of the Book of God which is favorable to prelacy. This argument having been met and disproved, we have produced an instance of express Presbyterian ordination in the case of Timothy. Two churches we have found that were organized without prelates. We are thus, by another train of argument, conducted to the same result, — that prelates are unknown in the New Testament. And to make our argument perfectly conclusive, we have shown that the same titles are applied indiscriminately to all. Our argument may be staled in still fewer words. The Episcopal claims are not made out ; and, of course, the clergy of the New Testament are equal. The Episcopalian has failed to show that there were different grades; and it follows that there must be parity. We have examined the only case of ordina- tion specified in the New Testament, and the constitution of the churches, and find that it is so; and we are conducted inevita- bly to the conclusion that prelacy is not in the Bible. We now take our leave of the Episcopal controversy. As Epis- copacy has nothing which it cari add to the scriptural argument, we regard our labors in this department as at end. The whole scriptural Birgumeni is exhausted, and here our inquiry ends; and here our interest in this topic ceases. We lake leave of the subject with the same kind feelings for that Church, and the same respect for the author of the "Tract," with which we began the inquiry. We remember the former services which the Epis- copal Church rendered to the cause of truth, and of the world's redemption ; we remember the bright and ever-living lights of truth, which her clergy and her illustrious laymen have in other limes enkindled in the darkness of this world's history, and which continue to pour their pure and steady lustre on the liter- ature, the laws, and the customs of the Christian world ; and we trust the day will never come, when our own bosoms, or the bosoms of Christians in any denomination, will cease to beat with emotions of lofty thanksgiving to the God of grace, that he raised up such gifted and holy men, to meet the corruptions of the Papacy, and to breast the wickedness of the world. In our view of ecclesiastical polity, we can have no unkind EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 171 feelings toward any branch of the true Church of God. We strive to cherish feelings of affectionate regard for them all, and to render praise to the common Father of Christians, for any efforts which are made to advance the intelligence, the purity, and the salvation of mankind. In our views of the nature of mind, and of freedom, we can have no unkind feelings toward any denomination of true Christians. " There are diversities of operations, but the same Spirit." We have no expectation that all men, in this world, will tliink alike. And we regard it as a wise arrangement, that the Church of God is thus organized into different sections and departments, under the banner of the common Captain of their salvation. It promotes inquiry. It prevents complacency in mere forms and ceremonies. It pro- duces healthy and vigorous emulation. It affords opportunities for all classes of minds to arrange themselves according to their preferences and their habits of thought. And it is not unfavora- ble to that kindness of feeling which the Christian can cherish, and should cherish, when he utters in the sanctuary the article of his faith, " I believe in the holy catholic Church, the commu- nion of saints." The attachment of a soldier to a particular company or squadron, need not diminish his respect for the armies of his country, or extinguish liis love of her liberty. Being joined to a company of infantry, need not make me feel that the cavalry are useless, or involve me in a controversy with the artillery. We ask only, that Episcopacy should not assume arrogant claims; that she should be willing to take her place among other denominations of Christians, entitled to like respect as othei's, to all the tender and sympathetic affections of the Chris- tian brotherhood ; and willing that others should walk in the liberty wherewith Christ has made his people free. We shall have no contest with our Episcopal brethren for loving the church of their choice, and the church in which they seek to prepare themselves for heaven. We shall not utter the lan- guage of unkindness for their reverencing the ministerial ofRcc, in which the spirits of Cranmer and Leighton were prepared for their eternal rest. Content that other denominations should enjoy like freedom, while they do not arrogate to themselves unholy claims, and attempt to "lord it over" other parts "of God's heritage," we shall pray for their success, and rejoice in their advancement. But the moment they cross this line ; the moment they make any advances which resemble those of the Papacy ; the moment they set up the claim of being the only " primitive and apostolical Church;" and the moment they speak of the "invalid ministry" and the "invalid ordinances" of the churches, and regard them as "left to the uncovenanted mer- cies of God," that moment the language of argument and of Christian rebuke may properly be heardfrom every other deno- mination. There are minds that can investigate the Bible, as well as the advocates for Episcopacy ; there are pens that caa 172 REVIEW — ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF compete with any found in the Episcopal Church ; and there are men who will not be slow to rebuke the first appearance of arrogance and of lordly assumption, and who will remind them, that the time has gone by when an appeal to the infallible Church will answer in this controversy. Arrogant assumptions, they will be at once reminded, do not suit the present state of intelligence in this land, nor the genius of our institutions. While the Episcopal Church shall seek, by kind and gentle means, to widen its influence, like the flowing of a river, or like the dews of heaven, we shall hail its advances: when she departs from this course, and seeks to utter the language of authority and denunciation, — to prostrate other churches, as with the sweepings of the mountain-torrent,— she will be check- ed by all the intelligence and piety of this land ; and she will be reminded, by a voice uttered from all the institutions of these times, that Episcopacy has had its reign of authority in the dark ages, and at the Vatican ; and that the very genius of Pro- testantism is, that one church is not to utter the language of arrogance over another ; and that not authority or denuncia- tion, but SCRIPTURAL EXPOSITION, is to deterfnine which is in accordance with the Book of God. In our review, we expressed at length our feelings toward the Episcopal Church, (pp. 36-38.) After quoting a part of our remarks on this subject, the author of the Answer makes these candid and kind observations : — " A truly splendid eulogium on our Church, — and one which does credit to the candor, the benevolence, the superiority to prejudice, of the elevated mind that conceived it, and the honor- able frankness which gave it public utterance. With the feel- ings of such a heart as that of the author of these paragraphs, we have, we can have, no controversy whatever, — we rather desire to copy them more perfectly ourselves, and be taught more of the grand duty of love, by an opponent who so nobly and so delightfully exemplifies it." (p. 19.) The author of the "Answer" quoted the whole of our remarks, with the exception of the last five lines. In those lines, we expressed a hope, that " the Episcopal Church was destined yet to be, throughout, the warm friend of revivals, and would conse- crate her wealth and power to the work of making a perpetual aggression on the territories of sin and of death." (Review, p. 36.) Why this part of our remarks was omitted, as not worthy of the comment of being a " splendid eulogium on the Church," we know not. The fact was striking. We were not "amazed" by it; but we were conscious of that feeling of pen- siveness, which involuntarily steals over the soul, when a Chris- tian, high in office and in talent, evinces any degree of cold- ness toward the great work of converting the world. We could not but ask ourselves. Is this to be interpreted as an indication, that the author of the " Answer" is alarmed at the word reviv- ALB ? Are we to consider it as an indication, that he could not ' EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 173 join us in the wish, that the wealth and power of the Episcopal Church should be consecrated to the work of saving the world ? Are we to understand, that there is such a fear of the word revivals, and such a dread of an entire consecration of wealth and power to fulfil the special command of Christ, as to induce the author of the " Answer" to pause, — in medias res, — in the very midst of a quotation, rather than repeat or write the word revivals, or speak of such a consecration ? It may have been, indeed, wholly an inadvertent omission ; and as we prefer such an interpretation, to one which implies suspicion or improper motive, we shall close this article as we did the former, with the wish, — a wish which shall never depart from our heart, — that, whatever may be the strength or the numbers of the Episcopal Church, when the Son of God shall come to take to himself his great power, she may be found foremost among the friends of REVIVALS, — of pure spiritual piety, and engaged with untiring zeal amidst the van of the Christian host, in making a perpetual aggression on the territories of sin and of death. 15* REMARKS ON THE REV. MH. BARNES' SECOND REVIEW OF "EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE." The tract " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," remained more than three years without any attempt having been made to reply to it. In March, 1834, it was reviewed in the Christian Spectator by, as is now avowed, the Rev. Mr. Barnes. In May following, an answer to this review appeared in the Protestant Episcopalian. And in March, 1835, Mr. Barnes issues his second review, in reply to this answer ; the two reviews being reprinted in continuation, in a small voJurae, under the title, "The Scriptural Argument for Episcopacy Examined." The volume has been kindly sent us by the author. Ours is the next turn, and we accordingly present a rejoinder. We deem it a source of unfeigned gratulalion, that our oppo- nent in this controversy has an exalted standing in his own denomination, and in the community at large; that he is a gen- tleman of talents and learning, and of entire courtesy-r-and one to whose piety and Christian attainments it is a pleasure to do homage. But be the personal character and qualifications of contro- vertists what they may, themselves are not infallible. They may make mistakes, argue inconclusively, and even contradict themselves. And the cause of truth requires that their argu- ments be looked into. This is the duty that now devolves on us. Our Rev. opponent does us too much honor in taking for granted that in our Tract and Answer, " the scriptural argument for Episcopacy is now fairly and entirely before the world." There are other scriptural topics used by other writers; such as the aposlleship of Epaphroditus ; that of the " messengers [apostles] of the churches;" the probable deaconship of the seventy disciples ; the rise of the twelve to their full aposlleship by three steps; the remarkable prophecy that, after the Jewish dispensation, God would " take of [his people] for priests and for Levites," which means, as Old Testament language, '' for a high priest, for priests, and for Levites ;" the existence of those three orders in the Mosaic Church ; and, — particularly if it be allowed that the whole Christian priesthood, as well as that of Christ himself, is " aftei the order of Melchisedcc," — the fact, that in the patriarch^ branch of that order there were both ( 175 ) 176 REMARKS ON A SECOND REVIEW OF "high priests" and "priests." These topics may all be used "With more or less advantage for Episcopacy ; and they all are directly scriptural ; yet not one of them is adverted to in the Tract, and only two in the Answer. Our reasoo was, that we did not need them ; we selected such arguments from Scripture as would fall readily into the consecutive train of an iaductive course of reasoning; and we omitted all others. But we did not mean to renounce the right ta appeal to those we did not there adduce ; some of them we have employed in other compositions. Hence, should Mr. Barnes succeed in refuting "Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," he has further work before him, if ht would refute the whole scriptural claim of Episcopacy. Equally mistaken is our Rev. opponent in the allegation that we discarded, in the Tract, all use of the fathers, and all other extraneous considerations. He has enlarged on this allegation in his second review, and thinks that we have retracted the admission with which we set out, and that we manifest an apprehension that our cause requires propping from these quarters. Not so. We have neither changed our position, nor have any fears for its strength. All we have said in our answer is, that the fathers may be used as helps in interpreting Serip- ture ; they form "aw historical basis" for investigating the sacred writings, as inspired history, on the subj,ect of Episco- pacy: there was no need, therefore, we may say in passing, of quoting Webster on the word "basis," and enlarging so inge- niously on the over-ample significancy that may be put on it. In the Tract, we began with these declarations : " The claim of Episcopacy to be of Divine institution, and therefore obligatory on the Church, rests fimdamentaliy on the one question, Has it the authority of Scripture ? If it has not, it is not necessarily binding." "No argument is worth taking into account, that has not a palpable bearing- on the clear and naked topic — the scrip- tural evidence of Episcopacy." Now, do sueh declarations just- ify the notion that " the only books " to be referred to in the discussion, are those of Scripture? Are lexicons to be discarded in a merely scr'ipiuraA argument? books of illustration? com- mentators — seeing an inquirer into this subject is but aiming to be a commentator? common-sense and common-usage methods of interpreting? If not, then why extrude the fathers— not as furnishing an independent authority for the matter in question, but as affording one "basis" among others, for ascertaining the sense of the inspired authorities? ^Accordingly we announced, in the third paragraph of the Tract, that although " little or no reference to the fathers" would there be made, yet it was " not because their testimony is depreciated ; for it is of paramount value, in showing how the Scriptures connected with this con- troversy were interpreted by those who knew how the apostles themselves understood thenL" Surely an announcement so plain might have been sufficient to save the Rev. reviewer his many and earnest remarks on this point. We left the fathers EPISCOPACY TESTED BY §CRIPTDRB. 177 out of our line of argument in the Tract, except as following where others led us ; neither did we appeal to them even once, except as following the reviewer in the Answer; nor do we purpose doing more, while the debate on Episcopacy is confined to Scripture. But this does not imply that we treat them as non-entities. Episcopacv can do without them ; yet she re- joices to be with them. Considering the prejudice against them, in part, perhaps, well founded, the readier comprehension of a merely scriptural appeal, and the prompt hearing that is accord- ed it, we deemed it proper to submit to the public an argument of the latter sort — nor is our confidence in it diminished. But every mind that claims prerogative for itself, must allow the fair claims of mind in general, of other minds, ccBteris paribus — must of course allow reasonable deference to the fathers — and, for matters of testimony concerning the things of Scripture, must allow the early fathers to be witnesses of even " paramount value," provided the thing they attest be really found or inti- mated in that volume. This doing justice to the fathers is, be it noted, merely a defence of the consistency of our two productions, the Tract and the Answer. In neither of them have we made use of those authorities for the main purposes of the discussion. The reviewer was mistaken, in both fact and construction, when he allowed himself to write thus: "Slight circumstances often show strong inclinations, and habits of mind. How strong a hold this reference to other 'considerations' than the Scriptures, has taken upon the mind of the author of the Tract, and how reluctant he was to part with the ' extraneous' argument from the fathers, is shown by the fact, that he again recurs to it in the 'Answer,' and presents it at much greater length." In point of fact, the "Answer" does not touch the argument from the fathers, except in two slight allusions to Ignatius ; and in mak- ing those allusions we merely followed the reviewer, who had himself glanced at the same writer. And so as to other " extraneous" considerations, we adverted to them in the Answer, because the reviewer maintained strenu- ously that the " burden of proof" lay on us ; for how can the question, On whom lies this burden? be decided, without admit- ting extraneous topics? or rather, the topics bearing on this question are not to be regarded as extraneous to the scriptural argument^ though some of them are not contained in Scripture. "When we read that the sun stood still, we superinduce a strictly pertinent exposition from out of Scripture, from philosophy, and affirm that it was the earth that stood still : this surely is not extraneous to scriptural exposition. What the Tract objected to was, " extraneous and irrelevant' matter; if relevant, no topic is to be rejected. For example : the objection founded on annulling the orders of Non-episcopal ministers, and even on unchurching Non-episcopalians, is a consideration both foreign and irrelevant to the debate on Episcopacy ; because, if these 178 REMARKS PN A SECOND REVIEW OP consequences are involved in the decision, they must be put at issue, or the debate be silenced : and to argue against Episcopal claims because these results may flow from their establishment, is so far to take for granted that we have not truth on our side. But we do not stray into irrelevant ground, when we adduce the fads, that there were or are various grades in the ministries of the Patriarchal and Jewish Churches, and in those of Hea- thenism, as a presumptive argument that the same feature would be engrafted on Christianity ; and when we affirm that a similar presumption arises from there being various grades among civil, military, naval, corporation, and society officers. The reviewer, indeed, asserts that his denomination fulfils what is demanded by this latter presumption, by having the "offices" of pastors, ruling elders and deacons: but this we deem a play on the word "officers," rather than a grasping of the real argument. The real argument is, that there must be such grades of officers as will discharge the functions of government as they are usually discharged. Would he have no higher civil officers than the first judge of a county, or the president judge of a district? yet a county or district is much larger than a Presbyterian parish. Would he say that the judges, sheriffs, and constables fill »tp the analogy with ordinary civil governments? If not, then he wants a governor over them, and in that feature we have so much presumptive argument for a bishop. The presumption drawn from the various grades of the priesthoods of other religions is so decisively in our favor, that the reviewer passes it in silence — Non-episcopalians have but one grade to minister in sacred things, and no superior grade to govern the other ministers. We regard then our presumptive argument drawn from these mimerous facts, there being also no exceptions worth noticing, as uninjured by Mr. Barnes. And we assert that it clearlj' throws the burden of proof on the parity side of the question ; we have a right to enter on the investigation of Scripture with the presumption that the Christian ministry was constituted, like all other ministries, with a distinction of ranks within itself. Nor is this right founded on considerations that are either irre- levant or extraneous to the scriptural argument. We go to Scripture. We there find mention of " apostles and elders," and of "bishops and deacons;" elders and [presbyter] bishops are the same, by the concession of both parties; and thus we have " apostles, and elders, and deacons," the three orders of Episcopacy. So far the matter seems clear. But objections are raised. 1. It is alleged, that the expression "apostles and elders" is our "lonely Scripture proof of the sweeping claims that the apostles only had the power of ordina- tion, and that this was the peculiarity of the office," But we did Jiot adduce this scripture to show what powers the apostles had, but only to show that they were a class distinct from the elders, and, as combined with other scriptural considerations, that they were "superior to them in ministerial power and EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 179 rights:" the nature of this superiority in power and rights was a different branch of the argument; and that certain powers and rights belonged to the apostles, to the exclusion of presby- ters, was made to appear from other scriptures. Neither is it quite correct to represent the expression " apostles and elders" as only one "passage," one "text," as " the solitary text," for it occurs at least six times, and is a mode of speaking very remark- ably adhered to in all that relates to the council at Jerusalem, where the distinction in priestly rank would naturally be recog- nised in a formal manner. 2. It is further objected, that though this expression shows " that there was a distinction of some sort between the apostles a7?rf elders," it does not prove the distinction to have been an official one. Taken alone it does not ; but com- bined with the other scriptural considerations adverted to, it does : no other explanation, as the Tract (p. 15) sufficiently evinced, will stand. And this is allowed by Mr. Barnes with regard to all the other explanations, except one, to which, therefore, we next turn. 3. In his first review, Mr. B. regarded as the apos- tolic distinction, their being selected to bear witness to the " sufferings" and the " resurrection " of Christ. In his second review, he expands the ground of their distinction — they were " appointed to be witnesses of his entire ministry, including the fact of his resurrection." This expansion is unfortunate, for Paul was one of the Apostles, in the highest sense — in every sense ; yet, though a witness of the resurrection, he certainly was not a witness of the "entire ministry " of Christ. Nor do we read that he witnessed his "sufferings." Hence, we may regard the question concerning the apostolic distinction, in the phrase "apostles ancZ elders," as being between their func- tion as special witnesses of the resurrection, and the official superiority we claim for them. Now, what said the Tract on this point? "Though the twelve Apostles were selected as special witnesses of the resurrection, yet others received that appella- tion who were not thus selected, as Timothy, Silvanus, Andro- nicus, Junia," «&c. — we ought to have added Barnabas, and referred also to the " false apostles," even down to the year 96, in "the church of Ephesus." What did the reviewer say of this part of the Tract? not a word; he omitted our allusion to the Apostles as "special witnesses of the resurrection;" and went on to a long argument to prove this fact, and that in this fact rested their distinction. To this plea the Answer replies, " Was this distinction the one that led to the expression 'apos- tles and elders?' Surely not. Among those apostles was Bar- nabas, and perhaps Silas, neither of whom was a special witness of the resurrection. Besides, the expression is used with imme- diate reference to the council at Jerusalem, and why, in a coun- cil acting on questions concerning ' idols, blood, things strangled, and licentiousness,' should the special witnesses of the resur- rection have, as such, peculiar authority ?" Here are two con- clusive arguments against the reviewer's explanation of these 180 REMARKS ON A SECOND REVIEW OP wor(ls ; yet not the least attention is given them in the second Review , it being merely alleged that we look " no notice" of his " texts." But was not this a sufficient notice of them? did it not show, that let his texts prove what they might, they did not prove that, in the council at Jerusalem, the "Apostles" were distinguished from the " elders," as being special witnesses of the resurrection? To what, however, do his texts amount? they merely declare the thirteen Apostles to be " witnesses," to be "chosen " as witnesses, to be " ordained" as witnesses; but does this imply that they were chosen and ordained for nothing else? if so, then the thirteen were not chosen or ordained to be ministers of the Gospel ? if, however, they were chosen and ordained to be ministers of the Gospel, as Mr. Barnes allows the eleven to have been very early, then their selection and ordina- tion was not as special witnesses merely ; and we go to Scrip- ture to see what sort of ministers they were, and in what lay the distinction which placed them, and the others called apostles, in a class separate from the ministers called elders. By such an appeal to Scripture we find, as the Tract will show, that the apostles ordained, and presbyters did not ; that the apostles had authority over presbyters ; and that they exercised discipline over their heads. But Mr. Barnes will perhaps remind us that we have still omitted one of his texts — " Am I not an apostle ? am I not free ? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord ? are not ye my work in the Lord ?" From these words he infers, in common with some other writers, that to have " seen" Christ was an essential quali- fication for the apostleship. But surely, in the first place, this is taking' the drift of Paul's argument for granted, for we may just as well understand the passage as giving four separate topics of animadversion on certain Corinthians for their oppo- sition to him, as regard the third topic in the light of a proof o{ the first. In the next place, if the third topic is a proof of the first, the second ought to be the same, and then " freedom," i. e. the right to take clerical maintenance, or decline it, was one of the marks of the thirteen pre-eminent " apostles !" whereas it belonged to every minister. So of the fourth topic ; were not Paul and all the others " apostles " as soon as they had their commission, and before they had done any of their " work in the Lord?" We say then, that the Non-episcopal argument drawn from this passage is utterly valueless. Dr. Hammond gives the true meaning — ihe full meaning, for it cannot be made to imply more, without a pctitio principu\ and without making nonsense of the second and fourth topics. " I may surely say four things of myself: L That I am an apostle of Christ, called from heaven immediately to that office ; 2. That I had no obli- gation 10 do what I have done among you, that is, to preach on free cost to you, as I have; that I discern my Christian liberty 80 well that I know T might have done otherwise ; 3. That though I was none of Christ's followers here on earthy yet I EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 181 have been equalled to thera by seeing and being spoken to by Christ out of heaven; and, 4. Tliat I am certainly he that con- verted you to the faith, that planted the Gospel at Corinth, and so surely am not unworthy to be considered by you." To close this part of the discussion, we suggest, that regarding these four topics as separate^ which they certainly are, St. Paul here makes his '' apostleship" a privilege entirely distinct from that of his having " seen Jesus Christ." When Paul exclaimed, "Are all apostles?" he obviously allowed that some might be apostles who were not special wit- nesses of the resurrection. If none others could be apostles, the exclamation would have been against an argument of straw. The same result flows from the case of the " false apostles," who continued their pretensions down to the year 96. (Rev. ii. 2.) There could have been no false apostles, had there been no real ones but the thirteen — none but those who were special witnesses of the resurrection. Unless the true apostles had become numerous, the false would have -had no chance for their impos- ture. And in the year 96 none of the thirteen remained but St. John ; yet there were then so many apostles that pretenders could claim the oflice without being instantly rejected as not having been " special uitnesses." We hope the Rev. reviewer is noiD satisfied with our " notice " of his " proof-texts." We stated in the Tract that " it would not be questioned" that the apostles were officially superior to the elders. Our Rev. opponent, without denying this assertion, i. e. " it will not be questioned," placed it in a ridiculous light. We then adduced several Presbyterian authorities, who allowed the apostles' offi- cial superiority, and who thus proved that this assertion of ours was fairly made. To this the reviewer replies, that we quoted them " to prove that the apostles were superior to the elders ;" whereas we brought them, not to prove the fact, but merely that the fact " would not be questioned" by Presbyterians — and surely, for this purpose, their sentiments are not to be regarded as " extraneous considerations." The reviewer further replies, that these divines only assert the apostles to be superior to the eld*ers " in some respects, or, that there was a distinction between them." Not so ; they do not speak thus vaguely ; the extracts under four of the six heads assert their " official" superiority ; that from Dr. Miller, their "vested authority over other minis- ters ;" and Dr. Campbell calls them " universal bishops," as distinguished from local pastors or parochial bishops. On the point that the ministerial superiority of the apostles " would not be questioned," the authority of these divines was ex- plicit, and sufficient to justify the assertion. Nor do we per- ceive that that assertion is even now denied or questioned by the reviewer. In our Answer to the first Review, we expanded a certain note in the Tract, and showed t.iat the Apostle Paul exercised discipline, and claimed the jight of exercising discipline, in 16 182 REMARKS ON A SECOND REVIEW OF churches were there were elders ; the cases recorded being the churches of Corinth and Epliesus. To tliis our Rev. opponent objects— 1. That it is "remarkable" that only the disciplinary acts of Paul are mentioned in Scripture, not those of the other Apostles : but is it not just as " remarkable" that, in the Acts, after the travels and doings of Paul are fairly introduced to notice, almost nothing is said of the travels and doings of the rest of the thirteen ? is it not just as remarkable that Paul fur- nishes fourteen epistles, and all the rest only seven? 2. He objects that so few instances of discipline are recorded : but we reply, that we must take the record of the Holy Spirit as we find it, and make it our authority ; that there are no cases recorded of discipline by presbyters; and that we adduced passages in which the right to inflict discipline is claimed by an apostle indivi- dually, without intimating the operation or the co-operation of the presbyters concerned ; which passages the reviewer leaves unnoticed. 3. He objects that in the cases of discipline exer- cised by Paul, Timothy and Titus were present and unnoticed, which is so much disparagement of their Episcopal claims. Here also we have an easy reply ; we never said, as the reviewer alleges, that Titus was in Corinth or in Ephesus when these acts of discipline respectively were inflicted ; neither does he attempt to prove it. That Timothy was not in Corinth at that time, or not expected to be there, though he had been sent thither, is evident from the last chapter of the first epistle— "t/Timotheus come," &c.; and that the discipline mentioned had been inflicted at Ephesus before Timothy was placed there, is twice allowed by the reviewer himself; the contrary has never been main- tained by us ; and Paul speaks of it as a past occurrence in writing the first epistle to Timothy; it happened previous to the time of Timothy's being put in charge of that diocese. How then stand these cases? just as was stated in our Tract and Answer. Paul individually inflicts discipline in Corinth and Ephesus, though there were elders in both churches, who, on the Presbyterian theory, ought to have inflicted it. 4. But it is further objected, that they were peculiar cases; bodily disease, miraculously produced, being part of the penally; and none but the Apostles (the thirteen) having this miraculous power. Such we understand to be the reviewer's argument. We think, how- ever, it is of no force. In the case at Corinth, the offender was " delivered unto Satan, for the destruction of the flesh ;" but in that at Ephesus, the offenders were only " delivered unto Satan." Now, as to the " delivery to Satan," it means only excommunication — so we think, with many commentators — and It certainly need not mean any thing more: as the conversion of men, and bringing them, into the Church, was "turning them from the power of Satan unto God, that they might receive for- giveness of sins ;" so when the.sins of any one were " retained," and he was excommunicated, he was ejected from the favor of God, and given back to Satan. In the Presbyterian Forms of EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 183 Process, (1. 15,) one of these very passages is quoted as authority for "the highest censure of the Church."* Such was the disci- pline in the cases at Ephesus ; and it was the act, not of the presbyters, but of an apostle. As to the expression, " the destruction of the flesh." some commentators do not interpret it of a miraculous infliction ; others do : conceding the latter, we are to remember that there were " worlcers of miracles" in Corinth; and therefore, if that church or its elders had the power of supreme discipline, they could have exercised it even with this extraordinary penalty, without the intervention of St. Paul; yet he alone does this act, which proves that supreme discipline was not intrusted to either the church or its eldera. Such was the mode of passing the "highest censure" on the offender at Corinth. It is further alleged, however, by our Rev. opponent, that ia the context of one of these passages. (I Cor. v.) " it is supposed that they [the church at Corinth] did themselves usually exer- cise discipline," nay, that Paul " supposes that it ought to have been done in this case." To these two allegations we oppose the reviewer's own words in the next paragraph but one — " The circumstances of the early churches were such as to make this apostolic intervention proper, and even indispensable In most cases their founders were with them but a few weeks. f and then left them under the care of elders ordained from among themselves. Those elders would be poorly qualified to dis- charge the functions of their office The churches must be imperfectly organized; unaccustomed to rigid discipline; ex- posed to many temptations ; easily drawn into sin ; and subject to great agitation and excitement." Now, if such were the con- dition of both elders and people at Corinth, how could Paul have expected them to exercise discipline, either in tliis aggra- vated case, or "usually?" or how can the reviewer imagine that Paul looked for their action, when he declares that it was morally impossible for them to act ? Nay, if such were " the early churches," and their elders, how can he claim any scrip- ture whatever for their having discipline intrusted to them? — such a fact would be a final presumptive argument against interpreting Scripture to that effect. He pleads, however, the clause, "Do not ye judge them that are within" the church? So doubtless their elders did in lighter matters, even to the lesser excommunication; but the action of Paul in this case shows ♦ In the Biblical Repertory for April. 1835, (p. 232.) we find the same use of the stronger of these passages, bv the " Antiburgher Synod," in Scotland, — " Accord- ingly the sentence of the greater excommunmcation was, on tlje 9tli August, 1749, pronounced upon the aforesaid persons ; ' casting them out from the commu- nion of the Cliurch nf Christ ; delivering them unto Satan, for the destruction of the flesh,'" &c. When Presbyterians want tliis passage of Scripture for their own purposes, tliey perceive very readily that it does not relate to a supernatural penalty. t At Corintli, Paul "coniinueda year and six months," and " after this tarried there yet a good while." (Acts xviii. 11, 18.) 