n.n- (iii •#^' PRINCETON, N. J. BV 650 .K5 06-1902. Killen, W. D^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^i. The framewo] Shelf. H ^ BV 65 .K5 Killen, „. r.. 1806-1902. The frainework of the church THE FRAMEWORK OF THE CHURCH. PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB, FOR T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. LONDON, HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN, GEORGE HERBERT. NEW YORK, ... 9CRIBNER AND WELFORD. THE FRAMEWOEK THE CHURCH. A TREATISE ON CHURCH GOVERNMENT. BY W. D. KILLEN, D.D., PRESIDENT OF ASSEMBLY'S COLLEGE, BELFAST ; A>rD PRINCIPAL OF THE PRESBYTERIAN THEOLOGICAL FACULTY, IRELAND. "All the building, fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord.' — Eph. ii. 21. "The elders which are among you I exliort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed, feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof." — 1 Pet. v. 1, 2. EDINBUEGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. 1890. PREFACE. The present volume treats of a subject which has been a bone of controversy for ages. It is very far from the design of the author to revive, much less to aggravate, the bitterness which the discussion has awakened ; but, as the scriptural constitution of the Church has occupied much of his atten- tion for at least half a century, he is desirous to communicate to others his matured convictions on the questions in dispute. He cannot expect that all his readers will adopt his con- clusions; and yet he trusts that a calm review of the whole debate will tend to remove prejudices and misunderstandings, to diffuse light, and eventually to open the way for the cultivation of kindlier feelings and closer fellowship among the children of God. Amidst the din of theological warfare there may be found in good men, all over the Church, a yearning desire for unanimity and peace; and should this publication do nothing more than help to remove some of the causes by which real Christians are now separated, it will not have been written in vain. It is clear that, until the different sections of the visible Church are more nearly agreed respecting the framework of the house of God as delineated in the New Testament, they are not prepared to enter into any negotiation with a view to ecclesiastical VI PREFACE. confederation. It is to be hoped that, in the following pages, the serious inquirer will find some of his difficulties removed, and be encouraged to look forward confidently to that glorious day when the commonwealth of the saints shall present the spectacle of a united brotherhood. It is written of the Church, " Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice ; with the voice together shall they sing : for they shall see eye to eye, when the Lord shall bring again Zion."i 1 Isa. Hi. 8. College Park, Belfast, April 1890. CONTENTS. PART I. THE CHURCH AND ITS GOVERNiMENT. CHAPTER I. THE TUUE CHURCH OF GOD, ANB THE VISIBLE CHURCH. Many who are in the visible Church are not the true children of God — All true Christians united by the Spirit of God — The visible Church now split up into various divisions, but no sectarianism in the primitive Church — The characteristics of its members— Allusions in the New -Testament to the constitution of the primitive Church — How its order was exhibited — Its constitution soon changed — The Church of the future — When the Church is in the inost prosperous condition — Marks by which a true Church may be known — The brotherly spirit of the early Christians, . pp. 1-7 CHAPTER II. THE VISIBLE CHURCH, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF ITS FORM OF GOVERNMENT. The Church invisible the peculiar heritage of Christ — The Church visible, its privileges and promises — The design of the ministry— Its present divisions — The importance of a right form of Church government — The preaching of sound doctrine not all that is needful for the Church — The constitution of the Church bears the marks of divine wisdom — The Church compared to the human body — No part of the body useless — The folly of the idea that the constitution of the Church is of no importance— Such a position con- tradicted by experience — The constitution of the Church as described in Scrijiture not to be changed — The same doctrines and ordinances suitable for all times and countries — We can expect the presence of Christ only so long as we walk in the way of His ordinances, . . pp. 8-16 CHAPTER III. HOW AVE MAY ASCERTAIN THE RIGHT FORM OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. We should seek to ascertain how the Church was arranged by the apostles — Changes soon afterwards introduced — Many early Churches differed as to CONTENTS. polity and worship — Doctrine more dwelt iijion in Scripture than discipline — New functionaries soon appear — The Church members had originally much inllucnce — Church governed by a jilurality of rulers — Various duties of Church rulers — The presiding elder — ^The New Testament contains many directions relative to Church government — Have no right to expect the authority of a text of Scripture for everything done in the Church — The light of nature and Christian prudence — Have no right to add to the law of God — Must not invent new sacraments, nor take away any of the ten commandments, ...... pp. 17-26 CHAPTER IV. THE UNITY OF THE VISIBLE CHURCH DESIRABLE, AND THE SUBJECT OF FROPHECY. The primitive Church a united l)ody — Its rapid growth soon interrupted — Tlie introduction of prelacy did not promote the peace of the Church — The state of the Church at the Reformation— The importance of unity — A Church with a right form of Church government cannot flourish without the teaching of apostolic doctrine — Sectarianism not desirable — He is the schismatic who departs from the truth — What is the real cause of divisions in the Church — A time coming when the Church shall be united — How the nnity of the Church may lie promoted — The assurances of pro- phecy, ....... pp. 27-35 CHAPTER V. DISCUSSIONS RELATING TO CHURCH GOVERNMENT. Discussions relating to Church government neither improper nor unprofitable — Not true that such discussions betoken a want of spirituality — Changes in the constitution of the Church — Its constitution conformed to that of the State — The changes produced at the Reformation — Queen Elizabeth and the controversialists of her age — Succeeding disputants — The Westminstei- Assembly — The Independents and Oliver Cromwell — The controversies of the seventeenth century, ..... pp. 36-43 CHAPTER VI. THE VARIOUS FORMS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. Congregationalism, Prelacy, and Presbytery — The views of the Independents or Congregationalists — Their origin — Their advocacy by a Scotch Presbyterian Professor — Their history, progi-ess, and divisions — Robert Brown — The abettors of Prelacy a minority within the pale of Protestantism— Where to be found— Their diversities— The Irish Protestant Episcopal Church and its reorganization — Strange misstatement of Cardinal Cullen — The Established Church of England— Presbyterians a large section of Pro- testants—Their persecutions in Italy, France, Holland, Scotland, and Ireland— The American JMethodist Episcopal Church of Presbyterian origin — John Wesley and Dr. Coke —Presbyterians and their theological litera- ture—Their divisions, . . . • • PP- 44-51 CONTENTS. ix PAET II. CONGREGATIONALISM. CHAPTER I. THE CONGREGATIONALLSTS AND THEIR PRESENT POSITION. The Congregationalists and their ultimate tiibunal of appeal — Have no standard of doctrine to which they must subscribe — -Declaration of their faith and order adopted in 1833 — Have adopted the Voluntary principle of late — This not one of their original principles, . . . pp. 53-56 CHAPTER II. THE WORD CHURCH MISINTERPRETED BY CONGREGATIONALISTS. Unsafe to depend on the doubtful interpretation of a single word — ^Tlie word Church has meanings not recognised by Independency — May denote the Church visible as well as the Church invisible — Various proofs adduced — It also signifies the rulers of the congregation — It likewise denotes the believers connected with several places — The direction, " Tell it to the Church," discussed — The Church also signifies the congregations in a particular locality — The flock of God and the Church of God — The Church of Ephesus more than a single congregation— So also tlie Church of Autioch and the Church of Jerusalem — The Church of Jerusalem neither prelatical nor congregational, ...... pp. 57-68 CHAPTER III. DIFFICULTIES OF THE CONGREGATIONAL SYSTEM. The essentials of a system and its details — The difiiculties of the early Church — How fellowship was maintained — "The laying on of the hands of the presbytery" — "The Churches of Galatia" — The organization of the Sustentation Fund in the Free Church of Scotland and in Ireland — The brother "chosen of the Churches," 1 Pet. v. 5 — The Church and the human body — Acts xv. discussed — The decision of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem authoritative — The statements relating to it explained, ....... pp. 69-80 CHAPTER IV. TEXTS QUOTED IN SUPPORT OF CONGREGATIONALISM INCONCLUSIVE. The arrangements of Congregationalism — 1 Cor. v. 1-5 and 1 Cor. v. 13 examined — The character of the Corinthian offender and Paul's interference — The people did not pass judgment — 2 Kings v. 6 and Titus i. 5 dis- cussed — Dr. Carson's false reasoning — Difterence between the passing of the sentence and the infliction of the punishment — The constitution of the Corinthian Church — Vitringa's exposition of the " wise men," pp. 81-91 CONTENTS. CHAPTER V. THE INSUFFICIENCY, UNFAIRNESS, AND DIVISIVE TENDENCY OF THE CONGKEGATIONAL SYSTEM. Tills sj'stem does not enable us to carry out the instractions of Scripture — The administration of ecclesiastical authority vested in the hands, not of the ]ieople, but of the rulers of the Church — Pastors the ministers of Christ — Independents employ the ministers of other congregations in ordaining their ministers — Judicial i)rocee(lings cannot be properly conducted among Congregationalists — An Independent minister presiding at his own trial — The case of Henry Ward 15eechcr — Congregationalists and their court of appeal — The whole Church a united body — Such reasons as warrant individuals to unite in a congregation warrant congregations to unite together, ".....,. pp. 92-101 CHAPTER VI. EXPERIENCE HAS TESTIFIED AGAINST THE CONGREGATIONAL SYSTEM. The leading Reformers in favour of Presbyterianism — None of them thought of introducing Independency — The character of Robert Brown, its English apostle — Congregationalists practically admit the insuflBciency of their system — The apostolic Church a united body — An incident in the General Assembly of Scotland immediately after the Revolution — Congregation- alism helpless in protecting the Church against heresy — Its results in New England and Great Britain — Admissions of distinguished Inde- pendents — Mr. Jay, Mr. Spurgeon, Dr. John Owen, and Jonathan Edwards, ....... pp. 102-110 PAET III. PRELACY. CHAPTER I. THE ALLEGED PRIMACY OF PETER. What is the exact position of the pope — ^The Vatican Council of 1869 — The decision of the Council of Constance — Cardinal Bellarmine's statement — Almain and Baronius — Decree of Boniface VIII. — Adrian IV. — Sixtus V. — Arguments for primacy of Peter quite inconclusive — Peter, why named first in lists of the apostles — On a level with the other apostles — Why he was often the spokesman of the apostles — No argument from the command, "Feed my sheep," ...... pp. 111-118 CHAPTER II. THE ARQUMENT FOR PETER's PRIMACY FROM MATT. XVI. 18, 19 EXAMINED. The Church here spoken of that purchased by Christ's blood— The gates of hell cannot prevail against it — The Church built on a rock — Error of Dean CONTENTS. XI Alford— The rock is tlie confession of Peter — Difference between Petros and Petra — The text paraphrased — Christ the Eock of Ages — What are the keys of the kingdom of heaven — The key of knowledge and the key of government — Others had the keys as well as Peter — Peter's own exposition — What led to the adoption of the false interpretation — Chrysostom's «xposition of the passage — Its interpretation by Theodoret — Remarkable change of opinion in the case of Augustine, . . pp. 119-127 CHAPTER III. PETEIl's rillMACY AND THE BISHOPRIC OF HOME. On what grounds John might have been entitled to ecclesiastical precedence — Legends sometimes take the place of history — Peter never Inshop of Rome — Various proofs of this — The apostles occupied a peculiar position — Polycarp and Anicetus — Causes of the rapid growth of the power of the bishop of Rome — Victor rebuked by Irena^us — Cyprian opposes the Roman bishop — Cyprian's treatise on The Unity of the Church — Firmilian's address to Stephen — Constantine promoted the formation of a graduated hierarchy — Gregory of Rome denounced John of Constantinople for assuming the title of Universal Bishop, ..... pp. 128-13(5 •CHAPTER IV. PRELACY AS DISTINGUISHED FROM POPERY. Points of distinction between Prelatists and Presbyterians — The necessity_ of subordination no argument for episcopacy — The different grades of civil society supply no argument for it— The argument from the Jewish hierarchy discussed — The apostles not diocesan bishops — Nor did they establish prelates in the Churches before their demise — The apostles, as the inspired founders of the Church, had an authority which died with them — The apostles often acted as ordinary ministers — Not always under the special guidance of inspiration — No Scripture evidence that James was the first bishop of Jenisalem — The weakness of the proofs produced in support of this statement — Incorrect translation in our Authorized Version — The evidence of the New Testament opposed to the episcopacy of James, pp. 137-149 CHAPTER V. THE TRADITION THAT JAMES WAS BISHOP OF JERUSALEM. The question as to the identity of James the Lord's brother discussed — Arch- bishop Potter and the catalogues of the bishops of Jerusalem — The testimony of Hegesippus — Apocryphal statements relative to James — The Clementine Homilies and Recognitions — The Hypotyposes ascribed to Clemens Alexandrinus — The testimony of Jerome — The episcopal chair of James — Contradictory statements of Eusebius — Admission of Bishop Lightfoot— The evidence of the Epistle to the Hebrews, . pp. 150-158 CHAPTER VI. THE TWELVE AND THE SEVENTY : TIMOTHY AND TITUS. Archbishop Potter's account of the Twelve and the Seventy — Its mistakes— The argument from the Twelve and the Seventy inconsistent with the actual XU CONTENTS. arrangeinonts of prelaey — The typical significance of the appointment of the Twelve and the Seventy — Tlie claims of Timothy and Titus as diocesan bishops examined — The plea of Archbishop I'otter and the assertions of Eusebius — The statement of Leontius in the Council of Ciialcedon — Ephesus a single city, and Crete a large island with many cities — Timothy and Titus itinerant evangelists — Wliy letters were addressed to them individual!)' — The instructions given to them concern every minister — The postscripts appended to the e))istles addressed to them of no authority — The foundation of the legend that Timothy and Titus were bishops respec- tively of Ephesus and Crete — The admissions of episcopal writers, pp. 159-173 CHAPTER YII. THE ALLEGED SUCCESSION OF lilsnoi'S FUOM APOSTOLIC TIMES. The allegations of Archbishop Potter — The mistakes and misrejiresentations of Iren;eus — The explanations of Dr. Burton — The early Church of Rome governed by presbyters — Testimony of Clemens Romauus — Testimony of IreniBus — The succession of bishops in Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, as given by Eusebius, unreliable — The succession in Jerusalem discussed — The case of Cleojdias — Thirteen bishops in twenty-eight years, and twenty-eight in little more than eighty — A change in the succession towards the end of the second century — Bishops did not increase as presbyters multiplied, ..... pp. 174-185 CHAPTER VIII. THE ANGELS OF THE SEVEN CHUIICHES. The argument of Archbishop Potter — Rejected by Bishop Lightfoot— The angel the medium through whom the Church was addressed — The bishop of the Church never had the designation of angel — The angel of the synagogue described by Dean Prideaux — The Sheliach Zibbor — The proplietic meaning of a star— Who were the angels of the Churches, . . pp. 186-190 CHAPTER IX. THE ALLEGED TENDENCY OF PKELACY TO PREVENT SCHISM, AND ITS EXTENSIVE PREVALENCE. The extensive spread of prelacy — What is meant by schism — Not necessarily wi-ong, may be justiiied by circumstances— Unity desirable, but not to be purchased at the expense of principle — How nniforraity has been main- tained in times past — The gradual decadence of Protestant episcopacy in England, Scotland, and Wales — Divisions among Episcopalians — Pro- testant episcopacy the fomeuter of sectarianism — No argument can be drawn from the extensive spread of episcopacy — Old Scottish and Irish Churches governed by presbyter abbots, . . . pp. 191-197 CHAPTER X. PRELACY UNSUPPORTED BY SCRIPTURE, OPPOSED TO ITS SPIRIT, AND INIMICAL TO ITS ARRANGEMENTS. Almost all the arguments advanced by prelatists are based on tradition— Their system cannot be established by proofs from the word of God— The genius CONTENTS. xiii of prelacy not in Lavmony with tlie teacliing of tlie New Testament — The teacher occupies a higher place than the ruler — Prelacy strips presbyters of their scriptural privileges — The altered constitution of the Irish Epis- copal Church still very objectionable, . . . pp. 198-205 [CHAPTER XI. PRELACY A DANGEROUS, THRIFTLESS, AND VERY IMPERFECT FORM OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. Excellent men in the Church of England as well as in the Church of Ptome ; but they might be much more useful under a better system — Pure prelacy must always degenerate into pure despotism — The Irish Protestant Epis- copal Church since Disestablishment a strange mixture of Independency, Prelacy, and Presbyterianism — Prelates in no way contribute to the edification of the Church— The testimony of a member of the Council of Trent — The experience of the working of prelacy in Great Britain and Ireland — A Chm-ch can thrive without bishops — What then is the use of them ? — The new constitution of the Episcopal Church of Ireland criti- cised — The Church cannot be well governed under a prelatic constitution, pp. 206-213 CHAPTER XII. THE SYMPATHY BETWEEN PRELACY AND POPERY — PRELACY NOT THE AGENT APPOINTED OF GOD TO ACCOMPLISH THE EVANGELIZATION OF THE "WORLD AND THE UNITTT OF THE CHURCH. Prelacy prepared the way for popery — Episcopalians often disposed to make overtures of reconciliation to Romanism — Archbishop Wake — Aversion of many Episcopalians to Luther — Rise and progress of prelacy — Almost all the Reformers were presbyters — Miles Coverdale, Hooper, John Knox, and the Pilgrim Fathers — Absurd assumptions of Episcopalians — The Theo- philiis Anrjlicanun of Bishop Wordsworth — -The unchurching of the Churches of the Reformation— The Church of England stands in the way of the reunion of the Churches of Christendom — The Teaching of the Apostles, ....... pp. 214-223 CHAPTER XIII. THE RISE OF PRELACY, AND ITS GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT. No schism in the Apostolic Church — Hegesippus and Celsus— Heretics trouble- some in the reign of Antoninus Pius — Hyginus arranged the clergy — The means adopted to promote the unity of the Church — The bishop the centre of ecclesiastical unity— Prelacy commenced in Rome — The statement of Irenseus— Victor and the Paschal controversy — Stephen and Cyprian — Polycarp and Anicetus— The Presbyterianism of the Church of Smyrna — City and country bishops — The rise of the metropolitans and the suppres- sion of country bishops— Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch— The advance- ment of the bishop of Constantinople — The change of the ecclesiastical terminology after the rise of the Catholic Church— Prelacy opened the door to popery— The antiquity of prelacy— Its fall at the Reformation— The personal excellence of many Episcopalians — The Spirit of God must give life to ecclesiastical arrangements, . . . pp. 224-235 XIV CONTENTS. PART IV. PRESBYTERY. CHAPTER I. OUR lord's- IN.STRUCTION« TO HIS DISCIPLES. The outlines of Presbyterian Churcli government — A conversation of our Lord recorded by three of the evangelists — Its meaning — In Christ's kingdom there can be no scope for the indulgence of secular ambition — The lords over God's heritage — No opinion here expressed as to the coinjiarative merits of different forms of civil government — Presbytery may flourish under a monarchy as well as under a republic — The difference between the commission of the magistrate and the commission of the minister of the word — The rulers of the Church have a very limited authority — The lioman pontiff exercises usurj)ed power — So also does the diocesan bishop — The apostles on a footing of equality — Eminent usefulness the highest pastoral distinction — Some ministers may have a personal but not an official superi- ority — The apostles in this discourse represent ordinary ministers — Prelacy condemned by this discourse — Tlie prelatie ofBce not conducive to personal piety — Presbyterianism tl^e only system which fairly carries out the instructions of our Lord, ..... pp. 237-250 CHAPTER II. PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GOVERNMENT CONFIRMED BY NEW TESTAMENT EVIDENCES, Presbyterian Church government generally supported by the fathers of the Reformation — Edward VI. and John a Lasco — The mother Church of Jerusalem Presbyterian — Acts xiii. 1-3 considered — The reference to it in the Book of Common Prayer — Early Christian Churches Presbyterian — Those who labour in the word and doctrine the rulers of the Church — The early Churches recognised the principle of ecclesiastical subordination— What meant by "governments" — The constitution of the early Christian Church much the same as the Jewish — The visit of Paul and Barnabas to consult with the apostles and elders at Jerusalem — All sat together — Bishop and elder convertible terms — Presbyterian government long continued — The Consensus Seniorum of the Scots — The bishop could not ordain without the concurrence of his clergy, . . pp. 251-260' CHAPTER III. THE PRESBYTERS OR ELDERS OF THE CHURCH. Two orders of office-bearers in primitive Church — Who were the elders "who rule well " — Persons of the same order may be in very different stations, as the Mayor and the Councillors, the Speaker and the Commoners — 'The elders had the oversight of the flock, and had different departments of duty — An elder might be "apt to teach " and yet not preach— To what extent ruling elders may take part in ordination — Ordination a becoming ceremony — The ordination of Pavil and Barnabas — Ruling elders no more than ministers rei)resentatives of the people, . . jip. 261-268 CONTENTS. XV CHAPTER IV. DR. PETER COLIN CAMPBELL's THEORY OF THE RULING ELDERSHIP. The object of Principal Campbell's work — His mistake as to the Westminster Assembly — The true statement of the case — Testimony of George Gillespie — The early ruling elders were presbj^ters — Dr. Charles Hodge — The theory of Principal Campbell based upon an incorrect reading of Acts xv. 23 — His mistake as to ecclesiastical sanctions — The appointment of a ruling eldership an evidence of Divine Wisdom — No reason for the designation "lay elders" — Precentors and sextons formerly called "clergy," pp. 269-275 CHAPTER V. RULING ELDERS OF DIVINE INSTITUTION. The necessity for the office — One ruler not sufficient for a congregation — The pastor cannot attend to everything — The polity of the Jewish Church — There were rulers of the synagogue — Some of the Jewish elders did not preach — A plurality of elders in the early Christian congregations — All these were not preachers — The testimony of Vitringa as to the elders of the synagogue — The inconclusive reasoning of Vitringa — If there was no sufficient body of elders in Ephesus, there may have been none in Christendom — This most improbable, ...... pp. 276-286 CHAPTER VI. OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS OF RULING ELDERS. Bishop Bilson's idea of ruling elders — It is said that preaching is the proper business of all elders or presbyters — What is meant by ' ' double honour " — Should not elders receive payment ? — Double honour does not mean double payment — Apt to teach does not mean apt to preach — Different elders may have different gifts — Abundance of one gift may make up for want of others, ....... pp. 287-295 CHAPTER VII.- THE DECLINE AND FALL OF RULING ELDERS — TESTIMONIES IN THEIR FAVOUR. Justin Martyr's account of the president of the eldership — Optatus of Milevis — The rule in the Church of Africa — Seniors in the Ancient Church — The account given of them by Ambrosiaster — New ecclesiastical arrangements and their results — Ruling elders among the Moravians — Recognised by Independents in the Westminster Assembly — Recommended by Cranmer and others — Sanctioned by the Lower House of Convocation in reign of Queen Elizabeth — Her opposition to them — The testimony of Bridges — The spiritual state of a Presbyterian congregation may be tested by the character of its eldership — Its importance to a minister, . pp. 296-302 CHAPTER VIII. OF DEACONS. Their appointment — The opinion of Mosheim not tenable — A divine institution — Not appointed to rule but to serve tables — Permanent office-bearers — Not to be confounded with ruling elders — Complete the organization of the Church — Deaconesses appear to have been in existence in the early Church, . . .' . . . .pp. 303-30S XVI CONTENTS. CHAPTER IX. OK TUK ]:i,ECTIOX OF MlNISTKItS. The ;i[)Ostolic Church had a popular constitution — Not dictated by the spirit of the age — The election of a successor to Judas and of the seven deacons — Acts xiv. 23 considered — Other testimonies — The interests of the Church thus best conserved — Patronage unscriptural — The Christian people com- petent to judge of the gifts of preachers — Distinctions of rank or wealth should not be recognised among tlie electors — Testimony of Bishop Burnet and of liishop Bilson — Discussions in Council of Trent — New arrangements in the Irish Episcopal Church, .... pp. 309-317 CHAPTER X. ORDINATION. Ordinatio originally meant designation to a secular office — Ordination in our Authorized Version of Scripture means appointment — The significance of "laying on of hands" — The teaching of the Council of Trent relative to ordination — Adopted by Archbishop Potter^The falsehood of this theory — Ordination cannot give divine power to a minister — No Church has a right to ordain the incompetent and unworthy — The absurdity of the doctrine of the indelibility of orders — The testimony of Cyprian — The subjects of ordination — Ordination an act of authority — Those who labour in the word and doctrine most competent to perform it, . pp. 318-327 CHAPTER XI. APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, Expounded by Bishop Wordsworth — Unsupported by historical evidence — Cannot be traced either in England or Ireland — Testimony of Hallam — Cases of Horn and Brown — Strange career of Mongan — The true apostolical succession — The right doctrine as expounded by Claude — The Church possesses the power of reforming herself so as to satisfy the requisitions of Scripture, ....... pp. 328-334 APPENDIX. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. Bishop Lightfoot's famo\is treatise— A communication from him— The second edition of his work contains no answer to " The Ignatian Epistles entirely Spurious " — Additional evidence against them adduced — Malalas quoted by Lightfoot himself — A native of Antioch — Deposes that Ignatius died at Antioch — The Acts of his Martyrdom of a late date and not trustworthy — The gi-ave of Ignatius at Antioch — The whole story of his martyrdom at Rome improliable — The appeal to Polycarp and Irenseus in support of the Ignatian Epistles founded on misconception — The letters probably fabricated by Callistus — -Why at the time the martyrdom of Ignatius attracted so little notice — Internal marks of spuriousness — Their anachronisms — Bishop Lightfoot mistakes the date of Polycarp's martyrdom — Lightfoot vindicates the folly attributed to Ignatius — Pearson's defence of these letters a failure ; and Lightfoot has done nothing to establish their reputation — The Apostle John strangely overlooked in them, . . . pp. 335-349 PART I. THE CHURCH AND ITS GOVERNMENT. CHAPTEE I. THE TRUE CHUKCH OF GOD, AND THE VISIBLE CHURCH. Our Lord, in a variety of passages, has pointed out clearly the distinction between the true Church of God and the Church visible. " Many," says He, " be called, but few- chosen.^ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven ; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day (the day of judgment), Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name ? and in Thy name have cast out devils ? and in Thy name done many wonderful works ? and then will I profess unto them, I never knew you ; depart from me, ye that work iniquity." ^ Such passages clearly attest that the Church redeemed from all iniquity, and the Church visible, are not to be confounded. The true Church — often called the Church invisible — includes all the genuine children of God from the beginning to the end of time. It is called the Church invisible because it cannot now be discriminated by the eye of sense — many whose names are written in the book of life are already in the world of glory ; and many of them have not yet come into existence. Its members can be known only to Him wlio searcheth the hearts of all men, and who seeth the end from the beginning. They are united to their Great Head in heaven and to each other by a bond which is invisible — the Spirit of God. The Church visible consists of all on earth who are nominally Christians. It is at present split up 1 Matt. xy. 16. ^ Matt. vii. 21-23. A 2 THE CHURCH AND ITS GOVERNMENT. into various sections, comprcliendiug the Greek Cliurcli, the Church of Rome, the Lutheran Church, the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Moravian Church, the Wesleyan Church, and many other denominations. To the Church visible, as it existed in the days of primi- tive Christianity, sectarianism was unknown. Its members might sometimes differ among themselves ; but their dis- agreements never culminated in disruption. They presented a united front to the world around them. Our Lord had taught them that they were to be characterized by their affectionate disposition. " By this," said He, " shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." ^ The deep interest which they took in each other's welfare excited the wonder and admiration of heathen observers. There is no duty on which the sacred writers insist so frequently and so earnestly as on the cultivation of Christian charity. " Put on," says Paul, " holy and beloved, Itowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering. . . . Ajid above all these thiiigs put on charity, which is the bond of 2Jcrf€ctness." ' " Above all tilings" says Peter, " have fervent charity among yourselves." ^ " Beloved," says John, " let us love one another : for love is of God ; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God." * A society animated by this spirit must have been eminently fitted to disarm the hostility even of the unbelieving multitude. In apostolic days the Spirit was poured out abundantly on the household of faith ; and there was never perhaps a time when the Cliurcli visible contained such a large proportion of the genuine disciples of our Lord. They v^ere " everywhere spoken against," so that, except under the influence of power- ful religious convictions, few would be disposed to enter into their fellowship ; and those who joined them at the peril of their lives gave the strongest presumptive evidence that they were thoroughly in earnest. Thus it was that the Church visible at this period was composed so largely of the members of the Church invisible. And the apostles, when addressing their co-religionists, speak of them as " beloved of God, called to be saints," '' and as " elect according to the foreknowledge 1 Jolm xiii. 35. - Col. iii. 12, 14. » 1 Pet. iv. 8. * 1 John iv. 7. * Rom. i. 7. THE TRUE CHURCH OF GOD, AND THE VISIBLE CHURCH. 3 of God the Rather, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." ^ They were all, by profession, the sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty, and the inspired writers describe them accordingly. We may fairly presume that, generally speaking, they were well entitled to be thus honourably distinguished. In the New Testament there are various allusions to the constitution of the apostolic Churches ; and though some of these references may apply to them as parts of the mystical body of Christ, they are also apparently intended to indicate their ecclesiastical arrangements. When, for example, they are spoken of as " fitly framed together," ^ and as " fitly joined together and compacted," ^ the language may be interpreted as descriptive of the Church invisible, in which the Head is united to the members by the indwelling of the Spirit ; but the reader cannot well avoid the conclusion that the words were intended to remind us of the actual con- struction of these societies. The Churches addressed were visible communities ; and if — as we have reason to believe — they were modelled according to the rules laid down in Scripture, it must follow that their form of government reflected the glory of the Divine Wisdom. They were, in point of fact, " fitly joined together and compacted." The authorized founders of our religion took part in their original formation ; and when doing so, they must have pointed out who were the office-bearers under whom they were to be placed, and what was the discipline which these functionaries were appointed to administer. As the apostles were taught of God how to proceed, we may be certain that their instruc- tions were salutary and judicious. Several of the primitive Churches are spoken of in Scrip- ture in terms of the highest commendation. Paul was evidently well satisfied with the Colossians when he told them how he was " with them in the spirit, joying and beholding their order, and the stedfastness of their faith in Christ." * These disciples agreed in doctrine : they had " one 1 1 Pet. i. 2. 2 Eph_ ii_ 21. 3 Eph. iv. 16. ■• Col. ii. 5. In his note on this text Alford remarks that the word order {ra^j;) here employed "is often used of tlie orcjanization of a State." He adds, " Here it imports the orderly arrangement of a harmonized and undivided Church." 4 THE CHURCH AND ITS GOVERNMENT. faith," to which they firmly adhered ; and one " order " or course of procedure, which contributed very much to tlieir comfort and improvement. And we can well understand how this order was exhibited. It brought out the various j^it'ts and graces of the Colossians into harmonious operation ; so that, like the several parts of the human frame, all the members of the ecclesiastical fraternity, in some way, con- tributed to tlie benefit of the brotherhood. Lubricated by the oil of love, they had little friction to encounter as they performed their respective functions. As the Church invisible is in vital union with its glorious Head, so the Church visible is bound to acknowledge His spiritual supremacy. It is " fitly framed together " only in so far as it is regulated by His word. When it is thus constructed. His skill will appear in the suitableness of its adaptations. It will be seen how they all combine to promote edification. The respective members thus " holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together," will " increase with the increase of God." ^ The joints and bands are strengthened by the means of grace ; and if these convey nourishment from the Head, the Church will flourish. The spiritual prosperity enjoyed by many of the early Churches was not of very long continuance. The description given by John in the Apocalypse, of more than one of the seven Churches of Asia, indicates a sad deterioration. Some had left their first love ; some had turned a favourable ear to false doctrine ; and one had sunk into a melancholy condition of lukewarmuess. The ancient Church of Israel, after a period of great spiritual awakening, again and again lapsed into idolatry ; and the Christian Church, soon after the days of the apostles, rapidly degenerated. Its original framework quickly disappeared ; it lost the liberty wherewith our Lord had made it free ; and for many centuries it remained under tlie debasing yoke of an ecclesiastical despotism. At the lieformation it partially recovered its privileges ; but it still wants much of the vigour and " comely proportions " of its primitive constitution ; and it is miserably dismembered. The Scriptures warrant us to look forward to a period when 1 Col. ii. 19. THE TRUE CHURCH OF GOD, AND THE VISIBLE CHURCH. 5 it shall resume the appearance of a united and peaceful com- munity. Then shall it be fulfilled as it is written: "The earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea." ^ " The Lord shall be King over all the earth ; in that day shall there be one Lord, and His name one." " But before this consummation can be attained there must be some agreement as to the proper form of ecclesiastical government. And doubtless the Church shall then, in all its arrangements, be a model of symmetry and beauty. There will be no provision made for useless drones or meretricious ornamentations ; but all will be taught to look for life and sustentation to the Head ; all will be prepared, in some way, to conduce to the promulgation of His glory ; all will be encouraged to endeavour to promote the general well-being ; and thus all will be builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. The framework of the Church through- out will reveal the hand of Him who is excellent in counsel and wonderful in working. We ma}'' infer from these statements that Christianity is in the most prosperous condition wherever the members of the Church invisible constitute the largest proportion of the members of the visible Church. Mere connection with a particular form of ecclesiastical polity is no evidence whatever of a saving interest in Christ ; but the Church in which the Spirit of God dwells most richly occupies the highest place in the divine regards. " If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His." ^ At present there is much useless disputation as to where the true Church, or the holy Catholic Church, is to be found — several parties claiming exclusively the coveted distinction. These discussions reveal alike a want of intelligence and a want of charity. Every one who has been renewed in the spirit of His mind — no matter what may be the denomination with which he is associated — is a member of the holy Catholic Church. And we may easily understand how various sections of professing Christians — though united to each other by no ecclesiastical ties — may all be justly recognised as true Churches. *' If," said Christ, " ye continue in my toord, then are ye my ' Isa. xi. 9 ; Hab. ii. 14. ^ Zech. xiv. 9. ' Rom. viii. 9. b THE CHURCH AND ITS GOVERNMENT. disciples indeed." ^ The Church whicli, in all its arrange- ments, adheres most closely to the standard laid down in the Book of God, has the most substantial claim to the title (Jhristian, Catholic, and Apostolic ; for the rule to which it conforms is authorized by our Lord Himself, was observed by His apostles, and challenges the obedience of all His followers. There are various marks by which a true Churcli may be discriminated. Every sucli Church must acknowledge the supreme authority of the word of God. The Scriptures have been dictated by Him who cannot lie ; they have been " written for our learning ; " they are able to make us " wise unto salvation ;" and therefore we are bound to consult them, that we may know certainly what is our duty to God, to ourselves, and to those around us. " To the law and to the testimony," said the prophet — referring to the false guides of his generation — " if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."" Our Lord appealed to the Old Testament for the credentials of His mission, — " Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." ^ He denounced those who made " the word of God of none effect by their traditions," and wlio " taught for doctrines the commandments of men." ^ A Church which refuses to submit implicitly to the teaching of the sacred volume must, consequently, be an unsafe spiritual director. We learn, further, from the New Testament, that the primitive disciples entertained no doubt as to what was meant by " the gospel of Christ." They were not to be " carried about with every wind of doctrine " — as they had all " one faith," for which many of them were prepared to suffer unto death. Such brethren were not found " halting between two opinions ; " they had decided views as to the great truths of revelation ; and they were expected " to stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel," ^ Hence we may see that a Church which has no definite creed, or which permits the most contradictory statements of the way of salvation to be promulgated with impunity by its repre- ' John viii. 31. ^ j^^ ^jjj^ 20, ^ Luke xxiv. 27. * Mark vii. 13, 7. * Phil. i. 27. THE TRUE CHURCH OF GOD, AND THE VISIBLE CHURCH. 7 sentatives, must be altogether different from the Church of the days of the apostles. Still further, the writers of the New Testament describe the Church as a body in vital union with Christ, its divine Head ; and as pervaded throughout all its members with the evidence of spiritual life. " As the body is one," says Paul, " and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body : so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. . . . God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked, that there should be no schism in the body ; but that the members should have the same care one for another : and whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it ; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it." ^ We see this happily illustrated in the primitive Church. The early disciples were ready to minister to each other's wants, to take an interest in each other's trials, and to exult in eacli other's prosperity. The whole body felt the movements of a loving sympathy ; and, though some parts might be disordered, none were dead. Paul describes his Eoman brethren as " full of good- ness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another;"^ he commends the Colossians for "the love which they have to all the saints;"^ and he gives thanks for the Thessalouians, remembering without ceasing " their work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ."'* It is plain from such declarations that the Christians of the apostolic age regarded each other as members of one great family, and deemed it their vocation to labour together for the advancement of the kingdom of their common Saviour. But a society in which a different spirit prevails, where faith does not reveal itself in a pious life, where ignorance is reputed the mother of devotion, where ordinances are observed merely as matters of form or as matters of fashion, or where the members are living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another — has no title to the designation of a holy Catholic Church. 1 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13, 24, 25, 26. " Rom. xv. 14. 3 Col. i. 4. ■• 1 Thess. i. 3. CHAPTER II. TEIE VISIBLE CHURCIT, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF ITS FORM OF GOVERNMENT. In the matter of Church government we have to deal, not with the Church invisible, but with the Church visible. All the members of the Church invisible are under the immediate care and guidance of Christ Himself. They are those who are chosen to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth ; they hear the voice of the Good Shepherd ; and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of His hand.^ They are the heirs of many great and precious promises. It is written of them : " The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear Him, and delivereth them.^ As the mountains are round about Jerusalem, so the Lord is round about His people from henceforth even for ever.^ All things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose.* Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God liath prepared for them that love Him." " The Church visible — consisting of those who are called by the name of Christ — does not stand in so close a relation to Him as if all its members were His real disciples ; but, withal, it inherits most important privileges and promises. It has a ministry which is to continue till the end of the world. It has His word, which its members are instructed to read and study continually ; and His ordinances, which He has appointed for their instruction and refreshment. He has said to them : " Seek ye the Lord while He may be found ; call ye upon Him while He is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the ^ John X. 28. " Ps. xxxiv. 7. ' Ps. cxxv. 2. * Rom. viii. 28. ' 1 Cor. ii. 9. IMPORTANCE OF THE FOUM OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 9 Lord, and He will have mercy upon him.' Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me.^ He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches." ^ The ministry has been instituted for the right dispensation of the word and ordinances of the gospel ; but it is not now in the position which it occupied in the days of primitive Christianity. It is a divided body, associated with different and hostile sections of the visible Church. The form of government is one of the circumstances by which these various denominations are distinguished. And it must be obvious to every one who considers the subject with candour and attention, that this feature in the character of a Church cannot be passed over as of no importance. We would not say that the mode of civil government is a mere affair of taste ; we would not assert that it is quite the same whether we live under a representative system or under an absolute despotism ; as tlie subjects of a free State, we rejoice that we have the benefit of equal laws, that every man's house is his castle, and that the peasant can obtain redress when injured even by the highest piersonage in the community. We pity the condition of those countries where the people are mere slaves, and where the rulers are completely irresponsible. Liberty is a word of electric power. Its very utterance lights up the zeal of the patriot. If civil liberty is a blessing which all appreciate, should we not attach some value to ecclesiastical freedom ? If tyranny in the State is abhorred as a curse, should tyranny in the Church be hailed as a privilege ? The liberty of the gospel is indeed quite a different thing from the freedom which men of the world so highly prize ; and the laws which rule the State cannot often be applied to the management of the spiritual commonwealth. We are, however, to remember that ecclesiastical arrangements are designed, not for the destruction, but for the improvement of the members of the Church ; they should be holy, and just, and good ; and such of them as are plainly not in harmony with the spirit of the New Testament should be regarded with suspicion, and challenged as without authority. ^ Isa. Iv. 6, 7. - Matt. xi. 28, 29. ' Rev. ii. 7, 11, 17, 29. 10 THE CHUKCIl AND ITS GOVERNMENT. It must be remembered that the preaching of sound doctrine is not all for which the Church has to provide. It should be a faithful witness for Christ, not only in regard to the truth which it teaches, but also to the discipliyic which it administers. As it is " the house of God," it should show forth in all its arrangements the wisdom of its Great Head and Architect. And if its doctrine is obviously opposed to the course of life pursued by its accredited representatives ; if it teaches that all men should be diligent in their callings, and yet continues to cherish, at vast expense, a host of idle ecclesiastics ; if, in its standards, it upholds justification by faith alone, and yet suffers its functionaries, from its pulpits, to proclaim justification by the works of the law ; or if its whole framework is so clumsily constructed that every man of ordinary intelligence may see its utter want of symmetry, or its complete unfitness for the end designed ; — it is thus bearing a delusive testimony, and giving occasion to the adversary to deride and to blaspheme. As we would form an estimate of the character of an individual, not only from what he says, but from what he does ; as we would take into our account the consistency he maintains in his deportment, and the prudence he displays in his general intercourse with those around him ; so we must judge of a Church, not only by its doctrine, but by its discipline : we must consider whether its ecclesiastical order, as well as its creed, bears the marks of the wisdom of a Divine Contriver. If it permits gross and open scandal to pass without rebuke, or any admitted abuse to remain without reform, it, in so far, dishonours Christ, and casts a stumbling-block in the way of serious inquirers. In Scripture, the Church, as we have seen, is compared to the human body, and individual believers to the parts of the human frame. And as food is the means by which the body is sustained, so the bread of the word is the means by which the Church is nourished. As without the meat which perisheth, the body must pine away and die ; so, without the aliment of gospel truth, the Church cannot be kept in exist- ence. And as food is not all that is necessary to the health of the body, so prayer, the Sacraments, and the reading and preaching of the word, are not all that is necessary to the IMPORTANCE OF THE FORM OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT, 1 1 prosperity of the Church. As the body must have air and exercise, and as occasionally it may also require medicine, so the Church must languish if it is not permitted to breathe freely and to think for itself, if its energies are not called into exertion, and if its disorders are not corrected by the appli- cation of needful remedies. And as that mode of treatment may be considered best fitted for the body which may be expected to preserve it in the highest state of health and vigour, so that form of polity may be deemed best adapted for the Church which is most calculated to maintain its stability, and to promote its edification. The doctrines of a Church are, indeed, of far more consequence than the frame of its government ; for the truth of God shall endure for ever, and doctrines shall be the subject-matter of rejoicing to the soul throughout all eternity ; whereas the best form of ecclesiastical polity must be of limited duration, inasnnich as, with the dissolution of the Church militant, it must also disappear. The doctrines of the gospel are the grand instru- ments appointed for the salvation of sinners. " The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." ^ " Ye shall know the truth" said Christ to His disciples, " and the truth shall make you free." " True Christians may be found under the most corrupt form of Church government, or they may exist where no form whatever has been established. Polity has a more special reference to the cdificMtion of the Church. It is designed to check irregularities, to foster spiritual growth, to sustain or vindicate reputation, and to promote the free development of the gospel. But although it thus holds only a subordinate place, it has an obvious influence on our religious improvement, and it is entitled to very grave con- sideration. God has so arranged the body that the eye cannot say to the hand, " I have no need of thee ; " nor again the head to the feet, " I have no need of you." " Xay," says the apostle, " those members of the body which seem to be more feeble are necessary." And doubtless that system of ecclesiastical polity is to be viewed as most in accordance with the mind of the King of Zion, under which the help of every joint and member of the spiritual body is found necessary, and every individual is moved to act for the good of the community. ^ Ps. xix. 7. * John viii. 32. 12 THE CHURCH AND ITS GOVERNMENT. And if there is a system wliere tlie clergy are independent of the people, or the people independent of the clergy ; where the feet, which should support, can say to the head, which teaches, " We have no need of thee ; " or where the eye, which oversees, can say to the hands, which minister, " 1 have no need of you," — it is evident that here there must be some radical defect in the ecclesiastical framework. That must certainly be regarded as the perfection of a model of polity which best provides for individual and combined effort ; which is so arranged that all the sections of the spiritual commonwealth, like all the portions of the human body, have a mutual influence ; where all are made to feel tliat, when acting singly, they are comparatively helpless ; and that, when acting in concert, they are proportionately powerful : which recognises every one as an element of more or less importance ; and which is calculated to draw forth most efficiently the capabilities of all the members, and to maintain them con- stantly in most healthful and vigorous exercise. Our Lord has told us that " the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light;"^ and the truth of the statement may be illustrated by a reference to the subject imder discussion. In a free country political move- ments excite great interest ; and political questions are studied, with more or less care, by all persons of liberal education. It is generally admitted that the interests of the people are mixed up with the details of their civil polity, as well as with the structure of their constitution. Here, certainly, the mem- bers of the Church often require to be instructed by the men of the world ; for many, professing godliness, are quite in the habit of affirming that the form of ecclesiastical polity is a concern of very little moment. There are very few Churches in which there are not some godly and gifted preachers ; and persons who enjoy the privilege of an evangelical ministry are frequently too ready to draw a sweeping conclusion from their individual position. Why, they ask, should we have so much disputing about the question of Church polity ? If the doc- trines of the gospel are faithfully taught, why should we strive about points of Church order ? Why contend about the fashion of the lamp, if we have pure oil and a brilliant 1 Luke xvi. 8. IMPORTANCE OF THE FORM OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 13 liame ? Such questions are sometimes propounded by per- sons who have a very limited acquaintance with the state of the Church. A little more knowledge might convince them that certain principles in relation to Church government, and certain doctrines of theology, are generally associated. The grossest error is found in company with some very defective form of ecclesiastical regimen. Tlie history of the Church proves that the light of the gospel has been again and again extinguished by a hierarchical despotism. AVithout a right form of Church government we have no security whatever for the maintenance of sound doctrine. An excellent preacher may now and then be found in an anti-evangelical communion, but such an one has, in numberless instances, been cruelly oppressed, if not hunted to death, by his ecclesiastical superiors. The weakness of the position which we are now controverting may appear through the niedium of the very illustration em- ployed in its support ; for it should be remembered that we cannot have a good light if the lamp be not properly con- structed and protected, as well as placed in a right position. The oil may be of the best quality, and yet, if the lamp be not skilfully fashioned, a great portion of the light may be lost to us ; or, whilst the oil is wasted, the lamp may burn so splendidly that we may be completely dazzled by its glare ; or the oil may be dealt out so parsimoniously, that the light which it supplies may be little better than darkness visible. And though the oil may be pure, and the flame brilliant, and the lamp otherwise well contrived, yet should it please the manufacturer to garnish it with a species of that coloured glass through which a " dim religious light " enters into some of our ancient cathedrals, it must be acknowledged that we would have substantial cause for objecting to its decorations. And as men do not light a candle and put it under a bushel, the position of the lamp is a matter of some consequence ; for, if not properly protected, even when burning most brightly, some high or low functionary may interpose, and cover it with the bushel of a constitutional extinguisher. Under an unscriptural form of ecclesiastical government, no individual can reckon, with confidence, on the continued enjoyment of evangelical ministrations. The idea that the form of ecclesiastical polity is a matter 14 THl': CHURCH AND ITS GOVERNMENT. of no consequence can only be entertained by the most super- iicial thinkers. Tlie Church is a great institution ; its mem- bers are scattered all over the world ; it discharges most important functions ; it exerts an iimnense influence over the social as well as the spiritual interests of the human family ; and it is preposterous to believe that it will be equally useful whether its organization be wise or i'oolish. History demon- strates the folly of any such imagination. The corruptions of the Church commenced with its deviation from the primi- tive regimen ; and they multiplied with the growth of ecclesi- astical usurpations. Ignorance, superstition, and immorality reached a climax when it completely lost its liberty, and lay prostrate and helpless under the fetters of spiritual bondage. Even after the Keformation, the evils of any deviation from the right course of its government were plainly seen in Pro- testant countries. The Church of Scotland would, in all human probability, be now in a much more flourishing condi- tion liad it not been so long distressed by the yoke of patronage ; and the Church of England would at present have a much larger portion of the population under its care, had it been better regulated in times past, and had its revenues been more judiciously husbanded and distributed. There are still, however, not a few who maintain that various systems of Church government are equally good, and that the form to be adopted, in any particular case, must be determined by circumstances. But, certainly, there is no warrant in Scripture for such a theory. Not a hint is thrown out by the inspired founders of our religion to the effect that the ordinances of Christianity are to be accommodated to the peculiar usages of the different regions of the earth. Their teaching is a constant protest against any such conclusion. The Apostle Paul says to his son Timothy : " The things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." -^ From this it would appear that the heralds of the gospel are to walk in the same course from generation to generation — irrespective of the idiosyncrasies of tribes or nations. No good reason can be given why they should act otherwise ; for if the " one faith " of the Scriptures is to be 1 2 Tim. ii. 2. IMPORTANCE OF THE FORM OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 15 cherished from age to age, why should it not have the same accompaniments of government and worship ? The tendency to adopt the fashions of those around us is a temptation against which we are warned in the word of God with im- pressive earnestness. " Be not conformed to this workl," ^ says the apostle. " If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." ^ The Church is described in Holy Writ as " the kingdom of heaven ; " and we are not to suppose that its regulations should move on in harmony with " the course of this world." It is not like a chameleon, which takes the colour of surrounding objects ; or an elastic band, which contracts or expands according to the amount of pressure brought to bear on it. It is not even like an earthly state or kingdom, which may remove its ruler when it pleases ; which from time to time may change or modify its constitution ; which may call evil good, and good evil ; which may make and unmake laws according to the will of the multitude ; or which may reverse its policy — as pride, or jealousy, or passion, or selfishness may dictate. It is a society professing allegiance to One who is the King Eternal, who is the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever, and who has given us laws which are to remain in operation while the world endures. His subjects have no right to repeal the ten commandments, nor to turn away to the right hand or the left from the observance of any of His ordinances. He has told us expressly that His Church is not to copy earthly dynasties in the frame of its government. " The princes of the Gentiles," says He, " exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them, hut it shall not he so among you." ^ The faithful servants of Christ are simply empowered to dispense His laws. " It is pedantic slavery," says one of the flippant promulgators of a lax theology, " to tie down the constitution of any Church to a few stray injunctions of the Apostle Peter or of the Apostle Paul." The author of this profane sentence calls himself a minister of Jesus Christ ; he belongs to a Church by law established, and he should have remembered that his Divine Master said to the apostles : " Go, and teach all nations . . teaching them to ohserve all things tvhatsoever I have ' Rom. xii. 2. - Gal. i. 10, » Matt. xx. 25, 26. 16 THE CllUnClI AND ITS GOVERNMENT. commanded you" ^ It is under this commission that His ministers act ; it includes all nations, and extends to all time ; and yet it makes no provision for any deviation from its requirements. It l)inds those who preach the ^^^ospel of Christ to adhere to whatsoever He has commanded tliem, and it is only on this condition they are entitled to expect the fulfilment of the promise : " Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." ' There can, assuredly, be no " pedantic slavery " in obeying the law of Christ. His yoke is easy, and His burden is light. But there may be much that is base and servile in submitting to the yoke of a sense- less ritualism ever and anon changing its discipline, or making additions to its trivialities. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God : the apostles and evangelists wrote under this guidance, and neither Paul nor Peter ever penned any " stray injunctions." We are bound to believe that " what- soever things " have been written by them, have been " written for our learning." '^ He who seeth the end from the beginning could tell how the Church could be l)est governed while the world stands : tliere are no haphazaixl directions in His statute-book, for all its enactments bear tlie impress of the wisdom of a Divine Lawgiver ; and any one who thinks that he can furnish a better code of regulations is puffed up with unutterable presumption. The Church ceases to be true to its rightful character when it accommodates itself to the capricious fashions of society. It has a higher mission. Instead of seeking to please men, or imitate their policy, it should act towards all as a faithful monitor, warning against defections, protesting against sinful compliances, and exercis- ing over the entire community a purifying and transforming influence. It is safe only so long as it adheres to the in- structions of its living Head in heaven. ^ Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. ^ Matt, xxviii. 20. ' Rom. xv. 4. CHAPTER III. HOW WE MAY ASCERTAIN THE RIGHT FORM OF CHUUOH GOVERNMENT. Many are disposed to think that we could not err as to the right form of ecclesiastical polity, could we ascertain the iVamework of the Church in the century immediately succeed- ing the days of the apostles. It may occur to the intelligent reader that it would be still more satisfactory to know how the apostles themselves settled its constitution. They wei'e empowered by their Divine Master to make all needful arramjements ; and, so far as it is desirable for us to be supplied with information, these arrangements are reported to us in the New Testament. We are bound to adhere to their instructions as recorded by the pen of inspiration, for they acted under divine guidance ; and the usages of any succeed- ing age cannot pretend to the same authority. Even before the apostles left the world " the mystery of iniquity " was at work.^ In various parts of their writings we are told of the rise and progress of a great apostasy ; and they had not been long in their graves when the whole Church was disturbed and revolutionized. It would be far more difhcult to tell what were its arrangements in the second than in the first century. One hundred years after the apostolic age changes were rapidly inaugurated; office-bearers, before unknown, make their appearance ; a new ecclesiastical nomenclature gains currency ; and one dignitary, to whom there is not the most distant reference in the New Testament, threatens a large portion of the visible Church with excommunication ! Sad indeed would be our condition were we to be bound by ecclesiastical precedents which may be furnished by the history of the Church of the second century. ^ 2 Theas. ii. 7. B 18 THE CHUKCII AXD ITS GOVERNMKNT. Were we disposed to defer to the prcactice of antiquity in regard to questions of polity and worship, we could not, in many cases, arrive at any definite conclusion, inasmuch as the various Christian societies at an early period were not distinguished by any uniform system of ecclesiastical order. Not long after the middle of the second century the East and the "West were divided as to the mode of observing the Paschal festival ; and, if Scripture is to be our guide, it is easy to ])rove that we have no warrant whatever for its celebration. Some of the apostles were married men ; ^ and Paul tells us that a bishop should be " the husband of one wife ; " ^ but two centuries afterwards celibacy had become pretty L!;eneral among the clergy in various parts of the Koman Empire. Early in the third century the bishops were consecrated by the presbyters ; one hundred years afterwards the bishops claimed the right to ordain as their exclusive prerogative. We are informed by Sozomen, an ecclesiastical historian of the fifth century, that, in his time, different customs prevailed in Churches where the same doctrines were received. " There are," says he, " many cities in Syria, and yet but one bishop among them all ; whereas in other nations bishops are con- secrated even in villages, as I have myself observed in Arabia and Cyprus. ... At Rome there are but seven deacons, answering exactly to the number ordained by the apostles, . . . whereas in other Churches the number is indefinite. . . . In Rome the people are not taught by the bishop nor by any one else ■'' in the church ; but at Alexandria the bishop alone teaches — which custom, which did not previously exist, was, they say, introduced when the presbyter Arius, departing from tlie faith, introduced new doctrines. . . . Assemblies are not held in all Churches on the same day nor in the same manner. The people of Constantinople, and of several other cities, assemble together on the (Jewish) Sabbath as well as on the next day ; which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria. There are several cities and villages in Egypt, where, contrary to the usages established elsewhere, the people meet together on Sabbath {i.e. Saturday) evenings ; and, 1 Mark i. 30 ; 1 Cor. ix. 5. '■' 1 Tim. iii. 2. ^ I.e. no one preached in the churclj, or there was no sermon. Leo the Great is said to liave reintroduced preaching. THE KIGIIT FORM OF CIIURCII GOVERNMENT. 19 although they have dined previously, partake of the mysteries " {i.e. of the Eucharist).^ Such statements might be easily multiplied ; and they supply ample evidence that, whilst the Churches then called Catholic held substantially tlie same faith, they differed very much in tlie details of government and worship. If we are to arrive at any satisfactory con- clusion on the subject of ecclesiastical polity, we must be able to appeal to some less equivocal standard than that which they furnish. A careful examination of the Xew Testament may place us on firmer ground. When we open tlie sacred volume, we may notice tliat points of doctrine are there far more fully discussed than points of order. There is a continual reference in the writ- ings of the apostles and evangelists to the character and work (jf Christ, to His death and resurrection, to justification by faith in His name, and to redemption through His blood ; but tlie statements relating to Church government are compara- tively few. We are here bound to acknowledge as well tlie wisdom as the goodness of the Author of Eevelation ; for He lias directed our attention more particularly to those things which it most concerns us to know. But, notwithstanding, the subject of ecclesiastical order is not altogether overlooked. When, indeed, we at first engage in the investigation with the Bible in our hands, we may find it somewhat difficult to see our way. But we are commanded to " search the Scriptures," and the result of their prayerful study will amply repay our diligence. We cannot discover any one place where we have a code of laws delineating the constitution of the Church, and describing the privileges and duties of its several office-bearers. But we may soon ascertain that it had certain office-bearers, and no more. We can clearly see that functionaries which make their appearance towards the end of the second, or in the course of the third century, had no existence in the days of the apostles. This fact goes far to set aside the claims of certain forms of Church government. If we read of prelates, and priests, and high priests in the third or fourth century, — not to speak of readers, acolytes, subdeacons, and others, — we may fairly infer that there must meanwhile have been a departure from primitive arrangements ; for assuredly no such ^ Sozonien, Book VII. chap. xix. 20 THE CHUKCII AND ITS GOVEUNMENT. personages were recognised as ministers of the new dispensa- tion by those who were its commissioned founders. When we look attentively into the holy oracles, and compare together their occasional utterances, we may observe that those entrusted with the organization of the Church were guided by fixed rules when proceeding with its formation. During the personal ministry of our Lord His followers were evidently known to each other,^ and were admitted to disciple- .ship by baptism ;^ but the Holy Supper was not instituted by Him until immediately before His death ; and it is now, perhaps, impossible to determine how His adherents in the meantime were associated, or to what extent they were united in religious fellowship. He Himself appointed the twelve apostles, and then " other seventy also," to prepare His way ; but it would appear that the organization of the Church was not completed until after His resurrection. At the very outset the apostles indicated that they were careful to consult the wishes of the brotherhood in the choice of those who were to be placed in positions of credit and responsibility. When a successor to Judas was to be [)rovided, the disciples were accordingly invited to make the selection. When the seven deacons were to be nominated, they pursued the same course. It would seem that, in all subsequent appointments to office, an appeal was made to popular suffrage. Even in matters of minor consequence, the people were permitted to make choice of their deputies or representatives. When an individual was required to undertake a journey on an errand of mercy, we are told that he was " chosen of the Churches " for this service." In like manner we find the apostle saying to the Corinthians, " Whomsoever- you shall eii^p'ovc by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem." ^ Another principk". on which the founders of the Christian community appear to have uniformly acted was tlie appointment of a plurality of rulers or elders in every Church. We cannot point to even one instance in which the care of a congregation was com- mitted to a single person. Thus we read how Paul and Barnabas, as they itinerated through Asia Minor, took care to have elders appointed " in every Church ; " "" and how Titus 1 1 Cor. XV. 6. 