i:^ a o^ ^::;a. .^£:i^ iia. ^:2^ 
 
 OF THE 
 AT 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 SAMUEL AGNEW, 
 
 OF PHILADELPHIA, PA. 
 
 BV 664 .W5 1844 
 Windsor, Lloyd 
 An inquiry into the 
 ministerial commission 
 
m 
 
MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 
 
AN 
 
 INQUIRY 
 
 INTO THE 
 
 MINISTERIAL COMMISSION, 
 
 Bv Rev. LLOYD WINDSOR, A. M. 
 
 BECTOR or GRACE CHURCH, LOCKPORT. 
 
 svK dyadov -iroXvKoipaviTi : eli Koipavos larui 
 
 II. 0. I. 204. 
 
 CLAREMONT, N. H. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY SIDE. 
 
 i 844. 
 
Entered according to act of Congi-ess, in the year 1843, by 
 Simeon Ide, in the Clerk's office of the District Court of the 
 District of New-Hampshire. 
 
 N. W. GODDARD, PRINT. 
 
-.A^ ^*'*'- 
 
 
 PREFAcf: 
 
 In presenting the following pages to 
 the public, the author deems no other 
 apology necessary than that which is fur- 
 nished by the fact, that he believes himself 
 to be in the conscientious performance of 
 duty. If he is not greatly mistaken, at no 
 time has the discussion of the subject, on 
 which he has written, been more impera- 
 tively demanded than at the present. All 
 christians, without distinction of name, 
 who believe in the Apostles' creed as a 
 summary of faith, believe in "The Holy 
 Catholic Church." But this Church, of 
 necessity, has a ministry. Who are they ? 
 This is the important question ; for a de- 
 decision of it, will guide us directly to the 
 Church in which we believe. When we 
 
 know who are the ministry, we know which 
 1* 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 is the Church. It is possible for men to 
 profess her faith, teach her doctrines, and 
 administer her ordinances ; but can they 
 show a vahd commission for what they do 
 in God's name and in Christ's stead ? If 
 not, then that society for which they mis- 
 ister cannot be considered as "The Holy 
 Catholic Church," or any part thereof; for 
 that Church has a divinely commissioned 
 ministry. 
 
 The whole question of the Church, there- 
 fore, and the true meaning of this article of 
 the creed, resolves itself into the question 
 
 of THE MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. And this 
 
 is the subject to which we now invite the 
 reader's serious and patient attention. It 
 is one which, both in view of time and 
 eternity, is of the very greatest importance. 
 For, however some may endeavor to de- 
 preciate the government, by bringing into 
 comparison with it the doctrines of the 
 Church — alledging that the one is for time, 
 the other for eternity — the one external, 
 the other internal and spiritual; yet it is 
 nevertheless true, that by the government, 
 
PREFACE. VU 
 
 the doctrine is duly preserved and adminis- 
 tered, and for this very purpose was it insti- 
 tuted. The higher our estimate of the 
 value of the faith of the gospel, the more 
 should we esteem the guardian and dispen- 
 sor of that faith. Break up the ministry : 
 render it essentially defective, by stripping 
 it of all authority as a divinely appointed 
 order ; and how long will the Church's faith 
 remain inviolate? Is there not an essential 
 connection between them (not merely in 
 individual cases) as the Church stands 
 opposed to the world ; a connection es- 
 tablished by God himself? And shall man 
 venture to sever it, and not tremble for the 
 consequences ? Behold, in the wreck of 
 church governments, (defective govern- 
 ments that held the seeds of dissolution in 
 themselves) the ruin, in many instances, of 
 the christian faith ; and in its stead, the 
 various and dangerous heresies that have 
 sprung up ! The surface of the christian 
 world is strewn with them. We do not, 
 however, say that all, who have not the di- 
 vine government, have thereby lost the 
 
Vlll PREFACE. 
 
 faith. But multitudes have, and as for 
 the rest, how long can they hope to stand 
 upon a basis which has, and professes to 
 have, no divine authority for its support ? 
 In a word, if the Church of the gospel is 
 the palladium of the faith of the gospel, 
 then to know it, to love and protect it, is 
 one of the highest acts of christian zeal 
 and duty. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 The nature and necessity of the Commission : — The 
 Commission divine — Essential to the Church in the Apos- 
 tolic age, and, therefore, essential ever afterwards. With- 
 out this commission there can be no authorized ministry, 
 and consequently, no church. The true principle of unity 
 is adherence to the commission, 13 
 
 SECTION II. 
 The Commission found in Christ's final charge to the 
 eleven Apostles : — The first commission given by the Sa- 
 viour to the twelve, was temporary and limited. It expired. 
 The second, after the resurrection, the prepetual commis- 
 sion and foundation of the christian ministry. No other 
 in the New Testament. That to the seventy temporary, 34 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 The ordaining power given by commission to the Apostles 
 only : — First, the terms of the commission convey this 
 power. Secondly, it is implied in the nature of the objects 
 contemplated by the commission. Thirdly, the Apostles 
 exercised it on several occasions, 44 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 The perpetuity of the Apostolic Office : — Being the only 
 office Christ left on the earth — if it perished, all of visible 
 and divine authority perished. The explicit promise of 
 perpetuity. The office actually transmitted in its integri- 
 ty, so that there were many besides the original twelve 
 who were Apostles. The Apostleship of Matthias, . . CI 
 
 SECTION V. 
 The office of Elder or Presbyter in the Apostolic Church : 
 — The origin of the term. They did not bear the Apos- 
 tolic commission. They neither held the office nor bore 
 the title of Apostles. Their origin according to the ac- 
 count in the New Testament. Their powers, .... 85 
 
X . CONTENTS. 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 
 The direct argument for Episcopacy : — Meaning of the 
 term Bishop. The argument. Parity tested by applying 
 it to the Apostolic Church. It unchurches the Apostles, 
 dethrones and excommunicates them. Presbyterianism 
 unchurches the whole church. Objections to Episcopacy 
 answered. The true position of all dissenters, ... 98 
 
 THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 
 The succession preserved, and continued by Divine 
 power, as the Bible is preserved, and for the same reasons. 
 Moral proofs. Apostolic and other canons on the subject. 
 Historic proofs. Objections answered. English succes- 
 sion traced to the Apostles. British church independent 
 of Rome, proved by direct and indirect evidence. The 
 mode of computing the Easter festival observed in the 
 British Church. The theory of Dr. Lingard examined. 
 The historic testimony, uninipeached from St. Paul to Bish- 
 op White. The true ground, as a doctrine of the Bible and 
 of the church, upon whicli to rest the succession. — Wit- 
 nesses of the succession. A table, illustrative of the law 
 of the succession, 1J4 
 
 DIOCESAN EPISCOPACY. 
 
 Mosheim's congregational theory examined — Jerusa- 
 lem, Ephesus, Antioch, Rome : the Asistic churches, di- 
 oceses in the first century. Other evidence of Diocesan 
 Episcopacy in the third century. The term "Church" — 
 its import, 156 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 The real strength of the argument for an unbroken 
 succession, illustrated by the case of Parker. His conse- 
 cration objected to by Bp. Kendrick — answered, . . . 181 
 
 "The plea of necessity" for dissenting from the Church 
 examined, 189 
 
 The sense of the Church expressed in her "Thirty-nine 
 Articles," on the subject of the Church and ministry. 
 The views of the English Reformers, 194 
 
 List of Parker's consecrations, 202 
 
 Parker's consecration, . , . 205 
 
 Bishops of Rome and Kngland, from St. Paul to Bishop 
 White 207 
 
THE COMMISSION. 
 
 Mat.xxviii. 19,20. Mark xvi. 15. Luke xxrv. 48, 49. John xx. Ql— 23. 
 
 Go ye therefore 
 and teach all na- 
 tions, baptizing 
 thetn in the name 
 of the Father, and 
 of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Ghost; 
 
 Teaching them to 
 observe all things 
 whatsoever 1 have 
 conmianded you: 
 and lo, I am with 
 you alway, even 
 unto the end of the 
 world. Amen. 
 
 Go ye into all the 
 world, and preach 
 the gospel to every 
 creature. 
 
 And ye are wit- 
 of these 
 things. 
 
 And behold, I 
 send the promise of j 
 my Father upon' 
 you; but tarry ye 
 in the city of Jeru- 
 salem until ye be 
 ndued with pow- 
 er from on high. 
 
 As my Father 
 hath sent me, even 
 so send I you. 
 
 And when he had 
 said this,he breath- 
 ed on them and 
 saith unto them, 
 receive ye the Ho- 
 ly Ghost. 
 
 Whosesoever sins 
 ye remit, they are 
 remitted unto them; 
 and whosesoever 
 sins ye retain, they 
 are retained. 
 
THE MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 
 
 THE NATURE AND NECESSITY OF THE 
 COMMISSION. 
 
 SECTION FIRST. 
 
 It is susceptible of the clearest proof 
 from holy scripture, that our Lord never 
 gave but one ministerial commission to 
 his disciples, which can be considered of 
 final and perpetual obligation on the 
 Church. And that commission v^^as his 
 last, given to the eleven, prior to his as- 
 cension^ It is recorded with more or less 
 particularity by each of the four Evan- 
 gelists, and once alluded to in the Acts of 
 the Apostles. It will be found, by a ref- 
 erence to it, to be expressed in the most 
 solemn and positive terms. And judging 
 from our Saviour-s manner and language, 
 on the occasion, as well as from the na- 
 ture of the case, it would be difficult in- 
 deed to point out a single reason, whv 
 2 
 
14 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 this institution of the ministry is not fully 
 as binding upon the Church, and as es- 
 sential to her existence, as the two sa- 
 craments. All that can possibly be 
 claimed for them is that they are divine 
 and positive institutions enjoined by 
 Christ himself; and no less than this can 
 be said of the apostolic ministry. ''As 
 my Father hath sent me (said our Sav- 
 iour) even so send I you." ''He that re- 
 ceiveth you receiveth me, and he that re- 
 ceiveth me receiveth him that sent me." 
 "All power is given unto me in heaven 
 and in earth — go ye therefore and teach 
 all nations," &c. H ere is a divine origin ; 
 here is a most positive institution of the 
 apostolic ministry. Language stronger 
 than this (considering the different nature 
 of the cases) cannot be found in reference 
 to either of the two sacraments. This 
 ministry w^ere sent just as Christ had been 
 by the Father; and consequently if it was 
 a sin to reject him, it was a sin of no less 
 magnitude to reject tlienu If the Church 
 could not exist without him, neither could 
 it exist without them. If Christ was the 
 corner-stone of all divine authority in his 
 visible Church, they were the foundation. 
 For St. Paul writing to the Ephesians de^ 
 dared "Yc are built upon the foundation 
 
COMMISSION. 15 
 
 of the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ 
 himself being the chief corner-stone." 
 
 It will be conceded by all that it was 
 morally impossible to come unto God, 
 except through the mediation of his Son ; 
 and was it not equally impossible to come 
 unto the Son in the appointed covenan- 
 ted way, i. e. in his Holy Church, except 
 by the apostolic ministry ? He who des- 
 pised or rejected them (the Saviour had 
 said) despised or rejected him. They 
 alone were solemnly and officially com- 
 missioned by Christ, to mediate, in the 
 ministerial sense, then and/ortrer,between 
 himself and the world. Into their hands 
 he placed "the keys of the kingdom of 
 heaven," i. e. the Church; therefore there 
 was no entrance into that kingdom but 
 by them. They were to baptize, to ad- 
 minister the holy communion ; to preach 
 the gospel ; to bind and loose; in a word, 
 to teach men to observe whatsoever their 
 Lord had commanded them. For other 
 men to have usurped these divine prerog- 
 atives, w^ould not only have been a sin 
 amounting to sacrilege, but viewed as an 
 official act, utterly null and void ; because 
 renouncing the apostolic ministry, they 
 thereby renounced Christ in his visible, 
 representative authority on earth. To 
 
16 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 leave the Apostles, was to leave Christ in 
 the same sense ; and consequently to leave 
 the Church. Without the Apostles there 
 was no church t for as all the facts of the 
 case do shew, and as St. Paul explicitly 
 declares, the Church was built upon the 
 Apostles as they were upon Christ. We 
 conclude thereibre, that the apostolic 
 ministry (strictly so called,) was essential 
 to the being of the Church. 
 
 Our next inquiry is, whether, if the 
 Apostles had successors in their office, 
 these successors are not as necessary 
 to the Church now, as at the first? are 
 they not the apostolic ministry still, per- 
 petuating their order from age to age ? 
 and is not the Church built now upon 
 ihem, as it was formerly ? When our Lord 
 declared to the Apostles, after he had in- 
 vested them with their conmiission — "and 
 lo, I am with you always even unto the 
 end of the world !" he certainly^ in these 
 words, included their successors. Nor is 
 it possible, by any method of reasoning, 
 to show why the successors of the Apos- 
 tles, at the distance of eighteen centuries, 
 do not bear precisely the same relation, 
 in their o^fc/<^/ capacity, to Christ, on the 
 one hand, and to the Church on the other, 
 as the twelve bore. Length of time surely 
 
COMMISSION. 17 
 
 cannot change or annul the eternal pur- 
 poses of the divine will. If there could 
 be no church without an apostolic minis- 
 try in the first age — if it was schism to cut 
 loose from thtir authority — how is the 
 case altered now ? It is not altered ; and 
 the true Church of Christ is found, in all 
 ages, in adherence to the apostolic min- 
 istry. 
 
 Individual christians may associate to- 
 gether independently of this ministry, but 
 such association can never constitute 
 them a church, in the proper and scriptu- 
 ral sense of the term. Can it be said of 
 them, "Ye are built upon the foundation 
 oi'the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ 
 himself being the chief corner-stone ?" 
 They are, indeed, perhaps spiritually and 
 in doctrine built on this foundation ; but 
 are they outwardly, visibly, and as a 
 church? This cannot be alledged ; but 
 it was true of the Ephesians, for the Apos- 
 tle addressing them, in the text quoted 
 above, was speaking of external church- 
 membership. '-Now therefore, ye are no 
 more strangers and foreigners, but fellow- 
 citizens with the saints, and of the house- 
 liold of God ; and are built upon the foun- 
 dation," &c. Besides, what would be the 
 nature of a church whose ministry had 
 
18 THK MINISTERIAL 
 
 not apostolic authority, and which conse- 
 quently was only a voluntary society. 
 Their doctrine may be true ; their faith 
 and piety may be exemplary ; but what 
 of their particular association — has that 
 divine authority ? At least may not any 
 other association have equal authority ? 
 May they not divide, and divide again, 
 ad infinitum ? Is schism from such church 
 authority any sin ? It surely is not ; for 
 the very principle upon which they are 
 founded is voluntary association, and this 
 expressly allows of divisions to any ex- 
 tent. Not only in such a system would 
 unity be an impossible thing ; but endless 
 diversity of doctrine, and of worship, 
 ^'emulation, wrath, strife, envy," and in 
 a word, internal dissension must be the 
 inevitable result, and the church would 
 be (in the words of our blessed Lord) 
 that house which is divided against it- 
 self, and which cannot stand.* 
 
 It is very lately that any one has pre- 
 sumed to question or deny this doctrine ; 
 and now that this has been done, there 
 is no assignable limit to the divisions and 
 subdivisions of independent sects. The 
 
 * What Sallust says of the Roman Republic is, on the prin- 
 ciple of dissent, true of the Church. 
 
 Sibi quisque dueere, trahere, lapere, Ita ornnia in diiaa 
 partis abstracta sunt ; ccchsia, qua media fuerat, dilacerata. 
 
COMMISSION. 19 
 
 slightest shade of difference in religious 
 tenets is deemed by such persons a suffi- 
 cient reason and apology for the forming 
 of a new denomination, and a new min- 
 istry. Nay, even where there is no mat- 
 erial variation in doctrine, a trifling dis- 
 agreement as to government, is cause 
 enough to rend asunder a christian com- 
 munion ; and make of one, two rival and 
 entirely disconnected churches. What 
 a comment is this, so often witnessed in 
 our country, upon those false principles 
 which deny the divine ministry and the 
 succession ? Do not facts on every hand 
 demonstrate the impossibility of union 
 when these pinciples are denied ? 
 
 But it will be urged, that the existence of 
 sects is a practical benefit to Christianity. 
 We concede that a freedom of opinion, on 
 many abstract points of faith, a privilege 
 to men to think differently, according to 
 their constitutional peculiarities, on sub- 
 jects upon which the scriptures are not 
 explicit, and which are not fundamental, 
 is a great benefit ; and hence, that creeds 
 and articles of faith should insist only 
 upon the main points ; and not bind the 
 reason and the conscience of men where 
 God hath not bound them. But this 
 surely is compatible with unity. We may 
 
20 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 possess all this and yet be members of 
 one Church. On the contrary, it would be 
 difficult to prove, that the existence and 
 constant multiplication of sects, upon the 
 slightest grounds of disagreement, is an 
 advantage. For, if it allows latitude of 
 opinion, it does so, to such an extent, as 
 tends to the disintegration and ultimate 
 dissolution of the church, as a visible so- 
 ciety. It presents an exact parallel to a 
 political government which has no general 
 constitution, and the subjects of which may 
 disfranchise themselves, when, and for 
 what, they please, and adopt another 
 government. Could this be called a gov- 
 ernment at all — could it possibly exist 
 twenty-four hours ? 
 
 If the Christian Church, therefore, has 
 no constitutional and general govern- 
 ment, and no ministry to administer it, 
 the idea of a visible church must be aban- 
 doned. One Lord, one faith, one bap- 
 tism, one ministry of reconciliation, one 
 communion of the Saints, are impossibil- 
 ities. 
 
 JNow, if these things are so, the inqui- 
 ry is one of vast importance and the deep- 
 est interest, — wherein does unity consist, 
 — what is the principle of unity in the 
 '^One Catholic and Apostohc Church" r 
 
COMMISSION. 21 
 
 We answer, the ministerial commission. 
 We have shown the consequences which 
 must result (which have, in fact, resulted) 
 from the abandonment of this. Here 
 was an external authority recognised and 
 acknowledged by all ; readily ascertain- 
 ed ; conveying similar powers, from the 
 same source ; and uniting ail the ministry 
 in that apostolic bond which Christ first 
 imposed upon them. 
 
 Thus were they brethren of the same 
 household of faith ; and, by the very terms 
 of their office, acting under the general 
 divine constitution of the one Church, — 
 subscribing to her universal creed, and 
 obeying her common law, as found in 
 the general consent and practice of 
 the primitive Church. Here was the 
 church's unity ! But, when men broke 
 away from this, and cast aside the divine 
 commission as unnecessary ; assuming an 
 office the most responsible and difficult 
 that mortals can fill, in this life, on their 
 own authority : then the rights of Christ's 
 Church were invaded. The act was 
 essentially revolutionary and unconstitu- 
 tional ; destructive, first of the govern- 
 ment ; and, by consequence, of the faith. 
 The principle of disagreement, founded 
 on private will, was established. All 
 
22 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 future harmony was merely accidental and 
 voluntary. These (so called) indepen- 
 dent branches of the Church might, or 
 might not, be one in sentiment. There 
 was no laiv of agreement, whereby unity 
 could be secured and guarantied to the 
 Church. When the bond of union (the 
 commission) among the clergy is bro- 
 ken ; and they are no longer held by the 
 same general laws and creeds of the one 
 Church ; the faith and discipline which 
 depend upon them, are also broken. If 
 there is not unity he^^e, vain will be the 
 search for it elsewhere. They are the 
 guardians and administrators of the faith ; 
 they exercise discipline over the commu- 
 nion, admit and reject members from its 
 fold, and expound the word of God. Will 
 there be unity in these great essentials 
 of the Church, when that upon which they 
 so much depend, the ministry, has not 
 unity ? 
 
 If we cannot bring the ministry to a 
 union under some general and acknowl- 
 edged principle of authority, if the Church 
 has no authority over them, and they are 
 not bound by the decisions of her general 
 councils and divine government, how can 
 we expect to bring the people to so desi- 
 rable a state ? Let unity begin with the 
 
COMMISSION. 23 
 
 clergy and end with the people. But, by 
 what external bond shall the ministry be 
 united ? What general law shall they ac- 
 knowledge and hold themselves subject 
 to, if it be not their commission ? 
 
 That broken, and all is gone, so far as 
 a visible church is concerned. But nay, 
 we have still, say they, the Bible and an 
 orthodox faith, upoa which we are united. 
 It is the Bible, however differently inter- 
 preted by each. If there is an agreement, 
 it is a mere coincidence ; purely acciden- 
 tal. What warrant has the universal vis- 
 ible Church for its continuance ? what 
 control over it ? Alas ! none ; when the 
 principle of dissent is allowed, and schism 
 is no longer a sin, and a divinely commis- 
 sioned ministry declared non-essential. 
 
 In the great question of unity, the first 
 idea that presents itself is, union of the 
 ministry, as such^ in reference to their 
 office. It is not enough, and will not 
 answer the practical demands of the case, 
 for them to say we are one, partakers oif 
 one Holy Spirit, heirs of the same prom- 
 ises, servants of the same Master. This 
 is vague and general, however true it 
 may be. There needs a visible bond of 
 union : something that will unite them 
 outwardly, in contradistinction to the 
 
24 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 world ; thus making the communion of 
 the saints one, and the Church one. 
 
 The result of the whole, then, is, that 
 the ground of unity in the Church is the 
 ministerial commission ; and, by necessary 
 consequence, all who violate this, create a 
 schism in the visible kingdom of Christ. 
 
 THE COMMISSION FOUND IN CHRIST's FINAL 
 CHARGE TO THE ELEVEN APOSTLES. 
 
 SECTION SECOND. 
 
 Having seen the great importance of 
 the ministerial commission ; that it is the 
 basis on which the visible Church rests, 
 and whereby alone it is a divine and or- 
 ganized body ; we come now to inquire 
 into the commission itself. 
 
 The first branch of this inquiry which 
 we propose here to consider is : the 
 ministerial commission, upon which the 
 present existing ministry of the Church 
 rest their claims to divine institution and 
 authority; where, in scripture, is it found? 
 It has been supposed by some that there 
 are two distinct commissions given by 
 
COMMISSION. 25 
 
 our Lord to his Apostles, The first in 
 Matthew, (x. 1, 42,) Mark, (iii. 14, 19,) 
 and Luke, (vi. 13, 16,) where we have a 
 full and detailed account of Christ's ori- 
 ginal choice of twelve from the whole 
 number of his disciples, whom he set 
 apart for the sacred work of the ministry, 
 and called Apostles, i. e., his ambassadors. 
 The second, in Matthew, (xxviii. 18,20,) 
 Mark, (xvi. 15, 16,) Luke, (xxiv. 48, 51,) 
 and John (xx. 21, 23,) after our Lord's 
 resurrection, and prior to his ascension. 
 But of these, it will be found, upon 
 inquiry, that the last only is the perma- 
 nent and unchangeable authority, upon 
 which the existing ministry of the Church 
 of Christ is founded. There are those, 
 however, who strenuously contend, that 
 the first is the only commission ever 
 issued, and the last was mere instructions 
 to the Apostles, in the office which they 
 held, by virtue of the first commission. 
 This is a view of the case which the 
 language used by our Lord on the occa- 
 sion, and the attending circumstances, 
 v^ill by no means warrant. For, if they 
 be mere instructions that Christ gave to 
 his Apostles before his ascension, how, 
 then, are they clothed in the solemn terms 
 of a commission — **As mv Father hath 
 
 3 
 
26 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 sent me, even so send (not have sent) I 
 you"; and wherefore the expressive act 
 accompanying these words — ''And when 
 he had said this, he breathed upon them, 
 and saith unto them, receive ye the Holy 
 Ghost"? Here are no detailed and spe- 
 cific instructions. The language is gen- 
 eral — a solemn form of words, and a 
 solemn act. A further comparison of 
 these two instruments, now under con- 
 sideration, will clearly show to any im- 
 partial inquirer, that the last is, by way 
 of excellence, deserving of the title ^Hhe 
 ministerial commission." The first was 
 limited as to place. They were not to 
 go into any city of the Samaritans, or in 
 the way of the Gentiles; but only to the 
 lost sheep of the house of Israel. 
 