184 REMARKS ON A SECOND REVIEW OF that they did not inflict the greater. The clause, indeed, may not refer to official acts, in the Corinthian church, but only to the personal discountenance of offenders ; hence Doddridge says, "Do not even you, in your more prwate capacity, judge those that are within ? I have taught you that every private Christian should be concerned in his station to maintain the disci- pline of the Church of Christ, and to bear his testimony against disorderly walkers, which may at present have a place in it." So of the case at Thessalonica — " If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed." Mr. Barnes declares that this was a direction to that church " to exercise discipline." But how can he make this appear ? The natural sense of the words is that Christians, in their " private capacity," should avoid such offenders; it does not extend to official proceedings. He who contends for the latter view, must allow also that "the elect lady" exercised discipline — " If any man come unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed." Our Rev. opponent will see that his mode of arguing proves too much. He surely does not suppose that ecclesiastical discipline was committed to a " lady," or to a " lady and her children." The reviewer brings into fresh notice the elders of Ephesus, and those addressed by St. Peter, and concludes that they " were intrusted with the pastoral care to the fullest extent . . . instructing, directing, and governing the ^ocA;." Who denies this ? not we, certainly ; except so far as an appeal to the bishop qualifies the expression " fullest extent." Neither do " the canons of the Episcopal Church." But where does he find that elders " ruled" elders? that presbyter-bishops governed presby- ter-bishops ? That is the point ; and the Non-episcopal world has long been challenged, but in vain, to make it good.. But he is unlucky in conceding thus plainly ^^ pastoral care to the /idl- est extent" to the eiders of Ephesus : for he says, in the course of a few pages, " In our Review we showed that all the facts in the case of the elders at Ephesus are met by the supposition that they were riding elders" What! Have ruling elders "the pastoral care to the/idlest extent ?" are they deemed " bishops" by the Presbyterians; the Ephesian elders being thus called in Acts XX.? — See also the Presbyterian Form of Government, ch. iii. Of these "bishops" Mr. Barnes says — "There is no counsel given them about the proper mode of administering the sacraments," implying that they had not the right to do so ; yet of those at Philippi he writes — " The other class, the ' bish- ops,' constitute the preaching order, or the clergy, those to whom were committed the preaching of the word, the adminis- tration of the sacraments," &c. What are we to make of these contradictory expositions? Is it intended to save the Presbyte- rian argument, that there were no " clergy " at Ephesus, only "ruling elders," when Timothy was placed there? And is it EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTDRE. 185 asserted that, though Philippi included "a group of churches,'* Ephesus had but " one flock," the former in the year 64, ihe latter in 96, to elude the Episcopal argument drawn from " the angel of the church of Ephesus?" We cannot impute the unfairness of a covert motive lo our Rev. opponent. But we have a right to express our regret, that he was not more vigilant against mistakes that amount to inconsistency. He says that " no one will pretend that bishops are referred to" in the passages, " remember them wliich have the rule over you," " obey them that have the rule over you." This is a mis- take as to " one " person at least ; for we made the " assertion," in the Tract, (p. 2.-,) that they referred to "the Episcopal ministry:" other writers also take the same view of these pas- sages. We even intimated that they amount to a " command" to conform to that, the only scriptural model of the holy office. And we now intimate the same of the passage, "know them which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord"— and this we do, though our Rev. opponent thinks " there can be no question " that it is " applied to presbyters." Our reason he will see in the Tract. He "asks for a solitary passage which directs apostles or prelates to administer discipline." If he means to halt at th© words "apostles" and " prelates," he will halt on words only, not on things. We call Timothy an apostle, and Timothy and Titus prelates; but call them what you will, they -individually^ with no mention of the elders, are desired to " administer discipline " —yes, frequently, as the Tract fully evinced—'' that thou niight- est charge some that they teach no other doctrine — against an elder receive not [thoit] an accusalioiv, but before two or three witnesses— them that sin, rebuke [Mow] before all— I charge th£e, that thou observe these things — from such turn [t-hoii] away, or, such turn [thoii] away — whose mouths must be stop- ped wherefore, rebuke [thoiC] them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith — rebuke [thou'\ with all authority. Let no man despise thee — a man that is a heretic [do. tho'ii] reject," All these directions to administer discipline are given to indivir dual ministers, over the heads of the elders.. Add to these the passages in which the actual infliction of discipline, or the RIGHT to inflict it, are mentioned, pertaining to apostles and other individuals, without reference to elders, as given in our Tract and Answer, and the evidence for this feature of Episco- pacy will be superabundant. How, in the face of the first por- tion of this evidence, that relating to. Timothy, besides what refers to his right to ordain — how eoukJ the reviewer say, that " the epistles to Timothy .... contain no description of his own office as a prekte!" they da describe that office— they describe it amply and clearly. So elear is the testimony of " the writings of Paul " of Timo- thy's "having first received the episcopate at Ephesus," that Eusebius— so at least it appears to us— recognises that testi* 16* 186 REMARKS ON A SECOND REVIEW OF mony. In B. 3, ch. 4, of which the title is, " The first Succes- sors of the Apostles," he says, " But how many and which of these, actuated by a genuine zeal, were judged suitable to feed the churches est-ablished by these apostles, it is not easy to say, any further than may be gathered from the writings of Paul. For he, indeed, had innumerable fellow-laborers, or as he himself calls them, fellow-soldiers in the Church. Of these the greater part are honored with an indelible remembrance by him in his epistles, where he gives a lasting testimony concern- ing them. Luke also, in his Acts, speaking of his friends, men- lions them by name. Timothy, indeed, is recorded as having first received the episcopate at Ephesus, as Titus also was appointed over the churches in Crete." (Cruse's Eusebius, p. 84.) Eusebius speaks of the comparative insufficiency of his other sources of information on this point, as contrasted with "the writings of Paul." Those " \vrilings," then, must have been his authority, or at least sustained him, in saying that Timothy was set "over" the church at Ephesus— he construed them as Episcopalians do. He did the same with the scrip- tures relating to Titus. The reviewer still insists that Timothy is not called an " apos- tle " in Scripture. What are the facts ? Paul begins, 1 Thess., in the name of himself, Silvanus, and Timothy — in the second diapter he says, " IVe might have been burdensome to you as the apostles of Christ " — and that he does not use the plural number in the singular sense, is evident in the next verse but one, " we were willing to have imparted unto you our own souls." Now, as one man has but one " soul," if Paul were speaking of himself only, he would have said " our own soul;" but as he uses the plural word " souls," it is clear that he alluded there to Silvanus and Timothy with himself. Just as clear, of course, it is, that he alluded to all the three in the phrase " apostles of Christ " — and thus Silvanus and Timothy are called " apos- tles" in Scripture. But the reviewer objects that, in a previous verse of the same chapter, Paul speaks of the persecution at Philippi — "•uje were shamefully entreated;" and that as only Paul and Silas were beaten and put in prison, Timothy was not with them in that city ; and that thus the plural sense of " apos- tles" is untenable. We liave answered, that Timothy is declared to have been with Paul before and after that persecution, and that there is no intimation that they were parted in the meantime. We further answer — though only Paul and Silas were beaten and imprisoned, others then belonged to their company, as appears from the expression, " the same followed Paul and ws," (Acts xvi. 17,) which implies that besides Silas, Luke the writer, and probably others, were in Paul's retinue at the time; these were not so severely used; and this destroys the ground taken by the reviewer, that Timothy could not then have been in Philippi, simply because he did not suffer as much as those two. Again : Paul says to the Philippians, of EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 187 Timothy, " Ye know the 'proof of him, that, as a son with the father, he hath served with ine in the Gospel," (ii. 22 this impUes that the Philippians had become personally acquainted with Timothy, and whenhewas with them hi company with Paul; yet it is not recorded that Paul and Timothy had been together at Philippi, except at the time of the persecution mentioned ; it is only said they were afterward in Macedonia: hence Dod- dridsje and Macknight agree, that in the verse quoted, Paul alludes to Timothy's being in that city at the time mentioned. Indeed v.'e know of no one, but Mr. Barnes, who denies this fact. That Timothy is left out of sight in some parts of the narrative, in Acts xvi. and xvii., may have been owing to his youth, and his not being deemed by the persecutors so import- ant a person as Paul and Silas; besides their being milder with him on account of his Gentile descent — they "looked upon Paul and Silas," says Doddridge, "as much more consi- derable than Timothy and Luke,"— Hear, on the meaning of the word " apostles," the opinion of Macknight: "The apostle and Ms assistants were not 'influenced by any of those motives which actuate impostors. Instead of seeking to make ourselves powerful or rich by the Gospel, we never demanded the honor of obedience, nor of maintenance, either from you or from others; although we could have been burdensome to you in both these respects, as the apostles of Christ. The truth is, as apostles, they had authority from their Master to enjoin their disciples what was fit." This he says in the "View" preceding the chapter. In the translation he says, " As Christ's messen- gers" — so decidedly does the word a-noaroKoi. apply to all the three who join in tiieepislle. Hear also the opinion of T. Hart- well Home : he says, in his Analysis of the Epistle, " The character, behavior and views of the first preachers of the Gos- pel are an evidence of its truth. The apostles and their assist- ants, by preaching the Gospel, every where brought upon them- selves all manner of present evils, without obtaining the least temporal advantage." Again, " The second argument, taken from the character, behavior, and views of its first preachers."' This Divine regards Paul as including his " assistants" with himself, through the whole passage in which the word " apostles" is found ; it follows, of course, that they also are here called apos- tles. Hear, yet further, the opinion of Matthew Henry : he says, on this chapter, Paul " could appeal to the Thessalonians, how faithfully he, and Silas, and Timotheus . . . .had discharged their office"— "He tells them theij might have used greater authority as apostles."* We trust we have now settled the two points— that Timothy was at Philippi, at the period mentioned — and that Paul does call him and Silas " apostles." Some other objections in Mr, Barnes' first review had been already ♦ We add, as authorities for including Timothy and Silvanus under the appel- lation "apostles," the following— Estius, (Po. Syn.) Whitby, J. Brown, of Had' <^ngton, and A. Clarice. 188 REMARKS ON A SECOND REVIEW OF answered in the Protestant Episcopalian for March and Novem- ber, 1831. On the objection that Paul, in some places, calls Timothy only his " b/other," we may add, that Peter calls Paul "our beloved brother f James says to Paul, " Thou seest, brother;''^ Paul says, '• I found not Titus, my brother ;^^ Ana- nias says to Paul, already an apostle, ^^ Brother Saul, receive thy sight :" this is evidence enough that the appellation does not imply, as given to Timothy, that he was not an apostle. The cliief value of this fact— that Timothy is called an "apos- tle" in Scripture— is, its routing finally the Non-episcopal plea, that Timothy had superior power at Ephesus merely as an "evangelist." An apostle had full power, as such, and could have nothing added to it from having also tlie latter designa- tion. Philip and Timothy are the only individuals to whom that designation is applied j and there is no evidence that Philip had any special power as an evangelist j neither can there be evidence to that effect in the case of Timothy, since his apostleship gave him all the power a minister can have. Fare^ well, then, to this puny argument! Our Rev. opponent had too much penetration and accuracy of judgment to make any use of it in either of his reviews. We may here add, in passing, that the fact of Timothy's being an "apostle," shows that he could not have been ordained as such ,." with the laying on of the hands" of a Presbyterian " presbytery." So again ; Timothy being an "apostle," the direction of Paul to him — "The things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same comwit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also," is a "command" to transmit the apostolic office. That passage is understood by all the commentators now within our reach, of the perpetuation of the ministerial office--seeM. Henry, Doddridge, Macknight, Poole's Annotations, Hammond — and as the grade of that office held by Timothy from Paul was the apostolic, ihat^ " the same" must have been the grade he was to " commit," to transmit for the purpose of succession. Yet, further: Timothy being an "apostle," and being "com- manded " to transmit the apostleship to successors, we have clear enough evidence of the ministerial grade of the " angel of the Church of Ephesus" some thirty years afterward. If he was not Timothy the "apostle" himself, he was one of his apostolic successors. Such, likewise, of course, were the other six " angels." These are unavoidable results from the fact that Timothy is denominated an "apostle" by St. Paul. Some of them are indeed sufficiently established by the general argument, that Timothy individually held a station in the Church superior to that of the presbyter-bishops, and that Paul gives directions what such ministers as Timothy are to do "till the appearing of Jesus Christ," i. e. till the consummation of things. Add, how- EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 189 ever, to the general argument this specific one, and the evidence for Episcopacy, and the permanence of Episcopacy, is such as no talent or zeal can overthrow. Our Rev. opponent refers, for the support of part of his argument, to Bishop Slillingfleet — forgetful of the rule, that writers who have contradicted themselves are not to be appealed to, on either side. Bishop Slillingfleet unsaid, in later life, what he had said against Episcopacy in his earlier career. As to the supposed break in the chain of the English Episco- pal succession, in the cases of Aydan and Finan, we refer the Rev. reviewer to a full reply in the Churchman, transferred to the Protestant Episcopalian for December, 1834. This objection may do for those who are objection-hunters — it is not worthy of the notice of our able and candid opponent. He cannot suppose that it has any bearing on the questions — Is Episcopacy set forth in Scripture ? Is it there set forth as a permanent institution ? If these questions be answered in the negative, there is no need of seeking a break in the Episcopal succession. If in the affirmative, then, indubitably, we must presume the succession good, except where clear evidence exists to the contrary, or at least a doubt of overwhelming magnitude. There is, however, no sufficient reason to think Uiat the Episcopal succession failed in the case of these two persons, and the presumptive argument is so entirely against it, that the objection is unworthy of notice. Successive ordinations must, from the nature of the case, depend mainly for their evidence on notoriety — for manuscript records of such things are liable to mistakes and perversions, and also to extinction — " there are slight mistakes in the genealogy of our Lord, and that of the Jewish priesthood was not uniformly perfect" — and in the records of the ordinations of the multitudes of bishops that have existed, were they all preserved by suc- cessive copies, there would unquestionably be errors innume- rable, and now beyond correction. Notoriety, however, is an all-sufficient authentication of a matter of fact. And on the claims of notoriety, we may safely rest all Episcopal consecra- tions in the seventh century. Bede, the historian referred to in raising the objection before us, has obviously been mis- understood. The final topic, in the way of argument, of the reviewer, is this — one scriptural example of a Presbyterian ordination is enough to disprove the claim, " that none but prelates ordained" — and such an example is given in the text, "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." We join issue with him on this text, and will go again, and somewhat more largely, into the argument concerning it. We stated in the Tract, that it was allowed on all hands that the Apostles ordained. We showed also, that Timothy and Titus had the ordaining power. So far, we believe, tiiere is no question: this point is clear. We argued likewise, that it is 190 REMARK8 ON A SECOiND REVIEW OP not clear tliat presbyters ordained ; on the contrary, they were omitted in the directions for performing that duty ; and therefore the Apostles and Timothy and Titus ordained in virtue of a righ.t which it could not be proved that presbyters possessed — in other words, they ordained in virtue of iheir being a grade of ministers superior to presbyters, or different from them, if the word 'superior' be disliked. How did we show that the text quoted is not a clear record of a Presbyterian ordination? We did it by presenting several considerations, which, at the lowest estimate,- make this con- struction of the passage doubtful ; and which, fairly weighed, cancel the whole claim thus built on it. Some of these we here repeat, and add further arguments to the same effect. 1. It cannot be proved that the passage refers to ordination of any kind. A gift, %apt(r/ia, given by prophecy, may justly be regarded as some extraordinary spiritual endowment ; and it is so regarded by various commentators. Or, the " prophecy" here mentioned, and tlte laying on of hands, may be held analogous to the inspired separation of Barnabas and Paul, who were apostles already, to a particular sphere of apostolic duty, which was done by "prophets;" (Acts xiii;) and thus Timothy had his "charge" at Ephesus "committed unto him according to the prophecies which went before on him." Neither of these expo- sitions is strained ; they both are natural. The latter of them, we fully believe, would be assigned by a commentator whose mind was not pre-occupied with questions concerning ordination, and who would make the sole rule of his interpretation the "comparing Scripture with Scripture." It is doubtjul then, reasonably doubtful, whether the text refers to ordination at all. And here we make wir stand— though we carry onward the argument, for the sake of those who do not agree with us. 2, Conceding, for the purpose of further investigation, that Timothy's ordination is here referred to, it is not clear that the word translated "presbytery" means a V'dy of ordainers — it may mean ' presbytership,' the ministerial office — with the laying on of hands for conferring the presbytership — and, under that construction, the passage does not say whose hands were laid on Timothy for this purpose. For this meaning of the word we adduced the authority of Jerome. Ambrose, Calvin, and Grotius.* Are not such authorities sufficient to render doubtful the allusion of the passage to ordination by presbyters? And what does Mr. Barnes oppose to tliis argument and its authority? — 1. That it makes Timothy an elder, and so not an apostle ; which is just as conclusive as to say that Peter and John, being called "elders," could not have been apnsiles 2. That the word in question means a body of elders in two other places ; so it does, and yet may * Poole says, in hig Synopsis — " Ita voceni banc accipiunt Hieron. Amb. Grxci in Cone. Nicen. can. 2. Ancvr. can. 18. Euseb. et Soc." Surely the word is not, as Mr B. alleges, " fixed in its meaning, in the usage of the Church :" even if it were, does church usage control the interpretation of Scripture? EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURB. 191. mean only the clerical office here. 3. Thai Siiicer, quoting from Theodorel, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Ignatius, gives the word the sense of a "college of presbyters:" we have not Suicer at hand, but are very sure that not one of his quotations can refer to ordinations by mere presbyters; we are sure also, that if he quotes Jerome and Ambrose fully, he must give the sense of "presbytership" to the Greek word. 4. That Grotius, in recog- nising this latter sense of the word, speaks of the presbyters laying on hands with the pri7iceps o[ iheirbo^y ; and that Calvin, in his commentary, interprets the word of " tlie college of pres- byters :" but surely these replies leave the whole matter in even greater doubt: Grotius, though he mentions the presbyters' laying on hands, declines adducing the text before us as a proof of their right to do so, because its meaning is uncertain ; and Calvin gives one meaning to irpcalivTtpiov in his Institutes, (for which, says Dr. Miller, he deserves nothing but ridicule !) and in his Commentary, a later production, he prefers the other meaning — only prefers it — for he adds, "Although, all things considered, I confess a different sense answers not badly, that it should be the name of office'''' — now, what but doubly increased [may we not say, irremediable] doubt, can result from the hesita- tion of these learned men concerning the meaning of the word! Such is the predicament in which the highest Presbyterian authority, to say nothing of the other autliorities mentioned, leaves the only text which Mr. Barnes adduces for his causCj the "solitary text," the " lonely Scripture proof!" 3. Granting, yet further, that the word should be "presbytery," and that it means a body of "elders,'' it still is not clear that presbyter-bishops, or they only, were meant. Two of the Apostles call themselves elders— and thus the "presbytery" may have consisted of apostles only : and Paul and Silas, both apostles, were at Lystra, when Paul took Timothy " with him." Again: Paul speaks of the gift which was in Timothy by the laying on oihis hands ; and the same arguments which make the other passage apply to ordination, will unavoidably make this also: hence, if an ordination was meant, Paul must have officiat- ed at it, whoever else did; and tlius the act was an apostolical one, and the transaction affords no proof that presbyters alone can ordain. More doubt then, as we proceed, is gathered round the Presbyterian exposition of this passage— and this doubt is fairly and honestly adduced ; it arises, not by conjuration, but naturally and inevitably. 4. If it be said that the "elders" in this supposed ordaining " presbytery" are to be regarded as of the specific kind, presby- ter-bishops or pastors— that this meaning of the word has the preference by the laws of language,— we reply, besides refer- ring to our Tract, that our Presbyterian friends have cut them- selves off from taking advantage of this argument, by putting two kinds of elders into their " presbyteries," the specific kind, and the ruling-elder kind ; and so we may unite the apostolic 192 REMARKS ON A SECOND REVIEW OF sort and the presbyter sort in such a body. Their Form of Government says, " A presbytery consists of all the ministers, and one ruling elder from each congregation, within a certain district" — and at the ordination of a pastor, "the presbytery" is to be " convened," and is to " lay on hands." 5. From this it appears that the lay elders are to join in the imposition of hands. Not having witnessed a Presbyterian ordi- nation, we know not what is the practice^ but such is the authenticated direction, and if it be not fulfilled, the ordiujation is not by the presbytery of their own defining. Do the lay elders, in this act, unite in conferring the pastoral commission ? or do they only give consent to what is done by the ordainers proper ? The former they cannot do— not being ministers them- selves, they cannot make other men ministers. The latter then is the function assigned to them — they give consent; the ordi- nation is "by" the laying on of the hands of the pastoral elders, (strictly of the " presiding" one,) and " with" the lay- ing on of the hands of the lay elders. Here is a distinction between by and with, quite independent of the " learned criti- cism" that has been bestowed on the Greek words; and we may avail ourselves of it, in discussing the theory of Timothy's being ordained by the laying on of Paul's hands, and icith the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. In doing so, we take the authority of the rules of the Presbyterian Church, whether their practice conforms to them or not. If they deny our construction of their rules, they make two kinds of presbyte- ries — and then, what results but further doubt concerning " pres- bytery " in the passage before us ? — they define a presbytery, and then depart from their own definition — which of th% two kinds is the scriptural one ? which has scriptural authority ? [Since writing the last paragraph, we have consulted Buck's Dictionary, and find that in the Church of Scotland, the pastoral are distinguished from the ruling elders in two particulars — they only lay on hands in ordaining pastors — and the presiding ofiicer of the presbytery is chosen from among them. We have made inquiries also concerning the practice in Presbyte- rian ordinations in this country, and learn that the ruling elders do not impose hands with the pastors — though the opinion is not unsupported, that they ought to do so. On this evidence, combined with that of the Presbyterian standards, we offer the following remarks: 1. If the "presbytery" of the standards is the same as that supposed to be mentioned in the epistle to Timothy, then the lay, as well as the pastoral elders, ought to lay on hands. Yet in fact they do not. Of course, under this construction, Presbyterian ordina'aons are not scriptural. 2. If the "presbytery" of the standards is not that of Paul's epistle, then the Presbyterians have not a scriptural church govern- ment: for no other Christian presbytery is mentioned in the New Testament. And further, they make, under one name, two ecclesiastical bodies ; the one for governing, which is not lEPISCOt*ACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE* 195 found in Scripture, but only in their standards ; the other for ordaining, said by them to be in Scripture; while yet this say is jin,oc ipso loco a preebyierio. velnt ex profeeao, excluduntur. Pre^Vterium enim hoc iniuius ministris ordinandis imposuit Nulli autem laicorum eeniorum manus ministris imposuerunl: Hoc postremo habendum; solos pastores manus imposuisse ministris. Calvinus, li. 4. Instit. ca. 3. So Jerome and Anselm. expound Presbyterium by Presbyteratits, or Episcopatus, that is, the, office of a priest or bishop : and Lyra,Presbyterium est dignitas vel officium presbyteri. Yea, their own Rhemists confess so much, in that they translate the word presbyteriuir. in this place, priesthood, which doth not signify a company of priests, but the office and order of a priest. Yet others seem to be of a contrary opinion." — Here> surely, is an unexceptionable witness ; he was "learned," he waa " a violent Presbyterian," and both pohtically and ecclesiastically connected with the interests of that denomi- nation. What says he of the doubtful word 7 it means 'seniorum ordo,' the degree or order of elders, as well as a 'company' of them ; and he gives as full authority, at least, for the former sense, as for the Jiatter. It means also the office of a bishop, and a body of bishops ; good authorities being adduced for these significations also. What, now, must we think of Dr. Miller, when he says that Calvin, for interpreting the word of office, " deserves notliing but ridicule 1" (p. 58. \st edit.) What shall we think of Mr. Barnes, when he says, " The woad is ^xed in its meaijing, in the usage of the Church 1" If ever there was a word pre eminently not fixed in ita meaning, irp£a(3vT£Diov is such a word. Nay, we may affirm that its meaning cannot now be fixed — for the authority for each of the several meanings presented in this extract, is too good to be set aside, and neither of them can be preferred, without the shedding of new light on the subject. The Presbyterian construction has only the merpst chance of being the true one. For ourselves, we prefer the analogy of the " transaction " in this passage with that in Acts xiii. : this scriptural analogy appears to us stronger than all the argunoients adduced for the other inte^^ pretations. EPISCOPACT TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. IW text, tlie "lonely" text, to the conflicting claims of Episcopjp- lians, Presbyterians, and the advocates of lay ordination. Such, upon all these considerations, is the hopeless predica- ment of the passage before us. Yet on such a text Mr. Barnes rests his argument for the scriptural authority of Presbyterian ordination; on this text alone, for he does not support it, on the point of ordination, by any other scriptures. Nay, we see not that he has any scrip- tures to support it with ; for, in his first Review, he acknowledges that "the transaction at Antioch was not a Presbyterian ordina- tion ;" and if he go to the cases of Matthias, the seven deacons, and the " eMers in every church," he will find them all the work of apostles, not of elders. In this one passage then, "the laying on of the hands of the presbytery," we have not merely the only passage he offers, but the only one he can offer. Will he tell us then what rrpecfivTipiov in this passage means? will he tell us, on such principles and on such authority as will scatter reasonable doubt, and compel the acquiescence of all candid and honest minds ? No, he cannot. The grounds of uncertainty, as to its meaning, are too numerous, too rife even in his own denomination, to admit of a concentration of opinion on the Presbyterian sense, or indeed on any one sense, of that Greek word. We are right therefore, in deeming it to have referred to an inspired transaction, which affords no rule of conduct to. uninspired agents. Compare with these "shadows, clouds, and darkness," the Episcopal argument. That the Apostles ordained, all agree. That Timothy and Titus had the power to ordain, all agree; That the two latter had this power individually is clear, if proof to the contrary be not shown, for the epistles are directed to them individually. What is the proof to the contrary ? Nothing positive any where — nothing by inference in the epistle to Titus— and in those to Timothy, nothing but the very passage •we have had before us, the meaning of which even Presbyterians cannot decide, and which of course affords no availing inference whatever. Timothy and Titus then had the ordaining power individually. Timothy was to have it "till the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ," the end of the world ; that is, such minis- ters as Timothy were to be perpetuated while the earthly Church should endure — what he had received of Paul W'as to be "com- mitted to faithful men" successively. Is there any flaw in this chain of proofs ? do any reasonable doubts obscure this argument from Scripture? No : we aver it to be as clear as any matter of doctrine or discipline drawn from that holy volume. This is enough for an inductive proof of Episcopal ordination. Add to it the total want of proof of Presbyterian ordination. Where shall any proof of it be found? In the "transaction at Antioch ?" Mr. Barnes gives it up ; the late Dr. Wilson gave it up ; Dr. Miller, if we understand his late Tract, (p. 12, 54,) gives il up ; the Review of our Tract in the Biblical Repertory is. 1.7.* 198 REMARKS ON A SECOND REVIEW OF silent concerning the paragraphs on that "transaction" which appeared to Mr. Barnes so '-conclusive." Will proof be sought in the passage " laying on of the hands of the presbytery?" it cannot be done, till it be determined what the passage means. Will it be looked for in the fact that a "plurality" (we take this word from Dr. Miller) ordained? the answer is, that in every recorded case of that sort, the ordainers were apostles, not mere presbyters.* This is all the scriptural proof, we believe, that Non-episcopalians claim for their ordinations: and what does it amount to? precisely nothing — their proof is no proof. The result is, that Episcopal ordination has the c/ear authority of Scripture^ and that Presbyterian ordination has no scriptural authority whatever. Because our Rev. reviewer finds no mention of persons in the apostolical or Episcopal grade of the ministry, in the epistles to the Philippians and the Thessalonians, he concludes that those churches, or "groups" of churches, were organized without them, under presbyter-bisiiops only. He might as well argue, that, because no ministers of any kind (except false teachers) are mentioned in the first epistle of John, the Christians for whom it was intended had none. Besides, there are those who think the Philippians had an apostle, Epaphroditus— and who include such an officer among those in the Church at Thessalonica who were "over them in the Lord." But we may grant the reviewer all he asks, and he will yet gain nothing. It is not inconsistent with the Episcopal scheme that new churches, or districts of churches, be for awhile without bishops; all our churches in this country were without them till after the Revolu- tion, their connexion with the bishop of London being little more than nominal, and without ecclesiastical authorization ; and in several of our new States and Territories now, there are churches without bishops, not being-numerous enough, as yet, to elect canonically such officers. Such districts have only, like the "group" of churches in or near Philippi, according to the reviewer, presbyter-bishops and deacons. They wilf -obtain each an apostle-bishop in due season, however, as Philippi unquestionably did, if without one at the time the epistle was written. And as to the alleged incongruity of elders, the " presbytery," " designating the bishop of Ephesus to his field of labor," what force is there in the objection? Do not Presbyterian laity desig- nate, in the first instance, to his field of labor, a pastor elect, or a pastor ordained coming from some other parish or situation? Do not our "elders and brethren," in convention, do the same for a bishop elect? Nay, our " elders and brethren" in Illinois have " appointed," have " designated to his field of labor," a * If these parts of Scripture are to be employed against us, it should be to the point that a " plurality " of bishops ought to act in aU ordinations. Our reply would then be, tliat Timotliy and Titus, individually, had the ordaining power EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCKIPTDRE. 