2 John iv. 1, 2, iii. 22. ^ 2 Cor. viii. 19. * 1 Cor. xvi. 3. * Acts xiv. 23. THE RIGHT FORM OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 21 was instructed to make the same arrangements in every city of Crete/ James takes it for granted that a plurality of elders existed in every congregation when he says to those to whom his epistle is addressed : " Is any sick among you ? let him call for the elders of the Church." ^ When Christian congregations were at first established, we can well believe that their founders were guided very much by circumstances in making arrangements for their regulation and instruction. The human mind was moved to its utmost depths under the influence of the new doctrine ; and capa- bilities, before unknown to exist, were called into requisition ; but still it could not be expected that Churches everywhere would, all at once, be furnished with very competent teachers. It was wisely provided that every little society should be under the management of an eldership, consisting of a num- ber of its most experienced, devoted, and gifted members. Thus their various endowments were brought into exercise for the common edification. Our Lord sent forth His apostles " two by two," that they might take counsel together, and help each other in their difficulties ; and, on the principle that " in the multitude of counsellors there is safety," ^ it was not fitting tliat any congregation should be left to the guidance of a solitary caretaker. But it was not necessary that all the elders should possess the same endowments. Some, who could not speak with effect to popular assemblies, might otherwise, as fathers of the Church, turn their talents to good account. They might give sound advice in cases of perplexity, or suggest schemes of usefulness, or encourage the timid, or comfort the distressed, or exert a healthful influence upon all around them by their works of faith and labours of love. For the sake of order, it was needful that one of the elders should preside when the congregation was assembled ; and he who did so might conduct either a part or the whole of the public service. It often happened that two or three of the elders officiated. One preached or expounded a passage of the word of God ; another led in prayer ; another might con- duct the psalmody ; and another could read the Scriptures. Where gifts abounded, it was sometimes no easy matter to restrain their possessors from indulging too freely in their 1 Tit. i. 5. 2 jas. y. 14. ^ Prov. xi. 14. 22 THE cuuucii and its government. manifestation. Some, indeed, insisted on speaking with tongues when no interpreter was present ; and some were so anxious to give utterance to tlieir feelings or convictions, that tliey broke in upon others who were ah-eady addressing the meeting, and thus created much confusion. The apostle, when writing to the Corinthians, was obliged to expostulate with them in reference to these irregularities, and to exhort them to observe a more orderly procedure.^ As time advanced, these interruptions disappeared, and certain rules were laid down for the celebration of the service. In the end, the elder supposed to be best C|ualified to conduct the worship was usually chosen to preside ; and as he was expected to devote his whole time to the instruction and oversight of the Church, he was maintained at the expense of his co-religionists. " If we have sown unto you spiritual things," says Paul, " is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things ? ... So hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.'^ Let him that is taught in the word com- municate unto him that teacheth in all good things." ^ It is questionable whether the elder who merely assisted the mini- ster of the word in ruling, or exhorting, or visiting the sick, and who supported himself by some secular employment, received at first any remuneration for these occasional services. But it is obvious that all the elders were associated on equal terras in the government of the Church. He who merely glances over the pages of the Bible may infer that it contains no definite rules for ecclesiastical govern- ment ; but the preceding statements supply evidence that the reader who examines it more carefully may discover not a few of them. They are, in fact, strewn all over it. The admoni- tions for the expulsion from church-fellowship of those who held unsound doctrines are couched in language of extreme stringency. " A man that is an heretic," says Paul, "after the first and second admonition, reject." * " Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." -' " If there come any unto you," says John, " and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God 1 1 Cor. xiv. 40. - 1 Cor. ix. 11, 14. ^ Gal. vi. 6. * Tit. iii. 10. 5 Qai. j. s. THE EIGHT FOUM OF CHURCH COVECNMEXT. 23 speed." ^ The commands to abstain from all intercourse with persons of improper character are equally stern. " I have written unto you," says Paul to the Corinthians, " not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner ; with such an one no not to eat." "' The apostles insisted peremptorily on submission to their instructions. " If any man," says Paul, " obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and liave no company with him, that he may be ashamed."'^ When the same writer tells us that "all Scrip- ture given by inspiration of God is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works," * he plainly teaches that the inspired word is a guide sufficient to direct us, both as to what we ought to df) and what we are bound to believe. When Paul exhorted the elders of Ephesus to "take heed to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers," ^ he distinctly recognised these elders as the legitimate rulers of the Christian brotherhood ; and though on that occasion he informed them that they were to see his face no more, he did not throw out the slightest hint that the Church henceforth was to have any other guides or governors. In like manner, when Peter ex- horted the elders of Asia Minor not to act " as lords over God's heritage," but to be "ensamples to the flock," ^ he gave them to understand, in language which could not well be misinter- preted, that they were not warranted to exercise any arbitrary or despotic power, but simply to administer laws which were equally binding on themselves and their co-religionists. It would be easy to multiply scriptural directions such as those already adduced. But the testimonies now quoted may suffice to convince the serious inquirer after truth of the i'allacy of the statement that there are not in the written word any permanent rules relating to Church government. The numerous intimations on the subject to be found in the New Testament cannot be brought together and arranged in har- monious order without diligent investigation ; but we are required to search for divine guidance as for hidden treasure,' 1 2 John 10. - 1 Cor. V. 11. ' 2 Thess. iii. 14. * 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17. ' Acts XX. 28. ' 1 Pet. v. 3. ^ Prov. ii. 1-5. 24 THE CHURCH and its govei!Nment. and to " meditate " on the book of God's law " day and night," ^ that we may obtain the information we desiderate. A dili- gent study of the sacred volume may convince us that its various statements relating to the Church may be " fitly framed together " so as to enable us to construct a scriptural form of ecclesiastical polity. It is not at present necessary to pursue farther our inquiries into tlie constitution of the Church, as, in due course, the various questions in dispute relating to it must come under our discussion. We have merely traced a number of its broad outlines ; and it may be proper here to add that we have no right to expect the authority of a text of Scripture for all the minute details of its arrangement. The Church, to a considerable extent, partakes of the charac- ter of any other human society ; and, thus far, we do not need the light of revelation to enable us to regulate its management. When the apostle says, " Let all things be done decently, and in order," " he appeals to our innate sense of propriety, and indicates that there are certain matters in reference to which we require no more specific in- struction. The Westminster divines very properly state that there are " circumstances concerning the icorship of God, and fiovernment of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered Ijj the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word." ^ We have, for example, no reason to complain that we cannot point to any express precept of the Bible enabling us to determine when we should commence or conclude public worship on tlie Lord's day. Such details must be decided by convenience, and ordinary prudence may guide us to a proper conclusion. ISTeither do we need a revelation from heaven to qualify us for arranging the order in which we are to conduct the Sabbatli service. We may frame a Directory for Worship by simply attending to the canon, " Let all things be done unto edifying." * We must not look for precise instructions in Scripture when proceeding to make regulations for the management of business in ecclesiastical judicatories. When transacting the affairs of Cluircli courts, 1 Josh. i. 8 ; Ps. i. 2. * j Q^r. xiv. 40. ^ Confession, chap. i. sec. 6. ■• 1 Cor. xiv. 26. THE EIGHT FORM OF CHUKCH GOVERNMENT. 25 we must observe many of the same general rules as are recognised in civil assemblies. Experience teaches that men met together to discuss secular concerns, and guided by the light of common sense, can carry on their deliberations witli wisdom and decorum. The Church may, in a variety of cases, borrow with advantage from the plans and procedure of the citizens of this world. When discussing the best method of adjusting the technicalities of a Synodical debate, we may refer, with good reason, to the precedents furnished by the forms of the Imperial Legislature. In like manner, when deciding on the most efficient and convenient mode of conducting criminal processes in ecclesiastical courts, we may derive many excellent hints from the arrangements of civil tribunals. The apostles were prepared for public service under the immediate tuition of our Lord Himself, and we have thus pointed out to us the propriety of training candi- dates for the holy office ; but, in the absence of particular suggestions on the subject, the Church is left to pursue the course which sanctified wisdom may dictate in reference to the mode of their education. We cannot produce any portion of Holy Writ in which a presbytery is enjoined to appoint a moderator or chairman ; or in which a committee is instructed to have a secretary or convener ; but the election of such officers is required by the necessities of the case — as, without them, neither order could be well preserved, nor proceedings fairly registered. In making such appointments, we do not require supernatural guidance. Scripture comes to our aid only where we might be expected to err if left without its illumination. Whilst, in various matters of minor importance, the light of nature, or the dictates of common intelligence, may be sufficient for our direction, the word of God must be the ultimate arbiter of all our actions ; and we have seen that it supplies a large amount of definite information concerning the constitution and government of the Church. The Scrip- tures make mention of its pastors and teachers, of the mode of their selection, of the duties which they are expected to perform, and of the ordinances which they are required to administer. Those who have the care of the house of God are enjoined to instruct the people to observe His command- 26 THE CHUUCIl AND ITS GOVERNMENT. iiients ; and His law is to be found in the Old and New Testaments. But the heralds of salvation have no right to invent new sacraments, to subtract from the moral law, or to add anything to the canon of Scripture. Arrangements which are destitute of a warrant from the book of inspiration are not binding on the conscience. We are not obliged — except as a matter of convenience, and with a view to the edification of ourselves and others — to repair to the house of God at a certain ho2ir, or to remain there for a certain time. But duties enjoined in the word, or which may be inferred from it in the way of legitimate deduction, stand on a different foundation. We are told " not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together ; " ^ and therefore attendance on public worship is an obligation which we cannot ignore. We are required to " call no man our father on earth ; " ^ in things spiritual we are to submit only to the authority of Him who is Lord of the conscience ; and therefore we err when we pledge ourselves to implicit submission to any human dictator. The words addressed by Jehovah to Joshua may be well transferred to every minister of the gospel, and may apply to the more extended revelation which we now enjoy : " This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth : but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein ; for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success." '' 1 Heb. X. 25. - Matt, xxiii. 9. ' Josh. i. 3. CHAPTEIi IV. THE UNITY OF THE VISIBLE CHURCH DESIKABLE, AND THE SUBJECT OF PROPHECY. The visible Church of God, in its original conception, was a grand idea. It implied the existence of a society gathered out of a wicked world, acknowledging allegiance to the Saviour, exhibiting the beauty of holiness, and keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Had the Church continued to advance as rapidly as it made progress for a short time after the death of Christ, it would long since have changed the face of the whole human family. Judaism would have passed away ; the countless diversities of heathenism would have disappeared ; scepticism would have vanished ; and the earth would have been full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. But the triumphant march of the gospel was soon interrupted. The a.rm of imperial authority was stretched out to arrest its course ; persecution established a reign of terror; pagan philosophy struggled to discredit its pretensions ; and heresies, in a great variety of forms, contributed to weaken its strength and impair its reputation. Thus its adherents became discouraged and divided, and the means which were taken to cement their union unhappily issued in their spiritual enslavement. Any one who compares the state of the Church in the apostolic age, as described in the Xew Testament, with its condition three hundred years afterwards, must see that mean- Mhile a great change had taken place in its constitution ; and there is every reason to believe that the revolution was not accomplished without considerable opposition. Jerome refers to this crisis when he tells us that one of the presbyters was " set over the rest " ^ for the prevention of schism. It was ' Comment, in Titmn. 27 28 THE ciiL'Kfn and its government. not to be expected that these officials would agree, without reluctance, to divest themselves of a part of their authority ; but their privileges were, in the first instance, very partially curtailed ; and the dread of schism, in face of the imperial proscription under whicli they were suffering, induced tliem to submit to the sacrifice. The establishment of bishops, with a certain amount of arbitrary power, did not add to the peace of the Church. It may have served, as a sort of mechanical contrivance, to maintain external unity ; but from the very commencement of the system, the Church was more than ever agitated by internal dissensions. The bishops themselves were soon engaged in bitter controversies ; and immediately before the Diocletian persecution, their struggles for preced- ence created much scandal. " Some," says Eusebius, " that were reputed our pastors, contemning the law of piety, were nnder the excitement of mutual animosities, fomenting nothing else but disputes, and tiireatenings, and rivalry, and reciprocal hostility and hatred, as they contentiously prosecuted their ambitious designs for sovereignty." ' As time advanced, the bishops increased in power, and corruptions multiplied. Episcopal authority had reached its climax at the time of the IJe formation, and the Christian community lay prostrate under tlie heel of an unmitigated despotism. It lias often been said that the Eeformation destroyed the unity of the visible Church. But unity, in the proper sense of the term, was then unknown in Christendom. Those who professed adherence to the religion of the gospel were living in perpetual strife, war was chronic, and in the very palace of the Pope infidelity was blurting out its blasphemies. The Reformation, where it prevailed, broke the fetters of the bondsman and let the oppressed go free ; and when its doctrines were cordially embraced, it promoted true unity, that is, the unity of faith, hope, and love. But the Protestant Churches at the present day are still far from exhibiting that unity which the Scriptures commend. What an effect would be produced on an unbelieving world if a better spirit were luore prevalent ; if Churches, though distinguished by trivial peculiarities, regarded each other with brotherly affection ; if one form of polity, admitting of fraternal correspondence, were ' Euseb. viii. 1. THE UNITY OF THE VISIBLE CHURCH DESIRABLE. 29 embraced by all true Christians ; and if the soldiers of the cross presented the appearance of one great army, all trained in the discipline of integrity and truth, all animated by the same spirit, and all displaying a united front to the common foe ! Now the Church is split up into countless sections ; her divisions are fitted to make a most unfavourable impression on all who are without ; her visible appearance, instead of being an inviting, and instructive, and edifyiiig spectacle, is rather fitted to discourage, to puzzle, and to repel. She is now as a house divided against itself; her most valiant men of war, instead of bearing down with all their might on the enemy, often turn their arms against each other ; and thus her energies are frequently expended in the strife of internal discord. No wonder, under these circumstances, that Chris- tianity, in relation to the world lying in wickedness, has been so little aggressive. We must, however, never forget, that ecclesiastical machinery of the most perfect kind is valueless, if not worse, when dissociated from the faith once delivered to the saints. A Church which teaches false doctrine is like a physician who dispenses improper medicine to his patients, or like a father who proposes to feed his children with husks on which the swine luxuriate. A professing Christian community may be fashioned according to the model of the word, and yet if it does not propagate the truth, it is at best but a useless skeleton. Its framework may possess symmetry and strength, but it can accomplish no good, for it is spiritually dead. If the parts of the ecclesiastical machine do not move harmoni- ously under the influence of divine love, it may even create much mischief. Should contention arise, and should it be applied to purposes other than its proper functions, the very power of its machinery may be its ruin, for it may soon beat itself to pieces. It is only when the glorious gospel is preached with clearness and with power, when discipline is administered with meekness and with faithfulness, and when the people bring forth in their lives the fruits of righteousness and godliness, that the Church is in the position which it ought always to occupy. And as God has not annexed His blessing inseparably, and under all circumstances, to any of His institutions ; as discipline has been to thousands a rock 30 TllK CHURCH AND ITS GOVERNMENT. of offence ; as many liave used their Cliristian libeity for an occasion to the flesh ; and as the word itself has ut a sentence of excommunication. Again, he says : " Bear yc one, another's burdens, and so fulfil tlie lavj of Christ."* This exhortation seems expressly to ignore the doctrine of Congregationalism. It is the law of Christ that Churches .should 7iot exist as so many distinct units, but that they should regard each other as one in the Saviour, and act accordingly. We have a beautiful illustration of tlie way in which this command may be obeyed, in the ecclesiastical history of our own times. In 1843 — when so many ministers withdrew from the Church of Scotland — the question of their support, awakened immense interest. In obedience to what they believed to be the call of duty, many of these noble-hearted men gave up their earthly all ; and went out, as it were, into the wilderness of the world, without any temporal provision, Tu rural districts the rich laity generally remained in the Establishment ; and though the bulk of the people often adhered to their faithful pastors, they were commonly so poor as to be unable to afibrd them a maintenance. Had the retiring ministers been obliged to depend on them for support, they would, in various places, have soon been reduced to a state bordering on starvation. But in other sections of the country — especially where there were great towns — a large portion of the population of all classes — including not a few holding a high social position, and 1 Gal. iii. 28. - Gal. v. 1. ' Gal. i. 9. « Gal. vi. 2. difficultip:s of the congregational system. 73 possessed of abundant wealth — continued to stand by the protesting ministers. Prompted by the impulse of a holy enthusiasm, these members of the Free Church resolved to bear the burdens of their poorer brethren. Thus the scheme of the Sustentation Fund was happily conceived, and soon carried out into successful accomplishment. The zeal of the Free Church astonished the world; and the sacrifices which it made in the cause of spiritual independence threw around it a halo of glory. In a few years the ministers of poor con- gregations found themselves in as comfortable circumstances as they had ever been before. And not long since, M'hen State aid was withdrawn from Irish Presbyterians, there were faint-hearted souls among them who imagined that their Church would perish with the Pegium Donum. But others were of good courage ; the congregations resolved to bear each other's burdens ; a Snstenation Fund was formed ; and thus, in the wonderful providence of God, Disestablishment actually increased among them the amount of ministerial maintenance ! But here is a machinery of which Independency cannot, at least consistently, avail itself. It practically holds that, according to the law of Christ, congregations are nut hound to bear one another's burdens. The constitution of Inde- pendent congregations presents insuperable difficulties in the way of carrying out any such general rule. How could Inde- pendents arrange for the payment of an eqnal dividend to all their ministers, if they are not pledged to the profession of a common faith, and if they are not amenable to a common discipline ? How could they agree to sustain pastors who preach they know not what, and who are beyond their control ? And thus it is that the incomes of Congregational ministers present such startling inequalities. One of them, not long deceased, is said to have had an annual revenue at least equal, if not greatly above the income of a rich English bishop ; whilst multitudes of his brethren had each little more, if so much, as the pay of an ordinary policeman. This assuredly is not the way in which Christian Churches should bear each other's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. In several of the apostolic epistles we meet with statements which are at variance with the spirit of Congregationalism. / 4 COXGREGATIONAMSM. Thus in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians ' \vc read of a brother who was " chosen oi" the Churches " {')(eLporovT}de\ Acts XV. 2. - Acts XV. 23. ' Acts xv. 23. * In our Revised Version we read, "The apostles and the elder brethren." The words in the original are, d aToimiXoi ko.) ol -rpitrfivTipot a}iXy the providence of God I was trained among Independents ; and with them I remained." Mr. C. H. Spurgeon — by far the most distin- guished name among the English Baptists — has also expressed 108 CONGREGATIONALISM. liimself as in favour of tlie Presbyterian system. The praise of Dr. John Owen is in all the Churches. In the time of the Commonwealth he was chaplain to the Protector, and for several years he tilled the high office of Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford. His voluminous works are a noble memorial of his industry, piety, and learning ; and, as a pro- found divine, he has been surpassed by no Knglish theologian. About the commencement of his public career, he embraced the views of the Independents ; and he has ever since been regarded as one of their brightest ornaments. It ought, however, to be known that, as he advanced in life, he saw reason to modify his sentiments ; and that, in the end, he all but admitted the apostolicity of Presbyterianism. Shortly before his death he composed a treatise entitled " The True Nature of a Gospel Church ; " and we learn from the preface that it was left behind him in a state ready for publication. A few extracts from it will explain his views on the question of ecclesiastical polity at the time when it was written. " No Clnu'ch," says he, " is so independent as that it can always, and in all cases, observe the duties it owes unto the Lord Christ, and the Church catholic, by all those povjers which it is able to act in itself distinctly, without conjunction with other Churches. And the (Jhurch that confines its duty unto the acts of its own assemblies, cuts itself off from the external communion of the Church catholic; nor will it he safe for any man to cornmit the conduct of his soul to such a Church." Again, he says : " This acting in Synods is an institution of Jesus Christ ; not in express command, but in the nature of the thing H^qX^, fortified unth apostolic example. . . . Such conventions are interested in the promise of His presence — namely, that ' where two or three are gathered together in His name, there He will be in the midst of them.' For those assemblies being the necessary effect of His own constitution in the nature and use of His (Jhurches, are, or may be, in His name, and so enjoy His presence." And in another place he says : " Synods are con- secrated unto the use of the Church in all ages, by the example of the apostles in their guidance of the first Churches of Jews and Gentiles . . . ivliich hath the force of a divine institution, as being given by them under the infallible conduct of the Holy Ghost." Dr. Owen liere refers for confirmation to the fifteenth EXPERIENCE HAS TESTIFIED AGAINST THE SYSTEM. 109 chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. According to the Anakcta of the historian Wodrow, this great divine, on his death-hed, gave his testimony in favour of Presbyterianism. " Mr. George Kedpath," says Wodrow, " told me two or three years ago when in Edinburgh, that he visited Dr. Owen on his death-bed, and presbytery and episcopacy came to be discoursed of ; and the doctor said hoiu he had seen his mistake as to the Independent loay ; and declared to him a day or two before his death, that after his utmost search into the Scrip- tures and antiquity, he was satisfied that 2^^csbi/te7'i/ ivas the loay Christ had appointed in His New Testament Churcli." The truth of this statement has been challenged, and by some it has been rejected as a piece of unreliable gossip ; but, when viewed in connection with the declarations already quoted from Dr. Owen's own latest production, there seems no reason to doubt its substantial accuracy. Another very distinguished divine connected with Con- gregationalism has expressed his entire approval of Presby- terian Church government. We allude to Jonathan Edwards. In this theologian we must admire alike the elevation of his piety, and the colossal grandeur of his intellect. Though but the minister of an obscure congregation in the American plantations, he exerted, by his writings, an influence which was felt throughout Christendom ; and he has presented to the Church some of the most triumphant vindications of evangelical doctrine that have ever appeared. In the district where his lot was cast, Congregationalism prevailed ; but he has left on record his decision in favour of the I'resbyterian polity. Edwards, as is well known, carried on a corre- spondence with the Eev. Dr. Erskine of Edinburgh. On one occasion, when asked by this friend whether he would have any scruples about accepting a pastoral charge in Scotland, he replied in the following terms : " As to my subscribing to the substance of the Westminster Confession, there would be no difficulty ; and as to the Presbyterian government, I have long been perfectly out of conceit of our unsettled Independent confused way of Church government in this land ; and the Presbyterian way has ever appeared to me as most agreeable to the word of God, and the nature and reason of things." 110 CONGREGATIONALISM. A system thus ostiniated by some of its brightest ornaments is never likely to commend itself to general acceptance. During the sittings of the Westminster Assembly, its advocates, for political reasons, were sup- ported and encouraged ; and it thus acquired a prominence to which it had no intrinsic claim. The experience of the two centuries which have since elapsed has certainly not supplied to it any fresh arguments in the way of recom- mendation. Its very name, Independency, is apparently opposed to the genius of the gospel ; for believers are " members one of another," and are " huildcd together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." PART III PRELACY. CHAPTEK I. It has been already stated that the chief forms of Church government may be reduced to three — Independency, Prelacy, and Presbytery. Having, in the preceding pages, discussed the claims of Independency, we now proceed to the examina- tion of Prelacy. We have mentioned that, in the Church of Home, Prelacy assumes the form of a religious monarchy, the pope being tlie spiritual sovereign. The Eoman pontiff claims to be the centre of catholic unity — the visible head of the Church on earth — the supreme ecclesiastical governor through whom all spiritual power is transmitted, and to whom all the faithful are bound to render obedience. As the pretensions of the pope are of an altogether peculiar character, and as, if conceded, the question of ecclesiastical polity is at once set at rest, they demand special considera- tion. Before passing to the examination of the general arguments in support of Prelacy, we shall therefore prepare the way by directing attention to the subject of the Papal Supremacy. THE ALLEGED PRLMACY OF PETEK. For many ages the exact position and prerogatives assigned by the Church of Eome to her highest ecclesiastical func- tionary remained an unsettled question. The Vatican Council of 1869 has done much to enable us to arrive at a definite conclusion; but various points appear to be still undetermined. It is somewhat remarkable that, in the canons of the Council 111 112 PRELACY. of Trent, we have no specific statement upon the subjeol. Tiie pope is there, indeed, designated tlie " vicar of God on earth ; " and patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops, and all others, are required " to promise to him true obedience ; " but, with the exception of a few general statements of this nature, ihe question of the papal supremacy is passed over by the Triilentine fathers in })erfect silence. We learn that this singular omission is by no means to be ascribed to inadvertence ; for it would seem that the supreme pontiff — jealous of any attempt to investigate his jurisdiction — issued an express order that the matter should not be discussed. The legates of the great bishop were directed to announce to tlie council that its members must not, "for any cause what- ever, come to dispute about the pope's authority." ^ When, guided by the light of history, we endeavour to ascertain the prerogatives with which the Eoman Catholic Cimrch, in times past, has invested the pope, we must speedily discover the difficulty of arriving at any very precise conclusion. It would appear, indeed, that the papal pretensions have been extended or curtailed, according to the exigency of particular circumstances. In some cases, the pontiff has been treated merely as the ^^rf^/Wt/i./ of the ecclesiastical community, and as subject to the authority of the ecclesiastical judicatories. Thus, the Council of Con- stance, which commenced its sittings in A.D. 1414, declared that " a general council, representing the catholic Church militant, has power immediately from Christ — which every one of whatever state or dignity he be — although it be ^;rtj!w7 — is hound to ohei/, in those things which belong to faith, the extirpation of schism, and the general reformation of the Church, Ml head and incmhcrs." At the time of the meeting of this famous convention, several individuals had assumed the papal dignity : but the Council of Constance deposed them all, and set up another pontiff whose authority was at length generally acknowledged. Here, the principle that the pope is amenable to the authority of a general council, was asserted, and practically enforced. It is to be remembered that the acts of the Council of Constance were confirmed by Martin Y. — tlie pope elected on the occasion— so that the 1 Father Taul'd History, lib. ii. p. 154. THE ALLEGED PRIMACY OF PETER. 113 sentiments they embody have obtained as high a sanction as the Eoman Catholic Church is able to confer. It must, however, be observed that the principle of the subordination of popes to general councils has long been virtually, if not explicitly, denied by various writers of the highest reputation belonging to the Eoman Catholic communion. Cardinal Bellarmine, for example, asserts it to be '' almost an article of faith that the pope is simply and absolutely above the, universal Church." ^ The oath taken by those who hold office in the Church of Eome may also be adduced as evidence that his adherents cannot dispute the pope's para- mount authority. Every Eomish priest swears, at the time of his ordination, that he will give " true obedience to the Eoman pontiff, the successor of St. Peter the prince of the apostles, and the vicar of Jesus Christ." The late Vatican Council has at length completely settled this question. By asserting his infallibility, it has placed his authority in the Eomish Church above challenge. When we seek to discover the exact nature of the juris- diction to be exercised by the Italian pontiff, we speedily find ourselves embarrassed amidst a variety of conflicting statements. Hence Alraain, a Eoman Catholic divine of Paris, who flourished in the beginning of the sixteenth century, declares : " There is so much controversy about the plenitude of ecclesiastical power, and to what things it mail extend itself, that few particulars in that matter are settled." " Several eminent Eoman Catholic writers assert that the jurisdiction of the pope extends only to things spiritual. Others, however, as positively maintain that those who broach such sentiments promulgate downright heresy. " They are all branded as heretics," says Cardinal Baronius, " who take from the Church of Eome, and the See of St. Peter, one of the two swords, and allow only the spiritual." There is extant a decree of Boniface VIII. — who filled the papal throne in the beginning of the fourteenth century — in which the plenitude of the pontifical jurisdiction is still more explicitly asserted. " We declare, say, define, and pronounce it to he altogether necessa.ry to salvation" says Boniface, "/or every human creature to he subject to the Roman pontiff. . . . 1 De Cone. ii. 17. ' Almain, De Auct. Ecd. cap. iii. H 114 PRELACY. One sword must be under another ; and the temporal must be subject to the spiritual authority — whence if the earthii/ poivcr goes astray it must be Judged by the spiritual power." At this time,, millions connected with the Greek Church dis- owned the papal jurisdiction : the Nestorians, the Mono- physites, and other professing Christians were in the same ])osition of antagonism ; but the pope claimed authority, not only over all these, but over all the myriads of heathendom. He asserted his title to be the prince of the kings of the earth, in things temporal as well as in things spiritual. It is well known that when the bishops of Rome have had an opportunity, they have not hesitated to carry out these principles, Adrian IV. made a present of Ireland to Henry II. of England, though, at the time, he had no more right to the Emerald Isle than he had to the mountains of the moon. Again and again have the popes ventured to proclaim the deposition of .sovereigns who refused to obey their command- ments. The Bull of Sixtus V, — excluding from the French throne Henry of Navarre and the Prince of Conde — com- mences with the following magnificent introduction : — '• The authority given to St. Peter and his successors, by the immense power of the Eternal King, excels all the powers of earthly kings and princes. ... It passes uncontrollable sentence upon them all And if it finds any of them resisting God's ordinance, it takes more severe vengeance of them, casting them down from their thrones, though ever so puissant, and tumbling them down to the lowest parts of the earth, as the ministers of aspiring Lucifer." And in the Bull of Pope Pius V., deposing Queen Elizabeth of England, we have these words : " He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and in earth, has committed the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, out of which there is no salvation, to one alone on earth, namely, to Peter, prince of the apostles, and to the Roman pontiff, successor of Peter, to be governed with a plenitude of power. This one he has constituted prince over all nations and all kingdoms, that he might pluck up, destroy, dissipate, ruin, plant, and build." In the same Bull the pope declares that " he hereby deprives the queen of her pretended right to the kingdom, and of all dominion, dignity, THE ALLEGED PRIMACY OF PETER. 115 and privilege whatsoever, and absolves all the nobles, sub- jects, and people of the kingdom, and whoever else have sworn to her, from their oath, and all duty whatsoever, in regard of dominion, fidelity, and obedience," We thus see that whilst some have attempted to curb the power of the pope by the promulgation of the doctrine that he must be subject to a general council, and whilst others have tried to limit his jurisdiction by alleging that it should be confined to matters spiritual, the popes themselves have fre- quently asserted the possession of the most absolute authority ; and we may add, that councils have repeatedly sanctioned their pretensions. It has often been remarked that those who have been generally regarded as the most trusty supporters of the See of Kome, have been most forward to plead for the largest amount of papal prerogatives. And, no doubt, if the line of argument usually pursued by Eomau Catholic writers is sustained, we are bound, in consistency, to concede to the head of the Eomish Church a very great degree of authority. If Peter was indeed the prince of the apostles, and if the pope of Kome is verily the heir of his dominion, and the vicar of the Son of God, it may be exceedingly difficult to determine the boundaries by which his jurisdiction should be circumscribed. It is quite clear that those writers reason most in accordance with the fundamental principles of popery who contend that the Koman pontiff is superior to a general council ; that he has power to enact, suspend, or abrogate ecclesiastical laws and canons ; that he is the fountain of all pastoral jurisdiction and dignity ; that it appertains to him to decide controversies, and to define points of doctrine ; and that it is his province to constitute, judge, censure, and degrade bishops. The late Vatican Council has virtually, if not actually, decided many of these points ; and, by affirming his infallibility, has only carried out the spirit of preceding legislation. The doctrine of the Papal Supremacy may be regarded as the main pillar of the Eomish system ; and yet, when we scrutinize it with seriousness and candour, we may very clearly see that it is utterly destitute of any scriptural or historical foundation. It is based upon a variety of allega- tions, any one of which being overturned, the whole fabiie 116 PRELACY. gives way and falls to pieces. We shall now proceed to direct attention to some of the fallacies on which it leans for sup- port, and to show that it cannot bear the light of a fair investigation. It is imifornily pleaded by the papal advocates, that Peter possessed a primacy of authority and jurisdiction over the rest of the apostles. To establish this proposition they adduce a variety of arguments. They lay much stress upon the fact that he is named first in the list of the apostles to be found in the New Testament ; they urge that he is commonly repre- sented as the sfokcsman of the apostolic company ; and they remind us that our Lord said to him, in particular, " Feed my sheep." A very brief examination of these arguments may convince us that they are quite unsatisfactory and futile. The circumstance that Peter is named first in the lists of the apostles is a very frail foundation on which to build the doctrine of his supremacy. Some one individual must stand at the head of any such catalogue ; but it certainly does not follow that, because he holds such a position, he is empowered to rule over all the others. We might as reasonably contend that there were twelve degrees of dignity in the apostolic brotherhood, and that he whose name appears at the foot of the list had no less than eleven superiors — each rising above those beneath him in power and privilege. Such an idea has never been entertained in the Christian Churcli ; and yet, if we are warranted to maintain that Peter was the prince of the apostles merely because of the place which his name occupies in the roll, we cannot well avoid the conclusion that he who is found there in the lowest position must have been the servant of servants. There is no point more clearly estab- lished, by the evidence furnished in the New Testament, than that the twelve, as to official rank, stood upon a level of equality. Wlien they contended among themselves' which of them should be accounted the greatest, our Lord rebuked their ambitious aspirations, and told them that in His kingdom no such question would be admissible. It would appear that the aspirants to superiority were James and John.^ Had Peter been already their recognised chief, such a contention could not have arisen among them. The doctrine of his supremacy J Mark x. 35-41. THE ALLEGED PRIMACY OF PETER. .117 has no countenance whatever in any part of the canon of inspiration. It is directly contradicted again and again in a variety of passages. Paul bears his testimony against it when he says of himself : " In nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles." ^ So far was he from acknowledging Peter's right to dictate to his fellow-labourers in the ministry, that, on a certain memorable occasion, he " withstood him to the face," and upbraided him for walking " not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel." ^ The position of the name of Peter at the head of the list of the apostles may be accounted for on the principle that he was first nominated when our Lord selected the twelve. This circumstance aloue would give him a title to a kind of honorary precedence. It would seem, too, that he was the senior mcmler of the apostolic company. The Scriptures always inculcate respect for age ; and if Peter was the oldest of the apostles, he had, on this ground, a claim to stand at the top of the catalogue. He was also possessed of superior gifts, so that what he said or did had usually much weight with his brethren. But, in various cases, we find his name rele- gated to a lower place than that in which it is found in the lists of the twelve. Thus Paul speaks of " James, Cephas, and John," '" who seemed to be pillars of the Church of Jerusalem ; and when addressing the Corinthians, lie puts the apostle of the circumcision in a still lower position. The fact that Peter often acted as the spokesnian of the apostles by no means proves that he enjoyed any ecclesiastical pre - eminence. Some individual member of every society must, in certain circumstances, deliver the sentiments of him- self and his associates ; and when there has been no previous arrangement, the most ready and forward will, of course, undertake the service. Peter was remarkable for his ardent temperament, and on every occasion he was disposed at once to give utterance to his feelings. We know, too, that he sometimes expressed himself unadvisedly, and that, in conse- quence, he was reprimanded for his want of consideration. Instead of being, as Piomanists would have us to believe, on the most confidential terms with his Master, we find him at a J 2 Cor. xii. 11. See also 2 Cor. xi. 5. * Gal. ii. 11, 14. ^ Gal. ii. 9. " 1 Cor. i. 12. See also 1 Cor. ix. 5. 113 PKELACy. particular time applying to tlie Apostle John to ask Christ for information wliicii he himself did not venture to solicit.^ It is therefore plain that, in as far us the question of his primacy is concerned, no inference can be deduced from the mere cir- cumstance that he speaks occasionally in reply to inquiries addressed to himself and his associates. The command, " Feed my sheep," given to this apostle, sup- plies a very visionary argument in support of his supremacy. On the same principle it might be contended that every pastor is possessed of extraordinary prerogatives. Paul says to the elders of Ephesus : " Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God."^ Peter himself says to the elders of Asia Minor : " Feed the flock of God which is among you." ^ P>ut it would be most absurd to conclude from these passages that all these elders were possessed of despotic power ; and yet such is a fair sample of the kind of reasoning by which some have sought to establish the supremacy of Peter. 1 John xiii. 24, 25. ^ Acts xx. 28. ^ 1 Pet. v. 2. CHAPTER II. THE ARGUMENT FOR PETEK'S PRIMACY FROM MATT. XVI. 18, 19 EXAMINED. By far the most plausible argument advanced by Eoman Catholic writers in support of their system, is that drawn from the statement in Matt. xvi. 18, 19, where our Lord says to the apostle of the circumcision, " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Let us therefore consider carefully the testimony thus supplied. It is evident that our Lord here speaks of the Church catholic, and of the foundation on M'hich it rests. He refers, not to the Church of liome, or the Church of Corinth, or the Church of Jerusalem, or to any other particular Christian community, but to His own Church (" my Cliurch "), that is, the Church which He has " purchased with His own blood ; " of which it is said that its members " shall never perish," that He gives to them " eternal life," and that " none can pluck them out of His hand." ^ Peter himself belonged to this Church, and yet he was but a sinner saved by grace. "The gates of hell" might prevail against him; and after this time he shamefully denied his Master ; but " the gates of hell " can never prevail against the Church. How strange that any one should have ever dreamt that the Church is built upon Peter I How could he sustain the weight of such an edifice ? Nothing less than Omnipotence and Omniscience could undertake such a responsibility. The Church embraces all the children of God in every clime ; and how could any one poor mortal be continually 1 Acts XX. 28 ; John x. 28. 120 PRELACY. present with all the members of such a family to uphold them and preserve them from perdition ? Our Lord elsewhere speaks of the security of the saints, but He never broaches the idea that their safety depends, in any way, on their connection with Peter. His doctrine is very different. " Whosoever," says He, " heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will ' liken him unto a wise man which built his house vpon a rock : and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell not : for it was founded upon a rock." ^ Dean Alford, when expounding the words of our Lord addressed to Peter, takes occasion to observe that " not doctrines nor confessions, but men, are uniformly the pillars and stones of the spiritual building." ^ The remark is not exactly to the point; for Christ is here speaking, not of the '•pillars^' but of the foundation of the edifice. In the words which we have just quoted He tells us that His sayings, if obeyed, will form the basis of an imperishable structure. And one of His apostles echoes the instruction of his Master when he writes to his brethren saying : " But ye, beloved, huilding up yourselves on your most holy faith . . . keep yourselves in the love of God." ^ The doctrine of Christ is a firm foundation for His Cliurch ; and whosoever accepts it with a living faith is safe to all eternity. " Jesus said to those Jews which believed on Him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed ; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." * " My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me ; and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." ^ Scripture is always consistent with itself, and all its state- ments, if rightly understood, concur in the establishment of the same system of theology. It uniformly teaches that the truth of the gospel is the foundation on which the Church is built. All its doctrines centre in the person of the Saviour. He is the Prophet, Priest, and King of Zion ; the only Name under heaven given among men by which we can be saved ; the Way, the Truth, and the Life. When it is said that 1 Matt. vii. 24, 25. "^ Greek Testament, vol. i. p. 173, note, 7th ed. 2 Jude vers. 20, 21. " John viii. 31, 32. ^ John x. 27. 28. THE ARGUMENT FOR TETER'S PRIMACY EXAMINED. 121 believers are " built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets," ^ the meaning is, not that they rest on the persons of these departed worthies, or that they can now derive any strength from their individual influence, but that they can repose with full assurance on the glorious scheme of redemp- tion which they announced, that is, on the fimdaraental iloctrines which they were commissioned to promulgate. When Paul declares that he " preached Christ crucified," ^ we are to understand that he held forth Jesus as an atoning and all-sufficient sacrifice. " Other foundation," says he, " can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." " Every minister lays the foundation of a living Church wlio preaches wisely and well the doctrine of " Christ crucified." The doctrine of Peter's Primacy is based on a palpable misinterpretation of the words addressed by our Lord to the apostle of the circumcision. Christ did not say to him, " Thou art Peter, and upon thee will I build my Church." Neither did He say, " Thou art Peter, and upon this Peter will I build my Church." Had He uttered the latter words, it might have been urged that the Ibrm of expression was strange and unnatural, yet still it must have been admitted that they would have conceded to the apostle the position which the Church of Rome claims for him. But our Lord avoided any sucli statement. His words are : " Thou art Peter (or a stone), and upon this rock will I build my Church." * Here Peter and the rock are clearly distinguished. By no stretch of legitimate criticism can they be honestly identified. The proper meaning of TIerpo fi.ov TVti IxxXriiriav, rrOieSSOl" Dunbar, in his Greek Lexicon, thus distinguishes -TTiTpo; and TiTpa : " Ilirpa, a rock of immense size, or lofty." " nirpoi, properly a stone, sometimes a rock, as w'lTpx, whereas the latter never simplifies a stone." Homer represents his combatants as flinging stones {TSTpous) at each other ; but to wrench a rock [TiTpttv) from its surroundings, and hurl it at a fuc, would liave been an achieve- ment too weighty even for an ancient hero. 122 PRELACY. and a stone. It is quite sufTicicnt to re[)ly that the old Syriac version is admittedly not the original ; as its very name imports, it is only a version of the original ; and the Greek of Matthew has always heen considered as of higher authority. iSome have, indeed, contended that Matthew's Gospel was originally composed in Hebrew ; but the internal evidence is opposed to any such theory ; and even Dean Alford, who adopted it in the first edition of his Greek Testament, was constrained subsequently to abandon it, and to acknowledge the Greek as the genuine production of the evangelist. If in it the distinction lietween IleTpo'i and JJerpa is recognised, we are not at liberty to ignore it, especially when it is far more in harmony with the analogy of Scripture. If a version has obscured the meaning of our Lord's words, it is very absurd for commentators to endorse its imperfections, and thus create needless perplexity. When the distinction between Peter and the rock is kept in view, the passage is simple and intelligible. Christ had put to the disciples the question, " Who do men say that I, the Son of man, am ? " ^ and Peter had answered, " Thou art the CJhrist, the Son of the living God." ' Our Lord's rejoinder is remarkable : " Blessed art tliou, Simon Bar-jona : for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in lieaven." ^ This reply acknowledged the apostle to be one who was taught of God — a genuine disciple — with whom the Father of Lights was pleased to hold fellowship. Then follows tlie solemn declaration : " I say also unto thee. That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." These words may be thus paraphrased : " I say also unto thee, that thou art a stone, a living stone of that spiritual building which I am about to erect on earth ; and this revelation which has been made to thee will I lay as the foundation of it, for I am indeed the Christ, the Son of the living God, the spiritual Hock whence flow rivers of living water ; this is an impregnable truth on which my Church may rely securely, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The apostle of the circumcision was obviously called Peter because he was a stone, and one of the foundation stones, built 1 Matt. xvi. 13. 2 jj^^tt. xvi. 16. ^ Matt. xvi. 17. THE ARGUMENT FOR PETER'S PRIMACY EXAMINED. 123 upon the Rock Christ. But it is preposterous to speak of him as the rock of the foundation. Christ, we are told, " was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasnmch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house." ^ Are we then to believe that I'eter, who was only one of the stones of the house, is to be counted worthy of more glory than the house and the builder? Are we to think that he who more than once fell so grievously, is the rock whicli can withstand the gates of hell ? Surely this is the very doctrine of antichrist ! It dishonours the Lord of glory, it places the servant above his master, and the disciple above Christ. The Eock on which the Church is built is described again and again in Scripture in a way which leaves no apology for misapprehension. A¥e read : " Thus saith tlie Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a pecious corner-stone, a sure foundation.'' ' This stone is no other than " Emmanuel, God with us." It is of it that David speaks when he says, " Truly my soul waiteth upon God : from Him cometh my salvation. . . . He only is my rock and my salvation ; He is my defence ; I shall not be moved. . . . Trust in Him at all times, ye people." ^ " This is the stone which was set at nought of the builders, which is become the head of the corner." ^ " Neither is there salvation in any other : for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved." ^ The Church assuredly is built, not upon Peter, but on Christ, the Sou of the living God, the Rock of Ages. \Yhen our Lord made this memorable address to Peter, and when He recognised so signally his spiritual discernment. He added that He would yet bestow upon him still greater privileges and endowments. " And I will give unto thee the keys of tlie kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."^ The kingdom of heaven is the Church of God ; and it is the great object of the gospel to proclaim the opening of this kingdom to the heirs of promise. Jesus came into Galilee at an early period of His ministry, "preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God. 1 Heb. iii. 3. - Isa. xxviii. 16. ^ pg. ixH. 1, 6, 8. * Acts iv. 11 ; Ps. cxviii. 22. ' Acts iv. 12. ^ Matt. xyi. 1!). 124 PRELACY, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kiiifidorn of God is at hand : repent ye, and believe the gospel." ^ The Spirit of God is the only key which can effectually admit to the substantial and eternal blessings of the new covenant ; and they only whose understandings are opened by Him are properly pre- pared to appreciate its unsearchable riches, and to explain to others the way of entrance into its glorious storehouses. He wlio cannot expound the Scriptures to tiie people is only a blind leader of the blind. Jjut he who is a scribe well instructed in the holy oracles is in possession of "the key of knowledge" ^ and can thus show unto others the way of salva- tion. There is another key peculiarly belonging to those who bear rule in the Church, that is, the key of government!^ With this key they open and shut the doors of the visible Church. As " stewards of the mysteries of God," * they admit to baptism and the Lord's Supper, and exclude from church-fellowship. Wlien, therefore, our Lord said to Peter, " I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," He indicated that He would make him an office-bearer in His Church ; that He would quality him for this service ; that He would fit him for feeding the sheep of His pasture ; and that He would in due time furnish him witli all pastoral and apostolical authority. He was yet very imperfectly acquainted with the gospel ; for when Christ, shortly after this conversa- tion, spoke of His sufferings and His resurrection, Peter " took Him and began to rebuke Him, saying. Be it far from Thee, Lord : this shall not he unto Thee." ^ So little did he yet know how his Master was to accomplish the work of redemption. He was now only in training for the important position which he was afterwards to occupy ; and he is here assured that when called on to perform its functions, he would be fur- Jiished with the needful qualifications and credentials. It must, however, be remembered that Peter was not to be in exclusive possession of the keys of the kingdom of heaven. These words warrant no such conclusion. It would be im- possible for any one minister to execute such a commission. Our Lord gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Paul when He sent him to the Gentiles " to open their eyes, and to * Mark i. 14, 15. - Luke xi. 52. ^ Isa. xxii, 22 ; Rev, iii, 7. * 1 Cor. iv. 1. '■' Matt. xvi. 22. THE ARGUMENT FOR PETER'S PRIMACY EXAMINED. 125 turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God ; " ^ and He bestowed the power of binding and loosing on all the apostles when He said to them : " Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 2 And every true minister of the gospel has the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; for he can " open the Scrip- tures," and commend himself to the conscience " by manifesta- tion of the truth," and point out the good and the right way to glory, and bind up the broken-hearted, and declare to the wicked that they cannot enter into the kingdom of God. And all the rulers of the Church who properly administer its discipline have the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; so that whatsoever they bind on earth is bound in heaven. So long as they act according to Christ's word, all their proceedings have a divine sanction. Peter especially used the keys of the kingdom to good effect. By his sermon on the day of Pentecost, he gathered three thousand converts into the Church ; and by the baptism of Cornelius, he opened the kingdom of heaven to the Gentiles. We may thus see that when this famous address to Peter is fairly expounded, it conveys a very different meaning from that assigned to it by Eomanists. It affords no warrant whatever for the pretensions of the papacy. That our Lord, ignoring His own character as the Saviour of the world, announced His intention of building His Church on Peter, is an assertion so destitute of support from this passage, so opposed to the whole tenor of Scripture, so thoroughly absurd, and in fact so blasphemous, that nothing but an extraordinary combination of circumstances could have conspired to give it currency. Peter was sufficiently encouraged when assured that he was a living stone in the house of God, and that he was to hold a prominent place in the spiritual building. He could not but be cheered when he was told that he was to be unchangeably associated with Him who is the Lord of the kings of the earth. He never presumed to domineer over his brethren, much less to imagine that he could sustain in his own person the whole edifice of the Church of the redeemed. He delighted to dwell on the idea that Christ is ' Acts xxvi. 18. - Matt, xviii. 18. 126 PRELACY. tlie great corner-stone of the divine structure, and that all who are boru of God can rest on this sure and glorious foundation. Hence we find him saying to his fellow- believers : " Coming (unto Jesus) as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house. . . . Wherefore also it is contained in the Scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner-stone, elect, precious : and he that helievrth 071 Him shall not he confounded." ' In his later years, Peter speaks of himself merely as one of the elders of the Church ; and addresses his brethren, not in the language of command, but in the humbler tones of exhortation. " The elders which are among you/' says he, " I exhort, mho am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed : Feed the flock of God which is among you." ^ The rise and progress of the papacy may be traced in history. In the course of time the Church of Eome, as connected with the capital city of the empire, became by far the most influ- ential ecclesiastical community in existence ; and its partisans sought to add to its consequence by endeavouring to discover passages of Scripture which might be quoted to its advantage. They could find none which could fairly be enlisted in its support ; but there was a general dread of schism ; and as this Church was deemed the most powerful friend of catholic unity, there was a prevailing anxiety to do it honour. Thus it was that a stupid misinterpretation of our Lord's address to I'eter became increasingly popular. Sacred criticism was little cultivated in those days ; and very few were capable of pointing out the perversion of the meaning of a well-known text. A story was trumped up that Peter had been at one time bishop of Rome, and these words were supposed to confer on him special prerogatives. Still, some of the best and most distin- guished of the fathers refused their sanction to this exposition. Thus, Chrysostom, the great preacher of antiquity, and one of the most skilful of the ancient interpreters, says in his comment on these verses, that the Church is built " upon the rock, that is, upon the faith of the confession." ^ Again, Theo- 1 1 Pet. ii. 4, 5, 6. M Pet. v. 1, 2. ^ In Matt. xvi. 18, Opera, ii. p. 344. THE ARGUMENT FOK rETEIl'S PRIMACY EXAMINED. 127 (loret, another of the most reliable of the ancient expositors, declares : " Our Lord did permit to be shaken the first of the apostles, wliose confession he fixed as a j)rop and foundation of the Church." ^ The testimony of Augustine is still more remarkable. By the Church of Eome he has always been regarded as one of the highest authorities among the fathers, and, as a theologian, none of them is entitled to greater con- sideration. At one period he had adopted the exposition of this text current among the partisans of the Italian pontiff; but, on mature reflection, he changed his views ; and in a work, entitled his Retractations, wliich appeared some time before his death, he gives the following interpretation : " Our Lord declares, ' On this rock I will found my Church,' because Peter had said, ' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On tliis rock ivliicJt thou hast confessed, He declares, I will build my Church, for Christ was the llock on whose founda- tion Peter himself was built, for other foundation hath no man laid than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." Augustine was not disposed, however, to insist upon this exposition ; and he invites his readers to accept or reject it, as their judgment may dictate. 1 Epist. 77. CHAPTER in. Peter's primacy and the bishopric of rome. In the preceding chapters, the arguments produced from Scripture in support of the primacy of Peter have been weighed and found wanting. It has been well observed that, were we to seize on a number of circumstances incidentally noticed in the New Testament, and to insist on them as so many indices of the higher station of particular individuals, we might infer that John, rather than Peter, enjoyed some kind of ecclesiastical precedence. He contributed more to the canon of Scripture than any other of the twelve apostles. It is said of him that he was the disciple whom Jesus loved, and that he was permitted to lean upon the bosom of his Master.^ He it was to whom Christ communicated that glorious revelation containing a mysterious delineation of the vicissitudes of the Church until the' consummation of its earthly history. It was to John that our Lord commended His mother as He hung upon the cross. There is reason to believe that the life of this apostle was prolonged beyond that of most of the others upwards of a quarter of a century ; so that for a series of years no one could have advanced so plausible pretensions to ecclesiastical supremacy. We do not learn, however, that any claim was ever put forward asserting the primacy of John. It must, indeed, be obvious to the candid investigator that no solid argument in its behalf could be based on the facts we have enumerated ; and yet the reasoning employed to prove the supremacy of Peter is of a character still more superficial. It has often been remarked that, in the course of a few gene- rations, legends sometimes take the place of history. It is firmly believed by multitudes that Peter was the first bishop 1 John xiii. 23. Peter's primacy and the bishopric of rome. 129 of Eome ; and yet it can be shown conclusively that tlie .statement is totally groundless. When Clement wrote his Epistle to the Corinthians, some thirty years after the death of Peter, the Church of Rome was still governed, not by a prelate, but by the common council of tlie presbyters. It is a striking and most significant fact that no direct and unequi- vocal proof can be adduced from any part of the New Testa- ment to attest that Peter ever visited the imperial city. Had tlie Great Head of the (Jhurch delegated extraordinary powers to the ecclesiastic presiding in the capital of the West, and had He introduced the arrangement by constituting the apostle bishop of Rome, is it to be believed that the sacred record would contain no evidence of his presence at any time in tlie place where he is said to have exercised such extensive authority ? According to a tradition v;hich long obtained implicit credit, Peter was, for twenty-five years; chief pastor of the ecclesiastical metropolis of Italy ; and yet nothing can be more clearly established than that the whole story is a l)aseless fabrication. Paul's Epistle to the Romans was written twenty-six or twenty-seven years after the ascension of our Saviour, — certainly less than ten years hefore Peter s death, — and there is the clearest evidence that he did not then govern the Church of the great city. That epistle is remarkable for tlie number of salutations addressed tO' individuals at its close; but Peter is quite ignored. Is it to be thought that in so long a letter, in which so many persons belonging to this Church are mentioned hy navte, its chief pastor would have been passed over in perfect silence ? The Epistks to the Philippians, the Ephesians, and others, were written during Paul's imprisonment at Rome ; but in none of these letters do we find Peter once named. These letters were written long after that addressed to the Romans. May we not most safely infer tlmt, even then, he could not have been in the imperial city, as otherwise Paul would have certainly adverted to him in some, if not in all, of these communications ? Tlie Second Epistle to Timothy was written very shortly before Paul's martyrdom at Rome, probably a year before Peter's death. Still it makes no allusion to the apostle of the cir- cumcision. May we not therefore confidently conclude that he had not yet reached the metropolis of the empire ? We I 130 PRELACY. know that there were Christians in the great city long before I'aul visited the place ; ^ and we have good grounds to believe that I'eter did not travel in that direction^ until at least several years after Paul was sent there as a prisoner. It is barely possible that Peter was in Home about the close of his life ; and the tradition that he there suffered martyrdom is not to be rejected as utterly destitute of truth ; but the tale of his Roman episcopate belongs entirely to the department of the fabulous. There is another point where the argument for the papacy completely fails. It is apparent from the Xew Testament that the apostles occupied a peculiar position. The powers which they exercised as the founders of the Church did not descend to any successors. They were furnished with super- natural endowments ; they possessed the gift of inspiration ; and they were instructed to superintend the settlement of the ecclesiastical constitution. Any one who lays claim to their extraordinary authority may be fairly required to make good his title, by showing that he has their miraculous qualifica- tions. The allegation that the prerogatives of Peter descended to the popes is a purely gratuitous assumption ; for there is not a single passage in the sacred oracles to which it can appeal for the slightest countenance. The special powers of the apostles died with themselves. The pretensions of the pope, when examined by the light of ecclesiastical history, are found to occupy a position very different from that challenged by his partisans. In the early ages many of these claims were perfectly unknown ; and the ministers to whom he looks back as the original occupants of his See did not exercise any of those high prerogatives to which he now pretends as his peculiar inheritance. About the ndddle of the second century, when a dispute as to the cele- bration of the Paschal festival began to attract attention, we do not read that the chief pastor of the Western metropolis asserted any jurisdiction over the other rulers of the Church, or insisted that his example should be universally followed. Polycarp of Smyrna, somewliat after that date, visited Anicetus of Pome ; and though these two pastors differed in their views on the controverted question, they met on equal terms, and 1 Rom. i. 8, 13, ^ Qal. ii. 9 ; 1 Pet. i. 1. PETER'S riilMACY AND THE BISHOPEIC OF ROME. 131 parted without any concession on either side. Anicetus, on this occasion, permitted Polycarp to preside at the administra- tion of the Lord's Supper in his church, and received the eucharistic elements from the hands of an ecclesiastic who declined to defer to his judgment in a matter of discipline then deemed of considerable importance. But this state of things did not long continue. The Church of Eome rapidly acquired influence ; and before the end of the second century it was pretty generally recognised as holding the foremost place among the religious communities of Christendom. The position gained so soon by the Church of Eome was due entirely to its prosperous condition. It stood higher than other Churches because it was richer and laru-er. The social rank of not a few of its communicants gave it a pre- ponderating weight in the ecclesiastical balance, and its presence at the seat of Imperial Government secured it advantages to which no other Christian society could pretend. A modified form of episcopacy was adopted by it about the middle of the second century ; and, presuming on its greater consequence, its newly-constituted bishops speedily began to evince a disposition to dictate to those around them ; but, not- withstanding a general unwillingness to incur their displeasure, the other pastors for a long time stoutly resisted the attempts of their growing ambition. Towards the close of the second century, when the bishop Victor essayed to act the despot towards the brethren of Asia Minor, and to intimidate them into a compliance with his mode of keeping the Paschal feast, his brother pastor, Irenceus of Lyons, rebuked him for his haughty bearing, and the Eastern pastors replied to his denun- ciations in a tone of deliberate defiance. Fifty years after- wards, or about the middle of the third century, he encountered an equally stern resistance. On that occasion Cyprian of Carthage was the leader of the opposition. The history of this father is remarkable. Incautiously adopting the erroneous interpretation of our Lord's address to Peter, then gaining currency, he was disposed to defer to the Eoman prelate as, in some sense, the rock on which the Church rested ; and he has often since been quoted as a witness in support of papal assumptions ; but the simple fact that he now strenu- ously denounced the decision of the Italian pope as to the re- 132 PRELACY. baptism of heretics, — a question which now absorbed tlie atten- tion of the ecclesiastical community, — supplies clear proof that he was not prepared to surrender his right to think for himself at tlie bidding of any other churchman. Cyprian, it must be admitted, was a very poor theologian ; and though so often since appealed to as a guide in matters of faith, his opinion as to the meaning of any controverted text is intrinsically of very little value. He was made a bishop shortly after he became a convert to Christianity, — he was then past tlie meridian of life, — and subsequently he could never command leisure to devote himself to tlie careful and critical study of the Scriptures. His treatise on The Unity of the Church is an extremely shallow and misleading production. In it he con- founds the Church visible and the Church invisible ; and he sows the seeds of numerous errors which liave since grown up rankly in connection with the system of Romanism. Cyprian was, notwithstanding, a man of probity, piety, and eloquence. He lived at a time when the disciples were still groaning under the pressure of imperial tyranny, and when ecclesias- tical writers were few. As he died a martyr, an importance has been attached to his sentiments which they cannot fairly claim. In his anxiety to reconcile his respect for the bishop of Rome with his other views on the subject of Church polity, he reveals his weakness as an ill -instructed and mystical expositor. He certainly did not believe in the siqyranacy of the pope, and he would have rejected with indignant scorn the doctrine of iv fallibility. In a council held at Carthage, relative to the re-baptism of heretics, he condemned the pro- ceedings of the chief pastor of Rome, and asserted the independent position of himself and his brother bishops of Africa. " It remains," said he, " that each of us utter our opinion ; neither judging any one, nor excluding any one who may disagree with us from the privilege of communion. . . . Eor neither does any one of us constitute himself a hisho}) of bishops, nor, by tyrannical fear, does he draw his colleagues to the necessity of obeying ; inasmuch as every bishop, by reason of his liberty and authority, has his own free choice, and is no less exempted from being judged by another than he is incompetent to judge another ; but let us all expect the judg- ment of our Lord Jesus Christ, wlio, and who alone, has power PETEE's primacy and the BISII0P[;IC of ROME. 133 both to advance us to the government of the Church, and to judge of our actions." ^ These words of Cyprian have frequently been adduced as a testimony in favour of Congregationalism. The African father here teaches us, say some, that the Churches were in his time independent ; and that bishops were not at liberty to sit in judgment on each other. A little reflection may, however, convince us that Cyprian's meaning has been quite mis- apprehended. The Eoman bishop Stephen had excommuni- cated the bishops of Africa, and it is against this high-handed movement that Cyprian protests. He was amply justified in doing so, for the proceeding was quite irregular. The bishops of Africa owed no allegiance to the bishop of Rome. In presuming to issue against them a sentence of excommunica- tion, Stephen had usurped an authority which he had no right to exercise. Cyprian declares that he was not " bishop of bishops," and he could not judge pastors who were not under his jurisdiction. At that period one bishop might preside over a larger Church than another, and might in this way be placed in a post of greater influence ; but all bishops were still regarded as equal in point of rank, so that no one was at liberty to domineer over another. The sul)ject in dispute was not a question of doctrine : it related to a mere affair of dis- cipline respecting which individuals might fairly differ ; and, in such a case, every one should be at liberty to pursue the course which he deemed best fitted to promote the peace and good order of the Church. No single prelate was warranted to act the part of a Diotrephes — to claim pre-eminence, and to cast others out of the pale of Christian fellowship. But, be it observed, Cyprian uttered these sentiments in an African Synod ; and he must, therefore, have recognised the propriety of Synodical government. A Synod could do what an individual was not warranted to attempt. When Cyprian declares that the Lord Jesus Christ alone has power " to advance to the government of the Church," he does not mean to ignore the interference of ecclesiastical rulers ; for we know that he himself had been chosen to his office by the people, and ordained by the proper Church court. Cyprian's treatise on The Unity of the Church clearly attests that he ^ Cyprian's Works, Council of Carthage. 