 The second had no restriction in this 
 respect. They were to go into all the 
 world, and preach the gospel to every 
 creature, 'the first was limited as to 
 time. We are informed expressly by 
 Mark, (iii. 14.) that they were ordained 
 to be with him. They w^ere constituted 
 Apostles during his lifetime. When that 
 ceased, their office was, by the necessity 
 of the case, and the express Hmitation, at 
 an end ; except it had been continued or 
 renew^ed by the final commission. They 
 
COMMISSION. 27 
 
 had gone the appointed round of their 
 ministrations ''over the cities of Israel." 
 The second was for all time, ''Lo I am 
 with you unto the end of the world." 
 ''Preach the gospel to every creature" — 
 not only now existing, but who may, in 
 future generations, exist. In the one, 
 we see a preparatory and transition state 
 of the Church — half Jewish and half 
 christian, the passover not yet abrogated, 
 and the Lord's supper not yet instituted ; 
 but both events on the eve of taking 
 place. 
 
 In the other, the ordinances of Bap- 
 tism in the name of The Holy Trinity, 
 and of the Lord's Supper, are fully 
 established. In the first they were to 
 preach the kingdom of heaven is only 
 "at hand." In the second, all things are 
 complete, perfect, permanent. " It is 
 finished," had gone forth from the dying 
 lips of the Divine Saviour. The kingdom 
 of heaven is not only " at hand," but is 
 come, in all the plentitude of its power 
 and efl[icacy. Which now of the two is 
 the commission ? Which is partial, lim- 
 ited, temporary — a sort of preparation or 
 candidateship ? And v/hich is complete, 
 final, perpetual, "even to the end of the 
 world ?" Furthermore, while Christ him- 
 
28 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 self was on earth, he was the chief Shep- 
 herd of his flock in person. He preached 
 and ordained to the sacred office^ and 
 gave laws to his Church. It was the de- 
 sign of the early and first apostleship to 
 aid him in his labors, precede him in his 
 various journeys, attend him in person, 
 listen to his instructions ; and be the cho- 
 sen witnesses of his mighty deeds. But 
 it was not till after our Lord's death, and 
 just before his ascension into heaven — 
 when he quit the scene of bis earthly 
 ministry — that he put the Apostles in his 
 place, to act in his stead, in his name, 
 and by his authority. It was not till 
 then^ that they were invested with their 
 high ministerial office, to be the ordainers 
 and the chief rulers and pastors of his 
 Church 
 
 It is demonstrable, therefore, that if 
 we are seeking the commission which 
 invested the Apostles with the chief min- 
 isterial office in the christian church, we 
 must find it in our Lord's last charge to 
 his disciples. For first, up to that hour 
 they certainly had not possessed the 
 chief priesthood. Their office was every 
 way subordinate to the fact of Christ's 
 presence among them. Secondly, it is 
 pretty clear that the Church, in the pro- 
 
COMMISSION. 29 
 
 per sense of the term, was not established 
 until after our Lord's crucifixion and 
 resurrection. The Church, we know, 
 was built on Him as the chief corner- 
 stone. Was this previous to his death 
 and rising again ? The gospel was not 
 preached until after the day of Pente- 
 cost. "Go preach the gospel to every 
 creature." Before this the command had 
 been — ''Preach, saying the kingdom of 
 heaven (the Church ?) is at hand.*' Christ 
 crucified, and all the collateral doctrines 
 of the cross, were not preached till that 
 cross had been erected, and the Son of 
 man had been lifted up thereon. Was 
 not this the peculiar sense in which 
 Christ was said to be the head corner- 
 stone of his Church ? And was it not on 
 this foundation that Paul and his brethren, 
 as wise master-builders, reared the super- 
 structure of the christian church ? Fur- 
 thermore, the distinctive seals of the 
 christian covenant, the symbols of the 
 visible Church, Baptism (in the Triune 
 God) and the Holy Communion, were 
 not till after the death of Christ. How, 
 then, can it be said, with any strictness 
 of language, that the Church existed before 
 the events of the crucifixion and resur- 
 rection 'f We think it cnnnot so bo said. 
 
30 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 Now, if this view of the subject be correct, 
 it follows that any commission or office 
 given to the twelve when they were first 
 chosen during our Lord's life-time, could 
 not have been that of the christian minis- 
 try. And this, it will be borne in mind, 
 is the particular object of our inquiry. 
 We wish to trace the first link in the chain 
 which transmits divine authority to the 
 existing ministry. 
 
 But let us waive this point, and con- 
 cede, for the present, to those of oppo- 
 site views, that the Church, in the proper 
 sense, did exist when our Lord first call- 
 ed and commissioned the twelve ; and 
 that they were then a christian ministry ; 
 I mean a ministry of the Church. Still we 
 readily perceive that the office or ministry 
 they held under that first commission 
 was totally distinct from, and inferior to, 
 that which they held under the second. 
 
 Any one who will take the trouble to 
 consult the first instrument, will find that 
 the only, really ministerial power it con- 
 veys, is preaching. And what, too, was 
 the subject of that preaching ? ^'The 
 kingdom of heaven is at handj^'^ This is 
 all of a strictly ministerial character, in 
 the office they first held. It is true, a 
 short time afterwards, the power of the 
 
COMMISSION. 31 
 
 keys was given them. But it was not, 
 could not, be exercised by them, while 
 Christ was on earth. Let reference now 
 be made to the second instrument. All 
 there is ministerial. 1. They preach — 
 what? ''The Gospel?" 2. They bap- 
 tize. 3. They teach the observance of 
 the Saviour's commands. Of these, we 
 know, one was the Lord's supper. 4. 
 They remit and retain sins — open or close 
 the door of the Church to any. 5. They 
 act in all respects as Christ did and would 
 have acted in the Church ; being sent by 
 Him, even as he was sent by the Father. 
 We shall consider the point, then, as fully 
 made out, viz., that the Saviour's last 
 charge to the eleven, is the ministerial 
 commission. If, in reply to what has 
 now been said, reference should be made 
 to the statement in Mark, (iii. 14,) that 
 Christ "ordained twelve," &c., as if there 
 were a peculiar force and meaning in the 
 term here used by the Evangelist ; it is 
 sufficient to say, that the word which is 
 commonly translated " ordain," in the 
 New Testament, is not employed in this 
 place, in the original. The word is 
 epoiase — ''he made," or "constituted" — 
 and is never used to signify the official 
 act of ministerial ordination. Therefore, 
 
32 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 no argument can be drawn from this 
 mere incident against our general posi- 
 tion, that the ministerial commission, in 
 the strict and highest sense of the terra, 
 is found in the last solemn charge of our 
 Lord to his Apostles, and the attending 
 ceremony, having all the solemnity and 
 force of an official ordination. ''And 
 when he had said this, he breathed on 
 them, and said unto them. Receive ye 
 the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye 
 remit, they are remitted unto them; and 
 whose soever sins ye retain, they are re- 
 tained." U this is not a formal investiture 
 of office J both in the terms and in the act, 
 then it would be impossible to find such 
 in the whole compass of the Bible. It is 
 of little moment whether it be called, 
 technically, "instructions," "commands," 
 or "commission." The thing itself is 
 undoubtedly the imparting of certain 
 powers and rights; the giving of office by 
 our Saviour to his chosen disciples, the 
 Apostles. To convey this idea, the term, 
 however, most commonly used, in all sim- 
 ilar instances, is "commission." Thus 
 far we have so employed it, and shall 
 continue to make the same application 
 of the term- It is worthy of observation, 
 in passing, that the phrase in the above 
 
COMMISSION. S3 
 
 quotation, **he breathed on them," would 
 have been more strictly rendered, "he 
 breathed in them." For the word is 
 en-phusao, in-spiro, that is, he imparted 
 to them, in their souls, by an act of his 
 divine will, an additional inspiration to 
 that which they had already received ; 
 which, on the day of Pentecost, was to 
 be once more, and for the last time, in- 
 creased to a plenary out-pouring of the 
 Holy Ghost. It is after the example of 
 the Saviour on this occasion, that the 
 Apostles, when they laid their hands upon 
 disciples, invoked the Holy Ghost. — 
 And our own church, in her ordinal for 
 the consecration of Bishops and Priests, 
 beyond question, refers to the same oc- 
 casion ; and copies faithfully the same 
 divine ^^model, when she says, in the per- 
 son of the ordainer; " Receive the Holy 
 Ghost, for the office and work of a Bishop, 
 or Priest, now committed unto thee by 
 the imposition of our hands." From this 
 appropriation of the words of the origi- 
 nal, it is evidently implied, also, that 
 she regards the act referred to, as the 
 ordination of the Apostles to their office; 
 and, by consequence, the charge then 
 delivered by Christ as their commis- 
 sion. 
 
34 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 It will serve further to elucidate and 
 strengthen our position, to remark, that 
 our blessed Saviour himself was visibly 
 ordained to the sacred office of the Priest- 
 hood, by the visible descent of the Holy 
 Ghost, in the? form of a dove, upon his 
 head, ("it abode upon him,") and the 
 solemn formula of words, pronounced by 
 the Father — "Thisj is my beloved Son, 
 in whom I am well pleased." His own 
 testimony is, "No man taketh this honor 
 to himself, but he that is called of God, as 
 was Aaron"; i. e., by an external and di- 
 vine call. In this light, therefore, we are 
 to regard the above transaction. Thus 
 is the ministerial commission traced from 
 God the Father, through Christ, to his 
 Apostles; and from them it passed to 
 their successors. This, by inevitable 
 consequence, is the only ministry clothed 
 by divine authority, and empowered to 
 dispense the word and sacraments of 
 eternal life. 
 
 Men may assume this power. They 
 may do so, perhaps, unconsciously of the 
 great error they are committing. Pos- 
 sessed of a fervent zeal and ardent piety, 
 but, uninformed in the great principles of 
 the divine polity of the Church, they may 
 enter into the awful responsibilities of 
 
COMMISSION. 35 
 
 the ministerial office, unfurnished with 
 the requisite commission, and thereby 
 break the unity, create schism, and spread 
 confusion in the heritage of God. Zeal, 
 we are told, may exist without knowledge; 
 and piety, too, may be unchastened by 
 that implicit obedience and entire sub- 
 mission of private judgment and will to 
 the law of God, which is at once the 
 Christianas best safeguard and chiefest 
 ornament. 
 
 Let individual zeal and piety take 
 what forms they may, and enter into 
 what combinations they please, of irre- 
 sponsible associations, still, as a matter 
 of express revelation, the Church of God 
 is to be found in a commissioned minis- 
 try. And so express and full is this rev- 
 elation, that it is recorded, as we have 
 seen, by each of the four Evangelists. 
 It stands out, as one of the most promi- 
 nent facts on the pages of holy writ, and 
 cannot be overlooked even by the most 
 casual and superficial reader. '-As my 
 Father hath sent me, even so send I 
 you." And here, in this sentence, it is 
 moreover implied, that Christ himself 
 bore a commission from the Father. The 
 New^ Testament is very explicit on this 
 point, and our Saviour's declaration is 
 
o6 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 unusually frequent to this effect : ''I came 
 down from heaven, not to do mine own 
 will, but the will of him that sent me." 
 Again, "He that honoreth not the Son, 
 honoreth not the Father which hath sent 
 him,'^^ In connection with this, as appli- 
 cable to the case of the Apostles, take 
 the following: '*He that receiveth you, 
 receiveth me ; and he that receivth me, 
 receiveth him that sent me^ 
 
 Scattered over the New Testament are 
 statements like these ; demonstrating the 
 fact, that the gospel is to be administered 
 to the world by a ".sen^" or commissioned 
 ministry. No ministry can send them- 
 selves, or be sent by men, on such a mis- 
 sion, without assuming a power which 
 neither Christ nor the Apostles ventured 
 to assume. 
 
 Of the four Evangelists who record the 
 commission, St. John is the fullest, (xx. 
 21, 23 ) '^Then said Jesus to them again, 
 Peace be unto you ; as my Father hath 
 sent me, even so send I you. And when 
 he had said this, he breathed on them, 
 and saith unto them, Recieve ye the Holy 
 Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they 
 are remitted unto them; and whosesoever 
 sins ye retain, they are retained." But 
 ill order to get a complete idea of this 
 
COMMISSION* 31 
 
 mstrument, it is necessary to refer also 
 to Matthew, (xxviii. 18, 20,) where we 
 find some additional matter. ^' All power 
 is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 
 Go ye therefore,and teach all nations,bap- 
 tizing them in the name of the Father^ and 
 of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teach- 
 ing them to observe all things whatsoever 
 1 have commanded you ; and, lo, I am with 
 you alway, even unto the end of the 
 world!" Mark and Luke add nothing 
 essentially to these statements. Luke, 
 however, refers to the circumstance of the 
 Saviour's commanding them to tarry at 
 Jerusalem till,on the day of Pentecost,they 
 should be '^endowed with power from on 
 high." But this was only the granting to 
 them of the means for carrying out or exe- 
 cuting the commission with which they had 
 been already invested. This was obviously 
 necessary ; for that commission contem- 
 plated the preaching of the gospel to all 
 nations, and therefore implied the quali- 
 fication, on their part, of the miraculous 
 gift of tongues. There is but one other 
 place in the New Testament where this 
 subject is spoken of, and that is only a 
 general allusion to it. It occurs in Acts, 
 1. 2 : "Until the day in which he was 
 taken up, after that he through the Holy 
 
38 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 Ghost had given commandments unto the 
 Apostles whom he had chosen." At a 
 hasty glance this would seem to conflict 
 with the position which we have been 
 maintaining, that the final charge of Christ 
 to the Apostles was properly and strictly 
 the commission. For, it will be objected, 
 perhaps, that we are here expressly told 
 that commandments only were given to 
 them who had been chosen, and invested 
 with the full office of Apostleship. But, 
 St. Luke's assertion by no means amounts 
 to this. He simply affirms, that the 
 Apostles had been chosen to their office, 
 and not fully invested with it. And this is 
 the very point of our argument. Of 
 course they were chosen by their first call ; 
 but we have conclusively shown, that 
 they were only partially clothed with their 
 high mission. A limited warrant, or a 
 warrant for a Hmited Apostleship, was giv- 
 en unto them. They were, by the very 
 letter of their first '^instructions," the 
 Apostles only of the Jews; whereas, by 
 their final '^instructions," they were 
 constituted the Apostles of all mankind. 
 Under the first, they were to be merely the 
 personal aids to Christ — *'ordained to be 
 with him" — while he was the chief min- 
 ister : under the second, they had the 
 
COMMISSION. 39 
 
 sole charge. And, as to any argument 
 that may be drawn from the mere word 
 used by St. Luke, '^commandments," it is 
 neutralized by the fact, that the same 
 word is employed by St. Matthew in refer- 
 ence to the first occasion of the Apostles 
 being invested with office. Matt. (xi. 1 ,) 
 **And it came to pass, when Jesus had 
 made an end of commanding his twelve 
 disciples." Now, if the use of this phrase 
 forbids the idea of a commission on the 
 last occasion, it equally forbids it on the 
 first ; and it would follow that no com- 
 mission at all was given, a conclusion 
 which no one could embrace. 
 
 The term "commandment," as here 
 used, is sufficiently extensive in its signi- 
 fication to include the idea of a warrant 
 or commission to office. 
 
 Our first inquiry, then, as to where the 
 ministerial commission is found, we shall 
 consider now as fully answered, viz : in 
 the final charge of our Saviour to the 
 eleven disciples, when they were ''sent^^ 
 a second time on their full mission. To 
 this sacred instrument the existing minis- 
 try of the "Ofie Catholic and Apostolic 
 Church" must point as the origin of their 
 office. From the solemn hour in which 
 the Apostles were first invested with it, 
 
40 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 to the present moment, like the Church 
 of which it is an essential part, the gates 
 of hell have never been suffered to prevail 
 against it. No one who beheves in the 
 providence of God, (especially over his 
 Church,) or trusts the explicit promise 
 of the Saviour, *'Lo, I am with you alway, 
 even unto the end of the world," can sup- 
 pose that this visible authority of the vis- 
 ible Church has ever perished ; in other 
 words, that the succession of the commis- 
 sion has ever been interrupted. 
 
 Our next inquiry is, whether there is 
 any other commission in the New Testa- 
 ment for the christian ministry ? I know 
 of none. It is, indeed, by some alledged, 
 •that a commission to the second order of 
 the ministry, (Presbyters,) was given by 
 our Saviour to the seventy disciples. It is 
 true a certain commission was given ; but 
 that it was for the christion ministry at all, 
 or for the second order, is not so clear. 
 Such an hypothesis, we believe, will be 
 met, at each step of the inquiry, with 
 insuperable difficulties. 
 
 In the first place, it could not have been 
 the second order, for Christ, while on 
 earth, was the first. The twelve, whom 
 be had chosen "to be with him," were 
 the second ; and the seventv, whom he 
 
COMMISSION. 41 
 
 sent "before his face," were, consequent- 
 ly, the third and last. Now it may be 
 said, that upon our Saviour's removal 
 from this earthly scene of his ministrations, 
 the Apostles, the second order, were ele- 
 vated to the first, and the seventy, the 
 third order, were elevated to the second. 
 But this is anticipating, and taking for 
 granted a state of things which cannot 
 be shown to have existed. In part it was 
 true. The eleven were raised to the 
 first order by an express commission. Not 
 so the seventy. We are bound to reason 
 from the case as it stands — the actual 
 commission and office of the seventy as 
 they did exist. And then it is evident 
 they were of the third and lowest order, 
 and not of the second. 
 
 But secondly, were they an order at all 
 of the christian ministry as it was finally 
 and permanently established? All the 
 notice we have of the seventy is found in 
 Luke (x. 1, 19.) In no other place of 
 the New Testament are they ever men- 
 tioned. '*After these things, the Lord 
 appointed other seventy also, and sent 
 them two and two before his face into 
 every city and place whither he himself 
 would come" — ''And the seventy returned 
 again with joy, saying. Lord the devils are 
 4* 
 
42 THE MIIVISTEKIAL 
 
 subject unto us through thy name." Will 
 any candid and unpredjudiced reader say 
 that this does not bear all the marks of a 
 temporary office and mission ? They, 
 like the twelve in their first apostleship, 
 were to go before his face and prepare 
 his w^ay before him. Moreover, the chris- 
 tian Church, in the proper sense of the 
 term, and by consequence, the christian 
 ministry, had not yet been estabhshed. 
 If they were a permanent order of minis- 
 try, and not subsequently disbanded, is it 
 not most unaccountable that we never 
 after hear of them, or their proceedings, 
 neither in the full records of the Evangel- 
 ists, nor in the still more detailed histoiy 
 of the Acts of the Apostles? Where 
 were the seventy at the awful hour of the 
 crucifixion of their master ? Amid all the 
 stirring events immediately preceding and 
 following that great transaction, not one 
 syllable do we hear of these seventy ; 
 whereas the twelve are constantly spoken 
 of, as also the other disciples indiscrimi- 
 nately. Where w^ere they after the res- 
 urrection ? Are they ever recognised as 
 a distinct and separately existing body ? 
 How shall this omission be accounted for? 
 Were no instructions, no consolations, to 
 be given them before their Lord separated 
 
COMMISSION. 43 
 
 from them forever ? They had a com- 
 mission, indeed, during the lifetime of 
 Christ, as had the twelve ; but was it re- 
 peated or enlarged after the resurrection ? 
 And why not ? wherefore should there be 
 an enlargement of the commission — a 
 final commission in the case of the eleven, 
 and that recorded by all the Evangelists, 
 and embodied in terms far more compre- 
 hensive and explicit than the first — and 
 none for the seventy ? Did they alone 
 stand in need of no renewed instructions — 
 no express commission continuing their 
 office in existence, which, by the very 
 limitation of its terms, had expired ? 
 
 Furthermore, in the account given in 
 the Acts of the Apostles, of the strug- 
 gling infant church, it is only the Apostles 
 who, single-handed, for a long period 
 preached the gospel and bore the brunt 
 of the conflict — the heat and burden of 
 the day. They only at the first are per- 
 secuted and imprisoned. Where now 
 were the second order of the ministry, 
 the seventy ? Could they preach the gos- 
 pel with impunity and escape all persecu- 
 tion — give no offence ? Could this be, if 
 such an order then existed ? Impossible. 
 From a consideration, then, of the facts of 
 the case, as well as the terms of the com- 
 
44 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 mission of the seventy, we are led irresist- 
 ibly to the conclusion, that they were a 
 temporary order, bearing a commission 
 (expressly limited in time and place) da- 
 ring the period of our Saviour's sojourn 
 on earth, that they had no distinct exist- 
 ence as ministers or preachers of the gos- 
 pel during the early history of the Church 
 as contained in the "Acts of the Apostles." 
 It hence appears that there is but one 
 ministerial commission in the New Testa- 
 ment, emanating directly from Christ 
 himself — viz. that to the eleven. 
 
 THE ORDAINING POWER GIVEN BY THE 
 COMMISSION TO THE APOSTLES ONLY. 
 
 SECTION THIRD. 
 
 We proceed now to show that, by the 
 commission the Apostles were invested 
 with the power of ordination. This we 
 shall argue, firsts from the express lan- 
 guage of the commission ; secondly, from 
 the nature of it ; and, thirdly, from the 
 well attested facts of the case. 
 
COMMISSION. 45 
 
 First, In the commission, as recorded 
 by John, we find these words : ''As my 
 Father hath sent me, even so send 1 you." 
 Nothing similar or equivalent to this 
 was ever uttered to any of the disciples 
 save the eleven only. The expression 
 occurs but once in the New Testament ; 
 and it will be found, on a slight examina- 
 tion, to possess peculiar force and mean- 
 ing. For, if the Apostles were sent, even 
 as Christ had been sent by the Father, 
 they were clothed with similar powers ; at 
 least so far as the ministerial iuucUon^ of 
 his office were concerned. That which 
 was peculiar to the Messiah, distinctive 
 of his mediatorial character, was, of 
 course, incommunicable ; but, as the chief 
 Pastor of his flock in person, as the visi- 
 ble administrator of the visible church on 
 earth, this, of necessity, before his ascen- 
 sion, he delegated to his chosen Apostles 
 and their successors forever. All admit 
 that the Apostles were invested with the 
 power of ruling the Church ; but what 
 express authority for ordaining ? This is 
 the point contested. Why, their suffi- 
 cient warrant was, that Christ had sent 
 ihem^ even as he was sent ; and if he was 
 sent with power from the Father to send 
 them, then they were sent with the like 
 
46 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 power to send others. Christ possessed 
 the ordaining right ; the Apostles also 
 possessed it. For, in some respects, (it 
 cannot be questioned,) there was a per- 
 fect similarity, or rather identity of office ; 
 and, if this similarity was not found in 
 the ordaining power, where shall we look 
 for it ? 
 
 The power of sending others was as 
 essential to the Church's existence, as the 
 power of preaching, ruling, or baptizing. 
 It must be lodged somewhere ; and if 
 they, who were sent with an express iden- 
 tity of office, possessed it not, then, we 
 ask, who can lay claim to it? If we ad- 
 mit at all the power of ordaining in the 
 Church, we are compelled to grant it, by 
 divine right, to the Apostles. And that 
 it was exclusively theirs, is evident, from 
 the fact that the words, "as my Father hath 
 sent me, even so send I you," are found 
 but once in the New Testament ; and 
 were never said to mortal man save to 
 the eleven only. 
 