199 bishop consecrated— Bishop Chase. And in England, where translations are allowed, the "brethren and elders," the king and the dean and chapter, are continually thus "designating" consecrated bishops to fields in which they did not labor before. We have now answered all that we deem material in the argument of our estimable opponent. And we will not deem him less estimable for an inadvertence into which he has fallen at the close of his work. When we quoted an encomium on our Church from his first review, we omitted his kind hope that she would be " the warm friend of revivals, and would con- secrate her wealth and power to the work of a perpetual aggres- sion on the territories of sin and death." The reviewer inti- mates that this omission of ours "evinced a degree of coldness toward the great work of converting the world," and that we were " alarmed at the word revivals." Now, we submit to the better judgment of our Rev. friend, whether he has not transcended his fair rights — whether our omission only of certain topics is justly construed into an aversion to them — whether a contro- vertist has the privilege of calling out his opponent on subjects foreign to the debate, and of which he says nothing — in short, whether this is not an " extraneous consideration," and one peculiarly improper, as having an ad captandiim appearance, in a discussion on the scriptural arguments concerning Episco- pacy ? Our opinions on the subject of " converting the world " have been published, and pretty widely circulated. And when the word " revivals " shall be authoritatively defined, we will say whether we are friendly to them or not. At present, the term includes proceedings of the most unruly and fanatical sort, as well as the periods of a gentler movement in piety, which never, we believe, had this name till of late years. And until the former are wholly discarded from the current defini- tion, we cannot sanction the loord "revivals." W^e are sure our Rev. friend will see that he has obliged us to make a gra- tuitous explanation. But we consign this mistake to oblivion, and assure him of oiir high estimate of his piety, talents, and honorable principles. That his reviews have not been more successful, is owing to the infelicity of the cause they would support — infelicity, we say, for we believe that in the controversies on the constitu- tion of the ministry, Episcopalians have invariably been the gainers. H. U. O. P. S. — We find that the Biblical Repertory joins Mr. Barnes in the opinion that Timothy was not at Philippi at the time of the persecution. Beyond these two writers, we know of none who even intimate such a view of the case. H. U. O. From tlie Biblical Repertory. REVIEW. Episcopacy Testrd by Scrtpturb. By the Right Rev. Henry tl.Onder- donk, D. D.. Assistant Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. ISmo. pp. 46. 1831. We think some apology to our readers will be considered as proper, not for being so tardy in our notice of this pamphlet, but for noticing it at all. It is not customary, we suppose, to review "Tracts;" not merely because of their number, and their diminutive and fugitive character; but also because, when they are decisively sectarian in their nature, they are regarded as meant for circulation only among the members of the particular sect for whose benefit they are intended. The history of this Tract, however, is somewhat peculiar. It was first published as an article in a periodical entitled, the " Protestant Episcopalian," without a name. Soon afterward a large number of extra copies were stricken off from the press of that work, and exten- sively circulated; but still without a name. In this form, copy after copy was sent to us by mail, which convinced us that something more was intended than to inform and satisfy Epis- copalians. In a short time it came forth from the Protestant Episcopal Press in New-York, as a formal tract, with the name of the writer; and was soon followed by intimations from various quarters, that it was deemed conclusively to establish the divine right of Episcopacy ; nay, that it v/as unanswerable. The whole Presbyterian Church, in no very indirect form, was challenged to reply. At length something like a tone of exult- ing sarcasm was publicly indulged. An answer was again and again called for, accompanied with more than insinuations that the silence of Presbyterians in regard to this Tract, must be interpreted as a virtual acknowledgment that they felt them- selves refuted and overcome. On the undignified and offensive aspect of this corrduct, we do not think proper to multiply remarks. Such puerile exulta- tion is the language of weakness, not of strength. It is very evident that those who indulged it were acquainted with only one side of the controversy. We are far, however, from ascrib- ing this conduct to Bishop Onderdonk himself. We have no doubt he would disdain it. The simple truth is, that we never gave this Tract even a cursory perusal, until within the last twenty-four hours. Al- though copy after copy was poured upon us by the mail, in all the stages of its publication ; yet, after glancing at a pagp here C 200 ) REVIEW — EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTORE. 201 and there, to the amount of a fourth, or, at most, a third part of its contents, and finding not a thought or an illustration with which we had not been made familiar by other writers, we closed the pamphlet under the deliberate impression that it did not call for any public notice. It never occurred to us as possible that any well-informed Presbyterian or Episcopalian could con- sider this manual as placing the claims of prelacy on any oiher or firmer gr<-^uud than that on which it was regarded as resting before. And, as we had repeatedly said in preceding numbers of our work, what we thought sufficient to discredit these claims, with all impartial readers, we felt no disposition to renew a controversy on which we thought enough had been wriiien ; especially when so many other subjects more nearly connected with the best interests of society, and the salvation of the soul, were urgently pressed upon our attention, and more than suffi- cient to fill our pages. These, most candidly, are our reasons for not having before taken any public notice of this manual. And our general esti- mate of its character would dispose us still to be silent. But as the voice of exultation over its su[)posed unanswerable charac- ter seems to be, in the Episcopal camp, waxing louder and louder; and as it is possible that some of our less-informed friends may misapprehend the reason of our silence, we liave resolved to offer a few cursory remarks on the boasted produc- tion before us. And in the outset, we think proper to say, that, although the style of this Tract is, in general, circuitous,' heavy and feeble ; — and although a single thought is not recognised in the whole, which has not been, to say the least, quite as clearly and forci- bly presented by preceding writers; yet it possesses so ne characteristics which are worthy of high commendation. The author has avoided all indecorum and severity of remark. He writes like a scholar and a gentleman. He has resorted to no unbecoming language, or disingenuous arts. Every thing be- speaks a writer at home in his subject; qualified to arrange with some degree of skill the old and common-place matter which he presents; and disposed to maintain his cause by fair reasoning, as he understands it, rather than by denunciation or acrimony. In these respects the manual before us is worthy of much praise. If all writers in favor of prelacy had maintained an equally inoflTensive and respectful manner, it would have formed a much less revolting page than it does, in the history of eccle- eiastical polemics. If there be a feature in this Tract which partakes in any measure of novelty, it is that the author should be willing to bring Episcopacy to the " test of Scriptdre." His predeces- sors have seldom ventured to risk this. It has generally been their pt)licy to pass in a very cursory manner over the testimony drawn from the inspired writings, and to place their chief reli- ftnce on that of the " fathers." And even when the question 18 202 REVIETC — EPTSCOPACT ivas asked, "What saith the Scripture?" it wa^ seldom the inspired oracle alojie that was consulted; but Scripture inter- preted, commented upon, and modified by human authority. We are glad to see the appeal made, and for once, professedly confined to the Word of God. When fairly brought to this test, we cannot doubt the issue among all impartial judges. We are not merely willing, then, but insist that the whole subject shall be brought and decided before this tribunal The Bible con- tains the religion of Protestants. It is the onlp infallible rule of faith and practice. By this great rule we must try the fathers themselves. And whatever, in their writings, is not supported by the Bible, we are bound to reject without hesitation. Before Bishop Onderdonk proceeds to array in form the testimony of Scripture in favor of Episcopacy, he attempts to dispose of what he calls certain " extraneous questions an-d difficulties, and to show either their fallacy or irrelevancy." We are quite willmg that these "questions and difficulties" should be, for the present, put out of view. Not because we tliink them really either irrelevant or unimportant; but because we do not think them essential; and because we are disposed to disembarrass the main question as much as possible, and to keep the mind of every reader firmly fixed on the position of the writer before us, that Episcopacy is taught in the Bible. To this position, th(irefore, let us address ©urselves with all candor and impartiality. Bishop Onderdonk, then, maintains, that the Gospel ministry was, by Divine authority, "established in three orders, called, ever since the apostolic age, bishops, presbpiers or elders, and deacons ; of which the highest only — that is, bishops — has- a- right to ordain and confirm," Sen. In opposition to this claim, Presbyterians maintain, that, by Divine authority, the Gospel ministry was established in a single order; that all ministers in the apostolic Church, who were authorized to preach the Gos- pel, and administer the Christian sacraments, were empowered to perform the highest functions of the sacred office. We differ,, then, in regard to the Cliristian ministry, in two respects, from our Episcopal brethren. In ihejirst place, we confidently deny that tliere is the least foundatioii in Scripture for considering deacons as an order of Gospel ministers at all. And, in the second place, we as confidently assert that there is no authority whatever in the Word of Goo for any "order" of ministers above that of ordinary pastors. I. On the^rs^ of these points it is not our intention to dwell long. Not merely because Bishop Onderdonk says little about it; but also because if the second point, viz. that which relates to the claim of the bishop, or alleged highest order, cannot be sustained — as we are very sure it cannot — the claim of the dea- €071 to a share in the evangelical ministry, as one of " three orders," will fall of course. We say, then, that the alleged claim of the deacon, in the Episcopal Church, to a place as one of the TESTED BY 3CRlPTtRE. v 208 ^' orders of clergy " — has no foundation whatever in the Word of God. To establish this, nothing more is necessary than to glance at the inspired record, in Acts vi. 1-7, where the original appointment, and the duties of deacons, are explicitly and plainly staled. "In those days, when the number of the disciples was •multiplied, ther« arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, -because their widows were neglected in the daily ministrations. Then the twelve called the multitude of the dis- ciples unio them, and said, ' It is not meet that we should leave the Word -of God, and serve tables. "Wherefore, brethren, look ye oKt seven men of lK)nest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, yhom we may appoint over this business. But we WILL GIVE OORSELVES CONTINUALLY TO PRAYER. AND TO THE MINIS- TRY OF THE WORD.' A«d the saying pleased the whole multi- tude ; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Tirnon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch; whom they set before th-e Apostles ; and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them." This is th-e ^rs^ and the only account in the whole New Tes- tament of the original appointment of deacons, and the only statement which we find of tlieir appropriate duties. And we appeal to every candid reader whether it affords the least coun- tenance to the idea that the deaconship was then an office which had any thing to do with preaching and baptizing ; in other words, whether it was an office at all devoted to the spi- ritual duties of the sanctuary? Really, if such an idea had not been actually advanced, it would never have occurred to us as possible that it should enter the mind of any thinking man. Indeed, if the whole passage had been constructed upon the distinct plan of precluding the possibility of such an interpreta- tion, it is difficult to conceive how such a design could have been more clearly manifest. The Apostles say, " It is not meet that we should leave the word of God — (that is, evidently, — LEAVE preaching) — aucl SERVE TABLES; whcrcforc, look ye out seven men, «Scc,, whom we may appoint over this business; (that is, this business of serving tables,) and we will give our- selves to prayer, and to the ministry of the word^ Can any man who is not blindly wedded to a system, consider this pas- sage as importing that deacons were appointed to be preachers of the word? Nay, is it not expressly slated that the Apostles considered the duties of this office as of such a nature, that their undertaking to fulfil them would compel them to leave PREACHING, and devote themselves to the care of money tables? It militates nothing against this plain statement of the inspired historian, that he represents Stephen, one of these deacons, as soon after his appointment, defending himself with great power before the Jewish council ; and Philip, another of them, em- ployed in a year or two after his ordination to the deaconship, jfjreaching and baptizing in Samaria. With respect to Stephen, 204 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY it i^5 not said, that he eiilier preached or baptized. He simply replied to those wiio "disputed" with him, and defended him- self before the council by which he was arraigned. In all this, there was evidently nothing which any nvan might not do, in any age of the Church, without infringing ecclesiastical order. And as to Philip, when we read a few chapters onward in the same book, (Acts xxi. 8,) we find him spoken of as " Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven." Here, then, we find preci'sely the same title given to tliis man that was afterward given to Timoihy. (2 Tim. iv. 6.) From which we may confi- dently infer, that, having " used the office of a deacon well," (1 Tim. iii. 13,} in the church of Jerusalem, and being found a man " full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom," when he and his brethren were driven from that city, and were all "scattered abroad in consequence of the persecution which arose about his colleague, Stephen," he was invested with a new office, and sent forth to minister in various parts of the country ao an "evange- list." At any rale, notliing is plainer than that the "ministry of the word " made no part of the deacon's office, as laid down by the Apostles ; and as he is soon afterward introduced to us as bearing the office of an "evangelist," the appropriate function of which we know was preaching the Gospel, we are warranted in concluding that he was set apart to the latter office before he went forth to engage in public preaching. In short, nntil it can be proved that Philip preached and baptized as a deacon, and not as an evangelist, — which we are perfectly sure never can be proved — the allegation, that the apostolic deacons were preachers, is perfectly destitute of scriptural support; nay, directly opposed to the scriptural account of the institution of their office. Accordingly, v/hen in the subsequent parts of the New Testa- ment there is a reference to the proper qualifications for the deacons' office, no intimation is given that, in the candidates for that office, the gifts requisite for public instruction were re- ceived. We are told that it was necessary that those who bore, this office should be sober, grave, faithful in all things, ruling their own houses well, sound in the faith, &c., but not a word of their being " apt to teach," as was expressly demanded of all who were candidates for " ministering in the word and doctrine." It is plain, then, that " the order of deacons," as one of the "three orders of clergy," for which our Episcopal brethren contend, cannot stand the test of Scripture. It must, undoubt- edl)'', be given up, if we would be governed by the word of God. Deacons there undoubtedly were in the apostolic Church ; but they w^ere evidently curators of the poor, and attendants on the tables of the Church; precisely such as were found in the Jewish synagogues, before the coming of Christ, and such as are found in all completelj'' organi'zed Presbyterian churches at the present day. And this continued to be the nature of the TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 205 office for several hundred years after the apostolic age. But when a spirit of carnal ambition began to reign in the Church, and led ecclesiastical men to aspire and encroach, deacons invaded the province of preachers, and committed to "sw6- deacons^^ the burden of their primitive duties.* Having thus being compelled to set aside one "order" of Episcopal clergymen, when " tested by Scripture," we now proceed. II. To the second point insisted on by the author of this Tract, and which, indeed, evidently forms his main object, viz. that we are taught in Scripture, that in the apostolic Church, there was a grade of ministers of the Gospel superior to the ordinary pastors; above common ministers of the word and sacraments ; that ministers of this grade were alone empowered to ordain, to confirm, and to govern the Church ; — and that there is evidence in Scripture that this arrangement was in- tended to be permanent. Such is the confident allegation of Bishop Onderdonk; and he professes an entire willingness to rest this Episcopal claim on scriptural testimony alone. It is hoped that our readers will bear this in mind, and not suffer * The following extracts from early writers plainly show, not only that the deacon's office was, originally, what we have above represented, but that this con- tinued 10 be the case for several centuries. Hermas, one of the apostolical fathers, ja his Similitude, 9, 27, tells us that " of such as believed, some were set over inferior functions, or services, being intrusted with the care of the poor and tcidotcs." Orjgen, {Tract 16, in Matt.) says, "These deacons preside over Xht money-tables of the Chvirch." And again, "The deacons who do not manage iccll the nwney of the Church committed to their care, but act a franduient part, and dispense it. not accoixiing to justice, but for the purpose of enriching themselves; — these actthe part of money changers, and keepers of those tables which our Lord over- turned. For the deacons were appointed to preside over the tables of the Church, as ice are taught in the Acts of the Apostles." Cyprian, (Epist. 52,) speaks of a certain deacon who had l^een deposed from his " sacred deaconship on account of his fraudu- lent atnl sacrilegious misapplication of the Church's moneij to his own private use; and for his denial of the widows' and orphans' pledges deposited with him." And, in anotlier place, {Epist. 3, ad Rogatianum,) as a proof that his view of this office is not misapprehended, he refers the appointment of the first deaconi; to the choice and ordination at Jerusalem, as already recited. Ambrose, in speak- ing of the fourth century, the time in which he lived, {Comment, in Ephes. iv.) says, "The deacons do not publicly preach." Chrysostom, who lived in the same century, in his commentary on Acts vi. remarks, ihat " the deacons had need of great wisdom, although ike preaching of the Gospel was not committed to them;" and observes further, that it is absurd to suppose tliat they should have both the offices of preaching and taking care of the poor committed to tiiem, .seeing it is impossible for them to discharge both functions adequately. Jerome, in his letter to Evagrius, calls deacons '^ministers of tables and widows.'' And in the Apostolical Constitutions, wliich, though undoubtedly spurious as an apostolical work, may probably be referred to the fourth or fifth century, it i^ declared, (Lib. viii. cap." 28.) " It is not lawful for the deacons to baptize or to admi- nister the eucbarist, or to pronounce tlie srrcater or smaller benediction." Other citations, to the same amount, might easily be produced. But it is unnecessary. The above fnrnish a clear indication of the nature of the deacon's office in the primitive Chorch. Yet as this testimony is not that of Scripture, it has not been thought proper to embrace it in the body of our review, but to present it in this form, that it may be estimated for wiiat it is worth. And surely, on the principles of our Episcopal brethren, it is worth much. 18 206 REVIEW— EPISCOPACY themselves for a moment to forget that our appeal is to the Bible, and lo the Bible only. Does the Bible, then, counte- nance the claim that prelates, or an order of ministers superior to ordinary pastors, and having alone a right to ordain^ &c. were established by Divine appointment in the apostolic age, and intended to be a permanent order in the Christian Church? The author of the Tract before us maintains the affirmative. We are constrained with confidence to take the negative side, and to the Scriptures we make our appeal. Bishop Onderdonk sets out in his argument with acknowledg- ing that " the name bishop, which now (among Episcopalians) designates the highest grade of the ministry, is not appropriated to that office in Scripture. That name, he confesses, is there alwaijs given to the middle order of presbyters; and all that we read in the New Testament concerning ' bishops,' (including, of course, the words 'overseers' and 'oversight,' which have the same derivation) is to be regarded as pertaining to that middle grade. The highest grade is there found in those called 'apos- tles.' And it was after the apostolic age that the name * bishop' was taken from the second order, and appropriated to the first. In short, the doctrine of this Tract is, that in the days of the Apostles, the title of bishop was applied to presby- ters, that is, to ordinary pastors, or parish ministers, and to them alo7ie; that during this time the Apostles were the prelates of the Church ; that the Apostles alone, while they lived, were invested with the power of ordination ; that when they died, they were succeeded in their pre-eminent rank by ministers of a corresponding grade; that this superior class of ministers, who were the true and only successors of the Apostles, thought proper lo drop the name of '-apostles," (whether through modesty or policy the author does not say,) and to assume that of "bishop," which had before belonged to common pastors. All this, we are given to understand, can he demonstrated from Scripture.* In regard to the first step in this train of allegations — for we will not call it argument — we entirely agree with Dr. Onderdonk. * It is worthy of notice that the author of this Tract differs widely in tiie ground which he assumes from one of the most learned and able advocates of Episcopacy ^ that ever lived. We refer to the celebrated Dr. Henry Hammond, undoubtedly one of the most erudite and able divines of the Church of England that lived in the seventeenth century, and at least equal in learning and talent to any bishop uow on the stage. He niMintained, in direct opposition to Bishop Onderdonk, that all the persons denominated bishops and presbyters in the New Testament, (the names being then common.) were prelates or bishops, properly so called ; and that the second order, that of presbyters, was not instituted until after the apostolic age. Dr. Hammond appears to have been just as confident that his doctrine was tauglit in Scripture as our author can be that the opposite to it is there found. VVliich of these prelatical champions shall we believe? " Who shrill decide when doctors disagree 1 " We are peisuaded that the spirit of the New Testament frowns equally upon both. In the meanwhile, it appears that our Episcopal friends are not agreed in the ground which they take for the support ol their cause. TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 801 Nothing can be plainer than lliat whenever the title of "bishop'* is applied in the New Testament lo Gospel ministers, it designates ordinary pastors. A scriptural bishop was the spiritual teacher and guide, or " overseer," of a particular flock ; and the same men were called "elders," or " presbyters," and " bishops " inier- ehangeably, the names being common. This Dr. Onderdonk concedes, and we have no doubt with entire correctness. But in all the succeeding steps of his course, we have quite as little doubt that he proceeds without the smallest support from Scrip- ture; nay, in direct opposition to the whole spirit and scope of the New Testament. This writer contends — and it is essential to his cause that he be able to show — that while the Apostles lived they bore a supe- rior ecclesiastical rank, and were endowed with ecclesiastical rights superior to other ministers; that, in particular, the right of orrfamt«^ was confined lothem ; and that, when their ministry terminated, they left this pre-eminent raiik, and these peculiar rights, lo certain prelates, who were their successors in power and pre-eminence. Now the fact is, that all these points, though brought forward with some show, and even parade of argument, are wholly without support from Scripture, and have not one of them been made out by our author. It is not denied, indeed, that the Apostles bore a peculiar character, and had extraordi- nary pmvers and prerogatives imparled to them, adapted to the pectihar rircnmsiances in which they were placed. For, until the cjinon of the New Testament was completed, they might be said, to a certain extent, to supply its place, and by inspiration and the exercise of miraculous powers, to be, in a peculiar sense, the authorized leaders and guides of the primitive Church. "The apostolic office" — says Dr. Barrow, universally known to be an eminent Episc6pal divine — ^^ as such, was personal and tempo- rary; and, therefore, according to its nature and design, not sttccessive, nor communicable to others, in perpetual descendence from them. It was, as such, in all respects extraordinarij $ conferred in a special wanner ; designed for special purposes ; discharged by special aids ; endowed with special prioilegeSy as was needful for the propagation of Christianity, and founding of churches. To that office it was requisite that the person should have an immediate designation and commission from God; that he should be endowed with miraculous gifts and graces; that he should be able, according to his discretion, to impart spiritual gifts; and that he should govern in an absolute manner, as being guided by infallible assistance, to which he might appeal. Now such an office, consisting of so many extra- ordinary privileges, and miraculous powers, whicli were requisite for the foundation of the Church, was not designed to continue by derivation ; for it contained in it divers things, wliich appa- rently were not communicated, and which no man without gross imposture and hyporrisv. could challenge to himself." Pope^a Supremacy, pp. 122, 123, A'. Y. edition. Such was the judgment. 208 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY of this eminently learned and able Episcopalian, concerning the foundation of the whole argument before us. There is not a shadow of support to be found in Scripture for the alleged transmission of the pre-eminent and peculiar powers of the Apostles to a set of ecclesiastical successors. As men endowed with the gifts of inspiration and miracles, and constituted ths infallible guides of the Church, until the New Testament canon should be completed ; their character and position were alto- gether extraordinary. They had no successors. Nor can the remotest hint be found in Scripture, that they had, or were ever intended to have, any such successors. But, considering the Apostles as ministers of Christ, empow- ered to preach the Gospel, to administer Christian sacraments, and to convert the world to Christ, they had successors : and these successors were, manifestly, all those who were empowered to preach the Gospel, and to dispense the sacramental seals of discipleship; for in the final commission which the Saviour gave to the Apostles, and which must be considered as embracing their final and highest functions, they are sent forth to disciple :ill nations, to baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : and it wais in immediate connexion with the command to discharge these ordinary duties, that the promise which is considered as pointing to the ministerial succes- sion was given — " Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." If the friends of prelacy could produce even the semblance of testimony from Scripture, that the ordaining power is something more sacred and elevated than that of dispensing the Gospel, and its sealing ordinances; if they could produce the least hint from the New Testament that the powers possessed by the Apostles were, after their decease, divided ,\and that while one class of ministers succeeded to their lower and more ordi- nary functions, another succeeded to certain pre-emijient rights and powers, not specified in their commission ; they would have some plausible ground on which to rest their cause. But every reader of the New Testament knows that there is not a syllable there which gives the most distant intimation of either of these alleged facts. On the contrary, the evidence against them is ample and decisive. Suppose, for argument's sake, that a pastor of the Presbyterian Church were sent to China or Japan to preach the Gospel, and, if successful, to organize churches, agreeably to his views of truth and order. Suppose it not possible to send more than one, and that he were invested with power by the proper authority, in this forming stale of things, to ordain ministers, and perform every ecclesiastical act necessary to complete a Christian organization. Would this man be considered, by any rational inquirer, as clothed with a new office, or as elevated to a peculiar or separate " order of clergy ?" Surely not. He would be considered simply as an "evangelist," invested with special powers from the necessity of the case. And when the churches TESTED BY 8CRIPTDRE. 209 organized by him were prepared for a regular and mature Pres- byterian arrangement, would any be so absurd as to imagine that the ministers ordained by him were his "successors" in regard to the special commission and powers under which he had acted ? Such an idea would be too preposterous to be enter- tained by any one. They would be simply his successors in respect to his original and ordinary powers ; and every thing connected with his extraordinary delegation would terminate with the extraordinary circumstances which gave it birth. He would transmit, of course, to those ordained by him, nothing more than that simple office which he bore anterior to his peculiar mission. Thus it was with the Apostles. Their commission, as stated with great particularity by the evangelists, empowered them to preach, to baptize, to disciple all nations, and to teach them to observe all things whatsoever Christ had commanded. All other permanent powers were included in these ; for there are none others mentioned. All ministers of the Gospel bear this commission. When the Apostles left the world, their inspira- tion, their miracles, their prerogative of guiding the churches by infallible teaching — in a word, the extraordinary charactei with which they were invested, died with them, and all that they transmitted was that which was embraced in their commis- sion. That they did not transmit a large and very prominent part of their extraordinary powers. Episcopalians themselves acknowledge. We know not that any modern Protestant bish- ops claim to be inspired, to have the power of working miracles, or of authoritatively prescribing the will of Christ to the Churchy in place of the New Testament. All these adjuncts or annexa- tions to ihe'ir general office, constituting them apostles, in the strict sense of the word, our Episcopal brethren confess ceased when the last Apostle left the world. 'Jhis was, no doubt, the case. Where, then, is the evidence of which these same bre- thren talk so much, of their transmitting the pre-eminence and superiority of tlieir character to a class of superior successors ? Bishop Onderdonk, from the circumstance that he finds the " apostles and elders" frequently distinguished from each other in the New Testament history, takes for granted that they were thus distinguished, because the former were ministers of a supe- rior order or rank to the latter. He also supfjoses that he finds evidence in the New Testament, not only that the Apostles ordained, but that they alone had the power of ordination while they lived. Now, we will venture to say that there is not a sha- dow of evidence in favor of either of these allegations in the Word of God. As to the office of the apostles and elders or presbytery it was undoubtedly the same in all its essential characteristics. Let at y unprejudiced reader examine the commission given by our Lord to the twelve, and afterward to the seventy, and then say, whether grades of power, and diversities of clerical rank^ are masked therein. Let him say whether it includes any thing 18* 210 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY (excepting the supernatural pari of their powers) but what belongs to every minister of the Gospel. Authority to preach the Gospel, to administer sealing ordinances, and to make disci- ples of all to whom they are sent, formed the substance of the apostolical commission j and the very same forms the essence of the commission of all regular ministers now. Our author, indeed, ventures to affirm, that the Apostles were not distin- guished from other ministers, while they lived — because they vy^ere appointed by Christ personally ; nor because they had '•seen tlie Lord" after his resurrection; nor because of their miraculous powers; but because they sustained a superior office. This, he says. ^'- will not he questioned?^ We certainly, liovv- ever, do question it ; and are quite sure that he has not proved it, and cannot prove it, from Scripture, or from any other credi- ble source of evidence. In fact, it may be said with truth, that we have nothing in the pamphlet before us, adduced in favor of this position, worth mentioning, but the simple affirmation of the writer, which, on such a subject, we beg leave to decline accept- ing as conclu.sive. The simple and plain truth of the case is this. The Apostles were all presbyters or elders. This, and this only^ was their proper ecclesiastical offi,ce. Accordingly, the Apostle Peter speaks thus — " The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed." Such was Peter, if he himself understood his office ;— an elder. But he was. an inspired elder; an elder endowed with miraculous gifts ; an elder who had " witnessed the sufferings " and resurrection of Christ ; an elder chosen to be one of the num ber who should preside over the forming and rising Church under its new economy, before its written body of instructions were prepared, and even to assist in preparing those instructions; and, for that purpose, inspired of God to counsel, guide, and instruct the churches for their permanent edification. Such were the Apostles generally. When they died, the in^piratio7i, the miracles and the peculiar apostolical authority died with them, and they simply transmitted their office as elders or pres- byters to their successors. All this is plainly to be gathered from the tenor of the New Testament; and when Bishop Onderdonk undertakes to press the testimony of Scripture into the support of any other doctrine, he fails, in our opinion, most egregiously. Quite as little proof have we that the ordaining- power was exercised by the Apostles alone, while they lived. Or rather, this position is still more directly opposed to abundant scriptural evidence. We know that it was not so. Timothy, and Titus, and Barnabas all ordained ; and yet they were none of them apostles, in the appropriate sense of that title. In order to sur- mount this difficulty, however, our author, with many others who have gone before him in this controversy, takes the liberty TESTED BY SCRIPTDRE. 211 of supposing that Timothy, Titus, Barnabas, Silvanus, Andro- nicus, Junia, Epaphroditus, and others were all apostles, in the pre-eminent sense of the word, though confessedly not of the number of the twelve ; and thai, therefore, when we read of any of these exercising ihe ordaining power, we are lo consider it as falling in with the Episcopal claim, and as confirming the doc- trine of the Tract before us. We have always considered this plea as one of the forlorn hopes of our Episcopal brethren, and as mucli more adapted to expose than lo aid their cause. And as wielded by our author, it certainly does not appear to more advantagej than in the hands of those from whom he borrowed it. It is well known to learned men that the original Greek word which we translate apostle, signifies a messenger, or 07ie who is sent on any errand, either sacred or secular. It is well known, also, that it has, in the New Testament, a peculiar or appropriated, and a common signification ; and that its peculiar application is to that chosen band of men, who were endowed and sent in an extraordinary manner by Christ himself. Of the peculiar or restricted application of this title we need not select specific examples. They are numerous and well known. In this high and exclusive sense, we are expressly told it was confined to tliose who had ''seen the Lord," and who were " wilnesses of his sufferings and his resurrection." In this sense it was applied to the twelve, and afterward to Matthias, who was chosen to take the place of Judas, " who by transgres- sion fell." And, in the same specific meaning of the tiile, Paul was an apostle, who was made to " see the Lord," in a miracu- lous manner, and who was '^ chosen lo be a uitnvss unto all men* of what he had seen and heard." Let any impartial man, who doubts whether this is the meaning of the title of apostle, in its primary and pre-eminent sense, as applied to those on whom our Lord himself bestowed it ; let him read the following scrip- tures, and he will no longer doubt. Matt. x. 1-6; Luke vi. 12-17; Acts i. 21, 22; Luke xxiv. 48 ; Acts xxii. 14, 15; Acts xxiii. 