134 PRELACY. had no sympathy whatever with Congregationah'sm. He regarded tlie Chnrcli as a compact l)ody governed hy ecclesias- tical judicatories ; and he opposed Stephen because he believed he was acting the part of a spiritual despot. When the Eoman bishop hurled against him the sentence of excom- munication, Cyprian despised the impotent anathema. And the manner in which the papal thunder was then listened to, by the most distinguished pastors in various countries, shows that it was generally regarded as a melancholy ebulli- tion of presumption and chagrin. The language of Firmilian, a Cappadocian bishop, also involved in this excommunication by Stephen, demonstrates that the pretensions of the occu- pant of the Eoman See were then treated by others, as well as Cyprian, with very little ceremony. " Stephen," says rirmilian, " how great sin have you heaped upon yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks ! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself. He is the true schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of the ecclesiastical unity." ^ The supremacy of the See of Rome was the growth of centuries. The establishment of Christianity by Constantino added immensely, to the dignity and influence of the bishop of the great metropolis. The chief pastor of a proscribed sect became an important officer of State, and the most eminent of the Eoman nobility were not unwilling to court his patronage. The splendid gifts bestowed upon him made him one of the wealthiest men in the capital city, and his ecclesiastical character placed him in a position of unique distinction. Constantine, from political motives, favoured his exaltation ; and it appears to have been owing to the Emperor's influence that tlie first OEcumenical Council in A.D. .325 sanctioned the formation of a graduated hier- archy, and recognised the Italian pontiff as at the head of his order. The second OEcumenical Council in A.D. 381 elevated the bishop of Constantinople almost to an equal dignity ; and in A.D. 451 the Council of Chalcedon declared that the bishop of Eome had hitherto held the first place simply because he had presided in the old capital of the empire. This explanation of the origin of his dignity was very ^ Firmilian to Cyprian, Epist. 74. PETEH'S PPJMACY AND THE BISHOPRIC OF ROME. 135 humiliating to Leo I., who was then the Eoman bishop ; and liis pride was still further mortified when, by the same (■ouncil of Chalcedon, the bishop of Constantinople was proclaimed to be his ecclesiastical peer. On this occasion, notwithstanding the protestations of the representatives of the Italian metropolitan, the bishops assembled in this famous ecclesiastical Synod gave a true historical account of the origin of the Eoman primacy. There is one fact standing out prominently on the page of history which sadly damages the argument that the pope, as the successor of Peter, always claimed the supreme ecclesias- tical government of Christendom. Towards the close of the sixth century, when John of Constantinople, surnamed the Faster because of liis extreme abstinence, arrogated to him- self the title of oecumenical or universal bishop, the Eoman pontiff, Gregory the Great, indignantly animadverted on his conduct, aiad declared that no bishop was warranted to assume such a designation. The language of Gregory, when con- sidered in connection with the subsequent history of the papacy, is very extraordinary. " I confidently declare," said he, " that whoever calls himself unwersal hishop, or desires to he so called, is, in his elation, the precursor of antichrist, because, in the indulgence of his pride, he sets himself above others." ^ It would seem as if Gregory had been providen- tially permitted to leave this sentiment on record, to expose more fully the groundlessness of the pretensions which the bishops of Eome afterwards advanced. Again, addressing the bishop of Constantinople, Gregory expresses himself as follows : " What wilt thou say to Christ, the Head of the Universal Church, in the trial of the last judgment, who, by the appellation of tmiversal, dost endeavour to subject all His members to thee ? Whom, I pray thee, dost thou mean to imitate in so perverse a word, but him who, despising the legions of angels constituted in fellowship with him, en- deavoured to break forth to the top of singularity, that he might be both subject to none, and be alone over all ? Who also said, ' I will ascend into heaven, and will exalt my throne above the stars ; ' for what are thy brethren, all the bishops of the Universal Church, but the stars of heaven, to whom, 1 Epist. vii. 33 ; Epist. v. 20, 21. 136 PRELACY. \vhile by this haughty word thou desirest to prefer thyself, and to trample on their name in comparison of thine, what dost thon say but ' I will climb up into heaven ' ? " ^ May we not clearly infer from these statements that even as late as the close of the sixth century, the bishops of Rome hesitated to assert those prerogatives which they have since claimed as an inheritance retained in nnintcr7'npicd pos-icssiun since the days of the apostles ? I Epist. iv. 38. CHAPTER IV. PRELACY AS DISTINGUISHED FROM POPERY. When discussing the subject of diocesan episcopacy, we design to take up, in the first place, the leading arguments usually adduced by prelatists in support of their system ; and then to point out a number of objections which may be fairly urged against its adoption. At the outset, it may be well to state that the controversy between Presbytery and Prelacy turns very much on the question as to the functions which the different office - bearers of the Church should discharge. Presbyterians, as well as Episcopalians, may say that there should be a bishop, elders, and deacons in every Church ; but the Presbyterian bishop is the minister of a parish, whilst the prelate rules over a diocese. The epis- copal priest, or presbyter, preaches and administers the sacraments ; the Presbyterian elder assists the minister in various parochial duties, and in the administration of government and discipline. The Presbyterian deacon is appointed to take charge of the poor, and to attend to matters of a secular character; the prelatic deacon is authorized to preach, as well as to celebrate baptism and marriage. One of the arguments usually urged by Episcopalians in favour of their hierarchy is in the form of an appeal to the necessity of subordination. They plead that God, in His providence, has pointed out to us the importance of superior and inferior gradations ; that there are many connecting links between the monarch on the throne and tlie peasant in the cottage ; that, in an army, one officer is always placed above another in regular succession ; and that, even in heaven itself, there are thrones, and dominions, and principalities, and powers. Independents must find it difficult to deal 1 o 8 PRELACY. with this argument ; for, under their system, there is no proper tribunal of reference in cases of dispute ; but, as urged against Presbyterianism, it has no weight whatever. Presby- terians fully admit the necessity of subordination. In their Church, as well as in the prelatic, there are the rulers and the ruled. And though Presbyterians do not deem it wise to entrust a large amount of power to single individuals, who are in a great measure irresponsible, they have superior and inferior judicatories. They have sessions, presbyteries, synods, assemblies, and they may add general councils. If there is truth in the maxim that " in the multitude of counsellors there is safety," ^ they can plead that their system of sub- ordination may be expected to work much more efficiently than an episcopal hierarchy. An archbishop may not be either wiser or more learned than a curate, — both usually jjass through exactly the same course of collegiate training, — but we may be sure to find a greater amount of experience and information in a whole Church than in any one of its members. The decision of a presbytery, consisting of all the pastors of a certain district with representative elders, is obviously entitled to iiigher confidence than the decision of the eldership of a single parish ; and, for the same reason, the deliverance of a Synod may claim greater deference than the deliverance of a presbytery. Presbyterians contend most strenuously for the maintenance of a vigorous discipline ; they admit as freely as Episcopalians the necessity of sub- ordination ; but tliey hold that, according to their polity, this subordination rests on a broader and more satisfactory foundation. A prelate, acting by himself, may err through want of information, or may be led astray by personal pre- judices and predilections; but an entire Synod may fairly be supposed to possess a larger share of collective wisdom, and can seldom be simultaneously under the same temptations to tyranny and injustice. It has been sometimes urged, on the side of Prelacy, that as there are so many grades in civil society, there should be corresponding orders of ecclesiastics ; that there should be archbishops and bishops to associate with princes and nobles ; and functionaries of a somewhat inferior rank to mingle with ^ Prov. xi. 14. PRELACY AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ROPERY. 139 the gentry ; and others lower still to minister to the mass of the people. Dr. Paley has employed this argument, and, though its weakness is transparent, it has been frequently reiterated. We do not deny that the pastor, who may be most useful and acceptable in a country parish, may be quite unfit to appear at Court ; and we grant that a highly-accom- plished preacher should always be selected to officiate to a highly-educated congregation ; but we maintain that, to meet the circumstances of the different classes of the population, we do not require to appoint new orders of spiritual office- bearers. In every Church there may be found a diversity of gifts and accomplishments ; and experience has proved that Presbyterian pastors have been found as well qualified as prelates to edify nobles and to preach before kings. William III. had no lack of English bishops to keep him company; but his favourite chaplain and his bosom friend was a Scotch Presbyterian minister, the great and worthy William Carstairs. And there was no prelate in her empire whom our own good Queen Victoria honoured more sincerely than the gifted and large-hearted Norman Macleod. If the argument of Paley were sound, it could bear to be carried out into all its appli- cations ; and thus it would follow that the different ranks of society should not meet in the same congregation, nor join in the same prayers, nor sit down at the same communion table. It is the peculiar glory of the Christian religion that it places all men on a level in the sight of God — that it proclaims the same gospel to the rich and to the poor — that it recognises no distinctions of affluence, or rank, or erudition. It is not by the attractions of wealth or earthly station that the heralds of the gospel should seek to commend themselves to the great ones of the earth. A monarch may heartily despise a time-serving prelate, whilst he may stand in awe of a pious and unassuming presbyter. Herod had far more cordial respect for John the Baptist — with a leathern girdle about his loins — than for the high priest of Israel, even when arrayed in his pontificals. There is an homage whicli conscience must ever pay to the majesty of truth — the dignity of right principle ; and it is this homage which the ministers of the gospel should labour to secure. When " Naaman came with his horses and his chariot, and stood at 140 ruELACV. the door of the house of Elisha," ^ the prophet, it may be, occupied a very humble dwelling ; but the captain of the host of the king of Syria did not therefore scorn tu apply to him for aid. Naaman believed that Elisha held intercourse with heaven, and he was therefore constrained to treat him with signal deference. And when l^aul reasoned before Felix " of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come," ^ the governor trembled. At the time the apostle was a prisoner ; his position was anything but calculated to recommend him to his distinguished auditor ; but when, in the spirit of his high commission as an ambassador of Christ, he proceeded to assert the claims of the divine law, and to expatiate on the great salvation, Felix was compelled to feel that his prisoner had a message from God, and to testify, by very significant tokens, that he could not but acknowledge the authority of his teaching. A nd if they to whom is committed the word of reconciliation were always careful to make full proof of their ministry, and to magnify their office ; if, with a single eye to the glory of God, they were habitually intent on bringing sinners to the Saviour ; they would soon discover that they may thus gain an influence over the hearts and consciences of men which they couUi not otherwise acquire. Elevated piety imparts a dignity to a pastor which neither rank nor wealth can confer ; and it is not upon the ground of ecclesi- astical gradation, but by a faithful exhibition of the gospel, tiiat the ministers of Christ should seek to commend them- selves to the possessors of crowns and coronets. Another argument in favour of Prelacy has been drawn from the Jewish hierarchy. There were, we are told, under the Mosaic dispensation, the high priest, the priests, and the Levites ; and therefore under the Christian economy we should have bishops, priests, and deacons. It has been remarked, however, that Episcopalians do not fairly carry out the parallel which they are here desirous to institute ; for, were they to do so, as the Jews had only one high ^)?"ifs^ for the whole commonwealth of Israel, there should be only one hishop for the whole Church. And the name of the Jewish dignitary indicates that he can have no successor in the Christian ministry. He was a typical personage — a figure of ^ 2 Kings V. 9. ^ Acts xxiv. 25. PRELACY AS DISTINGUISHED FROM POPERY. 141 Jesus Christ, the great High Priest of our profession ; and now that the antitype has appeared, his oftice has passed away for ever. The Jewish and the prelatic hierarchies cannot be well compared, as, under the former dispensation, the service of the tabernacle and the temple was the special inheritance of the descendants of one of the sons of Jacob. A deacon is soon transformed into a presbyter ; but a Levite could never become a priest, because the distinction was settled irrevocably by the accident of birth. In other respects, the parallel cannot be sustained, inasmuch as the government of the Church of Israel was not exclusively vested in the hands of the hierarchy. The great Sanhedrim, the supreme ecclesiastical judicatory, was composed of the high priest, the chief priests, the scribes and the elders of the people. All the other ecclesiastical courts consisted of a plurality of members. These courts, commencing witli the congregational session or the elders of the synagogue, rose one above another in regular succession. And if any weight is to be attached to the testimony of the very earliest of the Christian fathers, it may be adduced to prove that the Old Testament, according to his interpretation of it, described the Christian Church as having only two orders of office-bearers — bishops and deacons. In the prophecy of Isaiah we read, according to our Authorized Version : " I will also make thy officers peace, and thy exactors righteousness ; " ^ but Clemens Romanus represents Jehovah as here saying : " I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deaco7is in faith." ' This is, indeed, very far from a literal exposition ; but still it shows what, according to an apostolic father, was the sense of a somewhat dark intimation of the Hebrew seer. More candid Episcopalians have admitted their inability to prove that diocesan bishops were generally established during the greater part of the first century. Some, however, have maintained that the apostles themselves acted for a time as the prelates of the primitive Churches ; and that, before their demise, the episcopal system was regularly organized. But the evidence by which they attempt to support this statement is exceedingly unsatisfactory. We know, indeed, that the apostles travelled from place to place, and erected congre- ^ Isa. Ix. 17. " Epistle, to Corinthians, sec. 42. 142 PRELACY. gations, and ordained ministers ; but we know, too, that others who made no claim to apostolic authority, performed the same duties. The apostles did not challenge the right to ordain as a prerogative which belonged exclusively to them- selves ; for we find it exercised during their lives by ordinary Church teachers,^ If the apostles are to be regarded as prelates, it must be acknowleged that they present rather a strange specimen of episcopal supervision, as, instead of being occupied in the constant visitation of the Churches committed to their care, they sometimes remain for years in a particular dis- trict, and then suddenly take their departure to a distant quarter of the empire. The twelve appear to have resided principally in Palestine for many years after the resurrection of our Lord. It cannot well be said that meanwhile they officiated in the capacity of prelates, as they acted together ; and twelve chief rulers all claiming authority in the same diocese would now be considered a very odd ecclesiastical anomaly. Paul and Barnabas are both distinguished by the designation of apostles;^ it is admitted that both possessed the power of ordination; and yet we find them for years travelling in company. Had they been diocesan bishops, their conduct would have been quite irregular, for in that case it would have been their duty to have separated, and to have chosen different fields for the performance of their episcopal functions. It is reported that both Paul and Peter suffered martyrdom at Eome during the Neronian persecution ; and if so, these two apostles must have been in the Western capital about the same period. The existence of two bishops ruling over the same city at the same time does not, however, accord with our present ideas of episcopal order. It is certainly never intimated in the New Testament that the apostles, before their demise, established prelates in the various Churches scattered all over the empire. This assumption, however, lies at the very basis of the episcopal argument. The testimony of the sacred records points to a directly opposite conclusion. We are told how Paul took his farewell of the elders of Ephesus ; and though he then informed them that they would see his face no more,^ he did not even hint that they were to be consigned to the care 1 Acts xiii. 2, 3. ^ Acts xiv. 14. ^ Acts xx. 25. PRELACY AS DISTINGUISHED FROM POPERY. 143 of any diocesan. He gave them to understand that their government was to be of an altogether different character. They were themselves to have the oversiglit of the flock and of each other. Peter, in liis address to the elders of Asia Minor, written not long before his death, gives them tlie same instructions ; ^ and we find, from the letter of Clement of liome to the Corinthians, that Presbyterial government prevailed in the Churches of the West at least thirty years after Paul and Peter had left the world. Many are disposed to plead that the apostles must have been prelates, inasmuch as, in the New Testament, they often speak in a tone of authority, and are frequently represented as receiving obedience. Paul and his brethren, no doubt, frequently expressed themselves in language which chal- lenged submission. The apostle of the Gentiles says to his Thessalonian converts : " Study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as toe commanded you ; " ' and he addresses his son Timothy in similar terms : "/ give thee charge . . . that thou keep this commandment without spot." ^ But we are to remember that the founders of the primitive Church were not ordinary officials. Christ had given them the commission : " Go, and teach all nations . . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever / have com- manded you ; " * and He said to them : " He that heareth you, hcareth me ; " ^ and " He that receiveth you, receiveth me." ^ He had declared to them for their encouragement : " The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, Ife shall teach you all things, and h^ing cdl things to your rememhrance, ivhatsoever I have said iinto you." "' Such men were well entitled to employ the language of authority when addressing their converts. For many years after the ascension of our Lord, no part of the canon of the New Testament was written ; and had not the apostles been empowered to speak as the oracles of God, the Church must meanwhile have been left without any sure guidance. It was not as prelates, but as the commissioned messengers of the Most High, that the apostles issued orders for the arrangement 1 1 Pet. V. 1, 2. - 1 Thess. iv. 11. - 1 Tim. vi. 13, 14. *■ Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. '" Luke x. 16. " Matt. x. 40. ^ Jolin xiv. 26. 144 rKELAcr. of the brotherhood. The Scriptures are now sufficieat for our spiritual direction ; and no ecclesiastic — no matter what may be liis position — is warranted at tlie present day to insist npon implicit submission to his peremptory injunctions. l*aul could say : "It" any man ohcij not our ivord Inj this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed ; " ^ but any Protestant bishop wlio would adopt such a style would only provoke ridicule. The same apostle could write : " Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than tlicd ivhich we have preached imto you, let him he accitrsed." ^ A Protestant prelate issuing mandates after this fashion would expose himself to the charge of intolerable arrogance. When Paul dictated his epistles to the Churches, he wrote as he was moved by the Holy Ghost ; and, in the name of his Master, he could speak with all authority. His letters remain to this day the statute law of the Christian commonwealth ; and it is absurd to plead that he must have been a bishop because he could thus express himself. No prelate can pretend to the gift of inspiration. A prophet may say what a king dare not utter. It is not, however, necessary to maintain that the apostles were always under the special guidance of inspiration wlien directing the movements of the primitive disciples. They, no doubt, often followed the suggestions of ordinary prudence, and their views were carried into effect by those with whom they were associated, because of the confidence and affection with which they were personally regarded. Even the solemn charges given by Paul to Timothy afford, in themselves, no evidence that the apostle challenged any superiority of ecclesiastical rank ; for one minister is at liberty to press duty on another with all urgency and plainness ; and we have only an illustration of the intense zeal of the aged preacher when we find him exhorting the young evangelist in terms of the deepest seriousness. There is a certain degree of deference always due from youth to age, as well as from a disciple to a teacher ; and without supposing that Paul claimed any right to dictate the movements of his sons in the faith, Vv^e can easily conceive that their missionary proceedings may have 1 2 Thess. iii. 14. - Gal. i. 8. PRELACY AS DISTINGUISHED FKOM POPERY. 145 Leen very much under tlie direction of his superior wisdom and experience. And thougli he is sometimes said to " send " individuals from place to place, we learn, on more minute examination, that even hei'e he sought the concurrence of others. Thus he says to the Corinthians : " Whomsoever ye, shall ap'provc by your letters, them will / scml to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem." ^ The argument that Paul must have had prelatic power because he is sometimes represented as seiuling ministers to particular places, is really of no weight. The language simply proves that the apostle was a Church leader — an active agent in pushing forward the ecclesiastical movements of his age. The argument, when carried through, reveals its weakness. We are told, for example, tliat when the apostles at Jeru- salem heard how the Samaritans had received the word* of God, " they sent unto them Peter and John':' ^ It does not follow from these words that Peter and John were inferior to the other apostles. Again, it is stated that the brethren of Thessalonica " sent aivay Paul and Silas b}'' night unto Berea." '^ We are surely not to conclude from this that Paul and Silas acknowledged canonical obedience to the brethren at Thes- salonica. The meaning in these cases obviously is, that the parties said to have been sent were guided by the request, advice, or recommendation of others. Episcopalians have always laid much stress on the alleged fact that James was the first bishop of Jerusalem. It is not mentioned, either in the Acts of the Apostles or in any other part of the New Testament, that James held such an ofQce ; but certain incidental statements, from which no ordinary reader would draw such a conclusion, have been seized on as evidences of his claim to the position. When Peter was released from prison, he said to the disciples whom he found at the house of Mary the mother of John : " Go, show these things nnto James, and to the brethren." * From these words some episcopal writers would fain deduce the extraordinary inference that James ruled over the brethren in the holy city ! Paul tells us that after his conversion, and when he returned from Arabia, he " went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and ^ 1 Cor. xvi. 3. ^ Acts viii. 14. ^ Acts xvii. 10. ■• Acts xii. 17. 146 PRELACY. abode with hita fifteen days." ^ We might, with far greater l)lausibility, argue from this passage that Peter must have been bishop of the Jewish metropolis ; and yet, if no one has ever been so foolish as to claim for him such a place on the ground that Paul towards the beginning of his ministry once w^ent to Jerusalem to visit him, and spent more than a fort- night izi his company, it is surely still more puerile to contend that James must have been of episcopal rank, because Peter, when released from prison, took steps to transmit to him the joyful intelligence. The obvious explanation is that these two brethren were Church leaders, bound to each other by ties of strong attachment ; and that, when Peter regained his freedom, he was anxious to convey to his bosom friend the earliest news of his liberation. It has been urged, as another proof of the episcopate of James, that he presided at the Council of Jerusalem mentioned in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts. As evidence in support of this, they allege that he spoke last on the occasion, and that he wound up the proceedings by the deliverance : " My sentence is, that we trouble not them w^hich from among the Gentiles are turned to God." ^ It is truly wonderful to find grave and learned men building an argument on such a shadowy foundation. Eoman Catholic writers confidently tell us that Peter must have been the prince of the apostles, because he spoke ^first in this self-same council ; but Protestant Episcopalians, irom the same premises, draw a directly opposite inference. In this case the reasoning of the Romanists may to some appear more plausible, inasmuch as it is more in character for the chairman to give an address at the opening of a meeting assembled for deliberation than to pronounce a dogmatic verdict at its close. But a careful examination of the whole passage may convince us that it has been misrepresented by both parties. It does not appear that Peter spoke first, as we are expressly told that he did not address the assembly until after " there had been much disputing." ^ The evidence that James spoke last is equally unsatisfactory. It would seem that when he had closed his observations, he was followed up by others, as it is stated that the feeling of the meeting soon appeared to be in favour of the course which he advocated. 1 Gal. i. 18. ^ Acts xv. 19. " Acts xv. 7. PRELACY AS DISTINGUISHED FROM POPERY. 147 " Then," says Luke, " pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole Church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas." ^ The argument based on a word employed by James on this occasion, when carefully investigated, only reveals the weak- ness of the cause on behalf of which it is introduced. The speaker says, A to ijcb KpLi/co, translated in our Authorized Version, " Wherefore mi/ sentence is." ^ This is one of the instances in which the prelatic leanings of our English inter- preters very palpably appear ; for the Greek simply means, " Wherefore / judge" that is, " it is my decided opinion." ^ The whole context shows that James cannot be here giving any episcopal decision. The interpretation of this passage by high churchmen, if fairly carried out to its legitimate conse- quences, would go to prove far more than they intend ; it would lead to the conclusion that James was, not the first bishop of Jerusalem, but that he was the first pope, and that Paul and Peter and all the rest of their brethren were bound by his authoritative " sentence." The company of the apostles, or at least a considerable number of them, were present at this meeting in the Jewish capital ; and yet, according to the argument here urged, James presided ; and, after hearing what the others had to say, put an end to the discussion by declaring his will and pleasure in the matter. Another argument in support of the prelacy of James, drawn from another passage in the Acts of the Apostles, is quite as visionary as any we have yet mentioned. It is stated in the twenty-first chapter of the Aets, that when at a later date Paul and certain fellow-disciples reached Jerusalem, the brethren received them gladly. The sacred writer adds : " And the day following Paul went in with us unto James, and all the elders were present; "* or, as it might be rendered, "all the elders arrived." Inasmuch as the elders are here described as meeting Paul at the residence of James, it has been asserted that he must have been bishop of Jerusalem ! ^ Acts XV. 22. 2 Acts xv. 19. ^ We read in our Revised Version, " Wherefore my judgment is." Compare in the original Luke vii. 43, where it is used as eq^uivalent to l-re 0X0.^^,0.^^1, I suppose. * Acts xxi. 17, 18. 148 PRELACY. It is difficult to know how to deal with an argument so thoroughly impotent. James himself may have just returned from some missionary tour, and these elders may have waited on him to learn his success ; or, as he was unquestionably a man much respected for his practical wisdom, they may have been consulting him respecting the general interests of the Church ; or he may have had a roomy apartment in his lodgings where they were wont to assemble for religious exercises ; or they may have been desirous to take the earliest opportunity of hearing what he had to say respecting the proceedings of the great apostle of the (J entiles. l>ut to insist that he must have been a bishop because, on this occasion, the elders went to him for conference, is superlatively preposterous. We presume, indeed, that prelatists never would have thought of producing such frivolous evidence, had it not been that, among a number of silly legends relating to him whicli have come down to our times, there is a tradition that he ruled over the Church of the Jewish capital. It will subsequently appear that this tradition rests on a very llimsy foundation ; and that, among a mass of other fables, it crept into credit at a time when ecclesiastical changes had prepared the public mind for accepting it and giving it currency. But, Ijefore proceeding to sift the proof in support of this tradition, we would ask, If the written revelation of the New Testament does not recognise the episcopal rank of James, what weight should be attached to much later and far less satisfactory testimony ? If diocesan episcopacy is, as many of its advocates allege, a plant of God's right hand planting — if it is an institution of divine appointment — how are we to account for the ])lain fact that the Spirit of God has nowhere placed upon it His imprimatur, and has nowhere said, in so many words, that James vxts the bishop of Jerusalem ? There is often as much meaning in an omission as in a positive declaration ; and if the New Testament maintains a profound silence respecting the supposed dignity of tlie apostle, are we not fairly entitled to conclude that it had no existence ? We read in Scripture of the ordination of deacons, and of the ordination of elders or presbyters ; but we search in vain throughout the sacred record for the consecration of a prelate. James died long before the expiration of the period when the inspired canon PRELACY AS DISTINGUISHED FROM POPERY. 149 was completed ; and his investiture with the prelatic office — had it ever actually happened — came within the range of the transactions noticed in the Acts of the Apostles. But as to any such transaction, the divine record is silent as the grave. What other inference can we deduce from all this, but that his alleged dignity as bishop of Jerusalem is a myth — a cunningly devised fable ? CHAPTER V. THE TRADITION THAT JAMES WAS BISHOP OF JERUSALEM. In the preceding chapter we have discussed the scriptural evidence on which rests the assumption that James was the iirst bishop of Jerusalem. Though so much stress is laid on this alleged fact by almost all episcopal writers, we have seen that the testimony in its favour is lighter than vanity when examined by honest criticism. No candid reader could ever reach such a conclusion by the careful perusal of the New Testament. But it is maintained that certain obscure hints, to be found here and there in the Acts of the Apostles, are corroborated by early tradition ; and it now remains for us to seek to ascertain the amount of truth contained in this super- added plea for prelacy. Before proceeding to this investigation, it may be well for ns to turn attention for a little to the individual who is said to have been tlie first promoted to the dignity of a prelate in the Christian Church. Historians are by no means agreed as to his identity, — some contending that he was one of the twelve ; and others that he was a younger son of Mary the mother of our Lord ; or, perhaps, the son of Joseph, the husband of Mary, by a former wife.^ It is, however, generally agreed that he is the same who is mentioned by Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians, where he tells us that, after his return from Arabia to Damascus, he " went up to Jerusalem to see Peter," and that " other of the apostles " he then saw none, " save James, the Lord's hrother." " This James is here described as an apostle, but it does not follow that he must ^ I tbink it here unnecessary to notice another hypothesis, according to which he was our Lord's cousin. See this question very learnedly and ably discussed by Bishop Lightfoot in his Epistle to the Galatians, pp. 252-272. 2 Gal. i. 18, 19. THE TEADITION THAT JAMES WAS BISHOP OF JERUSALEM. 151 have been one of the twelve ; for, in tlie New Testament and early Cliristian writings, the title is sometimes given to preachers who did not belong to the original apostolic com- pany ; ^ and we may fairly presume that he was not among those whom our Lord, during His ministry on earth, sent forth, two by two, as the heralds of His gospel ; for we are assured that, a short time before His death, " His brethren did not believe in Him." ^ It might have been expected that their scepticism would not have been dissipated by His capture and crucifixion ; but the result was far otherwise. His passion formed apparently a crisis in the spiritual history of the family, as immediately afterwards we find them ranged among His professed disciples. We read that, after His ascension into heaven, the apostles " returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet ; " and that " these all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His 'brethren" ^ There is an ancient tradition that, after rising from the dead, our Saviour appeared to His brother James, and that this manifestation put an end to His infidelity.* There is good reason to believe that henceforth he was noted for his firm faith ; and that he soon acquired great influence among his (Jhristian co-religionists in the holy city by reason of his high charactej', his reputation for wisdom, and his strict observance of the ceremonies of the Jewish ritual. In due time he was admitted to the rank of a presbyter ; and about twenty years after the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, he is represented by Paul as one of the " pillars " of the Church of Jerusalem.* We can well conceive that his relationship to our Lord, associated with exalted piety and singular endow- ments, must, as he advanced in life, have given him a very high position among his brethren ; and it is not wonderfid that romance, in subsequent ages, invested him with fictitious lionours, and exaggerated his importance. Archbishop Potter, in his Discourse of Church Government, 1 See, for instance, Acts xiv. 14 ; 1 Cor. ix. 5, 6 ; Euseb. Ecd. Hist. i. 12. " John vii. 5. ^ Acts i. 12, 14. * Some think there is a reference to tliis manifestation in 1 Cor. xv. 7. See also Lightfoot, Galatian/i, p. 274. = Gal. ii. 9, 152 PRELACY. has endorsed his claim to a number of these apocryphal dis- tinctions. " The catalogues of the bishops of Jerusalem," says he, " which arc extant in tlie first Christian writers, do all place James at the head of them. And the throne, or episcopal chair, wherein he used to teach the people, was still preserved and had in veneration wlien Eusebius wrote his history." And again he says : " It is constantly affirmed, by the ancient fathers, that James was the first bishop of Jerusalem ; and on this account he is distinguished by the title of bishop of bisho2ys, prince of bishops, hishoj:) of the apostles, prince of the apostles, with others not inferior to those commonly given to Peter." ^ We may remark here, at the outset, that the Archbishop of Canterbury makes rather too sweeping an assertion when he states that the catalogues of the bishops of Jerusalem are "extant in the first Christian writers." No such catalogues, even pretending to an earlier date than the third century, can be produced. Hegesippus, who wrote probably upwards of a century after the death of James, does not corroborate the testimony of the English primate. His statement corresponds with the account given by Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians as to the position of our Lord's brother in the mother Church of Christendom. " James the brother of our Lord," says Hegesippus, " who, as there were many of this name, was, from the days of our Lord until now surnamed the Just by all, received the govern- ment of the Church along ivith the apostles." ^ These words obviously imply, not certainly that James was the sole bishop of the Church of Jerusalem, but that he was associated with others in its supervision. Hegesippus, indeed, subsequently informs ns that James was succeeded in his office by a relative named Symeon ; but the passage just quoted from him indicates that the office was not a prelatic, but a collegiate charge. Though Archbishop Potter has made the announcement — ^just now quoted from his Discourse — apparently without any reserve, he could scarcely have expected intelligent readers to believe that our Lord's brother was known in his own time as " bishop of bishops," " bishop of the apostles," and " prince of the apostles." Such epithets ^ Dibcourse of Church Government, p. 58. ' Euseb. ii. 2-3, filTx ru^ aTs^'ro'Xai. THE TRADITION THAT JAMES WAS BISHOP OF JERUSALEM. 153 proclaim a state of things not to be found in the days of primitive Christianity, and such phraseology was not even invented until long afterwards. Whilst Hegesippus has given a correct representation of the position of James in relation to the Church of Jerusalem, he has reported other traditions respecting him, which are quite unreliable. " He was," says Hegesippus, " consecrated from his mother's womb. He drank no wine, nor strong- drink, neither did he eat flesh. A razor never came upon his head, he never anointed with oil, and never used a bath. He alone was allowed to enter into the holy place. He wore no wool, but only fine linen. He was in the habit of entering the temple alone, and was often found upon his bended knees, and interceding for the forgiveness of the people, so that his knees became as hard as camel's in consequence of being ever upon them worshipping God, and asking forgiveness for the people." ^ Some of these statements are so transparently absurd that they forfeit all claim to credit. " There is much in this account," says Bishop Lightfoot, "which cannot be true : the assigning to him a privilege which was confined to the high priest alone, whilst it is entangled with the rest of the narrative, is plainly false, and can only have been started when a new generation had grown up which knew nothing of the temple services." ^ About this period the Ebionites — a sect of religionists who insisted on the continued obligation of the Mosaic law — were attracting considerable notice. They v/ere aware that James to the last had persevered in the observance of the Jewish ceremonies ; and they sought to enhance the reputation of their party by claiming him as their patron, and by circulating tales concerning him calculated, as they thought, to surround him with a halo of sanctity. In the Clementine Homilies, a species of religious novel, supposed to have been of Ebionitish origin, and probably written about the beginning of the third century, James is accordingly styled " bishop of bishops," who rules Jerusalem,^ and " lord and bishop of the Holy Church." In the Clementine Becognitions — a work of like character — and written, it may be, some- what later, he is similarly distinguished, being described as 1 Euseb. ii. 23. - Galatians, p. 366. ^ Epistles of Clement to James, and Peter to James. 154 PKELACY. James " the arclibishop," and " the chief of the bishops." ^ It is well known that in the early part of the third century such titles were not recognised in what was then called the catholic Church ; but it would seem that these Clementine productions — though admittedly works of imagination — found favour in some Christian circles, and, it may be, prepared the way for the advancement of those pretensions which were soon afterwards so confidently and so successfully asserted. Aware that Paul was quite unfavourable to their views, the Ebionites rejected all his epistles ; but regarding Peter, the apostle of the circumcision, as on their side, they bestowed on him distinctions almost as great as those that were subse- (piently claimed for the sovereign pontiff. Clement had long been honoured by the Church of Eome, as he was one of its ruling spirits towards the latter part of the first century ; and the authors of these works of fiction craftily made a bid for popularity by affixing his name to their publications, liy supporting the hierarchical aspirations then beginning to be put forward with increasing boldness, the Clementines dis- armed the hostility of an influential party in the Church, who winked at their errors and fabrications, and took an interest in their circulation. It is a curious fact that, in these spurious writings, we read, for the first time, of James as the bishop of Jerusalem, and of Peter as the rock on which rests tlie catholic Church. Soon after the appearance of the Clementine Homilies, another work, which makes mention of James, was produced. It is said to have been written by Clement of Alexandria, and is known as his Ilypoty poses or Institutions. It is no longer extant ; but the references made to it by ancient authors may well suggest tlie inference that the cause of sacred literature has sustained no great loss by its disappearance. Photius, the learned patriarch of Alexandria, who flourished in the nintli century, and who was a man of vigorous intellect, had read this production ; and he has left behind him an extraordinary description of its contents. " The Hypotyposes," says he, " are written on some passages of the Old and New Testa- ment, M'hich he (Clement) explains and interprets briefly ; but though he has in several places very orthodox and true 1 Book 1. 73, %i. THE TRADITION THAT JAMES WAS BISHOP OF JERUSALEM. 155 notions, yet in others he has some that are very erroneous and fabulous ; for he says that matter is eternal, ... he fancies Eve to be produced from Adam after an infamous manner, and different from that which is set down in Scripture, . . . he thinks that the Word was not really and truly incarnate, but only in appearance ; he feigns two Words of God — the one superior, and the other inferior — this last was that which appeared to man ; he adds that this word is not of the same nature with the Word of God — that it was not the Word of the Father that was incarnate, but a certain virtue and power of God proceeding from the Word which, being a spirit, entered into the souls of men. ... In a word, these eight books are full of such sort of errors and blasphemies." ^ It is not very clear that Clement of Alexandria wrote the Hypotyposes ; for though Eusebius ascribes it to him, the opinion of this historian cannot be received with implicit con- fidence, inasmuch as he has committed a number of glaring mistakes in relation to matters of literary authorship. A statement concerning James, which he quotes from it, is quite in accordance witli the character of the work supplied by Photius. It is as follows : " Peter, and James, and John, after the ascension of our Saviour, though they had been pre- ferred by our Lord, did not contend for the honour, but chose James the Just as bishop of Jerusalem." ^ This, it may be said, is the first account of the episcopal dignity of James, furnished by an author who was not himself confessedly a writer of fiction. It is totally unsupported by what we find in the New Testament, where, as we have seen, James is set forth as one of the pillars or chief men among the brethren of the Church of the holy city ; and where he is represented, not as conferring his episcopal blessing, but as giving " the right hand of fellowship," ^ in company with others, to Paul and Barnabas. The story here reported contains within itself the evidences of its folly. It describes a state of things quite at variance with what we read elsewhere as to the manner of proceeding in the primitive Church. According to it, the ordinary members of the Church of Jerusalem had no voice in the appointment of their spiritual overseer. The general body of the disciples were permitted to vote when ^ Dupin, i. 81. ' Eiiseb. ii. 1. ^ Gal. ii. 9. 156 PRELACY. a successor to Judas was selected. The twelve did not venture, on their own authority, to nominate even the seven deacons, but called together the multitude, and appealed to their suti'rages. For ages after apostolic times, Church officers were always chosen by popular election. But if we are to credit the Hypotyposes, Peter, James, and John, overlook- iug not only the people, but also all the rest of the apostles, appropriated exclusively to themselves the right of setting up a bishop of Jerusalem ! Such an assumption of power on their part would have been utterly unwarrantable ; and the statement here attributed to Clement describes a course of action so directly opposed to the spirit in which the founders of the Christian Church are known to have proceeded, and to the way in which such matters were then managed, that it must at once be discarded. Nor are these the only difficulties which forbid the admis- sion of this testimony, Jerome, the most learned of the fathers, and othei-s, assure us that the Church was originally governed by " the common council of the presbyters ; " and that, until it began to be distracted by sectarianism, episco- pacy was unknown. Bishops were then set up, in the hope that they would be centres of unity, and that they would heal ecclesiastical divisions. But, according to this witness, James was appointed to the episcopal dignity at a time when no schism had yet occurred in the mother Church. " After the ascension of our Saviour," when, according to the Hypoty- poses, he was made bishop, we know, on the highest authority, that " the multitude of them which believed were of one heart and of one soul." ^ There was thus no apology for the intro- duction of any arrangement for the repression of schism. If, as there is every reason to believe, the account of the rise of episcopacy by Jerome is true, the story told in the Hypotyposes as to the episcopate of James must be apocryphal. The chair on which James is reported to have sat when bishop of Jerusalem, and to which Dr. Potter gravely refers as a memorial of his presidential dignity, furnishes rather a dubious testimony in support of his episcopal claims. It does not appear that churchmen, in the first century, sat on chairs different from those of other men ; and after the lapse of two ^ Acts iv. 32. THE TKADITION THAT JAMES WAS BISHOP OF JERUSALEM. 157 hundred and fifty years, it must therefore have been some- what difficult to identify this particular piece of furniture. Nor is it easy meanwhile to account for its preservation. James died before the commencement of the siege of the holy city ; ^ and immediately after it was threatened with invest- ment, the Christians fled from it precipitately. Our Lord had said to them : " When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." ' " And let him that is on the house-top not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take anything out of his house." ^ We may presume that the disciples, when seeking to escape from the siege, complied with this advice, and did not stop to take along with them their household plenishing. The siege was of long continuance ; the sufferings of the people were un- paralleled ; and, in the end, the whole buildings of Jerusalem were reduced to a mass of smoking ruins. The chairs and tables of James — if he ever had such property — must have been buried and lost beneath heaps of rubbish. But, in the early part of the fourth century, numberless relics of such times strangely reappeared, and were sold at high prices. Helena, the mother of the Emperor Constantine, who then visited the place, sought for them diligently, and as she paid handsomely for their acquisition, she was abundantly sup- plied with them. If the episcopal chair of James was among the antiquities presented to her, we may be certain she would have been most anxious to secure it for the See of Jerusalem ; but assuredly it would require some better voucher than this relic — so much prized by Archbishop Potter — to prove that our Lord's brother was the bishop of the mother Church. Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, speaks again and again of James as the bishop of Jerusalem ; but his state- ments are so loose and contradictory as to be absolutely worthless. In one place he tells us that " the episcopal seat there was committed to James hy the apostles ; " * in another, he states that he received the episcopal dignity "from our Saviour Himself and the apostles ; " * in another, he quotes the ' According to our best authorities, his martyrdom took place in a.d. 62 — that is, no less than eight years before the destruction of Jerusalem. See Burton's Lectures, i. 287, Oxford 1833. 2 Luke xxi. 20. ^ Mark xiii. 15. * Euseb. ii. 23. ^ vii. 19. 158 PRELACY. Hypotyposes to testify that Peter, James (we may presume the sou of Alpha3us), and John chose him bishop ; ' and in another still, he produces Hegesippus to prove that he was not properly a bishop at all, but that he governed the Church " along with the apostles." ^ Eusebius had a theory to support — the doctrine of the apostolical succession ; and, like many writers who endeavour to employ history in confirmation of a favourite but foolish dogma, he is obliged to introduce mere legends which apparently sustain his views, and thus involves himself in much inconsistency. In opposition to the plain teaching of the New Testament, he assumes that diocesan episcopacy commenced with the institution of the Christian Church ; and in consequence he is obliged to give the name of bishops to many who in their own times made no preten- sions to prelatic authority. Bishop Lightfoot is obviously most unwilling to accuse him of wilful misrepresentation ; and yet he virtually admits the charge when he says that he has " unintentionally paraphrased and interpreted " the language of a former age " by the light of later ecclesiastical usages." ^ The greater part of the New Testament was written when James is supposed to have occupied the epis- copal chair in the Jewish metropolis ; and though in after times he is set forth as at the very head of a new system of Church government, no allusion whatever is made to this alleged fact in the book of inspiration. In the sacred oracles he is repeatedly named ; and yet his name is never associ- ated with any such distinction. We have in the New Testa- ment an Epistle to the Hehreivs ; and yet the writer ignores their distinguished diocesan ! He exhorts them to remember and " obey them (not him) that had the rule over them " * — obviously indicating that they were under the care, not of a solitary bishop, but of a plurality of office-bearers. James himself writes an epistle to the twelve tribes scattered abroad ; and even he makes no reference whatever to his position as bishop of Jerusalem. And yet the prelacy of James is one of the few grand foundations which bear the weight of the episcopal system. The whole edifice rests not on a basis to be found in Scripture, but on the shifting sands of a vacillating and spurious tradition. ^ Euseb. ii. 1. ^ •^[^ 23. * Philippians, p. 217. ^ Heb. xiii. 7, 17. CHAPTER YI. THE TWELVE AND THE SEVENTY: TIMOTHY AND TITUS. The system of diocesan episcopacy lias long maintained its ascendency throughout the greater part of Christendom ; and many arguments, exhibiting much ingenuity, have been adduced in its vindication. Among these, that derived from the appointment, first of the Twelve, and afterwards of the Seventy, has been urged with no little confidence. The Twelve, we are told, were prelates ; and the Seventy were presbyters. Archbishop Potter has endeavoured to point out a number of circumstances by which they were respectively distinguished. " The Seventy," says he, " were only sent before our Lord's face into the cities and places whither He Himself would come, to prepare the people for His reception ; whereas the apostles' commission was in general to preach to all the Jews. . . . The inauguration of the Seventy to their office was not so solemn as that of the Twelve, before which our Lord not only commanded His disciples to pray to God to send labourers into His harvest, but continued a whole night in prayer by Himself. . . . The Twelve were distinguished from the rest by the name of apostles, whereas the Seventy were only called by the general name of disciples." ^ It must be apparent to any one who attentively weighs these statements, that they are merely unsupported assertions. Even the allegation that the Twelve were called apostles, and the Seventy disciples, is without any scriptural warrant. In point of fact, the name disciples is not given to the Seventy in the narrative of their appointment, whilst it is repeatedly bestowed upon the Twelve? Neither can it be proved that the inauguration of the Seventy, when they entered on their office, ^ Discourse of Church Government, pp. 27, 23. 2 See Matt. x. 1, xi. 1. ]59 1 G PRELACY. was " not so solemn " as that of tlie Twelve ; for we have no means of instituting a comparison. Before the appointment of the Twelve, our Lord spent a whole night in prayer ; but we have no evidence that He did not do the same when He nominated the Seventy. Dr. Potter intimates that the com- mission of the Seventy was more limited tlian that of the Twelve, inasmuch as the former were sent before the face of our Lord " into every city and place whither He Himself ■would come," whereas the latter were instructed to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The reason here assigned is quite inconclusive ; for the Twelve seem at first to have been confined to a more limited territory than the Seventy. The Twelve were commanded not to go into the way of the Gentiles, and 7iot to enter into any city of the Samaritans ; ^ but our Lord Himself was not so circumscribed in His move- ments. He passed through Samaria ; entered into its cities ; and visited the coasts of Tyre and Sidon ^ — places which were " in the way of the Gentiles." We thus see that the Seventy were permitted to travel over a more ample field. When we consider the actual arrangements of diocesan episcopacy, the comparison of the Twelve to prelates, and of the Seventy to presbyters, must appear rather singular. It is no uncommon thing, at the present day, to find a presbytery of perhaps twelve ministers uniting, like the apostles, in a case of ordination ; but prelates do not usually join together after this fashion ; for a single member of the episcopal order is deemed sufficient for the ordination of a deacon or a pres- byter. A prelate has often some hundreds of presbyters under his spiritual care ; but, according to the theory now under consideration, the number seventy was deemed a fair allowance of presbyters for twelve apostles. Tiiere is not, liowever, a particle of proof that the Twelve had any juris- diction over the Seventy. Both received their commission immediately from Christ ; both were appointed in the same manner ; and both were furnished with much the same in- structions. Both were sent forth two and two; and both were entrusted with the power of working miracles. We cannot point even to a single case in which the Twelve controlled the movements of the Seventy. 1 Matt. X. 5. * Jolm \v. 5, 40 ; Matt, xv, 21. THE TWELVE AND THE SEVENTY : TIMOTHY AND TITUS. 161 We must look in a quite different direction if we would discover a satisfactory reason for the appointment of the Twelve and the Seventy. Many of the acts of our Lord during His public ministry were obviously designed to illus- trate His doctrines : the opening of the eyes of the blind pointed to the change which the soul experiences when it is called out of darkness into God's marvellous light ; the raising of the dead indicated His ability to quicken those who are dead in sin, and to cause tliem to walk in newness of life ; the curing of the lepers betokened the deliverance of His people from that loatlisome spiritual disease under which they all might otherwise have continued to languish : and there is cause to believe that the appointment of the Twelve and the Seventy had also a typical significance. The Twelve repre- sented the twelve tribes of Israel ; the Seventy, the seventy Gentile nations. It would appear that when the Lord separated the sons of Adam after the dispersion of Babel, the descendants of Noah — not reckoning Peleg, the progenitor of the Israelites — were divided into seventy distinct nations.^ In the first instance our Lord addressed Himself to the seed of Abraham ; and He accordingly appointed twelve apostles, corresponding to the number of the tribes : He then appointed " other seventy also," to sliow that He designed to send the heralds of His gospel to all the ends of the earth, and to every kindred, and people, and nation. The Jews formed a comparatively small part of the human family ; the Gentiles were an overwhelming majority. And it is noteworthy that, when our Lord sent forth the Seventy, He adverted pointedly to the immensity of the field of their operations. He said to tliem : " The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few : pray ye tlierefore the Lord of the harvest, that He would send forth labourers into His harvest." ^ Another plea in support of episcopacy — presenting a much greater appearance of plausibility than that derived from the appointment of the Twelve and the Seventy — has been drawn from the cases of Timothy and Titus. It has been urged that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus, and that Titus was bishop of Crete, in the days of the apostles. Archbishop Potter has brought forward this argument as if it were unanswerable ; ^ See my Ancient Church, Period I. sect. i. chap. 3. ^ Luke x. 2» L 162 PRELACY. and has been at pains to exhibit it in its full strength. " There are," says he, *' many examples of men succeeding in the apostolic or chief order (by which he understands the order of prelates) before the canon of Scripture was finished. . . . We have a remarkable example in Timothy, who was bishop, or chief governor, of the Church of Ephesus, planted by St. Paul. The authority which Timothy exercised in this Church was not conferred on him by any agreement or vote of the people, but by the imposition of St. Paul's hands. By virtue of this authority he ruled over the whole Church of Ephesus, officers as well as private Christians, in the same manner as the apostles used to do. . . . The same authority which Timothy had at Ephesus was exercised in the Churches of Crete by Titus — whence the ancient fathers often call him the bishop of Crete. He was ordained and appointed to this office, not by the people's choice, but by St. Paul, who had converted the Cretians to the Christian faith. And by virtue of his appointment he was empowered to teach all degrees of men, and to exhort and rebuke them with authority." ^ Such statements are persistently repeated by wu'iters in defence of diocesan episcopacy ; and yet their folly nnist appear when submitted to the test of a careful scrutiny. If all the evi- dence which can be adduced in their support were laid before any intelligent and impartial jury, no such tribunal would hesitate to decide that it utterly fails to establish the claim, either of Timothy to be bishop of Ephesus or of Titus to be bishop of Crete. Though the authority of the fathers is urged so strenuously, the evidence adduced from them is of the most superficial character. The alleged prelacy of Timothy and Titus is not, in fact, attested by a single father of the first three centuries. Archbishop Ussher, in his Discourse of the Original of Episcopacy," has, indeed, quoted Polycrates, who lived about the end of the second century, as a witness of higher antiquity ; but it is now admitted by the most competent judges that the work to which he refers is a spurious produc- tion, and of a much later date. Eusebius, who flourished in the fourth century, is really the earliest Avriter who can be named who bears testimony on the subject. He acknow- ledges, however, that he often proceeded on very slight ^ Discourse of Church Government, pp. 93, 95. * Works, vol. vii. p. 78. THE TWELVE AND THE SEVENTY: TIMOTHY AND TITUS. 163 grounds when speaking of the transactions of the age of the apostles. " But how many," says he, " and who, actuated by a genuine zeal, were judged suitable to feed the Churches established by the apostles, it is not easy to say, any farther than 'may he gathered from the writings of Paul." ^ We may infer from this that we have ourselves, in the New Testa- ment, all the evidence accessible to the father of Church history. His bare assertion — gathered from vague traditions, or prompted by his own ecclesiastical leanings — is of little consequence. He lived at a period farther removed from the age of Timothy and Titus than we do from the days of Oliver Cromwell ; and had we not the aid of printed books, we would now know almost nothing of that stirring era. Eusebius apparently read the New Testament under the influence of his own strong prejudices in favour of the diocesan system ; he was himself a prominent member of the hierarchy ; and, without any proper warrant, he raslily ventured on the state- ment which has since been so often quoted. His account of the successions of bishops has evidently been made up out of mere guesses or conjectures. If an individual at a certain time was found to have occupied a conspicuous posi- tion in a particular Church, he forthwith set him down as its bishop. Archbishop Potter appeals with much confidence to the fact that, in tlie great Council of Chalcedon, held in A.D. 451, it was openly asserted that the descent from Timothy could be traced up, through twenty-seven bishops of Ephesus, in a continued line of succession. It would seem, indeed, that Leontius, one of the assembled prelates, made such an affirmation ; but the decision of the question of diocesan episcopacy cannot be determined by the random affirmation of an individual of whom we know almost nothing. There are speakers in every meeting, where discussions arise, who make strong assertions ; and the boldness of the declara- tion often only proves the ignorance or the recklessness of the debater. There are persons in our own day who aver, with much assurance, that they can trace their ecclesiastical gene- alogy — not for four hundred^-but for fourteen hundred years, and who will undertake to give the names of the primates of Ireland from Saint Patrick to the present hour; but those ^ Euseb. iii. c. 4. 164 FRELACY. who have looked into such matters more carefully know well tliat there were no archbishops of Armagh until about seven hundred years ago ^ — so that all this boasting touching the Irish episcopal succession merely amounts to what the Americans would call so much theological tall talk. It is very well known that, in this great Council of Chalcedon, there were bishops who could not write their own names ; and it is quite possible that Leontins, who professed his ability to recount the twenty-seven prelates who flourished in Ephesus from Timothy downwards, had, after all, made no extraordinary proficiency in the study of ecclesiastical antiqui- ties. He was ready for a task on which Eusebius, who lived upwards of a century before him, and who was a much more learned man, did not adventure. It is foolish to attempt to build a solid argument in favour of any system of Church government on the bare allegation of an unknown contro- versialist, speaking under the influence of excitement in a somewhat tumultuous council of the fifth century. There were Churchmen of note present in that same Council of Chalcedon who would have declared most potently that Peter was the prince of the apostles, and that he had been bishop of Eome for flve-and-twenty years ; but every one \vho has thoroughly investigated the subject is now fully aware that all such statements are destitute of any solid historical basis. There is something in the very announcement of the argument from the alleged prelacy of Timothy and Titus which ought at once to excite suspicion. Timothy, it is said, was the bishop of Ephesus ; and Titus was the bishop of Crete. Ephesus was a single city ; and Crete a large island — famous, in Homer's time, for its hundred cities. The bishopric of Ephesus — even as it existed long after this date — must have been of comparatively limited compass, and could not have extended far beyond the walls of the place ; for the bishoprics of Magnesia, Miletus, Smyrna, and several others were in its neighbourhood. Ephesus itself was indeed a large city ; but still we may well ask, Why was only one great town allotted to Timothy, whilst the spacious island of Crete was assigned to Titus ? No satisfactory reason can be produced to explain why Timothy was entrusted 1 See my Ecclesiastical HiMory of Ireland, vol. i. pp. 101, 103. THE TWELVE AND THE SEVENTY : TIMOTHY AND TITUS. 165 with the oversight of Ephesus alone, whilst Titus had the charge of a territory in which at that period were to be found no less than from thirty to forty towns designated cities. If, as some are disposed to maintain, diocesan episcopacy was set up by the apostles, we would e.xpect to find something like uniformity in their mode of procedure ; but the state- ment that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus, and that Titus was bishop of Crete, implies a most unequal and capricious distribution of ecclesiastical duty. Were we told that an apostle had appointed one man bishop of a city like Belfast, and that he had ordained another — not more highly gifted — bishop of a whole province like Munster, we would at once pronounce the story fabulous ; for, had we even no historical evidence to the contrary, it would contain within itself in- dubitable marks of falsehood ; and yet the assertion that Paul made Timothy bishop of Ephesus, whilst he constituted Titus bishop of all Crete, is not less extravagant. By the bishop of a See we understand a functionary who is entrusted with its special care, and who is expected to devote his time to its supervision. It was understood, in the ancient Church, that when such an official was set apart to his charge he was appointed to it for life — as there were canons which strictly interdicted removal from one bishopric to another. But every reader who looks into the New Testament, must see that neither Timothy nor Titus occupied any such position. They were not expected by Paul to remain permanently either in Ephesus or Crete. The apostle left Timothy behind him in Ephesus, when he went into Macedonia, that the evangelist might exert himself in opposing certain errorists who were threatening to distract and mislead the brethren ; but it is evident from the whole tenor of the correspondence that Timothy was not to make Ephesus the place of his permanent residence.^ Titus, in like manner, was left behind Paul in Crete, that the energetic young minister might do what he could to complete the ecclesiastical arrangements in the island ; and yet it is plain that the apostle contemplated his early removal to a new field of labour.^ It is therefore absurd to describe these two 1 1 Tim. i. 3, iii. 14, 15 ; 2 Tim. iv. 9, iv. 11, 12-21. - Tit. i. 5, iii. 12, 13. 