 But, secondly, we argue the same thing 
 from the nature of the commission. The 
 matter to which it referred, viz : a visible 
 Church on earth for man's redemption, 
 was for all time. As long as there were 
 souls to be saved, just so long must there 
 
COMMISSION. 47 
 
 be a church, and ministry, and ordinances 
 of divine grace. Thus was the object 
 about which the commission was con- 
 cerned a perpetual object ; consequently 
 the commission itself was designed to be 
 perpetual. If so, it was transferable and 
 involved the power, on the part of its pos- 
 sessors, of ordaining others. Had they 
 not exercised this power, the commission 
 must, in time, have run out and become 
 extinct with the close of the personal ca- 
 reer of the eleven. But then the com- 
 mission would have been totally inade- 
 quate to the end for which it was estab- 
 lished, and with it must have perished the 
 visible church itself ; unless we are pre- 
 pared to admit that men were to be al- 
 lowed to assume an office which Christ 
 himself deemed it not right to assume. 
 There is not another supposable case in 
 regard to this point — not another alterna- 
 tive. The Apostles were the only com- 
 missioned ministry of Christ. This fact 
 being so, either they were to perpetuate 
 their office by ordaining successors, or 
 their office must cease to be, and conse- 
 quently the Church be blotted out ; or, 
 finally, men must assume, on their indi- 
 vidual responsibility, this office, and pre- 
 serve it — all men or any men, for there is 
 
48 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 and can be in the supposition no restric- 
 tions, expressed or implied. Which of 
 these three alternatives we are at liberty, 
 as christian and reasonable men, to take, 
 is evident to all. We must take the first ; 
 and believe, that, in the very nature of 
 their agency, there was clearly implied 
 the power, on the part of the Apostles, to 
 perpetuate their order. The only possi- 
 ble way of evading this conclusion, is, to 
 deny the fact from which it is drawn, and 
 say that our Saviour issued another com- 
 mission for the ministry beside that which 
 he gave to the eleven, so that when one 
 expired, in the course of nature, the 
 other might survive. Furthermore, that 
 other must be self-perpetuating ; the very 
 quality we claim for this. The objection, 
 then, destroys itself, and the conclusion 
 stands. Finally, we may ask, was not 
 the Church designed to be perpetual ? If 
 it was, then there is implied in the Apos- 
 tleship of the eleven the power to send 
 others. To this argument for the perpe- 
 tuity of the Apostolic office, drawn from 
 the nature of the commission, we may 
 add another, equally conclusive, viz : the 
 words in the commission itself, as they 
 occur in Matt, (xxviii. 20,) «<Lo, I am 
 with you alway, even unto the end of the 
 
COMMISSION. 49 
 
 world." It is hardly necessary to enter 
 here into a formal proof, from the origi- 
 nal, that these words are to be taken in 
 their usual and literal acceptation, as to 
 the time intended. It is sufficient to re- 
 mark, that the Evangelist, St. Matthew, 
 has used the phrase, ''unto the end of the 
 world," in four different places in his 
 Gospel, besides the ojie now under con- 
 sideration — three times in the thirteenth 
 chapter, and once in the twenty-fourth — - 
 in all of which it signifies till the final 
 consummation of all things. The inter- 
 pretation, therefore, that would limit the 
 expression in question to the Apostles' 
 life-time only, or to the end of the Jewish 
 age, is without foundation. This prom- 
 ise of the Saviour, then, if it means any 
 thing, means that he would be spiritually 
 present with the eleven Apostles and their 
 successors in office. It could not mean 
 that the eleven should live till the end of 
 the world. It implied their right to or- 
 dain others as successors. But further 
 and yet more important, it was a promise 
 to be with the Apostles and their succes- 
 sors, as Apostles, Any other understand^ 
 ing of the words (as a specific and valu- 
 able promise) would destroy their mean- 
 ing. For Christ, in some sense, was to 
 
 5 
 
50 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 be present to ail his disciples. A pecul- 
 iar presence to them, therefore, was 
 vouchsafed, in consideration of the vast 
 responsibilities, and trials, and difficulties, 
 of their office. So, likewise, of their suc- 
 cessors. Here, then, is proof conclusive 
 and direct, that the Apostleship, as estab- 
 lished by Christ, was to be perpetual, as 
 a distinct and self-distent order of min- 
 istry, through all the ages of the Church. 
 The age of miracles, indeed, and of ple- 
 nary inspiration, might cease, and in 
 these respects the office might be modi- 
 fied, but not destroyed. These vverc 
 merely temporary characteristics of it. 
 In this sense, it is granted, the Apostles 
 could have no successors : but what then ? 
 Is the entire office thereby removed ? 
 Some of the ordinary disciples themselves 
 possessed these peculiar gifts. The whole 
 Church was distinguished by such mirac- 
 ulous gifts in the early ages. As well, 
 therefore, might we reason that church- 
 membership ceased, and the visible 
 church itself came to an end, because 
 certain peculiarities disappeared, as that 
 the Apostles could have no successors, 
 because they had the ^'gift of tongues," 
 and various other supernatural gifts. It 
 is evident they could be succeeded in the 
 
COMMISSION. 51 
 
 ordinary and ever essential functions of 
 their office. Unless, then, we would re- 
 ject the blessed Saviour's promise, "Lo, I 
 am with you always, even unto the end of 
 the world," we must admit that he design- 
 ed the Apostleship always to continue in 
 his Church. 
 
 We are asked to point to some express 
 warrant given to the Apostles to ordain. 
 We have shown such express warrant, in 
 the terms of the commission. But sup- 
 pose that could not be shown — was it not 
 necessarily implied ? Had they not a right 
 to say to others, ''As Christ hath sent us, 
 even so we send you ?" The nature of the 
 case rendered the exercise of this right a 
 necessary duty. To have neglected to 
 have performed it, would have been 
 clearly to have jeopardized all the interests 
 intrusted to them in behalf of mankind. 
 
 Thirdly^ we argue the same thing, from 
 well-attested facts taken from Holy Scrip- 
 tures. We have seen that but one com- 
 mission was given by Christ, after his 
 resurrection and before his ascension, for 
 a christian ministry ; and that was given 
 to the eleven Apostles. We have shown 
 that they possessed the right to ordain, 
 by the very terms of their commission ; 
 for thev were sent, even as Christ had 
 
52 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 been sent by the Father : and further, 
 that the nature of the agency on which 
 they were commissioned necessarily im- 
 plied this right. By them, at least, (what- 
 ever may be pretended for others,) it must 
 be exercised. On them rested the respon- 
 sibility of the existence and perpetuity of 
 the Church. That this right and power 
 td Ordain was exclusively possessed by 
 them, will remain a self-evident truth, 
 until some other commission shall be 
 pointed out, conveyed in terms equally 
 explicit and significant with this ; until it 
 shall be proved that the eleven shared a 
 divided responsibihty, in the c/iie/ minis- 
 try of the Church, with a co-ordinate and 
 co-equal set of officers. And to estab- 
 lish such co-ordination and co-equality, it 
 must be shown, from the text of Holy 
 Scripture, that other men, beside the 
 eleven, received a final and permanent 
 commission from Christ personally ; and 
 expressed in the same comprehensive and 
 unlimited terms. A "just as" or "even 
 as" must be shovv^n — an identity, in all that 
 remained and was essential to the minis- 
 terial office, with the Saviour himself — 
 thus implying the right (which he exer- 
 cised) of ordaining. 
 It must be shown that the words, "whose 
 
COMMISSION. 53 
 
 soever sins ye remit, they are remitted 
 unto them ; and whose soever sins ye re- 
 tain, they are retained" — elsewhere call- 
 ed the power of holding the keys, i e., the 
 chief discipline of the Church, from which 
 there was no appeal, except to God — 
 were pronounced to other men besides 
 the eleven Apostles. This part alone of 
 their commission incontestably estab- 
 lishes their exclusive superiority in the 
 ministerial office — exclusive, till it shall 
 be shown that a like prerogative was giv- 
 en to any others. But to leave this re- 
 capitulation, and return to the third head 
 of the argument proposed, viz : the facts 
 bearing on the subject. Did the Apostles 
 exercise this power of ordination ? The 
 first case we have, is, their ordaining the 
 seven Deacons — recorded in Acts, (vi. 6 :) 
 "Whom they set before the Apostles ; 
 and when they had prayed, they laid their 
 hands on them." We shall not here de- 
 part from the main topic of our inquiry, 
 by entering into an examination of the 
 nature and functions of this office of the 
 ministry. It seems that some of their 
 number preached, and others baptized. 
 The office may be regarded as divine and 
 perpetual, though it derives its authority 
 indirectly from Christ, and directly from 
 the Apostles. r^* 
 
64 THE MiNISTEtllAL 
 
 The perpetuity of this office must de- 
 pend on the perpetuity of the Apostle- 
 ship ; for from it must it ever spring, as at 
 the first. The very occasion on which it 
 arose, was to aid, in some of their subor- 
 dinate duties^ the Apostles. The second 
 case, in the order of narration, is found in 
 Acts. (xiv. 23); "And when they (Paul 
 and Barnabas) had ordained* them Elders 
 in every church." On this case, we re- 
 mark, that no one will question that one 
 of the Ordainers, Paul, was an Apostle, 
 in the highest sense of the term, notwith- 
 
 *The word here used in the original, and translated in the 
 common version, ''ordain," is by some said to signify a popu- 
 lar election. But this opinion is entirely refuted by the learn- 
 ed Grotius : 
 
 "Although, in the Grecian states, this word began to be used, 
 in reference to the comitial elections, nevertheless it is true, 
 that the word, by arbitrary custom, was applied to any kind 
 of choice. Thus Appian employs it to signify the choice of 
 magistrates made by the Ceesars ; and later historians say that 
 the sons of the Emperors were ordained [the original word] by 
 their Fathers. In Philo, Moses is said to be ordained [same 
 word] by God. But there is no necessity of citing other wri- 
 ters, since St. Luke himself, in this very book of the Acts of 
 the Apostles, c. x. 41, calls the Apostles witnesses ordained 
 [same word] by God, not truly by the extending of the hand, 
 or by popular suffrage : but, in the place under conside ration, 
 if St. Luke had wished to indicate a popular election, hewould 
 not have attributed "the ordaining" (i. e., the act implied in 
 the original word) to St. Paul and Barnabas, but to the multi- 
 tude themselves. Therefore, Paul and Barnabas perform the 
 same act here as St. Paul desires Titus to do, (Tit. i. 5,) when 
 he directs him to ordain Elders in every city. What in St. 
 Paul is said of every city, that by St. Luke (in the place in 
 question) is said of every church." 
 
 Translation of Wolf's note on this text. 
 
COMMISSION. 55 
 
 Standing he derived his commission in an 
 extraordinary way. And if, in his com- 
 mission to the ministry, we do not find 
 the same enumeration of rights and pow- 
 ers, as in that of the eleven, yet it seems 
 to have been sufficient to warrant him to 
 take his place (as he did) beside the 
 twelve, (Matthias had then been added,) 
 as of co-equal authority. And thus did 
 they recognize and receive him. As to 
 Barnabas we know not when he received 
 his ordination to the Apostleship, but 
 simply the fact that he was an Apostle, 
 (now the fourteenth.) In the 14th verse, 
 we read — -'Which, when the Apostles 
 Barnabas and Paul heard of.*' Now it is 
 true, indeed, that the term Apostle, in its 
 primary signification, means merely a 
 messenger — -one sent ; and that the word 
 is so used, in several places in the New 
 Testament, is also true. Yet, nothing is 
 easier than to determine whether the 
 term, in any given case, is to be under- 
 stood in this primary sense, or specifical- 
 ly of the ministerial office. In the pas- 
 sage just quoted, Barnabas is called an 
 Apostle, in the same sense as Paul, with- 
 out distinction, expressed or implied. 
 Nor is there any thing in the circum- 
 stances of the case, which would lead us 
 
66 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 to suppose that Barnabas is, in any re- 
 spect, inferior in the ministerial office to 
 Paul. They act conjointly, and, appar- 
 ently, with equal authority. The pre- 
 sumption, then, is strong, that Barnabas 
 had, on some previous occasion, been or- 
 dained to the Apostleship. Certainly, it 
 cannot be shown that he was not an 
 Apostle. This ordination of Elders, 
 then, in every church, was performed by 
 the Apostles. 
 
 There is a peculiarity of expressson in 
 the account of this transaction, which is 
 worthy of notice : ''And when they had 
 ordained them Elders in every church." 
 The phrase, "ordained them Elders," is 
 probably passed over by most readers as 
 a mere Anglicism or mode of speech 
 characteristic of our language : and 
 thus explained, the word "^/lern" would 
 seem to be tautological and superfluous, 
 inasmuch as the verb ordain had its prop- 
 er nominative in the preceding pronoun 
 they. But when we refer to the origi- 
 nal, we naturally inquire, how came an 
 Anglicism in the Greek Testament ? Evi- 
 dently it has no place there. The phrase 
 should have been translated strictly as 
 Greek — ''Cheirotonasantes de autois pres- 
 buteroiis. Now, here is no tautology — 
 
COMMISSION. . 57 
 
 autois, being in the dative case, cannot be 
 translated simply "them,^^ but, "and have- 
 ing ordained, for themselves, Elders.* 
 This materially changes the meaning 
 of the whole sentence. For if the Apos- 
 tles ordained Elders for themselves, it 
 must be understood that they ordained 
 them as their aids or subordinates in the 
 ministry. They were the Presbyters of 
 Paul and Barnabas, exercising their offi- 
 ces by a commission and authority given 
 to them by these two Apostles. 
 
 The second case that presents itself, is 
 recorded in St. Paul's Second Epistle to 
 Timothy, (i. 6.) "Wherefore I put thee in 
 
 *That the pronoun autos is sometimes used reciprocally in- 
 stead of eautos is evident from the express rule of Viger, as 
 well as from the cases cited below from the Acts of the Apos- 
 tles. ^'£utos is sometimes employed as a reciprocal pronoun : 
 kataphugan auto porizoito, he might provide a refuge for him- 
 self. Euseb : Proep. Ev. 1. vi." — Viger's Gr. idioms c. iv. 6. 
 In the very chapter and book in which the text, in question, 
 occurs,we find precisely the same idiom— "and when they were 
 come, and had gathered the church together, they (i. e Paul 
 and Barnabas) rehearsed all that God had done with them" 
 [rnef auton] i e. with themselves. Vid. Acts xv. 4; xv. 32; 
 xvi. 37; xxi. 25. 
 
 The pronoun autos, in the latter clause of the twenty third 
 verse (Acts xiv ) is not, as in the former, reciprocal, but rela- 
 tive, having its antecedent obviously in the -word presbnterous; 
 whereas the autois in the first clause has no apparent antece- 
 dent, and from its peculiar position between Cheirotomisantes 
 and presbuterovs, plainly refers to the subjects or agents of 
 the participle, viz: Paul and Barnabas. Thus construed, the 
 verse would read as follows:— "And v.'hen they had ordained 
 for themselves elders in every church, and had prayed with 
 fasting, they commended them [the cldeis] unto the Lord, on 
 whom they believed. 
 
58 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 remembrance that ihou stir up the gift 
 of God which is in thee, by the putting on 
 of my hands." Here is a positive declara- 
 tion, that Timothy was ordained by Paul. 
 To what office he was ordained must be 
 gathered from the instructions given him 
 by his Ordainer, in his two Epistles to 
 him — but especially the first. This 
 point will be more properly considered, 
 however, under another branch of our 
 subject. That the act referred to was an 
 official ordination of Timothy to the min- 
 isterial office, cannot (as I believe it is 
 not) be questioned ; for St. Paul makes 
 it the ground or reason for the instructions 
 which, in his Epistles, he gives to Tim- 
 othy. These instructions, based upon and 
 referring to this act, are not of a tempora- 
 ry or partial kind, but embrace all the 
 leading and permanent and general func- 
 tions of his office. (See Epist. to Tim.) 
 The act, then, was an investiture of Timo- 
 thy with the ministerial office by the 
 Apostle. 
 
 We have now to reconcile this explana- 
 tion of the above passage with what is said 
 in I Tim. (ivl4,) "JNeglectnotthe gift that 
 is in thee, which was given thee by proph- 
 ecy, idHIi the laying on of the hands of the 
 Presbvterv." Now, whatever this word 
 
COMMISSION. 69 
 
 Presbytery means, in reference to which 
 there is an irreconcileable difference of 
 opinion among the learned, it was only 
 with their consenting action that the or- 
 dination was performed, while the Or- 
 dainer, in the official sense, was Paul. 
 In the first passage it is said the ordina- 
 tion was effected (dia) by the imposition 
 of the Apostle's hands ; and in this (jneta) 
 with the laying on of the hands of the 
 Presbytery. In each case these preposi- 
 tions are used with the genitive ; and any 
 lexicographer will intorm us, that dia., 
 with the genitive, denotes the instrumen- 
 tal cause, while meta, with the genitive, 
 signifies "idith^^ — "together with."^ The 
 
 *As this case of Timothy is the only one, in all the New 
 Testament, which can, with any plausibility whatever, be 
 claimed by the Presbyterians as being in their favor, it is im- 
 portant that it should be thoroughly discussed. Nothing can 
 be plainer than that St. Paul, in the two passages in which he 
 speaks of Timothy's ordination, has a designed distinction in 
 his use of the two prepositions dia and meta, with the genitive. 
 For the impoit of these prepositions with the genitive we refer- 
 red the reader to any Greek Lexicon ; but we here call his at- 
 tention to a higher and more conclusive authority, viz: St. 
 Paul's use of these words in his Epistles to Timothy, and in 
 his Epistle to the Romans, and generally in the N. Test. The 
 preposition vieta, with the genitive, occurs in the following 
 places in the epistles to Timothy, and as may be seen by con- 
 sulting the standard English version, has the sense which we 
 have attached to it — "with,^' "together toith," and never sig- 
 nifies, in any degree, the instrumental cause. I. Tim. i. 14; 
 ii. 9, 15; iii. 4; iv. 3, 4, 14; vi. 6, 21. II. Tim. ii. 10, 22; iv. 
 11, 11, 22, 22. These are all the places where the word oc- 
 curs, not one of which is or can be rendered '*by," or *'by 
 means of." The preposition dia, with the genitive, is found 
 
60 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 ordination was, therefore, strictly Apos- 
 tolic, and the passages are reconcileable. 
 
 Here, then, are three distinct cases in 
 which the Apostles exercised the right, 
 given them by Christ in their commission, 
 to ordain. 
 
 In the first, the ordinq-tion of the seven 
 Deacons, all the Apostles are mentioned 
 as bearing a part in the solemn act. In 
 the second, the ordination of Presbyters 
 in various churches in Lystra, Iconium, 
 and Antioch— cities of Asia-Minor, ( and 
 perhaps adjacent parts, ) — Paul and Bar- 
 nabas alone are mentioned as Ordainers. 
 
 six times rendered, in the common version, *'by," as the agent 
 or cause. I. Tim. iv. 5, 14. I] . Tim. i. 1, 6, 10 ; iv. 17. And 
 in two places it is translated "through," used in the sense of 
 "by," as may be seen by referring to JI. Tim. i. 10; iii. 15. 
 Farther, in the epistle to the Romans, the preposition dia, with 
 the genitive, occurs forty-one times, translated in the common 
 version "by," denoting the instrumental cause; and nineteen 
 times, translated "through," in the sense of "by;" while in 
 this same epistle the preposition meta, with the genitive, bears 
 an entirely different meaning, as (xii. 15,) '^Rejoice with \ineta\ 
 them that do rejoice, and weep with [meta] them that weep.' 
 (xii. 18,) f*If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peace- 
 ably with [meta] all men." (xv. 10,) '^And again he saith, re- 
 joice, ye Gentiles, with [mcto] his people." xv. 33 ; xvi. 24. 
 
 These facts, we think, conclusively establish the meaning 
 of these words, at least, as used by St. Paul. Yet it is not to 
 be denied, that a solitary case may be found, where the ordi- 
 nary usage is departed from. But this cannot be alledged of 
 the texts in question (I. Tim. iv. 14. and II. Tim. i. 6,) in which 
 the Apostle evidently uses the prepositions in contradistinction 
 to each other — ^-hy prophecy, with the laying on of the hands 
 of the presbytery," and, "6?/ the putting on of my hands." Here 
 the words are opposed to one another, and consequently are 
 to be taken in their peculiar and proper meaning, respecting 
 which we have given ample proof above. 
 
COMMISSION. 61 
 
 In the third, the ordination of Timothy 
 to the apostleship, (as I shall prove else- 
 where,) Paul performs the rite on his own 
 individual responsibility. 
 
 The reader will not fail to remark, by 
 the way, that in following the order of the 
 inspired history, we fall unavoidably into 
 the three orders of the ministry. 
 
 Finally, we have shown that the minis- 
 terial commission, given by our Saviour 
 to his eleven disciples, conveyed to them 
 the right and power to ordain — first, from 
 its express terms — secondly, from its na- 
 ture and design — and, thirdly, from the 
 facts recorded in scripture, that they did 
 actually ordain. 
 
 ON THE PERPETUITY OF THE APOSTOLIC 
 OFFICE. 
 
 SECTION FOURTH. 
 
 From what has been established in the 
 preceding remarks, it of course follows, 
 with the utmost certainty, that the apos- 
 tohc office is a perpetual office in the 
 Church of God ^ and, by whatever name 
 6 
 
62 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 it may be known, it now exists. Let us 
 review this branch of the subject, and 
 treat it separately, as it is one of funda- 
 mental consequence. 
 
 First, as to the terms of the commission 
 which Christ gave to his Apostles : are 
 they such as to lead us to suppose that 
 the commission was limited to them per- 
 sonally, and expired at the close of their 
 lives ? They are not. On the contrary, 
 they imply, either that the Apostles were 
 to be immortal, and never taste of death ; 
 or to have successors ; and not successors 
 in an inferior sense, but such as this com- 
 mission would apply to. The commis- 
 sion stands now on the pages of holy 
 writ, as applicable to the wants and ne- 
 cessities of this age as of the first, and 
 strange, indeed, if none can claim it ; 
 strange if the Providence of God hath 
 failed, and the promises of Christ have 
 also failed ; strange if there is no minis- 
 try now, who are personally sent by and 
 from Christ. It is no answer to these re- 
 flections to say, that a subordinate min- 
 istry exists, created by the Apostles. — 
 They have no right to appropriate to 
 themselves the language of this commis- 
 sion. They are not an independent 
 ministry, were never sent by Christ, even 
 
COMMISSION. 63 
 
 as he was sent by the Father — are not 
 self-existent, and must perish, unless the 
 root from which they sprang is still in 
 being here. They have no ordaining 
 power. If it is answered, they have all 
 this ; then they are not the Presbyters of 
 Paul and Barnabas, and of the other 
 Apostles, subordinate to them — a branch 
 derived from them ; but the main apos- 
 tohc tree, which Christ himself planted. 
 
 To destroy this, is to annihilate the 
 only bond of visible union between Christ 
 and his Church. It is the apostolic min- 
 try that is the personal representative of 
 the great head of the Church. For, this 
 is the only office he appointed. To them, 
 he gave all his agency and power in this 
 matter, so far as it could be given — and 
 how far, the commission tells us : "All 
 power, said he, is given unto me" — there- 
 fore, "go ye and teach all nations," &c. 
 
 Shall not the inhabitants of all ages, 
 and all nations, gladly hail the coming of 
 such a ministry — coming with the positive 
 and direct authority of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and in their ministrations connect- 
 ing them with Him ? Will any less au- 
 thoritative ministry answer the ends and 
 purposes of a church, claiming to be di- 
 vine ? The time is not far distant when 
 
64 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 error on this subject will, in one and 
 another commotion, by its own lightness 
 and volatility, be scattered ; and this 
 foundation which Christ hath laid of the 
 apostolic ministry, and their coadjutors 
 in the work (though not their equals) 
 shall remain. 
 
 We have said the terms of the commis- 
 sion are such as cannot be restricted to 
 the life-time of the Apostles. In proof of 
 this we quote from Matthew, (xxviii. 20,) 
 "And, lo, I am with you alway, even 
 unto the end of the world." That this 
 phrase is to be understood of the con- 
 summation of all things has been already 
 shown ;* for the Evangelist gives this 
 sense to it in four different places in his 
 gospel. 
 
 On this passage of Scripture the can- 
 did Doddridge remarks, "as Christ's 
 presence with his surviving Apostles and 
 other ministers was as necessary after the 
 destruction of Jerusalem as before it, 
 nothing seems more unreasonable than 
 to limit these words by such an interpret- 
 ation as to refer them only to that peri- 
 od : nor does it, indeed, appear that the 
 end of the world is ever used in any 
 other than the most extensive sense." 
 
 See page 49. 
 
COMMISSION. 65 
 
 With him it will be found, upon examin- 
 ation, all impartial commentators agree. 
 But the promise cannot apply to any 
 successors of the Apostles, but to their 
 successors in office, to those to whom 
 they should transmit their commission. 
 It is not denied that the presence of 
 Christ is, in a general way, promised to 
 all his disciples ; to all ministers of any 
 grade of office in his Church : but the 
 question now is as to the application of 
 the particular promise, *'l am with you 
 alway ;" with you as Apostles, as my 
 chief ministers, personal representatives, 
 with the incumbents of the office. Unless, 
 then, we deny the faithfulness of the 
 promise, or generalize it so as to apply 
 to any one, and thus take away its pecu- 
 liar force and value as a specific promise, 
 it stands as incontestable proof, that the 
 apostolic office is permanent in the 
 Church. As a second proof from the 
 terms, we quote Mark, (xvi. 15,) '^Go ye 
 into all the world and preach the gospel to 
 every creature ;" every creature, not only 
 ihe7i living, but in all future generations, is 
 the obvious meaning. This could not, it 
 is true, be personally accomplished by 
 the Apostles. They must have aids. 
 They must institute a subordinate minis- 
 
 6* 
 
66 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 try, and issue a commission of their own, 
 ^'ordain elders in every church," and "lay 
 their hands*' on deacons, to assist in the 
 daily ministrations ; yet they cannot 
 merge in these their own office ; cannot 
 devolve on ministers of an irifmor grade, 
 their responsibility. Their responsibility 
 and their office must be transmitted in 
 their integrity, in order that validity may 
 be given to the acts of other ministers. 
 The golden chain must not be broken, 
 which binds the Church and the ordinary 
 ministry, with Christ their head, through 
 the ever existing apostolic office. Thus, 
 whatever aid they have in their universal 
 ministry to all the world, and all ages of 
 the world, they must appoint that aid and 
 superintend it, as being directly respon- 
 sible to Him, who sent them. Our con- 
 clusion then is, that, as the mission on 
 which they were sent is perpetual, so is 
 their office ; and as Apostles they must 
 have successors. 
 