11 ; Acts xxvi. 16, together with man}' other parallel pas sages, which will readily occur to all who are familiar with the Bible. With this representation of the apostolic office. Dr. Barrow, the learned Episcopal divine before quoted, entirely agrees. <'To the office of an apostle," says he, " it was requisite that.the person should have an immediate designation and commission from God ; such as St. Paul so often doth insist upon for assert- ing his titleto this ofl^ee— " Patil, an apostle, not from men or by man." "Not by men,"saith St. Chrysostom ; '4his is the property of the apostles." It was requisitethat an apostle should be able to attest concerning our Lord's resurrection or ascension, either immediately, as the twelve, or by evident consequences, as St. Paul; thus St. Peter implied, at the choice of Matthias— "Where- fore of those men which have companied with us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of the resurrection: " and, "Am I 212 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY not," saith St. Paul, "an apostle? have I not seen the Lord? According to that <»f Ananias— ' The God of our fatliers hath chosen thee, that thou sh<»uldest know his will, and see that just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth ; for thou shall bear witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard." — Pope's Supremacy, p. 122. But the term apostle {avoaToUi) is also sometimes applied in the New Testament to men who were not thus immediately commissioned by Christ in an extraordinary manner, to bie "witnesses of his sufferings and his resurr^^ction ;" but who were simply messengers^ sent on particular occasions to perform a certain service. This distinction between the official^ and the lax or general sense of this term, the learned translators of our English Bible, though themselves zealous Episcopalians, seldom fail to recognise. Thus Paul, in writing to the Philippians, ii.25, says — "f supposed it necessary to send unto you Epaphro- ditus, ray brother and companion in labor, but your messenger^ (a»roffroXos,) and he that ministered to my wants." Epaphroditus had been sent by the Philippians as a messenger^ or bearer of their bounty to Paul. This we learn not only from the pas- sage just quoted, but also from chapter iv. 18, of the same epis- tle. Accordingly he is styled ^'- their messenger." Surely it would be preposterous to consider the original word as import- ing that he was an apostle in the ofl^cial sense of that term. Aoain, the same Apostle, in designating certain brethren sent with Titus to bear the Church's bounty to Jeru.salem, speaks of them thus — '< Whether any do inquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellow-helper concerning you: or our brethren be inquired of, they are the messengers (awotrroXoi) of the churches, and the glory <)f Christ." Here the very same rule of inter- pretation applies; and accordingly so judged the pious translat- ors of our Bible; and therefore tliey rendered the word messen- gers, not '' apostles." With regard to the alleged apostleship of TimotViy and Silva- nus, it is eqtidlly unsupported. They are never called apostles in a single instance in Scripture. It is true, the first epistle to the Thessalonians begins thus — "Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians," &c. ; and in the next chapter of the same epistle, the Apostle speaks thus — "Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome as the apostles of Christ." In this latter verse, the Apostle undoubtedly either speaks of himself in the plural number, which he often does ; or refers to some other of the Apostles, of whom the same might be said. That in using this language, he did not refer to Silvanus, or Timotheus, is plain, because, in a verse or two before, he says — still using the plural number — " We were shamofnily entreated, as ye know, at Philippi," &c. When the Apostle was treated with so much violence at Philippi, certainly Timotheus was not with him. Besides, neither Silvanus nor Timotheus was "a TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 213 witness" of the sufferings and resurrection of their Master. Neither of them was immediately commissioned by the Saviour himself, as the Apostles were: on the contrary, Timothy was ordained, agreeably to the simple apostolical practice, "with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." And the Apostle Paul, in other places, while he speaks affectionately of his "son in the faith," at the same time mentions him in a manner which plainly evinces a marjced distinction between his office and that of the apostleship. Take as an example, 2 Cor. i. 1—" Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother.''^ And, again, Colossians i. 1 — "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother.'''' Here we have the very same evidence of diversity of rank that our author deems so decisive when he finds mention made of apostles and elders. Surely the humble and affectionate Paul would not have spoken thus, if Timothy- had possessed an equal right with himself to the title of "an apostle of Jesds Christ," in the official and appropriate sense of that title. The claim advanced in behalf of Andronicus and Junia,* as apostles, is not only unfounded, but really bordering on the ridiculous. The only testimony advanced in support of this claim, is the language of the Apostle Paul in the close of his Epistle to the Romans, xvi. 7 — " Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the Apostles." This passage would never have been thought of as admitting the construction which the friends of prelacy attach to it, had not their cause stood greatly in need of testimony. Its obvious and simple meaning is, that these persons were "held in high estimation by the Apostles ; " or were regarded by the Apos- tles as of note, or conspicuous among their friends. This is the general interpretation of intelligent and impartial commentators; and more cannot be made of the passage, unless by those who resolve that it shall speak in favor of their cause. It is evident, then, that none of these persons were apostles, in the official and restricted sense of that title; and as we know that Barnabas, Timothy, and Titus, ordained, it follows, inevitably, that the ordaining power was not confined to the Apostles while they lived ; and, of course, that this whole branch of our author's argument falls to the ground. Nothing can be plainer than that " pastors," " teachers," and " evangelists," even ♦ There is some reason to believe that Junia, one of these persons whom Bishop Onderdonk has dul)bed apostles, was a woman ! The name, as it stands in the original is 'loun'av, whicli has no article to indicate the gender, and which may come as well from 'loovta, as from 'louvtaj. F.ther Calmet remarks — " St. Chry- sostom. Theophylact. and several others, tnke Andronicus for a man and Junia for a woman, perhaps his wife. The Greeks and Latins lp their festival, May 17tb, as husband and wife." Rosnnmuelier's annotation on tlie passage is as follows— - •'(cat luuviav. Quae vi'letnr fuisse uxor Andronici. .AWs Junias est nomen viri, pro Junius." What renders it mo;e probable tliat Junia was a woman is. that a man and his wife, a man and his sister, and two other females, are undoubtedly saluted in the preceding and following- verses of the eame chapter. 214 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY while the Apostles lived, often officiated in ordinations — not merely as hninhle assistants, but as principals, in investing others with the sacred office. The manner in which Bishop Onderdonk undertakes to dispose of the plain record, that Timothy was set apart to his office, " with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery," is one of the most singular examples of evasion and management that we remember ever to have seen. He is confident that the Apostle, when he says, (1 Tim. iv. 14,) " Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying os OF THE HANDS OF THE PRESBYTERY," has 110 reference to Timothy's ordination. Why ? For no other earthly reason, that we can perceive, than that this supposition would make agaitisl the Episcopal claim. He does not deny, indeed, that it iJiay refer to that transaction ; but he says, "it cannot, at least, be proced to do so ;" and he chooses rather to consider it as "a separation of one, already in the ministry, to a particular field of duty." In- deed, his aversion to ordination by a " presbytery," is so determined and invincible, that, rather than admit that this passage refers to Timothy's ordination, he intimates his will- ingness to give up another passage, in which the Apostle (2 Tim. i. 6,) speaks of " the gift of God which was in Timothy by the putting on of his (Paul's) hands," as also having no reference to his ordination ! And he gravely remarks, that, " if it have not, then Timothy's ordination is nowhere specifically mentioned, but is to be inferred, as in other cases; and, in this view, both these passages are unconnected with the controversy before us." The truth is, if these passages refer to different transactions, it is much more probable that the former refers to Timothy's ordination than the latter, simply because in every instance in which we find a specific account given of an ordination in the New Testament, there was a 'plurality of ordainers. But the probability is, that they refer to the same transaction, viz. the one ordination of Timothy: and that Paul presided in the " presbytery" when that ordination was performed, " laying on hands" with the rest of the brethren, wljich we know is every day d(me in our presbyteries, when, as is commonly the case, one of the older members presides, and lakes the lead in impos- ing hands, and is the mouth of the body in the ordaining prayer. But even allowing that the Apostle,' in that passage in which he speaks of the "laying on of the hands of ilie presbytery," refers to Timothy's ordination, still, our author insists that no argument favorable to pivsbytery can be drawn from this con- fessiim. The word {Upta^vrt^tov) rendered "presbytery," he alleges way mean — not a l3ody of presbyters, but the office of the presbylerate, or presbytership itself. So that he would propose to translate the passage tlius — "with the laying on of hands to confer the presbyterale.'' In support of this fanciful and. ridiculous translation, he quotes Groiius, and refers also to Calvin, as giving to it the countenance of his opinion. Now, it is TESTED BY SCRIPTUHE. 215 granted that Caivin, in his fnstilutes, (Lib. iv. chap. 3, seet. 16,) does express himself in a manner which favors tliis interpreta- tion ; but afterward, when he catne lo'wrile his commentary on Timothy, when on every principle of justice, we ought to con- sider him as expressing his more mature opinion, he delivers the following explicit judgment — -'Presbytery — those who consider this as a collective term, intended to express a college of pres- byters, in my opinion judge correctly."* But let this virtual misrepresentation of Calvjn pass. It might be expected, how- ever, that, after admitting this interpretation of the passage, as referring, not to a body of ordaiiiers, under the name of a pres- bytery, but to the office of the presbyterate ; it would, of course, be admitted that Timothy was now made di presbyter, or invested with the office of the presbyterate. Not at all ! This inference, which would seem to be irresistible, (and which, by the way, is that which Calvin assumes in the passage referred to by Bishop Onderdonk,) must at any rate be "neutralized," to employ the significant language of our author. In order to accomplish this, he reminds us that the titles of presbyter, bishop, deacon, &c., are so "loosely" and interchangeably applied in the New Testament to all classes of officers, even to apostles, that nothing conclusive can be drawn from a name. On the whole, it is evident that such are the spectacles with which this gentleman views every object which relates to this controversy, that facts, names, and the plainest statements, if they happen to make against the claim of Episcopacy, — are nothing, — absolutely nothing. They are to be moulded, tortured, or nullified at pleasure. But the remotest hint that can, by possibility, be pressed into the service of prelacy, is a conclusive argutnent. We have no doubt of the entire honesty of all this on the part of our author. But it shows the wonderful sway of prejudice. A man who has been long in the habit of gravely repeating the most irrelative and powerless representations from year to year, and calling them arguments, generally comes at length, sincerely to believe them not only true, but irrefragable. Bishop Onderdonk, however, after plunging from difficulty to difficulty, and from one utter failure of proof to another, in this part of his argument, still insists upon it that Timothy and Titus are represented in the New Testament as prelates ; and that their character makes a clear case in favor of Episcopacy. He appears to satisfy himself, and evidently expects to satisfy his readers, with such reasoning as the following. We do not pro- fess to give his exact language in the following sentences ; but what, according to our perception, is the real force of his state- ment. " It cannot be proved that the Apostle, when he speaks of * The word Tlpia^vrtpiov occurs hut iliree times in the New Testament, viz. in Luke xxii. 66. and in Acts xxii. 5. In eacli of tliese cases it is Impo^^sil!le to look at the original without perceiving-, in a moment, tiiat it refers to a bench or college of elders. The third example of its occurrence is in the 'case before us; where we think the saine tiling is equally evident. 216 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY *lhe hands of the preshytery' being laid on Timothy, refers to his ordination at all. It is, perhaps, more probable that it refers to his being set apart to a special and temporary service: or it may he understood to mean, (if it does refer to his ordination,) that he was set apart, by the laying on of hands, to 'the pres- bijterate,' that is to the office of presbyter. Yet, even if this be supposed, as the title of presbyter, as used in the New Testament, means any thing and every thing in ecclesiastical office, it may be here construed to mean something higher than a mere pres- byter, strictly speaking; therefore there is at least as much evidence that it means a prelate as a pr'esbyter. Besides, for any thing we know to the contrary, the ' presbytery ' which officiated on this occasion 'way have consisted of apostles only, or of one or more apostles joined with others;' as the Apostle speaks, in another place, of having laid his own hands on Timothy. If this be so, it cannot, of course, be claimed as a Presbyterian, but was an apostolic ordination. We may be considered, then, as having proved, that presbyters alone did not perform the ordina- tion, granting the transaction to have been one; but that an apostle actually belonged, or else was added for this purpose, to the body called a ' presbytery.' It is also worthy of notice that St. Paul makes the following distinction in regard to his own agency and that of others in this supposed ordination, ' by the putting on of my hands' — *with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.' Such a distinction may justly be regarded as intimating, that the virtue of the ordaining act flowed from Paul ; while the presbytery, or the rest of that body, if he were included in it, expressed only consent. On the whole, the language here used requires us to believe that a minister of higher rank than an ordinary presbyter was present and officiated in this ordination — or what is said to be the ordination of Timothy. At any rate the Episcopal theory is at least as good a key as that of parity to the meaning of the word ' presbytery ; ' and considering the above distinction of '6y' and '"with,^ onr theory is obviously the better of the two." See pages 18-33. In short this wonderful jingle of words, denominated argument, when brought into a narrower compass, is to the following effiict — " It is doubtful whether either of these famous passages refers to the ordination of Timothy or not. //^either or both have such a reference, they admit of an interpretation quite as favorable to prelacy as to parity ; therefore, as some other passages of Scripture seem to wear an aspect more favorable to prelacy than parity, we are bound to interpret these, which are acknowledged to be still more doubtful, in the same way.'''' Though these are not the ipsissima verba of our author, they really present no caricature of his mode of reasoning. We verily think tiiat inferences so perfectly inconsequential and unwarranted would be driven from any enlightened and impar- tial tribunal on earth, as unworthy of an answer. Our author next attempts to establish, as a matter of fact, TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 217 that Timothy was an Episcopal bisliop or prelate at Ephesus. This he endeavors to make out in the following manner. He first recites the charge which the Apostle Paul gives to the elders of Ephesus, with whom he had an interview at Milefri^^ (Acts XX.) He gathers from this charge the amount of eccle- siastical power conmiitted to these elders, and exercised by them. He then goes over the epistles lo Timothy ; and thinking that he perceives larger powers and a higher authority intrusted to Timothy than lo the elders, he confidently infers that Timothy was a minister of superior rank to the elders; in other words, a prelate. We consider all his reasoning on this subject as entirely without force, or even plausibility ; and we are per- suaded all impartial readers will make the same estimate, after attentively weighing the following considerations. 1. We might have expected great diversity in the mode of address in these two cases, because the circumstances of the persons addressed were essentially different. The elders of Ephesus were the officers of an organized and regular church; and were charged simply with carrying forward the affairs of a collected and officered flock. Whereas Timothy was obviously sent on a temporary mission to Ephesus, with a special charge to rectify disorders, to correct abuses, and to convey, imme- diately from the Apostles, a variety of special instructions, respecting the doctrine, the worship, and the officers of that church. Surely these circumstances will abundantly account for the peculiar manner in which Timothy is instructed and exhorted, and the special powers vested in him for discharg- ing the duties of this arduous mission. Who would expect to find the officers of a regular church addressed in the same man- ner with an individual "evangelist" sent on a critical mission lo the same church in a state of agitation and disorder? 2. The address to the elders of Ephesus, when the Apostle met them at Miletus, is sufficient, of itself, to destroy the Epis- copal claim. We will not stop to inquire whether this inter- view at Miletus took place before or after the date of the first epistle to Timothy. We care not which alternative is adopted, so far as our argument is concerned. The opinion of many learned men is, that the interview recorded in Acts xx. occurred six or seven years prior to the date of the epistle. This seems to be Bishop Onderdonk's opinion, and we are content to assume it as correct. Now if it were so, we have the spectacle — strange and inexplicable on Episcopal grounds — the specta- cle of an inspired apostle solemnly addressing the elders of an important church, where the apostle himself had labored for three years; reminding them of iheir duties; exhorting them to fidelity ; and formally committinar to them the rule and disci- pline, as well as the instruction of the flock ; and all this, without so much as alluding to an ecclesiastical superior. If we understand our author, he supposes that, at this lime, there was 710 prelate at Ephesus, Timothy not having been yet sent 19 ■2-18 REVIEW — EnSCOPACY thither. Be it so. Is it not passing strange, then, tliat the Apostle in addressing tliem sliould not allude to this defect in their ecclesiastical situation ; that he should not sympathize Avith them in regard to it ; and promise, or at least, hint some- thing about the future supply of this defect — a defect, on Episcopal principles, so essential ? iNot a word like this, how- ever, IS found. On the contrary, the Apostle solemnly commits the whole inspection and rule of the church to these elders themselves, and distinctly calls them bishops. " Take heed," says lie, " to yourselves, and to the flock over which the Holy Ghost has made you overseers, (in the original tmaKoituvi) bishops, to feed (the original here signifies to rule as well as to Jeed) the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." In short, he makes no allusion to any higher authority llian that which he charges them to exercise On this occiision Timothy himself seems to have been present, Acts xx. 4, 5. If, on the other hand, we suppose that the first epistle to Timothy was written before the interview at Miletus, and tiiat Timothy, or any other person, was then the preialical bishop of the church of Ephesus, llie fair presumption against the Ej;is- copal claim becomes still stronger. Can it be imagined, on Episcopal principles, thai Paul would have addressed these elders, in the presence of their diocesan, or while he was living, if not present, and would havecommiiled the '■ oversight" of the flock entirely to them, without sp much as hinting that they owed any subjection or reverence to him, or to any person of superior rank? It is impossible. This fact alone does not merely render the Episcopal claim improbable ; it destroys ii-, unless we suppose that the xAposlle expressly intended to deceive the elders of Ephesus, or to insult their diocesan, or that he forgot — what no modern Episcopalian ever forgets — the dignity and prerogative of the prelate. .3. It is nowhere said, or hinted in Scripture, that Timothy ever was bishop of Ephesus, or 'J'itus of Crete. That is, there is no evidence whatever in the inspired history, that these men, or either of them, ever had a fixt^d pastoral charge, of many months', much less years', continuance, in the places in which they are alleged to have been permanently located ; or that they ever sustained any title, or enjoyed any authority, which marked a preialical cliar.icler. We utterly deny that they ever did ; and we are perfectly sure that it never has been, or can be, proved from Scripture. That one of thein was at Ephesus, and the other at Crete, on a special emergency, and for a short lime, we are, indeed, distinctly informed. But this is all that appears. Timothy is represented as travelling from place to place conlinuaily ', and the same was probably the case with Tiius. The very epistles themselves which were directed to those missionaries contain evidence that, as they had been recently sent to Ephesus and Crete, so they were soon to depart and go elsewhere. The postscript to ihe second epistle to TESTED BY SCRIPTDRE. 219 Timothy, and the epistle to Titus, wliich speak of their being " bishops," are known to be spurious ; that is, it is certain that they make no part of the authorized text, and that they were interpolated long after the apostolic age. Of course, they have nothing to do with this inquiry. But, though neither of these ministers is said in Scripture to liave been a "bishop,"' in the Episcopal sense of that word, Timothy is expressly styled by the Apostle an evangelist, (2 Tim. iv. 5,) and the probability is that Titus bore the same character. If it be asked, What was the nature of the evangelisVs ofRce ? We answer, in genera], he was a preacher of the Gospel ; — a hearer of the Gospel to those who had it not. But if tiie inquiry be, What was the nature of this office in the early Church ? let Eusebius answer. He says, "Very many of the disciples of that day travelled abroad, and performed the wwk of evangelists, ardently ambi- tious of preaching Christ to those who were yet wholly unac- quainted with the doctrine of faith, and to deliver to them the Scripture of the divine gospels. These having merely laid the foundations of the faith, and ordained other pastors, committed to tliem the cultivation of the churches newly planted ; while they themselves, supported by the grace and co-operation of God, proceeded to other countries and nations." (lib. iii. cap. 37.) Bishop Onderdonk, indeed, endeavors to obviate the inference drawn from the fact that Timothy is called an evangelist; but without the smallest success. The considerations which lie urges for refuting it, are chiefly the following. [1.] "If Timothy is called an evangelist, he is also called an apostle." This, as we have seen, is a mistake ,- he is nowhere so called in Scripture. [2.] " It does not a[)pear that evangelists,, as such, had any particular rank in the ministry. Philip, the deacon, was an evangelist; and in Ephes. iv. 11, evangeliais are put after prophets." True, in the apostolic age, they had better Avork to do, than to contend about the adjustment of titles, pre- cedence, and rank in the sacred oflSce. But one thing is certain, that "evangelists" are distinguished from "apostles" with a distinctness which precludes the possibility of our considering them as the same. [3.} " If Timothy were an evangelist, there is no proof that Titus, and the 'angels' of the seven churches were evangelists." This there is much reason to believe is a mistake. It is highly probable they were. At any rate, we are very sure it cannot be made to appear that they were not. [4.] "Eusebius probably refers to bishops, when he speaks of these evangelists; and if so, then Episcopacy still prevails," This is, again, an entire mistake. Eusebius does, indeed, men- tion some as evangelists, by nar,ie, who are said to have been bishops. Having done this, he goes on to speak of " many other disciples" of thai day, " as going abroad, and performing the work of evangelists;" and to these, he explicitly informs IIS, was committed the Q)'daining power. His mode of speak ing precludes the possibility of tiYeir being bishops, in the sftiisflt 220 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY which became current afterward in the Church. In short, the title "evangelist" is found but three times in the New Testa- ment. Onc-e it U applied to Timothy; once to Philip, who had been one of the seven deacons at Jerusalem ; and once in Ephes. iv. 11, where we read- of " apostles, prophets, evange- lists, pastors, and teachers." This is conclusive proof, as far as scripiiiral authority goes, that the title has no reference to prelacy. 4. There is nothing represented in Scripture as enjoined upon Timothy and Titus, or as done by them, which is not perfectly consistent with Presbyterian principle and practice. Timothy was sent to Ephesus, and Titus to Crete, to do what ? — To cor- rect abuses as to doctrine, worsiiip and order ; to see that suita- ble persons were selected and set apart to ecclesiastical offices ; and, in general, to " set in order the things that were wanting." It is well known that the Presbyterian Church in this country has been in the constant practice, for more than half a century, of sending out evangelists — ^just such nien as Eusebius describes — iiito destitute settlements to organize churches, ordain elders and deacons, correct irregularities, and "set in order," as far as possible, every thing that may be necessary for Christian edifi- cation. Now, we ask. Why may not Timothy and Titus have been just such Presbyterian evangelists? There is not a tittle, either of fact or expression, in liie whole statement respecting them, which is inconsistent with the supposition ; nay, we have no doubt that this was the real fact. It will avail nothing with us to reply, as our author, like ail his predecessors, doubtless will reply — that this cannot be, because none but prelates ever had the power of ordaining. Shall we never have done with this constant begsting of the whole question in dispute? We fearlessly assert tijai there is not a syllable in the New Testa- ment which even distantly intii/iates, that eith-sr Timothy or Titus performed the work enjoined upon them rather as prelates than as " evangelists;" and that there is just as much reason to assert that all the itinerant missionaries sent out annually by the Presbyterian Church into frontier seitlemenis, are prelates, as from any thing that is said in the New Testament, to ascribe such a superior rank to Timothy and Titus. Perhaps it will be said, that, although Presbyterian missionaries are always em- powered to organize churches, and to ordain ruling elders and deacons, they are never authorized, sinsjly, to ordain teaching elders, or ministers of the Gospel. This is, no doubt, true. Yet this is only an ecclesiastical regulation, not a necessary or essential law of Christ's house. In our Church, according to her present constitution, three ordainers must always be present, and assist in a reoular ordination. But there is quite as regular a Presbyterian Church in our country, in which two ordainers are sufficient. And a third, equally regular, also in our country, according to whose foi-m of ordination, a single oi'dainer is suf- ficient to complete a regular investiture with the sacred office* TESTED BY SCRIPTDRE. 221? We may suppose, llien, that Timothy and. Titus might have been alone charged with the ordaining power, in the pecnliar circumstances in which they acted, and might have exercised it accordingly, without the least departure from Presbyterian principle. But did either Timothy or Titus ever, in a single instance, perform the work of ordination aloiiel This is constantly taken lor granted by Episcopalians; and the establishment of tiie alleged fact is essential to their cause. For if they only ordained in company with others, or as members, (perliaps the presiding members) of their respective presbyteries, then we have, in each case, a simple specimen of Presbyterian ordina- tion. But it is assumed by Episcopalians that they ordained alonCy without a shadow of proof, and against all probability. Tiie question, whether there were or not, atEphesus and Crete, a body of presbyters, at this time, who mighi, upon Presbyte- rian principles, have officiated in the work of ordination, will here be left out of view. Archbishop Potter delivers it as his opinion, that in Crete, at least, there were none. But we shall forbear to canvass this question, as not essential to the argument of parity, however it may be ansv/ered. Let this have been as it may; there is every reason t-o suppose that Timothy and Titus were assisted in every ordination by others. We know that Mark was with Timothy; and that Zenas and Apollos were with Titus. Who can tell but that these ecclesiastical compa- nions took part in every ordination? We cannot positively assert that|they did; but it would be still more presumptuous to assert, since they were on the spot, that they did not. And yet, unless the patrons of Episcopacy can prove that they took no part, and that the "evangelists" ordained alone, their whole argument, drawn from this case, fulls to the ground. Nor does it affect our reasoning to allege, that the Apostle's language, through the greater part of the epistles to Timothy and Titus, is personal; — that is, the epistles are addressed to them individually. For example, such language as the follow- ing frequently occurs: — "This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy ;" — '^ These things write I unto thee, that thou might- est know how to behave thyself in the house of God ;" — "that ihoiif mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine;" — " lay hands suddenly on no man," &c. This language mani- festly avails nothing to the cause of prelacy ; for, 1. As tliese men went to Ephesus and Crete as a kind of special envoys, immediately from the Apostle, it was natural that the system of instructions should be addressed to them personally; for in the circumstances in which they were placed, they were to be the chief counsellors and guides in every thing that was done. 2. A Presbyterian ordination never occurs without addressing to the newly ordained minister language of precisely the same import ;- or rather, without exhorting him in the very words of Paul to Timothy. But no one ever dreams that this language is incoa- 19* 22^^ REVIEW — EPISCOPACY sistent with purity. For, although no one of our ministers can regularly ordain alone; yet as each possesses the ordaining^ power, it is proper that each should receive a separate and distinct charge. 3. If tliis argument proves any tiling, it will prove too much, for it will prove that these evangelists alone were empowered to preach and prai/ in the respective places to which they were sent to minister, for charges in relation to these points are given to them in the same personal style. 