166 PRELACY. preachers as tlie diocesan bishops of Ephesus and Crete. They were, properly, itinerant missionaries, brought up under the tuition of Paul himself; and as he had full confidence in their doctrinal soundness, their zeal, prudence, and ability, he employed them in organizing and confirming the Churches. But it does not appear that they acted alone. There is every reason to believe that there were others in the places where they ministered to co-operate with them in their work. There were already in Ephesus elders ^ to take heed to the flock ; but Timothy was requested to sojourn among them for a reason — no doubt because it was believed he was better qualified than any of themselves to encounter the heresiarchs in argument. Tlie Church in Crete was still in an infantile condition ; but Zenas, Apollos,^ and perhaps others were already there. By addressing a letter to Titus, and writing as an apostle, Paul evidently designed as well to commend the evangelist to the disciples in that island as to remind " his own son after the common faith " of his personal responsibility. It may perhaps be asked. If the Christians of Ephesus and Crete were governed, not by single persons, but by eccle- siastical judicatories, how comes it that we have letters addressed to the individuals, Timothy and Titus, and not to the courts or presbyteries ruling over these Churches ? This question admits of an obvious and satisfactory solution, Paul had already addressed the elders of Ephesus, and had warned them acjainst comino; dangers. There can therefore be no doubt of the existence of a body of presbyters to whom the supervision of this Church was entrusted. The apostle had said to them before bidding them farewell : " I know that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your oxen selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away dis- ciples after them — therefore watch." ^ His apprehensions had, it seems, been realized ; and teachers of false doctrine had found their way into the Church of Ephesus. The or- ganization of the Ciiristiaus in Crete was still in a somewhat crude condition, and " gainsayers " had appeared there to unsettle the minds of the brethren.^ But meanwhile all the ' Acts XX. 17, 28. ^Tit. iii. 13. ^ Acts xx. '29, 30, 31. ■• Tit. i. 5, 9. THE TWELVE AND THE SEVENTY: TIMOTHY AND TITUS. 167 disciples in Ephesus and Crete recognised Paul himself as an apostle, divinely authorized to preach the gospel, and to lay the foundations of the Church. He therefore gave these letters of credence to Timothy and Titus that his children in the faith in these places might attach due weight to their advice and testimony. The errorists could produce no such testimonials ; for these epistles were evidently designed to be read to those among whom these young ministers sojourned and laboured. It is thus easy to understand why, under the circumstances, they had the letters addressed to them. "We can see, however, in the letters to Timothy and Titus something of far greater importance than the benefits which might result to these two brethren by streugthening their liands during their temporary services in Ephesus and Crete. These epistles were public documents ; as a part of the New Testament canon they were read in the primitive Churches ; and, to this day, they supply the most valuable instructions on the subject of pastoral theology. Every one who per- uses them carefully must see that they are addressed, not to diocesan bishops, but to earnest evangelists. They do not contain a single advice or exhortation which may not be appropriately given to any true minister of Jesus Christ. Timothy is left behind Paul at Ephesus " that he might charge some not to teach " another gospel. Is it not the duty of every sound preacher to do the same ? Did not the apostle exhort all the elders of Ephesus " to watch " and prevent the entrance of error among them ? Paul directed Titus to set in order the things wanting in the Church of Crete. Is not every minister bound to do what he can to complete the arrangements of a Christian community in a state of disorganization ? Paul says to Timothy : " Lay hands suddenly on no man." ^ Is it not needful for every Christian pastor to be mindful of this admonition, and to beware of consenting rashly to place any one in a position of responsibility when doubts exist as to his trustworthiness ? Paul also says to Timothy : " Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses."^ Does it not become every member of a Church court to insist that every judicial proceeding shall be conducted fairly and 1 1 Tim. V. 22. '^ I Tira. v. 19. 163 PUELACY, regularly ? It is incumbent on every pastor to feed the flock ; to take the oversight thereof; to declare all the counsel of God ; to contend earnestly for the faitli once delivered to the saints ; and to do all things decently and in order. Are we to imagine that Timothy and Titus must have been diocesan bishops because they were besouglit by Paul to attend to these duties ? To this day these letters to Timothy and Titus instruct all the pastors of Christ's flock how they should deport them- selves. They address themselves to the individual conscience ; and they teach that, in the government of the Church, each minister should feel his personal responsibility. Had they been designed for the guidance of diocesans, we might have expected them to inculcate the necessity of residence, and to explain so clearly the distinction between bishops and presby- ters that such orders could never, in all time to come, have been confounded. But their tone is altogether different ; for they represent the evangelists as travelling to and fro throughout the empire, and they use the terms elders, or pres- byters, and bishops as interchangeable expressions. Timothy and Titus are here instructed to " preach the word ; " to " speak the things which become sound doctrines ; " to " e.xhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters ; " to " re- prove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine ; " to " do the work of evangelists ; " and to study to show them- selves " approved unto God, rightly dividing the word of truth." ' Tiiese advices all relate to the ordinary engagements of the sacred office. They pertain still to all the heralds of the cross ; and they remind every pastor that he has indi- vidual obligations which he cannot devolve on others. He may be a member of a Synod or a presbytery, but he does not thereby cease to be a servant of Christ ; in every vote he gives, and in every sentiment he utters, he must remember that the eye of the Master is upon him ; he must act, in every case, on his own sense of what is right ; and, according to his ability, he must seek as faithfully to perform his duty to the Church as if he were its only minister. The letters to Timothy and Titus did not cease to be useful when those to whom they were originally written passed away ; for they ' 2 Tim. iv. 2 ; Tit. ii. 1, 9 ; 2 Tira. iv. 2, 5, ii. 15. THE TWELVE AND THE SEVENTY : TIMOTHY AND TITUS. 169 yet remain to tell the ministers of the gospel in every gene- ration how they should behave themselves in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God. Still, because in these epistles Timothy and Titus are com- missioned to perform certain services, and because they are addressed in the singular number, some may be disposed to plead that they must have had peculiar powers. It has been argued that, inasmuch as Paul says to Timothy, " I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus . . . that thou mightest charije some that they teach no other doctrine," he recognises the evangelist as having exclusive jurisdiction ; and in like manner, when he says to Titus, " I left tliee in Crete that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city," he entrusts him with authority to act alone. A reference to cases of a parallel description may enable us to see clearly that such reasoning is inconclusive and illogical. In this way it would be easy to prove the supremacy of I'eter. Our Lord said unto him : "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." ^ Wlien He uttered these words all the twelve apostles were present, so that the use of the singular number has much more apparent force than in the cases of Timothy and Titus. But no intelligent student of Scripture can believe that Peter alone had the keys of the kingdom of heaven. We can demonstrate, by a reference to other passages of the New Testament, that he shared the government of the Church with the rest of the apostles. He is addressed here in the singular number simply because he had replied so pertinently to a question proposed to him, and because he was the individual with whom our Lord, at the time, was engaged in conversation. And thus, too, when Paul directs Titus to ordain, or establish, elders in every city of Crete, we are not to think that no one else was to be per- mitted to have any share in the transaction. The people were not to be deprived of their right of election ; for it is plain, from the apostle's words elsewhere,^ that both bishops and deacons were to be proved by the test of their approbation. We may infer from this very epistle that, when Paul wrote to him, Apollos also was in Crete ^ — it is highly probable that there were other ministers in the island ; and as " the laying 1 Matt. xvi. 19. 2 1 Tim. iii. 10. ' Tit. iii. 1-3. IVO PRELACY. on of the hands of the presbytery " ' was the usual mode of ordination, we have no reason to believe that the evangelist would not conform to the established arrangement. He was left in Crete, not that he might act alone, or depart from the usual order of the Church, but that he might address himself to the perfecting of its existing organization. And though Timothy was besought to stay at Ephesus that he might charge some to teach no other doctrine, it is futile to allege that he alone could interfere to arrest the progress of error. The apostle himself declares that every elder should be " able by sound doctrine to exhort and convince " those who " teach things which they ought not ; " " so that Timothy, in so doing, only exercised the functions of an ordinary minister. We know, too, that there was a body of elders at Ephesus whom Paul had warned to watch against " men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." ^ When, therefore, the apostle says to Timothy, " The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to fiuthful men, who shall be able to teach others also,"* it by no means follows that Timothy alone had the charge of train- ing all the future ministers of the Church. On the same grounds we might argue, from the exhortation, " give attend- ance to reading," ^ or " charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high-minded,"^ that Timothy alone was entitled to give attendance to reading, or to address a word of admonition to the wealthy. It can scarcely be necessary to remind the intelligent reader that the postscripts of the epistles to Timothy and Titus are not parts of the original documents, so that they supply no evidence in support of the prelatic position of those to whom they are addressed. At the end of the second letter written to him, Timothy is styled, in our Authorized Version, " the first bishop of the Church of the Ephesians ; " and Titus, in the same way, is designated " the first bishop of the Church of the Cretians." No writer at the present day will contend for the genuineness of these appendages. " The subscriptions annexed to the epistles," says Home in his Introduction to the Critical Sfudy and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, " are mani- ' 1 Tim. iv. 14. * Tit. i. 9, 11. =* Acts xx. 30, 31. * 2 Tim. ii. 2. =• 1 Tim. iv. 13. *! 1 Tim. vi. 17. THE TWELVE AND THE SEVENTY : TIMOTHY AND TITUS. IVI festly spurious. . . . The subscription annexed to the First Epistle to Timothy is evidently the production of a writer of the age of Constantine the Great, and could not have been written by the Apostle Paul, for it states that epistle to have been written to Timothy from Laodicea, the chief city of Phrygia Pacatiana, whereas the country of Phrygia was not divided into the two provinces of Vhrygia Prima, or Pacatiana, and Phrygia Secunda, until the fourth century. According to Dr. Mill, the subscriptions were added by Euthalius, bishop of Sulca in Egypt, about the middle of the fifth century. But, whoever was the author of the subscriptions, it is evident that he was either grossly ignorant or grossly inattentive." ^ The foundation of the report that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus, and that Titus was bishop of Crete, may be easily explained. At an early period Churches established by the apostles were disposed to challenge peculiar deference ; and at the same time Churches founded by apostolic men, or the com- panions of the apostles, also began to claim credit for their origin. We may thus account for the allegations relative to Timothy and Titus. It is well known that the memorials of the ancient Church are full of such stories ; but it is plain, from the gross contradictions they exhibit, that they are totally untrustworthy. Thus, according to Theodoret, Epaphroditus was bishop of Philippi, whilst, according to others, he was bishop of Adriacum.'"^ Some allege that Epaphras was the first bishop of Colossfe, whilst others tell us Philemon occupied that position."'' " When," says Dr. Burton, Eegius Professor of Divinity in Oxford, " we read in ancient martyrologies that Publius was made bishop of Malta, and afterwards succeeded Dionysius, the Areopagite, in the bishopric of Atliens, we are perhaps (!) to remember what I have already stated more than once, that these lists of early l)ishops are sometimes (!) deserv- ing of no credit." ■* Dr. Burton might here have safely expressed himself with greater boldness and decision. " It is a suspicious circumstance," says the same writer elsewhere, " that several persons who are mentioned in the New Testa- ment are said to have been bishops of the places connected 1 Home, vol. ii. p. 174, London 1828. ^ Burton's Led. on Ecc. Hint. i. p. 273. 3 ]^id i p, 272. " Ibid. i. p. 261. 172 PRELACY. with their names. Thus Conieliu.s is said to have heeii bishop of Ctesarea, and to have succeeded Zacchoeus, though it is liighly improbable that either of them filled such an ofTice." ' By some ancient writers the Apostle John is spoken of as bishop of Ephesus/ so that tradition contradicts itself by making Timothy and the beloved disciple occupants, at the same time, of the same See. John wrote a letter to the angel of the Church of Ephesus, and, according to tradition, resided there in his old age; whilst Timothy is said, in one of the epistles addressed to him, to have been left behind Paul in that city ; and as the place has thus been connected witli their names, it began at length to be considered as the theatre of their episcopal government. We have now examined all tiie arguments of any note advanced to prove that Timothy and Titus were bishops respectively of Ephesus and Crete. It must, we think, be plain that they are all susceptible of a satisfactory refutation ; and that, though put forward with much assurance, tliey are, when closely examined, extremely superficial. It might, in fact, be urged, with quite as much plausibility, that Tychicus was bishop of Ephesus, fur that minister happens to be men- tioned more than once in the New Testament in connection with the Ephesian Church.'' The evidence of Scripture is sufficient to convince any candid mind that Timothy is not there recognised as its diocesan. To the considerations already adduced, we may add that when Paul took his final farewell of the elders of that city, as recorded in the twentieth chapter of the Acts, he did not throw out the most distant hint that they were under prelatic supervision. When about to part with them for the last time, he does not state that he com- mitted them to any such guardianship. He tells them — not to obey their bishop — but to " take heed unto themselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers " (or bishops).* At a still later period, when Paul wrote to the Ephesians during his imprisonment at Eome, he makes no allusion to any episcopal dignitary by whonx they were governed. Had Timothy been tlien their bishop, he would assuredly have at least mentioned his name, or taken ^ Led. on Ecc. Hist, of the First Three Centuries, i. p. 182. * Ihid. i. p. 361. » Epli. vi. 21 ; 2 Tim. ir. 12 * Acts xx. 28. THE TWELVE AND THE SEVENTY: TIMOTHY AND TITUS, 1 73 some notice of an individual in whom he had sucli a deep personal interest. The evidence against the claims of Timothy and Titus, as bishops of Ephesus and Crete, is so direct and conclusive, that some of the most learned of the ministers of the Church of England — including the best of its most recent commentators — do not scruple to acknowledge that the epistles addressed to these two evangelists cannot be produced as vouchers for diocesan episcopacy. " In them," says Dean Alford, ''there is not the slightest trace of episcojMl government in the later sense." ^ The same writer admits that when Peter addressed tlie brethren scattered throughout Pontus, Calatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, they were under presbyterial regimen. " Erora the epistle itself," says he, " we gather that in external form and government (these Christian congregations) were much in the same state as when St. Paul exhorted the Ephesian elders at Miletus. . . . Here, as there, the elders are exhorted to tend the Church or flock of God ; arid no other officers in either place appear." ^ 1 Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iii. Proleg. p. 77. "Ibid. vol. iv. Pi-oleg. pp. 125, 126. CHAPTER VII. THE ALLEGED SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS FROM APOSTOLIC TIMES. The advocates of diocesan episcopacy have often en- deavoured to support its claims by appealing to what they call the succession of bishops in the different Churches. They tell us that there are extant catalogues of the individuals who have presided since the days of the apostles in several places ; and thus that their system can be traced directly to the very lirst age of Christianity. " If," says Archbishop Potter, " we descend from the Scriptures to the most early records of the next ages, we shall find that the succession of bishops was preserved in all Churches whereof we have any account." ^ Irenseus " makes the succession of bishops an argument against the heretics who crept into the Church in that age, and propounds it as the surest way to orthodoxy in the Christian faith to follow those who descended in a direct line from the apostles. ... He then adds, that because it would be endless to enumerate the successions of bishops in all the Churches, he would instance that of Rome, in which he tells us Linus was ordained the first bishop by St. Peter and St. Paul ; the next was Anacletus, after him Clemens, and so on to Eleutherius, who was the twelfth from the apostles, and iilled the episcopal chair when Irenoeus wrote this treatise. So that in this age there were bishops, or single men, who acted with apostolic authority, and succeeded in a direct line from the apostles, not only at Rome, but in all Churches throughout the world." ^ These statements, as well as others put forward very confidently by Archbishop Potter, are found wanting when weighed in the balance of a searching criticism. Ii-enaeus is in some respects a well-informed author ; but it so happens ^ Diiicourse of Church Govtrnmenf, p. 103. ^ Ibid. p. 108. 17^ ALLEGED SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS FROM APOSTOLIC TIMES. l75 that, when dealing with Christian history, he is often singularly inaccurate. He tells us, for example, that the Church of Rome was founded and organized by Peter and Paul,^ though we have the clearest evidence of the existence of a society of Christian worshippers in the imperial city long before it was visited by the apostle of the Gentiles ; 2 and though we know that, if Peter was ever there, he must have arrived in it very shortly before his martyrdom.^ In a matter of still deeper interest touching the personal career of the Founder of our religion, Irengeus blunders egregiously ; for. he contends that our Lord lived to old age, and that His ministry on earth could have been of little less than twenty years' duration.* When he is speaking of the early office- bearers of the Church of Rome, his language must be received with caution. He flourished at a time when the germs of prelacy were being introduced in some quarters, and when a new ecclesiastical nomenclature was making its appearance. The new system was inaugurated in the Western capital ; ^ and Irenseus, who was under special obligations to the Roman bishop, was well disposed to recommend the new polity for general adoption. He is, accordingly, among the very first of the fathers who gives the distinctive name of bishop to the president of the eldership. When referring to the early Church teachers of Rome, he employs this new terminology ; and he thus leaves an erroneous impression on the minds of his readers, — as he does not indicate that meanwhile their ecclesiastical status had been considerably altered. If, however, we compare his various statements together, we may perceive that they afford no support to the claims of diocesan episcopacy. The work in which these statements are to be found was written with a view to arrest the progress of the heretics, who were then swarming in almost all the great cities of the empire, and doing immense injury to the Christian cause. They declared that the doctrines which they taught had been handed down to them from the days of the apostles ; and Irenseus deemed it necessary to meet them on their own grounds, and to vanquish • Contra Hcereses, Book III. chap. iii. sect. 2. - See Piom. i. 7, 8, 11, 13. ^ See before, Part II. chap. i. '' Contra Hcereses, II. chap, xxii, sects. 5, 6. ^ See my Ancient Church, p. 302. 176 PKELACY. them witli their own weapons. He set up tlie traditions of the Church against the traditions of the errorists ; and, to clinch liis arguments, he ventured to enumerate a line of bishops in Kome who, from the days of Paul and I'eter to his own times, had transmitted from one to another the orthodox theology. He seems, however, to have been guided by very imperfect information ; and as the Church was meanwhile governed by the common council of the presbyters — the same individual, it may be, occupying the presidential chair once and again — he has failed to make out a list which has secured general acceptance. Tertullian, who was nearly his con- temporary, and who, because of a much longer residence in the place, should have been much better acquainted with its traditions, differs from him as to the very first item of his enumeration.^ In the Church of Eome — when we consider its more conspicuous position and its superior consequence — the succession should be much more easily traced than elsewhere ; and yet the reports relating to it are so conflicting that it presents a labyrinth of confusion through which the most dexterous explorer must find it impossible to thread his way. " No point of ecclesiastical history," says Dr. Burton, " is involved in so much perplexity and contradiction as the succession of the early bishops of Eome." ^ The reason of this is, that there is no Church respecting which we have such minute details from so many different quarters. Some seem to have reckoned the succession through one line of presbyters, and some through another ; and thus they were led inevitably to various conclusions. Those through whom Irena?us traces the succession are by himself designated, sometimes bishops, and sometimes presbyters ; and there is no evidence that there was, properly speaking, one prelate among them all. His language points in the very opposite direction. Thus, whilst in one place he tells us that he is "in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and to demonstrate the successions of these men " to his own time,' he refers us in a preceding passage to " that tradition which originates from the apostles, and which is preserved by means of the ^ Prescription against Heretics, chap, xxxii. ^ Lert. on Ecc. Hist. i. p. 276. ^ Contra Hcereses, III. chap. iii. sect. 1. ALLEGED SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS FiiOM APOSTOLIC TIMES, 177 successions of presbyters in the Churches;" ^ and again he tells us that it behoves us " to adhere to those who hold the doctrine of the apostles, and who, together vnth the order of the jprcshytery, display sound speech and blameless conduct." ^ It is rather amusing to find Archbishop Potter producing such men as specimens of diocesan bishops, and as evidences that three orders of clergy have existed since the days of the apostles. We have, indeed, direct proof that the early Church of Eome was governed — like other primitive Christian societies — not by prelates, but by presbyters. The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians throws much light on its constitution. The letter was written towards the close of the first century — or about thirty years after the death of the Apostle Peter ; and it appears from it that the Church of Corinth, to which it is addressed, was then under presbyterial government. This fact is freely admitted even by episcopal divines of the highest reputation. In the venerable document to which we refer, the Corinthian disciples, who had been split up into factions, are exhorted to submit to the rule of their presbyters, that "good order" might be "re-established" among them.^ Throughout the whole of the epistle there is no recognition in any form of episcopal authority. Though Clement, says Dr. Lightfoot, the learned bishop of Durham, " has occasion to speak of the ministry as an institution of the apostles, he mentions only two orders, and is silent about the episcopal office. Moreover, he still uses the word bishop in the older sense in which it occurs in the apostolic writings, as a synonym for presbyter." ■* May we not most legitimately infer that, at the very close of the first century, the Church of Eome was still imder the government of presbyters ? Had there been then a bishop in the imperial city, would not Clement have dwelt on the superiority of its ecclesiastical system, and would he not have recommended it to the adoption of the distracted Corinthians ? Would he not have urged its introduction as an effectual antidote against schism ? But throughout this long communication such a proposal is never mooted. The letter assumes that government by presbyters ^ Contra Hcereses, III. chap. ii. sect. 2. ^ Ihid. IV. chap. xxvi. sect. 4. 2 Sect. 59. * Philippians, p. 218. M 178 PRKLACY. is the " established order " of tlie Cliurch ; and it knows no other remedy for the restoration of peace than a dutiful submission to the existing eldership. Nor is this all. The author of the work known as the Shepherd of Hermas, writing, as it would appear, some forty or fifty years after the time of Clement, represents the Church of Home as even then still mider the care of the presbytery. He makes no mention of a prelate, but speaks again and again of the " rulers " of the Church, and of " the elders who preside " over it.^ We can scarcely inmgine that Irenicus was ignorant of these facts ; and it is pretty clear that he took upon himself to give the name of bishops to certain officials who were known, in their own times, by no such distinctive designation. It is also significant that he returns occasionally to the primitive phraseology, and speaks of the early pastors of liome, not as bishops, bnt as presbyters. Thus, in his celebrated letter to Victor, who presided in his time over the Church of the Italian metropolis, and who had acted most dictatorially in relation to the Paschal controversy, he em- ploys the following marked expression : " TJlosc presbyters who . . . governed the Church over ivhich ijou now preside . . . neither did themselves o'oserve, nor did they permit others after them to observe " your arrangement. " But those very lyresbytcrs before you, who did not observe it, sent the Eucharist to those of Churches who did." ^ Here Irenaius repeatedly applies the term presbyter to the bishops of Eome — ap- parently to remind the haughty Victor of his true ecclesias- tical position. No one — certainly no bishop of tlie Koman Catholic Church — would noio think of addressing the occupant of the so-called chair of St. Peter in such language. Were any papal prelate to attempt it, he might expect to be forth- with denounced for his intolerable insolence, and visited with the heaviest inflictions of pontifical displeasure. The language of Irenaeus proves that though in his generation the term bishop was already beginning to be appropriated to the presiding iireshjter, the two names were still, in certain circumstances, interchangeable. A bishop and a presbyter were meanwhile considered as of the same order. There is 1 Vision II. sects. 2. 3. - Euseb. v. 24. ALLEGED SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS FEOM APOSTOLIC TIMES. 179 every reason to believe that the bishop of Rome himself was now ordained, or set apart to his office, by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.^ We cannot therefore appeal to IrenaBUS to prove that bishops, as a separate order, have existed in the Church since the days of the apostles. The succession of bishops in Rome, for at least a hundred years after Paul wrote his epistle to that Church, was in fact at best nothing more than the succession of the moderators of the presbytery. In other Churches prelacy, even in its most modest form, was of far later introduction. Though Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, proposes "to rescue from oblivion" the successions "of the bishops in those Churches which," in his own day, " were accounted the most eminent," ^ he has attempted only in four cases to accomplish this undertaking. Though he has selected the four Churches respecting which he possessed the largest amount of information — that is, the Churches of Rome, Alex- andria, Antioch, and Jerusalem — he has failed in every instance to make out a catalogue above challenge. In the case of the Church of Rome — the best known of them all — he has been signally unsuccessful. It would be easy to show that, in the case of the Church of Antioch, he has made no better progress. The most learned episcopal divines acknowledge that it is vain to attempt to trace a succession of bishops in the Church of the Egyptian metro- polis from the days of the apostles. " The first bishop of Alexandria, of whom any distinct incident is recorded on trustworthy authority, was," says Bishop Lightfoot, " a con- temporary of Origen " ^ — who flourished in the third century. The attempt of Eusebius to make out a succession of bishops in the Church of Jerusalem presents to us a maze of per- plexities. At the very beginning, there is a strange chasm between the death of James, " the Lord's brother," and the destruction of the city. According to the highest authorities, James was martyred in a.d. 62,* and the city was destroyed 1 See my Ancient Church, Period II. sects. 3 and 9. 2 Ecc. Hist. Pref. ^ Philippians, p. 227. * This is the date assigned to it by Cave (see Lives of the Fathers, pp. 166, 167, Oxford 1840), Pearson, Le Clerc, Mill, Lardner, and others. See Lardner's Worhs, vol. vi. p. 184, London 1838. 180 PRELACY. eight years afterwards, or in a.d, 70. According to Eusebius, there was meanwhile no bishop in the mother Church of Christendom. The apostles, Peter and Paul, Philip, John, and probably others, were still alive when James died ; and though the Church was then in a most critical condition, no one seems to have thought of providing immediately another bishop to meet the emergency. " I know," says Dr. Cave, " Eusebius seems to intimate " that the election of a successor to James " was made, not only after St. James' death, but after the destruction of Jerusalem, between which there was the distance of no less than eight or nine years. But . . . it is very unreasonable to suppose that so famous and eminent a Church, a Church newly constituted and planted in the midst of the most bitter and inveterate enemies, should for so long a time be destitute of a guide and pastor." ^ Admitting that a prelate is an essential part of the Church organization, the reasoning of Cave is obviously unanswer- able ; for there never was a time when the disciples were in more need of guidance than at the crisis here indicated ; and the fact that throughout this long interval they had no bishop goes far to prove that they had none at its com- menoement. Had James really occupied the episcopal chair, his place would have been supplied forthwith ; but as now there was no election, it is very clear that there could have been no vacancy. Eusebius, however, takes up the episcopal chain at the close of the siege, and endeavours most awkwardly to account for its continuance. " After the martyrdom of James," says he, "and the eaiitiire of Jerusalem, which immediately followed, the report is that those of the apostles and disciples of our Lord that were yet surviving came toff ether from all jxirts, with those that were related to our Lord according to the flesh. Tliese consulted together to determine whom it was proper to pronounce worthy of being the successor of James. They all unanimously declared Simeon, the son of Cleophas, of whom mention is made in the sacred volume, as worthy of the episcopal seat there." ^ Eusebius does not here profess to have any written authority for this story, and he exhibited no little credulity if he attached any importance to it himself. It possesses 1 Lives of the Fathers, i. 167. - Euseb. iii. 11. ALLEGED SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS FROM APOSTOLIC TIMES. 181 all the internal marks of a silly legend. It has been maintained, on apparently good evidence, that not one Christian perished in the siege of Jerusalem. All the disciples had, a considerable time before, fled from the devoted place. " The whole body of the Church of Jeru- salem," says Eusebius, " having been commanded by a divine revelation given to men of approved piety there before the war, removed from the city, and dwelt at a certain town beyond the Jordan, called Pella." ^ It does not appear that many of them ever returned to it, and the few who did so do not seem to have repaired to it until long after- wards. They had little inducement to make it once more their residence, for it had been reduced to a mass of desola- tion ; it was guarded by a legion of Eoman soldiers ; ^ and the tens of thousands of dead bodies buried in heaps beneath its ruins must have converted it into something like a vast and repulsive charnel-house. Immediately after the siege there was no Church at all there ; and why should the apostles and disciples assemble on the spot from all parts of the Roman Empire to provide for it a diocesan ? Assuredly these brethren were engaged in more useful employment ; and no good reason can be given why, at the cost of so much time and trouble, they should have made such a journey on such a bootless errand. Forty-seven years after the close of the siege, all the Christians in Jerusalem amounted only to a small congregation. The Emperor Adrian, according to Dr. Cave, coming about a.d. 117 "to Jerusalem, in order to its reparation, found there a few houses, and a little church of Christians built upon Mount Zion. . . . Here the Christians, who were returned from Pella, kept their solemn assemblies." ^ There may be some truth in th.e story that a few of the poor kinsmen of our Lord, some time after the siege, took up their abode among the ruins of the holy city, and that Simeon, one of their number, acted as their pastor ; but it is foolish to think that all the surviving apostles and disciples attached so much importance to the choice as to travel from ^ Eiiseb. iii. 5. " .Josephxis, Wars of the Jews, Book YII. chap. i. sect. 2. ^ Livts of the Fathers, i. 173, 174. 182 PRELACY. all parts of the lioman world to be present at liis election. Simeon certainly was not a diocesan bishop, but the minister of a very small congregation. He is said to have died about A.1). 107,' and after his demise Eusebius found it no easy matter to trace the succession. " We have not," says he, " ascertained in any way that the times of the bishops in Jerusalem liave been regularly preserved on record, for tradition says that they all lived but a very short time. So much, however, have I learned from writers that, down to the invasion of the Jews under Adrian, there were fifteen successions of bishops in that Church."^ It would appear from this statement that the united lives of the thirteen so - called bishops of Jerusalem who succeeded Simeon amounted only to about eiglit-and-twenty years — a " fact " which, as Dr. Lightfoot admits, " must throw suspicion on its accuracy. A succession so rapid," he adds, " is hardly consistent with the known tenure of life offices in ordinary cases." ^ He has tried, however, to produce a parallel from the annals of the papacy, and he has discovered that, about the close of the ninth and the beginning of the tenth century, there were thirteen popes even during a shorter period. At the time here indicated the popedom had reached the lowest depths of its degradation. All things were out of course ; the pontiff sometimes continued in office only a few days or a few months ; aspirants were prepared to perpetrate any villainy to gain [lossession of the chair; and poison or the dagger was employed to cut short the course of the existing occupant. "We cannot explain the rapid succession of the early bishops of Jerusalem by a reference to the history of the popedom under such abnormal circumstances. The account given by Eusebius of the next fifteen bishops of the sacred city (now known as Aelia), does not tend much to increase our confidence in his representations, as we learn from it that the united pastorates of these twenty-eight prelates amounted to little more than eighty years, yielding an average of somewhat less than three years to the incumbency of each diocesan. We may fairly require those who maintain so stoutly that they can trace their ecclesias- ^ See Burton, Lectures, ii. 17, and Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 203. ^ Euseb. iv. 5. » Philippians, pp. 208, 209. ALLEGED SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS FKOM APOSTOLIC TIMES. 183 tical genealogy to the days of the apostles, to tell us why there was such a dire mortality among these early Church- men. It cannot be said that the climate of Judea was unwholesome ; it cannot be pleaded that the bishops were cut off by the sword ; and, if they resembled modern dignitaries of the same name, it can scarcely be supposed that they sunk under the pressure of excessive exertion ; and yet it would seem as if the occupation had been excessively unhealthy. Episcopalians apparently labour under a grievous misconception when they speak of the individuals mentioned in these lists as prelates ; for, judging from the rapidity with which they succeeded to each other, we may rather infer that they were not office-bearers for life — that they were only biennial or triennial modoratoi-s. Or it may be that the arrangement described by Hilary ' was observed at Jerusalem until about the close of the second century, that is, that the president, or bishop of the Church, was nothing more than the senior jyrcshytcv. If he took the chair as being the oldest member of the Court, we may understand why his term of office was so brief; for none but persons very far advanced in life would thus be promoted to the presidency, and the period of survivorship would, of course, be curtailed. It is significant that, towards the close of the second century, this rapid succession of the bishops of Jerusalem comes to an end, and that, henceforward, the lengths of the episcopates are much the same as those we meet with in modern times. It can be shown that the Church of Smyrna, with which the name of Poly carp is so honourably associated, continued, for many years after his martyrdom, under presby- terial government."'^ We can also point to the singular fact that Eusebius commences the list of bishops connected with his own Church of Ca'sarea about the termination of the second century.^ In the beginning of the fourth century Caasarea was the ecclesiastical as well as the civil metropolis of Palestine ; there can be no doubt that a Christian Church 1 •'Priiniim presbyteri episcopi appellabantur, ut, rececleute uno, sequans ei succederet." — Comment, in Eph. iv. - See my Ancient Church, Period II. sect. 3. chap. v. p. 471, New York Ed. « Ibid. p. 473. 184 rnELACY. existed there from the days of tlie apostles ; ^ and Eusebiiis must have had some good reason for commencing, upwards of one hundred and fifty years after its establishment, with a catalogue of its bishops. All these facts, and others of a similar character which might be easily adduced, concur to ])rove that, towards the close of the second or the beginning of the third century, a change was made in various places in the constitution of the Church. We may thus, too, see that the argument in support of diocesan episcopacy, based on the preservation of catalogues of bishops, such as those presented by Eusebius, involves a begging of the question ; for it is impossible to prove that these so-called bishops possessed the exclusive right to rule and to ordain. Towards the end of the second century they are still frequently called presbyters ; and as we find that, in every movement which they made, they required the sanction of those with whom they were associated, it is plain that they were not clothed with that authority which was exercised by their successors. The fact of the existence of lists of bishops reaching back to the days of the apostles is, indeed, susceptible of an inter- pretation anything but favourable to the claims of diocesan episcopacy. It may rather prove that the platform of ecclesi- astical government set up in the beginning was not maintained in its integrity. Paul directs Timothy - to give himself " wholly " to his work ; and we may presume that the office of such a bishop in the first century, whatever it may have been, supplied him who held it M'ith full employment. Had the same order of things continued, these functionaries must soon have been greatly multiplied; for, in three or four centuries, the Christians, in many places, increased a hundred or a thousand fold. It may be questioned whether, after the persecution under Nero, there were one thousand persons in Eome who continued to profess the Christian faith ; and if a bishop found complete occupation in attending to their spiritual oversight, how could he pretend that he could per- form all the duties which devolved uj)on him with equal efficiency when he had the charge of one million ? If, in the middle of the first century, when the disciples at Antioch were comparatively few, the time of the bishop was entirely 1 Acts xviii. 22. ^ 1 Tim. iv. 15, ALLEGED SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS FROM APOSTOLIC TIMES. 185 taken up with his pastoral avocations, surely, in the days of Theodosius — when the Church there could reckon at least one hundred thousand members — the chief minister of the place could not have performed the same duties as his apostolic predecessor. Whilst the presbyters were multiplied, and whilst various orders of clergy — unknown to the New Testa- ment — were invented, the one bishop still continued to preside over the extending hosts of subordinate otfice-bearers. Had primitive arrangements been preserved, the increase of the bishops would have kept pace with the increase of the people ; and the simple fact, that their labours diminished with the enlargement of their jurisdiction, demonstrates incontestably that a gradual transformation took place in their position and their office. The individual who appears in the episcopal list as a bishop of the first century was a very different personage irom his successor in the age of Arcadins and Honorius. The primitive bishop was the pastor of a congregation ; he wlio was afterwards known by tlie same name w\as the ruler of a diocese. CHAPTER VIIL THE ANGELS OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES. The argument for episcopacy, derived from the angels of the seven Churches of the Apocalypse, is thus expounded by Archbishop Totter : " St. John, in the tJiree fird chapters of his Eevelation (the first ihree?), has given a lively description of seven bishops who presided in the seven principal cities of the Proconsular Asia. Our Lord is there introduced sending seven epistles to the seven Churches of these cities, directed to the seven angels of the Churches, whom He calls the seven stars in His right hand. Now, if it appears that the seven angels were so many single persons invested with supreme authority in the seven Churches, there can be no reason to doubt whether they were the bishops of these Churches — a bishop being nothing else but one who has chief authority in the Church." ' In the early part of the seventeenth century, when the controversy on Church government was so briskly agitated in Great Britain, this argument was pressed with much persist- ency ; but, of late, less weight has been attached to it ; and, more recently, it has been given up altogether by some of the most accomplished advocates of prelacy. Bishop Lightfoot declares that the " sublime imagery " of the Apocalypse " seems to be seriously impaired by this interpretation." ^ It is, indeed, preposterous to aflirm that the angel of the Church can be no other than a bishop. It might, with far greater plausibility, be asserted that he must be either the moderator or the clerk of the presbytery. It has, however, been con- tended that the angel must have been a prelate, because he is represented as sitting in judgment on the pretensions of ^ Discourse of Church Government, p. 95. 2 Philippiayis, pp. 199, 200. ISO THE ANGELS OF THE SEVEN CHURCHES. 187 certain false teachers. " Thou liast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars." ^ But, on the same grounds, all the members of the Church might he clothed with mitres ; for to all tlie commandment is addressed, " Try the sinrits!' " Though the letters are addressed to the angels, it is evident that they are designed for the use of the whole Christian community, inasmuch as every epistle closes with the admonition, " He tliat hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith (not unto the angels, but) unto tlic Churches!' In several cases, too, in the addresses to particular angels, there is a transition from the singular to the plural number ; and we have thus clear evidence that the letter is intended for the whole body of the people.' It is abundantly manifest that the angel is simply the medium through whom the Church is addressed, and that each epistle is to be regarded, not as conveying to an individual either personal approbation or rebuke, but as descriptive of the general condition of the entire society. There is, assuredly, one circumstance v/hich supplies strong presumptive proof that the angel of the Church was nut the presiding minister. It does not appear, from the remains of ecclesiastical antiquity, that the chief pastor was ever so designated. Passages may, no doubt, be found in some of the Fathers where it is asserted that the angel means the bishop ; but, when these Fathers icrote, the word was not anj/- u-here so employed, and they do not produce any historical testimony whatever to support their interpretation. Their statements are merely expressions of individual opinion, and, as they are contradicted by all the ecclesiastical memorials extant, they are entitled to no credit. Had the principal minister of the Church ever been styled the anrjel, and had the title received apostolic sanction, it would unquestionably have been retained for ever. Nothing could have tempted its possessors to part with so complimentary a designation. It would have been handed down as religiously to future genera- tions as the deacon, the preshjter, the hisho]), the Lord's Day, the Lord's Sujyjycr, or any other name registered in the New Testament. But how can we give any plausible explanation of the fact that a title of office, said to have been used by the 1 Rev. ii. 2. - 1 John iv. 1. ' See Rev. ii. 10, 24. 188 PRELACY. beloved disciple in the word of God, was ever afterwards ignored ? How was it that it was immediately and univer- sally laid aside ? If the angel addressed by our Lord in the Apocalypse was no other than the bishop, it is most unac- countable that not a single instance can be produced, from all antiquity, in which the presiding pastor of a Church was ever so described by any contemporary writer. It has been very clearly shown, by Vitringa and others, tliat the names of several functionaries in the early Christian Church were the same as those of corresponding office-bearers in the synagogue ; and as there was — at least in later times — in every synagogue an individual appointed to perform certain duties, and called the angel, it has been thought that the addresses in the epistles to the seven Churches point to persons holding similar situations in these communities. The learned Dean Prideaux, in a well-known work, expounds with much precision the general polity of the synagogue, as well as tlie special duties of the angel. " There were," says he, " in every synagogue some fixed ministers to take care of the religious duties to be performed in it. And these were, by imposition of hands, solemnly admitted thereto. The first were the elders of the synagogue, who governed all the affairs of it, and directed all the duties of religion therein to be performed. . . . Xext to them, or iKrclmnce one of them, was the minister of the synagogue that officiated in offering up the public prayers to God /or tM wliole congregation, who, because he was the mouth of the congregation, delegated from them as their representative, messenger, or angel, to speak to God in prayer for them, was therefore in the Hebrew language called Sheliach Zihhor, that is, the angel of the Churcli." ^ We quote this passage, not only because it is the testimony of a zealous and erudite dignitary of the Church of England, but also because we believe it states, witli great accuracy, the position of the angel of the synagogue. It has been frequently asserted that the Sheliach Zibbor was the chief ruler of the synagogue ; but this representation is incorrect ; for there is no conclusive evidence that he was even one of the bench of ' " Tlie Old ami New Testament connected in the History of the Jews and Neighbouring Nations from the Declension of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah to the Time of Christ," vol. i. p. 385, London 1716. THE ANGELS OF THE SEVEN CHUKCHES. 189 elders. The allegation of Prideaux that he was " next to them, or perchance one of them," is the utmost that we are warranted to say respecting his official rank. Prideaux, indeed, goes on to observe that " the bishops of the seven Churches of Asia are in the Eevelation, hy a name horrovjed from the synagogue, called the angels of those Churches. For as the Sheliach Zibbor in the Jewish synagogue was the prime minister to offer the prayers of the people to God, so also was the bishop the prime minister to offer up the prayers of the people to God in the Church of Christ." " The bishop," adds Prideaux, " did not ahuays officiate in this ministry, because in every Church there were presbyters under him who often discharged this duty in his stead." ^ Such statements reveal the folly of the attempts by Episcopalians to trace a resemblance between the angels of the synagogue and the Christian hierarchy. Even according to the account of the Dean of Norwich, the position of the early bishop was totally different from that of the angel of the synagogue ; for the Jewish functionary was " neo:t to the elders, or perchance one of them," whereas the Christian ecclesiastic had " the presbyters under him." To make out their case, prelatists are thus obliged to change their ground, as, were they fairly to admit that the angels of the seven Churches were the same, in point of rank, as the angels of the synagogue, their cause would be damaged by any argument founded on this designation. " Next to the Sheliach Zibbor," says Prideaux, " were the deacons, or inferior ministers of the synagogue, in Hebrew called Chazanim, that is, over- seers, who were also fixed ministers, and under the rulers of the synagogue" ^ Prideaux here admits that, in the synagogue, were first, the elders ; then, the Sheliach Zibbor, or angel ; and lastly, the Chazanim, or deacons. But he would have us to believe, without any evidence, that in the Christian Church this arrangement was unaccountably reversed, and that there the angel held the highest place, and ruled over both presbyters and deacons ! It is unnecessary further to pursue this argument, as it must be obvious that it cannot be pressed legitimately into the service of diocesan episcopacy. The duties of the angel of the synagogue, according to universal admission, were 1 Supra, i. 385. - Prideaux, i. 386. 190 PRELACY. confined to a single congregation, so that lie cannot represent the lords of the clergy. In the New Testament the word angel sometimes means simply a messenger ; ^ and we are dis- posed to think that the angels of the seven Churches were seven messengers, or deputies, sent by these seven Churches to visit John in his island of exile. A star in prophetic language signifies a ruler ;'-^ and these messengers were probably selected from among the elders, or rulers, of the Churches. They went, on this occasion, on a perilous errand, as they were commissioned to express the sympathy felt by their co-religionists for a man who had been sent into banishment by a suspicious and bloodthirsty tyrant. ]jut the position which they occupy in the vision assures them of their safety ; for they are in the right hand of Him who is the Master of the universe. They have precious promises to encourage them. " These things saith He that holdeth the seven stars in His right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks. ... To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the paradise of God.""^ • As in Luke vii. 27 and Jas. ii. '25. " See Num. xxiv. 17 compared with Rev. xxii. 16. ' Rev. ii. 1, 7. CHAPTER IX. THE ALLEGED TENDENCY OF PRELACY TO PKEVENT SCHISM, AND ITS EXTENSIVE PREVALENCE. Episcopacy has long held extensive sway throughout Chris- tendom ; and all the resources of logic, genius, and learning have been employed in its defence. No argument has contributed more to promote its acceptance than that derived from its alleged tendency to prevent schism. It was originally introduced into the Church under this pretext, as it was expected that it would soon put an end to the contentious which then occasioned so much perplexity and disorder. Other forms of Church government, we are still told, lead to endless subdivisions ; but prelacy promotes ecclesiastical peace and unity. We are now to examine the validity of this recommendation. Schism is a word which does not necessarily imply guilt on the part (jf those by whom it is created. It denotes, no doubt, division or separation ; but it depends on the circum- stances connected with it whether it is to be commended or condemned. When Peter " withdrew and separated Jiimself " ^ from Paul and those associated with him at Antioch, that he might not offend the Judaizing zealots who insisted on the continued observance of the rite of circumcision, he behaved schismatically, and " walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel ; " but Luther rendered a noble service to the Christian cause when he withdrew from the jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, and laid the foundations of the Church of the Reformation. Truth is not always with the majority ; and unity may be purchased too dearly. A Church may become so corrupt that it may be the duty of an enlightened believer to retire from its communion. It should also be 1 Gal. ii. 12. 191 192 PRELACY. remembered that there is a " unity of spirit " which is of far more vital consequence than unity of external organization. A number of societies not ecclesiastically confederated, and, it may be, distinguished by the minor arrangements of their constitution, may — if animated by the living faith of Chris- tianity — take a very kindly interest in each other's welfare, and may cherish a strong and enduring attachment. They may thus manifest a much more substantial unity than another body in which all its members, though under one organization, are merely tacked together by a common name, whilst they are living in malice and envy, sceptics at heart, holding very few common principles, or perha])s sadly ignorant of the saving truths of the gospel. It is verily desirable thnt the Church should present the appearance of a united com- munity, as such a spectacle is fitted to make a favourable impression on an imbelieving world ; and the Scriptures hold out to us the prospect of the arrival of a time when the idea shall be realized ; but this result must be brought about by ordinances of divine appointment ; and agencies of another description, if put into requisition for the suppression of schism, may only tend to its aggravation. The history of recent times has greatly weakened the force of the argument in support of episcopacy as an extinguisher of schism. When the penal laws prevailed ; when dissent in England, Ireland, and Scotland was in every way discounten- anced by the Legislature ; and when spiritual life had almost disappeared from the Established Church itself, Protestant prelacy throughout the British isles certainly presented an appearance of unity and quietude not to be found else- where, except in popery. The overwhelming majority of the adherents of the lieformed faith in the three kingdoms professed to it at least a nominal allegiance ; the use of the Book of Common Prayer in England and Ireland proclaimed the reign of Uniformity ; and any one who ventured to impugn the order of the day might come into collision with the Court of High Commission. But the extension of civil and religious liberty has greatly changed the aspect of ecclesiastical affairs. The external unity of the Church of England — the chief representative of Protestant episcopacy — has still been, to a great extent, preserved ; but meanwhile ALLEGED TENDENCY OF PRELACY TO TREVENT SCHIsM. 193 the Church itself has failed to retain the position which it once occupied. Owing to a variety of circumstances, episcopacy has held its ground among the general population of Ireland better than in other parts of the empire — though here those belonging to it have never perhaps amounted to very much more than a tithe of the inhabitants ; its wealth and honours long enabled it to attract tlie fashionable, and to bribe the unprincipled ; but, even here, with all its secular advantages, it has been unable to ward off Disestablishment. About tlie time of the Eevolution tlie members of the Establislied Church in England stood to all classes of non- conformists combined — and Eomanists included — in the proportion of more than jive to one ; they are now, according to a late census, scarcely the one-half of the population. About the commencement of the Long Parliament, Dissent is said to have been almost, if not altogether, unknown in Wales ; at the present moment in the Principality, the adherents of the Episcopal Church are very far in the minority. Innnediately before the Pievolution of 1688, Episcopalians boasted that they formed the majority of the people of Scotland ; now they constitute about the fifteenth part of its inhabitants. A unity which is melting away after this fashion has little cause for gratulation. And when we look into the internal state of the Episcopal Church, its claims, as the promoter of unity, are still less obvious. It has, to all outward appearances, a very small share of the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. In Ireland, it is notoriously divided into two hostile camps — the Evangelicals and the High Churchmen being engaged in open warfare. Here, certainly, the bishops are not the patrons of unity ; they are rather the grand promoters of contention. Every improvement which has been made in their ecclesiastical con- stitution since the date of Disestablishment has been wrested from them almost by violence. They have threatened, and protested, and even wept, in their efforts to stop the wheels of reformation. And what is the state of the Established Church of England ? Surely the tendency of episcopacy to promote unity is there rather oddly exemplified. It is a city divided against itself — a very Babel of theological confusion : Eationalists, Broad Churchmen, High Churchmen, Low Church- N 104 niELACv. men, Calvinists and Arminians, Puseyitcs and Papists, all eat its bread and minister to its congregations. And some of its most prominent advocates glory in its very latitudi- narianism ! The Protestant Episcopal Church lias not altogether escaped the charge of schism ; for at present in England a secession from it has been extending and acquiring strength ; and in Scotland it has long been split up into two sections. The fact of its cohesiveness in England is not difficult to explain. Adherence to it is considered by many to be essentially connected with a certain social position ; and the immense wealth which it possesses gives it a powerful hold upon all ^\'ho are merely guided by secular calculations. But it may safely be asserted that it has done more to destroy the unity of Protestantism than any other form of ecclesiastical polity. ])y its unreasonable and unscrupulous assumptions, and by its persistence in attempting to enforce a useless and unwarrant- able uniformity, it has long been an insuperable barrier in the way of the consolidation of the Churches of the Reformation. So far from extinguishing schism, it has contributed immensely to the multiplication of sectarianism. The countless variety of religionists to be found in South Britain may to a great extent be fairly charged to the account of its pride, or narrow- ness, or inefficiency, or its hankering after the silly pageantry of Eomanism. The people of Scotland, under a different system, exhibit much more substantial unity. Almost all their ecclesiastical differences may be traced to one source — the tyrannical efforts of the State, continued for ages, to keep up the dominion of Patronage. To this origin we are to ascribe the Secession Church, the Eelief Church, and the Free Church. But the overwhelming majority of the Scottish population have really one faith, one system of discipline, and one form of worship. It is quite otherwise in England. There it would be rather difficult to reckon up the different forms of ecclesiastical polity, the discordant schemes of doctrine, and the various modes of worship. Very much of all this must be attributed to the diversity of sentiment existing within the Establishment itself. Surely such a Church cannot safely appeal to its success in promoting peace and repressing schism. ALLEGED TENDENCY OF PRELACY TO PREVENT SCHISM. 195 The only other plea in support of episcopacy which we deem it necessary to notice is that based upon the fact of its general adoption throughout the Church. By Bishop Hall, in his work entitled Eiyiscopacy hy Divinie Eight, this argument is introduced as unassailable, and asserted in a tone of triumph. " However much," sa} 3 he, " it pleaseth our anti- preesulists to slight the practice and judgment of all the Churches, save the primitive Church, yet it shall be no small confirmation to us, nor no less conviction to them, that the voice, as of the primitive, so of the whole subsequent Church of God upon earth to this very age, is with us and for us. ' Quod semper et ubique ' — ahcays and everyivhere — was the old and sure rule of Vincentius Lirinensis ; and who thinks this can fail him is well worthy to err. It were a long task to instance in all times and to particularize in all Churches. Let this be the trial : turn over all histories, search the records of all times and places, if ever it can be shown that any orthodox Church in the whole Christian world, since the times of Christ and His apostles, was governed otherwise than by a bishop superior to his clergy — unless perhaps during the time of some persecution or short interregnum — let me forfeit my part of the cause." Though this argument is here so pompously paraded, it is very easy to meet the challenge of the bishop of Norwich, and to produce a case, and, if need be, more than one, in which, long since the days of the apostles, an orthodox Church was " governed otherwise than by a bishop superior to his clergy." If the bishop had carefully investigated even the records of his own country, he would have discovered evidence abundantly sufficient to convince him of the folly of his gasconade. The witness ready to confront him is unim- peachable ; for he is no other than the Venerable Bede, who flourished in the eighth century, and who was the most learned of Englishmen, Speaking of the Scottish lona, he says : " That island is always wont to have for its governor a 2)resbyter abbot, to whose authority both the whole province and even the bishops themselves, by an 2tnusual constitution, owe subjection, after the example of their first teacher, who was not a bishop, but a presbyter and monk." ^ This presbyter abbot ^ Bede, iii. 4. 19G rRELACY. and the elders with whom he was associated ordained the bishops who were subject to liis jurisdiction.^ Bede, who was connected with the Romish communion, here describes the ecclesiastical polity of North Britain as unusnnl (ordo inusi- tatus), for it was not in conformity with papal arrangements ; but, had he looked over into Ireland, he might have seen it in operation there. " Nowhere, for si.x hundred years and more, from the death of their apostle Patrick," says a learned episcopal historian of the present age, " do we find in their annals {i.e. of Ireland) the slightest trace of gov^ernmeut by a diocesan episcopacy. . . . Nowhere, Jtefore the twelfth century, have we in these annals any single mention of a diocese, in our ordinary sense of the word, nor of a diocesan bishop." ^ At a time when the whole population of Ireland amounted only to from two hundred thousand to three hundred thousand souls, there were at least from three hundred to four hundred bishops in the island, and these, each of whom ministered only to a single congregation, w^ere surely extraordinary specimens of diocesans. We have already adduced ample evidence to prove that Presbyterian Church government prevailed throughout the whole of the first and a considerable part of the second century. Episcopacy had made little progress in Egypt even at the close of this period, " At the close of the second century," says Bishop Lightfoot, " the emly representative of the episcopal order in Egypt was the bishop of Alexandria. . . . Before this time it was a matter of convenience, and almost of necessity, that the Alexandrian 'presbyters should themselves onlaln their chief." '^ But we need not multiply instances to demonstrate the baselessness of the assumptions of Bishop Hall. We freely acknowledge that the diocesan system was, in a few centuries, established over almost all Christendom ; but this does not prove either its wisdom or its apostolicity. We read in the New Testament of "a falling away " from the faith of extensive prevalence ^ in the Church ; and it may be that the adoption of an unwarrantable 1 See my Old Catholic Church, pp. 294, 295. ^ King's Memoir Introductory to the Early Hii^tory of Armmjh, dedicated by permission to Primate Beresford, p. 1, Armagh 1854. 3 PhiUppiavs. p. 232. •* 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4 ; Rev. xiii. 3. ALLEGED TENDENCY OF PRELACY TO PREVENT SCHISM. 197 form of ecclesiastical goveriiinent prepared the way for the Great Apostasy. The spread of prelacy, viewed in tliis light, so far from serving to commend it to our approbation, should rather prompt us to regard it with distrust. It is notorious that it was so extensively developed simply because, from the time of Constantine downwards, it obtained a political estab- lishment, and was supported by imperial authority. "Were the wide diffusion of a system any proof of its truth, it would be very difficult to meet the Romanists in argument ; for it cannot be denied that popery has had wide domination. But if we are to act upon the principle that the Bible alone is to be recognised as the authority to decide upon the religion of Protestants, we must determine the merits of an ecclesiastical system, not by the extent to which it may have spread, but by its conformity to the standard of the law and the testimony. CHAPTER X. PRELACY UNSUPPORTED BY SCRIPTURE, OPPOSED TO ITS SPIRIT, AND INIMICAL TO ITS ARRANGEMENTS. Having considered the leading arguments advanced in support of diocesan episcopacy, we now proceed to direct attention to a number of objections which may be fairly \irged against its claims. At the outset, we cannot overlook the fact that the greater number of the arguments on which prelatists place reliance, rest, not on Scripture, but on tradition. Their system cannot plead divine right if it cannot show that it is warranted by the divine statute-book. Yet, though it has repeatedly asserted that none save prelates can give the ministerial commission, when we narrowly examine the grounds on which it puts forth such pretensions, we generally find that they are furnished by uninspired documents. When assured, for instance, that the Twelve were bishops, and that the Seventy were presbyters, we discover that not a vestige of Scripture evidence can be produced for the assertion ; but we are told, on the authority of Easebius, who lived in the fourth century, and who often retails unreliable gossip, that Matthias was originally one of the Seventy ; and that, of course, when chosen in the room of Judas, he ^\■as promoted from the rank of a presbyter to that of a prelate. Again, Episcopalians allege that James was the first bishop of Jerusalem. Were prelacy a divine institution, and had James really occupied the position thus assigned to him, we might reasonably expect that the Spirit of God, speaking by the apostles or evangelists, would have somewhere given him his official designation. ]>ut no one unacquainted with the controversy would ever suspect, from anything stated in the New Testament, that James was the bishop of the mother Church. The texts TRELACY UNSUPPORTED BY SCRIPTURE. 199 quoted in proof of his episcopal dignity are so wide of the point, that it is only strange how sober and intelligent men can gravely bring them forward in evidence. But, though the New Testament is silent as to the episcopal rank of " the Lord's brother," Clemens Alexandrinus, in a discredited work not now extant, is supposed to have vouched for the fact ; and we are therefore expected to acknowledge it as unques- tionable ! Farther, we are nowhere informed in the New Testament that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus, or that Titus was bishop of Crete — the whole current of Scripture testimony is opposed to such statements ; but Eusebius and others who followed him in the fourth century have vouched for their correctness, and, for the credit of episcopacy, we must listen to these traditions of the Fathers. Again, we are reminded that prelacy must be of divine origin, inasmuch as we have lists of the bishops of several Sees beginning in the very days of the apostles. An argument of this kind cannot ever pretend to be authenticated by Scripture ; it is based avowedly and altogether upon tradition. We have already seen that these traditions are apparently fabulous ; but, even supposing that they had a far better title to credit than they can legiti- mately claim, it must still be recollected that they cannot be received as a supplement to the word of God. The Bible is a complete Spiritual Directory, and there must be something deficient in any system of Church government wliicli must rely for support mainly on the strength of uninspired authorities. Were prelacy compelled to confine itself exclu- sively to proof from Scripture, its impotence would appear to all men, and its most imposing arguments would be seen to be superlatively puerile. If we once admit the intervention of tradition, popery, as well as prelacy, may raise its head, and put forth very bold pretensions ; for many of tlie Fathers give much countenance to the claims of the Man of Sin ; but, if we abide by the sacred Book, the bishop of Kome, and all other churchmen who aspire to pre-eminence, can produce no commission. The inspired record supplies no instance of tlie consecration of a diocesan, and the very functionaries who, according to some, are essential to the constitution of the Church are nowhere recognised in the divine statute-book. A careful study of Scripture may also convince us that the 200 PRELA.CY. genius of prelacy is not in accordance with tlie spirit of the New Testament. Our Lord lays it down as a principle that, in the Christian Church, the individual most distinguished by his laborious eftbrts to promote the glory of his Master, is entitled to the highest honour. Hence He says to the apostles : " Whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister ; and whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all." ^ The individual who is most useful — the minister who is most willing to spend and to be spent for Christ — should always be esteemed most highly by his brethren. " God hath set some in the Church," says Paul, "first, apostles ; secondarily, prophets ; tliirdly, teachers ; after that, miracles ; then, gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." "" Here governments are placed far below the apostles, prophets, and teachers. Again, in another passage, where the gifts bestowed on the Church are enume- rated, the same arrangement is observed. " Having then," says Paul, " gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether iwoiihccy, let us prophesy according to the pro- portion of faith ; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering ; or he that tcacheth, on teaching ; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation : he that givcth, let him do it with simplicity ; he that rideth, with diligence." ^ Here again riding is placed in a less honourable position than instruction. This may at first appear singular, but a little reflection may help us to the explanation. In such a society as the Church, where love should be the dominating principle, it should be very seldom necessary to resort to the exercise of authority. Puling can- not, indeed, be dispensed with — for offences will make their appearance, and discipline must be maintained ; but the Scriptures sternly discountenance those wlio " love to have the pre-eminence " * — who are more desirous to govern than to obey. Puling is not the gift which a Christian man should covet most earnestly. He may, in this way, promote the good of the spiritual commonwealth ; but he should bear in mind that power, merely for its own sake, is not to be desiderated. The most efficient way of ruling is by instruc- tion. The wise teacher directs the understanding, strengthens 1 Mark x. 43, 44. - 1 Cor. xii. 28. ^ Rom. xii. 6-8. * 3 John ver. 9. PKKLACY UNSUrrOKTED DY SCliirTUHE. 