 Agreeably to these views, we know 
 that Timothy was ordained by Paul to 
 the apostleship. He was to "lay hands 
 suddenly on no man" — "Against an elder, 
 he was not to receive an accusation, but 
 before two or three witnesses." "Them 
 that sinned he was to rebuke before all, 
 
COMMISSION, 67 
 
 that Others also might fear." He was to 
 see that ''supplications, prayers, inter- 
 cessions and giving of thanks be made 
 for all men," i. e. order the public ser- 
 vice of the Church at Ephesus. He was 
 to ordain such as he thought suitably 
 qualified, to the ofTice of Bishop* (over- 
 seer) or Elder (as the terms are synony- 
 mously used,) and Deacon. And to 
 guide him in the discharge of this, the 
 highest trust in the ministry, St. Paul 
 gives him minute directions. Two things 
 we know, vvith the utmost certainty, viz. 
 first, that Timothy was ordained by St. 
 Paul to the ministry ; what grade of of- 
 fice is not stated. Second, that he exer- 
 cised the ministerial functions above 
 enumerated. From these premises, the 
 presumption is as strong as it well can 
 be, that he was ordained to be an Apos- 
 tle. Now, add to this the fact, that he is 
 expressly called an Apostle (1 Thess. ii, 6, 
 
 *"The word Bishop, and Priest, or Eldei-, were of the same 
 signification in the Apostolic age; and so the word Cohen, in 
 the writings of Moses, denotes Aaron himself, as well as his 
 sons; 3'et there can be no doubt but Aaron had an authority 
 over the rest, not only as their Father, but as Priest of a supe- 
 rior rank, or High Priest, as his successors were called in the 
 latter writings of the Old Testament. And, indeed, if the 
 sameness of name or title proved any thing, it would follow, 
 that there was no otlicer superior to that of Deacon ; for St. 
 Paul calls himself Di: I conos, a Deacon of Christ, twice in one 
 chapter, (Col. i. 23, 25,) and as often as he is styled a Minister 
 by our translators." 
 
68 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 compared with I Thess. i. 1,) and the 
 argument amounts to a demonstration. 
 Yet in the face of this conclusive evidence, 
 the fact that Timothy was an Apostle, in 
 the proper and ministerial sense, has been 
 controverted. It may be well, in this 
 place, to notice some of the leading ob- 
 jections. It is alledged that the peculiar 
 and indispensable quahfication of the 
 apostleship, in every case, was to have 
 seen Jesus Christ. The main design (it 
 is further alledged) of their office, was to 
 bear witness to the fact of the resurrec- 
 tion. 
 
 While we grant that to have seen Christ 
 and testify, as eye-witnesses, to the res- 
 urrection, was an indispensable mark of 
 the apostleship, in the case of the twelve 
 ''chosen" witnesses, we deny that it was 
 so in the case of any others. But tivelve 
 witnesses were deemed necessary — as 
 special, official witnesses of the fact of the 
 resurrection. Acts i. 21,22, "Wherefore 
 of these men which have companied with 
 us, all the time that the Lord Jesus went 
 in and out among us. Beginning from 
 the baptism of John, unto that same day 
 that he was taken up from us, must one be 
 ordained to be a witness wdth us of his res- 
 urrection." W hy only one f Obviously 
 
COMMISSION. 69 
 
 to make good the number of twelve* 
 Besides, vvas it possible for Paul (in case 
 he had been selected) to have been one 
 of these special witnesses ? Had he been 
 *<all the time with them, that the Lord 
 Jesus went in and out among them, be- 
 ginning from the baptism of John, unto 
 the same day that he was taken up ?" — • 
 Obviously, Paul was not thus qualified. 
 He did, indeed, bear testimony to the 
 resurrection, and so could five hundred 
 others have done ; and so could Timo- 
 thy. "And that he was seen of Cephas, 
 then of the twelve; after that he was seen 
 of about five hundred brethren at once ; 
 of whom the greater part remain at this 
 present, but some are fallen asleep. Af- 
 ter that he was seen of James, then of all 
 the Apostles ; and, last of all, he was seen 
 of me also, as of one born out of due time." 
 Was St. Paul's thirteenth testimony requi- 
 site to prove the fact, any more than that 
 of the five hundred ? St. Paul was indeed 
 an important witness in the case, among 
 others, and so beyond a doubt was Tim- 
 othy ; but neither was a -'chosen" witness, 
 of the selected twelve, and therefore nei- 
 ther, on account of this mere circum- 
 stance, was an Apostle. Paul was an A- 
 postle, because Christ had sent him "to 
 
70 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 bear his name before the Gentiles and 
 kings, and to the children of Israel." — 
 Timothy was an Apostle, because he was 
 ordained to an office wherein, and by vir- 
 tue of which, he exercised the functions 
 of the apostleship, ordaining Presbyters 
 and ruling them. See epistle to Timothy. 
 We proceed now to the second objec- 
 tion, viz. that this bearing witness to 
 Christ, was the pecnliarily, or main design 
 of the apostleship, in every case. It was 
 not so with the twelve. How then is it af- 
 firmed of Paul, or Timothy, or others, who 
 were Apostles ? Read the commission to 
 the twelve, after our Lord's resurrection. 
 In the record of this instrument by Luke 
 we read, "And ye are witnesses of these 
 things." In the record by the three other 
 Evangelists, not a syllable is said of this 
 ivitnessing, but various other high ministe- 
 rial functions of their office a.re specified. 
 Are we told, then, that all the Apostles 
 were chosen as "witnesses," and nothing 
 more ? Why ! this was the only temporary 
 function of their office, while all the others 
 were permanent, ministerial in all ages of 
 the Church; temporary from the necessi- 
 ty of the case ; for they were to be the eye- 
 witnesses who could testify from personal 
 observation — "Having accompanied the 
 
COMMISSION. 71 
 
 Lord Jesus all the time that he went in 
 and out among them " While, therefore, 
 this office ceased with their lives, the other 
 offices of the apostleship remained, as of 
 binding and universal importance. They 
 were to ''preach," ''baptize," and "teach 
 men to observe (and to observe them- 
 selves) all things whatsoever Christ had 
 commanded them." All this they were to 
 do, at the same time that they bore testi- 
 mony to the resurrection. The latter 
 obviously formed but a small portion of 
 their duties. And, as to their successors 
 in office, they could not be personal or 
 ci/e-witnesses of the resurrection ; while, 
 to the end of time, they were to perform 
 all the other functions of the apostleship. 
 With what truth, then, can it be alledged 
 that the main design of their office was 
 to be "witnesses" ? The candid reader 
 will now judge whether we have made 
 good our denial of the truth of these ob- 
 jections. 
 
 Again, it is objected that Timothy is 
 not called, in 1 Thess. ii. 6, an Apostle. 
 This objection is based upon the fact that 
 St. Paul, in the second verse, speaks of 
 their having been shamefully entreated at 
 Philippi; whereas, by a reference to Acts, 
 xvi., it will be found that Timothy was 
 
72 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 not at Philippi. Let the reader refer to 
 this chapter, and he will find, indeed, that 
 Paul and Silas only are mentioned as be- 
 ing at Philippi, and not Timothy. But is 
 this to be taken as conclusive, or even 
 presumptive proof, that he was not in the 
 company of Paul ? This inference would 
 be hasty and unwarrantable. For this 
 same 16th chapter of Acts informs us, in 
 the very commencement of it, that Paul 
 chose Timothy, and would have him to go 
 with him as a companion in his travels. 
 *'They," we are told, traveled in company 
 from Derbe and Lystra, (I'imothy's resi- 
 dence,) through Phrygia and Galatia ; 
 thence Eastward to Mysia and Troas, on 
 the shores of the iEgean sea ; thence to 
 Saniothracia; "and the next day to Neap- 
 olis ; and from thence to Philippi; and we 
 were in that city, abiding certain days." 
 The 17th chap, continues the account 
 of their travels. "They" go to Thessalo- 
 nica. In consequence of the difficulties 
 they experience in that place, ''the breth- 
 ren immediately sent away Paul and Si- 
 las by night unto Berea." Thither the 
 turbulent and persecuting Jews follow 
 them. "And then immediately the breth- 
 ren sent away Paul, to go as it were to the 
 sea, but Silas and Timotheus abode there 
 
COMMISSION. 75 
 
 stil!. And they that conducted Paul 
 brought him unto Athens : and receiving a 
 commandment unto Silas and Timotheus 
 for to come to him with all speed they de- 
 parted " We started with Paul and Tim- 
 othy and others from Lystra, and now we 
 find them all in their Eastward travel, in 
 company, at Athens. They must needs 
 have passed through Philippi. They were 
 at Berea. And yet we are told Timothy 
 was not with Paul at Philippi. When did 
 he part company ? I'hey started togeth- 
 er ; they terminated their travels togeth» 
 er. The assertion that Timothy was not 
 at Philippi, is without a shadow of proof. 
 True he is not named in connection with 
 that place, (as well as other places) but 
 is this any evidence of the fact of his ab- 
 sence ? Neither is Luke (the writer of 
 the Acts) mentioned, and yet he, too, was 
 with them. See Acts, xvi. 13 and 16, 
 If the reader will consult a map, he will 
 find that these travels are nearly due East- 
 ward from Lystra to Troas, to Neapolis, 
 to Philippi, to Berea, to Athens. Now 
 the sacred historian tells us that Timothy 
 was with Paul at Lystra, at Berea, and fi- 
 nally at Athens. What reason is there for 
 believing that he was not at Philippi ? 
 None that is worthy of consideration. 
 7 
 
74 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 Once more, it is objected that the term 
 Apostle, in the place to which we have re- 
 ferred, is employed in its generic sense 
 merely, as a "messenger." Our reply is, 
 that this assertion is gratuitous, without a 
 shadow of proof or probability in its sup- 
 port. For if St. Paul speaks of himself as 
 an Apostle, and on that fact rests his claim 
 to the support of the Church, it is in the 
 ministerial and official sense. And the 
 very same is affirmed of Sylvanus and 
 Timothy. 
 
 Lastly, it is objected to Timothy's apos- 
 tleship, that there is a want of scriptural 
 proof that he was the permanent bishop of 
 Ephesus. Let this be granted. Does it 
 prove that he was not, in the highest sense, 
 an Apostle ? Then Paul himself was not 
 an Apostle ; for it would be difficult to as- 
 sign to him a settled a.nd permcment diocese 
 or field of labor. This very question of the 
 Ephesian church would go as far to de- 
 stroying the claim of Paul to the Apostle- 
 ship, as of Timothy. Supposing that the 
 service be temporary which Timothy ren^ 
 dered this church, it by no means follows, 
 that the office he held was temporary. 
 That office must be determined, 1 , by its 
 functions ; 2, by its name : which things 
 are already evident. The Apostles, then, 
 
COMMISSION. 75 
 
 transmitted their commission, in its integ- 
 rity, to Timothy ; and from him, as from 
 the tree which Christ with his own hands 
 had planted — the ever Uving tree of the 
 apostleship — sprang the branches. Pres- 
 byters (or Elders, or Bishops, i. e., over- 
 seers of a parish or congregation) and 
 Deacons. 
 
 The apostleship was also transmitted 
 to Titus. "For this cause I left thee in 
 Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the 
 things that are wanting, and ordain Elders 
 in every city, as I had appointed thee." 
 He w^as to rule the Elders — "rebuke with 
 all authority" — excommunicate heretics 
 from the churches, &c. These functions 
 were peculiarly apostolic, and are derived 
 from the terms (as we have shown) of the 
 commission. 1. The power to send oth- 
 ers. 2. The power of the keys, or chief 
 and final discipline — excommunication. 
 Whether the office here implied, or rather 
 expressly ascribed to Titus, was exercised 
 temporarily or permanently in Crete, is a 
 question that has no bearing whatever on 
 the point, whether the office was apostol- 
 ic. This case it so nearly parallel to that 
 of Timothy, that it need not be dwelt up- 
 on. The apostleship w^as also transmitt- 
 ed to the "Ano^els" of the seven Asiatic 
 
76 THE MlNISTEKiAL 
 
 churches." Rev. ii. I. "Unto the Angel 
 (To Angelo) of the church of Ephesus 
 write ;^^ *'and thou hast tried them which 
 say they are Apostles, and are not, and 
 hast found them Uars." This Angel 
 was an individual officer, who had the 
 supreme control of the Ephesian church. 
 The same exercise of discipline, as was 
 spoken of in the cases of Timothy and 
 Titus, is predicated of him. Was he 
 not then the successor of Timothy ? But 
 we are asked to prove that there were 
 ministers under him. "Assummg this 
 point, it would not be difficult to make 
 out an argument from the address to the 
 angel. But this is a point to be proved, 
 not to be assumed." The proof consists 
 in these two facts. 1 . St. Paul's epistle to 
 Timothy is of an earlier date than this 
 epistle of John to the seven churches of 
 Asia.* 2. In the epistle to 1 imothy, it is 
 positively stated, that there were Elders 
 and Deacons in the church at Ephesus. 
 
 * The Epistle to Timothy was written at the end of 64, or 
 beginning ot 65 : vide Paley's Hora; Paulina:. Timothy was 
 placed over the Church at Ephesus about A. D. 65 : vide "Es- 
 say on the question, When did Paul place Timothy over the 
 Church at Ephesus?' by Bishop H. U. Onderdonk. The 
 Epistles to the Asiatic churches were written 95 or 96, vide 
 Dr. Lardner. For this opinion, Lardner appeals to ancient 
 authors generally ; and among the moderns, Mill, 96; Mr. 
 Lowman, 95; Le Clerc. 96. Also, LEnfant and Beansobre 
 maintain the same opinion ; and, in their preface to the 
 Apocrypha, adduce various authorities. 
 
COMMISSION. 77 
 
 Therefore, a fortiori, there was a body of 
 inferior clergy, when the epistle was ad- 
 dressed to this Angel. The point is prov- 
 ed, and the argument (by the objector's 
 own confession) stands. Again, it is 
 asked why the expression, "the Church," 
 and not ''the churches," of Ephesus, is 
 used ? And it is alledged, that, therefore, 
 "the Church is addressed as one and un- 
 divided." The answer is so very obvious, 
 that every discerning reader must have 
 anticipated it. The term is used collec- 
 ively^ as the grammarians say. A similar 
 usage obtains now — e. g. The Church of 
 the United States — the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church in the State of New York. 
 This collective church was a diocese, 
 embracing many congregations. Such a 
 diocese or church is the single city of 
 London. 
 
 As to the title "Angel," the lexicons 
 define it to mean "a messenger" — nearly, 
 if not quite, synonymous with Apostle ; 
 "a person by whom nevv's is conveyed"— 
 nearly synonymous with Evangelist.— 
 This last is a compound word, ev-Angel, 
 i. e., messenger of good tidings. All 
 these terms were sometimes interchange- 
 ably used. It has been judiciously re- 
 marked, too, that, at the late date of the 
 
7» THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 Epistle to the Ephesian church, the term 
 Apostle had gradually fallen into disuse, 
 as applied to the chief ministry of the 
 Church, while the term Bishop was still 
 retained by the second order of Elders or 
 Presbyters.* 1 he term Bishop, thus ap- 
 propriated, signifiesoverseer of a congre- 
 gation or single church. 
 
 On the cases of the remaining six 
 Asiatic churches v/e need not insist. 
 1 he one now examined, is conclusive of 
 the point which was to be proved, that 
 the Epistles were addressed to the suc- 
 cessors of the Apostles — individual offi- 
 cers—the stars (see Rev. i. 20) in the sev- 
 eral churches. If this is true of one, it is 
 so of all ; for the address is the same to 
 each. 
 
 It might now be further shown, that oth- 
 ers, such as Siivanus, Andronicus, and Ju- 
 nias, who, in their official capaicty, are 
 styled in scripture Apostles, succeeded to 
 the apostolic office ; but there is no need 
 of thus heaping proof upon proof, for a 
 point already clearly demonstrated. 
 
 *^ " The same persons were anciently called Bishops and 
 Presbyters, and they whom we now call Bishops were then 
 called Apostles: but, in process of time, the name of Apostles 
 was appropriated to them who were Apostles in the strict 
 sense; and the rest, who had tormerly the name of Apostles, 
 were styled Bishops. In this sense Epaphroditus is called the 
 Apostle of the Philippians; Titus was the Apostle of the Gre* 
 lians ; and Timothy of Asia." Theodoretua in 1 Tim. iii. 
 
COMMISSION. 79t 
 
 We may here notice an objection to 
 these views, the extravagance and weak- 
 ness of which would render it utterly un- 
 worthy of notice, if it were not so confi- 
 dently and often urged by the advocates 
 for presbyterian ordination. It is, that 
 the Apostles had no right or authority, 
 as such, to transmit their office to oth- 
 ers — that the call to the apostleship 
 must proceed personally, in every in- 
 stance, from Christ, and in no other 
 way could be conveyed. As an inevit- 
 able consequence of such a position, the 
 apostleship of Matthias is denied. It is 
 said that he was not ordained ; that the 
 act by which he was made Apostle was 
 wholly unauthorized and is to be ascribed 
 to the rash zeal of St. Peter. Now such 
 a statement, we hesitate not to say, is a 
 positive and direct impeachment of the 
 truth of holy scripture. Let us see — was 
 not Matthias an Apostle ? It may safely 
 be admitted that there was no laying on of 
 hands, in his case, or formal ordination, as 
 we commonly understand this word ; but 
 then the question of his apostleship was 
 no more involved in this circumstance 
 than was that of the eleven or of St. Paul. 
 There is no evidence that they were set 
 apart to their office by the laying on of 
 
80 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 hands. And yet when St. Paul ordained 
 Timothy, it was ''by the laying on of his 
 hands." If it be said that the eleven and 
 St. Paul being called and set apart by the 
 Lord himself, ordination was unnecessa- 
 ry ; we do not see the force of such rea- 
 soning, for why should the act be unneces- 
 sary, in the one case, when Christ set apart 
 men to the ministerial office, and necessary 
 in the other when Apostles set them apart ? 
 Was there any thing essential or absolute 
 in the very nature of this act — or was it 
 an ordinance subsequently adopted by the 
 Apostles ; and, by them, made a rule of 
 the church ? Doubtless both reason and 
 scripture incline us to take the latter view. 
 Ordination or the laying on of hands is now 
 necessary (relatively, not absolutely) be- 
 cause the practice and law of inspired A- 
 postleshave made it so. When, therefore, 
 before this point had been ruled and set- 
 tled, the Apostles chose Matthias to be one 
 of their number, they might invest him 
 with his office, in such mode, form, and 
 manner as they deemed expedient. There 
 is no intimation in holy scripture that spe- 
 cific directions had been given then, in 
 relation to this matter, by the great Head 
 of the Church. The point of ordination, 
 then, touches not the merits of the ques- 
 
COMMISSlOiN. 81 
 
 tion of Matthias' apostleship. We turn to 
 Acts i. 15. Peter proposed that, agreea- 
 bly to the prophecy, in the book of Psalms, 
 (Acts i. 20,) one should be chosen out of 
 the whole number of disciples to fill the 
 place of Judas. "And his bishoprick let 
 another take" — says the prophecy. The 
 disciples all agree to the proposition. 
 They cast their votes for two; and then, 
 by common consent, refer the matter 
 to God. They pray, "Thou, Lord, which 
 knowest the hearts of all men, show 
 whether of these two thou hast chosen." 
 The lot falls on Matthias, and "he is num- 
 bered with the eleven Apostles^ He 
 takes the office of Judas. Now, if Judas 
 was an Apostle, ii is demonstrable that 
 Matthias was one. These facts must of 
 course, be admitted. But, it is affirmed — 
 "the whole transaction was unauthoriz- 
 ed." "it was one of Peter's acts of rash 
 zeal." A dangerous mode this of inter- 
 preting scripture. Peter proposed the 
 measure, indeed, but all the disciples con- 
 sented and took a part in it. They cast 
 their votes and they prayed. Were they 
 all in error — the v/hole infant Church, in 
 the very first step it took ? Was their sol- 
 emn prayer to God unheard and unanswer- 
 ed ? Let it be remembered, too, that the 
 
82 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 writer of the book of Acts was inspired, 
 and he narrates all these circumstances 
 as facts. Will the objector persuade us 
 that they were delusions ? On this prin- 
 ciple we might set aside, and charge to 
 the score of Peter's rash zeal, any other 
 statements of the Bible ! 
 
 But there is another difficulty. The 
 second chapter of Acts tells us that the 
 Apostles were "«// with one accord in one 
 place, ^^ waiting for the descent of the Ho- 
 ly Ghost. Was not Matthias, who had been 
 "numbered with the eleven apostles," a- 
 mong them ? did not the Holy Ghost rest 
 on him, as on the others, endowing him 
 with the gift of tongues ? If not, then 
 the second chapter also is false in saying 
 that they were all present on that occa- 
 sion. Now we claim, that the act by 
 which Matthias was elevated to the apos- 
 tleship, so far from being unauthorized, 
 and the offspring of Peter's individual 
 zeal, was openly ratified and sealed by 
 the approbation of the Holy Spirit. Will 
 the objector dare go thus far, and say that 
 here, too, was an error? This would be 
 the madness of impiety itself. Again, 
 the 14th verse states, that Peter stood up, 
 'Hvith the eleven ;" thus makincr twelve. — 
 Once more, in the 6th chapter 2(1 verse, 
 
COMMISSION. 83 
 
 we read, "then the hoelve called the mul- 
 titude of the disciples unto them." This 
 was prior to the event of St. Paul's con- 
 version and call to the apostleship, which 
 are recorded in the 9th chapter. More- 
 over, St. Paul could not have been, as 
 alledged, the twelfth Apostle, inasmuch 
 as he was not qualified to be a witness 
 with the eleven, as Matthias was. For, 
 in chapter 1st, 21st verse, *' Wherefore of 
 these men, which have companied with 
 us all the time that the Lord Jesus went 
 in and out among us, must one be ordain- 
 ed."* Paul was not one of these. 
 
 By every rule, then, of fair interpreta- 
 tion, and by the explicit declaration of 
 God's inspired word, Matthias was an 
 Apostle ; and St. Paul was the thirteenth. 
 
 In proof, then, that the apostolic office 
 was perpetual and transmissable, we have 
 shown conclusively, that the Apostles 
 held and exercised the right of creating 
 other apostles, as in the case of Matthi- 
 as ; that the number was not restricted 
 to twelve ; but might be increased ac- 
 cording to the wants and growth of the 
 Church. 
 
 To deny the apostleship of Matthias, 
 the objector must blot out the first and 
 
 * Genesthai, 
 
84 THE MIMSTEKIAL 
 
 second chapter of Acts, or what is worse, 
 he must withhold assent from the facts 
 therein stated — facts written by the in- 
 spiration of the Holy Spirit. 1. All the 
 disciples united in the act. 2. All pray- 
 ed to God that he would uiake the choice. 
 
 3. Matthias was chosen to "the ministry 
 and apostleship" from which Judas fell. 
 
 4. He was numbered with the eleven A- 
 postles. 5. He was present and receiv- 
 ed the Holy Ghost on the day of penta- 
 cost. 6. There were twelve Apostles be- 
 fore the conversion and call of St. Paul. 
 7. The inspired historian narrates these 
 things as facts done by and under the il- 
 lumination of God. 
 
 We conclude, therefore, that the Ap- 
 ostolic office, in its ordinary and per- 
 manent functions, which were alike ne- 
 cessary to the existence of the Church in 
 after ages as in the first, was designed to 
 be and was perpetual or transmissory. 
 
 For we have seen that it was given to, 
 and exercised by many beside the original 
 twelve, (add Paul,) or thirteen ; that it 
 was, in fact, transmitted or handed down. 
 We have seen, also, that they were vested 
 exclusively with the ordaining and the ru- 
 ling power of the Church — ^functions of 
 the office, which, so long as the Church 
 shall last, will be essential. 
 