4. No evangelist is ever sent forth by our Church for the purpose of organizing and '' setting in order" churches, without bearing with him a body of special instructions, always drawn up in the form of a letter, and, of course, addressed to him personally. Are all these proofs that our evangelists are prelates? In closing our remaiks on the alleged prelatical character of Timothy and Titus, we have one circumstance to mention, which we cannot help regarding as decisive. Tlie circumstance is this. Bishop Onderdonk, as we have seen, explicitly acknow- ledges that — " all that we read in the New Testament concern- ing bishops is to be regarded as pertaining to the " middle grade," i. e. to " presbyters," and never to prelates. In other words, he acknowledges that the title of " bishop " is, in no case, in the New Testament, used to designate a minister of superior rank; but always to designate ordinary pastors. Of course, the term bishop, as found in the eoislles to Timothy and Titus, has no reference to prelates. Now, if this be so, then we have no allusion whatever, in these episiles, to any such superior officer. Among all the counsels and laws intended to be left on perma- nent record, for the guidance of Christians in all ages, there is not the remotest hint pointing to such an officer. Presbyters, or ordinary pastors, ruling elders and deacons, are all plainly pointed out, and the proper qualifications and duties of each carefully specified. But not a syllable is said to them about 'prelates^ their rights, prerogatives, duties, or mode of investiture. They are never even once reminded that it is their duty to be docile and obedient to their proper diocesan. Assuming Presby- terian principles, this is perfectly natural — ^.jnst what might have been expected. If no such officer existed, of course he could not be recognised or described. But, on Episcopal principles, it appears to us utterly unaccountable. Or rather, it affords, in our opinion, conclusive proof that no such officer of superior rank was then known in the Church, or intended to be established as a permanent order. We have only to notice one leading argument more which Bishop Onderdonk employs to make out Episcopacy from Scripture; and that is the argument drawn from the "angels" of the seven Asiatic churches. In reference to these he reasons thus. "Each of these churches is addressed, not through its clergy at large, but through its ' angel,' or chief officer. This ' angel' is addressed personallj^, and in a manner which implies much power and responsibility in his pastoral charge: the sin- TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 2z^ gular number is used in speaking to him. This individual is, in each case, identified wjili his church, and his church wilh him. Ergo these 'angels' were prelates." Now, we ask. What are all these facts to our author's argu- ments? What do they prove? Why may not these " angels" have been Presbyterian pastors, just as well as Episcopal bishops? Every word that is said of ihem applies quite as appropriately and strictly to the former as to the latier. The term "angel," in itself, decides nothing. It simply signifies a " messenger." As far as we know iis origin, it was derived from the Jewish synagogue; every particular synagogue having been furnished wilh an officer bearing this title, and that officer, it is well known, was not a prelate. Some of the most learned Episcopal writers, however, have been of the opinion, that the term '"angel" is a figurative expression, intended to point out the collective ministry in those churches respectively : and hence in addressing the angel of the church in Smyrna, it is said, ^^ Some of you I will cast into prison," &c. Nor can we infer any thing from the addresses made, or the powers assigned to these "angels." They agree just as well with parochial bishops, or pastors, as wilh prelates. And accordingly, it is notorious that some of the most learned and able writers on the Episcopal side in this controversy, have given up the argument drawn from the apocalyptic '"angels," as affording no real support to the claim of prelacy. Besides, there is another difficulty respecting these " angels" of the seven churches, when claimed as prelates. Bishop Onder- donk's theory is, that the prelates of the Church in the apostolic age, were never called bishops, but apostles ; and that after the Apostles' days, these successors to the pre-eminent a|iostolical powers began to be styled bishops. Now, here, according lo our author, we have a title which is neither the one nor the other; and which appears, as a ministerial title, in no other part of Scripture. It will not do to reply, that as all the apostles except- ing John, who was made the medium of address on this occasion, had passed away, we may suppose that the appointment of their prelatical successors had newly commenced, and that these "angels" are a specimen. Why not, then, call them either apostles or bishops! Why give them a title intended to be applied, as it would seem, in but one case, and then for ever dropped ? We surely might have expected some intelligible intimation of what was inlended concerning so great a subject as the names and "orders of clergy," before the sacred canon was finally closed ; especially as the transition period from the Apostles to their "surcessors" had now come. But no; not a word. All is still left in doubt and obscurity. And the truth is,, ihe aspect and character of these addresses themselves do not very well correspond with the case of recently appointed officers. In referfeuce to at least two of them, there are indica- tions of a long preceding incumbency in office, and of sinking 224 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY down into lukewarmness and sloth. It is by no means likely that, under the eye of inspired apostles, men already in this stale of moral depression would have been selected to preside over churches. In short, the more carefully we examine the case of these " angels," the more all dreams of their affording support to prelacy are dissipated. Such is a cursory view of the arguments produced from Scripture, by Bishop Onderkonk, in support of the Episcopal claim. Our oiily wonder is, tliat he does not see them to be, both in their individual import and i-n their combined charac- ter, destituie of even th.e semblance of force. At every step in his progress, unless we are deceived, he has totally and mani- festly failed. His method of reasoning, from the beginning to the "end of his pamphlet, is of the following sort — "Tliis fact adnvts of an Episcopal construction ; at any rate, it cannot be 'proved that its import is in favor of parity. "We may, tlierefore, take for granted, or at least it will not be questioned^ that its meaning is more favorable to Episcopacy than to parity. We are warranted, then, in assuming this point as established. To us the proof appears absolute ; but it is enough for a rightly dis- posed mind that it only preponderate. For, let it not be forgot- ten, that as it cannot be proved^ it ought not to be allowed^ that any but those who held the apostolical or Episcopal office, superior to that of mere presbyters, either performed the ordi- nations mentioned in Scripture, or are there said to have the right to perform such acts." In such misnamed reasoning as this our author abounds; and he so far deceives himself — (which we have no doubt he does sincerely) — as to call it DEMONSTRATION ! But has he really proved any one of those points which are not merely important, but even essential to the establishment of his claim ? Let us, for a moment, look back and recapitulate. Has \\e proved that the ordaining power was confined to the Apostles while they lived 1 He certainly has not. The con- trary most manifestly appears. In his efforts to establish this point, has he proved that Timothy, Barnabas and others were apostles in the official sense of that title, because they un- doubtedly ordained ? Not at all. But in attempting it, he has mangled and perverted Scripture, and entirely misapprehended the apostolic character. Has he been able to show from Scripture that the Apostles, in their peculiar and preeminent character, had successors; and that these successors were the bishops? He has not even pretended, so far as we recollect, to produce a single scripture which gives the remotest counte- nance to either of these positions. Has he proved, or rendered even probable, that Timothy or Titus was sent to Ephesus or Crete, not on a temporary and extraordinary mission, but to occupy a fixed and permanent pastoral charge? He has not; nor can he do so. For, from the scripturtil account of the roinistry of those itinerants, it is by no means likely that tliey TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 225 were in either of those places more than a few months, or per- haps, weeks. Has he proved that the second epistle to Timo- thy was addressed to him at Ephesus at all ? He has not j and some of the most learned commentators have thought it alto- gether improbable. Has he given us the least proof that either Timothy or Titus went to Ephesus or Crete in any higher character than that of simple " evangelists," sent on a special mission, and charged for that purpose with special powers? By no means. The whole statement concerning them agrees far belter with parity than with prelacy ; nor is there a single fact or hint in the history of either which necessarily, or even probably, implies the latter. Has he shown that before those missionaries went to Ephesus and Crete there were teaching presbyters or pastors residing in both those places, who might. on Presbyterian principles, have performed the work of ordina- tion? Or has he proved that either Timothy or Titus ever performed a single ordination alone? He has not produced the least proof of either, nor can he do it. Has he proved, or ap- proached to the proof, that the " angels" of the seven churches were prelates? Not at all. Neither their name, nor any facts alluded to in their case, give the least intimation that they bore this character. The same may be said of every fact and princi- ple peculiar to prelacy which he has attempted to establish. Instead of producing direct and palpable scriptural testimony, he has been compelled to resort to doubtful conjecture, circuit- ous inference, and remote probability, or even possibility. No one position is firmly supported. Even if he had been able to establish every one of the points above referred to as facts, still his main object would have been far from being gained. He would still be obliged to show, from Scripture, that all this was intended to be a permanent arrangement. This he has not done. This, we are very sure, he cannot do. His premises and his conclusion are alike unsound. The last remark brings again to our view a most singular part of Bishop Onderdonk's argument, to which we before alluded, but which deserves a more pointed notice. He grants, (p. 12,) as we haVe seen, that the title of " bisho[)," in the New Testament, is every where applied to ordinary pastors ; and that it was after the apostolic age that the title of " bishop" was taken from the "second order of clergy, and appropriated to the first." When we came to this point in his argument, we felt curious to know what scripture he would produce to attest this last point, viz. that " after the apostolic age, the title of ' bishop' was taken from the second order, and appropriated to tlie first." But, at this principal link in his chain of proof, he abandons his pro- fessed ground. "As we learn," says he — from whom? from any inspired loriler 7 — n'ot at all — " as we learn from Theodoret, one of the fathers!" He does not pretend to find the slightest warrant in the Bible for this essential part of his argument. How are we to account for this? We thought we had been 226 REVIEW — EPISCOPACY called to investigate the claim of Episcopacy as "tested by scripture:" and here, for an essential link in the chain of proof, we are referred to a writer in the fifth ceniurij! We reject this proof for several reasons: 1. Because it is not Scripture, and with that alone we have to do al present. 2. Because if this change of title had the sanction of Divine appointment, and if the rank which it represents had been regarded as a matter of so much importance as modern prelatists annex to it, we might, surely, expect to find in the New Testament some intimation of wiiat was to take place. 3. Because no one doubts that, in the fifth century, when Theodoret lived, prelacy had crept into the Church, and was firmly established ; and that the language which he employs fell in with the current claims and practice of his day. 4. Because, if the testimony of the fathers is to settle this point; (against which we enter our solemn protest; what cannot be found in the Bible is no law for Christians-;) if an appeal must be made to the fathers at all; pray let us go to those who lived nearest to "the apostolic age," and who, of course, are the most competent witnesses of what took place immediately after that age, when this change of title is alleged by our autlior to have been brought in. Does Clemens Romaiius, does Ignatius, does Polycarp, say any thing like what Theodoret is brought to testify? They lived at the very time when this transfer of titles is alleged to have taken place. Does any one of them speak of it? Not a word. But they say very much of an opposite import. Ignatius says, again and again, that the PRESBYTERS SUCCEED IN THE PLACE OF THE APOSTLES, ClCiineUS^. Avho was contemporary wiih the Apostle John, speaks familiatiy of the presbyters in his day, as the rulers of the Church, very mucii in the language of the New Testament ; and Irenaeus, who flourished toward the latter part of the second century, repeatedly speaks of presbyters as being successors of the Apostles. Surely the representations of these men, though not constituting our rule either of faith or practice, are much more worthy of con- fidence than the language of those who lived several centuries afterward, when it is known that great corruption, growing out of ambition and worldliness, had found its way into the Church, and when an erroneous nomenclature, as well as practice, was notoriously prevalent. Such is the result of our author's appeal to the " test of Scrip- ture." If he has proved a single point peculiar to the Episcopal system, from the New Testament, then we know not what proof means. Surely if the inspired writers had been Episcopalians; and, especially, if they had been believers in its fundamental importance, as well as in its Divine appointment ; they could not have left the subject in their writings — wriiings, be it remem- b-red, expressly intended to guide the Churcli to the end of tim" ;— tiiey could not, we repeat, iiave left the subject in so lean and doiibifiil a plight as it would appear from our author's state- ment. Bishop Onderdojik has evidently examined the Scriptures TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 227 With th« most anxious vigilance, and with the aid of the best divines of his Cliurch who have lived for three centuries; and he has evidently collected every fact, hint and allusion that was capable of being brought to bear witness, ever so minutely or remotely, in favor of his cause. And yet the fact is, that every impartial reader must see that he has not been able, in regard to arry one point, to produce a single scripture, decided and " home to his purpose." Now, if Episcopacy had been meant to be taught in Scripture, as the only authorized model of church order; and if the New Testament had been intended to be a sure guide in this matter; can any reflecting man believe that the inspired writers would have written as they have done in relation to ecclesiastical order? We will venture to say, it is impossible! When they had occasion to speak so frequently concerning Christian character and hope; concerning the Church, its nature, foundation, head, laws, ministers, and interests ; it is truly marvellous, if they had thought as the writer of this pamphlet does, that they should not have told us something more explicit respecting "orders of clergy;" the mischiefs of " parity ; " the danger of departure from the regular " succession ; " and the fundamental importance of contending for an "author- ized priesthood." Had their opinions been those of the author of this Tract, they could not have been silent, or have spoken doubtfully respecting these points. They would have dwelt upon them in every connexion; have repeated them at every turn ; and have made this subject clear, whatever else was left in the dark. Now, as it is granted, on all sides, that they have NOT DONE this; as Episcopalians themselves acknowledge that NO ONE of the inspired writers has done it, or is at ali explicit on the subject; it is as plain as any moral demonstration can be, that the principles and claims of this pamphlet were then unknown, and, consequently, have no Divine warrant. ANSWER TO A REVIEW OF "EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE^" In the Biblical Repertory for April, 1835. Some people are prompt, and some tardy; the same with periodicals ; and the Biblical Repertory is of the latter class — perhaps with good reason. By the Biblical Repertory we mean, of course, the author of the Review before us. He informs us that "copy after copy" of '"Episcopacy Tested by Scripture" was sent him, from about the time of its earliest appearance, yet without waking the energies of his tardy pen ; nay without being honored with the perusal of more than " a fourth, or at most, a third part of its contents." The reason was, that it contained nothing with which he was not " familiar." At length, however, in time for the April number of the Repertory, and " within twenty-four hours" of the moment of penning his third para- graph, he vouchsafes it " a cursory perusal." Why, after leaving it so long unnoticed and unread, say some four years, why did the reviewer at length examine its pages, and even bend his powers to the labor of a reply? He informs us that it was because " the voice of exultation over its supposed unanswerable character seems to be, in the Episcopal camp, waxing louder and louder," and because " some of the less informed of [his] friends may misapprehend the reason of [his] silence." Only the " less informed," be it noticed ; the Biblical Repertory, a' thick and handsome Quarterly, is the vehicle of communication with the " less informed " of the Presbyterians ! One might have sup- posed that the columns of one of their religious newspapers would be the more appropriate channel. Mark also the words, "misapprehend the reason of our silence;" the silence of this individual reviewer, for the Tract had been reviewed a year before, in the Christian Spectator. Such language, under such circumstances, indicates that this writer understood that himself was looked to, by more or fewer of the Christian public, whether "less" or better " informed," for a reply to this Episcopal essay. In other words, while the reviewer, for himself, deemed the Tract, for four years, unworthy of notice, there were those whose judgment, either made known to him or taken for granted, constrained him at length to give his well-trained faculties ("familiar" with the whole subject) to the task, and to issue his production in one of the choicest Presbyterian periodicals. If the author of the Tract were vain of it, he would not covet a greater compliment. 20 c 229 ) 230 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF After extracting from the Review such a compliment, and with the more direct compliments there given us, it may seem unkind to say that the tone of the reviewer is that rather of a declairaer than of a reasoner. But as "less-informed" per- sons are often caught by positive language, and insinuations against the parties opposed, it is our duty to say, that this posiliveness and these insinuations abound in the production before us. Let our timid readers then bear in mind, that it is easy to say that no man of sense thinks as Episcopalians do, and that our opinions have no countenance whatever in the holy volume; let them be informed, that men who reason are apt to regard such sayings, except as they occasionally escape an ardent debater, as mere sound, a lordly kind of scolding, resorted to when arguments are scarce, or when the current of argument- ation is becoming stagnant. The author of the Tract, says the reviewer, is under '• the wonderful sway of prejudice" — certain of his inferences " would be driven away from any enlightened and impartial tribunal on earth : " again, " we confidently assert that there is no authority whatever in the Word of God " for bishops proper ; the claim of deacons to be clergymen, " has no foundation whatever in the Word of God : " if this claim " had not been actually advanced, it would never have occurred to us as possible that it should enter the mind of any thinking man : " again, "the claim advanced in behalf of Andronicus and Junia [or Junias] as apostles, is not only unfounded, but really border- ing on the ridiculous ; ^^ yes, "ridiculous," although that claim is allowed by Calvin, by Diodati, by Aretius, by others in Poole's Synopsis, and is regarded as of equal probability, or more than equal, with the other construction, by Hammond * and Macknight; yet adds the reviewer, the contrary "is the general interpretation of intelligent and impartial commentators:" again, " the manner in which Bishop Onderdonk undertakes to dispose of the plain record is one of the most singular examples of evasion and management that we remember ever to have seen : " again, the opinion that itpta^vn^iov in 1 Timothy, means office, the presbyterate, is "fanciful and ridiculous:" the word seems a favorite one, "ridiculous;" though the opinion has, in the Tract, the names of Jerome and Ambrose, of Calvin f and Grotius, and, in the Answer to Mr. Ba^rnes' second Review, * Hammond allows this absolutely, on John xx. 21, note b. We here specify for this opinion, Menochius, Tirinus, Estius, Vorstins, and Parseus ; see Poole's Synopsis. Add also, Parkhnrst and Wolfius, emd Whitby, as we understand him ; who cites Chrysostom and Theodoret. t The objection is repeated by this revieww, that Calvin held a different view afterward. Not exactly true ; but if it were, he still allowed this one to be reason- able. Dr. Bowden made this reply long ago, as the reviewer should have known. See also our second Answer to Mr. Blrnes. Dr. Cooke, we now observe, has answered still" more effectually. (Essay, p. 175; Answer, p. 21.) The Institutes, in which CaJvin made tliis concession, were first published before his Commentary, in which he partly revokes it ; btU successive editions of the former, still making the concession, were published till " five years before he died." EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTDRE. 231 those of a host besides: yet again, speaking of Bishop Onder- donk's arguments at large, "our only wonder is, that he does not see tiiem to be, both in their individual import, and in their combined character, destitute of even the semblance of force;" in plainer terms, the reviewer wonders that Bishop Onderdonk "does not see" himself to be without "even the semblance" of common understanding. Such is the tone — we could make other extracts of the same kind — of this Review, in a periodical " conducted by an Associa- tion of Gentlemen in Princeton." Another feature of this Review is, that it creates men of straw^ fictitious arguments^ in the demolition of which the "less- informed " readers will be apt to think that the arguments of the Tract are demolished. 1. It is said, that the Tract professes to " demonstrate /row >S'cnpZMre," that the name bishop, given in Scripture to presbyters, was appropriated afterward to bishops proper: and in conformity with \W\s fiction, the reviewer exults when he proclaims that this appropriation was proved, not from Scripture, but from "one of the fathers." Now, who ever ex- pected to prove from the New Testament, an occurrence which did not take place till after its books were written ? Or, who, but the reviewer, deems this change of a name the " principal link in the chain of proofs," or even an integral part of the scriptural discussion of Episcopacy? We proved the recognition of the first order in that volume, without reference to its designation: that is the scriptural proof of the only important point. How or when that order came by the name of bishop, is a mere affair of history : and as historical authority for the change, we adduced the declaration of Theodoret; and also the concession of Videlius, a learned Non-episcopalian, that it was as early as the time of Clement of Rome. Does the reviewer contradict this authority? by no means. He only contends that we ought to find Scripture — for what? for an event yet future when Scripture was written; in other words, di prophecy — a prophecy of what? of a mere change of name I A worthy subject of prophecy, indeed! He urges, however, that it related to "a matter of so much importance" — importance! we might as well ask the Romanists to give us a scriptural prophecy that the bishop of Rome would acquire the name of Pope. 2. It is alleged that the Tract maintains that "the apostles alone, while they lived, were invested with the power of ordi- nation," " and that when their ministry terminated, they left " their rank and rights to "their successors:" to demolish this effigy of his own creation, the reviewer replies that " Timothy, and Tilus, and Barnabas all ordained, and yet they were none of them apostles, in the appropriate sense of that title." Now, the Tract affirmed that these three ordained, or had the power to do so, while most of the apostles were living; as also the seven " angels," while St. John was living. While any of the thirteen original Apostles were on the earth, these and others were their 332 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF official compeers ; when they died, these and others were their successors, as coming after them — in the other sense, their succession in sacerdotal standing was from the time they were set apart respectively to their high office. The Tract did not confine ordaining to those called apostles in Scripture; for it ascribed that function to Titus and the seven "angels," who are not so designated : it ascribed it to the Apostles, and to certain other individuals, not mere elders. May we not asic the reviewer, " What does your [fictitious] arguing reprove?" 3. Some strength of the reviewer, with the aid of the mighty name of Barrow, is expended on the proposition, that the extraordinary, miraculous, and special powers and duties of the Apostles proper, were not committed to successors. Who said they were ? not the Tract certainly ; nor any Episcopa- lian we ever heard of. And what further proposition does the reviewer superinduce upon this argument of straw ? just this — •'But" — O yes, the Presbyterian, as well as the Episcopalian, has something to save out of the smoke of this blank volley — " But, considering the Apostles as ministers o/'Christ they had successors." What an example of much ado about nothing ! — of making a speech, and ending at the point started from ! Neither party claims succession to the extraordinary functions of the thirteen ; but both claim succession to them as ministers of Christ." All this was known before. The true questions were, What sort or grade of " ministers" succeeded to the apostolic ministerial office ? and. Was the superiority of the Apostles to the elders an extraordinary and transient arrange- ment, or a permanent one in the Church? To a solution of these questions, this part of the labor of the reviewer brings us no nearer. The "less informed" may indeed be carried away with the torrent of his argument against a shadow, and may imagine that because no extraordinary apostolical distinctions have descended, there is no basis for Episcopacy ; but this class of readers are beginning to be better " informed." 4. The reviewer, as also did Mr. Barnes, adverts to the "post- scripts " to the second epistle to Timothy, and to that to Titus, " which speak of their being bishops," and very gravely and learnedly declares them to be spurious: true — what then? did the Tract refer to them ? no: does any Episcopalian put them into the scriptural argument? no: does any Episcopalian mean to do so ? no. For what purpose then are they even named in this controversy ? for none, that we can perceive, except it be to make a display, by arguing down what nobody asserts. 5. On the word " evangelists," the reviewer offers what he deems "conclusive proof, as far as scriptural authority goes, that the title has no reference to prelacy." So exactly said the Tract; an evangelist might be either bishop, priest, or deacon; nay, even the laity "did the work of evangelizing;" the title did not imply either one of the sacred offices. Why " prove," then, that it " has no reference to prelacy ? " why, but to make EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 233 a show of proving something, in an argument against Epis- copacy ? 6. On a question of his own raising — " Why may not Timo- thy and I'ilus have been Presbyterian evangelists?" — the reviewer says, that the author of the 'J'ract '• doubtless will reply, that this cannot be, because none but prelates ever had the power of ordaining." An easy way to make answers ! put what argument you please into the mouth of your opponent, and then, assuming it to be his, exclaim, ''Sliall we never have done with this constant begging of the question in dispute ?" Let us turn about this weatlier-cock logic. Why may not Timothy and Tiius have been Episcopal evangelists? the reviewer " doubtless will reply," that there is no Episcopacy in Scripture ; and then we, in turn, will " doubtless " echo his rejoinder, "Shall we never have done with this constant beg- ging of the question?" Such questions and answers might be stereotyped, with blank spaces, and filled up for any contro- versy on any subject. We say that Timothy and Titus were not Presbyterian evangelists, because there is no scriptural evi- dence, or no clear evidence, that presbyters ordained ; and no- scriptural evidence whatever, that presbyters governed presby- ters. That is our " reply ; " the reviewer has ascribed to us a fictitioics one. And we see no reason for his doing so, but to exhibit to his "les.s-informed friends" his prowess in knocking to pieces a puppet of his own fabrication. And now we submit to every one who has read impartially the Tract, and this Review of it, whether in our exposure of the tone of the latter, in regard to its mere bold assertions and detract- ing insinuations^ and of its wasted valor upon arguments which no one controverts, or which no one offers, we have not taken out the larger half of its pith and substance ? ' We might go further, and ask of such readers, whether the reviewer has weakened the Tract in any one point? But as this might be deemed an imita- tion of him in the error of positiveness, we must reply to his reasoning, such as il is. This, for substance, is an easy work ; but as brief objections often require long answers, we fear that we sentence ourselves to no small labor, and perhaps our readers to more fatigue than may be acceptable to them. It is a matter of duty, however, and we therefore do not shrink from the task. In the tract, " Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," we passed over the claims of our deacons, because tiie discussion was unimportant, as compared with the grand one, that of the claims of our bishops. But the reviewer brings them into the debate, and we are content to meet him. That therefore will, as with him,, be our first topic ; and then we shall taite in hand his general argument against Episcopacy. I. The reviewer takes the usual ground, that deacons were ^rs? appointed when "the seven" were ordained, in Acts vi. ;, and that their [only] duties are there " explicitly and plainly stated." We join issue with him on both points. 20* 234 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF And here we begin with the remark, that "the seven" are nowhere in Scripture called deacons — not once. The purport of this remark is, tliat, as in all sound reasoning, we are not here to look to names, but to things or facts. That "the seven" were deacons, we neither question nor doubt; we judge they were such, not from the name, which they have not in Scripture, but from their functions. If, however, we can find that their functions were exercised by others before them, then we say that such ministers as "the seven" existed previously to the appointment of these. If also we can show, that when the title 'deacons" does occur in Scripture, not a word is said of their " serving tables," we think we shall have a strong argu- ment that that could not have been the onli^ function of the ministers who had this official designation. The passage now before us is this, from Acts vi. And in those days, when the number of the disciples, was viultiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were negkcted in the daily ministration, iiaxovKu Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God and serve Stanovtiv tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out from 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 Siaxovia of the word. ***** "Whom they set before the Apostles : and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. We have inserted the Greek words, that it may be seen that they are not used in the appropriate sense. They are applied to the "daily ministration," which took place before "the seven" were appointed; to the "service" which the twelve must have done had they not been appointed ; and to the " ministry of the word : " in the two former clauses, the appro- priate sense might be claimed, were it not that the name " dea- con" does not yet appear to have been given, and were not the expression, at its third occurrence in the passage, clearly em- ployed in the more general signification. It is plain^ therefore, that " the seven " are not called " deacons," even by impli- cation. It is commonly supposed, we believe, that before the appoint- ment of " the seven," the Apostles performed the office of "serving tables;" but this we deem a mistake. They agreed, that "it was not reasonable for them to leave the word, and serve tables." Surely it was just as unreasonable for them to do so previously as subsequently — and therefore we judge there were servants of tables (whether with higher functions or not) from the time the property of Christians was put into a com- mon fund, from which "distribution was made to every one, as he had need." So obvious is this consideration, that Matthew Henry, Doddridge, and T. Scott, allow that the Apostles had agents for this work before this period \ Bishop Stack thinks EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 23a " the ministration was left at large ; " and Mosheim says, " The Church was undoubtedly provided from the beginning with inferior ministers, or deacons j no society can be without its servants, and still less such societies as those of the first Chris- tians were." Here, then, is aur first reason for asserting that there were such functionaries before " the seven >" the work was extensive from the first, among the many thousands of converts, not a few of whom must have been supported from the general fund; and the Apostles would have had to "leave the word" altogether, had they discharged this lower office, which would "not" have been "reasonable." Our next argu- ment for this position is, that had the " twelve " given lhei.p spare time, if they at first had enough, to "this business," and yet afterward found it insufficient, because the number of dis- ciples was " multiplied," and still multiplying, they would have scarcely appointed only " seven " persons to take their place : we allow that the contrary supposition is not impossible, but we submit that it is improbable ; if so, it is just as probable thai there were previously those, not apastles, who performed " the daily ministration" of "serving tables." Our third argument for this opinion is, that it can hardly be supposed that the twelve inspired Apostles would " neglect " any of the poor, and particularly that they would be guilty of "neglect" with a 'party or pofrtial aspect, favoring the " Hebrew " widows to the injury of the "Grecian" — the hoxnfe-born Jewish Christians, rather than the foreign of Jewish descent. True, some com- mentators allege that the "murmur" was unjust ; but the holy record says no such things and the Apostles allow its justice in providing a remedy for the "neglect." We repeat, then, that the previous "ministration," and the "negligent" manner of fulfilling it, are to be ascribed to other agents than the Apostles. The only seeming objection to this view of the case, is the expression "but we will give ourselves continually io prayer, and the ministry of the word." This, we say, is but an objec- tion in appearance, for it means no more than " we will per- severe in constant attention to these duties." It does not imply that the Apostles had previously given but a partial attention to them. We are not certain but we are honored with the concur- rence of the reviewer on this point — he argues "that the Apos- tles considered the duties of this office as of such a nature, that their undertaking' to fulfil them, vx)idd compel them to leave preaching, and devote themselves to the care of money tables." We suppose he means that they had at no time ful- filled "this office ;" his argument is decidedly to that eflFect. It follows, we think, from this course of reasoning, that " the seven" were appointed to make up the deficiency in the number of the functionaries who, till now, had "served the tables"— and particularly to meet the claims of the " Grecian " poor. Accordingly Mosheim, after mentioning the earlier "deacons," adds—" These first deucons of the Church, being chosea from 236 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF among the Jews who were born in Palestine, were suspected by the foreign Jews of partiality in distributing the offerings, which were presented for the support of the poor. To remedy, therefore, this disorder, seven other deacons were chosen by order of the Apostles, and employed in the service oi that part of the church at Jerusalem which was composed of the foreign Jews, converted to Christianity. Of these new ministers, six were foreigners, as appears by their names; the seventh was chosen out of the proselytes, of whom there were a certain number among the first Christians at Jerusalem, and to whom it was reasonable that some regard should he shown in the election of the deacons, as well as to the foreign Jews." This view of the affair of the deacons is just and probable every way. It was not a general " neglect" that was complained of, but a party one, or partiality ; of which the Apostles could not have been guilty, but only their agents; and such other agents were appointed as would remedy this evil precisely. Among "the seven" there does not appear to have been one native " Hebrew," an omission which, without the construction before us, would have invited a " murmur" from the party before favored. The number of disciples was great — three thousand on the day of Pentecost— five thousand soon afterward — ^Ihen " multitudes of men and women" added — then the number "multiplied:" add to these facts, that large sums were contributed, and that the " ministration " of them was extensive, and it will scarcely be denied that "seven" men were not enough to superintend minutely their distribution. We again affirm, therefore, that others besides " the seven " must have performed that function before them. One corollary to this conclusion is, that if " the seven " were deacons because they "served tables," these others were dea- cons for the same reason. And thus the first institution of this office is not found in the chapter belore us. A further corollary is, that as "the seven" were ordained, those who were deacons before them must have had a similar or an equivalent setting apart. Strange would it have been, to have one portion of these officers solemnly dedicated to their work, when the other portion had been left without any such honor. Ill calculated would it have been to allay party " mur- muring," to bave the deacons for the Grecians ordained, when those for the Hebrews had received no separation. The pre- sumption, then, the strong presumption, without a particle of evidence to the contrary, is, that the earlier deacons were solemnly commissioned to their station in the Church. If the Apostles did not conduct previously this " ministration," which it seems clear they did not— if others had acted, under their general superintendence, in discharging it— then, whatever rea- sons existed for setting apart " the seven " to discharge it, under their continued supervision, the same reasons must have required the former agents also to be men set apart to the office. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCKIPTURE. 237 And now, this portion of our argument advances rapidly. There were already, before "the seven" were ordained, men who had the same right to be called deacons that they had. These men were also ordained, or set apart, or solemnly commissioned. Who were these men ? Nothing is intimated of such an ordination in the previous chapters of the Acts. But there is a yet earlier record of a sacred commission given to others than the twelve Apostles : it is found in Luke x. ; where it is declared that " the seventy " were " appointed," and sent fortli to proclaim the Gospel, and that they " returned " from their mission. What became of them after their return ? Not a word more is explicitly recorded concerning them. Are we to infer then that they abandoned their sacred calling, and did nothing further in their ministry? Are we to suppose that they are really, as well as apparently, out of sight, in the subsequent parts of the inspired history ? Or shall we rather presume, that some of these commissioned men were the deacons who officiated before " the seven " were ordained ? To us, this presumption appears probable in the highest degree. Indeed, the alternative is, to suppose a previous ordination by the Apostles, not hinted at, or to allow that some of these, known to have been set apart, were the functionaries we are in quest of. We are aware that very many ordinations must have taken place which are not recorded, and that this act at the hands of the Apostles may, without inconsistency, be supposed of these earliest deacons. But we submit that the supposition is needless, v/hen we find so large a number of men already ordained or " appointed " by the Saviour. Our Presbyterian brethren, of course, make here the usual objections. Deacons, they allege, were not empowered to preach, as " the seventy " were ; and therefore " the seven " and "the seventy" could not have held the same office. This further topic we now present to the reader. And we first ask, Why were deacons ordained at all, if they only "served tables," if they were mere treasurers and almon- ers? and why ordained by the Apostles? These functions are quite common in various departments of society. Vast num- bers of persons are constantly intrusted with the money of others— clerks, agents, apprentices, servants, the porters of cowiting-houses — with large sums. What is there in such a trust to make it probable that apostolic ordination would be required, when the trust related to the funds of the Church? Who thinks of a formal induction into such a trust, in any other case? — except, perhaps, in some associations, where it is done merely for parade — which of course is no analogy to be applied to church affairs. All analogy is against the notion that men should be ordained, when the one function is, to have charge of money and the poor. The presumptive argument is, then, that " the seven," when ordained, were not ordained for this business alone, but also for other duties, such as would correspond in 238 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF saoredness, with iliat of ttie very high solemnity with which they were set apart. Nor are we without sufficient intimations of these further duties. When " deacons " are mentioned in Scripture by that title, in 1 Tim. iii., not a word is said of tiieir having charge of money and the poor — not a hint of the sort is given : it is pro- bable that this part of their office became much less important, when the large contributions to the Church ceased to be made ; and were it not for the case of " the seven," who yet have not the title, no one would apply such a key to the recital in that chapter, of the qualifications lliey should possess. On the contrary, the passage implies that they were an inferior grade of clergymen. Let us examine the proofs of this assertion. 1. They were required to " hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience:" on which qualification Macknight says, and refers also to Beza — " Soundness in the faith being required ia deacons, it is a presumption that they were sometimes era- ployed in teaching ; but whether by preaching, or by catechiz- ing is hard to say. They likewise performed the office of readers, in the Church." Doddridge also allows, on a sub- sequent verse, that "it is highly probable deacons might frequently officiate as occasional teachers in public assem- blies." Scultetus allows this function of deacons more expli- citly. (Poole's Synopsis.) 2. Those who " have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree." Many Presbyterian commentators, the majority of those now within our reach, regard this "good degree" as advancement to the pastoral office. Those who act well as deacons, may expect to be promoted, and made presbyter-bishops : no exception is made or hinted ; it was the rule that worthy deacons should be ordained presbyters; such was the reward of their fidelity, as the word "purchase" implies. Is there such a rule, or such a reward, in the case of the deacons of parity ? could there be such a rule, or such a reward, for those who ovly " served tables?" No; the idea is preposterous; for there is no affinity between such an office and that of ministers of the word and sacraments ; men may excel, and may improve through their whole life, in the stewardship of earthly things, yet be totally unfit to be stewards of things heavenly. An affinity then there must be, between the functions of deacons and those of presby- ters, or the inspired language before us is incongruous and void —there must be that in " the office of a deacon," besides his "serving tables," which, if duly improved, will^^ him for "the office of a [presbyter] bishop." In other words, the two offices must be similar,'boi\\ sacred, and concerning sacred functions; only the former is inferior to the latter — in what particulars we shall show hereafter.* We add, in this place, a coincidence in ♦ Dr. Campbell says — " Tlie deacons were admitted very early, probably io the time of the Apostles, to an inferior part in the sacred ministry, such aa EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 239 phraseology of some weight. St. Paul says, "If any man desire the office of a [presbyter] bishop, he desireth a good KaXov work;" and then, as if to point to that expression, he declares, "They that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good xaXov degree " — the passages are translated by Macknight, " an excellent work," " an excellent degree." We submit that on the very face of the chapter, the reference of the latter phrase to the former is highly probable. We further suggest, that the expression " a good work " is regarded by commentators as very emphatic ; and the Apostle would hardly use the same emphatic word within a few verses, and apply it to the encouragement of deacons, unless he meant that their fidelity would entitle them to a share in the " good work" of presbyter-bishops. The deaconship then was the first "degree" in the same sacred office of which presbytership was the second " degree." 3. It is further declared by St. Paul, that those who " have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves [or obtain] great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." This is interpreted by Macknight, " great cour- age in teaching the Christian faith;" implying that teaching the faith was an employment of deacons, as such. And this is the true meaning. For, why should the mere servants of tables acquire more "boldness in the faith" than the other laity? The language evidently imports that deacons were officially connected with the Christian faith, were officially occupied in studying it, as theologians by profession, and were o^cially pledged to declare and maintain it. If it be objected, that their acquiring this boldness and confidence in preaching, may mean their having such a quality after reaching the " good degree" of presbyters, we answer, that the Apostle speaks of it as pro- duced, " purchased," obtained, by " using the office of a deacon well:" and this unavoidably implies that declaring the faith was part of that office, and that, by discharging this branch of the office with fidelity, deacons became such proficients as to be able to discharge the same duty with perfect confidence when the time of their promotion should come. We think, then, that the inference is as clear as any deduced from the Bible, that the scriptural deacons were ministers of the word, yet of an inferior grade, and preaching with less " boldness," with less authority, than they would when advanced to be presbyters; they were intrusted with the Gospel, but not fully and finally; their powers, in this respect, were equivalent to those of our deacons, who preach under a license from their superior. On the principle that all who are commissioned to preach "the faith," have power to admit men to the visible profession of that faith, by baptizing them — which appears a sound rule, and indeed to follow by unavoidable consequence — we regard attending the pastors in the discharge of the religious offices, and acting under their direction. The deaconship served in fact as a noviciate to the ministry." 240 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF the account of deacons given bjj^ St. Paul as including, by just inference, their right to administer that sacrament. We sup- pose that it is allowed, on all hands, that every minister of the Gospel may baptize. If then Paul's description makes deacons such ministers, they have that power. And that Paul does make them ministers of the Gospel, we have shown, we trust, to be a moral certainty. The only objection adduced by the reviewer, is, that it is not required, in this passage, that deacons, like presbyter-bishops, be " apt to teach." The objection is of no force. They were inferior ministers, as yet acquiring their aptness to teach, their "boldness" in declaring the faith. When, as deacons, they had obtained this boldness, then they were " apt to teach," and prepared for promotion to the " good degree," the " good work " of presbyter-bishops. Let us now bring back this evidence to the case of " the seventy." We suggested the probability that some of them were the deacons which the church at Jerusalem had before " the seven " were ordained. The objection was, that " the seventy " had power to preach. But this objection we have now set aside — deacons, expressly so denominated, had power to preach. The reader will of course bear in mind, that " the seventy " not being called deacons, is no more argument against having had that office, than the same fact in regard to "the seven " is argument against their having had it — not once is the appellation "deacon" given to them. We think, therefore, we have offered an unexceptionable statement of the condition of the church in Jerusalem, in this respect, at the period in question. That it had deacons at that period, is every way probable. And that these were some of " the seventy," is far more probable than that others were ordained, when there were so many already commissioned. But it will be further objected, that "the seventy" could not have been mere deacons, because they received (Luke x.) the same powers, and were to perform the same duties with those of " the twelve," (Matt, x.) who were, it is alleged, full minis- ters of the Gospel — the reviewer appears to regard both as having the same commission. The reply to this objection is easy. The ordinary powers first bestowed on " the twelve," were to preach and baptize, the latter being inferred from the fact that they did so, and from the commission to proclaim "the kingdom of God," which implies the right to admit into that kingdom by this initiating ordinance.* The same ordinary * This commission was given to the twelve when they were first called, respect- ively, by the Saviour ; they baptized before John was cast into prison. (John iii. 22 ; iv, 2.) The account therefore in Matt. x.. and the parallel places, being subsequent to this event, refers only to a mission on which they were sent, and a charge concerning its fulfilment — and also to their endowment with miraculous powers. It is a recognition of the ministerial character they already possessed. The ^rst call of several of the twflve is mentioned in John i. 35, &c. that in Matt. iv. IS, <£c., was a subsequent one. (See Macknight.) EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE* 241 powers, so far as can be gathered from the holy record, were conferred on " tlie seventy," But after the first commission of "the twelve," and about the time, perhaps just before "the seventy " were sent forth, the former received, in addition to tiieir previous investiture, the power of the keys, (Matt, xviii.) the right to admit to communion, or reject from it ; the right to declare absolution, or refuse to do so — which included, of course, the right to administer the eucharist, recognised as existing in "the twelve," at the first celebration of that sacra- ment. These further powers " the seventy " received not, as such ; they did not receive them from the Saviour, though they may have been subsequently promoted to this " good degree " by the Apostles. Here then we have a body of ministers, com- missioned to preach and baptize, but not to exercise the power of the keys — in other words, an inferior grade of minis- ters [proper] of the Gospel — ^just such as "the twelve" had lately been. Their functions correspond precisely with those we have detailed from St. Paul, in the epistle to Timothy; without the name, their office is that of the "deacons" there described. And thus vanishes the last objection to the earliest deacons at Jerusalem being some of "the seventy." Nay more : from this last exposition, we gather an increased probability that such was the fact. This body of ministers were "appointed" to the deaconship. Is it to be supposed, that they renounced their work when their special mission ceased ? Is it to be supposed that, when the Church began to be numerous, and to acquire consistence, and was in need of services in their par- ticular station, they had all deserted their Master and his apostolic representatives, tlieir superiors? We think not. Some of them may have been dispersed over .ludea, as part of the " five hundred brethren" were, when only "a hundred and twenty " were left in Jerusalem ; but a portion of them were doubtless in that city — on the spot — deacons, ready for their work; but of the " Hebrew " class, which made it expedient to choose others, for the " Grecians" and the proselytes. In the fact that "the seventy" held the ofi[ice of deacons, we have a full refutation cf the plea that Philip, " one of the seven," must have reached a higher office before he evangelized and baptized. The "seventy" evangelized and baptized, with- out attaining a higher office. The whole evidence in regard to Philip is, that he was ordained a deacon, and tliat he preached, and administered baptism largely, about a year afterward, and that he is called an "evangelist" some twenty-six years after these occurrences. If any object, that by this time, he possibly had attained the "good degree" of a presbyter, we might let it pass, except that it is not in the record, and he is even then called " one of the seven." * But this mere possibility, if we ♦ Dr. Campbell regarded the office of evangelist as an extraordinary one, and supposed it might be held by one whose ordinary office was that of a deacon. Be 21 ■242 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF did let it pass, of his being a presbyter at the very late period mentioned, does not imply a probability of any kind or degree, that he had reached that grade in one year from his ordination as deacon : for such an allegation we ask evidence ; but there is none. We affirm, therefore, that so far as appears from the facts, without any presumption or probability to the contrary, Philip preached and baptized as a deacon. It is not in the power of man to give any other scriptural view of the case. As to that of Stephen, we do not read that he baptized, but neither do we read that he actually served tables ; and if any allege that the latter is probable, from the context, we allege that the former also is probable, from the other scriptural consider- ations we have adduced. All that is recorded of him, having reference to the point before us, is, that he was constantly engaged in defending the Gospel ; that he had, as a deacon should seek to have, "great boldness in [declaring] the faith which is in Christ Jesus" — "This man," said his enemies, and though they were " false witnesses," it was only in the construc- tion of his preaching — "this man ceaseih not ov vaverai to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law : for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs (or rites) which Moses delivered us." Does this account agree with the notion that the deacon Stephen was a mere servant of tables? He proclaimed "Jesus of Nazareth." He declared the very important doctrine of the passing away of the Mosaic "customs or rites," by their fulfilment in the Christian dispensation. He "ceased not" to do this. The reviewer is mistaken, when he says that Stephen '^simply replied to those who 'disputed' with him;" he evi- dently did more, he made the defence of the Gospel his business. Nay, when the " dispulers" with him began, Stephen had obvi- ously been proclaiming already the subjects they undertook to "dispute" about; he had «7rear/?/ been proclaiming Cliristianity, and inculcating the evanescence of the Levilicaf ceremonies ; topics which belong especially to authorized teachers, and to them exclusively if present or near at hand, not to laymen. Here surely, then, is a.preaching deacon, if there ever was one. So decidedly does this appear, that Campbell and others say h« was an evangelist; but wiiliout a particle of scriptural authority — he had not the tille, ihohs^h, like "the seventy," he did "the work of an evangelist," and that most earnestly and "boldly," and while like them, he was officially no more than a deacon. His defence before "the council" is of the same character. We have now vindicated, on scriptural grounds, and we trust effectually, the claims of our deacons. Our argument in their fsavs— " Philip is, in another place, but at a later period, expressly called an evan- gelist, Acts xxi. 8. It is worthy of notice, that his office of deacon is there also named, thnt we may not confound them, or ascribe to the one whit belonged to tiie other." We adduce this extract, as corroborating the opinion that Pliilip remained adeacon till the year 60 j when, however, he was also an "evangelist." EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 2^$ behalf, is not indeed so perfect a demonstration, as that in the Tract in the cause of our bishops. Yet we deem it fully suffi- cient. The grand point m Episcopacy, the exclusive rights of the first order, being proved by a clear induction, what we have now offered is an ample defence of the subordinate point, the rights of the third order. We submit it, without fear, as a complete refutation of the remarks of the reviewer. Before leaving the scriptural topics under this head, we must exhibit some of them again, briefly, to show their further results. We have seen that " the twelve" had at first the right only to preach and baptize ; which made them deacons in office^ accord- ing to St. Paul s standard, though, like " the seven," without the name: there being as yet no occasion, they did not act as almoners ; or rather, if fanciful, it is nothing worse, to allege that this diaconal function was adumbrated in their distributing the provisions, when Jesus fed the multitudes. After serving in this lower ministry, "the twelve" received the power of the keys; by which promotion, they attained the "good degree," and were commissioned to the "good work," of presbvter- bishops. . All this occurred before the dcuih of our Lord. After- ward, after his resurrection, "the eleven" were commissioned a third time; Christ "breathed" on them, and said, "Receive the Holy Ghost ;" they thus obtained a further, and of course, higher power of the keys ; they were " sent " by Christ, as the Father had sent him; he made them the representatives in "all the world," in "all nations," of the "power given unto him in heaven and in earth ;" and declared he would be "with" them. \vith them and their successors, " always, even unto the end of the world;" which intimation of their having successors in ofTice, implies their power to create them, i. e. to ordain such ministers as themselves, and of course those of the inferior grades. This third commission nsade the Apostles more than they were before; more than presbyter-bishops, which they became on acquiring their first power of the keys: in other words, it made them aposile-bisliops, bishops proper. Here then in the facts of the case as recorded in Scripture, we see plainly the three orders of Episcopacy— the aposiles rose to their full eminence through those " degrees " — being first deacons in func- tion, then presbyters, and then bishops. And here we are happy to find that the reviewer agrees with us in 'part. We claim three successive commissions for the Apostles — he allows two. He speaks of the first ^^ commission given by our Lord to the twelve, and afterward to the seventy," and says that it " includes what belongs to every minister of the Go.'ipel:^^ the twelve then, according to the reviewer, were "ministers of the Gospel" by their earliest commission, whatever was its date. He speaks also, in the paragraph the third previous, of "the final commis- sion which the Saviour gave to the Apostles," after his resur- rection, and which, he allows, contains the promise that "is considered as pointing to the ministerial succession." Pladnl^j. 244 ANSWER TO- A THIRD REVIEW OP then, the reviewer being judge, we have two sacred commissions — ^.u)d two commissions imply two offices, or two grades of office: what, alas, becomes of parity? Two commissions — the first made the twelve " ministers of the Gospel " — what did the second make the eleven? — something different? no; they con- tinued to be Christ's "ministers" — something less? no; they lost no power they iiad received — it follows unavoidably, that it made them something more! The first commission inducted them into the ministry, the second cotiimission inducted them into something more ; in other words, it made them higher ministers than the first did: what becomes of parity? verily, she has the coup de grace from one of her own sons. Two commissions, again — the first contained no promise that is "con- sidered as pointing to the ministerial succession," and of course implied no power to ordain ; the second does contain that promise, and implies that power; the ordaining function then does not belong to the lower "ministers of the Gospel,*' but only to the higher: what becomes of parity? slain already, we can only add, that she is now buried— and both at the hands of the reviewer ! This done, we ask him, or any other candid investir gator of Scripture, who finds there the two commissions, whether he does not rather find tlie three that we have described — that to an office equivalent to deaconship, before the power of the keys was given — that to an office equivalent to presbyiershipj when that power was added to those before possessed — and that to an office equivalent to the episcopate, when the promise was added, " which is considered as pointing to the ministerial succession ? " Another result, from the scriptural topics we have had before us, is to this effect. The " seventy " were ministers without the power of the keys ; in other words, they held the office of deacons, as defined by Paul. About the time they v^ere thus commissioned, 'Hhe twelve" received tliat power; in other words, they were advanced to the office of presbyters. Here are those two orders existing at the same time, during our Lord's personal ministry. Can we not find the highest order likewise, at that period? If our Saviour declared that He was "sent" by the Father, "as" himself sent the Apostles, when he gave them this highest office, may we not justly regard him as, in this particular sense, as well as generally, the chief minister of his religion, while he was on earth? He is called " the Apostle of our profession," or religion, after that word had obtained its appropriate meaning, and the apostles were distin- guished from the elders : is it then a mere fancy to consider him as the Apostle distinctively, while "the twelve" were elders, and "the seventy" were deacons? In point of fact, he had the powers thus assigned him ; is it not fair, then, as a matter of construction, to regard him at the time mentioned, as holding those powers in the compress relation to his Church of its Qhief earthly minister, the highest of the three orders? EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTDRE. 245^ We would not rest any part of the proof of Episcopacy on this construction; but, with that constitution of tlie sacred office otherwise proved, we deem this a further ilhistration of it, and also sufficient evidence that it existed, in its entireness, during our Lord's personal ministry. With this threefold arrangement of the Christian priesthood, carried up to the Lmmediate eye, and direct appointment of the Saviour, we see clearly iis uni- formity and unchangeableness. Jesus was made a "priest" and a "high-priest" after the order of Melchisedec, when the " voice from heaven" proclaimed, "Thou art my beloved Son." Holding thus the supreme commission, he gives to " the twelve," first, the lowest one ; and then, promoting them to the middle grade, he completes the three orders by substituting for them "the seventy." Thus commenced the "bright succession" — and thus will it continue " through all the courses of the sun" — yes, "always, even unto the end of the world." We like the scriptural argument It is always satisfactory, when fairly and adequately conducted. But we must quit it now for a few moments, to follow the reviewer in his excursion to the fathers, for matter against our deacons. And we present this portion of our remarks in a different type, that it may not be confounded with the rest of them. Hermas is the reviewer's first authority, whom he cites thus — "Some were set over inferior functions or services, being' intrusted with the care of the poor and widows." Let us read the same passage in Archbishop Wake's translation, " Such as have been set over inferior ministries, and have protected the poor and the widows.'* The reviewer seems to make the care of the indigent the only kind of function performed by deacons. But the other translation makes that care one among other " ministries " appointed them — and even the reviewer's version admits this interpret- ation — so that deacons were not regarded by ^Hermas as mere servants of tables. Origen says that deacons "preside over the money-tables of the Church "—he blames those of them who '• do not manage well " " this business "—and he adds, that " we are taught in the Acts " that deacons " were appointed " to " this function." Who doubts all this, or any point of it? Origen says not that they have no other functions. Cyprian speaks of a deacon who was '• deposed " for his " fraudulent and sacrilegious misapplication of the Church's money," and for with- holding the " pledges deposited with him " by " widows and oi-phans " — he regards also, says the reviewer, the transaction in Acts vi. as the Jirst appointment of deacons. What conclusion do these citations furnish that deacons had no other function than the care of the poor ! Does not the reviewer know that Cyprian says, " Those who believed in Samaria were baptized by Phihp the deacon ? " The same deacon preached to them. (Ep. 73 ; Potter, 248.) Ambrose, [rather the commentary ascribed to him,] " speaking of the fourth century," says, " The deacons do not publicly preach "—they might, however, for any thing that the reviewer cites, teach in their subordinate capacity. But it is to be noted, that Ambrose speaks of this state of things as a change from the former one, for he declares, (Potter, 233,) " At the beginning all were allowed to preach (evangelizare ;) but now the deacons do not preach publicly " (in populo prjedicant.) This writer then ip in our favor. 21* 246 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF Chrysostom says, " The deacons have need of great wisdom, though the preaching of the Gospel is not committed to them." We submit that this father means the full right to preach the Gospel: otherwise why mention, in this connexion, the " great wisdom " required of deacons 1 He does not deny their subordinate right to preach or instruct ; his language Implies no more than we have stated. This is the true account of the views of Chrysostom, as we learn from the late Dr. Wilson, who says (160) that this father " has given it as his opinion on Acts vi., that the commission was of a special nature, and though their duties were in the first instance ministerial, yet they were designed to be preachers, and did go forth as such." Jerome calls deacons " ministers of tables and widows " — all true— does he deny that they were also more 1 No, indeed. The reviewer forgot that this father said, " Without the bishop's license, neither presbyter nor rfeacon has a right to baptize ; " with that license, both may do it. He forgot that Jerome said, " It is the custom of the Church for bishops to go and invoke- the Holy Spirit, by imposition of hands, on such as were baptized by presbyters and deacons" and that he refers to " the Acts of the Apostles " as his authority. He forgot that Jerome calls presbyters priests of the inferioi* degree, and deacor,^ the third degree" of priests. (Cooke, § 154, 247.) The Apostolical Constitutions forbid "the deacons to baptize, or admi- nister the eucharist, or pronounce the greater or smaller benedictions." Not quite accurate : the passage forbids a deacon to " offer " or consecrate the eucharist, ov it^oc'iv.,) there were several in each church, which is inconsistent with the idea that they were bishops. 3. The elders sent for from Ephesus are called "the elders of the church/' (Acts xx.,) one church again, with many elders, a EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 249 fact irreconclleable with the theory of their episcopal char- acter. 4. When Paul and his comj.any were received by James at Jerusalem, the day following^ their arrival, " all the elders were present;" (Acts xxi. ;) all the bishops of Judea, James being their metropolitan, argues Dr. Hamuiond: but is it credible, that all the bishops of ail Judea could have been summoned to meet Paul, and have reached Jerusalem "the day following" his arrival in that city? no, they were elders on the spot, presbyters under James. 5. Paul mentions to the Corinthians their '' ten thousand instructers in CFiRisx," their " ministers of Christ," and desires these to " take heed how they builded " on his foundation : is such language consistent with the opinion that the Corinthian church had no presbyters? 6. To " the church of the Thessalonians," the one church, Paul says, " Know them which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord:" several ministers in one church — were they all bishops ? the supposition is incongruous. 7. 'J'itus is charged to "ordain elders in every city," a 'plurality in each city, the authorized translation being the judge; were they all bishops proper? no, for the same reason. 8. So of the church at Philippi, it had its " bishops and deacons," a 'plurality of the former as much as of the latter; they surely were no more than presbyter-bishops ; though not called • elders,' they must have been of that grade. 9. James desires the sick to " send for the elders of the church, and let the'ni pray over him,''^ &c. ; if " the church" means the particular congregation to which the sick man belonged, there were several called elders in that one congregation ; if it means the diocese, there were several in one diocese ; and both suppositions are fatal to the theory before us : if the bishops of several dioceses were meant, then they must assemble from various distances to pray over and "anoint" a sick person; which is a supposition wholly out of proportion, and which, if miraculous cures were frequent, must have withdrawn the bishops from ttieir proper functions, to be constantly travelling about in company among the sick of the dioceses in their respective neighborhoods. The only rational construction is, that these elders were presbyters, and also perhaps deacons. 10. The Saviour rebuked the " seven angels" of the Asiatic churches personally, not by St. John as if the metropolitan of those bishops, but merely as His secretary ; and this shows that he was not their metropolitan, as is by some imagined. It is also a strong argument against there having been any such functionaries so early as the scheme before us requires. And when to this is added the fact, that each of these "angels" is separately addressed, not through him of Ephesus, it is clear that the latter was not their metropolitan, as is presumed by Hammond in regard to Timothy, and as is essential to make the "bishops" spoken of in 1 Timothy bishops proper, placed under him as their archbishop; without this further hypothesis his theory must fall. But it is plain, from 250 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW 07 what has been said, thai there was 710 arciibishop in Ephesu», even so late as the year 96; of course^ none was there in 65; and thus the "bishops" meiuioned at this earlier date, as governed by Timothy, yet without his having metropolitan or archiepiscopal rank, could have been only presbyters. We have sufficiently refuted, we trust, this opinion of Dr. Hammond, who, learned as he was, does, like Jupiter himself^ occasionally " nod : " accordingly, he has not been followed in this matter by any writer known to us. We have shown also-, we hope, that his theory is not so sustained as to present the least objection to the rule, that the '-bishops" so called ii* Scripture, are always to be accounted presbyters. That they had a superior over them, our Tract has shown. And we now proceed with the further remarks we have to make on the review of that production. These will be much abridged by our having already offered a sufficient exposure of this review, or sufficient replies to most of its arguments. 1. We have exposed its tone of positive assertion, of refuting propositions made by no one, and of derogation from the intelligence or the candor of Episcopalians. Take these away, and there will remain but little that has evea the semblance of reasoning. 2. The apostleship of Timoihy, which this reviewer denies, has been sufficiently proved in our answers to the Rev. Mr. Barnes. Our readers, of course, do not wish to traverse tliat ground again. And if the reviewer stil! feels interest enough in the subject, to honor with his perusal our piece in the last Protestant Episcopalian, he can judge for himself whether we are over sanguine in our estimate of it. One new remark, however, we perceive, and will answer it briefly — apostles are " distinguished " from evangelists ; Timothy is called an evangelist; and this "precludes the possibility of our considering" him as an apostle. Now, the rule is, that the greater office includes the less, both being the same in kind ; if, therefore, the evangelists were officers, the apostles, being higher officers, were evangelists also, as they were elders like- wise, and deacons ; while yet mere deacons, elders and evange- lists were not apostles — Timothy was both an apostle and an evangelist. If, however, evangelists were not officers, as such, the objection of the reviewer vanishes. Apostles are "distin- guished" from " prophets," and from " teachers ;" yet Paul the apostle is called both a prophet and a teacher in Acts xiii. So much for the reviewer's positiveness — " precludes the possi- bility!" 3. His earnest plea, that bishops do not succeed to the extraordinary powers or privileges of the Apostles, we have already shown to be a refutation of what nobody, no Protestant at least, affirms. And his repetition of the fancy, that none but tlie special witnesses of the resurrection could be apostles, he will find disposed of in our answers 10 Mr. Barnes. To adduce Dr. Barrow for this notion, is to make him appear to maintain what in fact he does noti that divine argues EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 251 against the Romanists, that the thirteen principal Apostles had certain privileges which did not and could not descend by succession, and that thus the pope, arrogaiing some of these privileges, arrogates what does not belong to him ; for in this sense, St. Peter had no successors. But tliat bishops inherit the ordinary rights of the Apostles Dr. Barrow expressly allows, even to " a universal sovereign authority, coiamensuraLe to an apostle : " he quotes Cyprian as " affirming that the bishops do succeed St. Peter and the other Apostles by vicarious ordina- tion ; that the bishops are apostles"— and as saying that "in Episcopacy doth reside the sublime and divine power of governing the Church, it being the sublime top of the priest- hood." (p. 125, 193.) Let not Dr. Barrow be misunderstood; he says not one word, either directly or indirectly, in favor of parity. 