201 the doiniiiiou of conscience, and prompts the individual to walk, with a willing mind, in the way of the divine testi- monies. The apostles, proj)hets, and instructors therefore stand in the forefront of the guides of the Church. They certainly had a right to rule, as well as to teach ; but if the function of instruction be efticiently exercised, tlie task of ruling will be comparatively easy. A Church well taught is seldom likely to re([uire the interference of the strong hand of authority. Thus it is that, according to the New Testa- ment valuation, teachers are of more account than mere rulers. Oflice-liearers who rule may be very useful by assisting preachers in the administration of government ; their pru- dence, sagacity, experience, and knowledge of character may render most important service ; but it should never be for- gotten that the preaching of the gospel is the grand instru- mentality by which sinners are to be converted and saints edified. Labouring in the word and doctrine must be con- sidered the highest and most honourable department of ])astoral duty, and therefore the first place in the Church should be assigneil to those who break the bread of life to the people. In all ages God has been pleased by the " foolish- ness " of preaching to save them that believe. When our Lord was in tiie flesh the multitude was astonished at His doctrine ; and hearts were touched and transformed by the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth. In primitive times the Church was built, not so much by the; miracles of the apostles and their fellow-labourers, as by the jtrecious truths which they proclaimed. At the era of the Ifeformation the living temple of ChristianiLy rose up from its ruins under the preaching and teaching of Luther, and Zwingle, and Calvin, and Knox, and their illustrious con- temporaries. And, in every revival of religion, the importance of the ordinance of preaching is palpable to all. Silence the faithful expositors of the gospel, and you forthwith contem- plate a scene of spiritual desolation, where the people, instead of walking in the light of the Lord, are living in ignorance or perishing for lack of knowledge. And what piety, what information, what gifts are requisite for an able minister of the New Testament ! We may thus see the wisdom of the divine arrangement that he who ministers the word should bo -0:^ PRELACY. SO highly appreciated. The mere ruler may promote tlie good order of the Church ; but to the preacher more especially is committed the higher function of enlarging its boundaries, and of dispensing nourishment to the souls of its members. Kulers separate the sound from the diseased ; but preachers raise the dead to life, and feed them with knowledge and understanding. We may see, however, that diocesan episco- pacy strangely contradicts the deliverance of the sacred record, as it virtually proclaims that lie who labours in the word and doctrine is not entitled to so much honour as he who rules. The bishop, to whom preaching is a duty with which he may dispense, is lodged in a baronial residence, and invited to the palace of the sovereign ; whilst the curate, who is expected to be in season and out of season in the dispensation of the gospel, has often scarcely wherewithal to clothe himself respectably and to feed his household. Prelacy does not magnify the word by regarding preaching or teaching as the stated duty of her most exalted functionaries, but rather treats it as a task which may be fitly devolved on the rector's assistant. The higher any individual ascends in the scale of ecclesiastical dignity, he is the farther removed from the obligation of labouiing in the word and doctrine. It cannot be said that such a system can fairly plead the sanction of apostolic example. " We M'ill give ourselves," said the Twelve, " continually to prayer, and to thi minisirij of the vjord." ' " Therefore," says Paul, " seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not ; but have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully ; but h/ hianifcstatioii of the truth commending ourselves to every mau's conscience in the sight of God. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost."-' The great apostle to the Gentiles affirms that Christ sent him " to preach the gospel;"^ and he everywhere speaks of the ministry of the word as his absorbing occupation. Put those M'ho often assert an exclusive claim to be his successors do not make the same profession. Some bishops, no doubt, preach frequently, and with much acceptance ; and, of late, the zeal of the members of the episcopal bench in this department of ministerial ^ Acts vi. 4. ^ 2 Cor. iv. 1-3. =* 3 Cor. i. 17. PEELACY UNSUPPORTED BY SCRIPTURE. 203 service has been wonderfully quickened ; but, after all, the prelate must acknowledge that his special business is, not the dissemination of divine truth by oral instruction, but the government of the Church. Numberless instances might be quoted, even from recent ecclesiastical history, in which a Protestant dignitary of this description has not preached a single sermon for years together. A modern prelate of this class would scarcely be prepared to exclaim with his so-called predecessor, " Necessity is laid upon me ; yea, woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel." ^ His very office implies that preaching is not his peculiar duty, and that it is not as an expositor of the word that the Church requires his services. When consecrated as a diocesan he is supposed to be invested exclusively with the power of jurisdiction and of order, and he is thus led hencefortli to regard preaching as a concern of subordinate importance. Prelacy thus opposes itself to tlie teaching of the New Testament, where the spread of the gospel by preaching is plainly exhibited as the most important part of the duty of an ambassador of Christ. It is farther to be noted that diocesan episcopacy, as commonly administered, strips presbyters of a number of their scriptural privileges. As it relates to the Protestant Epis- copal Church of Ireland, the weight of this objection has been considerably diminished since the date of Disestablishment ; for the parochial ministers, assembled in the Diocesan or (General Synod, can now exercise an influence which they never before possessed. P)Ut still, should the bishop presid- ing in the Court happen to be a very opinionative or self- sufficient personage, he can, for the time, neutralize the proceedings of all the clergy and laity of the diocese combined. According to the Constitution adopted at the General Convention in 1870, "in case the bishop dissent from the other two orders, with respect to any proposed act of the Synod, all action thereupon shall be suspended until the next annual meeting of the Synod." ^ If the bishops in the General Synod act together, they can, in like manner, arrest the movements of the whole ecclesiastical machinery. It may be that these dignitaries, in the present position of their Church, will never venture on an experiment so 1 1 Cor. ix. 16. * Statute, etc. sect. 56, p. 18. 204 PKtLACY. perilous ; and yet the power of obstruction with which they are invested can scarcely fail, on many occasions, to prevent the introduction of measures to which they are known to be opposed. According to the New Testament, presbyters should have the care of the house of God, for they are commanded to " feed His flock, taldng the ovcr^lfjlU thereof." ^ But how can they properly perform their duty if, as in the case of the Episcopal Church of Ireland, they must first share their power with ordinary laymen, who have no right whatever to sit in spiritual judicatories, and if tlien all their eftbrts for improvement may be nullified by ecclesiastical superiors ? Under the episcopal system the executive department is almost entirely, it' not altogether, in the hands of the bishops ; and thus they have a large amount of authority with which the presbyters cannot well intermeddle. They claim the exclusive privilege of ordaining the pi'esbyters and deacons ; and they can, in this way, shut out from the ministry, or admit into it, whomsoever they please. We know that, under some of the less pronounced forms of diocesan episcopacy, the claims of presbyters are partially acknowledged ; they are consulted in cases of discipline ; and they are entitled to lay on hands in ordination ; but still, it is from the presence and sanction of the bishop that all such acts of theirs are sup- posed to derive validity. Were the bishop under the control of the presbyters, and were he unable to perform any ecclesiastical duty without their approval and concurrence, then he would be simply the constant moderator of the Court ; and those principles which are generally considered as the very soul of prelacy would be actually compromised. In that case the constitution of the Church would be essentially Presbyterian, for the right of the presbyters to rule and to ordain would be, at least virtually, acknowledged ; and the determination of the period during which the office of president should be continued would involve simply the settlement of a question of expediency. But neither iu England, Scotland, nor Ireland has episcopacy yet made any such concession. And when, in the true spirit of the system, the bishop claims the right to ordain and to govern as his special prerogative ; when he challenges canonical obedience 1 1 Pt't. r. 2. FKELACY UNSUPPOKTED BY SCRIPTUKE. 20 5 from his presbyters ; and when it is admitted tliat the over- sight of the Church pertains — not to them — but to himself, then he is guilty of usurpation, and those who submit to his dictates are his abettors in transgression. For if, accord- ing to the New Testament commission of a presbyter, he is empowered to rule and to ordain, he is not warranted to denude himself of his privileges. What God has joined together no man can put asunder ; and if he who is autho- rized to preach the word and to administer the sacraments is also authorized to govern the Church and to admit others to the sacred office, he is bound, in faithfulness to Christ, to assert all his prerogatives. Oidination, according to the divine testimony, is performed l)y " the laying on of the hands of the presbytery."^ It is obvious, therefore, that presbyters are its proper administrators. The people have no right to consent to receive only the bread, or the wafer, when the gospel requires that all communicants should partake of both elements ; and, upon the same principle, presbyters have no right to submit to any curtailment of their ecclesiastical commission. They are charged by the Great Shepherd with the oversight of the iiock ; and no prelate can give them a dispensation to neglect their duty. When Peter said to the elders in Asia Minor, " Feed the flock of God which is among you, takiixj the oversight thn-cof," surely this admonition implied that, if any congregation was disorganized, it was the business of these office-bearers to interfere, and to establish proper regulations ; and that, if any people were destitute of a pastor, the elders were bound to " feed " them, by supply- ing them with ordinances, and by ordaining over tliem the man of their choice. But prelacy transfers this oversight to others, and thus directly infringes upon the integrity of the presbyterial commission. 1 1 Tim. iv. 14. CHAPTER XT. PRELACY A DANGEROUS, THRIFTLESS, AND VERY IMPERFECT FORM OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. When discussing the merits of any ecclesiastical system, we must not be swayed by the consideration that many very worthy persons have waited upon its services, or have been connected with its administration. The sincere milk of the: word will afford nourishment to the soul, no matter by whom it may be supplied ; and the excellent of the earth may exist under any form of Church government. A good soil will bring forth plentifully under a very indifferent course of husbandry ; and a man of vigorous constitution will often continue to enjoy health when in unpropitious circum- stances. In the Church of Eome, as well as in the Church of England, we see from time to time distinguished specimens of true piety ; but it does not follow that these very indivi- duals would not have more spiritual comfort, and exhibit even more conspicuously the beauty of holiness, and contribute more abundantly to the good of their generation, if associated with a community professing a purer faith, and in the enjoy- ment of a better organization. We know that many of God's children live under the shadow of diocesan episcopacy, and that not a few who occupy its pulpits are an honour to the Christian name ; but these acknowledgments are not to prevent us from pointing out its defects, and advocating the adoption of better arrangements. In dealing with the subject before us, we must seek to ascertain simply what is most in conformity with the requirements of the law of the Lord, and what is best fitted to promote His glory. And we must not hesitate to speak candidly and clearly when there is evidently sufficient cause for disapproval, though our words may not always be quite agreeable to those whom we otherwise esteem. PRELACY A DANGEROUS FORM OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 207 We proceed tlieu to observe that, so long as liuman nature is constituted as it is, it is to be feared that pure prelacy must always degenerate into pure despotism. It is scarcely reasonable to suppose that the minister who presides in the Cathedral Church has always more wisdom than all the clergy of his diocese united. Neither can it be thought that the bishop is above the reach of those temptations to wliich others are accessible. He is a man compassed M"ith infirmities, and liable to the disturbing influences of parti- ality, prejudice, selfishness, and passion. But when the principle is once admitted that it is the part of the diocesan to rule, and of the presbyters to obey ; when it is once conceded that they must defer to his dictation, even when his injunctions are opposed to their united wishes ; then a foundation is laid for the exercise of the most unmitigated tyranny. In many cases this evil has been partially antici- pated ; and provision has, in various ways, been made to prevent the bishop from acting arbitrarily and oppressively. Since Disestablishment, his power has been considerably- curtailed in the Protestant Episcopal Church of Ireland. That Church is, in fact, no longer governed on purely prelatic principles. The nominal ruler of the diocese now often finds himself in an entirely new position ; in the Synod he cannot act without the concurrence of the laity and clergy ; and he may even be threatened with being concussed into submission by their united suffrages. The present constitution of the Irish Episcopal Church is, in reality, a strange and incon- gruous medley of Independency, Prelacy, and Presbyterian- ism. It has a mixture of Independency, for any layman, who is an Episcopalian and a communicant, may sit, speak, and vote in tlie Diocesan as well as in the General Synod. But the privileges of the people are more ostensible than real ; for their representatives in the Church Courts, though perfectly unanimous, can accomplish nothing if opposed by a section of the clergy. The government of the Church by Synods — so long unknown among Irish Episco- palians — is a return to primitive Presbyterianism ; but the presence of the bishop, claiming a superiority of rank, and, in some cases, deciding by his own authority, attests that the old leaven of prelatic pretension and irresponsible power has 208 PRELACY. not been expurgated. I'.veii under tlie new constitution all the clergy are bound to him by a promise of canonical obedience ; and, in a multitude of ways, lie can still use his power despotically and capriciously. J'relacy, in its most modified form, breathes an arbitrary spirit. Though the bishop may be neither wiser nor better than many of his presbyters, he may set himself in opposition to all the laity and clergy of his diocese, and may upset any ecclesiastical arrangement which they have sanctioned. And the history of the system demonstrates that prelates have been pretty generally disposed fully to exercise their prerogatives. Even since ])isestablishment in Ireland they have stood pertina- ciously on their privileges, and have signalized themselves as the most dogged opponents of all reform. It may, farther, be safely asserted that prelates in no way essentially contribute to the edification of the Church. In Scripture the Christian commonwealth is compared to the human body, where every member has its appropriate use. " The eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee ; nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you." " Nay, much more," says the apostle, " those members of tlie body which seem to be more feeble are necessary." ^ We can show that deacons may greatly promote the good of the Church by ministering to the wants of the poor, and by attending to the temporal concerns of the congregation ; we can prove that a bench of ruling elders can be of essential service to every pastor ; and we can demonstrate that, without preachers of the gospel, religion would languish and die ; but we cannot point out any substantial advantages to be derived from the institution of bishops. We might suppose, from the manner in which their order is frequently extolled, that they are the very life-pulse of Christianity, and that, if removed from the ecclesiastical system, vital godliness would forthwith expire. But experience has attested that all such apprehen- sions are visionary, and that the most nourishing Churches have been destitute of a prelatic hierarchy. During the sittings of the Council of Trent, one of the prelates — appar- ently more candid than most of his brethren — ventured to call their attention to this weighty fact. " The great capital 1 1 Cor. xii. 22. PKELACY A DANGEROUS FOKM OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 209 cities of kingdoms are most out of order," said he, " where the prelates have always resided ; on the contrary, some poor cities, which have not seen a bishop in an hundred years, are less corrupted ; amongst the ancient prelates here present, who have continually resided in their Churches, of which number there are some, not one can show that his diocese is better than the next, which have continued without a bishop. . . . There are mountains which, having never seen bishops, may be a pattern to episcopal cities." ^ These statements are corroborated by the history of Protestant Churches since the Reformation. If we compare the people of Scotland with the people of England, we do not find that they are inferior in point of intelligence and piety ; neither can it be said that the ministers of North Britain, though destitute of an order of overseers, are, as a body, less sound in doctrine, or less exemplary in conduct, than their brethren in the South, who are under the inspection of bishops and archbishops. Prelacy and presbytery have been tried in Ireland ; and, notwithstanding the immense secular advantages all along enjoyed by Episcopalians, there is no evidence of the more healthful condition of their ecclesiastical community. Presby- terians have assuredly no reason to boast ; they have rather cause for deep humiliation when they consider how little they have done for the spiritual good of their benighted fellow-countrymen : but no one can honestly say that they exhibit fewer signs of religious life and energy than their prelatic neighbours. According to the latest Government census, their people, in general, are better educated, and have among them a far smaller proportion of the criminal classes. And here the question naturally presents itself — Cui Bono Bishops ? What is the use of these well-paid functionaries ? They are supported at great expense ; they swallow up a large share of the ecclesiastical revenues ; and yet it appears that the Church would lose nothing by the suppression of the order. If they really formed a necessary part of her con- stitution, their want would be felt most sensibly. " The eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee ; " but a parish might very well say to the diocesan, " We have no need of thee." In times past the bishop has too often been a perfect ^ Father Paul's History of the Council of Trent, p. 457, London 1676. 210 PRELACY. nuisance in the Irisli Episcopal Clmrcli. ]Ie has patronized inefficiency, winked at immorality, and persecuted piety.' The greater portion of the people know nothing whatever oi the bishop ; and he does not commonly conduce in any way to their edification. When a man is deprived of his limbs, he has very soon cause to bewail the bereavement ; when liis eyes are put out, he feels the privation most acutely ; and when he is beheaded, life is entirely destroyed. ]3ut though prelates are considered the heads of tlie Church, strange to say, the ecclesiastical body lives and thrives when it wants these so-called vital organs ! If tliey were of such indispens- able necessity as some would have us to believe, religion would die along with them ; the Spirit of God would desert the society where they were not to be found ; and ordinances would cease to dispense light, or strength, or comfort. Not- withstanding the sweeping assertions of their advocates, it must be plain to the most superficial observer, that they cannot be of such importance as is alleged ; for they can often afford to spend a large portion of their time in foreign travel, or at Court, or in Parliament ; and, when they dis- course to their clergy, they sometimes have no weightier matter to discuss than some petty affair of attitude or of decoration. " When we were with you," says Paul to the Thessalonians, " this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should lie eat ; " ' but prelacy makes a princely provision for an order of men who are at liberty to live in idleness. Is it to be thought that such an arrange- ment bears the stamp of a divine institution ? May we not rather conclude that diocesan bishops are like those unhealthy tumours which sometimes appear on the human body to con- sume its nourishment, and to destroy its energy ? They are not essential parts of that building which is "fitly framed together," and which "groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord ; " but costly appendages wliich interfere with its com- fort and impair its beauty. It must here be added that prelacy is a very imperfect form of Church government. The new Constitution of the ^ See my Ecdedantical History of Ireland, vol. i. pp. 410, 411 ; vol. ii, pp. 183, 185, 240, 383, 388. 2 2Thess. iii. 10. PRELACY A DANGEROUS FORM OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 211 Irisli Episcopal Church presents some strange peculiarities. According to it, what is called " the full court of the General Synod," or the highest judicial tribunal, consists " of one arch- bishop, with one bishop, and tliree laymen." ^ Each of the tliree laymen must be, or must have been, " Judge " of one or other " of the Superior Courts of Equity or Conmion Law in Ireland, or of the Court of Probate, the Landed Estates Court, the Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency, or of the Court of Admiralty, or of an Ecclesiastical Court in Ireland, or a Master in Chancery.""" To this Court of the General Synod any charge against any dignitary must be submitted ; but " no sentence of deposition, deprivation, or removal against an archbishop or bishop shall be passed unless the two 'prelates sitting as members of the Court shall concur therein." ^ This certainly is an odd mode of ecclesiastical legislation. May not an educated Christian gentleman, who has carefully studied the word of God, be as competent to be an assessor in the Court of the General Synod, as a Master in Chancery, who has, per- haps, never once read the Bible ? We may surely ask, What special claim has a Judge of Bankruptcy and Insolvency to sit in a spiritual judicatory ? In what way has his office fitted him to decide on a charge of heresy preferred against a Church dignitary ? Does his knowledge of the laws of debtor and creditor imply theological acumen ? Or, how is it that a Judge of the Court of Probate, or of the Landed Estates Court, is peculiarly i|ualified to investigate a scandal affecting the character of a churchman ? Wliy should a Judge of the Court of Admiralty be pre-eminently fitted for such a posi tion ? It is not very clear how an acquaintance with Acts of Parliament relating to maritime affairs enables him to dispense ecclesiastical law. It would appear, however, that in the trial of a bishop or an archbishop, the three lay assessors — though all Judges in one or other of the Civil Courts — are little more than ornamental appendages. They have no riglit to give an authoritative vote. Eour members of the Court — including one of the prelates — may be fully convinced of the guilt of the accused dignitary, and yet, if the other prelate refuses to concur in the verdict, the whole proceedings are abortive, and no sentence can be passed. The same arrangement is made 1 p. 46. - Ibid. 3 Jl,i^l p. 48. 212 PRELACY. for all accused clergymen ; but if the three laymen concur m the condemnation of a layman, a sentence must be pronounced accordingly, even iliovgh the two prelates object to the decision. In this case " the decision of the majority is the decision of the Court." ^ There is no appeal from the deliverance of the Court of the General Synod. The Protestant Episcopal Church of Ireland boasts of the antiquity of her polity, and yet the arrangements we have noticed are perfect novelties. We search in vain for anything corresponding to them in ancient ecclesiastical canons. Ac- cording to the enactments we have quoted, there is one law for the laity and another for the clergy, under the Dis- establishment constitution. It may be added that there is one law for the rector and another for the bishop. " When- ever," says one of the statutes, " it shall appear to the satisfac- tion of any bishop, either in his own knowledge, or by proof laid before him, that the duties of any cure within his diocese are inadequately p)erformed, by reason of the negligence of the incumbent thereof, the bishop may, by writing under his hand, require the incumbent to nominate to him a fit person to per- form, or assist in performing, such duties, with such stijyend as the bisliop may approve, specifying in the requisition the grounds of such proceeding ; and if the incumbent shall neglect or omit to make such nomination within one month, the bishop shall appoint a curate at such stipend as he may think Jit to be paid out of the income of the cure." ^ Here the bishop is the sole judge ; and he may mulct, very much according to his pleasure, any incumbent whom he may con- sider not quite efficient. But, should the bishop himself be negligent, he is subject to no such summary visitation. There is no one empowered forthwith to sequester a portion of his income, and to require him to appoint another bishop to supply his lack of service. The episcopal system is not pro- vided with checks to give adequate security that it will be properly administered. In England, the bishops may be amenable to the Privy Council, or its Judicial Committee ; but they can scarcely be said to be under any ecclesiastical supervision. If it be alleged that they are under the care of the archbishops, the difficulty is only removed a step higher — ^ P. 48. " Constitutions and Canons Ecc. p. 14. PRELACY A DANGEROUS FORM OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 213 for the archbishops have no ecclesiastical superiors ; and the very individuals who can inflict the most extensive injury on the Church are not responsible to any Court which can pro- l)er]y be called a spiritual tribunal. Thus it would appear that the Church can never be well governed under a purely prelatic constitution. If the bishop be the sole ruler of the diocese, he must often act despotically, and the clergy as well as the people will have reason to complain that neither their interests nor their Christian liberties are properly con- served ; and if the archbishop be the sole ruler of the bishops, similar objections may be anticipated. If it be affirmed that the bishops can form themselves into an episcopal Synod to which every one of them may be subject, it is plain that the principle of prelacy — the subordination of single rulers placed one above another — would not thus be fairly carried out ; for if, as has often been alleged, " parity breedeth confusion " in a Synod of presbyters, it cannot be expected to promote order in a Synod of bishops. But, if prelates may safely be confederated for the purposes of self-government, may not presbyters be associated for the same object ? A Synod of prelates may generally be expected to be small, so that individual jealousies, and prejudices, and partialities may often have great influence ; but presbyterial Synods commonly consist of a large number of members, so that the decisions cannot be so easily affected by personal antipathies and pre- dilections. If the principle of episcopal Synods be admitted, it cannot be denied that presbyterial Synods may be equally efficient ; and, if so, the order of prelates may be very pro- perly abolished as absolutely useless. In congregations the imperfection of episcopal government is equally apparent ; for prelacy, in most instances, rejects the aid of ruling elders, so that the entire charge of a large flock frequently devolves on a single minister. The burden is heavier than any ordinary pastor can well bear ; as, without a session, neither discipline can be well administered, nor due provision made for the oversight of families. Whether we contemplate the working of prelacy among the clergy or the laity, we may see its de- ficiencies ; for it does not place the chief rulers under proper ecclesiastical control ; and it does not supply any efficient system of ecclesiastical organization for individual congregations. CHArTKIl XH. TEIE SYMPATHY RETAVEEX PRELACY AND POPEKY — -PRELACY NOT THE AGENCY APPOINTED OF GOD TO ACCOMPLLSH THE EVANGELIZATION OF THE WORLD AND THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH, The history of the Church clearly proves that prelacy paved the way for the introduction of popery. It may, indeed, very easily be shown that the systen of IJonianisra is tlie natural and necessary result of episcopal principles. For, if it be alleged that presbyters cannot safely be entrusted with the power of self-government, and that an order of functionaries is required for their oversight, it may, in the same way, be argued that prelates also must have caretakers, and therefore that archbishops must be instituted. But neither should archbishops be left to themselves, and accordingly patriarchs must be set up as their guardians. Finally, a pope must be chosen to watch over all the other ecclesiastical sentinels. The records of the Church show that such was the actual progress of the hierarchy. The constitution of the Christian (!hurch was gradually assimilated to the civil polity of the lioman Empire ; the bishop of the metropolitan city claimed a right to rule over the bishops of the province ; and, as the Emperor was the temporal head of all the governors of pro- vinces and dioceses, the bishop of Eome — as residing in the ancient capital of the Western world — challenged an eccle- siastical supremacy over all other prelates. His pretensions were not, it is true, at first acknowledged ; but he was acting in perfect consistency with the hierarchical spirit ; and he at length obtained, in the West, a complete ascendency. When we attentively consider the case, we may see how the doctrine that the pope cannot err is obviously suggested by the pre- latic system ; for, when the pontiff began to be considered THE SYMPATHY BETWEEN PKELA.CY AND POPERY. 215 the visible head of the Church, it must have occurred to thoughtful ininds that it was exceedingly dangerous to en- trust so much power to a single individual who was under no control ; and an attempt was made to solve the difficulty by inventing the dogma of his infallibility. It is apparent that the prelatic structure must be dangerously incomplete so long as it wants such an overseer at the summit of its office- bearers — for, when fairly carried out, it places the whole Church at the mercy of a solitary man ; and if that man be not infallible, the folly of such an arrangement is indisput- able. Thus prelacy leads to popery ; and popery is prelacy theoretically perfect. It is curious to observe, in connection with this subject, that ever since the Eeformation there has been a tendency on the part of many Protestant Episcopalians to make peace with the Church of Rome. Whilst their formularies teach them to abhor the idolatry of the papacy, not a few of them are ever and anon exhibiting a desire to return to its com- munion. The simple truth is, that the Church of England has never been thoroughly reformed. Even at the end of the reign of Henry VIII. it retained almost all the features of the old superstition, with the exception of the doctrine of the I'apal Supremacy. (Jueen Elizabeth, for reasons of State, was disposed to introduce as few changes as could possibly be made without compromising entirely the great principles of I'rotestantism ; and thus it was that so much of the liomish polity and ritual was still preserved. In the time of Archbishop Laud there was much coquetting between the two Churches ; the project of a union was openly mentioned ; and various in- dividuals of note connected with the British aristocracy anti- cipated the contemplated movement by passing over to popery. In the times of Charles II. and James II., the same course of proselytism was repeated ; and the number of converts to llomanism was boastfully proclaimed. Even in the last century the proposal of a junction of the Churches was again entertained ; and one of the parties by whom it was looked upon with favour was no less distinguished a personage than Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury. We learn from a corre- spondence which was then carried on between the Englisli primate and certain French ecclesiastics, that Wake was pre- 216 PRELACY. pared to concede to tlie pope " a primacy of rank and honour." " He was persuaded," it appears, " that, in the liturgy of the Church of Entrland, there was notlnnff but what the Eonian Catholics would adopt, except the single rubric relating to tlie Eucharist ; and that, in the Eomish liturgy, there was nothing to which Protestants object, but what the more rational llomanists agree might be laid aside." ^ In our own days, the sympathy between the Church of Rome and the Church of England has been quite as distinctly manifested. The lleformation has been openly attacked in Anglican pulpits, and decried by English professors from the high places of the universities ; its most precious doctrines have been unscrupu- lously assailed ; and crowds of converts from the ranks of the clergy, as well as of the laity, have been received into fellow- ship with the pope. The recent celebration of the centennial anniversary of the birth of Luther was publicly denounced by many Anglican Churchmen. If Eomanism is — as we verily believe — a monstrous compound of spiritual delusion and ecclesiastical tyranny, such movements surely speak, trumpet- tongued, of the dangers of prelacy. The gay, and the am- bitious, and the fashionable may be attracted to its com- munion — for it delights in a splendid ceremonial, and it is clothed in grand attire ; but those who can appreciate the blessings of scriptural Christianity will scruple to commit themselves to a system which bridges over the gulf between the glorious gospel and the great apostasy. The preceding statements point to the conclusion that prelacy is not the agency ordained of God for the enlighten- ment of the world. Some of its more cautious advocates do not venture to say that diocesan episcopacy was the established order of the Church in the days of Paul and Peter. They admit that in the New Testament the terms bishop and presbyter are synonymous. Finding no account of its institution in Scripture, they have broached the theory that it was set up about the close of the apostolic age. This, however, is a mere dream. All the sound historical evidence we possess goes to show that its first germs appeared towards the middle of the second century, and that it origin- ated in Eome. For a time it made little progress, and ^ Murdock's Mosheim, by Soames, vol. iv. Ajipendix, 526. THE SYMPATHY BETWEEN PRELACY AND POPERY. 217 advanced very modest pretensions. It was first organized in a few great cities, and their influence contributed gradually to promote its extension. In the fourth century it was established under imperial auspices ; and from that date superstitions in various forms multiplied very rapidly. The bishop of Eome came into possession of great temporal power when Christianity was recognised as the religion of the empire. From time to time he craftily augmented his authority ; he at length openly advanced those pretensions which he has ever since maintained ; and in the end a dark- ness that might be felt settled down on Christendom. But when rays of heavenly light began to dissipate the gloom, irom whom did they emanate ? Not certainly from the " lords over God's heritage." John Wiclif, the morning star of the Eeformation, did not belong to the episcopal order. He denounced prelacy as a human arrangement which had inflicted immense injury on Christianity. John Huss, a man of kindred spirit, and another of the witnesses for the truth when superstition reigned all around, fell a victim to prelatic intolerance. And Luther, who led the van of the Reformers, was not a prelate, but a presbyter. When he proclaimed war against indulgences, his own bishop interposed, and exhorted him to submission. The Continental bishops, almost to a man, adhered stedfastly to the pope. Zwingle, in Switzerland, disowned the episcopal system, and was a zealous supporter of Presbyterianism. Calvin, and Beza, and Farel, and the other great Frenchmen who upheld the Protestant banner, were all of kindred principles. Even in England the cause of the Eeformation would have been mined had it been left to the care of the bishops, as by far the greater number of them were its bitter adversaries. Miles Coverdale, the trans- lator of the Bible into English, though at one time a prelate, declined, when better informed, to resume the performance of episcopal functions. Hooper, the English martyr, accepted a bishopric with reluctance, and remained for some time in confinement, because he scrupled to submit to the usual mode of consecration. John Knox, the evangelist of Scotland, positively refused to accept a bishopric, and planted Presby- terianism so firmly in his native land, that neither the arts of courtly intrigue nor the terrors of persecution have ever '2 IS PRELACY. since been able effectually to weaken its hold on the bulk of the population. And the Pilgrim Fathers, who propagated Protestantism on the great Continent of America, all suffered severely for their aversion to prelacy. And though episcopacy has of late been diligently endeavouring to extend its influence in the Colonies of the empire, it has been remarked as an instructive fact that many of the Colonial bishops spend much of their time in England. Such things plainly point to the conclusion that the order is rather for show than service, and that the evangelization of the world is not likely to be greatly promoted by those pretentious oflicials. The inference just suggested is greatly strengthened when we consider the absurd assumptions of not a few members of the hierarchy. Holding, as they do, the doctrine of apos- tolical succession, they erect an insuperable barrier in the way of closer fellowship among Protestants. According to this system, a Church without a prelate wants one of its vital organs. Many Episcopalians are not prepared to admit that such a society can be called a Church at all. Dr. Christopher Wordsworth, the present l)ishop of Lincoln, in his TJicopliihis Anglicanus, sets forth on this subject the sentiments of a large proportion of the ministers of the P'.nglish Establish- ment. The work to which we refer has obtained very exten- sive circulation,' and has been described by a late Archbishop of Canterbury as " a mod vsrful manual to all who are desirous of forming just opinions in regard to the Church, arid especially to youwj students of divinity." According to it, there are " three orders in the Church," and a religious community " is not duly and fully a Church vithout them." " " The Church of England," says r>ishop Wordsworth, " traces the holy orders of her bishops and presbyters in an unhroh'n line from the apostles of Christ ; and she declares in her ordinal and canons . . . that there have ever been three orders in Christ's Church— those of bishops, priests, and deacons — from the apostles' times ; and she recoyniscs none an haHng these orders w^ho have not received episcopal ordination" " This writer, in the same volume, endeavours to defend his ' Tho quotations hereafter given from this work arc from the xerenfh edition, London 1854. I cannot say how many editions have since been issued. - P. 87. » P. 210. THE SYMrATHY BETWEEN PRELACY AND POrERY'. 219 Church against the charge of inconsistency and partiality, inasmuch as she recognises the orders of the Church of Eome, whilst she does not acknowledge those of such Protestant communities (for he will not call tliem Churches) as are not under episcopal government. It is an " error," says he, to " think that because Eome is a very corrupt Church, there- fore she is no Church."^ "The Church of England prefers the holy orders of Christ, by whomsoever they may be given," even by this very corrupt Church, " to a commission from man," "" that is, to ordination by those who are not Episco- palians. "The Church of England," he tells us, "is the mother of nil Christians in this country. In the words of Scripture, she is to them all ' the house of God,' ' the body of Christ,' ' the mother of all living ; ' and she is appointed by Christ to be the dispenser of His grace to them all ; and they cannot rightly receive any sacramental grace except hy her. She is the spouse of Christ, and these spiritual gifts are dos Ecclesim, her dowry, and hees alone." ^ And in answer to the question, " Together with a lawful call and visible mission, what else is necessary to constitute a person duly and fully a minister of Christ ? " he replies, " He must also receive the ordaining grace of the Holy Spirit of God, invest- ing him with the power of dispensing God's word and sncraments, and remitting and retaining sins, of praying for God's people, and of blessing them in His name ; and this tlie Holy Spirit confers by the hands of the successors of the apostles, and hy their prayer's and hlessings, in the office of ordination." ^ In response to another question, " Do you intend to say that no one can confer holy orders except bishops ? " he answers, " Yes ; cases of inevitable necessity excepted, none may ordain hut only hishops ; and all other ordinations, wliether by presbyters or any one else, have ever heeyi regarded hy the Church as invalid." ^ According to Dr. Wordsworth, all in the land who make a profession of Christianity, but who do not belong to the Church of England, " are ta7'es or had wheat." " They are now chaff, but they are on Iter floor, and they become good grain " by joining her communion. ' P. 288. -' P. 217. ■■' p. 286. * Pp. 83, 84. ' P. 103. « p. 289. 220 PRELACY. The Great Teaclier has said : " He that liatli my command- ments and keepeth them, he it is tliat loveth me ; and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father; and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him." ^ The bishop of Lincoln lias here set up quite another test of discipleship. A man may, according to his views, love Christ with supreme affection, and may be a pattern of good works ; but if he is not a member of tlie Church of P^ngland, he is nothing more tlian " tares, bad wheat, or chaff." His piety, however exalted, must really be worthless, for he has not received " any sacra- mental grace," because the ordmation of the minister on whose services he has attended was " invalid." He may liave read the Bible daily, and daily endeavoured to walk with God ; but all this must avail him nothing, for he has not received the blessing of one who is a successor of the apostles, and who has " the power of dispensing God's word and sacraments, and of praying for God's people." Christ has said, " Beware of false prophets. ... Yc shall knoiv them by their fruits.'" ' Bishop Wordsworth tells us that the Church of England is our mother, that her ministers are the ministers of Christ, and that we shall knoiu them hy their gencaloyy. They may be unsound in doctrine, or blind leaders of the blind, or wolves in sheep's clothing ; but they have " the power of retaining and remitting sins," and we cannot therefore go astray by placing ourselves under their super- vision ! There are, no doubt, some Episcopalians who disown these sentiments ; but we fear those who object to them constitute rather a feeble minority of the ministers and people of the Church of England. The work from wliicli we have quoted is regarded by its ecclesiastical authorities as a standard publication, and is used, as it would appear, as a text-book in not a few of its higher educational establishments. And when such views are impressed on the minds of the rising generation of Englishmen, we can well understand how it is that popery is making such strides in South Britain. Accord- ing to Bishop Wordsworth, the Church of Home is only an erring sister ; but the Churches of the Reformation can scarcely be considered even as illegitimate children ! The Protestant ' John xiv. 21. - Matt. vii. 1.'., 16. THE SYMPATHY BETWEEN PRELACY AND POPERY. 221 ministers of France, and Holland, and Germany, and Ireland, and Scotland, and America, with the exception of those who have been all along nnder episcopal regimen, have no right what- ever either to preach the word or to dispense the sacraments ! They have had among them a large proportion of the holiest men and of the greatest divines in Christendom ; but they have not had the apostolical succession ; and they have known that, as it is held by Bishop Wordsworth, it is a miserable delusion. So far from being able to prove that " there have ever been three orders in Christ's Church from the apostles' times," he cannot produce a single case of ordination by a diocesan bishop before the end of the second century. And how presumptuous to affirm that episcopal ordination is necessary to a valid ministry ! Any one with a particle of spiritual discernment who only looks around him may see that the statement is as baseless as it is uncharitable. Sucli a man as Mr. C. H. Spurgeon of London may be thouglit by many eminent Christians to be a master in Israel, and may have been honoured by the Divine Head of the Church in turning multitudes from the power of Satan unto God ; but, according to the bishop of Lincoln, the curate on whom he has laid hands, and who is able to read his Prayer-Book, is greater than the mighty evangelist of the Metropolitan Tabernacle ! ! To those acquainted with the teaching of the New Testament, the transparent folly of such doctrine should be sufficient to secure its condemnation. Tliough boastinfj of her " sacramental grace," the candid observer must find it very difficult to discover the spiritual superiority which the Church of England so proudly claims. As a body, her members are certainly neither more pious, nor better in- structed in the truths of Christianity, nor prepared to make greater sacrifices for the advancement of the Eedeemer's kingdom, than their nonconforming neighbours. What right has this Church to set aside ordination by "the laying on of the hands of the presbytery," and to insist that ordination by a diocesan bishop is alone valid ? What warrant has she for asserting that all who do not belong to her communion are schismatics ? On what grounds is she entitled to frown upon all other denominations, and virtually to say to them. Stand by yourselves ; come not near me, for I am holier in PRELACY. than any of you { "Why should slie appropriuLe to herself tlie title of ike Church, and refuse to acknowledge any as ministers save those who have received her orders ? Assuredly tlie visible communion of saints will never be established so \o\v^ as she persists in these exclusive and arrogant pretensions. No wonder that so many Cliristian patriots of the seventeenth century, in their elibrts to gather the Protestants of the empire into one great Church, were provoked and irritated by these absurd claims, and entered into a Solemn League and Covenant " to endeavour the extirpation of prelacy." To this day, under the guidance of such leaders as the bishop of Lincoln, she stands stupidly in the way of the fellowship of the faithful ; and she must be thoroughly reformed before the unity of the visible Church can be consummated. ]jut how can this reformation be accomplished ? When we contemplate the wealth, and influence, and culture which she has at her disposal, and when we observe how much the leaven of Eomanism per- vades so many departments of her ritual, we may well admit the portentous difficulty of the task ; but we must remember that truth is mighty, and we must " spare no arrows " in assailing her errors. Let those who see the folly and danger of the doctrine promulgated by Bishop Wordsworth take every fair opportunity of showing that it is condemned by the word of God, and that it is only calculated to promote sectarian pride and bitterness. The advocates of this system must be completely overwhelmed, again and again, by honest and invincible argument pressed home against them, Ijefore they will be awakened from their dreams of super- stition. We may add that every new gleam of light cast on the darkness of antic[uity reveals more and more clearly how far such men as the bishop of Lincoln have been mistaken. Even in the present century fresh evidences disclosing the weakness of their position have appeared from time to time. The recently discovered work, known as The Teaching of the Apostles, is the latest witness against them. The time is steadily approaching when prelacy nmst pass away, and when there will be no " lords over God's heritage." Then the law of God's house will be recognised by all His ministers : " One THE SYMPATHY BETWEEN PRELACY AND POPERY, 223 is your Master, even Christ ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth [the bishop is called ' father in God '] : for one is your father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters : for one is your Master, even Christ." ' ^ Matt, xxiii. 8-10. CHAPTER XIII. THE RISE OF PKELACY, AND ITS GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT. It is obvious from the New Testament that the primitive Church was occasionally disturbed by the teaching of errorists. We learn, however, from the testimony of the earliest wit- nesses, that so long as any of the inspired heralds of the gospel survived, the propagators of false doctrine made no considerable impression on tlie Christian community. Hege- sippus tells us that until the death of Simeon of Jerusalem — an event which occurred not long after the commencement of the second century — " the Church continued as a pure and uncorrupted virgin." " If there were any at all," says he, " who attempted to pervert the right standard of saving instruction, they were yet skulking in dark retreats ; but when the sacred company of the apostles had, in various ways, finished their career, and the generation of those who had been privileged to hear their inspired wisdom had passed away, then at length tbe fraud of false teachers produced a confederacy of impious errors." ^ Celsus, an early infidel writer of the same period, gives the same report as to the primitive followers of our Lord. At first, he informs us, they v/ere agreed in sentiment, but in his days, when " spread out into a multitude," they became "divided and distracted, each aiming to give stability to his own faction." ^ All accounts concur in the statement that towards the middle of the second century, or the beginning of the reign of Antoninus Pius, the heretics seriously imperilled the peace and purity of the Church. Appearing almost simultaneously in several of the great cities of the empire, they e.xerted themselves with wonderful activity to obtain positions of influence among the disciples. The dangers to be appre- 1 Euseb. iii. 32. " Oriojen, Coiura Celsum, iii. sect. 10. 221 THE RISK OF PKELACY, AND ITS GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT. 225 liended from them were of the most formidable character. Tlieir leaders were men of ready eloquence and of hi<,'li literary culture ; and tliey so mixed up their corrupt philo- sophical speculations with the truths of Christianity as to render them very attractive to many minds. In IJome, the capital of the Western world, the errorists appeared in large numbers. Here Valentine, (Jerdo, Marcion, Marcus, and others were making converts. Instead of labouring diligently to counterwork these enemies of the faith by the legitimate appliances prescribed in Scripture, the Church, in an evil hour, proposed to put them down by a new agency of her own devising. The Christian brutherhood had hitlierto been governed " by the common council of the presbyters ; " but it was now thought right to modify this system, so " that one chosen from among the presbyters should l)e put over the rest," " that the seeds of schism might be taken away." ^ It would appear that the new polity originated in the chief city of the empire.'^ Hence Hyginus, who was then its most influential presbyter, is said, in a book written by one of his successors fully two centuries afterwards, to have " arranged the clergy, and distributed the gradations." ''' The preservation of the unity of the Church was the grand object contemplated by this ecclesiastical movement. "VVe liave reason to believe that it was not accomplished without considerable murmuring; but the influential position of the parties by whom it was inaugurated gradually succeeded in overcoming all opposition. The presiding presbyter now assumed the title of bishop, and his former colleagues were permitted for a time to retain a large portion of their power ; but, by yielding to the principle that notliing whatever could be done without the npproval of their chief, they prepared the way for their final and complete subordination. In primitive times the Eucharist might have been celebrated at the same hour, at various places, by the presbyters scattered through- out a large city ; and, under such circumstances, it was difficult to prevent its dispensation to heretics by accom- ' Jerome, Comment, in Tittim. " See this more i'ully explained in my Ancient Church, Period II. sect. 3, cliap. vii. = Bhiii Concil. i. 6f) ; Raronius, ad annum 158. P 226 PRELACY. inodating adinluistrators. To avoid this scandal, it was now arranged that the elements should be consecrated only in the principal church, or the place where the presiding presbyter was present ; and that they should be sent from thence to communicants assembled elsewhere, by the hands of trusted officials. Long afterwards this rule continued to be observed. The bishop was henceforth to be recognised as the centre of catholic unity, and his sanction was deemed necessary to give validity to all ecclesiastical ordinances. He endeavoured, as far as possible, to appropriate their performance to himself. Baptism was regarded as a rite, which it was his peculiar privilege to dispense. In the sixth century the clergy of Italy complained to the Emperor Justinian, that, owing to the vacancy of Sees, an immense multitude of people died without its benefit.^ The bishop was also most anxious to reserve to himself the blessing of the communion elements. Even in the fifth century the presbyters of Eome did not consecrate the Eucharist in their respective churches ; but it was sent to them from the cathedral.' We may see from these facts that the introduction of episcopacy produced a wonderful alteration in the face of tlie Christian commonwealth. The presbyters became more and more subservient to the bishop, and at length almost ceased to dispute his will. That intellectual freedom, so conducive to a healthful state of public sentiment, could no longer be well asserted ; for timorous presbyters were slow to ventilate convictions which might not find favour with their ecclesi- astical chief. Under the very plausible pretence of conserving the unity of the Church, liberty of discussion was discouraged ; and the bishop resisted with the utmost firmness all attempts to challenge or circumscribe his own newly-acquired privileges. Thus it was that at length he appropriated almost the whole of the ecclesiastical power. It is not a little remarkable that this deviation from the primitive polity commenced in a city whose chief pastor has ever since aimed at spiritual supremacy. What was called " the Catholic Church " now took its rise. This great confederation — including all pastors throughout Christendom holding what were called catholic principles — was gradually consolidated. 1 Palnier's Episcopacy Vindicated, p. 35. "■* Ihid. THE UISE OF PKELACY, AND ITS GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT. 227 The leading bishops signified their adherence to it by sending the Eucharist to each other. From the very first, Eome was recognised as at the head of the organization. Irenteus, who was living at the period of its formation, shortly afterwards proclaimed the primacy of Eome in a passage which has long enjoyed historical celebrity. " To this Church," says he, " because it is more potentially principal, it is necessary that every catholic Church sliould go, as in it the apostolic tradition has, by the Catholics, been always preserved." ^ The pastor of Lyons had recently been under special obligations to the Eoman bishop, and he here speaks in exaggerated terms of the deference due to him. The primacy at first conceded implied nothing more than a complimentary precedence ; but the Italian chief pastor and his partisans had no idea of confining it within such narrow dimensions ; and not half a century had elapsed from its commencement when the imperious Victor astonished all around him by the assertion of a spiritual dictatorship. During the Paschal controversy, to- wards the close of the second century, he threatened with excommunication the Churches of Asia Minor when they departed, as he conceived, from the principle of catholic unity. His arrogance surprised and irritated those who differed from him — for such a high-handed proceeding was quite unprecedented — and they treated it with contempt ; but Victor could plead, notwithstanding, that he was contend- ing for a catholic principle, as he was seeking to create and maintain unity and uniformity throughout the Catholic world. In the middle of the following century, his successor, Stephen, pursued exactly the same policy, when he excommunicated Cyprian of Carthage and others, who differed from him as to the rebaptism of heretics. Cyprian, no doubt, considered that the Eoman bishop was attempting a most unwarrantable stretch of power ; and yet he might have found it exceedingly difficult, in a strictly logical argument, to defend his non- conformity. Ever since the Catholic Church had been formed, ingenuity had been at work to invent plausible reasons for its constitufem^ and much sophistry had been permitted to pass unchallenged. A new meaning had been discovered for the text, " Thou art B?ter, and upon this rock will I build my ^ Contra Hcereses, III. chap. iii. sect. 2. 228 PKELACT. (Jlmrcli." ' Tlie.se words liave been oxpoinidcd by a menibor of the Church of Rome, in a work written towards the middle of the second century ; and it is tliere stated that the Kock is (yhrist;* but the flatterers of the chief pastor of C'hristendom now extracted from it quite another interpretation, and stoutly maintained that the ]iock meant Peter. Cyprian incautiously accepted this foolish meanin_[T, and thus ])laced liimself in a position from which it was no easy matter to vindicate his consistency. For if Peter is the Kock on whicli the Church is built, and if the bishop of Pome inlierits his prerogatives as his successor and his representative, it may be impossible for us to tell how we are to limit the bound- aries of bis jurisdiction. Cyprian has made other statements from which we may .see that lie must have felt no small embarrassment when disputing with Stephen. He speaks of " the See of Peter " as the source " vhcnre the unity of the priesthood took its rise," ^ and he describes the Poman bishopric as " the root and loomh of the Catholic Church." * We have intimated that the doctrine of ministerial parity was not relinquished without a struggle. It was not to lie expected that the presbyters would all at once consent to the appointment of an ecclesiastical superior. But the dread of the spread of heresy, the hope that the new government would arrest its progress, and the influence and ability of the leading Churchmen in the great towns, eventually surmounted all opposition. Polycarp of Smyrna was still living when the system was inaugurated, and he had evidently been alarmed when he heard of this new departure in ecclesiastical dis- cipline. He had great weight of character, as he was everywhere respected for his piety and wisdom ; and there are good grounds for believing that the alteration did not meet the approval of the venerable Asiatic presbyter. Though sinking under the weight of years, he travelled all the way from Smyrna to Rome, that he might remonstrate with its bishop Anicetus. Ireuieus, who relates the story of this journey, but who was in favour of the new arrangements, 1 Matt. xvi. 18. "^ Herma; Pastor, lib. iii. Siiiiil. ix. sect"?. 12-14: " Petia haec . . . Filius Dei est." ^ Epist. Iv. ' Epist. xlv. THE RISE OF PRELACY, AXD ITS GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT. 229 passes over the chief cause of it in suspicious silence. He tells us that Polycarp and Anicetus " immediately agreed, without any disputation," on the Paschal question ; but he acknowledges that " as to certain other viatters they had a little controversy." ' What these " other matters " were which they left unsettled may be confidentl}^ conjectured. They plainly related to questions of ecclesiastical rank. Anicetus, we are told, tried to remove the scruples of Polycarp by inviting him to preside at the celebration of the Lord's Supper in the Eoman Clmrch. He thus obviously wished to suggest to him that he might still be considered as his ecclesiastical peer. But it would seem that the pastor of Smyrna was not content with this concession. Such a piece of courtesy was commonly rendered, as a matter of course, by one pastor to another who happened to be present in the congregation. But Anicetus on this occasion merely undertook to perform an act of condescension, in the hope of conciliating an influential stranger, at a time when the Catholic system had not yet obtained a very firm footing. Polycarp, in consequence, returned home far from satisfied. It is a significant fact that Presbyterian Church government continued in Smyrna for at least five-and-twenty years after his death. When Noetus, towards the end of the second century, was promulgating his errors relating to the Trinity, he was encountered, not by a bishop, but by the presbyters of the place. Hippolytus, who was a contemporary, thus describes the proceeding : " When the blessed presbytei's [of Smyrna] heard these things (that is, the heretical sentiments of Noetus), theij summo7ie.d him, and examined him before ike Church. . . . He, however, denied, saying at first that such were not his sentiments. But afterwards, when he had intrigued with some, and had found persons to join him in his error, he took courage, and at length resolved to stand by his dogma. The blessed 'presbyters again summoned, him, and administered a. rebuke. But he withstood them. . . . Then they rehuhed him, and cast him out of the Church."^ Throughout this whole transaction no bishop makes his appearance. Presbyterianism was evidently still the form of government in the Church of Smyrna. 1 Euseb. V. 24. - Roull), Smpf.orum Eccles. Opuscula, Tom. i, pp. 49, 50, Oxon. 1858. 230 PRELACY. The establishment of the principle that, with a view to the conservation of ecclesiastical unity, one of the presbyters or elders should be set over the rest, operated somewhat differ- ently in cities and in rural districts. In cities the presiding presbyter, now called the bishop, acquired increased power over a large congregation, or, it might be, over a number of congregations ; in rural districts, where the disciples were thinly scattered, the presiding elder obtained only a small addition to his authority as the pastor of a single Hock. As lie had heretofore conducted a large part of the public service, he had already attained considerable influence, so that the new arrangements produced no very marked change in his situation. Meanwhile the city and the country bishops held the same rank, and discharged the same ecclesiastical functions. ]]ut in reality they occupied very different positions. When Constantino set up Christianity as the religion of the empire, the distinction between them became still more conspicuous. The bishop of a metropolis was a rich dignitary, mingling on equal terms with the great officers of Government ; whilst the country bishop was, not unfrequently, an individual in needy circumstances, supported by tlie stipend of a poor congregation. Equality of ecclesiastical rank under such circumstances could not be long expected to continue. The city bishops soon began to complain of the anomaly, for they felt the country bishops to be so many thorns in their sides, curbing their ambition and preventing the enlargement of their jurisdiction. The general establishment of metropolitans, about the time of the Council of Nice in a.d. ^525, prepared the way for their disappearance ; for they were thus placed under the supervision of a class of prelates who looked on them with little favour. They had, shortly belbre, been distinguished by a new name — tliat of chorepiscopi — in token of their inferior status ; and they had been forbidden, by a council held at Ancyra in a.d. 314, to ordain presbyters or deacons.^ Throughout the whole of the fourth century we may trace a continuous effort, on the part of the city bishops, to accom- plish their extinction. This M'as not easily effected, as their numbers rendered them very formidable. We meet with as many as fifty chorepiscopi in a single diocese.^ But they ^ Canon xiii. - See Bingham, iii. 93, THE RISE OF PRELACY, AND ITS GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT. 231 were gradually rooted out under the operation of canons passed by councils composed almost exclusively of city bishops. Thus, the Council of Sardica, held about a.d, 343, decreed that " a bishop be not ordained in a village or small city, where a single presbyter is sufficient, lest the name and authority of a bishop be brought into contempt." ^ Again, the Council of Laodicea, held, as it is thought, about a.d. 360, enacted that " bishops ought not to be appointed in villages and rural districts, but visiting presbyters, and that those already appointed do nothing without the sanction of the city bishop." ^ In the end they were entirely suppressed. " In the Council of Chalcedon," says Bingham, " in the fifth century, we find the chorepiscopi sitting and subscribing in the name of the bishops that sent them. But this was some diminu- tion of their power ; for in former councils they subscribed in their own names, as learned men agree ; but now their power was sinking, and it went on to decay and dwindle by degrees, till at last, in the ninth century, when the forged decretals were set on foot, it was pretended that they were not true bishops ; and so the order, by the pope's tyranny, came to be laid aside in the Western Cliurch.""' The Council of Nice in a.d. 325 recognised the bishop of Home, the bishop of Alexandria, and the bishop of Antioch, as the three most distinguished prelates of the Church ; and henceforward the status of bishops was regulated by the rank of the cities or provinces of the empire with which they were connected. When Constantinople was made the capital of the East, its bishop was not long afterwards placed almost on a level with the chief pastor of the ancient metropolis of Italy ; and subsequently the struggles of these two dignitaries for superiority created confusion throughout all Christendom. Their disputes terminated in a settled estrangement of the Creek and Latin Churches. Had the disciples continued, as at first, to be governed by the common council of the presbyters, they never could have witnessed the unseemly spectacle of two spiritual potentates contending for supremacy. By permitting one of the pres- byters to be set over the rest and invested with a certain amount of irresponsible authority, the Church bartered true ^ Canon vi. " Canon Ivii. ^ Woilcfs, i. 189. 232 PKKLACY. freedom for a nicclianical and deceptive unity. It was vain to speak of unity in the midst of theological l)roils. In thu end presbyters and people were reduced to a state of complete enslavement. The people lost the right of electing their oftice - hearers, and of thus controlling the government of the Church, The presbyters forfeited their most valued yjrivileges, and even the bishops themselves were made to feel their helplessness under the pressure of an overbearing despotism. It is instructive to observe how one false step led the way to others still more dangerous. When one pres- byter was raised above his fellows, arguments had to be sought for to justify his promotion. It Avas now discovered that the deacons, the presbyters, and the bishops had their counter- parts in the Levites, the priest, and the high priest of the Jewish hierarchy. In one most important point the parallelism entirely failed, for the one high priest of Israel was matched against the countless array of city and country bishops in the Christian Church. But the advocates of the new polity attempted, by an odd style of mystical ratiocination, to get over the ditiiculty. They maintained that there was one episcopate, consisting of homogeneous bishops, diffused over the earth. They tried also, by changing the current ter- minology, to adapt present circumstances to their theory. The preshytcr began to be called a 'priest ; the commvnion tah/r was styled the (dtar ; and at length the Lord's Supjur itself was designated a sacrifice. The priests and Levites had suc- ceeded each other in the way of hereditary descent ; it was now maintained that true ministers must be known by their apostolical succession. No matter what might be the excel- lence of a pastor, it was contended that he could not dispense valid ordinances, if he was not in communion with the bishops who presided over what was called the Catholic Church. The hierarchy was thus formed into a close corporation, claiming exclusive possession of the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; the people were reduced to such a state of impotence that they could make no movement with a view to the recovery of their ecclesiastical freedom ; and they were taught to regard the clergy as mediators between God and themselves, so that without their services they were in danger of eternal per- dition. The new terms descriptive of the Lord's Supper were THE RISE OF PRELACY, AND ITS GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT. 233 at length literally interpreted — the sacramental elements were regarded as the real body and blood of Christ, and idolatry in its grossest form was patronized. At the time of the Ivefor- mation the Church presented a sad scene of ignorance, dis- order, sensuality, and will-worship. Prelacy opened the door for popery ; and popery took away the Book of Life, led millions blindfolded into her house of bondage, and fed them on the husks of her own superstitions. In discussing this subject, it has been deemed unnecessary to take any notice of the epistles attributed to Ignatius. They are of the same class of writings as the spurious decretals. They appeared in the early part of the third century, along with a crowd of other forgeries evidently fabricated in the interest of prelacy. It is truly wonderful that some learned men are still befooled by these miserable impostures.