COMMISSION. 85 
 
 We shall see, in another branch of this 
 inquiry, that neither of these last named 
 powers were exercised by, or belonged 
 to, the office of Presbyters or Deacons ; 
 and, therefore, that their respective com- 
 missions did not embrace these superior 
 powers. 
 
 ON THE OFFICE OF ELDER OR PRESBYTER 
 IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 
 
 SECTION FIFTH. 
 
 1. Nothing certain can be known from, 
 the mere term Elder or Presbyter. 
 
 The origin of the word, as a title of 
 office, whether in church or state, is found 
 in the practice of most ancient nations, 
 viz: of selecting the aged, on account of 
 their experience, as well as on account of 
 that reverence with which they were re- 
 garded in primitive times, for stations of 
 great trust. The Hebrews, at a very 
 early period, had their Elders in the state. 
 They were taken from their respective 
 families or tribes, over which they had 
 (by a sort of natural right) exercised su- 
 8 
 
86 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 preme authority, formed a body for the 
 government of the nation. When Moses 
 deHvered the divine command to the king 
 of Egypt, he was directed by God to take 
 with him the ''Elders of Israel," as the 
 representatives of the nation. The 
 Greeks, also, as far back as the age of 
 Lycurgus, had their council of twenty- 
 eight aged men or presbyters. To the 
 distinguished honor of becoming a mem- 
 ber of this august assembly, none could 
 attain, who was not of the age of sixty 
 years. And in the Illiad^ of Homer, the first 
 priest of whom we read is the aged Chry- 
 ses. The same principle, or rather sen- 
 timent, obtained anciently among the 
 Romans. Hence the term applied to the 
 chief council of the republic was Senate 
 or presbytery, i. e., assembly of aged 
 men. There is satisfactory proof, how- 
 ever, that this custom was confined to the 
 very early ages of these nations. For 
 among the Romans, at a subsequent peri- 
 od, one might be admitted to the Senate 
 at the age of thirty. In process of time 
 the terms of Elder, Senator, and Presby- 
 ter, came to signify, generally, a Ruler, 
 in church or state, The word Elder, 
 therefore, is of a most generic or vague 
 
 * See, also, II. lib. 3, 1. 146, 15?^, 
 
COMMISSION. 87 
 
 signification, and nothing can be inferred 
 with certainty from it, as to the grade of 
 office to which, in the apostolic church, 
 it was specifically appUed. The generic 
 character of the word will be seen from 
 the following definition : "Presbiis, or 
 Presbeus :" old ; an old man ; a minister 
 of state ; of the Church : a Senator ; an 
 ambassador. Thence Presbuteroi, men 
 older, or Elders ; and hence Presbyters in 
 the christian church. From I^at : Pres- 
 byter is the old French Prestre, whence 
 Priest."^ Thus the words Elder and 
 Priest are more nearly allied than many 
 are disposed to allow. 
 
 II. Our first inquiry is naturally as to 
 the commission of the Elders. And here 
 we are met, by the advocates for parity, 
 with the assertion, that the one commis- 
 sion, given by Christ to the eleven, was 
 the same that was given to the Elders. t 
 Can proof for this assertion be adduced — 
 such as we have advanced in the preced- 
 ing pages — to show that that commission 
 was given to Timothy and others — 1. be- 
 cause the title. Apostle, in its ofiicial 
 sense, was attributed to them — 2. because 
 the highest functions of the ministerial 
 
 * See Valpy's Greek deriv. 
 
 t See Drs. Dwight, Miller, and others. 
 
88 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 office were exercised by them. Can this 
 be shown of any Elder ? We here re- 
 mark, that nothing certain can be groun- 
 ded on the single insolated text, 1 Pet. v. 
 1, 3, where Peter styles himself an Elder. 
 For, we may reason from the greater to 
 the less, but not from the less to the 
 greater. Now, it is not questioned, that 
 whatever was implied by the term Elder, 
 the term Apostle meant as much, if not 
 more. Therefore, if Peter was an Apos- 
 tle, a fortiori, he was an Elder. But re- 
 verse this argument. Peter, being an A- 
 postle, calls himself an Polder ; therefore 
 every Elder was an Apostle. This is a 
 pure sophism :" for while every one ad- 
 mits that the premise in the first argu- 
 ment, viz : Apostle, is equal to the high- 
 est rank in the ministry, this is disputed 
 in reference to the premise of the second 
 argument, viz : Elder. This is the very 
 thing to be proved, and consequently the 
 premise in the second proposition assumes 
 the point in dispute. While this text,there- 
 
 * "The simple and pJain truth of the case is this : The A- 
 postles were all Presbyters or Eiders. This, and this only, was 
 their proper ecclesiastical office. Accordingly the Apostle Pe- 
 ter speaks thus — '-The Elders which are among you I exhort,, 
 who am also an Elder, and a witness of the sufferings of 
 Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be reveal- 
 ed." Such was Peter , if he hirnseff understood his office — 
 an Elder." See review of Episcopacy tested, Ace. by Bishop 
 H* U. Qndevdonk, in the Biblical Repertory, 
 
COMMISSION. 89 
 
 fore, may be considered proof that Peter 
 was an Elder, it is no evidence that Elders 
 were Apostles, or held the commission of 
 the Apostles, or exercised a ministerial 
 power equal to others. On this side of 
 the question it can prove nothing,* 
 
 If it cannot be shown that elders held 
 the office^ or bore the title^, of Apostles, it 
 will follow that the commission of Christ 
 to the eleven was not applicable to them- 
 As to the commission from Christ to the 
 seventy disciples, we have before demon- 
 strated that to have expired by its own 
 limitations. It was never renewed by 
 Christ, after his resurrection, as was that 
 which he gave first to his twelve Apostles. 
 Hence wis are compelled to look elsewhere 
 for the origin of the office of Elder in the 
 apostolic church. 
 
 The facts appear to be these. The twelve 
 were either resident at Jerusalem, (from 
 that city must they begin to preach the 
 gospel,) or travelling through the coun- 
 tries of Asia Minor, Sj-ria, and Italy, es- 
 tablishing churches.-- -Every thing was aa 
 yet, ot course, in an incipient and half- 
 formed state. All power, and the sole 
 
 * As to names, the Apostle Paul calls himself a Deacon 
 (Col. i. 23, 25.) would you therefore say t-liat everv Deacon 
 was an Apostle r 
 
90 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 unaided ministry, were in the hands into 
 which the Lord had solemnly and formal- 
 ly placed them. But the Apostles were 
 not, and could not be, at that stage of 
 affairs, settled Pastors. Such Pastors, 
 however, were absoltitely essential to the 
 preservation of the Church. Accordingly 
 ''they ordain them (for themselves) Elders 
 in every church.'' Before this act of or- 
 dination. Elders are once mentioned as 
 connected with the church at Jerusalem, 
 Acts xi. ^0. A difference of opinion ex- 
 ists, as to whether the word is there used 
 in the same sense in w^hich it was after- 
 wards established » viz. to mean a settled 
 order of ministers in the christian church. 
 But, however that point may be deter- 
 mined, it affects not our general state- 
 ment; that, as occasion arose, the Apos- 
 tles ordained Elders as their aids. Of 
 their origin this is the brief and only ac- 
 count that the scriptures afford us. 
 
 111. At the ordination above referred to, 
 we are not told that any formal commis- 
 sion or charge was delivered by the Or- 
 dainers. But notwithstanding this fact, 
 ail will agree, that the nature and powers 
 of their odice must, at the time, have been 
 distinctly understood. We, however, are 
 left to gather this information from other 
 
COMMISSION. 91 
 
 and ample sources ; that is to say, from 
 the full descriptions of their office given 
 in other parts of the New Testament, as 
 well as the accounts of the manner in 
 which they exercised that office— the min- 
 isterial functions which they performed. 
 That they preached, ''labored in word and 
 doctrine" — is explicitly asserted in seve- 
 ral places. That they "ruled" and "took 
 the oversight" of the particular flock or 
 congregation, where thdr Apostles had 
 placed til em, is with equal clearness assert- 
 ed. And, as to administering the ordi- 
 nances of baptism, and the Lord's supper, 
 that must have arisen from the very ne- 
 cessity of the case. For, from many of 
 the churches the Apostles were absent 
 during considerable periods. 
 
 On these points there is a general a- 
 greement. Much has been written to 
 prove that Elders had the rule and over- 
 sight of the churches ; long and labored 
 arguments (see Dwight's theology, vol. IV, 
 p. 228,) have been brought to fortify and 
 sustain this position. But with us this is 
 needless. It is granted already in the 
 sense of ruling a particular congregation 
 or "flock." But this power was not ab- 
 solute. It was held subject to the control 
 and final decision of the Apostles, in ev- 
 
92 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 ery case where it was exercised. As in 
 the Church at the present time, so then the 
 Presbyter could not excommunicate a 
 member without the sanction of the Apos- 
 tle, to w^hom he was himself subject. Wit- 
 ness the case of excommunication of the 
 incestuous person from the Corinthian 
 church by St. Paul. "For 1, verily, as ab- 
 sent in the body, but present in spirit, 
 have judged already as though I were 
 present, concerning him that hath done 
 this deed." 1 Cor. v. 3. 
 
 Thus, then, while it is admitted that 
 Elders possessed the power of ruling a 
 congregation, it is not admitted that the 
 power was supreme, absolute, or final ; 
 such power was given by Christ to the A- 
 postles only — ''Whose soever sins ye re- 
 mit, they are remitted unto them, and 
 whose soever sins ye retain they are re- 
 tained." 1. Now the proper question as 
 tending to throw light on the nature of 
 their office, and the extent of their com- 
 mission, is, did the Elders exercise a su- 
 preme rule over any portion of the Church 
 at large, and over other ministers ? Were 
 they a court of final appeal — "Whose so- 
 ever sins ye remit they are remitted unto 
 them, and whose soever sins ye retain they 
 are retained" — i. e. the power of excom- 
 
COMMISSION. 93 
 
 munication ? Could they "receive an ac- 
 cusation (as Timothy was empowered to 
 do by his commission) against an Elder" ? 
 Was it their duty to inspect the conduct 
 of Elders, and assign a double honor to 
 those who "ruled well" ? This would be 
 a clear absurdity, making every Elder an 
 official superior to every other Elder! 
 Was it their prerogative to "see that the 
 Deacons used their office well," as it was 
 Timothy's ? Obviously, this supreme gov- 
 ernment of the ministers and churches, 
 did not belong to them. There is not a 
 shadow of evidence, or the fragment of a 
 fact, on which to erect an argument in fa- 
 vor of such a claim for Elders. The line 
 of demarcation between Timothy, Titus, 
 and all the Apostles, in this particular, and 
 the Elders, is as broad as it possibly can be. 
 He that runneth may read. 2. The sec- 
 ond important question at issue is, was 
 their commission like the Apostles', self- 
 perpetuating ? Was the order self-exist- 
 ent ? In other words, had they the right 
 to ordain ministers ? 
 
 In the first place, we no where, in any 
 description of their office, read that they 
 had such a right. In all the charges de- 
 livered, either directly to them or through 
 others, such as Timothy ( 1 st iii. and iv. ) or 
 
94 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 Titus, (i. 6-9,) not a word of direction or 
 caution is given as to exercising the func- 
 tion of ordaining ministers* Timothy is 
 warned to "lay hands suddenly on no 
 man." Titus is reminded that he was 
 left in Crete to "ordain Elders in every 
 city." But not so the Elders. They are 
 to be ordained ; not to ordain. !So far, 
 then, as their office is developed in scrip- 
 ture, the presumption is strong that they 
 did not possess this power. At all events, 
 there is the total absence of all proof, ex- 
 press or implied, direct or indirect, in the 
 description of their office, and the exhor- 
 tations delivered to them, that they were 
 vested with the ordaining power. 
 
 Let us now inquire what may be infer- 
 red, in this question, from the accounts we 
 have in scripture, of the actiuil exercise of 
 their office. Did Elders ever ordain ? It 
 is said, "the ordination of Timothy is at- 
 tributed to the whole body of Presbyters 
 or Elders, who united in his ordination." 
 Whatever opinions may be entertained on 
 this subject, it certainly is not the /ar^, that 
 Timothy's ordination "is attributecP'^ to the 
 Elders. In one place (II. Tim. i. 6,) it 
 is expressly ascribed to St. Paul, "by the 
 laying on of his hands :" and in the other, 
 it is as clearly imputed to prophecy— "by 
 
COMMISSION. 95 
 
 prophecy" — let this be explained or un- 
 derstood as it may. Many eminent com- 
 mentators suppose it to refer to Paul him- 
 self, who, when he ordained Timothy, was 
 enabled to prophecy concerning him. A 
 spirit of prophecy may have directed Paul 
 in the selection of Timothy for the apos- 
 tolic office.* Now, if this were so, it is 
 strictly correct to say he was ordained by 
 prophecy, i. e. by the inspired and pro- 
 phetic Paul. However, we are not re- 
 quired, by our general argument on the 
 text, to explain this phrase. But we may 
 remark, by the way, that the view which 
 we have taken of it, is agreeable to a 
 sound rule of interpretation, i. e. when 
 there are two passages of scripture on the 
 same subject, one doubtful and the other 
 obvious and certain, we are so to explain 
 the former that it shall agree with the lat- 
 ter. All that is said of the presbytery, on 
 this occasion, is that they united not as the 
 efficient cause of the ordination, but as a- 
 greeing or consenting thereto. ^''By 
 prophecy, with the laying on of hands of 
 the Presbytery." Hov/ then can it be tru- 
 ly affirmed that the act is attributed to the 
 Eiders ? On the mind of the candid rea- 
 
 "^1. Tim. i. 18, "This charge I commit unto thee, son Tim- 
 othy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee^ 
 that thou by them mightest war a good warfare," 
 
96 THE MINISTEPUAt 
 
 der this point need not be urged. If, in- 
 deed, the text had read, as it is sometimes 
 erroneously quoted, "-By prophecy and the 
 laying on of the hands of the presbytery," 
 then truly there would have been room for 
 argument ; and it would have been diffi- 
 cult indeed to reconcile this with the pos- 
 itive declaration, that Timothy was or- 
 dained by Paul. Bat no such difficulty 
 exists, for no such text is found in scrip- 
 ture. And will the reader (who may not 
 be familiar with this subject) believe it, 
 when we say, that, by the advocates for 
 presbyterian ordination, this is regarded 
 as the strong case — the sufficient w^arrant 
 from the word of God, for Elders to or- 
 dain ? One other case is alledged, of 
 Presbyterian ordination, (Acts xiii. 1, 2, 
 3,) upon which it would be a misspending 
 of time, and a trifling with the reasonof 
 men, to dwell. For the parties concern- 
 ed in the transaction are named, ''Barna- 
 bas, Simeon, Lucius, Hansen, and Saul." 
 Were any of these Elders ? This point 
 has never been, and never can be deter- 
 mined. And until it is — until we are as- 
 sured beyond a doubt — -that they were El- 
 ders, what has the case to do with Pres- 
 byterian ordination ? Plainly nothing. 
 It might be adduced, with equal propriety, 
 
COMMISSION. 97 
 
 that is, with no propriety at all, in support 
 of any other kind of ordination. The 
 transaction, however, it is certain, was not 
 an ordination of any kind.* 
 
 Did Elders ever ordain ? There is no 
 evidence in scripture, either express or 
 implied, that they did. But had they not 
 a right to ordain ? This question has been 
 answered. We read nothing of such 
 right ; no allusion to it, not even the re- 
 motest hint, in all that is said of them by 
 St. Paul in his epistles to Timothy, or Ti- 
 tus, or by St. Peter in his epistle. The 
 assertion is sometimes broadly made, "all 
 ministers of the gospel bear the apostolic 
 commission !" Did the Deacons bear it 
 when they were set apart as assistants of 
 the Apostles ? Did the Elders to whom 
 Timothy gave "double honor" and ruled, 
 and tried, (when accused) and ordained, 
 bear it ? Did the Elders whom Titus "or- 
 dained in every city of Crete," and whose 
 conduct he was commanded to inspect, 
 bear it ? Did the Elders whom Paul and 
 Barnabas ordained in every church in 
 Lystra, Iconium and Antioch,t bear it ? 
 If they bore it, what right had Timothy, 
 or Titus, or Paul himself thus to govern 
 
 * See the controversy between Bishop H. U. Onderdonk 
 and Dr. Barnes. 
 
 t See Acts, XIV. 21—23. 
 
 
 
98 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 Siud judicially inspect and discipline his 
 equals under Christ, their one master? 
 Could Paul have exercised, or have inves- 
 ted Timothy with such a power over 
 James, or Peter, or John, or any Apostle ? 
 Surely not. The Elders, then, were not 
 equal to Apostles ; and therefore, did not 
 bear this commission. 
 
 And here is concluded our remarks on 
 the office of Elder or Presbyter in the 
 apostolic church . I f they have been brief, 
 this only shows how easily the subject is 
 disposed of by the broad and clear light 
 of Holy scripture. 
 
 THE DIRECT ARGUMENT FOR EPISCOPACY, 
 
 SECTION SIXTH, 
 
 What may be called thedataof the ques- 
 tion of Episcopacy, having been discussed 
 in the foregoing remarks, we are now 
 prepared to enter into a direct examina- 
 tion of the question itself. Little remains 
 for us to do but to bring together the ma- 
 terials, (abundant and scriptural, ) and 
 shov^ the force of the arguments which 
 
COMMISSION. 99 
 
 the fads of the case furnish to every can^ 
 did and inquiring mind. 
 
 First, in regard to the word Episcopa- 
 cy* It is derived, as all know, from the 
 Greek Episcopos, an overseer or superin- 
 tendent. In the present instance the 
 rule applies — usus norma loquendi — and 
 no argument can be raised on the mere 
 word, either for or against Episcopacy. 
 The word Bishop signifies, merely, as we 
 have said, an overseer, and in this natural 
 sense is it used in scripture ; not to denote 
 the grade in the ministerial office, but as 
 applicable to all or any grade. Deacons, 
 Elders, and Apostles, were overseers — 
 each in his own sphere. And it is even 
 true that the word in the New Testament 
 isgenerally applied to Elders. It is mere 
 puerility to dwell on these terms, as 
 though they were essential elements in 
 the question about the grades of the min- 
 isterial office. It is granted, nay it is ur- 
 ged upon the recollection of our oppo- 
 nents, that the grade of ministry whieh 
 we now designate by the term Bishop, 
 is known in the New Testament by the 
 term Apostle ; and the grade which we 
 call Presbyter or Elder, is often styled, in 
 the New Testament, Bishop. We would 
 wish to be distinctly understood, then, in 
 
100 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 the scriptural argument, to adopt this 
 transposition of the terms. If the cause 
 for this be asked, we can only reply, "cus- 
 tom is the law of language." The name 
 Apostle, from the peculiar reverence at- 
 tached to it, (the first Apostles being in- 
 spired,) seems to have been dropt,* at an 
 early period, and the term Bishop taken 
 in its place ; while the term Presbyter 
 was alone retained by the second order of 
 ministers. 
 
 I. The argument for Episcopacy, by 
 which we mean the three-fold ministry, 1. 
 Bishops, (successors to Apostles), 2. Pres- 
 byters or Elders, and 3. Deacons, is as 
 follows — resting, of course, upon the pre- 
 mises already estabhshed from the scrip- 
 tures : 
 
 a.) The apostolic ministry had its ori- 
 gin in Christ personally. Their institu- 
 tion and commission, as we have proved, 
 were direct from him, and were designed 
 to continue "alway, even unto the end of 
 the world." But, inasmuch as the Divine 
 Founder of that ministry withdrew his 
 visible presence from The Church on 
 earth, that ministry, if it continue always 
 as it was designed to do, must perpetuate 
 themselves. 
 
 * See page 84, note. 
 
COMMISSION* 101 
 
 6.) The Elders had their origin from 
 the Apostles. ''They ordained them El- 
 ders in every church." So now must the 
 successors of the Apostles, or Chief Pas- 
 tors, ordain Elders ; but Elders cannot or- 
 dain other Elders. The act is utterly 
 without warrant of scripture, and contra- 
 ry to the law of Christ. 
 
 c) The same is true in respect to 
 Deacons. The three orders, then, dis- 
 tinct in their origins and commissions, can 
 never be merged into one another. 
 
 II. Again, the argument for Episco- 
 pacy stands thus : 
 
 a.) It has been proved that the Apos- 
 tles possessed the right to ordain and 
 send others in the ministry : 1 . from the 
 terms of their commission ; 2. from the 
 nature of the objects contemplated by 
 their commission ; 3. from the facts of 
 scripture — that they did actually exer- 
 cise this right in ordaining seven Dea- 
 cons ; in ordaining Presbyters in every 
 church ; in ordaining Timothy, Titus, 
 Barnabas, and others, to an office posses- 
 sing co-ordinate ministerial powers with 
 themselves, and superior to the Presby- 
 ters, whom Timothy and Titus, in the ex- 
 ercise of their individual, official rights, 
 
 9* 
 
102 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 ordained and ruled, and whom Barnabas 
 ordained. 
 
 6.) It has been shown that Elders had 
 the power, indeed, to "rule" and 'Hake 
 the oversight" ; but of what r Other El- 
 ders or many churches ? No^^ — but of *Hhe 
 flock," where the Holy Ghost, by the A- 
 postles, had respectively placed them : 
 and even this right was exercised subject 
 to the supervision and final decision of 
 the Apostles. Not a particle of evidence 
 exists to show that they possessed the 
 right to ordain ; or that that function was, 
 in a single instance, exercised by them. 
 
 c.) It appears from the sacred text, 
 that Deacons were ordained as the assis- 
 tants of the Apostles : that they were af- 
 terwards mentioned in the epistles to 
 Timothy and the Philippians as distinct 
 from the laity, and coupled with the Bish- 
 ops or Presbyters ; that they baptized, 
 (as Philip,) and occasionally preached, 
 (as Stephen) ; and were, therefore, an or- 
 der of ministers. 
 
 How shall this argument be evaded ? 
 By severing the first link in the golden 
 chain, and declaring "The office of Apos- 
 tles is acknowledged, on all hands, long 
 since to have terminated." (See Dvvight's 
 TheoL, vol. IV., p. 223.) Thus the 
 
COMMISSION. lOS 
 
 commission given to the eleven has be- 
 come extinct. The promise, too, that 
 Christ would be with them to the end of 
 the world, has failed : and the difficult 
 problem is presented, of tracing any exis- 
 ting ministry up to Christ himself, and 
 showing divine authority for The Church. 
 Next, by severing the last link, and slur- 
 ring the facts that Philip baptized and 
 Stephen preached ; and, confining the at- 
 tention to only one of the duties of Dea- 
 cons — the oversight of the poor — deny 
 that they were a ministerial order : and 
 thus the Elders are left alone — a link 
 in a broken chain — with nothing to de- 
 pend on ; no clear and personal connec- 
 tion in their ministerial office with Christ 
 — no ministry existing in The Church, 
 ''Sent, even as he was sent by the Fath- 
 er." This is the system of parity. And 
 could there be a more striking definition 
 of schism, ? — the breaking of that divine 
 chain, and casting off the ark of God 
 from those safe moorings where the Lord 
 had placed it — bearing it in hands unau- 
 thorized, hither and thither, till, in the 
 strifes of sectarian dissensions, it is made 
 a wreck. 
 
 Suppose that the Elders of the church- 
 es in Asia had renounced the apostolic 
 
104 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 authority of Paul and Barnabas, and 
 drawn off their flocks from the unity of 
 the apostolic church, and refused a hear- 
 ing to Paul and Barnabas, when they 
 made their visitation to the churches, 
 "confirming the souls of the disciples, 
 and exorting them to continue in the 
 faith ;'"* suppose that the Elders of Eph- 
 esus had taken upon themselves, to ordain 
 other Elders, and to rule themselves, re- 
 nouncing the authority, and protesting 
 against the interference of Timothy ; sup- 
 pose that the Elders of Crete had follow- 
 ed on in this march of liberty and equal- 
 ity, and ejected from their Island the a- 
 postolic Titus : this would have been par- 
 ity in those days : and will any one say it 
 would not have been schism ? We prove 
 Episcopacy, then, simply by the commis- 
 sion of Christ to the eleven — a proof of 
 the most legitimate and valid nature — 
 coupled with a few plain and indisputable 
 facts of scripture, illustrating that com- 
 mission, and showing the manner in which 
 it was exercised. 
 
 Let us now notice one or two of the 
 main objections drawn from scripture 
 against the doctrine we have advanced. 
 It is urged, "In all the addresses of their 
 
 ^See Acts, xiv. 22. 
 