4. On the "superiority of the ministerial power and j'ights" of the apostles over elders, we remarked — after showing the untenableness of other theories — that it •' would not be questioned." The reviewer starts at the assertion ; and well he may, for it leads to the inevitable demolition of his theory of presbyterial " power and rights." He recoils, as naturally as wisely, and declares, " We certainly, however, do question it." Very well — our proposition is questioned — by whom 1 by the reviewer — we must subtract a unit from our sum total — we stand 1000 instead of 1001. Mr. Barnes does not deny it, so far as we perceive. Calvin asserts what we say " will noi be questioned;" the Divines in the Isle of Wight assert it; Matthew Henry asserts it ; Dr. Campbell asserts it ; Dr. Miller asserts it; the late Dr. Wilson asserts it. AH this the reader will find in our replies to Mr. Ba^rnes. We now add Poole's Synopsis, Burkitt, and Adam Clarke; which see. And we make our stand on this authority, for the declaration "It will not be questioned," till a name is given us which will show that further inquiry is worth our trouble. 5. To our second answer to Mr. Barnes we refer, likewise, besides to the Tract, for a mass of proofs that the text which speaks of " the laying on of the hands of the presbytery " is enveloped in too much doubt, to be made the basis of any arj^ument on the question before us. Nay, we refer to this reviewer himself, who gives the following abstract of what is said in tlie Tract on this passage, without attempting to refute a single portion of it. He is content to put in italics^ and so produce a caricature coloring, some of the words which we shall give in plain letters, that the argument may be seen unperverted ; he is content to call it a "wonderful jingle of words," "inferences perfectly inconsequential and unwarranted ;" but as to reasoning against it, that the reviewer leaves untried. Here is the abstract; we thank him for it; we adopt it, except the unauthorized expres- sions which we place in brackets, and have only to request our readers to go for its proofs and illustrations to the Tract itself. 252 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIKW OP " It cannot be proved that the Apostle, when he speaks of the ' hands of the presbytery ' being l.iitl on Timothy, refers to his ordination at all. It is [perhaps,] more probable, that it refers to his being set apart to a special [and temporary] service : or it may be understood to mean, (if it does refer to his ordination) that he was set apart, by the laying on of hands, to ' the presbyterate,' that is, to the office of presbyter. Yet, even if this be supposed, as the title of presbyter, as used in the New Testament, means any thing and every thing in ecclesiastical office, it may be here construed to mean something higher than a mere presbyter, strictly speaking; [therefore] there is at least as much evidence that it means a prelate as a presbyter. Besides, for any thing we know to the contrary, the 'presbytery' which officiated on this occasion, ' may have consisted of apostles only, or of one or more apostles joined with others ; ' as the Apostle speaks, in another place, of having laid his own hands on Timothy, if this be so, it cannot of course be claimed as a Presbyterian, but was an apostolic ordination. We may be considered, then, as having proved, that presbyters alone did not perform the ordination, granting the transaction to have been one ; but that an apostle actually belonged, or else was added for this purpose, to the body* called a ' presbytery.' It is also worthy of notice, that St. Paul makes the following distinction in regard to his own agency and that o^ others in this supposed ordination, 'hij the putting on of my hands' — ^with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.' Such a distinction may justly be regarded as intimating that the virtue of the ordaining act flowed from Paul ; while the presbytery, or the rest of tliat body, if he were included in it, expressed only consent. On the whole, the language here used requires us to believe that a minister of higher rank than an ordinary presbyter was present and officiated in this ordin ition — or what is said to be the ordination of Timothy. At any rate, the Episcopal theory is at least as good a key as that of parity to the meaning of the word ' presbytery ; ' and considering the above distinction of by ' and ' with^^ our theory is obviously the better of the two." " It is doubtful whether either of these [famous] passages refers to the ordination of Timothy or not. If either or both have such a reference., they [*ad:iut of an interpretation quite as favorable to prelacy as to parity;"] therefore, as [some] other passages of Scripture [seem to] wear an aspect [more] favorable to prelacy [than parity,] we are bound to interpret these — which are acknowledged to be [still more] doubtful — in the same way." Perfectly astonished we were to find such a train of argument against the chief text for parity — distorted even as it was with sly additions and italics — in a defence of that form of the minis- try. And if all the readers of the Biblical Repertory are not of the "less-informed" class, there will certainly be some partici- pation in our surprise, among those who can distinguish between an argument and the perversion of it, and who are not overborne by sweeping posiliveness. Such readers will observe, that not a syllable of reasoning is offered against this abstract — not one. The grand text for Presbyterians is left unextricated from the dark accumulations q[ doubt, which make it unfit to be brought into the discussion — accumulations, which we have pretty largely exhibited in our reply to Mr. Barnes, and to which the reviewer himseif has added, by this almost faithful copy of some of them * Our assertion was, they are " more consistent with Episcopacy." EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 253 from our Tract, with no weightier objection against them, than some touches of misrepreseniaiion and caricature, and the arro- gant assertion that they should " be driven from any enlightened and impartial tribunal on earth, as unworthy of an answer." One of the main holds of parity on Scripture is thus left unsup- ported by the reviewer. As little protection is extended by him to the only other two scriptural expositions attempted in its behalf. The " transaction at Antioch " — in Acts xiii., which has often been represented as a Presbyterian ordination, but which Mr. Barnes ingenuously declares not to have been an ordination of any kind, and which Dr. Miller, in his late Tract, seems also to surrender — this "transaction," though dwelt upon largely in "Episcopacy Tested by Scripture," the reviewer passes by in perfect silence. And, if silence gives consent, we must conclude that he cannot gainsay our reasoning on the case. The third allegation from Scripture, in favor of parity — that in the acts of ordination there clearly recorded, a plurality of ordainers offi- ciated — the reviewer notices not except once, merely in passing. The allegation is good for nothing : because — 1. The ordainers in those cases were all apostles, which fact gives no support, but rather is opposed, to the exercise of that function by mere pres- byters; 2. The rif^ht to ordain is recognised as existing in Timothy and Titus individually ; and, 3. It follows that it exist- ed in all the apostles individually. So much for the "plurality " argument. And so much for all the three arguments— the only three — that our Presbyterian brethren think they find for their ministry, in the holy volume. The reviewer would enliijhten us on the distinction between flffoffroXof (apostle) in " the official, and the laa^ or general sense of this term " — adding, that " the learned translators of our English Bible, though themselves zealous Episcopalians, seldom fail to recognise" this distinction. Very well. Have we used the word " apostle" in any passage of Scripture where the trans- lators have not given it? no, not once, in any part of our own argument. We call Barnabas an apostle, because the translators give him that designation, twice positively, and twice, at least, by implication. (Acts xiv. 4, 14; Gal. ii. 8, 9 ; 1 Cor. ix. 5,6.) We call Silvanus and Timothy apostles, because the translators do so. (1 Thess. ii. 6.) We call Andronicus and Junia [or .Tunias] apostles, for the same reason, under a fair construction of the passage.* (Rom. xvi. 7.) We speak of the "false apostles" bylhat title, with the same authority of the trans- lators. (2 Cor. xi. 13 ;' Rev. ii. 2.) Let the reviewer, and his Presbyterian friends, adhere to this rule, as we have done, and there will be so much less remaining of the controversy. Besides: when Barnabas, Silvanus and Timothy are called apostles, they are so called in conjunction with Paul ; which shows the three former to have been apostles ojkiallyj as the ♦ Add. fox* this, Buck's Dictionary, and Selden, as quoted by Wolfius. 22 254 ANSWER TO A THrao REVIEW OF latter was. So with regard to the false apostles: these, after comparing himself with " the very chiefest Apostles," Paul con- trasts with "the Apostles of Christ:" they claimed this desig- nation in the same official sense that it belonged to Paul and all others who had the genuine apostolic character. Instead of meeting us on this view of the point, the reviewer argues against regarding as apostles those whom the translators call " messen- gers" — a topic whici) our disquisition has not touched. On the apostleship of Barnabas, and the case of the false apostles, he does not argue at all. We drew a comparison, in our Tract, between the address of Paul to the elders of Ephesus, and his epistles to Timothy, showing that while the former were to " tend," i. e. feed and rule theyZocA:, the latter was to rule them^ and ordain others like them. What is the reply of the reviewer ? He says, " We might have expected great diversity in the mode of address in these two cases, because the circumstances of the persons addressed were essentially different.'''' Let this be noted — there is "great diversity" between the address and the epistles. What was the reason for it? because "circumstances" were "essentially different:" because Timothy was an apostle-bishop say we; because he was an "evangelist," says the reviewer— the old plea revived which Mr. Barnes so honestly and judi- ciously avoided. Must we open again, then, the argument on this futile plea ? We deem it unnecessary to do so. after what we have written in the postscript and notes to the Tract, and in our replies to Mr. Barnes.* We will only notice one point in which the reviewer has miserably exposed himself. He goes to Eusebius, and quotes what relates to the migratory part of the duties of evangelists, and their ordaining; but he omits to quote — what? the very hinge of the appeal to this father's authority. These evangelists "obtained," says Eusebius, "the J^rs/s^(?pra((v of apostolical succession," according to the transla- tion used for our Tract, or according to Mr. Cruse, (p. 123,) they " held the first rank ra^iv in the apostolic succession.'" What shall we think of the boldness of a writer who makes such an omission, with the Tract before him, and in the hands of thousands ! and with Eusebius before him, for he gives a yet different translation! it is enough to rouse the honest indigna- tion of even the least "informed" of his readers. And what shall we think of a writer, who, with this sin of omission, a downright suppressio veri, fresh on his conscience, swallows it fearlessly, and then lifts loftily his head, and ascribes " evasion ♦Scultetus, from Zuinglius, regards an evangelist as a [presbyter] bishop or pastor. (Po. Syn. on 2 Tim. iv. 5.) Piscator calls Philip the Evangelist merely a preacher of the Gospel, " prcBco evangelii;" and regards those in F^h. iv., and 2 Tim. iv. as the same. (Do. on Acts xxi.) Aretius on this passage says, "These appear to be ministers of particular churches, and teachers of the schools : whicli Pantenus was, Basilius, and others." A. Clarke (on 2 Tim. iv.) allows evangelistfl to have beeu only preachers. All these authorities are Non-episcopalian. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 255 and management," and " undertaking to dispose of the plain record," to his opponent! There are not many theologians who would do all this. The reviewer allows a " great diversity " between the address to the elders and the epistles to Timothy; he allows that the "circumstances" of the two parties were " essentially different." But he alleges that " Timothy was obviously sent on a tempo- rary mission," to '• rectify disorders," &c., in a " collected and officered flock." Notice here— the church of Ephesus was " officered," had presbyters— it was fully constituted, on the Presbyterian theory. Farewell then to the old plea, that it had no clergy when Timothy was placed there, and that he was thus stationed to ordain clergy for the church, and then leave it to Presbyterial government.' They had Presbyterial govern- ment already, says the reviewer, and Timothy was sent with evangelical government, so called, to "rectify disorders."— Now, if Presbyterial government is liable to fall into "disorder," and is without the intrinsic power to " rectify " it— so glaringly deficient, as to require the superinduction on it of another kind of government exercised by one individual put in authority over the presbyters— then there is a most weighty presumption against its being the one chosen by Christ or his Apostles — and there is a presumption equally strong, that the so-called evan- gelical government, that of an officer superior to presbyters, must rather have been the one they instituted, seeing it was used by them, the reviewer being judge, as a remedy for the mischiefs arising under the other supposed form. The lia- bility of churches to "disorder" is not "temporary," it is perpetual; and actual "disorder" frequently occurs; is it probable, then, that the remedy for it would be "temporary?" No; what the reviewer calls government by "evangelists" is necessary in all ages, and was to endure through all ages. What else is meant by the injunction on Timothy to 'keep his commandment," or fulfil his charge, 'Hill the appear- ing of our Lord Jesus Christ?" Have the Presbyterians any such officer as Timothy— an " evangelist" with power over the presbyters of an "organized church," of a "collected and officered fiock," or over such a church itself? no, nothing like it. They send their " evangelists " into " destitute settlements," and like places — not into the Synod of Philadelphia, or either of its presbyteries, be their "disorder" ever so great. The reviewer says they have the " evangelists " of Eusebius — we think otherwise — but at all events they have not the " evan- gelists " supposed to be found in Holy Scripture — such officers as Timothy was. Let them make the experiment — let the General Assembly send an "evangelist" into the Synod of Philadelphia— let the Synod of Philadelphia send an "evange- list " into either of its presbyteries — to "charge some that tliey teach no other doctrine," to have supreme authority in ordain- ing presbyter-bishops and deacons, to " command and teach " 356 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF concerning the doctrines to be inculcated, to " receive accusations against elders," to " rebuke " those of them " that sin," to " turn away" authoritatively from the perverse, and to "keep this commandment until the appearing of Christ" — let smcA an "evangelist" be sent into any synod or any presbytery of the Presbyterian communion, and every member of them will regard the mission as an insult, as an infringement of their rights, as an attempt to "lord it over God's heritage:" send your '^evangelist," they will exclaim, where Eusebius says he should go, not where Scripture declares Timothy to have been sent — to "destitute settlements," not to "organized and officered" churches. Try this experiment, and we shall see the fallacy of this whole Presbyterian argument — the alleged "evangelist" of Scripture will be rejected, as positively as bishops are, and Eusebius, as they would read him, will be honored over the head of Paul. The reviewer also will disco- ver his egregious mistake, in saying, " There is nothing repre- sented in Scripture as enjoined upon Timothy and Titus, or as done by them, which is not perfectly consistent with Presbyte- rian principle and practice." How luckless an assertion ! " per- fectly consistent ! ! " O most positive reviewer ! Be "evangelists" what they may, Presbyterians do not send them to " organized and officered " churches, with authority over the clergy. Timothy was sent to such a church, the reviewer being judge, and with such authority. Therefore Timothy was not an "evangelist" of the Presbyterian kind. Be " evangelists" what they may, Timothy and other officers like him, were to exercise such authority " till the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ." This is a final condemnation of the fancy, that such an office as that of Timothy was but " tempo- rary." What answer does the Presbyterian give the Quaker, alleging that the visible encharist was but a "temporary" insti- tution? he replies, We are to "show the Lord's death till he come.'''' What answer, then, will the Presbyterian give the Episcopalian, when, to confute the notion that Timothy's office was a "temporary" one, he appeals to the solemn charge of Paul, " Keep this commandment till the Lord appears?"'' What answer to this ! The argument was advanced in a note to the Tract ; but neither Mr. Barnes nor this reviewer has seen fit to notice it. " Expressive silence !" As to the objection that Paul says nothing of a bishop proper, or rather of the want of one, to the Ephesian elders — why shouW he have done so ? His leaving them did not deprive them of the apostolical Episcopacy, as exercised at large — and this they knew very well. Episcopacy as exercised by restraint, each bishop having his particular diocese, was only another arrange- ment of the same ministry. James was bishop of the diocese of Jerusalem. With this exception, we read, perhaps, of no dioceses till the special connection of Timothy with Ephesus, of Titus with Crete, and of the ' seven angels ' with their respective EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 257 churches. And even if these nine are not allowed to have been diocesans, it still is no proof that they were not bishops proper. That proof we derive from the record of their powers ; and those powers were theirs fully and for life, whether exercised in any one place for a week, or for " many months," or for "years," or till they descended to the tomb. They had the "prelaiical char- acter;" the question whether they exercised it under diocesan restrictions, is one of no moment whatever in our controversy with Non-episcopalians — it concerns not them, but only our own communio4i. The point is — Do we find bishops proper in Scrip- ture? And this our Tract has fully settled. ' " But did either Timothy or Titus ever, in a single instance^ perform the work of ordination alone?" asks the reviewer. Really we do not know : but should we ever see the first epis- copal records of the Ephesian and Cretan churches, we will give him the information. These records being lost, neither he nor we can say whether they "ever, in a* single instance,'^ ordained alone, or whether they "ever" ordained at all. But this we can say — the power of ordaining was given to them, and to them individually — '-Lay thoit hands suddenly on no man" — "the same commit ihoic to faithful men" — "that thou shouldest ordain elders in every city " — "this charge I commit unto thee^ Such scriptures, one would think, are plain enough. Not, how- ever, to the reviewer. He replies, " We know that Mark was with Timothy, and that Zenas and Apollos were with Titus.. Who can tell but that these ecclesiastical companions took part in every ordination ? " Without meaning to be over positive, ice "can tell" the reviewer about this matter, provided he will be content with evidence only, without theory. Thus :_ when Paul was in Rome the first time, he expected Mark to go from thence to Colosse ; after this, he placed Timothy at Ephesus ; and yet. later, he desired Timothy to " take Mark, and bring him " with, him to Rome, where Paul again was, (Col. iv. 10; 1 Tim. i. 3; 2 Tim. iv. 11) — "in thy way call on Mark,'^ says Macknight — "take the first opportunity of engaging the com[)any of Mark," says Doddridge : the evidence is, that Mark was to go to Colosse,, and that Timothy went to Ephesus — separ-ate stations — and that Timothy was to " take Mark," probably either on his way, or by sending for him, in again visiting Rome. Does this evidence justify the positive assertion, " we know that Mark was with Timothy?" or the insinuation that the former "took part" with the latter "in every ordination ?" Surely not. Thus again, concerning Titus : do we " know " that Zenas and Apollos were with him ? The only evidence is this directron ta Titus, (iii. 13,) "Bring Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey dili- gently ;" this "journey "or voyage, is interpreted of one which began before their reaching Crete, on their way to some further point; so say Doddridge and Macknight, and no commentator within our reach says otherwise ; of course they were "with Titus " only while they halted on their journey, and could not 22* 258 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OP have "taken part'- in his "every ordination," if they did in even one. Timothy and Titus had the power to ordain singly, with- out assistants : whether they allowed the other clergy to take part with them "ever, in a single instance," or in many instances, or as a general rule, we know not ; neither is it of any conse- quence. Perfect as was the ordaining power in them, and per- fect as it is in their successors " till the appearing of Jesus Christ," it is proper to regulate the exercise of it, lest it be abused ; hence the regulation which requires a plurality to laj- on hands, except in the case of deacons, who however are "presented" by a priest, and who preach only in Virtue of a license given and revocable by the bishop.* Sut were we to take the reviewer at his word, in the case of Zenas and Apollos, he would find that he has weakened his cause in one part, while attempting to strengthen it in another. Presbyterians generally argue that there were no clergy in Crete when Titus was left there, and that he was to ordain them as an " evangelist," for lack of a " presbytery " on the island. The reviewer, however, lisis foiond a Cretan " presbytery " — Zenas and Apollos — both of them, we doubt not, very capable men. Yet the superior officer, Titus, is placed there, to eclipse the " presbytery," and take the government and ordinations in his own hands! Very strange, on "Presbyterian principles!" The epistles to Timothy and Titus " are addressed to them; individually " — this the reviewer allows. But he does not think that this circumstance " affects his reasoning" in behalf of parity. Let us examine his argument on this point. — " These men went to Ephesus and Crete as a kind of special envoys," and the epistles were "the system of instructions addressed to them persanally : " this must be noted. Next, — " a Presbyterian ordi- nation never occurs without addressing to the newly-ordained minister language of precisely the same import:" then the minister, we must infer, is "a kind of special envoy" to some "officered" church, not a mere pastoral elder ! his office must correspond with his "instructions t" and he is instructed per- sonally to "charge some" presbyters "that they teach no other doctrine;" personally he is instructed about ordaining, and receiving accusations against presbyters ! if not, if he is told how to do these things in conjunction with others, not personallyy then it is deception to say, that "language" is addressed to him ^^ of precisely the same import" with that addressed to Timothy and Titus. Further: our argument from this personal mode of address, says the reviewer, " will prove too much, for it will prove that these evangelists alone were empowered to preach * By the way, what are %he licentiates of Presbyterians, but a quasi sort of preach- ing deacons— cultivating, under a revocable license, the "great boldness" in declar- ing '•' the faitli " — and " purdiasing to themselves tlie good degree " of presbyters T How expressive an acknowledgment, though a silent one, of the soundness of the Episcopal construction of i Tim. iii. 13 ! Ti^is is an afler-thought, or it would have been introduced in the proper place. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 259 and pray"^^ in Ephesus and Crete: the remark is probably inad- vertent: for not once is either Timothy or Titus directed ta "pray;" not once, though the former is desired to regulate the pubJic prayers, and the charge to superintend the " teaching " oi others, shows tiiat others besides Timoiiiy and Titus were to. " preach ;" such, for example, as the •' elders who labored in the word and doctrine:" the reviewer ought not to nod with his Bible before him. His last reply to our argument from the per- sonal style of the epistles, is, that*' no evangelist is ever sent forth by [his] church for the purpose of organizing and setting in order churches, without special instructions, in the form of a letter, and addressed to him personally : " the alleged evangelists of Eusebius again ! not officers like Timothy, sent to churches " collected, organized, officered, regular ! " To evangelists such as Eusebius is said to describe, any thing may be addressed, in any way, without affecting the scriptural argument for ' Episcopacy. He adds, that nothing is said to the clergy of Ephesus and Crete "about prelates, their rights." &c., and "they are never even once reminded that it is their duty to be docile and obedient to their proper diocesan." Now, there is just as little said about the '< special envoy," and of docility and obedience to him, as about the " prelate," and dutiful submission to his godly injunc- tions: so that if the objection of the reviewer is worth any thing, it demolishes the superior "rights" of Timothy and Titus in every shape! he throws down his own theory to make a barricade for annoying ours ! But he is wholly in error. A " prelate " is largely and plainly described in these epistles — a church officer higher than all the other church officers about him. And the charge to him to govern is, con- versely, a charge to them to be governed, to be " docile and obedient" to him. In short, these epistles are the broad and clear credentials of Episcopacy-^of the "rights" of apostle- bishops — and, by consequence, of the inferior privileges of presbyter-bishops and deacons. They show what these three orders were in apostolic days, and what they are to continue ta be " till the appearing of our Lord." The reviewer says that we have not " proved that the second epistle to Timothy was addressed to him at Ephesus at all." No; we did not in the Tract: nor is it necessary to do so for the episcopal argument, though the point has a bearing on the diocesan argument; for there were, and may always be, apostle- bishops or prelates not diocesans; just as there are missionary presbyters without parishes, or schoolmaster presbyters, or "amateur" presbyters, as they have lately been most iiappily dubbed. But to satisfy the reviewer, or at least our readers, that Timothy was in Ephesus, or had charge of it, wlien the second epistle was written to him, we offer the following rea- sons: — 1. He was in that city at the date of the first epistle, A. D. 65 J and there is no intimation thai he had left h at the 260 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OF date of the second, A. D. 66;* this throws the burden of proof on those who deny that he was there at the latter period. 2. Timothy being placed at Ephesus to remedy great " disor- ders," it is not probable he would leave it before the end of a year, when the second epistle was written: we here meet the reviewer on his own ground ; even if his mission were a "temporary" one, he could not have accomplished it so soon. 3. Paul, as was not unusual with him, names the messenger by whom he transmits the second epistle to Timothy, and says that he had despatched him to Ephesus: " Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus :" this argument is indeed cavilled at by some, but those who will compare the passage with those referred to below, will, we think, deem it conclusive in our favor. (2 Tim. iv. 12. See also Rom. xvi. 1; 1 Cor. iv. 17; xvi. 10; 2 Cor. viii. 16-18; Eph. vi. 21 ; Philip, ii. 25 ; Col. iv. 7-9; Philem. 12; also 1 Pet. v. 12.) 4. Paul, in the second epistle, desires Timo- thy to salute the family of Onesiphorus ; and the residence af this excellent person was in Ephesus, though he himself ap- pears to have been absent from it at that time. (2 Tim. iv. 19; comp. ch. i. 16-18.) In Acts xix. 33, we find a certain Alex- ander at Ephesus; and in the second epistle we find Timothy put on his guard against the same person: why? because Timothy's sphere of duty then included that city. 6. In the first epistle, when Timothy was confessedly at Ephesus, Paul mentions this Alexander, and also Hymeneus, as unfaithful ministers ; and in the second he again names those very per- sons to Timothy in the same character; which implies that Timothy was still in authority in that church. (1 Tim. i. 20; 2 Tim. ii. 17 ; iv. 14.) 7. Against this Alexander, a resident of Ephesus, though just then in Rome, opposing virulently the persecuted Paul, that apostle specially cautions Timothy in the second epistle; from which fact we gather — that Timothy was to retitrn to Ephesus, after visiting Paul in Rome— and was to continue in Ephesus, when Alexander had come back, and had resumed his actual residence there. (2 Tim. iv. 14, 15, 9.) Such are our proafs that Timothy was in Ephesus, or had charge of its church at the date of the second epistle. And we think that the man who asks more, for a point of sacred his- tory not positively recorded, is unreasonable. Out of the sacred records, the whole current of antiquity is weM known to be in our favor. Nor is there a particle of evidence against us. The New Testament leaves Timothy in charge of the Ephesian church ; no subsequent authority removes him thence ; and in this state of things we recognise plainly a diocese, and its diocesan head — not only Episcopacy, but diocesan Episco- pacy also. As to the " angels " of the seven Asiatic churches, the re- viewer is as unfortunate in discussing their case, as in the rest ♦ We take ihe common chroaolt^y. , EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTDRE. 261 of his remarks. He mentions the theory, thaCthe term " angel '■* means " the collective ministry in those churches respectively" — a mere theory, and too fanciful to be worih an argument; for it may as well be extended to the " collective " communicants, a theory too which decides nothing ; for the " collective minis- try " may as justly be said to have included a bishop proper as to have been without one* But further, asks the reviewer, why are not the "angels" called apostles or bishops, if they were such ? For a very sufficient reason, we reply. These "angels" were addressed just at the time, when, as we learn from other sources, the name of apostle was about being relin- quished to those individuals so called in Scripture, and the name bishop was in transitu from the second order to the first; the forujer title was losing, or beginning to lose, its more general application ; and the latter had not yet acquired its final appropriation. Those who allow the due weight to the Non-episcopal authorities, Videlius for example, not to mention those in our own ranks, who regard it as an historical fact, that the name bishop was taken from the second order and given to the first about this period, will see in these scriptures a beautiful adminiculation of the testimony of that fact. The ♦ Polycarp was the bishop or " angel " of the church in Smyrna, a few years after the date of the Revelation, perhaps at that time ; and he is identified with hie cliurch by Ignatius, just as the "angel" is, by "the Spirit," in tl)is part of Scripture. Ignatius says to the Smyrneans, (ii.) "It is fitting that for the honor of God, your church should appoint some worthy delegate, who being come as far as Syria , may rejoice with them that ye send some one from you." And to Polycarp, (7.) "It will be fit, most worthy Polycarp, to call a council of the most godly men, and choose some one whom ye particularly love and to appomt him to go into Syria" — and in the conclusion, " I salute him who shall be thought worthy to be sejit by you into Syria. Grace be ever with him, and with Polycarp, who serids him." This individual ruler of the church at Smyrna is the one who distinctively and responsibly "sends" the messenger, though the "church," and even a "council " of its members, including doubtless some of its clergy, the " presbyters and deacons " several times men- tioned, unite in the mission. What better uninspired key can be found for the epistle of our Lord to the "angel of the church in Smyrna 1" and of course for all the seven? In regard to tlie genuineness of the smaller epistles of Ignatius, a pl^in argument may perhaps be sufficient for those who are not in the habit of learned investigations. There are only two sets of works ascribed to Ignatius, the smaller epistles and the larger, which are generally, if not universally, allowed to be interpolated, i. e. tc^have received spurious additions. Now, it is exceedingly improbable in the nature of things, that a work of aulliority should be counterfeited more than once — so counterfeited as to make two separate works largely spurious, besides the genuine. We do not recollect an instance of the kind. There is difficulty in making current any one counterfeit book, because the genuine one contradicts it. But when this attempt has succeeded, and the true and false copies are both current; then the difficulty of a further attempt is doubled, on mere arithmetical principles ; and the improbability of its being made is much more than doubled, since there can be little motive to adduce an author lor a third view of a subject concerning which he has expressed, or been made to express, two views already — such an author loses his authority, unhss his genuine work be restored to its exclusive rights. As then tlie larger epistles nrc allowed to he spurious, it is probable in the highest degree, morally cer- tain, that the smaller epistles are not spurious, but are the genuine work of Ignatius. 262 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OP dignitaries in question were addressed, when it was somewhat too late to call them apostles,* and too soon to call them bishops, particularly as the latter word had a different meaning in the Scriptures already written. Another designation there- fore is given them — they are called "angels;" and the kind of officers addressed is left to be inferred from the powers and distinctions ascribed to them. These remarks are a sufficient reply to the argument of the reviewer on this topic; these remarks, with what is said in our Tract. But we must show him a couple of ludicrous mistakes into which he has fallen. He quotes from the address to the " angel" at Smyrna, " Some of you I [^the Saviour'] will cast into prison " — the passage actu- ally reads, " Behold, the devil shall cast some of you into pri- son ! " Again : he regards two at least of the " angels " as having long been in a state of " lukewarmness and sloth," and adds, "it is by no means likely that, under the eye of inspired Apos- tles, men already in this state of moral depression would have been selected to preside over churches:" this was in the year 96; the "inspired Apostles" were long since dead, except St. John; and he was in Patmos, when these epistles to the "angels" were revealed to him by our Lord! At what lime these "angels" were respectively placed over their churches, we know not; if by "inspired Apostles," it must have been, say some twenty or thirty years before. If, however, they were not so placed by " inspired Apostles," then we have our Lord himself recognising the Episcopacy of men consecrated by apostles uninspired. Contrary to the rule which we had hoped would be adhered to in thi» controversy, the reviewer has strayed from Scripture, as he did with regard to deacons, and carried the question concerning bishops into the writings of the fathers. Our lore in this department is of very moderate amount ; but it fortunately does not require much to answer this reviewer. What he ascribes to Ignatius is not correct — that that father declares, " again and again, that the presbyters succeed in the place of the Apostles"— such lan- guage occurs nowhere in Ignatius. He never says that presbyters *•' succeed " the Apostles, nor does he compare them to the Apostles, except under the reser\'ation that the bishop is compared to a higher ♦ The false "apostles " mentioned CRev. ii- 2,) would naturally persist in claim- ing the old title: that of bishops would not yet have served their purpose. It is perhaps worthy of remark, tiiat the word " apostle " occurs nowhere in the gospel of St. John ; "disciple" being generally suiastituted for it. Neither does it occur in his epistles : nor in the Revelation ; except in this passage, where it is applied to the impostors, and in chap, xviii. 