^ It may be well, before closing this discussion on the merits of diocesan episcopacy, to add a very few reflections. From the account just given of its rise and progress, it must be obvious that it can lay claim to high antiquity. Its germs appeared about half a century after the last survivor of the twelve apostles had finished his career. At first it presented itself in a very elementary form, but it gradually acquired strength ; and in less than three hundred years after the apostolic age, it had established itself throughout the greater part of Christendom. For well - nigh fourteen hundred years after- wards it securely retained its position. On the ground of the length of time during which it has been the recognised polity of what was called the Catholic Church, it has, therefore, an undoubted claim to respectful consideration. It is farther noteworthy that the growth of prelacy was associated with the progress of Church corruptions. Its establishment promoted a species of artificial unity ; but it also contributed to the advancement of intellectual and spiritual stagnation. The bishops soon appropriated the whole of the ecclesiastical government ; the inferior clergy ^ I feel that I am not called on in this place to make any farther reference to these epistles. I have already discussed their claims in my Ancieitt Church, and more recently, in reply to the ponderous production of the Bishop of Durham, in a little work entitled The Ifjnatian Epistles entirely Spurious. No answer has ever yet been attempted to either of these puhlications. O21 this subject, see also the Appendix to the present volume. 234 PRELACY. were obliged to obey their behests ; the people were reduced to a condition of stupid serfdom : and religion was made to consist mainly in the monotonous observance of rites and ceremonies. The corruptions of the Church had reached their climax when it had attained the highest point of out- ward uniformity. At the dawn of the ]ieformation one man swayed his ecclesiastical sceptre over Western Christendom ; one language was there used in the services of the sanctuary ; and one liturgy was everywhere in use. ]>ut, meanwhile, a darkness that might be felt reigned all around. The past history of the Church also suggests that the revival of religion appears to have been always associated with the decay of prelatic influence. Every enlightened Protestant must acknowledge that the fall of the Eomish power in so many countries of Europe in the sixteenth century was the result of a remarkable outpouring of the Spirit of God ; and yet it is notorious that prelacy, as well as popery, was shaken to its foundations by the great revolution. In the seventeenth century we see the same principle illustrated. In the days of the Solemn League and Covenant there was doubtless a great spiritual awakening throughout England as well as Scotland ; and in many places true religion exhibited its power most significantly in a general reformation of morals, and in a thirst, before un- known, for scriptural information ; but at the same time prelacy was swept away by public authority as an ecclesias- tical nuisance. And in all the great revivals which have since occurred, either in Europe or America, prelacy has lost ground. The episcopal power has been often put forth to check the manifestations of religious earnestness ; and the sameness of its ritual has been found to be totally unfitted for the Church when visited with times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord. We cannot, however, conclude these remarks without admitting that, notwithstanding all the abatements we have mentioned, the Episcopal Church has produced not a few very noble specimens of vital Christianity. Who can remember the names of Ussher, and Bedell, and Bickersteth, and Marsh, and Eoe, and M'llvaine, and a host of others, without making such an acknowledgment ? Let us then THE KISE OF rRELACY, AND ITS GllADlJAL DEVELOPMENT. 235 beware of attaching undue importance to the fact of our ecclesiastical position. The outward framework of a Church may be constructed according to the apostolic pattern, when all within may be rottenness and death. The tabernacle of old might have been reared up in right proportions ; it might have had every board, and every curtain, and every pin appointed for it ; and yet had it been destitute of what did not meet the eye ; had it wanted the ark, and the mercy- seat, and the cloud of the divine presence, and the comfort administered by the promises to faithful worshippers, it would have been desolate indeed. Though a Church may be fitly framed together in its ecclesiastical arrangements, still, with- out the indwelling of the Spirit, it wants the glory that excelleth. When it is proved that it has a form of govern- ment promulgated by the apostles, many may not be able to appreciate the argumentation ; but when it appears that its ministers are still animated by the spirit of apostles, a testimony is presented in its favour which may be known and read of all men. Let it then be the care of all associated with a scriptural polity to furnish it with such a recom- mendation. Let them seek to illuminate the Churcli with the light of holy living, and so to execute the great com- mission of the ministry that onlookers may be disposed to say of them : " These men are the servants of the Most High (:i!od, which show unto us' the way of salvation." ^ ' Acts xvi. 17. PART lY. PRESBYTERY. CHAPTER I. OUR lord's instructions to his disciples. According to the Presbyterian form of Church government, all ministers of the word are of the same order. Every congregation is under the superintendence of the session, consisting of the pastor and the ruling elders ; and congrega- tions are associated under the care of Presbyteries, Synods, and Assemblies. Deacons have charge of the temporal affairs of the Church. Before proceeding to consider the more direct arguments in support of Presbyterianism, it may be well to notice certain conversations recorded by three of the evangelists,^ which throw some light on the subject of ecclesiastical polity. It may be that the statements mentioned by these three evangelists are simply independent versions of the same conversation ; or it may be that the same sentiments were reiterated again and again by our Saviour at different times ; but the fact that they are to be found in all these three Gospels is evidence of their special importance. It cannot be said that they explain in detail tlie arrangements of any particular form of Church government ; but they enunciate certain principles to be carried out in the system which has the claim of a scriptural sanction. In the 22nd chapter of Luke, at the 24th verse and onwards, the circumstances are thus narrated : " And there was also a strife among them which of thrm should he. accounted the greatest. And He (Jesus) said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them ; and Lhey that exercise authority upon 1 Matt. XX. 20-28 ; Mark x. 35-45 ; Luke xxii. 21-30. 238 PRESBYTERY. them are callcel benefactors. But yc shall not he so : but lie that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger ; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth ? Is not he tliat sitteth at meat ? But I am among you as he that serveth." In Matthew and Mark some additional circumstances are related, which we shall hereafter have occasion to notice. There are some who maintain that our Lord's observations do not at all refer to the subject of Church polity. Tlie disciples, they allege, entertained erroneous views of the nature of the Messiah's kingdom ; they expected Him to become an earthly sovereign ; they aspired to places of high preferment under the new dynasty ; and the remarks of Christ, according to their views, were simply designed to rebuke this spirit of secular ambition. Such an exposition is generally adopted by the advocates of prelacy ; but, were it admitted that our Lord intended primarily to denounce an aspiring temper, this interpretation would not entirely obviate the objections which the conversation may legiti- mately furnish against diocesan episcopacy. Our Saviour's words imply that, in His kingdom, there can be no scope for the indulgence of an ambitious disposition ; but it cannot be said that prelacy, as a system, holds out no temptations in this direction. Protestant prelacy in Ireland has lately sustained a terrible humiliation, for its bishops no longer rank, by right of office, among the nobility of the land, nor sit as peers in the Upper House of Imperial Legislation. But they are still " lords over God's heritage ; " they claim canonical obedience from the clergy ; they challenge the exclusive right of ordination ; and, like the Irish popish ecclesiastics of the same name, each of them still expects to be saluted by the title of "My Lord." And it surely cannot be affirmed that the bishops of the Church of England bear no resemblance to the " lords of the Gentiles." It cannot be said that the existence of an order of mitred dignitaries, invested with great political power, is not calculated to foster among Churchmen a spirit of worldly ambition. A bishop in the Senate-House, guiding the current of politics, is certainly very like one of those great civil functionaries here described by our Divine Master. The Archbishop of OUR lord's instructions to his disciples. 239 Canterbury is the first peer of the realm, and takes precedence of all who are not members of the Eoyal family ; but had our Lord intended eventually to establish such a hierarchy as that of England, we cannot suppose that he would have returned such an answer to the sons of Zebedee. He might have told them that though His immediate followers would be subjected to privations, and though the first place among them need not provoke strife or emulation, it would be otherwise in the days of their successors, for that they would sit at the right hand and at the left hand of earthly majesty, and exercise lordship over national Cliurches. It is pretty evident that the disciples were actuated by a spirit of secular ambition ; but it is equally clear that our Lord designed to supply an antidote by giving them some idea of the constitution of the New Testament Church, and by thus showing them that their strife for precedence would be altogether superfluous. It is manifest that the language of Christ is designed to discountenance ecclesiastical presump- tion, and that it furnishes a test to be applied to all forms of Church government claiming the authority of apostolic appointment. Whilst Jesus intimated to the disciples that to sit on His right hand and on His left in His kingdom of glory, would be given to them for whom it was prepared in the arrangements of the eternal covenant, He also refers to His kingdom of grace, and points out the terms on which dis- tinction should there be attainable. We read in the parallel passage in Mark : ^ " Whosoever will be great among 1/021, shall be your minister : and whosoever will be the chiefest, shall he servant of all." We shall now proceed to mention some principles, bearing on the subject of ecclesiastical polity, which this conversation apparently inculcates. And first, we remark that, whilst our Lord here refers to the peculiar structure of His Church, He does not express any opinion respecting the comparative excellence of existing modes of civil government. When He says that the princes of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, it does not appear that He alludes to any tyrannical stretch of their power, but merely to the fair and well - regulated assertion of their legitimate authority. The language which He uses does not 1 Mark x, 43, 44. 240 PRESBYTERY. necessarily indicate iliat He designs to charge them with any impropriety, us it may lie shown that the same terms are elsewliere employed when no blame is imputed. Some, indeed, have contended that the compound words KaraKvpcev- ovaiv and Kare^ovaid^ova-tv, which occur in Matthew and Mark, and whicli are rendered " exercise dominion " and " exercise lordship," indicate an oppressive despotism ; but it can be easily demonstrated that they do not necessarily convey any such idea. In the Septuagint translation ot" the Old Testament, the verb KaraKvpievco is employed to express the authority of the Messiali.^ It is to be observed also that, in the parallel passage in Luke, these words occur in their (incotiiponnded form ; and it is well known that then they do not imply any tyrannical exercise of authority. Some of the ancient heathen princes ruled with equity and mildness; and when our Lord alludes to the governments of tliis world, He does not design to express any opinion respecting the manner in which their power was exercised. He simply means to teach that His Church is not to be managed like an earthly kingdom; and that the jurisdiction of princes is altogether different from the jurisdiction of pastors. When the language of our Lord is thus calmly and im- partially interpreted, we are furnished with an answer to what, in England and elsewhere, is sometimes urged against the claims of Presbytery. It has been stated that it is identified with Itepublicanism, and that it is not suited to the genius of the monarchy of Britain. And we must confess that the reasoning of some of its unwary advocates in the United States of North America has given a degree of plausi- bility to such an objection. Filled with admiration of their own democratic constitution, they have been tempted to plead that I'resbytery has a special sympathy with liepublicanism ; and they have thus sought to recommend it to their fellow- citizens across the Atlantic. But the argument is altogether futile. By " the princes of the Gentiles," or " their great ones," we may understand their Republican leaders, as well as their kings or kinglets. It is quite possible to " exercise lordship " in a republic as well as in a monarchy. Practically contemplated, the objection has no weight, for it is an un- ' See in the Septuagint, Ps. iii. 8, and Ps. ex. 2. OUR lord's instructions to his disciples. 241 doubted fact that the Presbyterians of Great Britain and Ireland — as a body — are quite satisfied with the limited government under which they live, and that they have no desire whatever to exchange it for any other regimen. Queen Victoria has no more attached subjects than the Presbyterians of her empire. And it would not be difficult to prove that Presbyterianism approximates far more closely than prelacy to the structure of the British constitution,^ But all argu- ments to prove the superiority of any form of civil government drawn from the polity of the Church may be properly dis- missed as irrelevant and inconclusive, inasmuch as the Church and the State are communities of an altogether different character ; and our Lord Himself has given us to understand that they are to be regulated on altogether different principles. The overseers of the Church are not to exercise lordship like the rulers of the world, because their commission has been given them for other purposes, and their power is sustained by other sanctions. The magistrate is armed with authority for the punishment of offenders ; the rulers of the Church exercise discipline with a view to their reformation. It may be most unwise in an earthly prince to attempt any enlarge- ment of his territories ; but the governors of the Church should be perpetually endeavouring to extend the boundaries of the Messiah's empire. The commission of the magistrate is limited by time ; the gospel entrusted to the care of pastors must exert an influence throughout eternity. The magistrate deals with the body ; the minister of religion with the soul. A wise sovereign may be warranted to maintain the splendour of a Court with all the pomp and magnificence by which royalty is usually distinguished ; but an affectation of temporal grandeur is fitted rather to prejudice than promote the cause of the ambassador of the meek and the lowly Saviour. Hence the form of government established by divine authority in the Church may be by no means the best model of civil polity. And as the doctrines of the New Testament are adapted to the circumstances of man in every clime and in every con- dition, so, when the rights of conscience are respected, the Church, fitly framed together according to the apostolic • The reader may find tins point well illustrated in Anderson's Defence of Presbyterian Church Government. Q 242 PRESBYTERY. pattern, may be equally prosperous under any species of civil •government. It is foolish to assert that Presbytery is the special friend of Eepublicanism, as it is quite as well fitted for a free monarchy. When tlie polity of the Church differs from the polity of the State, we are not to infer that the one or the other must necessarily be objectionable ; for our Lord Himself has taught us that they are not to be expected precisely to correspond. '•' You know," said He to the apostles, " that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and their great ones exercise authority upon them ; hit so shall it not be among you!' ^ In the second place, we are reminded by this conversation that the rulers of the Church are invested with a more limited authority than that which civil governors may legitimately assert. And if Christian pastors and teachers are not to exercise lordship like the princes of this world, it follows that a system of ecclesiastical despotism is not the form of polity recognised by the Divine Author of our religion. The power of the rulers of the Church, as described in the New Testa- ment, is obviously much more limited than that of civil functionaries. Not to dwell on the consideration that their authority is purely spiritual, and consequently that it does not warrant them to inflict any temporal penalties — except such as may necessarily result from the loss of office — they do not possess such an unrestricted privilege of legislation as national governors. They are to act simply as the servants of Jesus Christ ; for they are merely empowered to carry into effect tlie laws and ordinances prescribed by their heavenly King in the divine statute-book. The temporal power of civil rulers may be said to be unlimited, as they have complete control over person and property, liberty and life. But the spiritual power of ecclesiastical rulers is far more circumscribed. As the servants of the house of God, they can open and shut the doors of the visible Church ; but they can neither save nor destroy ; they can neither impart grace nor withdraw it ; they have no dominion over faith ; neither can they give laws to the conscience. Their power is ministerial, not autocratical. As the police of the city of God, they publish the proclamations of heaven's Sovereign, and they keep order in the place where His honour dwelleth ; 1 Mark x. 42, 43. OUR lord's instructions to his disciples. 243 but they cannot exercise lordship without a usurpation of authority, for they cannot lay claim to anything which can be properly called dominion. Ordinary rulers may change the constitution of the country ; a republic may pass into a monarchy, or a despotism may be transformed into a free State ; but the office-bearers of the Church cannot, without unfaithfulness to their heavenly Sovereign, change its con- stitution. Ordinary rulers may abridge or extend popular privileges ; but the overseers of the Church are not at liberty to interfere with any of those rights secured to God's people in the charter of inspiration. The mass of the inhabitants of a country may not be qualified to enjoy a franchise which might be otherwise conferred on them ; but all admitted to ecclesiastical fellowship ought to possess certain moral and spiritual endowments, so that, as a body, the members of the Church may be safely entrusted with a greater amount of freedom than the members of any promiscuous population. It must be plain then, that, wlien the rulers of the Church assume an authority which would be deemed despotic if challenged, in corresponding circumstances, by the rulers of the world, they must be trenching on that liberty wherewith Christ has made His people free. And we may thus plainly see that the Eoman pontiff must be guilty of a most un- scriptural usurpation. In a free parliament any member may submit any measure of which he approves to the consideration of the assembled senators ; but the pope refuses such a licence to the councils of tlie Church. He sutlers no matter to be there discussed without liis own special approbation. A free parliament is composed of delegates chosen by a free people ; but the pope dare not appeal to any such representation of the mind of Christendom. The bishops whom he summons to his conventions are all creatures of his own creation, and all bound to himself by an oatli of canonical obedience of the most stringent character, A king, who would propose to govern the nation without a parliament, would be considered a tyrant ; but the pope permits centuries to pass without asking the advice of any ecclesiastical convocation. Upwards of three hundred years intervened between the Council of Trent and the late Council of the Vatican. The rule of the bishop of Rome is even more arbitrary than that of the 244 TRESBYTEItV. l)rinces of the world, so tliat the ecclesiastical system of which he is tlie head is expressly condemned by our Saviour. And Protestant prelacy — even in its milder forms — still retains some of the elements of despotism. So long as u bishop, by his single vote, is permitted to overbear all the laity and clergy of his diocese, the Church cannot be free. So long as a bishop, by his sole authority, can prevent any candidate — no matter how well qualified — from entering into the ministry, the Church is under the oppression of a spiritual tyranny. So long as a bishop, in the very weightiest matters of jurisdiction and of order, is entrusted with any arbitrary power, he is, in so far, as one of the lords of the Gentiles. But our great Lawgiver has said : " The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them ; hut it shall not he so amoivj -jfou." ^ Prelacy, however, contravenes this principle, for the government of the English Established Church is much more despotic than the government of the British monarchy. In the third place, it is obvious that when our Lord con- versed with the disciples in the manner reported in the Gospels, the apostles were on a footing of perfect equality. Had Peter, or any other individual, been appointed their head or ruler, there would have been no " strife among them which of them should be accounted the greatest." And the language employed certainly gives no countenance to the idea that any official superiority was afterwards to be established ; for we observe — In the fourth ^iace, that, according to a principle here laid down, eminent usefulness is to be the highest mark of pastoral distinction. When our Lord says : " He that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he that is chief as he that doth serve," He apparently intimates that none of the apostles should be entitled to claim any official supremacy. Had He designed to institute different orders of pastors. He would assuredly have adopted another style of expression ; for then the higher functionaries would have been warranted to maintain the dignity of their place, and to magnify their office. Had He intended to establish in His Church, not only ministers of the word and sacraments, but also bishops, i Matt. XX. 25, 26. OUR lord's instructions to his disciples. 245 archbishops, and others, He would not have said : " Whoso- ever will be chief among you, let him be your servant ; " ^ for He would have both expected and required the superior officers to remember their rank, and to walk worthy of their vocation. But possibly it may be asked. What is the precise meaning of our Lord's observations ? We answer. He here instructs pastors and teachers always to treat each other as brethren, without assuming or acknowledging any official pre- eminence. " He that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he that is chief as he that doth serve," that is, let him to whom precedence may be granted, on account of his age or otherwise, challenge no lordship over his juniors ; and let him who is most gifted or most influential deport himself with becoming humility, remembering that he is still but a servant charged with an onerous commission. Who- ever desires to secure pastoral eminence must be a diligent and devoted labourer ; and whoever wishes to maintain an honourable standing should be as humble as any of his brethren. According to this exposition of the meaning of our Lord's words, some ministers may be distinguished l)y a 2^ut, as their oHice was not new, we have no record of their appointment. For the same reason we have no minute description of the order of service in the early Christian assemblies. We know only by inference that the praises of God were sung, that prayer was offered up, and that the Scriptures were regularly read in the primitive congregations. And as there were deacons in the synagogue, we might not perhaps have read of their appointment in the Church at Jerusalem, had it not been for certain great lessons which the history of their election suggests. We are taught, for example, by the narrative that those who have the charge of the spiritual interests of the flock should beware of be- stowing undue attention even upon those secular concerns in which the Church is interested ; and that, whilst the members of a congregation have a right to select their own office-bearers, it pertains to the rulers to approve and to ordain. In the third place, we observe that, inasmuch as a plurality of elders existed in the primitive congregations, we are war- ranted to infer that some of them were employed, not to preach, but to assist in the general oversight of the flock. There is every reason to believe that the majority of the elders in the synagogue never preached at all. One of them might officiate in offering up the prayers,^ and others of them might take part in reading the law and the prophets ; but we have seen that, according to the authority of Vitringa, — the liighest authority in questions of this kind, — the chief rulers " did not always and ordinarily employ themselves in deliver- ing sermons " to the congregation.^' " If," says he, " the act of preaching had been ordinarily performed by the chief rulers of the synagogue themselves, then there would have been no such opportunity of preaching aftbrded to either Christ or the ^ Prideaux states that the SheUach Zibbor, or the minister who offered tip the prayers in the synagogue, was " percliance " one of the rulers of tlie synagogue. Connections, i. 385. " De Syn. Vet. p. 704. RULING ELDERS OF DIVINE INSTITUTION. 281 apostles." ^ There was usually much sameness in the syna- *:;ogue service, as it consisted to a large extent of readings from the Old Testament ; but if any Israelite present wished to comment on the Scripture lessons for the day, or to impart advice or instruction to those assembled, the elders or rulers were generally quite willing to give him permission to pro- ceed ; and hence it is that our Lord and the founders of the Christian Church are reported so frequently as expounding the gospel to Jewish congregations. But it does not follow that all those who had the oversight of the primitive disciples were preachers. A considerable number of the early congre- gations were, in all likelihood, very small, and yet we do not read of any of them in whicli there were not several elders. We hear not only of the elders of the Chui'ch of Jerusalem, and of the elders of the Church of Ephesus, but we are told that Paul and Barnabas, in their missionary tour through Asia Minor, established " elders in eirnj Church." " James speaks of a plurality of elders in every congregation as a well-known and general arrangement. " Is any sick among you ? " says he, "let him call for the elders of the Church.""' If, as we have shown, all the elders of the synagogue did not preach to the congregation, we may safely infer that the same may be pre- dicated of all the elders of the Church. At the present day, one pastor or minister of the word is considered suflicient for a single flock ; and we may presume that more were not necessary in an age when Christian teachers were at least equally gifted. Besides, at a time when the zeal of the disciples was so ardent, and when there was such an extra- ordinary demand for missionary labour, it is not to be supposed that a number of individuals, all competent to act as ambassa- dors of the Saviour, would be permitted to confine their services to one congregation. In the fourth place, we remark that there are several passages in the New Testament which plainly teach that all those who had the oversight of the congregations of the Apostolic Church were not ordinarily preachers. In the ^ " Nam si concionandi actus ordinario ab ipsis arcliisyiiagogis pni^&titus esset, utiqiie nee Christo nee Apostolis tanta fuisset eonc-iondi occasio." De Si/n. Vet. p. 704, ed. 1696. ^ Acts xi, 30, xiv. 23, xx. 17. ^ Jas. v. 14. 282 PIJESBYTERY. Epistle to the Koinans, Paul addresses the following instruc- tions to his brethren: — "Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith ; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering ; or he that teacheth, on teach- ing ; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation : he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity ; Itr that ruleth, witli diligence ; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness." ^ Here the apostle lays down the principle that every individual should endeavour to make the best use of the gifts bestowed upon him ; and he apparently refers specially to the manner in which deacons and elders should employ their characteristic endowments. The deacon constitutionally generous must beware of distri- buting the charity of the Church in the spirit of ostentation ; and his fellow-deacon, who is remarkable for thrift, and afraid of imposition, must give to the needy with ungrudging cheer- fulness. Those also who are in a more influential position should act with becoming circumspection, and seek diligently to improve their opportunities of usefulness. The prophet, before delivering a prediction, should be quite sure that he is uttering no false vision ; the elder who can speak tenderly, faithfully, and effectively to the desponding, the froward, and the backslider, should be ever on the w^atch to ply them with suitable words of exhortation ; his fellow -elder, who has devoted himself to the task of teaching his more ignorant co-religionists, should industriously pursue his occupation ; and another of his colleagues, who has the capacity for guiding and controlling those around him, must do his best to preserve order, and to insist on submission to tlie authority of the divine law. It is plain from these words of the Epistle to the Eomans, that, whilst in the primitive Church there were certain persons whose business it was to teach, there were also others whose othce it was to rule. But the most explicit testimony in favour of ruling elders is presented in a passage noticed more than once in the preceding pages : " Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in the word and doctrine." ^ Here the distinction between elders who only rule, and elders who labour in the word and doctrine, is clearly recognised. Of 1 Rom. xii. 6-8. " 1 Tim. v. 17. RULING ELDERS OF DIVINE INSTITUTION. 283 those who take the same views of ruling elders as Dr. Peter Colin Campbell, perhaps no one has discussed the subject with so much ability and learning as Vitringa ; and yet tlie exposi- tion he has given of this passage in his famous treatise, De iiijnagoga Vetere, contains an acknowledgment that elders who did not preach existed in the days of the apostles. The following is his explanation: — ^ " The apostles ordained, or ordered to be ordained, for every Church, rulers of its own, who may be called pastors, hishops, and presh/ters ; to all they gave the same power of teaching, of preaching, of administer- ing the sacraments, and of watching diligently over the interests of the Christian commonwealth. This work the Holy Scriptures call TroifMaiveLv, to feed. Moreover, though the apostles or the Church, even when choosing such pastors, would attend generally or specially to this, that they should be apt to teach, as Paul recommends in this very epistle, nevertheless it is very likely, in those rudimentary days of the Christian Church, that all did not possess an equal apti- tude for preaching sermons in the assembly of the brethren, and for discoursing appropriately of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. Indeed, it not unfrequentl]i happened, as I am quite prepared to believe, that, from the want of others, men were put into the same order of presbyters who were very much t(» be respected on account of the strictness of their morals, their experience, and their piety, and who, in as far as these con- siderations were concerned, were appointed with the greatest justice to preside over the government of the Churcli, but who were not so fit to teach ; and thus I can easily conceive that some presbyters of the Church taught, others taught more rarely, or even abstained altogether from teaching, either because they were not so well qualified to teach, or because in the same congregation there were others more accustomed to it, and better fitted to teach and deliver addresses, whilst they in the meantime attended more diligently to some other depart- ment of the presby terial office. Thus, in this passage, Paul does not deny to any elders the right to teach : he only supposes that so7ne do not teach ; nevertheless he wishes that all would teach ; he even encourages and exhorts all to teach, as he proclaims that those who teach are especially worthy of double honour." ^ 1 De Syn. Vet. Lib. II. cap. iii. p. 493. 284 rUESBYTEUY. In this passage ^ve have a most luminous statement of the views of Vitringa. It must be evident, liovvever, to the attentive reader that throughout he takes for granted certain points which should be proved. He assumes that an indi- vidual who is unqualified to preach may nevertheless have a right to do so, and that preaching is an essential part of the presbyterial office. Neither of these positions can bear examination. It is not to be supposed that tlie apostles empowered persons to preach of whose incapacity for such a service they were well assured ; and it cannot be proved that, in selecting candidates for the presbyterial office, they in every case attached the highest importance to a capacity for preach- ing, as, under many circumstances, other qualifications might be more urgently required. The business of a bishop or presbyter, as described by the apostle, is to " take care of the Church of God ; " ^ but lie may be an excellent ecclesiastical guardian, though he may never appear in a pulpit or address a public auditory. He may be most useful by restoring tlie erring to the right way, by warning the thoughtless, by re- buking the profane, and by speaking words in season to the downcast or despairing; and yet he may be utterly unfit to preach a sermon. Preaching is, no doubt, an ordinance of the utmost importance ; but if one of the elders or presbyters is set specially apart to it, and qualified by a long course of training for its efficient discharge, his colleagues of the session perform their duty to the Church if they carefully attend to the other departments of the presbyterial office. In the passage just quoted, Vitringa ingenuously confesses that some of the primitive elders never preached, and yet that they were admitted to their office under the full sanction of apostolic authority. He admits that this text is rightly interpreted when it is represented as implying that there were elders in the days of Paul who ruled, but who never publicly addressed the congregation. Vitringa merely pleads that this state of things was not intended to be permanent — that it is to be attributed to the infantile condition of the Church — and that it was to pass away in the course of ecclesiastical improve- ment. But here we may fairly ask — Where has this learned author acquired this information ? How has he discovered » 1 Tim. iii. 5. EULING ELDERS OF DIVINE INSTITUTION. 285 that the apostles regarded the existence of elders who ruled, but who did not preach, as an imperfection in the organization of the primitive Church ? The language of Paul himself certainly conveys no such idea, for he declares that these ruling elders should be " counted worthy of double lionour." We can scarcely suppose that, in an epistle designed i'or the guidance of the Church in all generations, he would have been careful to record such an advice, had he not considered they were a class of functionaries who were only to be tolerated for a time, and who were actually incompetent to perform the most important duties of their vocation. There is certainly no evidence whatever to sustain the allegation that, in the apostolic age, there was a dearth of official endowments. We may rather infer that such endowments were then more abundantly imparted than at any subsequent period in the history of the Church. The gift of prophecy was by no means rare, and many had the gift of tongues. There was a rich effusion of the Spirit ; the gospel made an intense impression on multitudes, and stirred the depths of human feeling ; the natural powers of men were stimulated to uncommon exer- tion ; and we have every reason to believe that an unusually large proportion of the members of the Church were found qualified to give public instruction. It is worthy of note that this advice relative to the ruling elders was addressed to Timothy when labouring at Uphesus. That city was then famous for its philosophers and orators, and we may presume that its Church contained a fair share of men of talent and education. When Paul was there, he laid his hands on one occasion on no less than twelve persons, who, in consequence, spake with tongues and prophesied ; ^ he then preached in it for upwards of two years with extraordinary success ; it is said that the word of God " grew mightily " and " prevailed ; " and there is not the slightest ground to think that there was any lack of gifts among the converts. If Timothy could not find at UphesKS a sufficient number of presbyters qualified for office, we may conclude that, in the apostolic age, there was not a Church in Christendom furnished with a competent eldership. Few will be prepared to subscribe to so startling an inference. Should we not rather consider that we are bound to copy the 1 Acts xix. 6. 2S6 TRESBYTEKY. organizaliou of the (Jhii«Lian societies instituted by tlie inspired servants of our Lord ; and tliat the recommendatiou given to Timothy, as to tlie bestowal of double honour on elders who rule well, has been recorded for the guidance of the Church in all generations? CHAPTEK VI. OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS OF RULING ELDERS. !Few perhaps of the more strenuous opponents of a ruling eldership will make such admissions as are to be found in the passage quoted from Vitringa in the preceding chapter. Most of them maintain that all the elders of the primitive Church were preachers ; and not a few of them have accord- ingly endeavoured to prove that the strong statement in the First Epistle to Timothy does not uphold a different doctrine. We deem it unnecessary to examine in detail all the modes of exposition they have proposed.^ It has been observed that the text has but fourteen words in the original — even particles included — and that at least fourteen meanings have been put upon it.^ The most common and perhaps the most plausible method of attempting to set aside its evidence is to plead that the apostle here lays peculiar stress on the word labouring (K07no)VTe<;). Paul, they say, instructed Timothy to require that double honour be given to the elders who are vigilant in the oversight of the flock— more especially to those of them who are most assiduous in teaching and preaching. This, however, if we remember the views of these expositors as to the duties of the elders, would be a very strange piece of advice. Preaching, they argue, is the proper business of all elders or presbyters. Preaching, they contend, is the highest duty of their ecclesiastical function. What then, according to this interpretation, must be the 1 Of these, one of the most singular is that of Bishop Bilson, who held that, by elders who rule well, we are here to understand deacons ; and that double lionour means "larger allowance than the widows, because their calling was higher and pains greater ; or else maintenance for themselves and their families, which the widows might not expect." Perpetual Government of Christ's Church, chap. x. pp. 187, 188. ^ Anderson's Defence of Presb. Ch. Government, p. 202. 288 PUESBYTEllY. meaning of the apostolic canon ? " Let the elders tliat rule Nvell — even though they may neglect the more weighty and the more urgent department of their vocation — be counted worthy of double honour ; and let those be especially regarded who labour in the word and doctrine." Can we for a moment suppose that the apostle ever delivered such a suicidal recommendation ? Can we believe that he ever encouraged the oflice-bearers of the Church to neglect their duty, by directing that, when they confined themselves to the inferior and less burdensome details of their profession, they should still be counted worthy of double honour ? The apostle obviously requires that the elders who ruled well should be respected simply because they had thus fairly and fully discharged their duty ; and, on the same ground, he insists that the Church should justly appreciate the claims of those who gave themselves to tlie more onerous and important service of preaching and public instruction. Others have tried to blunt the edge of the argument this text supplies, by urging that " honour " here means payment ; and that, if ruling elders are recognised in this passage, their right to a stipend is also asserted. Presbyterians, it is said, provide only for the maintenance of the minister : they give )io pecuniary recompense to the other members of the session ; and they thus tacitly admit that their elders are not the same class of functionaries as those described by the apostle. This objection is merely levelled against a supposed incon- sistency in the practice of the Church, and can only puzzle the most superficial investigator. If Presbyterian elders have heretofore generally rendered their services gratuitously, their claims, as a divinely-instituted class of ecclesiastical office-bearers, cannot thereby be in any way compromised. Paul taught that they who preach the gospel should live of the gospel ; and yet he did not cease to be an apostle because lie sometimes obtained a livelihood, not from the contri- butions of the faithful, but by working at the occupation of a tentmaker. There are cases in which Presbyterian elders are remunerated. When their attendance on Church Courts involves a considerable outlay, provision is often made for the expenditure ; and when the whole time of individuals, imder certain circumstances, is devoted to the visitation of OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS OF RULING ELDERS. 289 the sick and the general care of the flock, such services occasionally meet with an ungrudging recompense. But, ordinarily, no remuneration whatever is expected, as the elder is usually employed in other avocations from which he derives the means of subsistence.^ Those who maintain that in this verse the word (riyu,^?) honour denotes payment, advance, it nmst be admitted, some reasons in support of their con- tention which, undoubtedly, are very plausible. The apostle, they plead, follows up his claim for payment by going on to observe, in the verse which immediately succeeds, " For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn, and the labourer is worthy of his reward." In both these cases there is, they assert, a reference to some- thing more substantial than mere respect ; and they therefore understand, by the " double honour " of the elder, the reward or wages to which he is entitled for his services. It may be, indeed, that the two texts quoted point, not inappropriately, to the temporal recompense which awaits respectively the services of the elder and the minister. The mouthful which the unmuzzled ox snatches at intervals as he treads out the corn, may suggest the kindly reception given to the godly elder, accompanied, it may be, by some little act of hospi- tality, as now and then he goes the round of his parochial visitations ; but it holds out to him rather a doleful prospect as to a permanent provision. The labourer receiving his reward reminds us that he who labours in the word and doctrine is entitled to an adequate maintenance. Faithful elders, says the apostle, should be treated with special regard, for they greatly honour Christ ; and those who preach the gospel should be generously supported. Had Paul here designed to lay down a rule precisely fixing the amount of official salary, it is very clear that he would have used quite different language. When treating of so plain a matter, we may presume that he would not have made choice of phrase- ology of doubtful interpretation. Shortly afterwards in this epistle, the word {rtfirj) honour again occurs ; but it is 1 " In the early times," says Neander, "those who took upon them Church offices in the communities, continued, in all probability, to exercise their former trades and occupations, supporting themselves and their families in the same manner as before." — Hist, of Christ. Religion and Church, i. 269. T 290 PRESBYTERY. employed under circumstances which absoUddy exclude the idea of wages or remuneration. In the first verse of tlie sixth chapter of this epistle, Paul says : " Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters ivorthy of all liotiour {irdarj^ Tifii)^ a^iov^)." This direction relative to masters is to be found only a few verses after that respecting elders ; and, on both occasions, the apostle adopts nearly the same style of expression. If lionour, in the one instance, cannot denote jjaijment, is tliere not tlius far a prohahility that, in the other, it has not necessarily that sirniification ? If, when the apostle teaches tliat servants are to count their own masters " worthy of all honour," he cannot mean that the hireling is to pay a pecuniary tribute to his employer, may we not infer that, when he requires the Church to count elders " worthy of double honour," he does not intend to allude specially to any presbyterial stipend ? The circumstances in which the word " double " is here introduced may convince us that Paul in this place is not speaking exclusively of a money payment, or laying down a scale of pecuniary remuneration. For if by " double honour " we understand double payment, what, according to the views of those who contend for such an exposition, is to be the exact amount of official recompense? Tlie apostle, they argue, in the verses immediately preceding, is speaking of the maintenance of tvidows. He says,-^ " honour undov)s (XVP^"* rlixa) that are widows indeed." By honour, they contend, he here understands a substantial provision ; he directs that the widows, when in indigence, should be supported by the Church ; and he then goes on to observe that elders who rule well — especially those of them who labour in the word and doctrine — should be dealt with on more liberal terms — that they should receive a double allowance. Though this view of the text is patronized by Bishop Bilson and a host of other divines of his order, who could have imagined that such a very economical interpretation would have emanated from the stalls of the English hierarchy ? According to it, he who labours in the word and doctrine is just entitled to the sustenance of two poor widows ! He will be expected to dress respectably ; to purchase books ; and to cultivate the ^ Ver. 3. OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS OF RULING ELDERS, 291 grace of hospitality : he may be the husband of one wife ; and, it may be, the father of ten children — but this exposi- tion will mete out to hiin what will barely maintain two paupers ! If he has a family, it sternly consigns them to star- vation. Nor is this all. It doles out the same miserable rations to the industrious and the comparatively idle — to those who only rule, and to those who labour in the word and doctrine. Whether the elder contents himself witli sitting on the bench, and dispensing ecclesiastical law ; or whether, besides, he goes forth into the lanes and highways to gather in the outcasts of society — his remuneration is the same. He has the double honour of one poor old v/oman ! We need not dwell farther on this exposition, for we rather think that, if pressed to its legitimate consequences, Episcopalians themselves would be among the first to pro- claim its folly. The apostle says elsewhere : " Eender there- fore to all tlicir dues : tribute, to whom tribute is due ; cus- tom, to whom custom ; fear, to whom fear; honour (t)]u TifMr]v), to whom honour." ^ Here honour is distinguished from tribute. It denotes respect or reverence. It would seem that, in the case before us, it has a similar meaning. In this, as in other instances in the sacred volume, the word " double " is used in a general sense to denote great or ahiindant. The direction of the apostle may thus admit of such an interpretation as the following : " Let ruling elders be treated witli all that re&pect to which their position and services give them an undoubted claim ; and be especially careful to instruct the faithful highly to esteem, as well as comfortably to sustain, those who labour in the word and doctrine." We cannot but think that a misapprehension as to tlie bearing of a statement to be found in the third chapter of this same Epistle to Timothy has been the main cause why so many have hesitated to admit the claims of a ruling elder- ship. We have already had occasion to observe that when Paul, in the passage to which we refer," enumerates the qualifications of a bishop or elder, he mentions that he should be '•' apt to teach " (Si^aKTiKov) ; and we have endeavoured to show that, as a matter of course, he is not thereby required to be a preacher or a public instructor. As a clear understanding 1 Rom. xiii. 7. ^ Tim. iii. 2. 292 niESBYTERV. of this point is of essential importance in connection with the right apprehension of the subject before us, we shall here enter a little more fully into its exposition. When formerly calling attention to this text/ we adverted to the distinction between preaching and teaching. These two functions are repeatedly discriminated in Scripture. Thus, in the Gospel of Matthew,^ it is reported of our Lord that when He had " made an end of commanding His twelve disciples, He departed thence to teach and to 'preach in their cities ; " and in Acts ^ we read of the apostles that " daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and to lyreach Jesus Christ." Preaching is a public act ; teaching is a more private and less formal mode of instruction. Preaching is commonly addressed to a multitude assembled ; teaching may be imparted to a single individual. Preaching is the function of the minister of the word ; teaching may be managed by a female, or by one who has no official ecclesiastical standing. Every head of a family in Israel was required to be a teacher of his religion. "Hear, Israel," said the Lord, "... these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart : and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up." * And in apostolic times every member of the Church was exhorted to spread abroad a knowledge of the truth ; for Paul says to the Colossians : " Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom ; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs." ^ The same apostle says to Titus : " Speak thou the things that become sound doctrine," that the aged women " be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; that they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children." ® When the apostle there- fore declares of a bishop, or elder, that he should be " apt to teach," it does not foUow that he must be qualified to preach, or to give public instruction ; but simply that he should be 1 See chap. iii. Part IV. p. 264. " Matt. xi. 1. * Acts V. 42. * Deut. vi. 7. 5 Col. iii. 16. ^ Tit. ii. 1, 3, 4. OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS OF RULING ELDEKS. 293 ready to perform a duty wliich may be expected from every intelligent disciple — that he should be prepared, as oppor- tunities present themselves, to commend the gospel to all aronnd Him ; to speak of Christ to those who know Him not ; to tell of the good and the right way to all who are in spiritual ignorance. In the Epistle to Titus, Paul apparently expounds what he means by " apt to teach," when he says of a bishop that he should " hold fast the faithful word as lie hath been taught, that he may he able hy sound doctrine hath to exhort and to cofivince the gainsayers." ^ An elder of the Church should himself be well acquainted with the gospel, that he may be able to detect error, to discourage its abettors, and to win them back to the profession of the truth. In the Epistle to the Ephesians the apostle evidently speaks of the rulers of the flock under the designation of " pastors and teachers." ^ These two titles are probably equivalent to ruling and teaching elders. It is the special duty of the fastor, or shepherd, to vmtch over his spiritual charge ; it is the special duty of the official teacher to nourish them with the wholesome food of the gospel. The shepherd must take care to separate the diseased from the healthy ; tlie minister of the word must dispense the sealing ordinances of the Church to worthy communicants. The pastor must endeavour to comfort the sick, to awaken the backslider, and to urge all not to forsake the assembling of themselves togetlier; the teacher, or minister, must be prepared to impart the quickening and cheering truths of the great salvation to tlie congregation solemnly convened. It must be plain, however, that the duties of the elder and the minister often run in the same channel. When Paul declares that every elder should be " apt to teach," he indicates that he should be a man of zeal, as well as a man of intelligence. Though he is not required to appear in the pulpit, he is withal bound to " take care of the Church of God." Though he may never address a public meeting, he may, notwith- standing, be a light in his neighbourhood. Though he may never attract the gaze of the multitude, he may " feed the flock of God " by advice, by precept, by example, by tract distribution, and by catechizing. 1 Tit. i. 9. 2 Epii, iy, 11, 294 PRESBYTERY. It would appear from the New Testament tliat, in primitive times, to the session, or eldership, as a body, the spiritual oversij^ht of the congregation was committed. And when the apostle describes the character of a good elder, he mentions qualifications which are desirable, though they may not be, in every case, indisjoensable. It is not, for example, necessary that every bishop, or elder, should be " the husband of one wife." He certainly should not be a bigamist ; but a state of celibacy does not unfit him for the ofiice — though, under many circumstances, marriage may render him more eligible. In like manner, the apostle speaks of a good bishop as " having faithful children " — not because the want of a family would disqualify him for being a ruler of the Church — but because the good conduct of his offspring supplies proof that he can exercise a salutary influence over the rising generation. And when he says farther that the good elder should be " apt to teach," his words may be understood with the same reserve. Though he may not excel in communicating knowledge, he may have other attributes, such as firmness, or sagacity, or spiritual discernment, which may, to some extent, compensate for this deficiency, and may give him an unimpeachable claim to a share in the ecclesiastical government. Hence, in the first chapter of the Epistle to Titus, where we have again an enumeration of tbe qualifications of a bishop, it is noteworthy that his aptness to teach is not mentioned. The office of the elder involved the performance of a variety of duties ; and there is no evidence that all admitted to it were expected to render the same services. Here the advice given by Peter was fairly applicable : "As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God ; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth : that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ." ^ It certainly does not appear that all the primitive elders were supported at the expense of the Church, or that they all received more or less remuneration. There are good grounds for believing that not a few of them were employed in secular engagements. The elders who ruled well were to be counted worthy of double 1 1 Pet. iv. 10, 11. OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS OF RULING ELDERS. 295 honour ; but those who laboured in the word and doctrine were to be specially considered ; they were to have a befitting maintenance. " Even so," says the apostle, " hath the Lord ordained that they who preach the gospel should live of the gospel." ^ ^ 1 Cor. ix. 14. CHAPTER VII. THE DECLINE AND FALL OF RULING ELDERS — TESTIMONIES IX THEIR FAVOUR. According to the uniform testimony of the ecclesiastical writers of antiquity, all the elders of the early (Jhurch did not officiate as preachers. The literary memorials of the first three centuries are but few ; and though they furnish very little precise information respecting the duties of these functionaries, they supply us with ample authority to draw this inference. They clearly warrant the conclusion that the business of public instruction devolved mainly on the president of the eldership, who began at an early period to assume the name of bishop. Thus, Justiu Martyr, writing about the middle of the second century, represents the president as the stated preacher. The elders and deacons waited on his ministrations, and formed part of his congregation. From the works of Cyprian of Carthage — who flourished about the middle of the third century — we may have a tolerably correct idea of the organization of the religious community of which he had the oversight. There were then connected with that large Church only nine presbyters or elders ; and it is admitted even by episcopal writers that some of them did not preach. Archbishop Potter, when describing the ecclesi- astical arrangements of antiquity, and when adverting to the Cyprianic age, makes the following statement : " There ' are teaching presbyters (doctors) spoken of in several Churches hy way of distinction from other 'presbyters, who did not exercise this office of public teaching." ^ It is, indeed, acknowledged that, in post-apostolic times, the bishops were generally the only preachers. Potter quotes Optatus of Milevis, a writer of the fourth century, to prove that " none ^ Potter O.i Ctiurch Oovernment, p. 153. THE DECLINE AND FALL OF KULING ELDERS. 297 hut hishojis used to preach." In the Church of Hippo, the celebrated Augustine, when only a presbyter, preached for the bishop ; but this was considered an innovation — as before that time such a practice had not existed in the African Churches. The face of the ecclesiastical common- wealth was completely changed when diocesan episcopacy was generally established ; and the functions of the several office-bearers were strangely confounded during the progress of the revolution. The deacons, who were originally only the almoners of the Church, now began to preach and to baptize. The presbyters — who had previously merely assisted the pastor in the management of a single flock — now took charge of separate congregations, expounded the word in the public assembly, and celebrated the Eucharist. Whilst this process was going forward, the ruling elders gradually disappeared. But even so late as the beginning of the fifth century, we meet with some traces of their existence. Thus, Augustine addresses one of his epistles : " To his well-beloved brethren, the clergy, the ciders (senioribus), and the whole people of the Church of Hippo." ^ Upwards of a century before, we find these seniors in the Church of Carthage, entrusted with the care of the sacred vessels during a vacancy of the See.^ But in other places, about the time of Augustine, this ancient class of ecclesiastical functionaries seems to have been entirely unknown ; and hence we find a contemporary writer attempting to account for its extinction. The author who goes under the name of Ambrose, or Ambrosiaster, when commenting on the fifth chapter of the First Epistle to Timothy, says : " Both the Jewish synagogue and afterwards the Church had seniors or elders, without whose counsel nothing was done . . . which by what negligence grew out of use I know not, unless perhaps through the sloth or rather pride of the teachers, while they alone wished to appear something." Had this commentator considered that a com- plete change had taken place in the government of the Christian commonwealth since the days of the apostles, he might have given a more correct and philosophical account of the suppression of the office of ruling elders. When prelacy made its appearance, the power of the ^ Epist. 137. " Optatus, Da Schismate Donat. Ixvii. 298 PRKSBYTERY. bishop soon dominated, and new arrangements changed the aspect of the ecclesiastical community. Inferior orders of oHicials — such as acolyths, readers, and sub-deacons — were introduced ; and, as early as the middle of the third century, we find a rule in operation to the effect that every oue entering into the service of the Cliurch was expected to begin his career at the foot of the ecclesiastical ladder.^ From this he must ascend by the various steps of a regular gradation. Under such a regulation, ruling elders could not long maintain their existence. When originally chosen, they had been generally men well advanced in life ; and they had been called elders with a special reference to their age and experi- ence ; but if ecclesiastical promotion commenced in boyhood, and if it began with an appointment of lamplighter or grave- digger, an aged man, holding a respectable rank in society, could not be expected to accept such a position. There were, indeed, cases in which the new law was disregarded — for even in the fourth century a popular layman of distinguished oratorical ability was sometimes at once elevated by unani- mous suffrage into the seat of the bishop ; ^ but such pro- motions were rare ; and to the existing clergy — who were thus balked in their prospect of advancement — they were exceedingly distaseful. For a time ruling elders still retained a kind of recognised status ; but at length they ceased to rank among the clergy. Those who stood next to the bishop were now exclusively called preshjteri, or presbyters, whilst the others were styled seniorcs, or seniors ; and their duties became more and more of a secular than of a sacred character. At length they silently passed into oblivion. Many parties not connected with the Presbyterian Church have, either directly or virtually, acknowledged the importance of a congregational eldership. The Moravians have adopted the episcopal form of ecclesiastical polity, and yet ruling elders are among their recognised office-bearers. The Inde- pendents who sat in the Westminster Assembly agreed to the following propositions : " 1. Christ hath instituted a govern- ment and governors ecclesiastical in the Church. 2. Christ hath furnished some in His Church with gifts for govern- ment, and with commission to exercise the same when called ^ Bingham, i. 142, 143. " As in the case of Ambrose of Milan. THE DECLINE AND FALL OF RULING ELDERS. 299 thereunto. 3. It is agreeable and warranted by the word of God that some others, beside the ministers of the word, as Church governors, should join with the ministers in the government of the Church." ^ These statements virtually contain an acknowledgment of the divine right of ruling elders ; and in that great ecclesiastical council convened by the English Parliament in the seventeenth century, they received the deliberate approval of the representatives of Con- gregationalism. It is a remarkable fact that, in the reign of Edward VI., Cranmer and other Eeformers proposed the intro- duction of such functionaries into the Church of England, In a code of ecclesiastical laws which these Protestant divines were desirous to establish, we find the following regulation: " Those whose sin has been public, and has given offence to the whole Church, should be brought to a sense of it, and publicly undergo the punishment of it, that so the Church may be the better for their correction. After that, the minister should withdraw with some of the ciders, and consult how all other persons, who are disorderly in their life and conversation, may be conversed with." ^ Farther, in a catechism drawn up by Dean Nowell, in the reign of Elizabeth, and which received the unanimous sanction of the Lower House of Convocation, this order of ecclesiastical officers is still more explicitly recognised. Towards the close of the work, we have the following question and answer : " Question — What remedy for this evil (the retaining un- worthy members in the Church) can be found ? Answer — In Churches well constituted and governed, there was a certain plan and order of government appointed and observed. Elders were chosen, that is, ecclesiastical rulers, who conducted and maintained the discipline of the Church. To these per- tained authority, reproof, and chastisement, and these, with the concttrrenee of the pastor, if they knew any who by false opinions, troublesome errors, foolish superstitions, or vicious and profligate lives, were likely to bring a great public scandal on the Church of God, and who could not approach the Lord's Supper without a manifest profanation, repelled them from the communion, and no more admitted them until 1 Hetherington's West. Ass. p. 169. * Miller On the Eldership, p. 102. 300 PRESBYTEUY. by public penitence they gave satisfiiction to the Church." ^ It is well known that Elizabeth was extremely jealous of her prerogative; and it is said that her sensitiveness in this respect was the secret cause of her aversion to the Presby- terian polity. Some of her courtiers induced her to believe that, were she to consent to the appointment of a ruling eldership in the congregations of the National Church, she would sanction the introduction of a popular element directly calculated to abridge the royal authority. She immediately took the alarm, and resisted the contemplated arrangement. Thus a principle of ecclesiastical polity which had obtained the imanimous approval of the Lower House of Convocation was eventually abandoned. The writings of some of the most eminent episcopal divines of the present century furnish strong, tliough indirect, testimony in favour of the appointment of ruling elders. Bridges, in his excellent work on the Christian ministry, observes : " It was 7iever intenchd that the minister should sustain the whole weiglit of the service of God. He cannot do everything. Moses was assisted in his work by seventy ciders, in tender consideration of his overwhelming respon- sibility. And thus the offices of helpers appear to have been of considerable service in promoting the efficiency of the Christian ministry." Among the duties of these helpers the same writer mentions " the work of instruction in the Sunday school, the superintendence of adult scliools, the management or promotion of religious societies, . . . and the visitation of the sick." ' Bridges is, indeed, duly careful to inform his readers that these helpers do not possess any official power, and that they are not to be considered as" a distinct class of Church functionaries ; and yet he very plainly admits that, without them, the ecclesiastical machinery is exceedingly imperfect. His helpers are mere volunteers ; they may assist the mini- ster when and how they please ; they enter into the service of the Church without appointment, and retire from it without dismission. But is it to be supposed that God has left His people to the care of such ecclesiastical amateurs ? Is it to be thought that He has made no permanent provision for 1 Miller, pp. 106, 107. - The Chriitian Ministry, 2nd ed. p. 5C9. THE DECLINE AND FALL OF RULING ELDERS. 301 the performance of the duties which they are expected to discharge ? If ruling elders exactly meet the want which these helpers may partially supply, have we not thus a strong presumptive argument in favour of the divine institution of their office ? The spiritual state of any Presbyterian Church may be pretty fairly estimated by the character of its eldership. It may have a name to live when it is dead; and, in such a case, those who are distinguished by their wealth or station — ■ or, it may be, by their obsequious spirit, provided they are barely moral — are selected as members of session. It is easy to understand why, under such circumstances, there will be a disposition to make light of the required qualifications. It will be urged that the minister should be guided by prudent advisers, and that such may be sought most hopefully among his more respectable parishioners. We do not undervalue the importance of worldly rank, and we believe that, other things being equal, social position is a special recommendation for the eldership, as it gives its possessor an influence which he cannot otherwise exercise. If an elder be not in com- fortable circumstances, he cannot be " given to hospitality," and thus implement the description of him which the apostle furnishes ; but it must never be forgotten that every one admitted to the session holds a spiritual office, and that he cannot be fit for such a station if he is not a man of God. A rich worldling in the eldership may be expected to be a very great ecclesiastical nuisance. He will discourage liber- ality, discountenance zeal, frown upon piety, and wink at open transgression. The elder who will take care of the house of God will have a single eye to his Master's glory ; he will be " not greedy of filthy lucre," " a lover of good men," "just, holy," and "temperate." Though he may not have the tongue of the learned, he will be " apt to teach," for he will be ready, according to his ability and opportunities, to spread abroad a knowledge of divine truth. A minister surrounded by a staff of discreet, intelligent, and zealous elders, occupies a commanding vantage ground. By their aid every part of the congregation is continually under his eye ; and everything bearing on the spiritual condition of every family can be immediately made known to him. An 3 2 PRESBYTERY. intimate acquaintance with passing occurrences supplies him, from week to week, with fresh materials for prayer and fresh topics for pulpit exposition. Tluis is he prepared to preach, " warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom, that he may present every man perfect in Clirist Jesus." The ruling elder, too, is greatly quickened and strengthened by the good work in which he is engaged ; for, in common with the pastor, he realizes the fulfilment of the promise : " He that wateretli shall be watered also himself," ^ ^ Prov. xi. 25. CHAPTER VIII. OF DEACONS. We now proceed to notice another class of functionaries connected with the Christian Church — those known by the designation of deacons. There is comparatively little con- troversy in relation to their office, and therefore the subject does not reqnire any lengthened investigation. The sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles contains, as is generally thought, an account of the original institution of deacons. Some indeed, such as Mosheim, have contended that they existed at an earlier period, and that what we read of the election of the Seven is merely the record of a supple- mentary appointment. They allege, in proof, that " the young men " mentioned in the preceding chapter as employed in burying Ananias and Sapphira,^ were individuals of this description ; and they plead that as the names of the Seven spoken of in the sixth chapter all denote that they were Hellenists — or persons speaking Greek, whether of Gentile origin or of the Jewish race — it may be presumed that they had the special charge of Grecian or Hellenistic widows. But though there is something plausible in this hypothesis, it is unsupported by evidence ; and the terms in which Luke describes the nomination and ordination of the parties, obviously convey the impression that they were chosen to a new office. The names of the Seven do not prove that they were Hellenists — for several of the apostles had Greek names, though it is known that they were natives of Galilee. Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch, one of the Seven, was cer- tainly a Hellenist, but it is probable that at least some of his colleagues were Hebrews. Had deacons already existed in the Church, the conduct of the apostles would have been 1 Acts V. 6, 10. 