COMMISSION. 105 
 
 several letters, by the Apostles, to the 
 churches, there is not, except in that just 
 mentioned, a single allusion to Bishops, as 
 a peculiar order ofmen.'^^ This is, indeed, 
 so. And why ? Because the writers of the 
 epistles themselves were the true overseers 
 or Bishops of the churches which they 
 addressed, both clergy and people. These 
 epistles are official charges on doctrine 
 and discipline — sometimes giving minute 
 directions, in specific cases, in the au- 
 thoritative language of an official superi- 
 or. Were not Paul and Peter and James 
 ministers of Christ ? We hear much 
 said against Episcopacy as a system that 
 W7?-churches other denominations ; but lo ! 
 here the Apostles themselves are 2m- 
 churched, and not reckoned among the 
 permanently commissioned ministers of the 
 Church. If a Bishop of the church in A- 
 merica, should address a charge to the 
 Presbyters (or parish-bishops) and Dea- 
 cons of his diocese, would he recognize 
 in his epistle more than two orders? Would 
 he be likely to speak of Bishops proper 
 in it ; either, 1., of Bishops of other dio- 
 ceses, over which he had no official con- 
 trol or oversight, or, 2., of himself — a 
 charge to himself! Precisely parallel is 
 the case before us. The Apostles are 
 
106 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 the Bishops, (though not known by that 
 particular title,) and the parties address- 
 ed are the remaining two orders — Elders 
 (or Bishops) and Deacons. After un- 
 churching the apostolic authors of the 
 epistles, it is, verily, an easy task to prove 
 that there are no Bishops, in the Episco- 
 pal sense, in the Church* 
 
 Again, referring to Phil, 1., "Paul and 
 Timotheus, servants of Jesus Christ, to 
 all the saints in Christ Jesus vy^ho are in 
 Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons,'^ 
 it is objected, "had the epistle been ad- 
 dressed to Bishops, Elders, and DeaconSy 
 it would have been thought, by an advo- 
 cate for prelatical episcopacy, absolutely 
 decisive in favor of three orders of eccle- 
 siastical officers." To this representation 
 of what would have been our opinions, 
 we must take exception. For had the 
 text read as supposed, we should then 
 have considered it as proof of the exis- 
 tence of four orders. The truth is, we 
 read the epistles just as the advocates for 
 parity read them ; but, like them, we dare 
 not un-chuYch their authors — the Apos- 
 tles, the chief ministers of the Church, to 
 whom the keys of Christ's kingdom on 
 earth were entrusted, and whose commis- 
 sion was as perpetual as the world. If, 
 
COMMISSION. 107 
 
 then, we regard the Apostles and their 
 coadjutors, such as Thuothy and others, 
 as commissioned ministers of the Church, 
 this very text, quoted above as conclusive 
 proof for parity, becomes an irrefragable 
 argument for Episcopacy, to wit : There 
 are mentioned, 1. the saints or lay-mem- 
 bers, 2. Elders, (Bishops,) 3. Deacons — 
 now, adding the authors of the official 
 charge, who held the supreme govern- 
 ment of the church at Philippi, Paul and 
 Timothy, acting in a co-ordinate capaci- 
 ty, and we have three orders. On this 
 single text, with the commission for our 
 guide, which we have seen is an ever- 
 enduring and perpetual commission, we 
 might rest the cause of Episcopacy. 
 
 To argue the cause of parity with any 
 effect, (if that were possible,) they are 
 bound to show, that Apostles and Elders 
 were but one order — possessing co-ordi- 
 nate ministerial rights ; to show that Tim- 
 othy did not in Ephesus, or Titus in Crete, 
 or Paul and Barnabas in Antioch, or all 
 the Apostles at Jerusalem, ordain Elders 
 and Deacons— but that Elders ordained 
 other Elders ; to show that Timothy did 
 not rule Elders in Ephesus, and Titus in 
 Crete^ (and elsewhere other Apostles,)— 
 but that the Elders, in the ^^presbyteries'' 
 
108 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 and ^'synods" assembled, ruled themselves 
 and their own churches ; that as soon as 
 any Apostles, for instance Peter or Paul, 
 established new churches, instead of re- 
 taining the chief discipline in their hands, 
 or committing it to Timothy or others, by 
 apostolic ordination, they left the church- 
 es, under the charge of the Elders or Pres- 
 byters, to take care of themselves. 
 
 But how shall all this be brought about ? 
 If the Apostles are declared a temporary 
 order, what becomes of their commission 
 and its strong expressions of perpetuity, 
 and the divine promise connected there- 
 with, of Christ's presence with the Apos- 
 tles, as suck^ to the world's end ? Is not 
 the renouncing of this sacred instrument, 
 an abandonment, in effect, of the minis- 
 try and of the Church ? Is it enough to 
 say, "the office of Apostles is acknowl- 
 edged, on all hands, long since, to have 
 terminated" ? 
 
 Again, if the Apostles are merged into 
 the Elders, it must be done in one of two 
 ways only, viz : either by elevating the 
 Elders to a level with them, or by bring- 
 ing them down to a footing with the El- 
 ders. But here many difficulties present 
 themselves, both in the theory and in the 
 facts. The latter expedient of bringing 
 
COxMMlSSldN. i09 
 
 down the Apostles, mutilates their com- 
 mission and office ; supposes that they 
 transmitted, not the commission which 
 they received from Christ and bore, but 
 an altered, an inferior one only — -suffer- 
 ing their own to perish. And the former 
 expedient of elevating the Elders to a 
 level with themselves, (as also the other 
 of bringing down the Apostles,) is at war 
 with all the facts of the case, which show 
 the Apostles to have been the superiors. 
 Witness their epistles, their acts of disci- 
 pline, their power of ordaining, their dis- 
 tinction from, and official superiority (in 
 the council at Jerusalem*) to the Elders. 
 **The Apostles and Elders came together 
 for to consider of this matter ;" "it pleas- 
 ed the Apostles and Elders, with the whole 
 church ;" ^Hhey wrote letters after this 
 manner : The Apostles and Elders and 
 Brethren, &c.'' So well aware of this 
 fact are many of our dissenting brethren, 
 that they are as far as any advocate of 
 Episcopacy, from making the attempt to 
 confound these two orders. Therefore, 
 they pronounce them, in a word, a tem- 
 porary order, and, with that fatal sentence, 
 goes the ministerial commission, and the 
 important, single link, which connects the 
 
 * Acts, xy. 
 
 10 
 
110 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 ministry to Christ, is severed ! Can this 
 be done, without i^??churching the whole 
 Church ? Is it no schism to renounce the 
 apostleship — or curtail it — or usurp it — or 
 convert it into Eldership ? Shall a sylla- 
 ble be added to, or taken from that com- 
 mission which Christ vouchsafed to pro- 
 tect and sustain forever ? It cannot be. 
 It is the divine charter of the Church — 
 her sacred constitution. 
 
 HI. Various arguments, in the way of 
 objections to the Episcopal scheme, have, 
 however, been pressed into the service of 
 parity. 
 
 1. If Episcopacy be true, it is objected 
 that all other churches are false ; a conclu- 
 sion against which christian charity and 
 common sense alike protest. But this 
 objection is not in reality, so appalHng as 
 would, at first sight of it, seem. For, in 
 ivhat sense are they false ? Not necessa- 
 rily in doctrine — not in the true spirit of 
 piety and zeal — not in the production of 
 the fruit of living faith, good w^orks — not 
 in love of Christ and immortal souls — not 
 in the spirit of prayer ; in a word, not 
 false in respect to any thing involved in 
 personal religion or private piety, but 
 false in their associated capacity as a 
 church ; invalid in their position in refer- 
 
COMMISSION. Ill 
 
 ence to the visible kingdom of the Re- 
 deemer on earth. Furthermore, the 
 great majority of the dissenting body of 
 christians are unconsciously in error : they 
 need to be informed. The Church hath 
 failed in no part of her duties and obliga- 
 tions so much as in this, the maintenance 
 of unity in her communion. For fear of 
 wounding the feelings of respected mem- 
 bers of other denominations, and from a 
 mistaken motive that the subject itself 
 was a mere external, a subordinate matter, 
 too many, whose duty it was to have pro- 
 claimed the truth from the very house- 
 tops, have suppressed that truth, or main- 
 tained a reserved silence in regard to it. 
 Let the objection have what weight it 
 may, it is one of that nature which in- 
 quirers after truth, the pure truth of God, 
 on this subject, will not and ought not 
 to regard. For when the mind is engag- 
 ed in search of absolute truth, the con- 
 sequences that may flow from that truth, 
 are no objections against it Expediency, 
 not truth, is concerned for consequences. 
 But in the case under consideration, the 
 objection does not necessarily involve the 
 salvation of those who compose the body 
 of non-episcopal associations. We say 
 not necessaribj, because we believe that 
 
112 THE MINISTERIAL 
 
 indirectly, and in part, the salvation of 
 tens of thousands is involved. By reason 
 of the divisions which are constantly go- 
 ing on, (as if by the operation of some 
 fixed law,) by the confusion of creeds, 
 the irregularity, or rather annihilation, of 
 discipline, (for ail is voluntary) by violent 
 ruptures, which set all the individuals of 
 a religious association loose from one 
 another, like the disbanding of an army ; 
 in a wreck such as this, which has more 
 than once occurred as the result of schism 
 from the Church, thousands of individuals 
 become wanderers from the fold of Christ, 
 lose their interest in religion, iheir minds 
 unsettled, their hearts alienated, till at last 
 they settle down in sceptical indifference, 
 if not positive unbelief. 1 f many of these 
 are parents, then, in just such proportion, 
 the spiritual condition of the rising gen- 
 eration is also involved. The evils of 
 schism are cumulative ; no man can esti- 
 mate the entire range of consequences. 
 The false principles are laid down as 
 truth by one generation, partially carried 
 out by the next, and found, by experience, 
 to be a badly working system, producing 
 immense and uncontrollable evils ; con- 
 summated, by a third, in one universal 
 chaos of independent and adverse sects^ 
 
COMMISSION. 113 
 
 and endless changes of religious creeds, 
 wherein, as in a labyrinth, the mind is ut- 
 terly lost. Thus are souls lost all along in 
 this sad line of dangerous experiments, 
 till, in the final and general failure of the 
 system, a whole generation of souls perish, 
 
 2. It is objected, that the doctrine of 
 Episcopacy is an arrogant assumption of 
 power, exclusive, tyrannical, a preistly 
 domination ; and many other like wild 
 and charitable epithets, have been resorted 
 to with the view of prejudicing the mind, 
 and giving currency to otherwise weak 
 objections. 
 
 To all this there is but one reply : our 
 aim is truth — the divine will in regard to 
 the Saviour's Church. Now, if Episco- 
 pacy be the doctrine of scripture, a pos- 
 itive and ever-abiding insitution of Christ, 
 in his commission for a ministry — if it be 
 the will of God — here is the end of the 
 matter. This answers all objections. As 
 to Episcopacy being exclusive, all truth 
 is, by its nature, exclusive. Christianity 
 itself is exclusive. The doctrines of our 
 blessed Redeemer are, by the objectors 
 to the atonement and eternal punishment^ 
 regarded as exclusive. 
 10* 
 
THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 
 
 We have before proved, that the apos« 
 tolic ministry was designed by its Divine 
 Founder to be perpetual to the end of the 
 world, and was, in fact, transmitted to 
 Timothy, Titus, and others, even in the 
 life-time of the original Apostles. Thus 
 the beginniiig of this succession is taught 
 us in holy scripture. But some satisfac- 
 tory proof is demanded, that this succes- 
 sion has continued unbroken through all 
 the ages of the Church, down to the 
 present time. Now, this point may be es- 
 tablished by the most indubitable eviden- 
 ces, such as may safely challenge the be- 
 lief of every christian. 
 
 In the first place, if the apostolic min- 
 istry was set up by the Saviour in his 
 Church, to manage its aifairs in his name 
 and by his authority, for all time, it follows 
 that the institution is divine, and being 
 divine, no human authority can supplant 
 it ; no change of time or fortune can 
 
THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 115 
 
 destroy it. If it is God's own work, He 
 surely has both the will and the power to 
 preserve it. And confidence in Him re- 
 quires that we believe in the unbroken 
 succession of His ministry, and the 
 consequent preservation of His Church. 
 Christ having sent forth his disciples to 
 act as His ambassadors till the end of 
 time, and having promised to be with 
 them always ; the succession is a subject 
 for our christian/az'/A. It is not possible 
 to escape this reasoning, except by deny- 
 ing the fact, that Christ ever gave a per- 
 petual commission. And this compels us 
 to regrad the ministry as an institution of 
 human origin, which may have had one, 
 or five hundred different sources ; which 
 may be started anew by any one to-day ; 
 and which, consequently, can have no 
 specific authority, only such as men 
 choose to give it from time to time. Such 
 an institution may wholly perish. With 
 persons who entertain such sentiments 
 we shall not here enter into a discussion. 
 Our concern is with those who believe, 
 what the scripture so plainly teaches, 
 that Christ did establish a Church and a 
 ministry in the world. From this fact the 
 argument for the succession is clear and 
 unanswerable, viz. the apostolic ministry, 
 
116 THE APOSTOLIC 
 
 being divine, never can have perished; it 
 has always had the protection of God. 
 
 Let us now suppose that it were requir- 
 ed to show, that our present copies of 
 the Bible are the pure unadulterated word 
 of God. How can this be done ? The 
 question is not whether the Bible be the 
 word of God ; that is admitted ; but wheth- 
 er our present Bibles are pure. Numer- 
 ous comparisons of different manuscripts, 
 careful and critical examinations, may 
 help to this ; but do these means infallibly 
 insure accuracy ? It cannot be said that 
 they do. We must resort to the doctrine 
 of divine protection. The Bible is con- 
 fessedly the work of the Holy Spirit — the 
 inspired word of God. This is and ever 
 has been the belief of all christians. — 
 That same spirit, therefore, who is the 
 author, is also the preserver of the Bible. 
 Thus it is with the ministry ; once admit 
 that Christ ordained and commissioned a 
 ministry in His Church, and we cannot 
 question the fact of its unbroken succes- 
 sion. Otherwise the authority which 
 Christ once gave is lost ; the office which 
 he created has ceased to be. Now, no 
 christian, with the record of the commis- 
 sion open before him in the Bible, can 
 entertain such a sentiment. 
 
SUCCESSION. 117 
 
 The second proof for the succession 
 is the well-known law and practice of th« 
 Church in all ages, in respect to conse- 
 crating Bishops. It was always a public 
 act, done in the presence of a sufficient 
 number of witnesses. In the earliest ages 
 of which we have any account, it was the 
 law of the Church, that three, or not less 
 than two Bishops should be present, and 
 take part in the consecration of a Bishop ; 
 besides these, there were necessarily 
 many other official witnesses to the fact. 
 
 In confirmation of this, we may cite the 
 first of the "apostolic canons," which 
 enacts, that "A Bishop be ordained by two 
 or three Bishops, a Priest by one Bishop, 
 and so, likewise, a Deacon." Now, inas- 
 much as these canons are referred to by 
 Athanasius, who was Bishop of Alexan- 
 dria, A. D. 326, and by St. Basil, who was 
 Bishop of Caesarea, A. D. 340, under the 
 title of ^'ancient ecclesiastical canons," 
 we must place them somewhere in the 
 second century, if not earlier. Moreover, 
 the ''Great Synod" of Nice, held, A. D. 
 325, in their thirteenth act, say, ''The old 
 canonical law shall be observed :" obvi- 
 ously meaning the apostolic canons. 
 Other references to this ancient code oc- 
 cur in the enactments of this council. 
 
118 
 
 THE APOSTOLIC 
 
 The Synod held at Antioch, A. D. 341, 
 also recognize, "the ancient canon which 
 was in force in the age of our Fathers," 
 which can mean only the apostolic canons. 
 So, too, the Synod of Constantinople, in 
 the case of Agapius and Bagadius, A. D. 
 394, appeal to ''the apostolic canons," by 
 that name. These apostolic canons, 
 therefore, were ancient, even in the early 
 part of the fourth century ; and were held 
 in universal esteem, both in the Eastern 
 and Western churches* — their ecclesias- 
 tical legislation, as we have seen, being 
 based upon them, and formally allowing 
 their authority. Accordingly, the first 
 and chief provision of the apostolic canons, 
 respecting the consecration of Bishops, 
 was adopted into all the churches. Nor 
 was this sufficient: but it was strengthen- 
 ed by additional enactments in the various 
 churches, even more strict than the orig- 
 inal. Thus the Synod of Antioch ruled, 
 that "no Bishop be ordained without a 
 Synod, and the presence of the Metropoli- 
 tan, who is to call all his fellow-bishops to 
 the Metropolis by letter; and it is best that 
 all meet; but, if this be not practicable, 
 yet a majority at least ought to be present, 
 
 *The church of Rome adopted the greater part, though not 
 all, of the ancient code. 
 
SUCCESSION. 119 
 
 or to give their consent by letter, and 
 then let the ordination be performed with 
 the presence or suffrage of the majority : 
 but if they proceed contrary to the De- 
 crees, let the ordination be of no force : 
 but if some contradict, out of an affecta- 
 tion of dispute, let the majority of voices 
 prevail." The Synod of Nice, also, enact- 
 ed : "a Bishop ought to be constituted by 
 all the Bishops that belong to the prov- 
 ince ; but if this be not practicable, by 
 reason of urgent necessity, or the length 
 of the way, three must by all means meet 
 together, and when they have the consent 
 of those who are absent, signified by let- 
 ter, then let them perform the ordination." 
 The African code enjoins, that, ''Agreea- 
 bly to the statutes of old, no number of 
 Bishops presume to ordain another with- 
 out the leave of the Metropolitan : three 
 may do it with his leave." Again ; "Not 
 less than three Bishops ordain a Bishop." 
 Now we are to understand, that three 
 ordainers were not necessary to render 
 ordination valid, but only canonical. For 
 there have been instances, under an 
 apparent necessity, where 07ie Bishop 
 might consecrate another. Thus the 
 Apostles. St. Paul ordained Clement; 
 and St. John ordained Evodius and Igna- 
 
120 THE APOSTOLIC 
 
 tius. So, too, in after ages, Augustine* and 
 Paulinus,t in Britain, respectively conse- 
 crated Bishops. Why, then, it will be ask- 
 ed, did the Church universally, from the 
 apostolic times, enact that three Bishops 
 should always be present, and take part in 
 the consecration of a Bishop? The obvi- 
 ous answer is, that the succession might 
 be preserved. For, if it should ever hap- 
 pen that one, or even two, of the conse- 
 crators was not a true Bishop, the third, 
 being such, would make the consecration 
 valid. So carefully has this point been 
 guarded ; as though it were (what indeed 
 it is) the very life of the Church visible on 
 earth. That all the three consecrators, 
 or even one of them, acting as they did 
 in public, and with the official warrant of 
 the particular Synod to which they be- 
 longed, were, in any case, impostors, sur- 
 passes the utmost bounds of credibility. 
 Besides, this subject bears evident marks 
 of a providential interference in behalf 
 of the divine institution of the ministry. 
 For this regulation, in regard to the num- 
 ber of consecrators, can claim no direct 
 scripture for its support, but rests solely 
 upon the ground of expediency or pru- 
 
 * Romish Arch- Bishop of Canterbury, 
 t Romish Arch-Bishop of York. 
 
SUCCESSION. 121 
 
 dence ; yet it has been religiously and 
 most faithfully observed in every age of 
 the Church. It was a point on v^hich there 
 seems to have been a universal agree- 
 ment. May we not safely say, then, that 
 this rule originally came from the Apos- 
 tles, and has since been kept in the Church 
 by the superintending care of a special 
 Providence ? The facts certainly must 
 wear that aspect to every reflecting mind. 
 In short, the members of the true Church 
 had always a deep and vital interest in 
 the succession, and, consequently, guard- 
 ed it with every possible precaution. — 
 And why? Because it was the very prin- 
 ciple of their existence — the foundation 
 upon which they rested. It is morally 
 certain they would guard the succession : 
 the only question is, could they so guard 
 it ? Was it in their power to control it ? 
 Undoubtedly it was. The parties inter- 
 ested in the preservation of the Church, 
 were the sole actors and agents in the 
 matter. Would they perpetrate a fraud 
 against themselves, and to the certain 
 ruin of their hopes and prospects? Would 
 they, who adhered to the Church because 
 it ims the Church, and had a valid minis- 
 try, falsify that ministry ? They would not 
 do it. If done at all, it must be done by 
 11 
 
122 THE APOSTOLIC 
 
 enemies and aliens. But could the Church, 
 in so important and public an act, be de- 
 ceived and duped ? A successful fraud can- 
 not be supposed. The nature of the case 
 renders it impossible. If the act was pub- 
 lic, it must be known whether the conse- 
 crators were Bishops or not. If, on the 
 contrary, the act was secret, that circum- 
 stance alone would render it suspected, 
 and cause it to be immediately rejected. 
 Eow stands the case now ? Is it with- 
 in the limits of possibility, that a presby- 
 ter, in this country or any other, can ob- 
 tain consecration to the Episcopate, ex- 
 cept in the regular and lawful way ? He 
 cannot. And the same reasons, that ren- 
 der a successful fraud impossible now;, 
 have always existed in their full force. 
 An attempt at fraud is a very different 
 thing from a successful and safe decep- 
 tion. Attempts have been made, from 
 time to time, to add human compositions 
 to the inspired volume— such as the 
 Apocraphy,or the spurious epistles of false 
 Apostles — but they were known by co- 
 temporaries to be impositions, and were 
 instantly exposed as such. And does the 
 mere possibility of such an attempt being 
 made, form a ground of objection to the 
 genuineness of scripture ? By no means. 
 
SUCCESSION. 1*23 
 
 Neither is the bare possibility of corrupt- 
 ing the succession, any proof that it has 
 been corrupted. Until, therefore, posi- 
 tive evidence to the contrary is adduced, 
 we may rest firmly in the belief that the 
 succession could not have been corrupted 
 by fraud, without the fact being known, 
 and, when known, corrected. 
 
 The third and direct proof for the suc- 
 cession is derived from history. The ar- 
 gument, under this head, may be briefly 
 stated thus : The recorded testimony of 
 all history is in support of the fact of an 
 unbroken succession. A list of names, 
 in direct decent of office from St. Paul to 
 Bishop White, of America, can be given. 
 Let this, if possible, be invalidated. Un- 
 til that is done, the proof must be admit- 
 ted as valid, by every candid mind. 
 