20, where, ingrafted into an exultation of the latter days, it refers (as in xxi. 14.) to the inspired foundei-s of Christianity. All these writings belong to the clase of the first century. By not calling the " ansels " either apostles or bishops, St. John conformed to the then unsettled use of those words. And by calling the twelve "disciples" only, instead of apostles, he avoided giving them a distinctive title which he withheld from their official compeers, the " angels." We build nothing on these facts and explanations ; but they certainly harmonize well with the historical declaration, that ministers oi the episcopal grade were originally called apostles ; but as the first century was passing into the second, that name was relinquished and that of bishops assumed. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 263 authority. As an Oriental, he uses strong figures; but his meaning cannot be mistaken by any candid reader; and for such we quote what he does say, the passages of which the reviewer gives this perverted represen- tation. We use Archbishop Wake's translation, revised by Mr. Chevallier. "I exhort you that ye study to do all things in a divine concord: your bishop presiding in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the council of the Apostles, and your deacons, most dear to mc, being intrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ." (Magnes. 6.) " It is therefore necessary that ye do nothing without your bishop, even as ye are wont: and that ye be also subject to the presbytery as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ, our hope, in whom if we walk, we shall be found (in him.) The deacons also, as being the (ministers) of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, must by all means please all." (Tral. 2.) " In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as Jesus Christ, and the bishop as the Father; and the presbyters as the council of God, and the assembly of the Apostles. Without these there is no church." (Tral. 3.) " See that ye all follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ the Father ; and the presbyters as the Apostles ; and reverence the deacons as the command of God. Let no one do any thing which belongs to the Church separately from the bishop." (Smyrn. 8.) " Fleeing to the Gospel, as to the flesh of Christ, and to the Apostles as unto the presbytery of the Church. Let us also love the prophets, forasmuch as they also proclaimed the coming of the Gospel, and hoped in Christ, and waited for him." (Philad. 5.) Here are all the passages on which the reviewer could possibly have based his assertion— all — and they neither say nor intimate any thino- about " succession." That word is used for either succession in doctrin^ or succession by vicarious ordination, both of which, when absolute predi- cates, imply supreme authority in the successors. And Ignatius would have written like a simpleton, if he had ascribed apostolic succession to the presbyters, when he declared, as he did in these extracts, the bishop to be superior to them. But he says not a word of the succession of presby- ters ; on the contrary, he invariably, not only in these, but in many other passages, places the bishop above that class of ministers, as well as above the deacons : and this is fatal to the notion of Presbyterial succession. The reviev/er has staked his reputation, in more than one sense, in the bold assertion he has here made. Just as little to the purpose is his allusion to Clement of Rome. He speaks of presbyters, says the reviewer, as "the rulers of the Church." Not exactly — only as the rulers of "the Jlock of Christ;" he never intimates that they ruled the clergy. On the contrary, he addresses a Christian church — that at Corinth — to this effect, on the subject of their " holy offerings." And the address is a full recognition of Episcopacy. "God hath himself ordained by his supreme will both where and by what -persons they are to be performed For to the chief priest his peculiar offices are given, and to the priests their own place is appointed, and to the Levites appertain their proper ministries. And the layman is confined within the bounds of what is commanded to laymen. Let every one of you, brethren, bless God in his proper station, with a good conscience, and with all gravity, not exceeding the rule of his service that is appointed unto him." (40, 41.) If Christians had not their chief priest, their priests, and their Levites, there would be no sense in this admonition of Clement's, The reviewer's appeal to Irenajus is as unfortunate— he "repeatedly 264 ANSWER TO A THIRD REVIEW OP speaks of presbyters as being successors of the Apostles," True ; but what sort of presbyters 'I for the word, as we have seen, has a general meaning, including apostles and bishops proper, as well as those who are only presbyters proper. Irenseus calls the presbyters of whom he writes, "bishops," and allows only one of them at a time in a city or district, even in the large city of Rome ; which shows them to have been apostle bishops, superior to the presbyter-bishops. Let him speak for himself. " We can enumerate those who were appointed by the Apostles bishops in the churches, and their successors even to us whom they [the Apostles] left their successors, delivering to them their own place qf government The blessed Apostles, therefore, founding and instructing the church [of Rome,] delivered to Linus [one man] the admi- nistration of its bishopric. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus, [otic man,] after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement [one man] obtained the bishopric To this Clement succeeded Evaristus [one man ;] and to Evaristus, Alexander [one man ;] and then Sixtus [one man] was appointed, the sixth [individual] from the Apostles ; and after him Teles- phorus [one man,] who likewise suffered martyrdom most gloriously ; and then Hyginus [one man,] then Pius [one man,] after whom Anicetus [one man.] And when Soter [one man] had succeeded Anicetus, now Eleutherus [one jnan] has the bishopric in the twelfth place from the Apostles. By this order [or series ra^ci] and instruction, that tradition in the Church which is from the Apostles, [meaning Scripture, see /. 3, c. 1,] and the preaching of the truth hath come even unto us." (L. 3, c. 3.) " We ought to hear those presbyters in the Church who have the succession, as we have shown, from the Apostles : who with the succession of the episcopate received the gift of truth, accordirig to the good pleasure oftheFather." (L. 4, C.43.) If Irenaeus had meant presbyters proper, could he have said, as he does, that he could " enumerate those who were appointed by the Apostles bishops in the churches, and their successors even to us" — "the succes- sions of all the churches'?"— each and every such presbyter, who had officiated in each and every supposed ordaining "presbytery" in all the world ! say some twenty to fifty thousand of theni ! The idea is prepos- terous. IN'o : he intended one minister in each city or district— that one who was called bishop — that one to whom the " Apostles " and their successors " delivered their own place of government " And that this one man had presbyters under him is self evident in the case of Rome, which is denominated by Irenasus "the greatest church;" implying that it had many congregations and pastors. It is proved also, by testimony, in the case of Poiycarp, who is declared by this father to have been " appointed by the Apostles, bishop of the church of Smyrna," and who commences liis epistle thus—" Poiycarp and the presbyters that are with him." Of this epistle Irenaeus speaks ; and we thus learn, as from himself, what kind of ecclesiastical officers he referred to as " successors to the Apostles." They were Episcopal bishops. We go no further into the extrarscriptural argument, be it noticed, than we are led by the reviewer. The reader who wishes to prosecute this branch of the subject, will find it ably treated in Potter and Slater, whose works have been reprinted in this country, and in Bowden and Cooke, as re-published in the " Works on Episcopacy," by the JSew-Yorjk Protestant Episcopal Press. The Answer of Dr. Cooke to a Review of his essay in the Biblical Repertory, should also be consulted. EPISCOPACY TESTED BY SCRIPTURE. 265 Of the peroraiion of the reviewer, his last four paragraphs, we need only say that it is a mere tissue of posiliveness. We have neither the taste nor the talent for this kind of effusion, or we could take these paragraphs, and send them back upon him, mutatis mutandis — as indeed we could do with no small por- tion of his whole article. It is throughout so replete with mere assertions, pronounced in the most dogmatical tone, that one need only change the things asserted, and it would be quite as good for Episcopacy as it is against it — nay, for aught we can perceive, a little ingenuity in this way, would make it a tirade for or against Popery, for or against Independency, for or against monarchy, for o: against republicanism, for or against transub- stantiaiion, for or against the Hebrew points, for or against any thing ever disputed among men. As to the small amount of argument it does contain, we trust we have sufficiently disposed of it. That such a review has done our Tract no injury, may, ■we hope, be aflEirmed by us, without incurring the charge of egotism. We even indulge ourselves in the belief, that that little production has come out of the ordeal prepared for it stronger than it was before — stronger we say, because the fact certainly adds to its strength, that the learned "Association of Gentlemen in Princeton," have found nothing better against it than this very dictatorial but very hftrmless review. 23 H.U.O. DISSERTATION ON THE FALSE APOSTLES MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE. The case of the " false apostles " has an important bearing on the subject of Episcopacy. We argue conclusively, from their case — that others besides the special witnesses of the resur- rection of Christ were apostles — that there were many apostles proper besides these, the thirteen — that inspiration was not an essential qualification for the apostleship — and that the ordi- nary apostolic office was extensively recognised, both previously and so late as the year 96, when of the thirteen none survived but St. John. These facts being established, it will be suffi- ciently clear that that office pervaded the Church at large, and Avas to be permanent. Mention is made of these impostors in three passages of the New Testament. " For such are false apostles ^i.tv5a-KoaTo\oi, deceitful workers, trans- forming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marv^el; 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 right- eousness ; whose end shall be according to their works." (2 Cor. xi, 13-15.) The word ''ministers" is SmKovot. "■ 'I'hou hast tried them which say they are apostles aicearoXovs, and are not, and hast found them liars, xptvSeis-" (Rev. ii. 2.) "An apostle, not of av' men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ." (Gal. i. 1.) We can imagine but four ways in which the persons alluded to can have pretended to be "apostles" — as special witnesses of the resurrection of Christ — as being, not apostles proper, of whom we affirm there were many, but " messeng-ers," so called — as having apostolic plenary inspiration, like the thirteen — or, as possessing the apostolic office; not mere presbytership, as we shall prove ; but the episcopate proper. On each of these four views of their case we offer some remarks. L The theory that the " false apostles" claimed to be special witnesses of Christ's resurrection, is not held, in terms, by any writer that we know of; yet it must be tacitly allowed by those who think they pretended to be apostles proper, and that none could be such but the special witnesses. Such a fancy, however, will not bear the least investigation. There were only thirteen of these witnesses at most — at least one of them, James the Greater, was dead when Paul wrote to the Corin- Ihians against the pretenders, A. D. 60— at least one otheJB' C 257 >; 268 DISSERTATION ON THE FALSE APOSTLES Paul, was personally k.n.)\vn lo tliat church, and no one could have there feigned to be ihal api>sile — of the alibi of sotne, if not all of ihi rest, th^y vvere doubtless apprized ; and the chance of an i iipostor's beiu" taken for eillier of them must have been too smail to aliovv any hope of success: add to this, thai Thus had lately been in Ci)rintn ; he knew several of the thirteen, and his testiinony on such a question of personal ideniiiy would have bden final. Wnen, again, thc;se impostors are mentioned at the later period, A. D. 96, only St. John was livnig; and as it was imp<)3Sib.e for any pretender to pass himself -d-i that one surviving special witness of the resurrec- tion, so was it perfectly absurd for several to make the attempt. This character, tlierefore, the "false apostles" did not claim. Of course there were other apostles besides the special witnesses, "With wlioni lliey endeavored to rank themselves. 2. Eq lally untenable is the supposition, evading the fact of there having been many apostles proper, that they pretended to be '" messsiiger.%'''' so called, or apostles not in tiie appropriate sense. Twice only are these expressly named, " the messengers of Hie churches," " Epaphrodiius, your messenger." (2 Cor. viii. 23; Philip, ii. 25.) Not a few writers contend for the trans- lation '-apostle" ill both these places, in its appropriate mean- iui^ — fatal to the notion that " messengership " was all these impostors claimed. Taking, however, the translation as it stands, we find there were -'messengers" sent by churches to St. Paul. And we will allow, thougli we do not find it in Scripture, that messengers may have been sent by one church to another c lurch. We further notice, that Paul despatched persons whom we may call messengers, to both churches and individuals; as Tychicus to the Ephesians and to Timothy, Epaphroditiis to the Philippians, Timothy and Erastus lo Mace- donia, Onesiinus lo the Colossians and lo Philemon, Phebe to the Romans, &c. Now, in regard to the first class of these persons, it is clear tliat no one would pretend to be the " mes- senger" of a church lo an inspired apostle, who could instantly detect Hie fraud. In regard lo the next class; it is evident that a messenger from one church to another, if there were such ap )ointmenis. could not have had the least authority over the latter body ; the mission must have been one of benevolence only, or of courtesy : in other words, there was no motive to simulate the character. And in regard to the third class ; it is obvious, that when even a wjman was one of the messengers whom Si. Paul sent, and to the great church in Rome, there could have been nothing in tlie function to excite the ambition of pretenders. If it be further alleged, that some of PauTs messengers vvere commissioned to rectify disorders in chiirches, and that "false" messengers claimed a kindred authority, we reply, that such functionaries could only be sent by those thirteen principal Aposlles, who, individually, had authority over all churches ; so that a successful claim to such a missioa MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE. 269" could scarcely have been made at any time, and certainly was Rext to impossible when only St. Jobn remained. We think, therefore, that this second theory of the " false apostleship " is baseless. Indeed we are not aware that any one expressly mainiains it: yet, as it is the only hypothesis left to those who confine the proper apostleship to the special witnesses of our Lord's resurrection, we have deemed it worthy of refutation. Let the reader now mark the results of what we have thus far presented. The impostors before us did not pretend to be mere " messengers," but apostles proper ; and they did not make this pretension as special witnesses of the resurrection of the Saviour. They would not, however, claim an office which did Hot exist : therefore, there were apostles proper who were not of the number of the special witnesses. Neither would they have claimed an office that was not common enough to give their im- posture a reasonable chance of success : therefore, there weremany apostles proper besides the thirteen who were first in the office. There vvere many such apostles proper in the year 58, when both their existence and that of pretenders to the station, as will hereafter be seen, was recognised in the epistle to the Galatians --many such in the year 60, when the Corinthians were cau- tioned against persons who falsely usurped the character — many such about the year 96, when "the angel of the church of Ephesus" had " tried " and convicted some of the false ones. Can any reasonable man ask stronger proof that apostles pro- per were intended to be spread over the Church generally, and to be retained in it permanently J 3. In some of the foregoing arguments we have a strong; presumption against the third hypothesis — that the " false apostles" pretended to have, like the thirteen, plenary inspira- tion. The lower kinds of inspiration were claimed by the "false prophets;" but these other impostors, if they claimed inspiration as " apostles," must have arrogated ihe full measure. But this seems very improbable, as there were only eleven at first, and only two others afterward, who had the genuine claim of this sort : and for the impostors to allege that they were of the eleven, would have been madness, particularly when only one of the eleven survived ; and to assert that they, like the only other two plenarily inspired apostles, Matthias and Paul, had been thus added to the eleven, would have indicated rather an unreflecting audacity, than cool and calculating artifice. Besides the thirteen, only two are knawn to have been tiius inspired, Mark and Luke, which shows that such persons were not nume- rous enough to encourage pretenders: and these two are not called apostles, which further shows, that even plenary inspi- ration did not imply apostleship; so that the impostors could not have relied on this pretence alone, but must have alleged other grounds for their claim. And this brings us to the result,, that the criterion of apostleship proper was something different ffom inspiration, as it was from tlie being a special witness-— - 4ji 270 DISSERTATION ON THE FALSE APOSTLES men might have, and did have this office, without either of these qualifications. Tliis is a sufficient disproof of the iheory now before us. As, however, it is respectably supported by commentators, we shall add some further remarks on the opinion that tl»e pre- teuders arrogated full inspiration as the basis of their alleged aposileship. Such a counterfeit implying the rankest spiritual ambition, it would have been more consistent vviih their evil purpose to assume independent cliieftainsliip, and pretend to be Christ, with unlimited authority, than to claim on!} the de-. pendent chieftainship, whicli would be fettered by Chrisiiauily as already revealed, and by the rights of those of the fully inspired thirteen who might come in contact with tiieni. Accordingly, we read in history (Josephus) of various false Christs, but nowhere of false apostles who aspired to aposiolic plenary inspiration. This laiter asseriitjn we make on the indirect authority of Hammond, who regards Cennlhus as a false apostle, without meniioning any others. For this char- acter of Cerinthiis, he quotes Caius in Eusebius, who, however, does not state that Cerinthus claimed to l)e himself an apostle, but only that he " pretended revelations written by son^e great apostle, a>s vTTo aiToaroKuv ntya^ov, and related prodigious narraiions as showed him by angels." This being the only case given by Hammond, we presume no other was to be found.* And this, obviously, was not a case of arrogating apostolic inspiration, but only of passing a counterfeit revelation ascribed to some other person as a "great apostle," probably one of the '■ prime" or primary ones, as Hammond argues. As to the alleged agency of "angels" in showing him '-wonderful things," such a pretension put Cerinthus below the false prophets, in the claim of inspiration, and of course far below the son of false apostles here supposed; for the true Christian '• prophets" held direct communication with God, though not of the plenary kind. (See Hammond on Rev. ii. 2, nole a, and Cruse's Eusebius, p. 113.) Cerinthus was one of the chief pretenders who professed to keep within the Christian pale; and if he did not claim apostolic inspiration, it is highly proba- ble no other pretender did, and infinitely improbable that so many did as to justify, in that sense, the broad denunciation of "false apostles," and the broad allusion to "them which say they are apostles, and are not." Further: if apostolic plenary inspiration had been counter- feited in that age, we might expect the counterfeit to be in- cluded in the warning against the untrue "spirits;" but this is * Poole's Synopsis, on Rev. ii. -2, quotes Paraeus for Ebion's being a "false propliet:" wlicther " filse apostle" is meant we do not know. Tiie existence ol sucli a person is doubtful. Moslieim's rcmarlis are to tliis effect. Ensetjius does not mention him, t'longli Milner, we suppose inadvertently, says he does. If there weie ever such a person, it does not appear tliat he claimed plenary inspiration. MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE. 871 not th« case; on tlie contrary, tlie only warning is against "false prophets," or pretenders to tlie lower kinds of iiKspira- tion. St. John, thirty years alter Si. Puul had denounced the "false apostles," and only six years belore doing so himself, makes no iillnsion whatever lo them, in his caiitiun concerning the ''spirits;" and the omission is unaccountable on tlie hypo- thesis that they claimed to be '-spniis" of apostolic pre- eminence — " Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try ihe spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world " — only " false prophets," not lalse apostles in the guise of ''spirits." Surely the greater impos- ture, had it existed, would have been exposed \\ ilh the less. The unavoidable inlerence is, therefore, that the greater exi.-ted not — in otlier words, there were n(me who claimed falsely apostolic plenary inspiration — the '• false apostles " were not such in this sense. 4. We know of but one other sense in which the pretence to apostleship could have been raised — it must have becii that of possessing the apostolic office — that of being apostles proper in the Chrisiian wiuistry. For this view of tlie case tnere are several arguments. 1. It is, so far as we can perceive, the only explanation left us ;* the other theories being untenable. 2. It agrees with the points established in the last paragraph of our second head, and in the first of our third head, ihai there were apostles proper who were not of the thirteen — many of themj and these as a general and permanent feature in ihe Church — apostles proper, who, being neither special witnesses, nor plena- rily inspired, nor inspired in any extrafudinary manner, could only have been such in the ordinary official or minisierial char- acter. 3. It agrees with the scriptural fact, that there were apostles proper, not of the thirteen, not special witnesses, not having plenary inspiration, as Barnabiis, Silv.nus and 'i'lmolhy, Andronicus and Junia; and with the scripinial intimatKiii that apostles proper were at least somewhat numerous, "are all apostles?" 4. Paul contrasts the " iaise aposiles' with iliose who were apostlcS among the " minisiers of righteoiisness." as will be seen on recurring lo our first quotation, i. e. with those who held apostolic rank in the Chrisiiah ministry : it was as "ministers" thai tiiey coimlerfeiled the apostleship, not, so far as appears, as men extraordinarily endowed ; they may perh.ips have claimed the lower inspiraiion, and so have been "false * We have not deemed worthy of notice the opinion that the false apostleship was claimed on the pretence of iJeiut; sent by Christ peisonally, whellier before or after his ascension. It is it veiy weak notion. If it legard a simple missioa by Christ, as the one c.iicrion of the apusilesliip, it is coinradcied hv ti.e case of the seventy, sent by him, yet not a|x>slles; and by the crises of Mailhiaa^ Barnabas, Silvanus, Timolhy, Andrnnicns, Junia, not sent by him, yet apostles. If it do not regaid this as the one ciiterion, it le..ves the nature of the apostleship undefined, and so settles nothing concerning Uie position asstuned iu the Church by the " false apostles." 272 DISSERTATION ON THE FALSE APOSTLES prophets" likewise; more probably, they introduced false tr8K ditions under the high authority they assumed, or gave here- tical glosses and explanations of the true Gospel. 5. The same quotation shows that they pretended to aposlleship as •' work- ers " or workmen: they were 'deceitful workmen;" not like Timothy, '■'-workmen that needed not ta be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth;'' they pretended to be "spiritual workmen or laborers," (see Parkhurst,) in other words,^ mmis- ters of the Gospel ; not the passive channels of a new revelation, but laborers in the one already given ; and such in the apostolic character. 6. 'I'he declaration, in the same passage, " whose end shall be according to their works," is parallel with that of St. Jude, " and perished in the gainsaying of Core: " the sin of Korah was chiefly the assumption of the priesthood; as occur- ring in the lime of Jude, that kind of " gainsaying" must have meant the assumption of the Christian ministry ; and the impos- tors before us assumed that ministry under the pretence of being " apostles:" but they were to " perish " for their impiety, their "end would be according to their works" — the parallel- ism seems complete — and it shows that the apostleship they counterfeited was ministerial, official — it was the aposlleship proper, with its ordinary rights and functions. At this pomt of our argument, we bring into fuller notice the- third passage relating to these impostors — "An apostle, nolo/" air,men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ." An apostle "of men " was one who had only human authority — an apostle "by man" was one set apart by human ordainers who had, and who conferred the divine commission, the ordainers being the autho- rized agenls of our Lord — an apostle by "Jesus Christ" wa» one set apart by Christ himself. (See Aretius, Poole's Synop., and Annot.,* Doddridge, and Parkhurst on aTo.) There were three classes of men, tiiet'efore, who were called "apostles" — those without the divine commission, or "false apostles" — those commissioned by Christ indirectly, through the agency of his commissioned ministers — and those commissioned by Christ in person. And these three classes were equally designated "apostles;" tiie last two, justly; the first, without a riglit to the appellation. In other words, the apostles " of men " pre- tended to have the sa7ne office, and the apostles " by man " had the same office,w\ih the apostles " by Jesus Christ." To be a special witness of the resurrection was nat requisite, neither was inspiration requisite for this office; and the mere function- of a "messenger" can as little be predicated of the two other classes, as of the principal class to which ^,he eleven and Paul belonged. This text is a clear and final proof that the apostle- ship proper was to be transmitted by succession, and was so * Aretius, on Gal. i, 1, allows Timothy and some others to have had the title, "apostle ; " and Poole's Synopsis and Annotations allow the same in the case ojt Silas : their authority can only be 1 Thess. ii. 6.. MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE. 373 transmitted; as is obvious in the phrase "an apostle hy man:" and this was the sort of commission counterfeited by the impos- tors. The rule and fact of such a succession, and the false assumptions of it, show that the office was prevalent in the Church at large. And the placing of this rule and fact of apos- tolic succession "by" human ordainers divinely commissioned, on perpetual record, is an intimation that the apostolic office was never to cease. We think we have now established, from the case and the passages before us, that the apostleship, as an ordinary minis- terial office, belonged to the Christian priesthood in the years 58 and 60, and remained in it till the year 98 ; and this is equi- valent to its being intended for permanence in the Church : its intended permanence is conclusively shown from its being transmitted by succession. Perhaps no further remarks are necessary, to evince the support given by this fact to Epis- copacy. Lest, however, the advocates of parity should say that our argument is incomplete — lest they should allege that the apostles proper, in their permanent character, were only such as their presbyters or presbyter-bishops — we shall endeavor to settle this point also. And here we first remark, that those only are entitled to enter on this particular portion of the discussion, who have aban- doned the opinions, if they have ever held them, or who have never maintained — that the wliole apostolic office proper was extraordinary and transient — that the being a special witness of the resurrection of Christ was an essential qualification for the apostleship proper — that Timothy must have governed theEphe- sian clergy as an " evangelist," because he could not have been an apostle proper — that the " prophets and teachers " in Acts xiii. 1, whether their joint work was an ordination, a mission, or a benediction, could not have been apostles proper — that the "presbytery" mentioned by Paul, supposing the word to mean a body of ministers, did not consist of apostles proper — that Titus and the seven " angels " were not apostles proper — nay, that the " messengers," besides being such, could not have been apostles proper. In other words, the very discussion of the point now b.^fore us implies, that nearly the whole structure of the par-ity argument from Scripture must be changed; which means, that the old parity argument must, in the main, be abandoned. If so, what is left to Non-episcopalians on which to base the parity construction of the case of the " false apos- tles ? " not much, certainly; perhaps we may ^say nothing. This ia indeed a large result, but we are confident it is not over- estimated. That the apostleship claimed by these pretenders was the episcopate, and not mere presbytership, may be proved by the various scriptural arguments which show the distinction between the two offices, and the superiority of the former — by the very expression " apostles and elders " — by the fact that the 274 DISSERTATION ON THE FALSE APOSTLES apostles, including Timothy and Titus, who cannot here be denied to have been such, ordained and governed the clergy, while there is no evidence that mere presbyters did so, &c. We need not recapitulate these topics, or enlarge upon them ; they are sufficiently developed in our Tract on Episcopacy. The impostors, assuming the supreme title, arrogated the supreme station. Another proof to ihe same effect is the declaration, " God hath set some in the Church, Jirst^ apostles.^'' We have just seen that the apostolic office was continued in the Church till the end of the first century, in its ordinary rights and functions. We here see that that office was made, by God himself, " first'* in the Church.* Now, the elders or presbyter-bishops, being placed under other ministers, such as Timothy and Titus, were not " first " in rank, and of course were not apostles. Hence it follows inevitably that the " false apostles" did not claim to be mere presbyters, but arrogated a higher office, the highest, that of apostle-bishops. Again: when Paul exclaims, "Am I not an apostle?" he intimates that his apostleship had been questioned. But who would question his being a mere presbyter, had that been the only grade of the ministry? it would have been gratuitous, ta deny him a rank with the "ten thousand instructers " of the Corinthians. It follows, that his apostleship had been ques- tioned as a function superior to that of ministers generally. And in asserting it, he includes in the superior function, as appropriate to it, some of the ordinary duties of the ministry; "Are ye not my work in the Lord?" "The seal of mine apos- tleship are ye in the Lord:" that is, the Corinthians had received spiritual blessings from him, ordinary in kind, yet distinctively such as an apostle could confer — blessings from "the Spirit of the living God, written in the fleshly tables of their heart." To his imparting such blessings to them Paul appealed, as the proof — of what ? not of his being a mere minis- ter, which nobody questioned — but of his being a minister of the apostolic grade. It is obvious, therefore, that there were ordinary ministers of that grade besides the inferior ones. And the title assumed by the "false apostles" shows that ihey counterfeited the superior office. They claimed the imparting of apostolic benefits, whether by means of preaching, of counsel, of benedictions, or of prayers, besides their pretending to * Apostles being "%st" in the Church, and bishops being their successors, the institution of archbishops, metropolitans, patriaixlis and popes has no scriptural authority. As mere human regulations, such arrangements may, perhaps, (the three former, the latter claims too much for this salvo,) be superinduced on the Episcopal system, on the same principle that bishops are subjected to the legislation and the discipline of the Church. Yet even in this view, as legislation and discipline are positively necessary for all fallible men, while the setting of one bishop over an- other is never more than constructively necessary, the propriety of the latter is not. to be argued from that of the former. MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE. 275 regulate the doctrines of the Church. They arrogated the fullest powers that have at any time been ascribed to bishops. We conclude then, that the parity exposition of the case of the " false apostles" is utterly untenable. Their case, as con- nected with the collateral illustrations, is, we think, fatal to the whole cause of parity. None but the Episcopal key will fit these portions of the sacred volume — they all point to Episco- pacy as their unquestionable record. H. U. O. NOTE. That it was infinitely improbable that the "false apostles" pretended to be of the original twelve or thirteen, will appear from such considerations as these:— There are sixteen of our bishops in the United States: but never has it been attempted to counterfeit the person of any of them, either at home or abroad. So, of tlie twenty-six bishops and archbishops in England — of the nineteen bishops and archbishops in Ireland — and of the six bishops in Scotland. We may add the same remark, so far as we recollect, of all the bishops in the Chris- tian world. Persons have feigned to be bishops, as in the case of West, and perhaps the Greek mentioned in the accounts of Mr. Wesley ; but none have counterfeited the persons of other bishops — if otherwise, the cases are so rare and so obscure as not to affect this illustration of our argument. What the impos- tors mentioned in Scripture claimed, was, to be apostles or bishops in their own persons, not in the persons of any of the thirteen. Of course the apostleship was not confined to these last. Our fellow-citizens generally will perhaps see more clearly the force of this analogy, in another case. There are twenty- four governors of States in our Union. In no instance has it occurred, that any man has pretended to be one of these. The same may probably be said of all our magistrates of the higher grades. So clear is it, that the " false apostles " would not have pretended to be of the original thirteen who held that oflice — and so clear, that others besides the thirteen were made apostles— many others. THE END. 1 Princeton Theological Seminary-Spee ry-Speer Library 1 1012 01035 4472