303 304 PRESBYTERY. altogether inexplicable. lu that case, when the murmuring arose because the Grecian widows were neglected in the daily ministration, the Twelve would not have pleaded that, in consequence of their nmltiplied and onerous duties, over- sights might have been committed. They would not have urged tliat, as the number of the disciples had so much increased, the care of the poor seriously interfered with the efficient discharge of their other duties. They would not have said : " It is not reason that lue should leave the word of God, and serve tables." They would have called the attention of the existing functionaries to the matter of com- plaint, and they would have exhorted tliciii to exert them- selves to pacify the malcontents. But their conduct implies that the office had not yet been instituted, and that the necessities of the Church required its establishment. They said to the multitude : " Look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, wliom we may appoint over this business ; but loe will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word." In connection with this subject, we shall now briefly point out certain principles which the word of God clearly in- culcates. In the first place, we learn that the office of deacon is of divine appointment. The apostles called upon the multitude to elect such office-bearers, and at the same time distinctly described the character and qualifications of worthy candi- dates. The ordination of the deacons is, in some respects, distinguished from any other ceremony of the kind mentioned in the New Testament. In other cases two or three indivi- duals were concerned, but on this occasion all the Twelve appear to have officiated. In the second place, it is evident, from the account con- tained in the Acts of the Apostles, that the deacons were not appointed either to govern or to teach the Christian com- munity. Tliey were chosen simply " to serve tables." The Church, even in its infancy, exhibited the amiable spirit of its Divine Founder ; it attended to the temporal as well as to the spiritual wants of its members ; but the care of the poor had now become burdensome to the apostles, and they there- fore instituted a new office to meet the claims of this depart- OF DEACONS. 305 iiient of ecclesiastical duty. The deacons were entrusted with the distribution of the fund for the relief of the indigent ; and on the same grounds on which this service was com- mitted to them, they would probably have the management of other matters of a secular character. But they were not ordained to preach or to baptize, and they would have been travelling out of their sphere had they engaged in the per- formance of such functions. In the " Office for the Ordering of Deacons " to be found in the Book of Common Prayer, the bishop is instructed to deliver to every one of the candidates a copy of the New Testament, saying, " Take thou authority to read the gospel in the Church, and to frcach the same ; " but no such authority was given to the Seven when ordained by the apostles. The Twelve desired to give themselves to the ministry of the word, and they appointed the deacons to the ministry of tables. But the Church of England, by empowering deacons to preach and to baptize, utterly con- founds ecclesiastical offices. In the third place, we may infer from the New Testament, that deacons are, not temporary, but permanent office-bearers of the Church. There is no evidence whatever that they were confined to those Christian societies where special reasons demanded their institution ; or that they were only to be found either where the congregations were very large, or where the poor were very numerous. When Timothy was left at Ephesus that he might charge some there to teach no strange doctrine, the Church in the locality seems to have been rather imperfectly organized ; but we see, from tlie instructions given to the evangelist, that he was to take measures for providing it with deacons as well as with presbyters.^ It appears, too, that these functionaries existed in the Church of Philippi ; for, in the superscription of the Epistle addressed to it, the bishops and deacons are parti- cularly mentioned.^ When we pass from the apostolic age, we find deacons in all the Churches described by the early Fathers. It is clear, from these circumstances, that the office was not instituted merely to meet an emergency, and that it was not intended to cease with the disappearance of a press- ing necessity. It was established to make provision for the 1 1 Tim. iii. 8. ^ Phil. i. 1. U 306 PRESBYTERY. performance of a duty which the Church is bound always to discharge, and its claim to be perpetuated cannot therefore be reasonably challenged. Some have contended that the oifice of deacon is the same as that of the ruling elder ; but the arguments adduced in support of this position are quite unsatisfactory. The very names of these functionaries may be sufficient to convince us that they should not be confounded. The duty of the elder is to rule ; the duty of the deacon is to serve. The elder is to rule icitli diligence ; the deacon is to give with simplicity. The elder is to take the oversight of the flock ; the deacon is to show mercy to the poor. "We learn from the Acts of the Apostles that there were elders as well as deacons in the Church of Jerusalem.^ In the New Testament the titles elder and hisliop are convertible — whilst bishops and deacons are distinguished. All the ancient ecclesiastical writers who touch upon this subject concur in attesting that the deacons were an order distinct from bishops or presbyters. The ruling elders and the deacons have their appropriate spheres of labour, and it is most desirable that the boundaries between their respective departments should be scrupulously maintained. Experience has proved that the union of their offices is a most unwise arrangement. The deacon must often refuse the clamorous importunity of petitioners for alms ; and he will thus completely disqualify himself for acting with acceptance as a spiritual guide to disappointed applicants. " There cannot," said Dr. Chalmers, " be a more complete travesty of all that is wise and desirable in human institutions, than to saddle that man whose primitive office is to woo the people to that which is spiritually good, with another office where he has to war against them on the subject of their temporalities. . . . He will find it utterly impossible to find access for the lessons of Christianity into hearts soured against himself, and perhaps thwarted in their feelings of justice by the disappointments they have gotten at his hands."' Pastors, ruling elders, and deacons make up the staff of officers required to manage the affairs of the Christian ^ Acts xi. 30, and xv. 4. 2 Chalmers On the Christian and Cine Economy/ of Large Towns. OF DEACONS. 307 commonwealth. Our Lord has declared that " the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath ; " and, on the same principle, we may say that ecclesiastical function- aries were made for the Church, and not the Church for ecclesiastical functionaries. Presbyterianism recognises this truth more decidedly than any other system. Prelacy has a long train of dignified clergy whose offices might at once be extinguished without any detriment to the interests of the Christian people. And yet, after all, how meagre is the provision which it ordinarily makes for the household of faith ! A solitary individual has often the entire charge of a whole parish. Independency awkwardly confounds the offices of the ruling elder and the deacon, and gives to neither that position which he should rightfully occupy. And instead of placing the ministers of the word in circumstances in which they can maintain the discipline of the Church with decision and efficiency, it subjects them to the influence of every breath of popular caprice or popular prejudice. Presby- terianism at once secures the independence of ecclesiastical functionaries, and provides for all the wants of the Christian community. Neither Independency nor Prelacy admits of such a complete supply of office-bearers, claiming the warrant of a divine institution, as that which should exist in every fully-organized Presbyterian congregation. There we have the pastor to preach ; the elders, to assist in the spiritual over- sight of the flock ; and the deacons, to look after the wants of the poor, and to take charge of matters of a secular description. Every functionary has his peculiar department of duty, and the ministrations of each have a special bearing on the prosperity of the spiritual commonwealth. Due pro- vision is made for the various wants of the Christian people, and yet there is no allowance for the encouragement either of ecclesiastical sloth or ecclesiastical servility. These observations proceed on the supposition that deacons are permanent office-bearers of the Christian community. Though not to be found nominally in some Presbyterian congregations, they are generally, at least to some extent, represented by what are called the committees of congrega- tions. They are, however, necessary to the completion of the ecclesiastical framework ; and they have always been 308 PRESBYTERY. considered as an integral part of pure Presbyterianism. " The Scriptures," say the Westminster divines in tlieir Form of Church Government, " do hold out deacons as distinct officers in the Church, whose office is perpetual, to whose office it belongs, not to preach the word or administer the sacra- ments, but to take special care in distributing to tlie neces- sities of the poor." In the New Testament there are traces of the existence of an order of deaconesses. Thus, we read of Phebe, a servant or (h'aeon (BlaKovov) of the Church at Cenchrea.^ Other portions of Scripture point to the same conclusion." In the early days of Christianity devout females helped much to promote its advancement, and no good reason can be given why the Church should not still employ them in the same honourable service. 1 Eom. xvi. 1. 2 Phil. iv. 3 ; Liikc viii. 3 ; Rom. xvi. 6, 12. CHAPTER IX. OF THE ELECTION OF MINISTERS. When examining the organization of the Christian Church as it is presented to us in the New Testament, we are bound specially to notice its popular constitution. From the very beginning it eschewed patronage, arbitrary power, and ecclesi- astical monopolies. It leaned for support on the Christian people ; took them into its confidence ; and entrusted them with the nomination of its ministers. That we may be enabled duly to appreciate the wisdom of its constitution, we must remember that the Christian Church came into existence at a time when arbitrary government was the order of the day. Its framework was evidently not dictated by the spirit of the age. Imperial Home had now established its supremacy over all the countries where the disciples of our Lord had found their way, and ruled over them with the authority of a military despotism. Tiie founders of the Church were generally persons of very little education ; they had no pretensions to statesmanship or political sagacity ; and yet from the very first they asserted the doctrine of spiritual independence, proclaimed the rights of conscience, and organized an ecclesiastical system the leading features of which may now be traced in all free nations. Christ came to deliver His people from bondage ; and the genius of liberty appears in all the regulations of the primitive Church. The history of the infant community after the ascension of our Lord commences with the record of a poi:)ular election. Many plausible reasons might have been given for a different form of procedure in the appointment of a successor to Judas. It might have been said that, in the critical circumstances of the new brotherhood, it was unwise to bring before them any 309 310 PRESBYTERY. subject on which opinions might differ, and that the eleven themselves might have been safely entrusted with the nomina- tion. But the apostles, acting under higher guidance, called on the disciples to make a choice ; and when they selected two whom they seem to have considered equally eligible, they agreed to leave the ultimate decision to the determination of the lot. In like manner, when the seven deacons were chosen, the matter was settled by a popular election. The Twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, " Look ye out among you seven men of honest report . . . whom we may appoint over this business." ^ And the whole multitude accordingly named those whom they deemed most suitable. Again, we read according to our Authorized Version, that when Paul and Barnabas, on their missionary tour, " had ordained them elders in every Church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord on whom they believed." "' The word ('x^6ipoTov'>]aavT€s:) here rendered ordained, more properly signifies " elected by a show of hands ; " and in this case it evidently cannot refer to the formal investiture with the ministerial office — as it is well known that the " prayer with fasting " ahoays preceded, not followed, the ceremony. " The word," says Alford, " will not bear Jerome's and Chrysostom's sense of ' laying on of hands,' adopted by Eoman Catholic expositors. Nor is there," lie adds, " any reason here for departing from the usual mean- ing of electing by show of hands. The apostles may have admitted by ordination tJwse presbyters whom the Churches elected." ^ The passages already quoted plainly prove that the Chris- tian people are entitled to a decisive voice in ecclesiastical appointments ; but as this is a principle which lies at the very foundation of a right organization of the Church, it may be well to adduce some additional evidence in its support and confirmation. The people are evidently addressed when we read : " Beware of false prophets ; " * and again : " Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of Cod." ^ ^ Acts vi. 2, 3. - Acts xiv. 23. ^ Alford's Greek Testament, Acts xiv. 23. See also 2 Cor. viii. 19, wliere it unquestionably denotes a popular appointment. * Matt. vii. 15. ^1 John iv. 1. OF THE ELECTION OF MINISTERS. 311' An exhortation to beware of false teachers supposes the power of selecting sound teachers. A command to " try the spirits " implies a right to choose and to reject. In Churches where the people are not permitted to interfere in the appointment of their ministers, they cannot comply with tliese plain pre- cepts of the word of God. In such Churches they cannot " try the spirits ; " they cannot, by any authoritative act, pro- tect themselves against the intrusion of false guides. We learn, from the First Epistle to Timothy, that in the apostolic age the appointment of the various office-bearers of the Church was submitted to the test of popular approbation, Paul there says of the deacons : " Let these also first he proved ; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless." ^ Had the apostle said to Timothy, " Prove the deacons," it might have been urged that the matter was left entirely in the hands of the evangelist himself ; but when he says, " Let them he proved" he obviously indicates that the species of trial to which he alluded appertained to others. And that he here refers to the people as the triers is apparent from a parallel passage ; for in the First Epistle of John the disciples are commanded to perform this office ; and the very same verb {ZoKi[jbd^(o) is employed.^ These two passages throw light upon each other, and attest the privileges of the members of the Church in the appointment of ecclesiastical functionaries. Before being admitted into office, the deacons were to be first proved by the judgment of the people. And it is to be observed that the people in this case did not appear merely as vjitnesses to testify to their excellence or demerit, but as Jurors to deliver a verdict from which there could be no appeal. It belongs — not to witnesses — but to jurors to trtj and to find blameless. And the word "also" in this verse, " Let these also first be proved," shows that the bishops or pastors — of whom the apostle had been speaking immediately before — were to pass through a similar ordeal. For these reasons we do not hesitate to draw the conclusion that the Christian people, on the ground of divine right, caii claim the election of their ministers. We believe that they can, with as little justice, be denuded of this privilege, as they can be deprived of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. 1 1 Tim. iii. 10. - 1 John iv. 1. 312 PRESBYTERY. We may see from the testimonies now presented to tlie reader, that, according to primitive regulations, whilst the people nominated their ministers, the apostles ordained them. I'or centuries afterwards the clergy and laity were thus united in ecclesiastical appointments. It would have been well for the Church if the rights of the respective parties had been still preserved. In making provision for the free election of ministers by the Christian people, we may recognise tlie skill of the Divine Lawgiver ; for experience has proved that this system is best fitted to secure the soundness and the etliciency of pastors. If the Church is not corrupt to the very core, this is a conservative principle in its constitution on which we may most hopefully calculate. A faithful people may contribute to the purification of the ministry by rejecting false and ungodly teachers ; and a faithful ministry may save the people from delusion, by placing unworthy candidates under their authoritative interdict. Had the people of Scot- land been, from the Kevolution downwards, free from patron- age, they could have ejected that Moderatism which long exercised among them such a blighting influence ; and had the people of England been permitted to have, as ministers, the men of their choice, the semi-Romanism with which they are now threatened might never have dared to lift up its head in their country. The privilege of electing their own pastors was of immense advantage to the Presbyterians of Ulster, as it enabled them to wage a successful warfare against the Arianism which at one time had made such desolating progress. Patronage, in any form, can find no encouragement in the New Testament ; and the individual who obtains an entrance into the ministry by this avenue has great reason to question the validity of his call to the sacred office. The practice of purchasing presentations to parishes cannot be too strongly reprobated. It is simony of the worst character — being literally making merchandise of the souls of men. He who forces himself on a people, as their minister, acts the part of an usurper in reference to that particular congregation ; for the word of God gives the members of the Church the right of nomination ; and again, he who assumes the pastoral pro- fession, without any ecclesiastical sanction, acts the part of OF THE ELECTIOX OF MINISTERS. 313 an usurper in reference to the whole Churcb, for he sets at nought the jurisdiction of its existing governors. The people have a deep interest in the appointment of tlieir spiritual shepherd, for he is to watch for their souls ; but the selected candidate must have the approbation of the rulers of tlie Church, for they are to take care of the house of God ; and it belongs to them, by formal dedication, to set him apart to his work. It has often been said that the Christian peojjle are not capable of judging of ministerial qualifications, and that the choice of a pastor should not be vested in their hands. But this objection is fairly set aside when we consider the pro- fessed character of those to whom the franchise belongs. It is not the right of every individual to vote for a minister ; the privilege is confined to the members of the Church in full standing — to the class of Christian communicants. And it should be recollected that a communicant is a visible saint — a person who is believed to love Christ, and to be taught of God. He may not be versed in the literature of this world ; but, if his character corresponds with his profession, he is one of those of whom it is written, " The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him, and He will show them His covenant." ^ Will it be asserted that such an individual is quite incom- petent to select a pastor who can promote his edification ? Can he not tell when the minister speaks to him with power, and enlightens his mind, and stirs up his affections, and con- tributes to his spiritual comfort ? He hears the voice of Christ speaking through His own ambassador ; his conscience bears testimony to the commission of a teacher sent from God; he feels when the truth is brought home to his understanding and his heart. It is most proper that the Christian people should have the choice of the man who is to speak to them in the name of the Lord ; for they, upon trial of his gifts, can best tell whether he can build them up in the faith. An in- dividual may imagine that he has been raised up to preach the gospel ; but if he cannot commend himself to the Chris- tian people — if there be no witness to his commission in the hearts of God's children, it is to be feared that he must be labouring under some strong delusion. The sheep follow the 1 Ps. XXV. 14. 314 PRESBYTERY. shepherd, for " they kuow his voice ; and a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him, for they know not the voice of strangers." ' And, when about to be admitted into the ministry, every right-hearted candidate must be greatly encouraged by the consideration that he has been the object of the free choice of the Christian communicants ; for, if his electors are at all worthy of the character which they bear, he may venture to regard their call as a presumptive evidence that the Spirit of God has acknowledged his cre- dentials. We may here observe that distinctions of rank or wealtli should not be recognised in the appointment of ministers. AVe learn from the Book of Exodus, that under the Jewish law, the prince and the poor man were to give the same amount of atonement money when the Israelites were num- bered. It is there written : " The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering to the Lord, to make an atonement for your souls." '"* The chosen people were thus typically in- structed that they were all equally precious in the eyes of Jehovah. On this principle all should be admitted to an equal participation in ecclesiastical privileges. It has been well observed by an old writer, that persons " give their suffrages in the election of bishops or pastors — not as they are rich, but as they are Christians — not as they are lords, barons, or heritors, but as they are faithful in Christ. . . . The meanest tradesman belongs to the peculiar people. . . . To make a difference of rich and poor is to shame the counsel of the poor." ^ The testimony of ecclesiastical history unequivocally proves that the Christian people, from the very days of the apostles, were entrusted with the appointment of their own office- bearers. There is no point connected with the government of the ancient Church which can be more triumphantly estab- lished. On this subject no candid inquirer can mistake the voice of antiquity ; and it is not denied by many of the highest authorities in the Church of England. " It is well enough ' John X. 4, 5. ^ Ex. XXX. 15. 2 Currie's Jus Popiili Dicinuin, p. 11. OF THE ELECTION OF MINISTERS. 315 known," says Bishop Burnet, " that for the first three centuries the elections (of bishops) were made hj the people; and the bishops that came to assist in these elections did confirm their choice, and consecrate the person by them elected." ^ Bishop Bilson's language is still stronger : " The fullest words," says he, " that the Greek authors use for all the parts of election • — as to propose, to name, to choose, to decree — are in the stories ecclesiastical applied to the people ; " and again : " In the primitive Churcli the people did propose, name, elect, and decree as well as the clergy ; and though the presbyters had more skill to judge, yet the people had as much right to choose their pastor ; and if the most part of them did agree, they did carry it from the clergy." ' In the discussions of the Council of Trent, it was acknowledged that, according to the ancient canons, the people had a voice in the election of their bishops, priests, and deacons ; and it was suggested that an alteration was necessary in those parts of the pontifical in which their right was still recognised. " The pontifical," said one of the speakers, " ought to be corrected, and those places removed which make mention thereof; because, so long as they continue there, the heretics will make use of them to prove that the assistance of the people is necessary."^ When some of the members of this famous convention hinted that the people should rather be restored to their ancient privileges, the proposal was strenuously resisted. Still the opponents of the overture confessed that it could claim the sanction of remote antiquity. " It was a motion from the Devil," said one of the Fathers, " to offer to reduce elections to the ancient course ; " and he pleaded that it ought not to be entertained because it was the ancient custom, " for if the Church had wot found it inconvenient, she would never have given it up." * Prior to the disestablishment of the Episcopal Church of Ireland, the people generally had no voice whatever in the appointment of their ministers. Patronage was vested in the liands of the prelates, or of the Crown, or of lay proprietors. ^ Burnet's Vindication of Ordinations of Church of England, 1677, p. 91. ' Perpetual Government of Christ's Church, pp. 462, 463, Oxford 1842. ^ Father Paul's History of Council of Trent, p. 552. ^ Ibid. 316 PUESBYTERY. Disestablishment led to a change in these arrangements. As the people were henceforth to be required to contribute to the maintenance of their clergy, and as a direct refusal to give them any share in their election might have been productive of grave consequences, it was deemed expedient to make at least a show of concession. But the affair was so managed that the influence of the members of any congregation in the choice of their pastor is little more than nominal. In every diocese there is a Board of Nominators, consisting of the bishop, with one lay and two clerical members elected by the Diocesan Synod. In every parish there are, besides, three jmrochial nominators chosen by what are called the rcr/istered vestrymen. These vestrymen do not require to be communi- cants. It is enough that they profess to belong to the congregation, or that they are Episcopalians having iwopertri in the parish. When a vacancy occurs in what is called " a cure of souls," the Committee of Patronage of the diocese, with the parochial nominators of the place, form the Board of Nomination. Thus the Board consists of seven individuals — the bishop, the lay member of the Diocesan Board, the two clerical members, and the three parochial nominators. The bishop, who presides, has " an inde'pendent vote and also a casting vote." ^ It is easy to see that, according to this system, if the diocesan nominators act together, the parishioners can be quietly ignored. The bishop and his three diocesan nomina- tors can always turn the scale against the three parochial nominators. If the parishioners are unanimous in favour of one candidate, and if he is supported by the three parochial nominators and the lay representative of the Diocesan Synod — so as to give him a clear majority of suffrages — the diocesan alone can balk their united wishes — for he may declare that he is not " satisfied of his fitness " for the vacant charge ; and may refuse to give him institution. A pertinacious and self-opinionated bishop can thus contrive to dragoon any parish, or any Board of nominators, into submission to his will and pleasure. It must thus be plain to any candid observer that this new modification of patronage in the Irish Episcopal Church has not removed the essential evils of the system. As a conces- ^ Constitution of Church of Ireland, p. 31. OF THE ELECTION OF MINISTERS. 317 sioii to popular rights it is a mockery and a delusion. The parochial nominators may be appointed by men who are non- communicants ; and their own chief recommendation may be that they possess property in the parish. Their wishes may be set at naught by their diocesan colleagues ; and the pious worshippers cannot in any way protect themselves against tlie imposition of a most unacceptable or inefficient minister. CHAPTER X. ORDINATION. It can scarcely be necessary to mention that the English word ordain is of Latin derivation. In the first, or even in the second century, the Latin verb ordinare does not appear to have been employed in the Western Church as indicative of separation to the pastoral office. It was certainly so used in the third century ; but about that time the clergy were beginning to make very high pretensions ; and ordAnatio was accordingly selected as an appropriate designation of the rite which was the door of admission into their brotherhood, " The word ordo," says an able writer, " was the technical term for the senate or council to which, in the colonies and the municipal towns of the Eoman Empire, the administration of local affairs was committed, and the members of which were called Dccuriones. The correlative, therefore, of the ordo was — not the laity as distinguislied from the priesthood — but the plcbs, or private citizens, as distinguished from the magistracy. And in fact," adds Mr. Litton, the writer from whom we quote, " the word ordinare is never used by the classical writers to signify consecration to a sacred office. From the State it passed into the Church, whence the frequent use in the early Latin Fathers of the word plebs to denote the Chris- tian people, or the laity as contrasted with the clergy. It is reasonable to suppose that, when first introduced, its ecclesias- tical corresponded to its civil meaning ; and that ' to be ordained,' or to be invested with ' holy orders,' signified merely to be chosen a member of the governing body, or presbytery, in the Christian society." ^ In our authorized translation of the New Testament, the word " ordain " repeatedly occurs in connection with appoint- 1 Litton's Church of Christ, pp. 565, 566. ORDINATION. 319 ments to the ministry ; but the language in the original is not descriptive of any ecclesiastical ceremony. Thus, in the Epistle to Titus, the apostle speaks of having left the evan- gelist in Crete to " ordain " — according to our version — " elders in every city." ^ The original word — here rendered ordain — merely signifies to place, constitute, or establish. Again, in the Gospel of Mark, it is said of our Lord in the Authorized Version that " He ordained twelve ; " ^ but the original word simply tells us that " He made twelve " — so that there is here also no express reference to the mode of their dedication. " The laying on of hands " is the phrase employed in the New Testament to denote what is now called ordination. In the case of Timothy we read of " the laying on of the hands of the presbytery ; " and Paul exhorts the evangelist to " lay hands suddenly on no man." ^ This rite was not specially instituted for the designation of the office-bearers of the Christian Church. "We find, from the Old Testament, that it was practised on various occasions by the ancient Israelites. When employed in ordination to the ministry it may be regarded as peculiarly significant. As the imposi- tion of hands on the head of the victim under the Levitical economy denoted its dedication to God, so the laying on of the hands of the presbytery is indicative of dedication to the service of the Church. Under the Jewish dispensation individuals were thus invested with official authority — for Moses was commanded to lay his hand upon Joshua, his successor.'* Hence the ceremony was appropriately employed when individuals were entrusted with the oversight of the house of God. Still farther, as this form was commonly employed among the Jews when pronouncing a blessing, it may be used in the same way at the inauguration of presbyters and deacons. It would appear that, in primitive times, the imposition of hands was usually preceded by fasting and prayer. The ^ Ka.ratrnf'Ks xara, ^rixiv -rp-trliur'-pDu;. In the Revised Version we read, "appoint elders in every city." - Mark iii. 14, WaitKri ^uh.Kx. Iii the Revised Version we read, " He aj^pointed twelve." 2 1 Tim. iv. 14, v. 22. ' * Num. xxvii. 18. 320 I'KESBYTEllY. founders of the Clnistian Clmrcli thus marked their sense of the great importance of the solemnity. It has been observed that the only occasion on which our Lord is said to have spent a whole night in prayer preceded the appointment of the twelve apostles. The ordination of a minister is simply the rite by which he is formally introduced into the sacred office. He is thus publicly accredited by the existing rulers of the Church as having full authority from, them to act as one of its governors, as well as to preach the word and administer the sacraments. The ceremony does not necessarily add anything either to his gifts or to his graces. The service may, indeed, make a deep and salutary impression on his mind, and a gracious answer may be vouchsafed to the supplications offered up on his behalf ; but the blessing thus obtained is conveyed — not because of the laying on of hands — but through the sovereign operation of the Holy Spirit. Ordination, as a matter of course, neither imparts any mysterious sanctity to his character, nor any mysterious virtue to his ministrations. The Council of Trent, however, affirms that ordination confers grace ; that it imprints a character which can neither be blotted out nor taken away ; and that priests, after they have been rightly ordained, cannot again become laymen.^ A considerable number of divines of the Church of England hold views of a similar description. They are very freely announced by Archbishop Potter in his Discourse of Church Government. " They who are ordained," says he, " receive authority from God, in whose name the bishop puts his hands on them ; and authority conferred hy God can be destroyed or resumed by none but God, or one commissioned by Him for that purpose. Consequently since God has nowhere signified that the character luhich He confers on persons admitted into orders shall expire before their death, we might safely conclude, though we had no farther reason for it, that it is perpetual — such as cannot he forfeited by any misbehaviour, nor taken away by any authority but that which gave it." ^ The archbishop endeavours to support his positions by a variety of arguments ; and alleges that the acts of depos.ed clergymen, performed ^ Session xxiii. cap. iii. and iv. - Discourse of Church Government, pp. 206, 207. ORDINATION. 321 during the time of their deposition, are valid, though irregular.^ These strong statements cannot be permitted to pass without a critical examination. It may well occur to the pious reader that the language here employed by the Archbishop of Canterbury has a dangerous resemblance to that which might be expected from the son of perdition, who, " as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." ^ The ministers of religion are entitled, with all boldness, to proclaim the will of God as it is revealed in the Scriptures ; but they are not at liberty to teach that their own acts are the acts of God. This is rather what is to be deprecated in the wicked one, who " exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped." The archbishop here argues upon the baseless assumption that the Great Head of the Church endorses all the proceedings of those who profess to act in His name. On another ground the reasoning of the English primate must be rejected as unsound — for even His Grace of Canterbury cannot claim any special privilege in the way of ordination. No such privilege has been conferred on him in the word of God. Not a single passage can be adduced to show that there was any such personage as either an archbishop or a diocesan bishop in the days of primitive Christianity — so that all the pretensions of such functionaries to exclusive prerogatives are without foundation^ We proceed, however, to deny most emphatically that authority from God can be infallibly communicated either by prelate or presbytery. Every true pastor is commissioned to open the blind eyes, to turn men from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God. But who will venture to assert that any human being, or any ecclesiastical Court, can invest him with such ability ? Who will venture to affirm that ordination, whether episcopal or presbyterial, can secure success to his efforts for the salvation of souls ? The very announcement of such a proposition is sufficient to discover its extreme folly. It is contradicted by the experi- ence of all generations. And yet if we maintain that, in ordination, power is " conferred by God," we cannot well avoid this startling inference. Besides, if, as Potter inti- 1 Discourse, p. 210. ^2 Thess, ii. 4. X 322 PRESBYTERY. mates, every one who is ordained " receives autliority from God," we are shut up to the conclusion that tlie Ahnighty, in every instance, ratifies the act of the bishop or the presby- tery. No matter what may be its irreguLarity, according to this teaching, it is confirmed by the divine sanction. The New Testament nowhere warrants such a monstrous assump- tion. It is only when the pastors of the Church are careful to observe all things whatsoever its Divine Head has com- manded them, that they have the promise of His presence. And even when they go forth on their mission in obedience to His word, their labours may be unsuccessful. They may only, like Isaiah, make the hearts of the people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes ; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.^ An argument, drawn by Potter in support of his theology, from the initiatory ordinance of the Christian Church is altogether unsatisfactory. According to the archbishop, the nature of ordination may be illustrated " by comparing the character of order with that of baptism." The person baptized, says he, " is dedicated to God . . . and though he falls into schism, heresy, or even idolatry, he still belongs to the Chureli, he still retains his baptismal character ; and, if he repents, and returns to the Church's communion, he must be admitted without being rebaptized." " We have here an example of an attempt to prop up one weak argument by another equally unsound. It is rather difficult to comprehend how a person who has become an unbeliever can still be said to belong to the Church. Surely it cannot be said that he belongs either to the Church visible or the Church invisible. And the fact that he would not be rebaptized, if he recovered from his apostasy, would certainly not prove that he had all the while retained his baptismal character. It would only show that the renewed recognition of the previous act was regarded as tantamount to its repetition. And though a deposed minister — if restored to office — may not be reordained, we are not to infer that he has, in the meantime, retained his official status. We thus only see that the Church is pleased once more to acknowledge the act by which he was formerly 1 Isa. vi. 9, 10. '■^ Discourse, p. 207. ORDINATION. 323 admitted to his ecclesiastical position. It is futile to argue that an individual still continues to be a Christian minister when he has renounced the profession of Christianity itself. We remark, still farther, that those who adopt the views of the Archbishop of Canterbury grievously mistake when they assert the indelibility of the ministerial character. " God," says Dr. Potter, " has nowhere signified that the character vjhich He confers on persons aclmittecl into orders shall expire hcforc their death." We might, on various grounds, object to the language here employed ; but we deem it right at present merely to observe that tlie New Testament utterly ignores the doctrine thus inculcated. In the Acts of the Apostles we read that, when engaged in the appointment of a new apostle, the disciples prayed and said : " Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show wlietlier of these two Thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from wliich Judas ly transgression fell." ' We have here an explicit acknowledg- ment of the doctrine that an individual " by transgression " may fall from the ministry — that he may thus completely forfeit his official character. It is to be noted that the disciples, in this place, speak, not of the death, but of the sin of the traitor. Had he survived his treachery, tliey would doubtless have employed the same phraseology — they would still have declared that he fell from the ministry hy trans- gression. It was his guilt, not his demise, which deprived him of his ecclesiastical status. The assertion of Potter, that the character conferred on persons admitted into orders " cannot be forfeited by any misbehaviour," is therefore absolutely destitute of foundation. This doctrine of the indelibility of orders cannot claim even the sanction of antiquity. In the earliest ages of Christianity it was quite unknown. Cyprian of the third century — who certainly ranks among the High Churchmen of his generation — distinctly repudiates any sucri dogma. Thus, in a letter to Stephen, bishop of Pome, we find him announcing the decision of an African Council in the follow- ing decisive language : " We add moreover and subjoin, dearest brother, l)y common consent and authority, that any 1 Acts i. 24, 25. 324 PUESBYTEEY, presbyters or deacons also, who have eitJier been Irfure ordained in the Catholic Church, or have afterwards stood as faithless and rebels against the Church . . . even these, when they return, be received on this condition, that they communicate as laymen . . . nor ought they, on their return, to retain those arms of ordination and of honour wherewith they rebelled against us." ^ These presbyters, who had been ordained in the Catholic Church, and who, it seems, had lapsed into schism, were, hy the decision of a v)hoh conncil, stripped of their ecclesiastical character, and reduced to the rank of laymen. It must, we think, be apparent from these statements that the doctrine of the indelibility of the ministerial character is a piece of superstition, introduced by popery, and adopted by prelacy. And the idea that every one who is ordained thereby receives authority from God — wliich no human power can recall — is a figment equally objectionable. The Most High vouchsafes to acknowledge the ministry of His faithful servants, and to clothe the word which they preach with mighty energy ; but the efficacy of their labours is not to be ascribed to their ordination. The blessing flows from the good pleasure of His will, and redounds to the praise of the glory of His grace. It rests on the word of which they are the messengers. The authority conferred in ordination is neither extraordinary nor supernatural. It may be called script ural, in as far as it is recognised by the oracles of God ; but it may be more properly termed ecclesiastical, as it is simply the power which ecclesiastical rulers can exercise and communicate. It may also be designated officicd, as it is that which belongs to those who hold office in the Church. It is not — as Archbishop Potter alleges — " avthority conferred hy God" which " can be destroyed or resumed by none but God ; " it is merely that which has received the imprimatur of the functionaries of the Church, and wdiich a change of circumstances may warrant them to withdraw. Every true pastor has a divine call to the ministry ; he is moved by the Spirit to undertake the work ; he is endowed with befitting gifts and graces ; and, in ordination, the existing rulers merely endorse his credentials, and give him their perviission ^ Epist. Ixxii. 2. OEDINATIOX. 325 to dispense ordinances. But he M^ho has no other title to the pastoral office save that which is conferred by the laying on of the hands of the bishop, or the presbytery, cannot pretend to say that he has received authority from God. We are thus led to consider the subjects of ordination. And here the question presents itself — May any one, no matter what may be his qualifications, be set apart to the office of the holy ministry ? To such an inquiry all parties would perhaps immediately return a negative answer. It seems to be generally admitted that there are certain indi- viduals who cannot, with any propriety, be ordained. The apostle recognises this principle when he instructs Timothy to " lay hands suddenly on no man." ^ Again, he points out distinctly the qualifications befitting candidates for ordination, when he says to the same evangelist : " The things which thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." ^ Here we are plainly given to understand that grace and rjifts are required in those who would enter into the ministry ; that individuals who are known to be destitute of true piety and pastoral talent should not be ordained ; that none should be appointed to preach the gospel and preside over the flock of Christ save those who are regarded as " faithful men " and as " able to teach others." Suppose, however, that this principle is violated — suppose that men without godliness, and knowledge, and gifts, are set apart to the sacred office — does it follow that, because they have barely passed through the ceremony of ordination, they are therefore to be acknowledged as invested with a com- mission from Christ ? If the Bible is to be taken as the statute-book of the Church, are we to think that an ordination which sets all its enactments at defiance, can claim the ratification of heaven ? Surely none can have authority to admit to the office of the ministry in a case where the word of God expressly interposes, and forbids the investiture. Those who attempt to ordain, under such circumstances, go beyond the commission which the Saviour has given to His ambassadors ; and therefore, when tried by the standard of the law and the testimony, their act must be regarded as 1 1 Tim. V. 22. - 2 Tim. ii. 2. 326 PKESBYTEKV. utterly destitute of a divine warrant. Tliougli tlie Cliurcli may not interfere, and proclaim the unlawfulness of such a dedication, its character is not essentially altered because it is not disowned by ecclesiastical authority. The word of Clod — the touchstone of the sanctuary — is still the same ; and if found wanting when examined by this test, no earthly power can add to its value. Few will venture to den}^ tliat the ordination to the ministry of an infant, or a female, or an idiot, would be utterly unwarrantable ; but, on the very same principle, it can be shown that the ordination of a man without grace and gifts is a wretched profanation of a Scrip- ture ordinance. Ordination is an act of authority ; and the right to perform it obviously belongs to those who bear rule in the Church. We need not now dwell on this portion of the subject, as we have already discussed it when illustrating the position and privileges of presbyters. We have seen that, in apostolic times, ministers were admitted to office by tlie laying on of the hands of tlie presbytery. This mode of ordination prevailed for at least two hundred years.^ The senior member of the presbytery generally presided on the occasion. But, soon after the introduction of the episcopal system, the bishop began to challenge the laying on of hands as his peculiar function ; and, though presbyters were still permitted to join in the performance of the ceremony, yet, as prelacy gained strength, their claims were gradually ignored. In the end, the bishops usurped the whole of the ecclesiastical government. As the laying on of hands is a testimony, on the part of the rulers of the Church, that the individual thus dis- tinguished has secured their approbation, and goes forth under their sanction, it is most fitting that the ceremony should be performed by those who are themselves known to the Christian community as diligent and faithful pastors. The ordinary members of congregations have often no means of proving the gifts and graces of a prelate ; he is a lord over God's heritage, from whom they are separated by a broad line of demarcation ; and therefore his attestation to the fact that a candidate is qualified to expound the gospel, must in 1 See my Ancient Church, pp. 529, 531, 533, 534. ORDINATION. 327 many cases be a certificate of very doubtful value. In times past prelates have not been commonly known as painstaking and awakening preachers ; and liow can the laying on of their hands assure the Church that he who has received this episcopal warrant will open his mouth boldly, and speak skilfully of the mystery of godliness ? Men who are them- selves engaged in the pastoral care may be supposed to be most competent thus to certify for others ; and if they are held in reputation for their faithfulness, it can scarcely be imagined that the individual on whom they solemnly lay hands can be utterly nnqualitied for the sacred office. Surely the business of ordination may be as appropriately committed to those who labour in the word and doctrine, as to one who does not even profess to give himself continually to this service. And as piety increases in the Church, we feel satisfied that the mode of designation by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery will commend itself more completely to the hearts and consciences of all men ; for every one will see that those who contribute most to the edification of the spiritual commonwealth may most safely be entrusted with the admission of additional pastors. CHAPTER XL APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. After what has been stated in the preceding pages, it can scarcely be necessary to devote much space to the discussion of the question of apostolical succession. According to this doctrine, every minister of the Church of England or of the Church of Rome can trace his descent from the apostles by an unbroken series of episcopal ordinations. " The Church of England," says Bishop Wordsworth, " traces the holy orders of her bishops and presbyters in an unbroken line from the apostles of Christ ; and she declares in her Ordinal and canons that there have ever been three orders in Christ's Church — bishops, priests, and deacons — from the apostles' times ; and she recognises none as having these orders who have not received episcopal ordination" ^ It has been frequently shown that the historical evidence adduced in support of such statements cannot stand the test of examination. We have seen that ordination, not by prelates, but by presbyters, was originally instituted, so that, even sup- posing the episcopal chain were otherwise sufficient, it must have commenced, not with an apostle, but, it may be, about the beginning of the third century. And if ministers, accord- ing to apostolic rule, should be ordained wuth the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, it follows that every link of this boasted succession for more than a thousand years must be imperfect. Even supposing that prcsbyterial ordination had always continued to be observed in the Church, a title to the ministry could not have been established through the medium of such a succession. The power of ordination can be lawfully exercised only within certain limits ; and when those to whom it is entrusted pass over this boundary, they ^ Theophilus Anfjlicanna, p. 210, 7th edition. 328 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 329 provoke Christ, and profane His ordinance. They have no right to clothe with ministerial authority any save those who may be regarded as faithful meii who are allc to teach others. And yet have not the purest Churches been sometimes guilty concerning this matter ? A degree of laxity too frequently prevails in this most important department of ecclesiastical duty ; and how absurd for any one to say that he can trace up his title to the apostles through an unbroken series of unimpeachable ordinations ! Who, taking the Bible as his arbiter, can venture to affirm that of those to whom he must look up as his ecclesiastical ancestors there were not some who never should have been admitted to the pastoral office ? In the British Churches the succession must be traced up through the Church of Kome; and thus Babylon the Great is held up as the faithful conservator of the pastoral com- mission, and the mother of all true ministers ! When Eomanists and prelatists tell us that they can pro- duce lists of their bishops from the very days of the apostles, we are not to receive their statements with implicit deference. It is admitted by their own historians that the succession in many cases cannot be positively determined. The accounts of ancient writers relative even to the early pastors of Eome are utterly irreconcilable. There is every reason to believe that the Church of the Western metropolis was governed for a considerable time by the common council of the presbyters ; and when a species of prelacy was introduced, Presbyterian ordination was not immediately abandoned. In the ninth and following centuries the episcopal line cannot be indisput- ably ascertained ; and the frequent schisms in the popedom contribute to increase the perplexity of those who thus endeavour to establish their title to the pastoral commission. It is well known that in several cases the succession of the English and Irish bishops cannot be traced for centuries together — so that those who profess their ability to furnish the registries of their apostolical descent display either gross ignorance or unutterable presumption. How often have many of the Irish episcopal clergy proclaimed that they could deduce their genealogy from St. Patrick through the unbroken chain of his successors, the archbishops of Armagh ; and yet it is now an established fact, acknowledged by their own 330 PRESBYTERY. highest cauthorilies, that those who were loug supposed to have hcen archbishops of Aniiagh, and whose names had been long paraded as such in published catalogues, were not arch- bishops at all, but either presbyter abbots, or persons holding the position of abbots who had never received any ordination whatever ! ^ It is notorious that during the dark ages all the ecclesi- astical canons were shamefully violated ; that children were advanced to the highest ofiices in the Church ; and that occasionally even the form of ordination was neglected. Hallam, in his Vievj of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages, observes that " all writers concur in stigmatizing the dissoluteness and neglect of decency that prevailed among the clergy. Though several codes of ecclesiastical discipline had been compiled by particular prelates, yet neither these nor the ancient canons were much regarded. The bishops, indeed, who ivcre to enforce them had. most occasion to dread their severity. They were obtruded on their Sees, as the supreme pontiffs were upon that of Eome, by force and corruption. A child of five year's old was made archbishop of Eheims [one of the most important iSees in Christendom]. The See of Narbonne was j^urchascd for another at the age of ten. It was almost general in the Church to have bishops under twenty years old. Even one of the popes, Benedict IX., is said to have been onh/ tivclve ; but this has been doubted." '"' A single invalid ordination must destroy the chain of the apostolical succession ; and it is obvious from these well- established facts that the gaps in it are innumerable. Were all the abettors of this doctrine men destitute of education and bound by blind prejudice to a system, we might easily account for their infatuation ; but it is passing strange that not a few of them are persons of extensive culture, who might, by no very tedious process of investigation, satisfy themselves that their whole theory rests on historical mis- conceptions. Some may suppose that irregularities such as those we have mentioned were confined to the dark ages ; but it can be demonstrated that since the Eeformation the canons have } See my Ecclenastical History of Ireland, i. p. 101. * View of the State of Europe dwiufj the Middle Agei^, i. 532, London 1841. APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 331 been violated in the ordination of some of the Protestant prelates of Great Britain and Ireland. In the reign of Elizabeth, when Horn, bishop of Winchester, put the oath of supremacy to Bonner, late bishop of London, then a prisoner in Marshalsea in his diocese, the latter defended his refusal on the ground that the individual by whom the oath was tendered was not regularly invested with the episcopal character. He alleged that Horn was neither elected nor consecrated pursuant to the canons of the Catholic Church, nor to the laws and statutes of the realm. Against the legality of his consecration he cited a law, made in the reign of Henry VIII., requiring, as he understood it, one archbishop and two bishops, or other- wise four bishops, to perform the ceremony ; and Horn had not been so consecrated. Collier, the episcopal historian, who records this transaction, and who was himself well acquainted with questions of ecclesiastical law, virtually admits that the objections of Bonner were well founded, " This argument," says he, " might possibly have embarrassed Horn, and imzzled. the cause, had not the suit been kei^t dependinrj till the next Parliament." ' It seems that an Act was then passed making up what was wanting in Horn's episcopal title. In the modern history of Scottish episcopacy one ordina- tion has given rise to no small comment. According to the canons, three bishops must join in the consecration of a bishop ; but on a certain occasion a gentleman named Brown was introduced to the prelatic otfice by a single member of the hierarchy named Kose. Skinner, who was himself a Scottish bishop, and therefore all the more unobjectionable as a witness, gives the following account of this affair : " When Eose," says he, " who was then in the extreme of dotage, was questioned soon after whether the case were so that he had consecrated Brown, the venerable prelate, in all the simplicity of childhood, made this answer, ' My sister may have done it, hut not I! " ' His sister, it appears, was his housekeeper. It is certain that the ordination actually took place, though the circumstances soon escaped the recollection of the administrator; but surely those who speak so vaunt- ingly of the unbroken line of the apostolical succession may have some doubts respecting the value of a ceremony per- ^ Collier's History, vi. 393. * Presbyterian Review for April 1842, p. 28. 332 rr.ESBYTERy. formed uncanonically by a man in a state of second child- hood, even tliough he enjoyed the assistance of a most talented female coadjutor ! In his work on The Kingdom of Christ, Dr. "VVhately, late Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, has referred to another case which might shake the confidence of high churchmen in this doctrine. " Even in the memory of persons living," says he, " there existed a bishop, concerning whom there was so much mystery and uncertainty prevailing, as to when, where, and by whom he had been ordained, that doubts existed in the minds of many persons whdlier he had ever hec/i ordaiiml at iill. I do not say," continues the archbishop, " that there was good ground for the suspicion, but I speak of the fact that it did prevail ; and the circumstances of the case were such as to make manifest the possihility of such an irregularity occurring under such circumstances." ^ The prelate to whom Dr. Whately here refers is said to have been Warburton, who was bishop of Limerick from 180G to 18 20.'-^ His real name was not Warburton, but Mougan ; and it is not known certainly how he was introduced into the ministry. " The tradition is," says a writer in the North British Review, " that he was apprenticed to some trade, but, through misconduct, failed to satisfy his master. He then, so the story goes, was inspired with a sudden zeal for foreign missions, and received, or said he received, holy orders in London for the purpose of converting the heathen. He next took passage in a troop- ship bound for Canada, ingratiated himself with the officers, and became chaplain to the troops. He gained the friendship of a nobleman high in command, first by his agreeable quali- ties as a table companion, and afterwards by lending him a large sum of money upon light security. (How he became possessed of this money is not known.) These favours that nobleman afterwards repaid by giving Warburton Church preferments, which led eventually to a bishopric." ^ Cases of irregular and uncanonical ordinations might be pointed out without number. But surely ample evidence has ! ^ Kingdom of Christ, p. 210. 2 He was translated to Cloyiie in 1820, and died in 1826, aged seventy-two. Cotton's Fasti, i. 306. • ^ North British Review, Dec. 1866, p. 353. See also Annual Rajider for 1826. APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 333 already been adduced to prove that the doctrine of apostolical succession is a figment born of falsehood, and fostered by bigotry and superstition. It is difficult to understand how it can be held by any one who has a right knowledge of the way of eternal life. Tlie testimony by which it is supported is so unsatisfactory and unreliable, that it can easily be seen how it can tempt some thinking men into infidelity, and drive others to despair. And yet for ages it has enabled what has been called the Catholic Churcli to retain its adherents in the thraldom of abject slavery ; for it has taught them to believe that the means of grace are exclusively in the hands of its priesthood, and that they cannot leave its pale except at the peril of their salvation. But the comfort which it administers is assuredly a refuge of lies. If the safety of the soul depended on the existence of an unbroken line of valid epis- copal ordinations, no son of Adam could ever enter heaven. Many of the links of the chain have been utterly discredited. The Christian has a better ground of confidence than what is to be derived from such a rope of sand. The faith of the gospel unites him to a living Itedeemer. He has said, " Come, unto inc, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." The sinner requires no earthly patron to recommend him to a God who waiteth to be gracious. He has a Friend at the right hand of the Majesty on high, who ever liveth to act as his intercessor. What a miserable sub- stitute is the belief in the dogma of an apostolical succession for a cheerful trust in a living, an ever present, an almighty, and an eternal Saviour ! When we repudiate the doctrine of apostolical succession, we have no idea of denying that the ministerial office should be maintained from generation to generation. " The Church," says Claude in his Defence of the Reformation, " is a body to which God has given a spiritual life ; and He has ordained it to be preserved and upheld in the use of mystical aliments, of which He Himself has made a public magazine in His holy Scriptures. It is therefore evident that He has given it, by that very thing, a right to have ministers or pastors who should prepare those sacred aliments, and season tliem for its spiritual nourishment." ^ The true apostolical succes- ^ Defence of the Reformation, Part iv. p. 56. 334 PRESBYTERY. sion continues so long as the Scriptures remain, and so long as ministers are found who preach their apostolic doctrines. VaxI there can be no right apostolical succession where there is not the teaching of apostolic truth. The real successor of the apostles is the man who walks in their ways, exhibits their spirit, and preaches their theology. When judging of the credentials of a minister of the New Testament, we are not to enter into a bootless attempt to settle his clerical genealogy. We are simply to consider his gifts, his character, and his present position. If we find that he is well acquainted with the gospel, that he is a man of piety, that he is apt to teach, that he can preach so as to edify his auditors, and that he goes forth under the sanction of an evangelical Church, we may safely acknowledge him as a true pastor. And in deter- mining the Church which is most eminently entitled to the name of apostolic, we are not to enter into an examination of the comparative antiquity of different societies — for error as well as truth may be associated with an ancient establish- ment. We are simply to inquire where the apostolic spirit is most abundantly manifested, and where the apostolic form of doctrine, government, and worship is most faithfully pre- served. The Church undoubtedly possesses the power of reforming herself according to the word of God ; and a change in her constitution, though it may have been effected but yesterday, is not to be condemned, if it can be shown to be clearly in accordance with the directions of the divine statute- book. APPENDIX. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. Immediately after the publication of my little work entitled The Ignatian Epistles entirely Spurious: a Reply to the Right Rev. Dr. Lightfoot, Bishop of Durham, I forwarded a copy to his Lordship, as I deemed it right that my Eevievv of his famous treatise should at once be brought under his notice. I was convinced that my arguments were impregnable, and I was most desirous to ascertain whether the distinguished advocate of the Ignatian letters could point out any sub- stantial objection to what I had advanced. In a few weeks I received a very courteous note of acknowledgment, which I here give entire, just as it reached me : — Auckland Castle, Bishop Auckland, October 23, 1886. Ueak Siij, — I am greatly obliged to you for your work on the Ignatian Epistles. Jiefore my second edition appears I shall hope to see whether your criticisms seem to me to demand any change in my language on details. I cannot say that you have in any degree shaken my convictions on the main questions. I was absent from home when your work arrived, otherwise you would have received an earlier acknowledgment of your kindness. — Yours faithfully, J. B. Dunelm. Eev. Prof. Killen. I certainly never anticipated that the worthy prelate would all at once renounce his faith in the genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles. He had spent between thirty and forty of the best years of his life in attempting to make good their claims, and such a sudden recantation was not to be dob APPENDIX. expected. It is well known tliat during his closing days, commencing shortly after the date of the above note, he was in very infirm health ; and meanwhile he may have felt him- self nnequal to any very severe mental exercise ; but, from whatever cause, when the second edition of his great work appeared some weeks before his death in December 1889, it contained no mention of my little volume, and no examin- ation of any of my leading positions. I am therefore at liberty to say tliat, in as far as the Bishop of Durham is concerned, my booklet remains unanswered. I am aware, however, that some of the most learned men of the age — including at least one of the revisers of our Authorized Version of the Bible — have expressed their conviction that I have fairly demolished his whole defence of these letters. I have already explained to the public why I believe that the entire mass of this Ignatian literature should be swept away from among the genuine remains of Christian antiquity with the besom of scorn ; and as no one has yet undertaken to prove that I am mistaken, I need not here enter at large into the discussion ; but I deem it right to state that I have not nearly enumerated all the difficulties which stand in the way of its recognition. A few additional items may be here subjoined. Malalas, an historian of the sixth century, has reported that Ignatius was martyred, not at Eome, but at Antioch. A Syrian chronicle, whicli appears to have been compiled about the middle of the eighth century, but which is evidently based upon documents of higher antiquity, bears the same testimony.^ If this representation be correct, the letters must at once be given up as spurious. Their claim rests on the credit of the story that he was sent from Antioch to Eome to be devoured by wild beasts. Malalas is not certainly a writer of the highest reputation, and he has fallen into sundry errors in his narrations ; but even Dr. Lightfoot is ready to quote him when it serves his purpose ; and he tells us that this historian " sometimes, especially in relation to Antioch, supplies important facts." ^ As he resided in the place, he must have been well acquainted with its local ^ Lighlfoot, Ignatius, and Polycarp, ii. 447, 2nd edition. ■^ Ibid. i. 663. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES, 337 traditions. His testimony is supported by weighty circum- stantial evidence. There are extant various " Acts of the Martyrdom of Ignatius," differing considerably from each other, and all written after the publication of the Ecclesi- astical History of Eusebius in the fourth century. They concur in stating that he suffered in the reign of Trajan, and that he presided over the Church of Antioch ; but these are almost the only points of importance on whicli they agree. In one of them we are told that he was brought before Trajan at Antioch, and condemned by him to die at Eome ; whilst another reports that, though arrested at Antioch, he was conveyed to the Italian capital, and there brought before the emperor to receive his sentence. One account states that he travelled to Eome chiefly by sea, sailing directly from Seleucia, the port of Antioch, to Smyrna ; whilst another records that the greater part of the journey was made by land, and that he passed through the heart of Asia Minor. According to one account, he was devoured by the lions ; whilst another declares that they merely crushed him to death, and that his body was subsequently buried at Eome. It is easy to see from these conflicting depositions that the history of this martyr was involved in much obscurity, and that conjecture must have been busy when trying to make out his obituary. It is admitted on all hands that Trajan visited Antioch during his reign ; and thus far there is nothing improbable in the story that Ignatius was there brought before his tribunal, and condemned for his profession of Christianity. But another fact which is apparently well authenticated, and respecting which there has been hitherto no controversy, goes far to discredit the whole account of his journey to Eome. It seems that, in the fourth century, his grave could still be pointed out at Antioch ! It was then, as it would appear, visited by Jerome.^ At that period, and long before it, the disciples were wont to keep up the memories of the martyrs by assembling around their places of sepulture on the anniversaries of their days of suffering, ^ Jerome says : " The remains of his body lie at Antioch, outside the Daplmitic Gate in the cemetery." Catalogue 16. Dr. Lightfoot admits that Jerome, who had been repeatedly at Antioch, "perhaps may himself liave seen the real or reputed tomb of the martyr." Apostolic Fathers, ii. 431. y 338 APPENDIX. aud engaging in religious exercises. In this way their graves would not be readily forgotten. But if the remains of Ignatius were lying in his tomb at Antioch, what becomes of the story that he was sent to Home to be devoured by the lions ? According to the Ignatian Epistles, it was the heart's desire of their reputed author to be taken to the Italian metropolis that his bones might there be ground like wheat by the teeth of the infuriated animals. In these letters he is represented as exhorting his co-religionists in the great city not to interfere, but to permit him to enjoy the singular gratification. If the lions, according to his prayer, swallowed down his whole body, how was it that his remains, two hundred years afterwards, according to an unchallenged tradition, were still to be found at Antioch ? So great was the veneration in which his memory was held, that, in the fifth century, the original grave was deemed too humble a receptacle for such precious relics, and they were removed to a grander sepulchre provided for them within the city by one of the Eoman emperors. It would appear that, when the grave was opened, the remains of a human skeleton were found in it: and the bones were carried with all due solemnity to their new resting-place.-^ Here, then, is a problem which the advocates of the Ignatian Epistles may solve as best they can. If, as was generally believed, these bones were the genuine remains of Ignatius, the epistles and the tale of his martyrdom at Eome may be buried for ever. The whole story of his removal from Antioch to Eome to be thrown to wild beasts wears very much the aspect of a fiction, and is full of improbabilities. " It was generally," says Dr. Burton, " a distinction reserved for Eoman citizens, that if they had committed an offence in the provinces, they were sent for their punishment to the capital." ^ But, accord- ing to all accounts, Ignatius was not a Eoman citizen, so that on this ground we cannot account for his removal to the imperial city. It is remarkable that no writer, whether pagan or Christian, either living at the time or for generations afterwards, takes any notice of an affair so unique and extraordinary. But some years after the Ignatian letters •■ Chrysostom made an oration on the occasion. See Op. ii. 600. ^ Ltd arcs, ii. 25. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 339 began to creep into circulation, or in the days of Origen, the tale may have been formulated. It seems at first to have had a suspicious reception at Eome. Dr. Lightfoot admits that in the West " he never seems to have been a popular saint ; " that " his commemoration only obtained a place among the festivals of the Latin Church at a comparatively late date ; " and that " his foothold in Western calendars was precarious." ^ The attempts made to account for the existence of his grave at Antioch are too ridiculous to deserve consideration. It was alleged that, on their way back from Eome to the Syrian capital, these remains " were borne aloft on men's shoulders from city to city like a victor returning in triumph amidst the applause of the bystanders." ^ When this wonder- ful funeral took place, or by what route it travelled, no one can tell. The tradition of the translation cannot be traced back earlier than a ratlier advanced period of the fourth century,^ and was evidently concocted to meet a transparent difficulty. Bishop Lightfoot, throughout his Apostolic Fathers, appeals to Polycarp and Irenteus as witnesses for the genuineness of the Ignatian letters. I have shown, I believe, very satisfac- torily that he has misunderstood both these writers, and that their testimony is nothing whatever to the purpose. The truth is, that the origin of the whole story of the journey of Ignatius as a prisoner from Antioch, and of his martyrdom at Eome, may be traced to the clever forger who fabricated these famous epistles. By artfully confounding Ignatius, a man of Philippi, with Ignatius of Antioch, and the province of which Antioch was the capital with an island in the ^gean Sea, he has contrived to give plausibility to a tale which has con- tinued to this day to perplex the students of ecclesiastical history. The first draft of these letters seems to have been written about the time when many other spurious ecclesi- astical documents made their appearance, that is, about the close of the Paschal controversy. Questions relating to Church order were then keenly debated, for the whole Chris- 1 Lightfoot, i. 49 ; ii. 430. = Ibid. i. 46. ^ Ibid. Dr. Lightfoot acknowledges that "it was the stedfast belief in Antioch and the neighbourhood that the reliq^ues of the saint reposed in his own citv." ii. 432. 340 APPENDIX. tian community had been convulsed by the arrogant demands of the imperious Victor. He had been tr\ing to dictate to l)is co-religionists all over the world, and had met with a humiliating discomfiture. The clergy of Home must have felt that the situation was critical ; for inconvenient inquiries were afloat, and no feasible explanation could be given in response to them. Bishops were putting forward claims for which they cauld produce no Scripture warrant, and their own chief pastor was attracting universal attention by his high preten- sions. What was to be done in this emergency ? Tlie appearance of the Ignatian Epistles must have staggered the opponents of the hierarchy. They were exactly fitted for the occasion. Here, it was alleged, was an eminent Christian minister living on the very confines of the apostolic age, speaking in the most exalted strains of the dignity of bishops ; and here was the chief pastor of one of the most influential Churches of the East, who had died a martyr, acknowledging the presidency of the Church of Eome. If these letters could be silently and cautiously pushed into circulation, they might put an end to discussion, and quiet the public mind. No wonder that they were received with pleasure by aspiring ecclesiastics in all quarters, and that they have always been most highly appreciated by the occupants of the Eoraan See. And there was then an individual among the clergy of the imperial city fully competent for the task of their composi- tion. If we give credence to his intelligent contemporary Hippolytus, \v\xo was evidently well acquainted with him, we must believe that Callistus was a man of wonderful resources, of rare ingenuity, of deep intrigue, and a decided Patripassian. In my little work on these epistles I have pointed out how, in several striking instances, they betray indications of the hand by which they were penned. They were, no doubt, skilfully contrived ; and no wonder that their crafty author himself at length found his way into the papal chair. When Origen visited the Italian metropolis, we may be pretty sure that these letters would be recommended to his notice by some of the Eoman clergy ; and, under the circum- stances, it is not extraordinary that he accepted them as genuine. They were much to the taste of an individual of his sternly ascetic temperament. It is, however, noteworthy THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 341 that he is the only writer of the first three centuries by whom they are quoted. Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian, next takes them under his patronage. He was an ardent supporter of the doctrine of the apostolic succession ; he appears to have composed his best known work chiefly with a view to serve the cause of the hierarchy ; and, for this purpose, these epistles were eminently helpful to him. Succeeding writers, such as Jerome, Chrysostom, Eufinus, Theodoret, and others, received them on his authority ; and for a thousand years — though their numbers meanwhile multiplied, and they were presented in sundry forms — they were permitted to pass un- challenged. But when, at the Eeformation, the human mind, awoke from the slumber of ages, and when the study of the Scriptures made men better acquainted with genuine Chris- tianity, these letters soon began to be regarded with distrust ; and, ever since, their claims have been firmly rejected by some of the highest names in theological literature. Contemporary history has preserved no record of the martyrdom of Ignatius ; and the state of society at the time may account for its silence. If we may judge of the policy of Trajan from his Eescript to Pliny relative to the treatment of the Bithynian confessors, we may infer that, when the Christians persisted in the profession of their faith, he wished them to be put to death without farther ceremony.^ And if Ignatius was martyred when Antioch was visited by the emperor, it may be that his execution attracted little general attention. The public mind, in all likelihood, was occupied with other matters of absorbing interest. Antioch was filled with troops preparing to enter on a great war, and on their way to the expected battlefield ; and at the same eventful crisis an earthquake shook the houses of the city to their foundations, and created extensive devastation. The Roman consul Pedo lost his life on this occasion, and Trajan was obliged to save himself by leaping out of one of the windows of the imperial residence.^ Famine and pestilence are said to 1 Dr. Lightfoot admits that in this Rescript "the emperor betrays a tem- porizing policy, being desirous, as far as possible, to minimize the judicial ]>7-oceedings against the Christians." ii. 385. ■•^ Dion. Ixviii. 17. This catastrophe appears to liave occurred about A.D. 115. Dr. Lightfoot admits that the chronology of Malalas is confirmed by Dion. Apont. Fathers, ii. 413. 342 APPENDIX. have followed in the train of these direful visitations. "When Ignatius was executed, his co-religionists would, of course, endeavour to obtain charge of his remains, and with pious care coniniit them to the grave ; but if there was no very striking incident connected with his death, its details, amidst such scenes of excitement, would soon be forgotten. In a few generations his grave would remain almost the only abiding memorial of his martyrdom. A sensational account of it, sup- plied by the imagination, and based chiefly on the Ignatian letters, would then readily gain currency. The internal evidences of the spuriousness of tlie Ignatian Epistles are numerous and glaring, and the attempts of Dr. Lightfoot to gloss them over are anything but satisfactory. It may here suffice to give one or two examples of his extra- ordinary efforts to explain away anachronisms. It has been often urged that Ignatius is represented as employing the designation " the Catholic Church " about seventy or eighty years before it came into use. How does the good bishop answer this objection ? " The word ' Catholic ' (/raOoXtKo^;)" says he, " means neither more nor less than ' universal.' It is found some centuries at least before the Christian era. . . . It is clear that in this sense the word might have teen used at any time and by any writer from the moment when the Church began to spread, while yet the conception of its unity was present to the mind." ^ He might have added that the word " Church " is also much older than the days of Ignatius. But all the resources of his erudition have not enabled him to point out a single case in which the title " Catholic Church " occurs until towards the close of the second century.' We never meet with it in the New Testament. We do not find it employed by Clemens Eomanus, nor by Barnabas, nor by Justin Martyr, nor by Polycarp. We search for it in vain in the work known as The Teaching of the Apostles. By adopt- ing the bishop's line of argument we would arrive at some odd inferences.' The noun " rail " is met with in several of our early English writers, and the word " way " is perhaps as old as our language ; but it does not follow that " railway " was current in the days of Henry VIII. The word " steam " was 1 Apostolic Fathers, Ignatius and Polycarp, i. 413, 414. ^ Hid. ii. 311 THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 343 employed by the great Lord Bacon, and every one may remember that the word " vessel " is a familiar term in our English Bible ; but we would not therefore be warranted to affirm that a " steam-vessel " was a ship well known to the sons of commerce two or three hundred years ago. Bishop Lightfoot indeed seemed to think that Ignatius was a man of original genius, that he had a peculiar way of giving utterance to his thoughts,^ and that he attached to the designation " the Catholic Church " a meaning different from that which it sub- sequently possessed ; but he has signally failed to make good his position. Ignatius is set forth as saying, " Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be ; just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." ^ The exposition of the word " catholic " here, in the sense attributed to it by Dr. Lightfoot, would make the passage eitlier unintelligible or nonsensical. It would be absurd to say that wherever Christ is, the universal ^Church is met together. The " Catholic Church " was understood to indicate a community under the government of bishops, and in the exclusive enjoyment of divine privileges ; and it is obvious that it must be so inter- preted in this Ignatian Epistle. In the beginning of the second century there was no such thing in the Church as a class of females devoted to a life of celibacy ; but every one who has read the epistles of Cyprian, who flourished nearly a century and a half after- wards, must be aware that in the days of the bishop of Carthage they occupied a very prominent position. About a century after the time of Ignatius, they make their appear- ance in ecclesiastical history ; and Tertullian, who was then living, speaks of them as a sisterhood " very recently " insti- tuted.^ One of them had been incorporated with the " widows ; " and he vehemently denounces the arrangement. He tells how, " in a certain place, a virgin of less than twenty years of age had been placed in the order of widows," and declares that "such a miracle, not to say monster, a virgin widow, should not be pointed at in the Church." * But ^ Apostolic Fathers, Ignatius and Polycarp, i. 409. * Epistle to the Smyrncean.s, sect. 8. ' On the Veiling of Virgins, chap. iii. * Ibid, cliap. ix. 344 APPENDIX. in the Ignatian Epistles the virgin widows are addressed as already in existence. The pastor of Antioch is described as saying : " I salute the households of my brethren, with their wives and children, and the virgins vjko are called widows." ^ The learned bishop must have been in sad perplexity when he could furnish no other paraphrase than the following of this plain passage. " This, then," says he, '' I supiwse to he the meaning of Ignatius here — ' I salute those women whom, though by name and in outward condition they are widows, I prefer to call virgins, for such they are in God's sight by their purity and devotion.' " " Such an exposition may be accepted by those who are determined to see nothing amiss in these epistles ; but unprejudiced readers may well scruple to receive them as genuine, when they find that the most accomplished scholar on the English bench could give no better solution of an obvious anachronism. I have elsewhere^ pointed out a number of much graver marks of forgery in these Ignatian Epistles, which I need not here recapitulate. I might enumerate many more. The manner in which Dr. Lightfoot has disposed of the two minor difficulties just mentioned, is a pretty fair sample of the way in which he has met other objections. It may be truly said of the great work of the lamented author, that it is by far the most exhaustive treatise on the subject which has ever appeared ; but, withal, it supplies not a few materials to refute the conclusions which he has laboured so diligently to establish. When he asserts that no Christian writings of the second century are better authenticated than this Ignatian literature, all who have carefully studied the con- troversy relating to it may well hold up their hands in amazement. The enormous mass of erudition — the result of the studies of a lifetime — which he has brought forth in their defence, has really contributed nothing to dispel the heavy clouds of well-founded suspicion which hang over their reputation. Much of the feasibility of his argumentation depends on the verification of his assertion that Polycarp was martyred ^ Epistle to the, Smyrncenim, sect. 13. ^ Aposllic Fathers, Ignatius and Polycarp, ii. 324, note. ^ See my Ancient Church, Period II. sect. 2, chap. iii. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 345 in A.D. 155. This point is indeed the very key of his con- troversial position, and, if disproved, his whole three portly volumes are discredited. And truly he has utterly failed to make good his case. In trying to establish it he has been obliged to discard, as false, the evidence of all the ancient ecclesiastical witnesses of any value; and I have adduced clear proof — which he has not even attempted to rebut — that Polycarp was living, and on a visit in Eome, long afterwards ! Throughout his whole treatise he has assumed that the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians was written about the time of the martyrdom of Ignatius. Here again he has deceived himself. There is every reason to believe that the letter was not written until the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Every one who consults my little work, The Ignatiaii Epistles entirely Spurious, may find satisfactory authority for this allegation. The zeal of Bishop Lightfoot in defence of these letters has prompted him to become the advocate of the course of conduct attributed to Ignatius. " It is," says his Lordship, " a cheap wisdom which, at the study table or over the pulpit desk, declaims against the extravagance of the feelings and language of Ignatius, as the vision of martyrdom rose up before him. After all, it is only by an enthusiasm, which men call extravagance, that the greatest moral and spiritual triumphs have been won. This was the victory which over- came the world — the faith of Ignatius and of men like- minded with him. The sentiment in Ignatius is thoroughly earnest, thoroughly genuine. " ^ Such language is an example of the unhappy lengths to which even a good man may be tempted to go when connnitted to the support of a weak cause. The insane desire for martyrdom imputed to Ignatius was only calculated to put a fool's cap on Christianity. No intelligent spectator could have been favourably impressed by it. It was far more befitting a madman than a sober minister of the gospeh A true spiritual hero will endeavour patiently and cheerfully to endure pain or adversity when sent to him by the hand of Providence. A fanatic will reveal his folly by courting suffering when it may be avoided. 1 Lightfoot, ApodoUc Fathers^ i. 38, 2iii ed. 346 APPENDIX. Our Lord said to His disciples : " "WHien they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another ; " ^ but tlie pseudo-Ignatius repudiated all such instructions. If we are to believe his martyrologists, he threw himself in the way of persecution, aud wished above all things to be eaten alive by wild beasts I The Apostle Paul declares to us that a man may give his body to be burned, and yet may not be a meml)er of the household of faith ; ^ but the Ignatian Epistles describe bodily inflictions as a sure passport to heaven. " Let me," said their author, " be given to the wild beasts, for through them I can attain unto God." ^ He is represented in these letters as entreating his Eoman brethren not to interfere and save him from a violent death. " Eather," he is described as saying, — " rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my sepulchre, and may leave no part of my body behind, so that I may not, when I am fallen asleep, be burdensome to any one. . . . May I have joy of the beasts that have been pre- pared for me, and I pray that I may find them prompt." '' "When the Great Captain of our salvation approached the crisis of His sufferings. He offered up q\iite another prayer. " He fell on His face, and prayed, saying, my Father, if it he 2^ossihle, let this cup pass from me : nevertheless not what I will, but what Thou wilt." ^ It is passing strange that such a man as Dr. Lightfoot toiled on throughout the greater portion of his life with a view to establish the credit of these silly and self-condemned epistles. Their spirit is so unworthy of a Christian pastor who had been taught by the apostles, and who was on his way to a cruel martyrdom ; their tone is so unnatural and so anti-evangelical ; they display such an ignorance of the way of peace ; their exhortations are frequently so puerile ; and their terminology is so entirely different from that which we can prove to have been current at the time when they are supposed to have been Nvritten, that the marks of their imposture should be very plain to all who are not disposed to shut their eyes against evidence. I have shown, in my little work, that the late Bishop of Durham, according to his ' Matt. X. 23. * 1 Cor. xiii. 3. ' Epistle to the Romans, sect. 4. * Ibid, sects. 4, 5. * Matt. xxvi. 39. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 347 own confession, entered on his investigations under the influence of a blinding misconception ; and ever afterwards he obviously remained under the spell of this delusion. He took it for granted that Ignatius was martyred at Eome ; and that, on his way there, he wrote a series of letters. There is every reason to believe that, in making these two assump- tions, he deceived himself ; and he has not ventured to touch the arguments which I have broucrht forward to demonstrate that he was grievously in error. Upwards of two centuries before the time of Bishop Light- foot, Dr. Pearson devoted six years of his life to the prepara- tion of a work in defence of these Ignatian Epistles. When the Vindication appeared, his partisans hailed it with delight, and pronounced it to be quite unanswerable. Those who had studied the subject knew well that it was nothing of the kind. Bentley, the highest of critical authorities, still denounced these productions ; and Person, after reading the defence of Pearson, declared it to be " very unsatisfactory." Dr. Light- foot appears to have been of the same opinion, when he deemed it needful to spend more than thirty years in endeavouring to make out the case which had been left incomplete by his distinguished predecessor. And truly he has been toiling in vain. The intelligent student who goes through his three portly volumes of the Ajjostolic Fathers — extending to well-nigh 2000 closely printed octavo pages — may well rise from the task impressed with the conviction that their erudite author has, after all, only gathered an additional quantity of very learned controversial dust around this discussion. He has occupied much time in controverting objections which might long since have been dismissed as obsolete or inconclusive. Following in the wake of Pearson, he has appealed once more for aid to Peregrinus Proteus, and thus committed himself to a position which even his friend Professor Harnack had recommended him to abandon as absurd ; and he has signally failed to grapple with substantial difficulties which must present themselves to every serious inquirer who addresses himself to the examination of these productions. John was the author of a considerable portion of the New Testament, and yet the word " bishop " not even once occurs in any of his writings ; but Ignatius, who is said 348 ArrKXDi.Y. to have been his disciple, and who was martyred only a few years after the death of the apostle, is made in these letters to insist on obedience to the bishop as the first and the great duty of a Christian ! Peter and Paul had passed away before Ignatius entered on his ministry, and yet in the ]gnatian Epistle to the Eomans they are spoken of as entitled to submission ; but John, who survived both thirty years, and who was in some respects the most distinguished of the apostolic company, is quite forgotten 1 He was the indi- vidual on whom our Lord bestowed the most signal marks of His affection ; he appears to have spent much of his time in the decline of life among the very Churches to which these Ignatian Epistles are addressed ; and he died at Ephesus about the close of the first century — so that his memory must have been still green when these letters are said to have been written. But in none of them is he once named. How does Dr. Lightfoot attempt to account for the fact that he is passed over in such suspicious silence ? He tells us that Paul and Peter were martyred, whilst John " died pmceahly in a good old age at Ephesus." ^ But he had not lived a life of ease. He had passed through great tribulation, and had been confined for years as a prisoner in the bleak and barren isle of Patmos " for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ." According to Tertullian, he was once cast into a caldron of boiling oil, and barely escaped martyrdom. Bishop Lightfoot's apology for the absence of any recognition of him in these Ignatian letters is so very lame, that it might have been much better withheld. If we believe that these documents were fabricated at Eome early in the third century, we can give a much more satisfactory account of the omission. In the Paschal controversy Polycrates of Ephesus had urged the teaching of John as opposed to the alleged instructions of Paul and Peter ; and we can thus understand why these two apostles are mentioned with honour, whilst John is ignored. The marked suppression of the name betrays the imposture, and points out the quarter to which we may trace the forgery. The truth is, the more thoroughly these Ignatian letters are scrutinized, the more clearly will their spuriousness be revealed. High ^ Aposlolic Father.i, ii. 64. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 349 Church reviewers, and some others who should be better informed, may announce to their readers that Dr. Lightfoot has settled for ever the question of their genuineness. He has really settled quite a different conclusion. After a whole lifetime spent in their defence, he has left the question in no better position than he found it, and he has thus demon- strated the hopelessness of any future attempt to establish their reputation. INDEX. ACOLYTHS, 19. Adriacura, 171. Adrian, 181. Adrian IV., Pope, 114. ^gean Sea, 339. Aelia, 182. African Synod, 133. Ainsworth, 47. Alexandria, 18, 37, 179, 196. Alford, 3, 63, 74, 76, 173, 261, 310. Almain quoted, 113. Altar, 232. Ambrose, 277, 298. Ambrosiaster, 297. American Methodists, 47, 48, 50. Anacletus, 174. Ancvra, 230. Anderson, 241, 287. Angels of the Churches, 186-190. Anicetus, 228. Antioch, 66, 70, 71, 78, 79, 179, 252, 257, 267, 337. Antiquity of prelacy, 233. Antoninus Pius, 224. Apocalypse, 186. ApoUos, 166. Apostles, 141, 142-144. Apostolic Church, 3, 7 ; succession, 328-334. Appeal, Court of, 99. Apt to teach, 264, 291-293, 294. Arabia, 18. Arcadius, 185. Aries, Council of, 259. Armagh, 329. Arminian controversy, 37. Asia, 74. Asia Minor, 227. Assembly of Glasgow, 16, 38, 41 ; at Jerusalem, 77 ; at Edinburgh, 104, 105. Athanasius, 37. Athens, 171. Augustine, 127, 297. Bankruptcy Court, 211. Barnabas, 60, 142, 252. Baronius, Cardinal, 113. Baxter, Richard, 38, 43. Bede. 195, 196, 259. Bedell, 234. Beecher, Henry Ward, 97. Bellarmine, Cardinal, 113. Bengel, 76. Beza, 217. Bickersteth, 234. Bilson, Bishop, 287, 315. Bingham, 231. Bishops, 40, 258 ; country, 39 ; colonial, 218. Bithynia, 74. Blondel, 43. Boniface VIII., 113. Book of Common Prayer, 192, 253, 305. Bridges on the Christian Ministry, 300. Britain, North, 209. Brother, The Lord's, 150, 151. Brown, 331 ; Robert, the Independent, 46, 47, 102. Burnet, Bishop, 314. Burton, Dr., 157, 171, 176, 338. C^SAREA, 172, 183. Callistus, 340. Calvin, 50, 201, 217, 251. Camp, Church compared to a, 100. Campbell, Dr. George, 45 ; Dr. Peter Colin, 269-273. Canterbury, Archbishop of, 238, 239, 247. Cappadocia, 74. Carson, Dr., 63, 86, 87. Carstairs, William, 139. Carthage, Council of, 132, 259. Cartwright, Thomas, 41. CathoUc Church, 58, 226, 227, 342. Cave, Dr., 179, 180, 181. Celsus, 224. Cerdo, 225. Chalcedon, Council of, 134, 163, 104, 231. Chalmers, Dr., 306. Chameleon, Church not like a, 15. Charles II., 215. Chazanim, 189. Chief men, 249. Chorepiscopi, 230. Christian prudence, 24, 25. Chrysostom, 126, 338, 341. Church, the word, 57, 6, 8 ; invisible, 1, 58 ; visible, 1, 28, 58. Church of Crete, 86 ; of Rome, 2 ; of England, 2, 14 ; of Scotland, 2, 14 ; of Israel, 4 ; government, 36, 42. Church Courts, 255. Cilicia, 78. 352 INDEX. Clarkson, 43. Claude, 333. Claverhouse, 104. Clemens Romaniis, 129, 154, 174, 177 ; Alexandrinus, 1.54, 199. Clementiae Uotnilies, 153; Recognitions, 153. Cleophas, ISO. Clergy, who called, 275. Coke, Dr., 50, 51, Commission, Court of High, 102. Congregationalists, 44, 45, 46, 53, 81. Constance, Council of, 112. Constantine, the Emperor, 39, 134, 157. Constantinople, 18, 231, 259. Constitution of the Church, 3, 15, 243 ; Irish Episcopal, 211-213. Conybeare .and Howson, 7fi, 261. Corinthian fornicator, 82, 83, 88. Cornelius, 172. Coverdale, Miles, 217. Cranmer, 251, 299. Crete, 162, 165. Cromwell, Oliver, 42, 47. Cai Bono Bishops ? 2U9. Cullen, Cardinal, 48. Cyprian, 131-133, 227, 228, 29G. 323. Cyprus, 18. Daphnitic gate, 337. Deaconesses, 308. Deacons, 71, 303-306. Declaration of Congregationalists, 54, 55. Decline of ruling elders, 296-298. Denmark, Church of, 47. Dion, 341. Dionysius the Areopagite, 171. Discipline, 10 ; 1st Book of, 206 ; 2ud do., 273. Discussions as to Church governmeut, 36, 37. Disestablishment, 73, 193, 207. Distinctive representation, 268. Doctrine of the gospel, 10, 11, 12. Dunbar's Lexicon, 121. Dupin, 155. Duty of the Church, 16. Dwight, Dr. Timothy, 55. Ebionites, 153, 154. Ecclesiastical polity, 37. Edward VI., 40, 251, 299. Edwards, Jonathan, 34, 109. Egypt, 18. Elders, 20, 21, 89, 261-268. Election of ministers, 309-317. Eleutherus, 174. Eliberis, Council of, 259. Elisha, 140. Elizabeth, Queen, 40, 215, 299. England, Church of, 47, 49. Epaphroditus, 171. Ephesus, 65, 70, 162, 165, 167, 257, 348. Episcopacy, 191, 192. Episcopal Church, 194, 203. Epistle to Ephcsi.ins, 129 ; Philippians, 129 ; Romans, 129. Epistles to Timothy and Titus, 168. pjfiuality of the Apostles, 244. Erskine, Dr., 109. Eusebius, 28. 155, 1.57, 163, 179, 180, 182, 337, 341. Excommunication, 17. Farel, 217. Felix, 140. Firmilian, 134, 258. Flock of God, 05, 254. Foundation of the Church. 120. Free Church of Scotland, 72, 194, 264. Galatia, 71. Gillespie, George, 270, 271. Good men in various Churches, 206. Government of the Church, 22, 23, 24, 44. "Governments, "What theyare, 200, 25.5. Grades of civil society, 138, 139. Greek Church, 114, 247. Gregory, Pope, 135. Hall, Bishop, 41, 195, 196. Hallam, 330. Hammond. 43. Harnack, Professor, 347. Hedah, 60. Hegesippus, 152, 153, 1.58. Helena, 157. Hellenists, 303. Henry II., 114. Henry VIII., 40, 21.5. Hermas, 178. Herod, 139. Hetherington, Dr., 299. Heylin, 43. Hilary, 183. Hodge, Dr. Charles, 271, 272. Holland, 50. Homer, 164. " Honour," What it means, 2S9-291. Hooker, Richard, 41. Hooper, 217, 251. Horn, Bishop, 331. Home, Hartwell, 170, 171. Howe, John, 47, 55. Huguenots, 50. Human body, The Church compared to, 10. Huss John, 217. Hyginus, 225. Hypotyposes, 154. 156. Hippolytus, 229, 340. Ignatian Epistles, 233, 335-349. Importance of Church government,12,14. Independents, 44. See Congregation- alists. InfallibiUty, 215. Insufficiency of Independency, 92. lona, 195. Ireland, 193, 196. Iren;Bus, 131, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 227, 228. INDEX. ;53 Irish Episcopal Church, 48, 49, 203, 204, 207, 315. James not the bishop of Jerusalem, 145-6. 14G-8, 150, 155; his chair, 152, 156, 157, 180. James II., 215. Jay, Mr., 107. Jerome quoted, 27, 4!), 156, 337, 341. Jerusalem, Cliurch of, 66, 70, 79, 179: city of, 180. Jewish hierarchy, 140. John, Tlie Apostle, 128, 145, 172. The Baptist, 139. The Faster, 135. •Josephus, 181, 256. Judicial trials among Independents, 96. Justin Martyr, 296. Justinian, 226. Kahal, 59. Key of knowledge, 124. King, Sir Peter, 43. King's Memoir, 196. Kingdom of heaven, 123, 124. Knox, John, 201, 217, 251, 266. Lachmann, 63. Lamp, an argument drawn from it, 13. Laodicea, 231. Lardner, Dr., 179. Lasco, John a, 251. Latimer, 251. Laud, Archbishop, 215. Lay elders, 274. Laying on of hands, 319, 320. Le Clerc, 179. Leontius, 163, 164. Levites, 140, 141. Liberty of the Church, 9, 14. Light of Nature, 24. Lightfoot, 150, 151, 153, 158, 177-179, 196, 335-349. Lincoln, Bishop of, 218. Linus, 174. Lists of bishops, 184. Litton quoted, 318. Locke, John, 43. Long Parliament, 42. Lord's Sui)per, 232. Lords of the Gentiles, 238-240 ; over Goii's heritage, 254. Low Churchmen, 193. Lukewarmness of early Churches, 4. Luther, 37, 191, 201, 217, 251 ; de- nounced, 216. Lutheran Church, 2. M'Cheyne, Robert M., 38. M'llvaine, 234. Macleod, Norman, 139. Magnesia, 164. Malalas, :^36, 341. Malta, 171. Marcion, 225. Marcus, 225 ; Aurelius, 345. Marks of true Church, 6. Marsh, 225. Martin V., Pope, 112. Mary, the mother of ovir Lord, 150, 151. Queen, 40. Mayor of a corporation, 262. Methodist Episcopal Church, 48. Metropolitans, 39, 230. Miletus, 64, 164, 257. Mill, 179. Miller, 299, 300. Milner, Rev. Dr., 249. Milton, John, 43. Ministry of the Church, 9. Mode of judicial procedure, 88, 89. Mongan, 332. Monophysites, 114. Moravian Church, 48. Mosheim, 303. Munster, 165. Naaman, 86, 139. Nantes, Edict of, 50. Neander, 289. Nero, 184. Nestorians, 114. New England, 106. Nice, Council of, 38, 40, 231. Nicolas, 303. Noetus, 229. Norway, Church of, 47. Nowell, Dean, 299. Oath of a Romish priest, 113. QJcumenical Council, 134. Oliver Cromwell, 42, 47. One faith, 14. Optatus, 296. Order of the Presbytery, 177. Ordination, 318-320 ; among Indepen- dents, 103 ; by elders, 265. Origen, 179, 340. Owen, John, 47, 55, 108. Palet, Dr., 139. Pan-Presbyterian Council, 105. Papal supremacy, 115. Parliament, The Long, 193. Paschal controversy, 131, 227, 3.39, 348. Passover, The, 79. Patrick, St., of Ireland, 163, 164, 196, 329. Patronage condemned, 312. Paul, 60, 142, 176. Father Paul, 209, 315. Payment of elders, 288. Pearson, Dr., 43, 179, 347. Pedo, 341. Bella, 181. Penal laws, 192. Pentecost, 79. Peregrinus Proteus, 347. Peter, 116, 117, 119, 125, 129, 145, 146, 154, 175, 227. Peter's primacy, 119-127. Z 354 INDEX. Petros and Petra, 121. Pharisees, 77. Philiiipi, 171. Photius, 155. Phrygia Pacatiana, 171. Pilgrim Fathers, 218. Pius v., Bull of, 114, Plinv, 311. Polity of the Church, 11. Poly carp, 18.S, 228, 229. Polycrates, 102, 348. Pontiff, Roman, 243. Pontus, 74. Popular constitution of the Church, 309. Postscripts to epistles, 170, 171. Potter, Archbishop, 151, 152, 156, 157, 159, 160, 174, 176, 186, 296, 320, 322- 324. Preaching of the gospel, 10. Prelacy, 111, 137-14",t, 198, 205. Prelates, 19 ; useless, 208, 210. Prelatists, 47. Presbyterianism at the Reformation, 102, 237. Presbyterians, 49. Presbytery, 71. President, The, 248. Prideaux, Dean, 188, 189, 280. Priests, 19, 140, 141, 232. Primacy of Peter, 111-118. Primitive Church, 3, 4, 7. Primitive Regimen, 14. Princes of the Gentiles, 15. Prophets, 252, 253. Protestant bishops, 144. Puseyites, 194. Queen Elizabeth, 114 ; Victoria, 139, 241. R.\ILWAY, 342. Rationalists, 193. Readers, 19. Redpath, Mr. George, 109. Reformation of the Church, 4, 14, 102 ; attacked, 216. Regium Donum, 73. Relief Church, 194. Republicanism, 240, 242. Restoration, The, 42. Revised Version, 74, 78, 90, 147. Revivals of religion, 234. Revolution, 104, 107, 193. Rise of the Papacy, 126, Ritualism, 16. Robinson, John, 47. Rock, The, what it is, 120, 121. Roe, Rev. Peter, 234. Rome, Church of, 18, 47, 129, 170, 179. Rose, 331. Rufinus, 341. Rulers, Church, 200, 202. Ruling elders, 276-286. Rutherford, Samuel, 38. Sacrifice, 232. Samaria, 160. Sanhedrim, 61, 80, 255. Sardica, 231. Schism, 31, 32, 91, 194. Sclater, 43. Scotland, 209. Scriptures, 144. Secession Church, 194. Sectarianism, its evils, .30. Septuagint, 59, 60, 240. Seven Churches of Asia, 4. Seventy, The, 20. Shekel, The half, 314. Sheliach Zibbor, 188, 189. Shepherd of Hermas, 178. Simeon, 152, 180, 181, 234, 252. Sixtus v.. Bull of, 114. Skinner, .331. Slavery in United States, 85. Smectymnuan divines, 41. Smyrna, 164, 183, 229, 337. Solemn League and Covenant, 222, 234. Sozomen, 18. Speaker of House of Commons, 262. Spurgeon, Rev. C. H., 107, 221. Steam-vessel, 343. Stephen of Rome, 133. Subdeacons, 19. Subordination, 137, 138. Succession of Bishops, 174-5-6. Sustentation Fund, 73. Sweden, Church of, 47. Synagogue, 255. Syria, 18, 78. Syriac Version, 121. Tabernacles, Feast of, 79. Teachers, 200, 201. Teaching of the Apostles, 222. Teaching, 264. Terminology changed, 232. Tertullian, 176, 343. Theodoret, 127, 171, 341. Theodosius, 185. Theophilus Anglicanus, 218. Thorndike, 43. Timothy, 129, 144. Timothy and Titus, 161-173. Tischendorf, 63. Tradition, 150, 198, 199, Trajan, 341. Trcelles 63. Trent,Counc'il of, 112, 208, 243, 315, 320. Trinity, 229. True Church, 1. 5. Twelve Apostles, The, 20, 159, 160, 198. Twelve and Seventy, The, 161. Tyre and Sidon, 160. Unfairness of Congregational govern- ment, 96. Uniformity, 70. Unions, Congregational, 53, 103. Unitarianism, 106. United States of America, 240. Unity of the Church, 27, 28, 29, 33 ; pi'omised, .35 ; Cyprian on, 132-139. INDEX. 355 Unity of Spirit, 192. Upper House of Legislation, 238. Usefulness eminent, 244. Ussher, Archbishop, 38, 43, 162, 234. Valentine, 22.5. Vatican Council, 111, 113, 243. Victor, 131, 227, 340. Victoria, Queen, 139, 241. Vincentius Lirinensis, 195. Vitringa quoted, 90, 188, 280, 283, 284. Voet, Gisbert, 43. Voluntaryism, 55, 56. Wake, Archbishop, 215. Waldenses, 50. Warburton, 332. AVardlaw, Dr. Ralph, 46. Welsh, John, 38, 43. Wesley, John, 43, 50, 51. Wesleyan Church, 2. Westcott, 63, 74. Westminster Assembly, 42, 269, 29S, 308. Whately, Archbishop, 332. Whitgift, Ai'chbishop, 41. Wiclif, John, 217, 251. Wilberforce, Bishop, 50, 51. William III., King, 107, 139. Wordsworth, Bishop, 218-221, 328. Zacckmvb, 172. Zenas, 166. Zwingle, 201, 217, 251. WOEKS BY THE SAME AUTHOE. The Ancient Church : Its History, Doctrine, Worship, and Constitution traced for the First Three Hundred Years. Fifth edition. New York : A. D. F. Randolph & Co. The Ecclesiastical History of Ireland, from the Earliest Period to the Present Times. Two vols. 8vo, 25s. London : Macmillan & Co. The Old Catholic Church ; or, The History, Doctrine, AYorship, and Polity of the Christians traced from the Apostolic Age to the Establishment of the Pope as a Temporal Sovereign, A.D. 755. 8vo, 9s. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark. The Ignatian Epistles entirely Spurious. A Reply to the Right Rev. Dr. Lightfoot, Bishop of Durham, 2s. 6d. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark. THE END. MORRISON AND GIEB, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH T. and T. Clark's Publications. WORKS BY W. D. KILLEN, P.P. In crown %vo, price Is. %d. , THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES ENTIRELY SPURIOUS. A Reply to the Right Rev. Dr. Lightfoot, Bishop of Durham. ' strictly logical, dispassionate, and courteous, and altogether a very fine piece of criticism.' — Literary World. ' Dr. Killen tas rendered a most valuable service to the cause of truth by this trenchant and conclusive criticism.' — Christian Leader. ' His present brochure is remarkable for a complete mastery of the subject, for a logical acumen that we have rarely seen surpassed, and for a fearlessness, honesty, and thorough- ness of argument which all must admire. A more crushing blow to the pretensions of the Prelacy has rarely been levelled.' — Baptist Magazine. ' The book is throughout lively and interesting.'— iJniYeii Presbyterian Magazine. In demy 8i'o, price 95., THE OLD CATHOLIC CHURCH; OR, Histonj, Doctrine, Worship, and Polity of the CJiristians, traced from the Apostolic Age to the Establishment of the Pope as a Temporal Sovereign, A.D. 755. ' An extraordinary amount of infoi-mation has been condensed into 400 pages by the author, yet he has succeeded in keeping his book lively and interesting. . . . The author shows that he has read thoroughly and widely, and he gives the results of his investiga- tion in a form in which they are readily accessible.' — Record. T. and T. ClarJc s Publications. Recently puhUshcd, in demy 8ro, price 16s., HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION, FROM THE REFORMATION TO KANT. By BEENHAED PUNJEE. Translated from the German by W. HASTIE, B.D. With a Preface by Professor FLINT, D.D., LL.D. ' The merits of Piinjer's history are not difficult to discover; on the contrary, they are of the kind which, as the French say, sautent aux yeux. The language is almost everywhere as plain and easy to apprehend as, considering the nature of the matter conveyed, it could be made. The style is simple, natural, and direct; the only sort of style appropriate to the subject. The amount of information imparted is most exten- sive, and strictly relevant. Nowhere else will a student get nearly so much knowledge as to what has been thought and written, within the area of Christendom, on the philo- sophy of religion. He must he an excessively learned man in that dei^artment who has nothing to learn from this book.' — Extract f rum the Preface. 'Piinjer's "History of the Philosophy of Religion" is fuller of information on it-^ subject than any other book of the kind that I have either seen or heard of. ... I should think the work would prove useful, or even indispensable, as well for clergymen as for professors and students.' — Dr. Hutchison Stirling. ' A book of wide and most detailed research, showing true philosophic grasp.' — Professor H. Cai.derwood. 'We consider Dr. Piinjer's work the most valuable contribution to this subject which has yet appeared.' — Church Bells. ' Remarkable for the extent of ground covered, for systematic arrangement, lucidity of expression, and judicial impartiality.' — London Quarterly Review. Just published, in Ttoo Vols., in demy 8i'o, price 21s., HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. By GAEL FEIEDEICH KEIL, DOCTOR AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY. Translated from the Third Improved and Corrected Edition. Note. — This third edition is virtually a new book, for the learned Author has made large additions and corrections, bringing it up to the present state of knowledge. ' This work is the standard scientific treatise on Biblical Archaaology. It is a very mine of learning.' — Johji Bull. ' No mere dreary mass of details, but a very hmiinous, philosophical, and suggestive treatise. Many chapters are not simply invaluable to the student, but have also very direct homiletic usefulness.'— iite?-a)7/ World. ' A mine of biblical information, out of which the diligent student miiy dig precious treasm-es.' — Tlie Rock. In Two Vols, 8vo. Vol. I. just piMished, price 10s. Qd., A HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS. By Professor C. E. LUTHAKDT, D.D., Leipzig. Translated By AV. HASTIE, B.D., EXAMINER IN THEOLOGY, EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY. ' Charmingly written and adequately covers the ground.' — Presbyterian Review- ' His history is clear, is just and full, and enables the student to follow with much interest the historical development of Ethics and the Cbi-istian conscieDce in the Church under the different philosophical, dogmatic, and religious influences. The work is well translated and ably prefaced by Mr. llastie.' — Scotsman. T. and T. Clark's Publications. PROFESSOR SCHAFF'S CHURCH HISTORY. HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. By PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D., PROFESSOR IN UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK. Five ' Divisions ' (in Two Volumes each, 21s.) of this great work are now ready. Each Division covers a separate and distinct epoch, and is complete in itself. 1. APOSTOLIC CHRISTIANITY, A.D. 1-100. Two Vols. Ex. demy 8vo, price 21s. 2. ANTE-NICENE CHRISTIANITY, A.D. 100-325. Two Vols. Ex. demy 8vo, price 21s. 3. NICENE and POST-NICENE CHRISTIANITY, A.D. 325-600. Two Vols. Ex. demy 8vo, price 21s. 4. MEDIEVAL CHRISTIANITY. A.D. 590-1073. Two Vols. Ex. demy 8vo, price 21s. (Completion of this Period, 1073-1517, in preparation.) 5. MODERN CHRISTIANITY. The German Reformation, A.D. 1517-1530, Two Vols. Ex. demy 8vo, i^rice 21s. 'Dr. Schaff's "History of the Christian Church " is the most valuable contribution to Ecclesias- tical History that has ever been published in this country. When completed it will have no rival in point of comprehensiveness, and in presenting the results of the most advanced scholarship and the latest discoveries. Each division covers a separate and distinct epoch, and is complete in itself.' 'No student, and indeed no critic, can with fairness overlook a work like the present written with such evident candour, and, at the same time, with so thorough a knowledge of the sources of early Christian history.' — Scotsman. 'In no other work of its kind with which I am acquainted will students and general readers find so much to instruct and interest them.' — Rev. Prof. Hitchcock, D.D. 'A work of the freshest and most conscientious research.' — Dr. Joseph Cook, in Boston Monday Lectures. 'Dr. Schaff presents a connected history of all the prreat movements of thought and action in a pleasaT\t and memorable stylo. His discrimination is keen, his courag-o undaunted, his candour transparent, and for general readers he has produced what we have no hesitation in pronouncing the History of the Church.' — Freeman. Latest issue — Just published, in Two Vols., exti'a 8vo, price 21s., HISTORY OF THE GERMAN REFORMATION (A.D. 1517-1530). Timitb /Ilbap aiiD JHustcatfons. ' Necessarily, Luther takes the lion's share of the volume ; everj'thing, or nearly everything, revolves round him ; the whole storj' vibrates to his words and deeds. How far has Dr. Schaff succeeded with Luther? We will not say that he has overcome the difficulty of adequately representing that extraordinary servant of Christ. But we do not remember to have met anjnvhere with so impartial and fair a narrative of Luther's life ; we have never seen the various aspects of his character brought into view more naturally or more vividly ; and we have met with few accounts of him more interesting to read. . , . No feature of the book has struck us more than the way in which it combines learned accuracy with popular writing. Students can rely on the volume and will find what tlioy want in it. . . . The reader is all along in contact with a lively, various, progressive story, full of interest and of movement.' — Principal Egbert Kainy, D.D. ' The cleai-est, fairest view we have seen of the life and work of Luther and his colleagues. . . . The volumes are a most valuable addition to our ecclesiastical histories.' — Freeman. ' We have read those volumes with the most unmingled satisfaction. . . . For the student, who wants to get at facts, to understand the rationale of the facts, and to have the means of verifying them, there is no book so good as this.' — Church Btlls. T. and T. Chu-Ic s Pnblicaiioiis. Just published, in demy 8vo, price 12s., THE SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH HISTORICALLY AND EXEGETICALLY CONSIDERED. {Eleventh Series of Cunningham Lectures.) By Kev. D. DOUGLAS BANNEEMAN, MA. ' Mr. 'Bannerniau lias executed bis task with commendable impartiality and thorouph- ness. His learaiug is ample, Lis materials have been carefully sifted and clearly arranged, his reasoning is apt, lucid, and forcible, while he has none of the bitterness which so frequently mars controversial works of this class.' — Baptist Magazine. • The matter is beyond all question of the very holiest and best. . . . We do not hesitate to give the book a hearty recommendation.' — Clergiiman's Magazine. 'The Cunningham Lecturer has made out an admirable case. His book, indeed, while not written in a controversial spirir, but with calm temper, argumentative power, and abundant learning, is a very forcible vindication of the Presbyterian system, and one which, we suspect, it will be no easy task to refute, whether from the Romanist or the Anglii^an side.' — Scotsman. 'A noble volume, and reflects credit on the author's industry, learning, and vigour both as a theologian and a writer.' — Freeman. Just published, in demy 8i'o, price 10s. 6rf., THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER: REVISED TEXT, WITH 3Introtiurtion auH Commrntaru. By EOBEET JOHNSTONE, LL.B., D.D., PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE AND EXEGESIS, UNITED PRESBYTERIAN COLLEGE, EDINBURGH. ' Dr. Johnstone has done excellent service in publishing this work.' — Record. ' Full of thoughtfulness and spiritual power and suggostiveness, and likely to be a valuable book to all Christian teachers.' — Literarii World. ' The work is a capital specimen of that sound, reverent, and judicious scholarship which has done so much to illustrate the contents of Scripture, and to prove its ever- living power and its marvellous adaptation to the complex needs of men ... it will prove a decided help to thoughtful students.' — Baptist Magazine. Just published, in demy 8vo, price 10s. Gd., THE FORM OF THE CHRISTIAN TEMPLE. Being a Treatise on the Constitution of the New Testament Church. By THOMAS WITHEEOW, D.D., LL.D., PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTOKT IN MAGEE COLLEGE, LONDONDEURT. ' We welcome the appearance of another work from the scholarly pen of Dr. Witherow. . No such able discussion of the constitution of the New Testament Church has appeared for a long time.' — The Witness. ' Those who are studying church government cannot afford to overlook this thoroughly able work. If they master this volume, they will hardly require anything else.' — Sword and Trowel. ' A model of clear writing, and of satisfactory arrangement. — Record. PUBLICATIONS OF T. Sz) T. O L J^ :R. lEC, 38 GEORGE STREET, EDINBURGH. LONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO. Adam (J., D.D.) — An Exposition of the Epistle of James. 8vo, 9s. Ahlfeld (Dr.), etc. — The Voice from the Cross. Cr. 8vo, price ^s. Alcock (Deborah) — Tnii Seven Churches of Asia. Is. Alexander(Prof. W.Lindsay) — BiblicalTheology. Twovols. 8vo,2l8. Alexander (Dr. J. A.) — Commentary on Isaiah. Two vols. Svo, 17s. Allen (Prof. A. V. G.) — IjIfe and Writings of Jonathan Edwards. F(\ap. Svo, 5,s. Ante-Nicene Christian Library — A Collection of all the Works OF THE Fathers of the Chukstian Church trior to the Council of Nic^A. Tweuty-foui- vols. Svo, Subscription price, £6, 6s. Augustine's Works — Edited by Marcus Dods, D.D. Fifteen vols. 8vo, Subscription price, £3, 19s. nett. Bannerman (Prof.) — The Church of Christ. Two vols. Svo, 213. Bannerman (Kev. D. D.)— The Doctrine of the Church. Svo, 12s. Baumgarten (Professor) — Apostolic History. Three vols. Svo, 27s. Beck (Dr.) — Outlines of Biblical Psychology. Crown Svo, 4s. Pastoral Theology in the Xew Testament. Crown Svo, 6s. Bengel — Gnomon of the New Testament. With Original Notes, Explanatory and Illustrative. Five vols. Svo, Subscription price, 31s. 6<1. Cheaper Edition, the five volumes hound in three, 24s. Besser's Christ the Life of the World. Price Gs. Bible-Class Handbooks. Crown Svo. BiNNiE (Prof.)— The Church, Is. Gd. Brown (Principal) — The Epistle to the Romans, 2s. Candlish (Prof.) — The Christian Sacraments, Is. 6d. The Work of the Holy Spirit, Is. 6d. • Christian Doctrine of God, Is. 6d. Davidson (Prof.) — The Epistle to the Hebrews, 2s. 6d. DoDS (Marcus, D.D.) — Post-Exilian Prophets, 2s. Book of Genesis, 2s. Douglas (Principal) — Book of Joshua, Is. 6d. Book of Judges, Is. 3d. Hamilton (T., D.D.) — Irish Presbyterian Church History, 2s. Henderson (Archibald, M.A.) — Palestine, with Maps, 2s. 6d. KiLPATRiCK (T. B., B.D.) — Butler's Three Sermons on Human Nature, Is. Gd. Lindsay (Prof.) — St. Mark's Gospel, 2s. Gd. St. Luke's Goppel, PartL, 2s. ; Part IL, Is. 3d. The Reformation, 2s. The Acts of the Apostles. Two vols., Is. Gd. each. Macgregor (Prof.) — The Epistle to the Galatiaus, Is. Gd. Book of Exodus. Two vols., 2s. each. Macpherson (John, M.A.) — Presbytcrianism, Is. Gd. The Westminster Confession of Faith, 2s. The Sum of Saving Knowledge, Is. Gd. Murphy (Prof.) — The Books of Chronicles. Is. Gd. Reith (Geo., M.A.) — St. John's Gospel. Two vols., 2s. each. SCRYMGEOUR (Wjl) — Lessons on the Life of Christ, 2s. Gd. Stalker (James, M.A.) — Life of Christ, Is. Gd. Life of St. Paul, Is. Gd. Smith (George, LL.D.) — A Short History of Missions, 2s. Gd. Thomson (W. D., M.A.) — Christian Miracles and Conclusions of Science, 2s. Walker (Norman L., M.A.) — Scottish Church History, Is. Gd. Whyte (Alexander, D.D.) — The Shorter Catechism, 2s. Gd. Bible-Class Primers. Paper covers, 6d. each ; free by post, 7d, In cloth, 8d. each ; free by post, 9d. Croskery (Prof.) — Joshua and the Conquest. Given (Prof.) — The Kings of Judah. Gloag (Patox J., D.D.) — Life of Paul. Iverach (James, M.A.) — Life of Moses. T. and T. ClarJc s Publications, Bible-Class Primers — conlimied. Patkhson (I'nif. J. A.) — ruiiod of the Jmltrfs. lioBsoN (.loiix, 1). D.) — Outlines of Protestiiiit Missions. SAi.MoNi)(ri<.f.)— I-ifiM.f TctiT. The Slioitrr Catc-fliisui, 3 Pnrts. Lifoof riirist. Skixnkk (.1., M.A.") — •Historical Conncftion between Old iiml New Testanimts. Smith (H. \V'., J). D.)— Outlines of Early Cliureh History. 'rii()Ms().N(l'.,M.A.)— Life of David. 'Walkei; 0\'.,M.A.)— The Kings of Israel. W'iNTEKiioTiiAM (liAYXK.it, M.A.) — Tjife aud IJeigii of Solomon. "W'lTiiKKOW (I'rof.) — Tlio llistory of the l!e,formation. Blaikie (Prof. W. G.) — The Preachers of Scotland from the Gth Til Till': I'Jrii Ckntuky. Tost Svo, 7.s. 6il. Bleak's Introduction to the New Testament. Two vols. 8 vo, 21s. Bowman (T., M.A.) — Easy and Complete Hebrew Course. 8vo. Part I., 7s. 6d. ; Part IL, 10s. 6d. Briggs (Prof.) — Biblical Study: Its Principles, Methods, and History. Second Edition, post 8vo, 7s. 6d. American Presbyterianism. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d. Messianic Prophecy. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d. VViiiTHER? ATheologicalQuestioiifortheTimes. Post8vo, 7s. Gd. Brown (David, D.D.) — Christ's Second Coming : Will it be Pre- JMilleiinial ? Seventh Edition, crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. Bruce (A. B., D.D.) — The Training of the Twelve ; exhibiting the Twelve Disciples under Discipline for the Ajiostleship. 4th Ed., 8vo, 10s. 6d. The Humiliation of Christ. 3rd Ed., 8vo, 10s. 6d. The Kingdom of God ; or, Christ's Teaching according to the Syuo])tical Gospels. New F.dition, 7s. 6d. Buchanan (Professor) — The Doctrine of Justification. 8vo, IGs. 6d. On Comfort in Affliction. Crown 8vo, 2s. Gd. On Improvement of Affliction. Crown Svo, 2s, Gd. Bungener (Felix) — Rome and the Council in 1 9th Century. Cr. Svo, 5 s. Calvin's Institutes OF Christian Religion. (Translation. )2vols.8vo, 14s. Calvini Instifcuiio Christianse Eeligionis. Curavit A. Tholuck. Two vols. Svo, Subscription price, 14s. Candlish (Prof. J. S., D.D.)— The Kingdom of God, Biblically and Historically Coxsidkred. Svo, IDs. 6d. Caspari (C. E.) — A Chronological and Geographical Introduc- tion TO THE Life of Chiust. Svo, 7s. 6d. Gaspers (A.)— The Footsteps of Christ. Crown 8vo, 7s. Gd. Cassel (Prof) — Commentary on Esther. Svo, 10s. Gd. Cave (Prof)— The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice. Second Edition, Svo, 10s. Gd. An Introduction to Theology : Its Principles, its Branches, its Results, and its Literature. Svo, 12s. Christlieb (Dr.)— Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. Apologetic Lectures addressed to Earnest Seekei-s after Truth. Svo, 10s. 6d. Cotterill — PeREGRINUS Proteus : Clement to the Corinthians, etc. Svo, 12s, Modern Criticism; Clement's Epistles to Virgins, etc. Svo, 5s. Cremer (Professor) — Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testa- ment Greek. Third Edition, with Supplement, demy 4to, 38s. Crippen (Rev. T. G.) — A Popular Introduction to the History OF Christian Doctrine. Svo, 9s. Cunningham (Principal) — Historical Theology. Two vols. Svo, 21s. Discussions on Church Principles. 8vo, 10s. Gd. Curtiss (Dr. S. I.) — The Levitical Priests. Crown Svo, 5s. Dabney (R. L., D.D.) — The Sensualistic Philosophy of the Nineteenth Century Considered. Crown Svo, 6s. T. and T. Clark' s Pitblications. Davidson (Professor) — An Introductory Hebrew Grammar, With Progressive Exercises in Beading and Writing. Ninth Edition, 8vo, 7s. 6d. Delitzsch (Prof.)— A System of Biblical Psychology. 8vo, 12s. New Commentary on Genesis. Two Vols. 8vo, 21s. Commentary on Job. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. ■ Commentary on Psalms. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d. On the Proverbs of Solomon. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. On the Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes, 8vo, 10s. 6d. Old Testament History of Kedemption. Cr. 8vo, i%. 6d. Commentary on Isaiah. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. On the Epistle to the Hebrews. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Iris ; Studies in Colour and Talks about Flowei^s. Post 8vo, 6s. Doedes — Manual of New Testament Hermeneutics. Cr. 8vo, 3s. Bollinger (Dr.) — Hippolytus and Callistus. 8vo, 7s. 6d. Domer (Professor) — History of the Development of the Doctrine OF THE Person of Christ. Five vols. 8vo, £2, 12s. 6d. System of Christian Doctrine. Four vols. 8vo, £2, 2s. System of Christian Ethics. 8vo, 14s, Eadie (Professor) — Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles to the Ephesian.s, PhiliI'Pians, Colossians. New and Revised Editions, Edited by Rev. Wm. Youkg, M. A. Three vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d, each ; or set, 18s. nett. Ebrard (Dr. J. H. A.)— The Gospel History. 8vo, 10s. Gd. Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Apologetics. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d. Elliott — On the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. 8vo, 6s. Ernesti — Biblical Interpretation of New Testament. Two vols., 8s. Ewald (Heinrich)— Syntax of the Hebrew Language of the Old Testament. 8vo, 8s. 6d. Revelation : Its Nature and Record. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Old and New Testament Theology. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Fairbairn (Prin.) — The Revelation of Law in Scripture, 8vo, 10s. 6d. Ezekiel AND the Book OF HIS Prophecy. 4thEd.,8vo, 10s. 6d. Prophecy Viewed in its Distinctive Nature, its Special Functions, and Proper Interpretations.- Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d. New Testament Hermeneutical Manual. 8vo, lOs. 6d. Forbes (Prof.) — Symmetrical Structure of Scripture. 8vo, 8s. 6d. Analytical Commentary on the Romans. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Studies in the Book of Psalms. 8vo, 7s. 6d. The Servant of the Lord in Isaiah xl.-lxvi. Cr. 8vo, 5?. Frank (Prof. F. H.) — System of Christian Evidence. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Fyfe (James) — The Hereafter : Sheol, Hades, and Hell, the World to Come, and the Scripture Doctrine of Rctrilnition according to Law. 8vo, 7s. 6d, Gebhardt (H.) — The Doctrine of the Apocalypse, and its relation TO THE Doctrine of the Gospel and Epistles of John. 8vo, 10s. 6d. G-erlach — Commentary on the Pentateuch. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Gieseler(Dr.J.C.L.) — Ecclesiastical History. Fourvols.Svo, £2, 2s. Gifford (Canon) — Voices of the Prophets. Crown 8vo, 3s. Gd. Given (Rev. Prof. J. J.) — The Truths of Scripture in connection with Revelation, iNSPiRATfoN, and the Canon. 8vo, 6s. Glasgow (Prof.) — Apocalypse Translated and Expounded, svo, io/6. Gloag (Paton J., D.D.) — A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Two vols. Svo, 21s. The Messianic Prophecies. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. T. and T. Clark' s Publications. Gloag(P, J., D.D.) — Introduction to the Pauline Epistles. 8vo, 1 26. iNTItODUCTION TO THE CATHOLIC El'ISTLES. SvO, lOs. 6(1. ExEGETiCAL STUDIES. Cro^vn 8vo, 5s. Godet (Prof. ) — Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Commentary ON St. John's Gospel. Three vols. Svo, 31s. 6d. Commentary on Epistle to the Romans. Two vols. Svo, 2 1 s. Commentary ON 1st Epistle to Corinthians. 2vo1s. 8vo, 21s. Lectures in Defence of the Christian Faith. Cr. Svo, 6s. Goebel (Siegfried) — The Parables of Jesus. 8vo, los. Gd. Gotthold's Emblems ; or, Invisible Things Understood by Things THAT ARE MaDK. CrOWTl 8vo, 5s. Grimm's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Trans- lated, Revised, and Enlarged by Joseph H. Thayei;, D.D. Dcniy 4to, 3G.s. Guyot (Arnold, LL.D.) — Creation; or, The Biblical Cosmogony in the Light of Modern Science. With Illustrations. Crown Svo, 5s. 6d. Hagenbach (Dr. K. E,. ) — History of Doctrines. ThreevoIs.Svo, 31s. 6d. History of the Reformation. Two vols. Svo, 21s. Hall (Rev. Newman, LL.B.) — The Lord's Prayer, 2nd YA., cr. Svo, 6s. Hamilton (T., D.D.) — Beyond the Stars; or, Heaven, its Inhabitants, Oceupiitions, and Life. Second Edition, crown Svo, os. 6d. Harless (Dr. C. A.) — System of Christian Ethics. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Han-is (Eev. S., D.D.) — The Philosophical Basis of Theism. Svo, 1 2s. — The Self-Revelation of God. Svo, 12s. Haupt (Erich) — The First Epistle of St. John. Svo, 10s. Gd. Havernick (H. A. Ch.) — Introduction to Old Testament. 10s. 6d. Heard (Rev. J. B., M.A.)— The Tripartite NAure of ]\Ian — Spirit, Sot^L, AND Body. Fifth Edition, crown Svo, 6.s. Old AND New Theology. AConstructiveCritique. Cr. 8vo,6s. Hefele (Bishop) — A History of the Councils of the Church. Vol. I., to A.D. 325 ; Vol. IL, a.d. 326 to 429. Vol. III., a.d. 431 to the close of the Council of Chalcedon, 451. Svo, 12s. each. Hengstenberg (Professor) — Commentary on Psalms. 3 vols. Svo, 33s. Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes, etc. Svo, 9s. The Prophecies of Ezekiel Elucidated. Svo, 10s. 6d. The Genuineness of Daniel, etc. Svo, 12s. History of the Kingdom of God. Two vols. Svo, 21s, Christology of the Old Testament. Four vols. Svo, £2, 2s. On the Gospel of St. John. Two vols. Svo, 21s. Herzog — Encyclop/EDIa of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology. Based on the Real-Enciiklopcidie of Herzog, Pliit, and IlaucJc. Edited by Prof. Schaff, D.D. In Three vols., price 24s. each. Encyclopaedia of Living Divines, etc., of all Dexominatioxs IN EuKOPE AXD America. (Supplement to Herzog' sEncyclopcedia. ) Imp. S vo,8s. Hutchison (John, D.D.) — Commentary on 'Thessalonians. Svo, 9s. Commentary on Philippians. Svo, 7s. 6d. Janet (Paul) — Final Causes. By Paul Janet, Member of the In- stitute. Translated from the French. Second Edition, demy Svo, 12s. The Theory of Morals. Demy Svo, lOs. Gd. Johnstone (Prof. R., D.D.) — Commentary on 1st Peter. Svo, lOs. Gd. Jones (E. E. 0.) — Elements of Logic. Svo, 7s. Gd. JoufFroy — Philosophical Essays. Fcap. Svo, 6s. Kant — The Metaphysic of Ethics. Crown Svo, 6s. Philosophy of Law. Trans, by W. Hastie, B.D. Cr. Svo, 5s. Keil (Prof.) — Commentary on the Pentateuch. 3 vols. Svn, .^1 s. Gd. ( T. and T. Cla7'k! s Publications. Keil (Prof.) — Commentary on Joshua, Judges,and Kuth. 8vo,lOs.6c]. Commentary on the Books of Samuel. 8vo, 10s. 6(1. • • Commentary on the Books of Kings. 8vo, 10s. Gd, Commentary on Chronicles. 8vo, 10s. Gd. Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. 8vo, 10s. Gd. Commentary on Jeremiah. Two vols. 8vo, 2 Is. Commentary on Ezekiel. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. ■ — Commentary on Daniel. 8vo, 10s. 6d. On the Books of the Minor Prophets. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Manual of Historico-Critical Introduction to the Caxoxical Scriptuues of the Old Testament. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Handbook of Biblical Archeology. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Keymer (Rev. N., M.A.) — Notes on Genesis. Crown 8vo, Is. 6d. Killen (Prof.) — The Old Catholic Church; or, The History, Doc- trine, Worsliij). and Polity of the Christians, traced to a.d. 75;"!. 8vo, 9s. The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious. Cr. Svo, 2s. Gd. The Framework of the Church. {In the Press.) Konig (Dr. F. E.)— The Eeligious History of Israel. Cr. Svo, 3s. Gd. Kruinmacher (Dr. F. W.) — The Suffering Saviour ; or, Meditations on the Last Days of the Sufferings of Christ. Eiglith Edition, crowu Svo, 6s. David, the King of Israel. Second Edition, cr. 8vo, 6s. Autobiography. Crown 8vo, Gs. Kurtz (Prof.) — Handbook of Church History. Two vols. Svo, 15s. History of the Old Covenant. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d. Ladd (Prof. G. T.) — The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture : A Critical, Historical, and Dogmatic Inquiry into the Origin and Nature of the Old and New Testaments. Two vols. Svo, 1600 pp., 24s. Laidlaw (Prof.) — The Bible Doctrine of Man. Svo, 10s. 6d. Lane (Laura M.) — ^Life of Alexander Vinet. Crown Svo, 7s. Gd. Lange (J. P., D.D.) — The Life of our Lord Jesus Christ. Edited by Marcus Doos, D.D. 2nd Ed., in 4 vols. Svo, Suhscription price 28s. Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments. Edited hy Philip Schafk, D.D. Old Testamen't, 14 vols. ; New Testament, 10 vols. ; ArociiYi'HA, 1 vol. Subscription price, nett, 15s. each. On St. Matthew and St. Mark. Three vols. Svo, 31s. Gd, On the Gospel of St. Luke. Two vols. Svo, 18s. On the Gospel of St. John. Two vols. Svo, 21s. Lechler (Prof. G. V., D.D.) — The Apostolic and Post- Apostolic Times. Their Diversity and Unity in Life and Doctrine. 2 vols. cr. Svo, 16s. Lehmann (Pastor) — Scenes from the Life of Jesus. Cr. Svo, 3s. 6d. Lewis (Tayler, LL.D.) — The Six Days of Creation. Cr. Svo, 7s. 6d. Lichtenberger (F., D.D.) — History of German Theology in the 19th Century. Svo, 14s. Lisco (F. G.) — Pap.ables of Jesus Explained. Fcap. Svo, 5s. Lotze (Hermann) — Microcosmus : An Essay concerning Man and his relation to the World. Fourth Edition, two vols. Svo (1450 pages), 36s. Luthardt, Kahnis, and BrUckner — The Church. Crown Svo, 5s. Luthardt (Prof. ) — St. John the Author of theFourth Gospel. 7s. 6d. St. John's Gospel Described and Explained according TO ITS Peculiar Character. Three vols. Svo, 31s. 6d. Apologetic Lectures on the Fundamental (Sixth Edition), Sx^iso {Fifth Edition), MoRAi, Truths of Christianity {Third Edition). Three vols, crown Svo, 6s. each. History of Christian Ethics. Vol. L, Svo, l(»s. Cd. T. and T. Clark's Publications. Macdonald — Introduction to Pentateuch. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. The Creation and Fall. 8vo, 12s. Mair (A., D.D.)— Studies in the Christian Evidences. Second Edition, crown 8vo, 6s. Martensen (Bishop) — Christian Dogmatics : A Compendium of the Doftrint's of Christianity. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Christian Ethics. (General Ethics.) 8vo, 10s. 6d. Christian Ethics. (Individual Ethics.) 8vo, 10s. 6d. Christian Ethics. (Social Ethics.) 8vo, 10s. Gd. Matheson (Geo., D.D.) — Growth of the Spirit of Christianity, from the First Century to tlie Dawn of tlie Lutheran Era. Two vols. 8vo, 2Is. Aids to the Study of German Theology. 3rd Edition, 4s. 6d. Meyer (Dr.) — Critical and Ivkegetical Commentary on St. Matthew's Gospel. Two vols. Bvo, 21s. On Mark and Luke. Two vols. 8vo, 2 Is. On St. John's Gospel. Two vols. 8vo, 2 Is. On Acts of the Apostles. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. On the Epistle to the Komans. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. On Corinthians. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. On Galatians. 8vo, 10s. Gd. On Ephesians and Philemon. One vol. Bvo, 10s. Gd. On Philippians and Colossians. One vol. 8vo, 10s. Gd. On Thessalonians. {Dr. Lunemann.) One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d. The Pastoral Epistles. (Dr. Huther.) 8vo, 10s. Gd. The Epistle TO THE Hebrews. {Dr. Lunemann.) 8vo, 10s. Gd. St. James' and St. John's Epistles. {Huther.) 8vo, 10s. 6d. Peter and Jude. {Dr. Huther.) One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Michie (Charles, M.A.) — Bible Words and Phrases. ISmo, Is. Monrad (Dr. D. G.) — The World of Prayer. Crown 8vo, 4s. Gd. Morgan (J., D.D.) — Scripture Testimony to the Holy Spirit. 7s. Gd, Exposition of the First Epistle of John. 8vo, 7s. Gd. MUlIer (Dr. Julius) — The Christian Doctrine of Sin. An entirely New Translation from the Fifth German Edition. Two vols. Bvo, 21s. Murphy (Professor) — Commentary on the Psalms. 8vo, 12s. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus. 9s. Naville (Ernest) — The Problem of Evil. Crown 8vo, 4s. Gd. The Christ. TranslatedbyPev. T. J.Despres. Cr.8vo,4s.6d. Modern Physics: Studies Historical and Philosophical. Translated by Rev. H£>jily Dowxtox, JI.A. Crown 8vo, 5s. Neander (Dr.) — General History of the Christian Keligion and CnuKcn. Nine vols. 8vo, £3, 7s. 6d. Nicoll (W. R, M.A.) — The Incarnate Saviour: A Life of Jesus Christ. Crown 8vo, 6s. Novalis — Hymns and Thoughts on Eeligion. Crown Svo, 4s. Oehler (Prof.) — Theology of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Svo, 21s. Olshausen (Dr. H.) — Biblical Commentary on the Gospels and Acts. Four vols. 8vo, £2, 2s. Cheaper Edition, four vols, crown Svo, 24s. EOMANS. One vol. Svo, 10s. Gd. Corinthians. One vol. Svo, 9s. Philippians, Titus, and First Timothy. One vol. Svo, 1 Os. 6d. Oosterzee (Dr. Van) — The Year of Salvation. Words of Life for Every Day. A Book of Household Devotion. Two vols. Svo, 6s. each. Moses : A Biblical Study. Crown Svo, Gs. T. and T. Clark's Publications. Orelli — Old Testament Prophecy of the Consummation of God's KiXGDOM. 8vo, lOs. 6d. Commentary ON Isaiah. 8vo, 10s. Gd. Jeremiah. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Owen (Dr. John) — Works. Best and only Com'plete Edition. Edited by Rev. Dr. Goold. Twenty-four vols. 8vo, Subscription price, £4, 4s. The ' Hebrews' may be had separately, in Seven vols., £2, 2s. nett. Philippi (F. A. ) — Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. From tlie Third Improved Edition, by Rev. Professor Banks. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Piper — Lives of Leaders of Church Universal. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Popular Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Philip ScHAFF, D.D. With Illustrations and Maps. Vol. I.— The Synoptical Gospels. Vol. II. — St. John's Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles. Vol. III.— Romans to Philemon. Vol. IV. — Heeuews to Revelation. In Four vols, imperial 8vo, 12s. 6d. each. Pressens^ (Edward de) — The Redeemer : Discourses. Crown 8vo, fis. Punjer (Bernhard) — History of the Christian Philosophy of Pv,ELlGI0N FROM THE REFORMATION TO KaNT. 8v0, 16s. Rabiger (Prof.) — Encyclopaedia of Theology. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Rainy (Principal) — Delivery and Development of Christian Doctrine. {The Fifth Series of the Cunninfjliam Lectures.) 8vo, lOs. 6d. Reusch (Prof.) — Nature and the Bible : Lectures on the Mosaic History of Creation in Relation to Natural Science. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. Reuss (Professor) — History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament. 640 pp. 8vo, 15s. Ritter (Carl) — The Comparative Geography of Palestine and the SiNAiTic Peninsula. Four vols. 8vo, 26s. Robinson (Rev. S., D.D.) — Discourses on Redemption. 8vo, 7s. 6d. Robinson (Edward, D.D.) — Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament. 8vo, 9s. Rothe (Prof) — Sermons for the Christian Year. Cr. 8vo, 4s. 6d. Saisset — Manual of Modern Pantheism. Two vols. 8vo, IDs. 6d. Sartorius (Dr. E.) — Doctrine of Divine Love. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Schaff (Professor)— History of the Christian Church. (New Edition, thoroughly Revised and Enlarged.) Apostolic Christianity, a.d. 1-100. 2 vols. Ex. 8vo, 2is. Ante-Nicene Christianity, a. d. 100-325. 2 vols. E.\:. Svo, 2is. Post-Nicene Christianity, A.D. 325-600. 2 vols. Ex. 8vo, 2is. Medleval Christianity, A.D. 590-1073. 2 vols. Ex. 8vo,2is. (Com p/ct ion of this Period, 1073-1.517, in preparation.) Modern Christianity, A.D. 1517-1530. 2 vols. Ex. Svo, 2is. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. The Didache and Kindred Documents in the Original. Second Edition, ex. Svo, 9s. Sclileiermacher s Christmas Eve. Crown 8vo, 2s. Sclunid's Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Svo, 10s. 6d. Schiirer (Prof.) — History of the New Testament Times. Div. IL Three vols. Svo, 31s. 6d. Scott (Jas., M.A., D.D.) — Principles of New Testament Quotation Established and Applied to Biblical Criticism. Cr. Svo, 2nd Edit., 4s. Shedd — History of Christian Doctrine. Two vols. Svo, 21s. Sermons to the Natural Man. Svo, 7s. 6d. Sermons to the Spiritual Man. Svo, 7s. Gd. Dogmatic Theology. Two vols. ex. Svo, 2os. Simon (Rev. Prof. D. W.) — The Bible; An Outgrowth of Theocratic Life. Cro\Yn Svo, 4s. 6d. The Redemption of Man. Svo, 10s. 6d. T. and T. Clark's Publications, Smeaton (Proiessor) — The DocthinI': of the Atonement as Taucht BY CiiKisr lIiMsKi.F. Second Kilition, 8vo, 10s. Gd. On THE DocTJiixH OK TiiR Holy Spirit. 2ncl Ed., 8vo, Os. Smith (Professor Thos., D.D.)— Mkdi/KVai. Missions. Cr. 8vo, 4s. 6d. Stahliii (Leoiih. ) — Kant, Lotze, and J^itsciil. 8vo, 9s. Stalker (Eev. Jas., M.A.) — The Life of Jesus Christ. New Edition, ill larger Tyiic. Crown 8vo, 3.s. Cd. Life of St. Paul. Large Type Edition. Crown 8vo, 3s. Gd. Stanton (V. H., M.A.)— The Jewish and The Christian Messiah. A Study in th(! Earliest History of Christianity. 8vo, 10s. 6d. Steinmeyer"(Dr. F. L.) — The Miracles of Our Lord. 8vo, 7s. Gd. The History of the Passion and Resurrection of our Loud, considered in the Light of Modern Criticism. Svo, 10.s. 6d. Stevenson (Mrs.) — The Symbolic Parables : The Predictions of the Apocalypse in relation to the General Truths of Scripture. Cr. Svo, 3s. 6d. Steward (Rev. G.) — Mediatorial Sovereignty. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. The Argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 8vo, lOs.Gd. Stier (Dr. Rudolph) — On the "Words of the Lord Jesus. Eight vols. Svo, Subscription price of £2, 2s. Separate volumes, price 10s. 6d. The Words of the Risen Saviour, and Commentary on THE Epistle of St. James. Svo, 10s. 6d. The Words of the Apostles Expounded. 8vo, 10s. Gd. Tholuck (Prof.) — The Epistle to the Romans. Two vols, fcajx 8vo, 8s. Light from the Cross. Third Edition, crown 8vo, 5s. Tophel (Pastor G.) — The Work of the Holy Spirit. Cr. 8vo, 2s. 6d. TJhlhorn(G.)— Christian Charityinthe AncientChurch. Cr. 8vo, 6s. Ullmann (Dr. Carl) — Reformers before the Reformation, princi- pally in Germany and the Netherlands. Two vols. Svo, 21s. The Sinlessness of Jesus : An Evidence for Christianity. Fourth Edition, crown Svo, 6s. TJrwick (W., M.A.) — The Servant of Jehovah : A Commentary npon Isaiah lii. 13-liii. 12; with Dissertations upon Isaiah xl.-lxvi. Svo, 3s. Vinet (Professor) — Studies on Blaise Pascal. Crown 8vo, 5s. Walker (J., D.D.) — Theology and Theologians of Scotland. New Edition, crown Svo, 3s. 6d. Watts (Professor) — The Newer Criticism and the Analogy of the Faith. Third Edition, crown Svo, 5s. The Reign of Causality : A Vindication of the Scientific Piinciplc of Tclic Causal Efficiency. Crown Svo. 6s. Weir (J. P., M.A.) — The Way : The Nature and Means of Salva- tion. Ex. crown Svo, 6s. 6d. Weiss(Prof.)— BiblicalTheologyofNewTestament. 2vo1s. 8vo, 21s. . Life of Christ. Three vols. 8vo, .31s. Gd. White (Rev. M.) — Symbolical Numbers of Scripture. Cr. 8vo, 4s. Williams Select Vocabulary of Latin Etymology. Fcap. Svo, is. 6d. Winer (Dr. G. B.)— A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testa- ment Gkeek, regarded as the Basis of New Testament Exegesis. Third Edition, edited by W. F. Moultox, D.D. Ninth English Edition, Svo, 15s. TheDoctrines AND Confessions ofChristendom. Svo,i0s.6d. Witlierow(Prof.T.,D.D.)—THEFoRMOFTHECHRiSTiAN Temple. Svo,io/6. Workman (Prof. G. C.)— The Text of Jeremiah ; or, A Critical Investi- gation of the Greek and Hebrew, with the Variations in the LXX Retrans- lated into the Original, and Explained. Post Svo, 9s. Wright (C. H., D.D.)— Biblical Essays. Crown Svo, 5s. Wuttke (Professor) — Christian Ethics. Two vols. 8vo, 12s. Gd. DATE DUE ^m^""^ .. !l^* . J4MH^ 19TI^ GAYLORD P«,NTED,NUS.A. 1 1012 01032 5894