 There exists no doubt as to the succes- 
 sion in the American church, nor as to 
 the manner in which it was procured 
 from England. And as to the succession 
 in the church of P^ngland, we find that 
 sustained by the concurrent voice of his- 
 tory, in vain do we search for any ev- 
 idence of its having been corrupted or 
 destroyed. It is true, indeed, that the 
 enemies of that church, in two instances, 
 and two only, ventured to call in question 
 
124 THE APOSTOLIC 
 
 the English succession, but with what 
 little reason will be seen. The one is a 
 case of mere slander, which has been 
 amply and honorably retracted in the very 
 quarter in which it was made, viz : the 
 Romish church. The other is the result 
 of egregious errors, or of intentional mis- 
 representation. The first is the case of 
 Matthew Parker, in the reign of the 
 ''Protestant Elizabeth.'^ 
 
 The ridiculous stories respecting this 
 consecration, heard of for the first time 
 fifty years after the event had taken place, 
 originated with the Romanists, from no 
 better motive than hostility to the protes- 
 tant religion and government. And yet 
 Dr. Lingard, the most eminent of the Ro- 
 man Catholic historians, upon a fair and 
 full investigation of the whole case, admits 
 the consecration to have been validly 
 performed. "I should not hesitate to 
 pronounce in favor of this consecration," 
 says this impartial writer, "if even all di- 
 rect and positive evidence respecting it 
 had perished. But there exists such evi- 
 dence in abundance. That Parker was 
 consecrated on the 1 7th December is as- 
 serted, 1st. by Camden, [I., 49,] 2d., by 
 Godwin, [De Praes, p. 219,] 3d., by the 
 Archbishop himself in his work, De An- 
 
SUCCESSION. 125 
 
 tiquitate Britannicae Ecclesiae, published 
 in 1572, three years before his death ; or 
 if that book be denied to be his, in his 
 diary, in which occurs the following entry 
 in his own hand, ^17th Dec, Ann., 1559, 
 consecratus sum in Archiepiscopum Can- 
 tauriensem. Heu ! Domine Deus, in quae 
 tempora servasti me !' [Strype's Parker, 
 App. 15.] And 4th, by the Archiepisco- 
 pal Register, a record which details the 
 whole proceeding, with the names of the 
 Bishops, of their chaplains, and of the 
 official witnesses. Now to this mass of 
 evidence, direct and indirect, what does 
 your correspondent oppose ? That Har- 
 ding and Stapleton, and the more ancient 
 Catholic controvertists, denied that Par- 
 ker was a Bishop. That is, indeed true : 
 but I always understood that their objec- 
 tions (which is certainly the case with re- 
 spect to the two passages quoted in your 
 last number) referred to validity, [i. e., ac- 
 cording to the Romish form^'] not to the 
 fact of his consecration ; and if Dr. Mil- 
 ner has chanced to assert the contrary, I 
 fear that he wrote it hastily and without 
 consideration. I am not aware of any 
 open denial of the facts, till about fifty 
 years afterward, when the tale of the fool- 
 ery supposed to have been played at the 
 
1^6 THE APOSTOLIC 
 
 Nag's Head was published. In refutation 
 of that story, protestant writers appealed 
 to the Register ; their opponents disputed 
 its authority ; and the consequence v»^as, 
 that, in 16145 Arch-bishop Abbot invited 
 Colleton, the arch-priest, with two or 
 three other [Horaan] Catholic mission- 
 aries, to Lambeth, and submitted the 
 Register to their inspection, in the pres- 
 ence of six of his own episcopal col- 
 leagues. The details may be seen in 
 Dodds, II., 277, or in Godwin, p. 219. — 
 Your correspondent assures us that the 
 Register contains 'so many inaccuracies 
 and points at variance with the history of 
 the times, as manifestly prove it a forge- 
 ry.' Were it so, there still remains suffi- 
 cient evidence of the fact. But what in- 
 duces him to make this assertion ? Has he 
 examined into all the circumstances of the 
 case? Or does he only take for granted the 
 validity of the several objections which are 
 founded on misconception or ignorance; 
 that the Register agrees in every partic- 
 ular with what he knew of the history 
 of the times ; and there exists not the 
 semblance of a reason for pronouncing it 
 a forgery."* 
 
 * See Dr. Lingard's reply to the correspondent of the "Ber- 
 mingham Catholic Magazine," in defence of his famous note 
 H. affixed to his History of England. 
 
SUCCESSiON. 127 
 
 This decided and full expression of 
 opinion, coming, as it does, from a Ro- 
 man Catholic, who has sifted this whole 
 controversy, and who, moreover, had ac- 
 cess to every species of evidence and in- 
 formation bearing on the matter, ought to 
 be considered conclusive.* 
 
 The case serves to show us how impos- 
 sible it was to impugn the validity, or 
 even to cast a shade of suspicion upon 
 an act done in so public and formal a 
 manner as the consecration of a Bishop. 
 If the consecration were fraudulent, noth- 
 ing would be easier than to expose it. — 
 Individuals, who would feel it both their 
 interest and duty to do this, never were 
 wanting. If, on the other hand, it were 
 true, no ingenuity of slander or misrepre- 
 sentation could, for a moment, destroy 
 its credit. 
 
 Seco7idly, The assertion, which is 
 sometimes made by the opponents of epis- 
 copacy, that St. Aidan, a Presbyter of 
 the monastery of St. Columba, in the Is- 
 land of Hii, in Scotland, in the seventh 
 century, was sent by the Abbott and other 
 Presbyters of the monastery, to ordain 
 Bishops in England, is so gross a misrep- 
 resentation of Bede as hardly to deserve 
 
 *' See Appendix. 
 
128 THE APOSTOLIC 
 
 a formal refutation. This assertion, to 
 be of any value, for the purpose for which 
 it is made, takes for granted a fact, which 
 not only cannot be proved, but is directly 
 opposed to the testimony of Bede, viz : 
 that there were no Bishops in the monas- 
 tery. Bede, in his description of the mon- 
 astery of St. Columba, in the Island of 
 lona^ (or Hii, I, or l-calm-kill,) one of the 
 larger of the Hebrides or Western Isles, 
 particularly notices and comments on the 
 peculiar feature of the institution, i. e. 
 that the Bishops, reserving the appropri- 
 ate functions of their episcopal office, yet 
 submitted themselves, in all other things, 
 to the Abbott and the rules of the monas- 
 tery. "Let no one," says he ''wonder at 
 this, for it is even so : from Aidan down 
 to the present day, all the prelates (antis- 
 tites) of that place, so exercise the epis- 
 copal office, that while the Abbott governs 
 the monastery, (whom they, with the ad- 
 vice of the brethren, choose,) all the Pres- 
 byters^ Deacons^ singers and readers, and 
 other grades of ecclesiastics, with the 
 Bishop himself, obey, in all things, the 
 monastic rules. "^ It is incredible that 
 
 * Neque aliquis miretur — enim revera ita est — Ab Aidano 
 omnes loci ipsius antistes usque hodie sic episcopale exercent 
 officium, ut regente monasterium Abbate, quem ipsi cum con- 
 cilio fratrum elegerint. omnes presbyteri, diaconi, cantorea. 
 
SUCCESSION. 129 
 
 when Oswald, king of Northumbria, only 
 forty-eight years after Augustine's arrival 
 in England, and the establishment of epis- 
 copacy by him, (which also previously 
 existed in the ancient church,) requested 
 Bishops from Scotland, that this very 
 Monastery of lona or Hii, &lc. should have 
 sent Aidan with only Presbyterian ordina- 
 tion, when there were always, according 
 to Bede's testimony. Bishops (and their 
 superiority expressly recognized) in the 
 monastery. '' They so exercised the episco- 
 pal office,''^ says the venerable historian, 
 ''that they still submitted to the rules of 
 the institution." 
 
 It is believed by some, that the succes- 
 sion in the English church is necessarily 
 traced through the church of Rome. But 
 this is an entire mistake, which a more 
 intimate, knowledge of history would have 
 corrected. For, in A. D. 59G, when Au- 
 gustine, a Bishop and missionary from 
 Kome, under the auspices of Gregory the 
 Great, arrived in Britain, he found a chris- 
 tian church already planted there, with 
 its Bishops and other clergy. The Roman 
 Catholic historian, Lingard, speaking of 
 Augustine, says : "he acted with a vigor 
 
 lectoreSjCceteriquegradus ecclesiastici, monachicam per omnia 
 cum ipso episcopo regiilani servant. Bed. vit. Cuth. c. xv. 1. 
 
130 THE APOSTOLfC 
 
 proportionate to the confidence which 
 Gregory had reposed in his zeal, and by 
 the influence of Ethelbert, prevailed on 
 some of the British prelates to meet him 
 near the confines of their country. From 
 morning to night he labored to effect an 
 accommodation. His exhortations, en- 
 treaties, and menaces, were ineffectual ; 
 but a miracle is said to have subdued their 
 obstinacy, and a promise was extorted, 
 that they would renew the conference on 
 a future day. The promise was observed ; 
 but not until they had consulted a neigh- 
 boring hermit, famed for sanctity and wis- 
 dom. His answer betrays their secret 
 apprehensions, and shows that the inde- 
 pendence of their church was the chief ob- 
 ject of their solicitude. He advised them 
 to watch jealously the conduct of the mis- 
 sionary : if he rose to meet them, they 
 might consider him as a man of a meek 
 and unassuming temper, and securely lis- 
 ten to his demands : but, if he kept his seat, 
 they should condemn him of pride, and 
 return the insult with equal pride. On the 
 appointed day, seven Bishops, accompa- 
 nied by Dinoth, Abbott of Bangor, repair- 
 ed to the conference. Augustine had ar- 
 rived before them : he did not rise at their 
 approach, and the advice of the hermit 
 
SUCCESSION. 131 
 
 was religiously obeyed. To facilitate their 
 compliance, the missionary had reduced 
 his demands to three : that they should 
 observe the orthodox computation of Eas- 
 ter ; should conform to the Roman rite, in 
 the administration of baptism ; and join 
 with him in preaching the gospel to the 
 Saxons. Each request was refused^ and 
 his metropolitan authority contemptuously 
 rejected." 
 
 Now this difference in the observance 
 of the time of Easter,* on which the 
 
 * The modes of computing the time of the Easter festival, 
 have been various in the christian church. The churches of 
 Asia kept their Easter upon the same day on which the Jews 
 celebrated their Passover. Hence they were called Quartode- 
 cimans, or such as kept Easter upon the fourteenth day after 
 the appearance of the moon, which followed the vernal equinox 
 in each year. This epoch being variable, might bring Easter 
 upon any day of the week. The Western and other Churches 
 did not follow this custom, but observed their Easter on the 
 Sunday following the Jewish passover. This discrepancy, the 
 council of Nice endeavored to reconcile, by establishing the 
 latter of the two methods above mentioned. The Alexandrian 
 cycle of years, however, was different from that employed by 
 the Roman church ; hence, there still remained a great diversity 
 in the time of observing Easter between the churches of the 
 East and tlie West. Wearied of the contests growing out of 
 this want of uniformity, the chuich of Rome, about the middle 
 of the sixteenth century, adopted a new cycle according to ta- 
 bles drawn up by Diorysius Exiguus. The time fixed in these 
 tables for observing Easter, was imposed by the council of 
 Chalcedon, upon all the churches, on pain of incurring the 
 charge of heresy. 
 
 Now that the British christians knew nothing of all this, is 
 evident from the assertion of Bede, 1. iii. c. 4. — *^That they 
 were so remotely situated that no one had extended to them 
 the synodical decrees respecting the observance of the Paschal 
 festival." That they were not Quartodecimans, Lingard him- 
 self has proved, by a reflference to Bede, 1 . iii, c. 14, 17, where it 
 
132 THE APOSTOLIC 
 
 church of Rome was universally agreed, 
 and conformity to which she imperiously 
 and without exception demanded, of all 
 who were subject to her — this especially, 
 as well as the difference in the rite of ad- 
 ministering baptism, prove that this an- 
 cient British church never had been under 
 her dominion. That they were not subject 
 to Rome, when Agustine first came among 
 them, is beyond controversy true. That 
 they had Bishops of their own, is also 
 equally clear. 
 
 is said, that they observed Easter on the fourteenth day of the 
 moon, only when that day happened to be a Sunday. That 
 their ancestors were not Quartodecimans, he likewise proves, 
 by citing Eusebius' hist. 1. v. c. 23, also Socrates, 1. v. c. 21, 
 and other authorities. 
 
 That they did not follow, in Augustine's time, the Roman 
 computation of Easter, is clear from the disputes which took 
 place between their Bishops and Augustine, on that very sub- 
 ject. Neither did they follow the ancient rule of the Roman 
 church ; for, says Lingard, "they observed, in the computation 
 of Easter, a rule 'peculiar to themselves.'' Now, how shall we 
 account for this fact ^ Dr. Lingard assures us that they had 
 the "ancient cycle" of the Latin church, but by reason of their 
 ignorance knew not how to apply it : i. e. they erroneously ap- 
 plied it. But what evidence is adduced on this point.'' None 
 whatever. Nay, Dr. Lingard seems to contradict himself, for 
 he says they had a rule peculiar to themselves. And this au- 
 thor, moreover, informs us, that these British Christians, when 
 asked to give a reason for their custom in the time of observing 
 Easter, replied, that they had received it from their forefathers. 
 In fine, it is admitted that this ancient church had their own time, 
 different from that of all other christians, for the Easter festival ; 
 and the only admissable explanation of this circumstance, is 
 given by themselves, that their custom was peculiar to their 
 church, and beyond the memory of man. This proves that 
 their church was not only independent of Rome, and always 
 had been so, but that its origin was Apostolic, agreeably to the 
 testimony of Eusebius and Theodoret. 
 
SUCCESSION* 133 
 
 The only point, then, of importance to 
 determine, is the origin of this church, and 
 Its apostolic succession. This point must 
 of course, be settled by the testimony of 
 history, and that testimony, being of a 
 respectable and accredited character, 
 ought to be considered decisive. We 
 shall adduce the evidence on this point, 
 according to the antiquity of the different 
 writers, rather than the exphcitness or 
 value of their respective statements.— 
 And first, Clement, Bishop of Rome, 
 as he is the carUest, so he is the most 
 credible witness. In his first epistle to the 
 Corinthians,* he says: ''Paul received the 
 reward of his patience. He preached both 
 in the East and in the West; and, having 
 taught the whole world righteousness, and 
 tor that end travelled even to the ut- 
 termost BOUNDS of the WEST, he at last 
 suttered martyrdom by the command of 
 the governors." Now, it is to be partic- 
 ularly noticed here, that Clement does 
 not merely assert that St. Paul "preached 
 %n the WestP~\\^^i would have been too 
 general to have designated Britain, with 
 any degree of certainty— but he adds : 
 
 m ^5"^^^^^^!^ ^^ ^^^ '^^^^^^^ hounds of the 
 yyesU^^ It IS this last expression, so 
 
 * Arch-Biahop Wake's translation, chap. Ill 
 
134 THE APOSTOLIC 
 
 pointedly made by Clement, that renders 
 his testimony absolutely conclusive on the 
 fact of Paul's visiting Britain. For, in 
 the language of his day, and long before 
 it, Britain was styled the utmost Island"^ 
 of the West, and the British ocean w^as 
 called the Wester?i.\ If, then, St. Paul 
 w^ent to the utmost bounds of the West, 
 he must have visited Britain. 
 
 TertullianI remarks : "There are 
 places among the Britons, v^hich were 
 inaccessible to the Romans, but yet are 
 subdued by Christ." 
 
 Origen|| remarks: ''The power of 
 God our Saviour is even with them in 
 Britain, who are divided from our world." 
 
 EusEBius^ is very explicit, saying, that 
 some of the Apostles ''passed over the 
 ocean, and preached to those which are 
 called the Britannic Islands,'''^ This wri- 
 ter was furnished with every means of in- 
 formation on these subjects, and doubt- 
 less was well assured of the fact here as- 
 
 * So Catullus Carm., xxvii., 1. 12: De Mamurra; '<Fuisti 
 in ultima Occidentis insula." 
 
 t So Plutarch, Eusebius, and Nicephorus. 
 
 X Tertul. Adv. Judjeos, c. 7. Britanorum inaceessa Romaniss 
 loca Christo vero subdita. 
 
 II Orig, in Luc, cap, L, Horn. 6. 
 
 § Uper ton okeanon parelthein epi tas kaloumenas Brittani- 
 kas nasous. Dem. Evang., 1. 1, c- 7, 
 
SUCCESSION. 135 
 
 serted. Next to him, Theodoket* tells 
 us, that *^the Apostles [whom he styles 
 fishermen, publicans, and tent-makers] 
 persuaded not only the Romans, but also 
 the Britons^ to receive the Imvs of the Cm- 
 cified,'^^ 
 
 Finally, GiLDAS,t the earliest of the 
 British historians, informs us, that the 
 gospel was first preached in Britain about 
 the time of the revolt of Boadicea, queen 
 of Iceni, in Britain, during the reign of 
 Neris, (A. D. 60, or 61.) Referring to 
 this revolt, Gildas says: ''In the mean 
 time, Christ, the true sun, afforded his 
 rays, that is, the knowledge of his pre- 
 cepts, to this Island, benumbed with ex- 
 treme cold, having been at a great dis- 
 tance from the sun, not the sun in the fir- 
 mament, but the Eternal Sun in heaven." 
 
 Now, against this mass of testimony, to 
 show that the Apostles (one of whom, in 
 this expedition, wascertainly Paul, the tent- 
 maker) established Christianity in Britain, 
 there is nothing whatever to oppose. 
 
 But leaving the question of this succes- 
 sion in the English Church, which is in- 
 vulnerable in every point, it will still be 
 
 * Hoi de ameteroi alicis ou monon tous Romaious alia kai 
 Britanous dexasthai tou Staurothentos tous noraous anepeisan. 
 Theod. torn. iv.. Serm. 9- 
 
 i Epist. c. L 
 
136 THE APOSTOLIC 
 
 urged, perhaps, that the succession had 
 been previously corrupted in the Church 
 of Rome, and that, consequently, when 
 she became dominant in Britain, her de- 
 fect was grafted into the Church of Eng- 
 land. This supposition, however, has no 
 color of support from facts* 
 
 For, however unsound the Church of 
 Rome was in many important points, both 
 of faith and practice, it has always been 
 admitted that this one, of the validity of 
 her consecrations, she guarded with a 
 most scrupulous care» To this truth, his- 
 tory again bears the fullest attestation ; 
 and a complete list of her Bishops^ from 
 the Apostles, is on record— not on private 
 record merely, but on the page of univer- 
 sal history, and intimately interwoven 
 with the events of every age. We some- 
 times, indeed, hear it urged, as an objec- 
 tion to tracing the succession through 
 Rome, that there were, at one time, two 
 or more claimants to the papacy, each of 
 whom denounced the other as a usurper. 
 Now this objection, at first sight, is plausi- 
 ble, but a moment's reflection is sufficient 
 to put it to flight. For, let us suppose 
 that there were, at the same time, several 
 individuals claiming to be Pope. Does 
 this prove that they were not all true bish- 
 
SUCCESSION. 137 
 
 ops ? It proves nothing on this point. For, 
 in the first place, they may have been 
 bishops prior to their election to the pa- 
 pacy: if so, the matter is at once put to 
 rest. And if they were presbyters, they 
 must have been made bishops when they 
 were consecrated to the papacy. It is 
 obvious that it was not the validity of their 
 episcopal consecration that was contested, 
 but their choice or election to the papacy. 
 The question was, which of the rival 
 claimants was Pope, and not whether they 
 had received valid consecration as bish- 
 ops. This no one thought of disputing, 
 for it was not the point at issue between 
 them, nor was it open to dispute. The 
 very faction and jealousy that existed 
 among them, would have secured this, at 
 least, beyond the reach of controversy. 
 The truth is, the succession in the Church 
 of Rome has never, in a single instance, 
 been contested ; nor has anything in the 
 shape of an argument been urged against 
 it, excepting some such unfounded objec- 
 tion as that which we have just noticed ; 
 or some story of romance, which, in an age 
 of superstition, was easily, invented, and 
 as easily credited.* 
 
 * Such is the story of a female Pope, whom some name Jo- 
 anna, alias Agnes, alias Isabel, alias Margaret, &c. &c. This 
 12* 
 
138 THE APOSTOLIC 
 
 We claim a succession, then, for the 
 EngHsh, and, consequently, the American 
 Church, dirext i'rom the Apostles, though 
 we know of no objection to tracing it 
 through Rome, if that is required. 
 
 The ancient church of Britain, our true 
 ancestor, was, indeed, subjugated for a 
 time, by the intrigues and power of Rome, 
 and her distinctive existence even lost; but 
 her spirit never perished. It shone forth, 
 in its pristine purity and vigor, in Wick- 
 liffe, as early as the middle of the four- 
 teenth century. He knew, as others did, 
 that Rome was an intruder, and boldly 
 protested against her corruptions and 
 usurpations, till the day of his death. — 
 To him succeeded that "noble army of 
 martyrs," by whose prayers and sufferings 
 the apostolic Church of Britain was at 
 length freed from the yoke of the foreign 
 usurper. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary here to remark, 
 that the saying, which we so often hear, 
 that the Church of England had its origin 
 in that of Rome, and was never known 
 before the time of Henry VI H., is totally 
 untrue. When we hear an individual 
 
 story was not publislied to the world, till nearly two centuries 
 after the alledged time of its occurrence ; and is manifestly 
 Xqo ridiculous to be mentioned in serious earnest. — See Dr. 
 Murdock's note, ad loc ■ Mosheim. 
 
SUCCESSION. 139 
 
 making this assertion, we may safely con- 
 clude, that he makes it from prejudice, 
 and not as the result of his impartial inqui- 
 ries. The Church of England, at the 
 reformation, came forth, indeed, from 
 Rome; but in doing so, she did no more 
 than claim again that apostolic liberty and 
 purity, which were her birth-right. But 
 when ignorant men endeavor to cast an 
 unjust odium upon us, by asking, where 
 was your church before Henry Vlll. ? we 
 may reply by another question : and where 
 was yours before the reformation ? Was 
 it not even in the communion of Rome, 
 from which Luther, and Calvin, and their 
 adherents, separated ? It is evident that 
 the reformation, whether in England or 
 on the continent, was from Rome. The 
 true distinction between us and our oppo- 
 nents is, that we reformed coiistitutional- 
 ly — according to the divine law — bringing 
 with us the apostolic authority and com- 
 mission, which tbe Saviour gave to his 
 Church, as a perpetual institution — and 
 they reformed without these. 
 
 It will be seen that we have rested the 
 proof for an unbroken succession upon 
 the unanimous testimony of history. This 
 we consider conclusive, because the sub- 
 ject to which it refers, is of the most 
 
140 THE APOSTOLIC 
 
 public character, necessarily and closely 
 connected with the events of each age. 
 We argue that fraud was impossible. The 
 body of official witnesses, in the case of 
 every consecration, and of interested con- 
 stituents, both friends and enemies, was 
 too large, and too watchful to be deceived. 
 To this, we may add, the attested certifi- 
 cates or registers of consecrations, care- 
 fully preserved in every church— open like 
 any other public documents, to the inspec- 
 tion of all who entertained a doubt, as in 
 the case of the register of Parker's con- 
 secration in England,* Furthermore, 
 when this testimony of history is undis- 
 puted, even by cotemporaries, who were 
 every way competent to judge, and were 
 eye-witnesses of the fact, I repeat, that it 
 must be considered as entirely satisfactory. 
 You will say that you do not question that 
 these persons whom history mentions as 
 bishops, held the office, and exercised the 
 functions, of a bishop — but this is not 
 conclusive proof that they were duly con- 
 secrated. But we reply, that this very 
 consecration, in the opinion of the Church 
 in every age, constituted an individual a 
 bishop; and without this, he must have 
 been regarded as a mere pretender, or 
 
 * See Page 124. 
 
SUCCESSION* 141 
 
 imposter^ or usurper; when, thereforcy 
 their constituents, eye-witnesses, living in 
 the same age, acknowledge and call an 
 individual bishop, they thereby testify to 
 his consecration, which alone could make 
 him such. We might as well admit that 
 George Washington was President of the 
 United States, and yet deny that he ever 
 was inaugurated or took the oath of office : 
 but if you say that this is ail duly attested , 
 where and how is it attested? You must 
 go and search the archives of the nation, 
 and read the proof for yourself; you must 
 examine its authenticity, as you would 
 some title deed to property. And precise- 
 ly so in the case of bishops. If you will 
 not receive the testimony of living wit- 
 nesses, who have given us the names and 
 history of the bishops of any particular 
 age, you must go to England or Europe 
 and examine the registers of consecra- 
 tions. But w^hat folly is all this cavil and 
 skepticism! Others were competent to 
 inquire into these facts and judge of them, 
 to inspect registers in any doubtful casCy 
 as well as ourselves; and if they were 
 satisfied — both friends and enemies— how 
 can we, with any show of candor or rea- 
 son, reject their testimony ? One thing, 
 however, is quite certain : though we may 
 
142 THE APOSTOLIC 
 
 reject their testimony, we cannot show 
 it to be false, or invalidate it, or give a 
 reason for rejecting it. 
 
 In support, then, of the apostolic succes- 
 sion, we have shown, firsts that the minis- 
 try is a divine institution, having a divine 
 promise from Christ of perpetual protec- 
 tion ; and as neither God's institutions, 
 nor His promise can fail, christian faith 
 requires us to believe in the succession. 
 Secondly^ the universal law of the Church, 
 as to her manner of conducting consecra- 
 tions, at least three bishops uniting in the 
 act, and all open to the inspection of many 
 official witnesses, and having the consent 
 of the Church previously secured — all 
 which rendered fraud impossible, and the 
 very supposition of it absurd. Thirdly, the 
 concurrent testimony of history, directly 
 in evidence, to prove the actual succession 
 of a line of bishops from St. Paul to Bish- 
 op White, which testimony cannot be im- 
 peached.^ 
 
 The true ground, however, upon which 
 to rest this subject of the succession, is 
 that of christian faith. It has ever been a 
 doctrine of the Catholic Church, and to 
 deny or question it would have been con- 
 sidered, by the faithful in all ages, as an 
 
 "^See Appendix. 
 
SUCCESSION. 143 
 
 act of great impiety. They believed it to 
 be taught in holy scripture, in the Saviour's 
 gracious promise to be with and preserve 
 his Church ; they believed it to have been 
 handed down from Christ and his Apostles ; 
 they received it in all their general coun- 
 cils as a settled principle, which was not 
 to be doubted by any : they most earnestly 
 enforced it in their private and public 
 epistles to the churches, as the effectual 
 remedy against schism : unity, submission 
 to Christ's authority in his Church, one 
 Lord, one faith, one baptism, one altar, 
 one ministry, were topics upon which they 
 dwelt with earnest solicitude. Following 
 the example of these men of primitive faith 
 and piety, it is delightful to see our own 
 Church still bearing witness to this doc- 
 trine^ in one of her prayers in the ''Office 
 of Institution," in the following words : 
 
 "Oh Holy Jesus, who hast purchased 
 to thyself an universal Church, and hast 
 promised to be with the Ministers of Apos- 
 tolic SUCCESSION to the end of the world !" 
 
 historic testimony on this subject. 
 
 The witnesses, in behalf of the apostolic 
 succession, are numerous among the an- 
 cient ecclesiastical writers. They attest 
 
144 THE APOSTOLIC 
 
 the fact, both of episcopacy and the succes- 
 sion, in the most decided manner, evidently 
 regarding it as one of the cardinal and es- 
 sential features in the Church of Christ- 
 nay, the very foundation upon v^hich it 
 rested. No succession, no Bishop ; and no 
 Bishop, no church ; was the universal belief 
 and teaching of the primitive Church. 
 
 A. D. 64-70. — — Clement, first Bish- 
 op of Rome, mentioned by St. Paul, in 
 Phil. iv. 3. That the person here spoken 
 of and Clement of Rome are the same, is 
 affirmed by Eusebius,* Epiphanius,t and 
 St. Hierome.J 
 
 In his first epistle to the Corinthians, 
 now extant, Clement writes : 
 
 *'So likewise our Apostles knew by our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, that there should arise 
 contentions on account of the ministry : 
 and, therefore, having a perfect knowl- 
 edge of this, they [the Apostles] appoint- 
 ed persons, as we have before said, and 
 gave directions how, when they should die, 
 other chosen and approved men should 
 succede in their ministry." 
 
 We have here the testimony of one who 
 was the personal companion of St. Paul, 
 
 * Euseb, Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. cap. 12th. 
 t Epiph. Adv. Carpocr. lib. i. n. 6. 
 tHieronym, in his Com. on Phil. iv. 3. 
 
SUCCESSION. 145 
 
 affirming that the succession of the Bish- 
 ops was commanded by the Apostles. 
 
 A. D. 67. Ignatius, the disciple of 
 
 St. John — for forty years the Bishop of 
 Antioch. He suffered martyrdom under 
 Trajan, at Rome, whither he was sent 
 for that purpose, about A. D. 107. In 
 his epistle to the church of Philadelphia, 
 in Asia, he writes : 
 
 ''Which also I salute in the blood of 
 Jesus Christ, which is our eternal and 
 undefiled joy ; especially if they are at 
 unity with the Bishop and Presbyters, 
 who are with him, and the Deacons, 
 appointed according to the mind of Jesus 
 Christ ; whom he has settled according 
 to his own will, in all firmness, by his 
 Holy Spirit. Which Bishop, I know, 
 obtained that great ministry among you, 
 not of himself, neither by men, nor out of 
 vain glory, but by the love of God the 
 Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Be 
 not deeieved, brethren : if any one follows 
 him that makes a schism in the Church, 
 he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 
 If any one walks after any other opinion, 
 he agrees not with the passion of Christ. 
 Wherefore, let it be your endeavor to 
 partake all of the same holy eucharist, 
 (Lord's Supper.) For there is but one 
 13 
 
146 THE APOSTOLIC 
 
 flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ; and one 
 cup in the unity of his blood; one altar; 
 as also there is one Bishop, together with 
 his Presbytery, and the Deacons, my fel- 
 low servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, 
 ye may do it according to the will of God !'' 
 
 A. D. 170. Iren^us, Bishop of Ly- 
 ons, and disciple of Polycarp, writes, (lib. 
 3, cap. 3.) 
 
 ''We can reckon those Bishops, who 
 have been constituted by the Apostles and 
 their successors, all the way to our times. 
 We have the succession of the Bishops to 
 whom the apostolic Church in every place 
 was committed." 
 
 The reader will observe how entirely 
 this agrees with the statement made by 
 Clement, that the ^Apostles committed the 
 churches, in different places, to faithful 
 men, as their successors. 
 
 A. D. 200. Tertullian, a presby- 
 ter of Carthage, writes: (De Prescript, c. 
 32.) "Let them produce the originals of 
 their churches, and show the order of their 
 Bishops, so running down successively 
 from the beginning, as that every first Bish- 
 op among them shall have had, for his 
 author and predecessor, some one of the 
 Apostles or apostolic men, who continued 
 with the Apostles. For in tliis manner 
 
SUCCESSION. 14? 
 
 the apostolic churches bring down their 
 registers : as the church of Smyrna from 
 Polycarp, placed there by John ; the church 
 of Rome from Clement, ordained by Peter ; 
 and so do the rest prove their apostolic 
 origin, by exhibiting those who were con- 
 stituted their Bishops by the Apostles." 
 
 A. D. 250. 1. Cyprian, Bishop of 
 
 Carthage, (Epist. 27*) Having spoken of 
 the ministerial commission given by Christ 
 to his Apostles, he says : 
 
 "From thence, through the changes of 
 times and successions, the ordination of 
 Bishops and the government of the Church 
 have descended, so that the Church is 
 built upon the Bishops." 
 
 No writer of the primitive Church, 
 whose works have descended to us, is so 
 strenuous an advocate for episcopacy as 
 Cyprian. Every where in his "epistles," 
 as well as in his treatise on "the unity of 
 the Church," evidence abounds in favor 
 of the three-fold ministry. On the author- 
 ity of the learned S. R. Schlegel, we insert 
 the following references. "He inculcates, 
 on all occasions, that Bishops derive their 
 office, not so much from their election by 
 the clergy and people, as from the attes- 
 tation and decree of God. See Ep. liii. 
 p. 68, 69. Ep. xiv. p. 59. Ep. Iv. p. 82. 
 
148 THE APOSTOLIC 
 
 Ep. Ixv. p. 113. Ep. Ixix. p. 121. He 
 regards Bishops as the successors of the 
 Apostles, Ep. xiiii. p. 57. So that bishops 
 are amenable to God only ; while pres- 
 byters are amenable to the religious soci- 
 ety. Ep. xi. p. 19. Deacons were crea- 
 ted by the Bishop ; and, therefore, can be 
 punished by him, without the voice of the 
 society. Ep. Ixv. p. 114." Much more 
 to the same purpose might be added ; 
 and, after making every abatement for 
 what is termed, by some, the arrogance of 
 this learned father of the Church, enough 
 remains to prove conclusively, that epis- 
 copacy, or the three-fold ministry, is a di- 
 vine institution, upon which alone the 
 Church of Christ is founded We are to 
 bear in mind, also, that this writer lived 
 near the apostolic times, for in 250, when 
 he was promoted to the See of Carthage, 
 he was at an advanced period of his life. 
 
 2. FiKMiLLiAN, bishop of CsBsarea, (epis. 
 to Cyprian.) ''The bishops who succeeded 
 the Apostles by a vicarious ordination." 
 
 3. Clarus, a bishop in the council at 
 Carthage, ainrmed : 
 
 "The will of our Lord Jesus Christ is 
 manifest, who sent his Apostles, and gave 
 to them alone the power which had been 
 given to him by the Father ; whom we 
 
SUCCESSION. 149 
 
 have succeeded^ governing the Church of 
 the Lord with the same power." Cyprian 
 Suffrag., p. 242. 
 
 A. D. 324. EusEBius, Bishop of 
 
 Csesarea, and the most eminent of the 
 ancient historians. After giving the names 
 of various individuals, who were placed 
 by the Apostles in the different churches, 
 he remarks, generally : 
 
 ''And in the sequel of this history, the 
 succession of Bishops from the Apostles 
 shall be set down in order." This suc- 
 cession will be found by a reference to his 
 Ecclesiastical history. 
 
 Now, these quotations from ancient 
 authors prove conclusively, that the apos- 
 tolic succession, or the regular descent of 
 Bishops, was a universally received doc- 
 trine of the Church ; furthermore, that 
 such succession did in fact exist, and was 
 carefully preserved, from AD. 64-70 (even 
 in the life-time of some of the Apostles) to 
 A. D. 324. From that period the historic 
 testimony becomes so abundant and gen- 
 eral, that quotations are needless. 
 
 On the question of the authenticity of 
 the works from which the above quota- 
 tions are made, time and the occasion for- 
 bid us to enter. But w^e would merely 
 remark, that their authenticity .rests on 
 13* 
 
150 THE APOSTOLIC 
 
 precisely the same evidence, both in kind 
 and degree, as the writings of ancient 
 authors generally ; nay, even of the Holy 
 vScriptures. This point is settled, partly 
 by the internal marks of genuineness in 
 the vv^ritings themselves, and partly by the 
 concurrent testimony of antiquity in their 
 favor. It is an easy matter to start doubts 
 and suggest difficulties, in reference to 
 the authorship of any ancient book ; but 
 these doubts are no direct proof of its 
 being spurious, nor ought they to weigh 
 a straw in the balance against the unan- 
 imous testimony of past ages. 
 
 The quotation, which we have given 
 above, from St. Clement's first epistle to 
 the Corinthians, is conclusive on the suc- 
 cession. He tells us that the Apostles 
 gave directions concerning the succes- 
 sion ; and further, that they did this by the 
 command of Christ. iNow, this epistle 
 of Clement is the most authentic of any 
 of his writings. It was formerly bound 
 up with the New Testament, not indeed 
 as an inspired writing, but as of great 
 value, coming from the pen of one who 
 had been the personal associate of Apos- 
 tles. It was also read in the churches as 
 early as the beginning of the fourth cen- 
 tury. In reference to it Mosheim, (cer- 
 
SUCCESSION, 151 
 
 tainly the most impartial authority I can 
 quote — or, perhaps I may say, unfavorably 
 prejudiced,) in his ecclesiastical history, 
 remarking on Clement, says : "there are 
 still extant tioo epistles to the Corinthians, 
 bearing his name, and written in Greek : 
 of these, it is generally supposed, that the 
 first is genuine, and that the second is 
 falsely palmed upon that holy man, by 
 some deceiver." 
 
 Arch-Bishop Wake incontestibly proves 
 its authenticity, as well by his own argu- 
 ments, as by his learned references. 
 
 How, it may be asked, do we establish 
 the authenticity of the New Testament 
 Scriptures ? Is it not by appealing to this 
 very Clement, and to Ignatius, and the 
 other Apostolic Fathers ? Their evidence 
 is regarded as indispensable. The reader 
 may consult here Dr. Lardner's "Credi- 
 bility of the Gospel History," where he 
 v/ill find an ample account of these apos- 
 tolic epistles. They are adduced, by every 
 writer of any note, as most important 
 witnesses in favor of the truth of the 
 christian religion. When these ancient 
 authorities are cited for such a purpose, 
 no one thinks of impugning their genuine- 
 ness. And why should a question be raised, 
 when they are cited to prove the succes- 
 
152 THE APOSTOLIC 
 
 sion, or episcopacy, which they do most 
 triumphantly estabUsh ? Let those who 
 rashly, and without evidence, deny these 
 writings when brought to sustain episco- 
 pacy, and particularly the succession, re- 
 flect that they also deny them when 
 brought against the infidel to prove Chris- 
 tianity, and thereby wrest from us one of 
 the main evidences of our religion. 
 
 EPISCOPAL DESCENT OF THE PRESENT 
 
 BISHOP OF WESTERN NEW-YORK. 
 
 ^ f C William White, 5. 
 
 Alexander V. Griswold, 1. < Samuel Provost, 6. 
 ^ Abraham Jarvis, 7. 
 
 ! William White, 
 John H. Hobart, 8. 
 James Kemp, 9. 
 John Croes, 10. 
 Nathaniel Bowen, IL 
 C William White, 
 Benjamin T. Onderdonk, 3. < Thomas C. Brownell, 12. 
 ^ Henry U. Onderdonk, 
 r William White, 
 George W. Doane, 4. < Benjamin T. Onderdonk, 
 
 '^ [^ I Levi S. Ives, 13. 
 
 The preceding table is designed to il- 
 lustrate the nature of the apostolic suc- 
 cession. It will be seen that, as we trace 
 the episcopal descent of any Bishop 
 towards its source, the number of conse- 
 crators, through whom his commission is 
 derived, constantly increases. Thus, if we 
 had extended the table to one more suc- 
 cession, the number of Bishops would have 
 
SUCCESSION. 153 
 
 been (at the lowest ratio) forty-two, and 
 another, one hundred and twenty-six, and 
 so on, until we come, through all the suc- 
 cessions, to the Apostles. The last term 
 in such a series, would, of course, be in- 
 credibly large. But it must be observed, 
 that the same name is frequently repeated, 
 as one bishop often acts as consecrator ; 
 so that the apparent number of different 
 bishops, in any given line of descent, is 
 far greater than the actual number. It 
 appears, for instance, that in only two 
 successions, no less than eighteen conse- 
 crators were concerned in transmitting 
 the apostolic authority to the present bish- 
 op of Western New-York ; whereas, there 
 were but thirteen distinct individuals. 
 Yet, for so brief a period, this number is 
 very great. What would it be if calculated 
 for many centuries, or if carried back to 
 those Apostles from whom the English 
 succession was originally derived ? It 
 would include a very large proportion of 
 all the bishops who had ever lived in that 
 one branch, at least, of the CathoHc 
 Church. In proof of this, let any one 
 complete, as he easily may, the table which 
 we have begun, of the episcopal descent 
 of Bishop De Lancey, up to the point 
 where the American church is merged into 
 
154 THE APOSTOLIC 
 
 the English, and such a table will be found 
 to embrace tiventy-six out of the thirty- 
 three American bishops who had preceded 
 him. It is not pretended that this pre- 
 cise ratio of If will hold good in all cases, 
 but as the system of consecration is the 
 same every where, it is sufficiently near 
 the general truth, to illustrate the Imo of 
 the apostolic succession. In any partic- 
 ular branch of the Churchy (or ivhat is the 
 same, line of episcopal desce7it) nearly all 
 the bishops from the Apostles^ times are 
 concerned in the consecration of each one. 
 The validity of the whole is constantly 
 brought to bear on every part. From this 
 it appears how utterly futile it is to talk 
 of one spurious bishop as breaking the 
 succession ! The truth is, it is morally 
 impossible that the succession can be bro- 
 ken. One, or a score of spurious bishops, 
 do not in the least degree endanger it ; for, 
 the error, which they introduce, is perpet- 
 ually neutralized by their being associated 
 with other and true bishops. 
 
 Let the reader here refer to the prece- 
 ding table, and he will find our positions 
 amply sustained. Suppose, for instance, 
 that in the first column of that table, three 
 of the four bishops there named held in- 
 valid commissions — were no bishops — yet 
 
SUCCESSION. 155 
 
 the succession would, of course, be un- 
 broken. Again, suppose that", in the 
 second column thirteen of the fourteen 
 bishops were unconsecrated, still through 
 the one remaining true bishop, the com- 
 mission would be handed down. Now, 
 the farther we go back, the stronger this 
 argument becomes ; the improbabilities 
 of the succession being broken regularly 
 and constantly increase, at each step, till 
 at length there are a thousand, or ten 
 thousand, to one in its favor. The argu- 
 ment, therefore, is not only conclusive, but 
 it is cumulative, to a degree that puts to 
 flight all doubt, and renders every con- 
 tary supposition an infinite absurdity. 
 
 Finally, comparisons that liken the 
 succession to a chain of single, or triple, 
 or any number of links, or to a cord of 
 any number of strands, convey wholly 
 false impressions of the nature of this 
 subject. If it is desirable to illustrate it, 
 at all, by analogies, wc would compare it 
 to the Saviour's "coat" which ''was with- 
 out seam, woven from the top through- 
 out;" and, like that ''vesture," the apos- 
 tolic succession is destined never to be 
 rent by the hand of man ; for, on the page 
 of holy writ, there is recorded the explicit 
 promise of divine protection and presence. 
 
DIOCESAN EPISCOPACY. 
 
 In connection with the subjects of the 
 preceding pages, it is necessary here to 
 make a few remarks on Diocesan Epis- 
 copacy ; for, although it is abundantly 
 evident, as we have shown, that episco- 
 pacy, or the threefold ministry, is the in- 
 stitution of Christ and his Apostles, and 
 has been handed down, in succession, to 
 us of the present day, by the special prov- 
 idence of God, yet it is sometimes assert- 
 ed, that the Bishops of the New Testa- 
 ment, or the apostolic age, presided over 
 one church or congregation only, and not 
 over many. This assertion is frequently 
 made by those who, we would suppose, 
 possessed ample means of being better 
 informed. Such, for instance, is the his- 
 torian Mosheim. Our object, therefore, 
 in these remarks, will be to show, that 
 this assertion is in direct contradiction 
 to the statements of the New Testament, 
 as well as of ancient authors. Bishops 
 
DIOCESAN EPISCOPACY. 157 
 
 were always, from the very first, diocesan, 
 having the oversight of several congrega- 
 tions, and many presbyters and deacons. 
 This proposition we undertake to prove, 
 and place beyond the reach of doubt or 
 controversy. 
 
 Dr. Mosheim, in his ecclesiastical his- 
 tory, expressly says,"^^ that there were 
 bishops in the church in the first century, 
 besides presbyters and deacons. But 
 with the view of qualifying this important 
 admission, he adds — "whoever supposes 
 that the bishops of the first and golden age 
 of the Church corresponded with the 
 bishops of the following centuries, must 
 blend and confound characters that are 
 very diflferent. For, in this century and 
 the next a bishop had charge of a single 
 church, which might ordinarily be con- 
 tained in a private house." 
 
 Again, he says — ''The first of all the 
 christian churches founded by the Apos- 
 tles, was that of Jerusalem : and after 
 the form and model of this all the others 
 of that age were constituted. That 
 church, however, was governed immedi- 
 ately by the Apostles, to whom the pres- 
 byters, and the overseers of the poor, or 
 deacons, were subject."t And then, fur- 
 
 * Vol. 1, p. 85,86. tVol. 1. p. 54. 
 14 
 
168 DIOCESAN 
 
 ther on, he teiis us, that "'James the Just 
 presided over the church of Jerusalem."^ 
 This was after the other Apostles had 
 entered upon their mission to preach the 
 gospel, and estabhsh churches in every 
 quarter of the then known world. 
 
 Now, we have the admission of Mosh- 
 eim, that, in the r.hurch of Jerusalem, 
 there were three orders of ministers, 
 James the Just presiding, (he was an 
 Apostle), and having subject to him the 
 presbyters and deacons. — Furthermore, 
 that the other churches were modled after 
 that of Jerusalem, viz. Ephesus, Antioch, 
 Rome, &c. The only question, therefore, 
 to be disposed of, is, were the churches 
 in these cities single congregations (as 
 Mosheim avers) or not ? If they were, 
 then, though these cases are conclusive 
 proof of Episcopacy, or the three orders, 
 they shed no light upon the subject of 
 Diocesan Episcopacy, If they were not, 
 then they confirm the system, not only 
 of episcopacy, but of diocesan episcopa- 
 cy ; for a diocese then, as now, might be 
 restricted to the limits of a single large 
 city. On this point we have the most 
 satisfactory of all evidence, viz. that of 
 Holy scripture : and what does the New 
 
 * Vol. l.p. 61. 
 
EPISCOPACY. 159 
 
 Testament teach as to the extent and 
 numbers of this church of Jerusalem. In 
 Acts c. ii. V. 41-47, we are informed that 
 three thousand souls were added to the 
 Church in one day. If to this it is object- 
 ed, that the city then was thronged with 
 strangers, many of whom, doubtless, were 
 among the converts, and returned to their 
 respective homes ; we reply in the words 
 of the sacred narrative : *'and all that 
 believed were together, and had all things 
 common ; and sold their possessions and 
 goods, and parted them to all men as 
 every man had need : and they continued 
 daily with one accord in the temple^ [at 
 Jerusalem,] and, breaking bread from 
 house to house, did eat their meat with 
 gladness and singleness of heart, praising 
 God, and having favor with all the peo- 
 ple." The church at Jerusalem, at the 
 very start, consisted of at least three thou- 
 sand : but the sacred historian goes on to 
 inform us : ''and the Lord added to the 
 Church daily such as should be saved." — 
 The increase, therefore, was daily, and if 
 it bore any proportion (the very least) to 
 the success of the Apostles at the begin- 
 ning of their labors, a few weeks or 
 months would have sufficed to have swell- 
 ed the numbers to tens of thousands. But 
 
160 DIOCESAN 
 
 we are not left to conjecture on so im- 
 portant a point. In the Acts of the Apos- 
 tles, c. iv. V. 4, we are told, that "many 
 of them which heard the word believed, 
 and the number of the men teas about five 
 thousand.'^^ Further on, in the next chap- 
 ter, we read, that "believers were more 
 added to the Lord, multitudes, both of 
 men and women." And again, in the 
 sixth, "the word of God still increased, 
 and the number of the disciples multi- 
 plied in Jerusalem greatly, and a great 
 company of the priests were obedient to 
 the faith." Finally, in the twenty-first 
 chapter, we have an account of St. Paul's 
 visit to Jerusalem, in these words : "And 
 when we were come to Jerusalem, the 
 brethren received us gladly, and the 
 day following Paul went in with us unto 
 James; and all the elders (presbyters) 
 were present, and when he had saluted 
 them, he declared particularly what 
 things God had wrought among the Gen- 
 tiles, by his ministry. And when they 
 heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said 
 unto him, thou seest, brother, how many 
 thousands'^ of Jews there are which be- 
 lieve." Such is the history of the church 
 at Jerusalem, given us by holy scripture. 
 
 * In the oriorinal mur lades, i. e. tens ofthovsands. 
 
EPISCOPACY. 161 
 
 And now, how does Mosheim dispose of 
 this case, in order to make it tally with 
 his congregational scheme ? "In this cen- 
 tury (that is the first) and the next," he 
 affirms, "a bishop had charge of a single 
 church which might ordinarily be contain- 
 ed in a private house !" Is this true of the 
 church of Jerusalem, with its tens of 
 thousands, when James was the sole 
 Bishop ? On the contrary, the statement 
 is in direct opposition to scripture. — 
 Nothing can be more evident than the 
 fact, that Jerusalem was a large diocese, 
 as the city of London is at the present 
 time. The second church that we shall 
 notice in reference to this subject, is that 
 which St. Paul founded at Ephesus, and 
 over which he placed Timothy as Bish- 
 op. This city is styled by Pliny, ''alterum 
 lumen Asiae ;" and Stephens, the geog- 
 rapher, gives to it the title "epipbanes- 
 tate," or most illustrious. The temple 
 of Diana, which was built here by the 
 contributions of all the provinces of Asia, 
 drew an immense multitude of inhabit- 
 ants in and near to it. Upon the com- 
 pletion of this celebrated temple, we are 
 told, towns and villages were depopulated, 
 abandoning their former houses, to seek 
 a new residence near the shrine of Uieir 
 
 14* 
 
162 DIOCESAN " 
 
 favorite goddess. If it should be said that 
 this circumstance carries us back far earli- 
 er than the christian era, this is granted. 
 But the popularity of the heathen worship, 
 and consequently the importance of the 
 place, continued in the Apostles' day ; for 
 when Paul and Tiniothy were there, the 
 ancient cry was raised, "great is Diana of 
 the Ephesians !" The Jews, too, we are 
 informed by Josephus, were very nume- 
 rous in Ephesus, and had obtained the 
 privilege of citizenship ; and as the chris- 
 tians were regarded as a sect of Jews 
 merely, they, too, were sheltered from 
 persecution. Under the Romans, Ephe- 
 sus was the metropolis of Asia, within 
 Taurus. Now, all these circumstances 
 not only prove the great size and impor- 
 tance of this city, but its peculiar advan- 
 tages for the establishment and growth of 
 the christian Church. In connection with 
 this, take the fact that Paul labored there 
 with great success, (as the scriptures 
 abundantly testify) ; *that Timothy was 
 placed there, not only to ordain Elders, 
 but also to rule those already ordained, and 
 there exercising their ministry ; and the 
 presumption is violent, or, in other words, 
 there is a degree of probability amoun- 
 
 *See Acts xix. v. 24-28. 
 
EPISCOPACY. 163 
 
 ting almost to certainty, that the Church 
 in that city was of itself an extensive 
 diocese. On the other hand, can it be 
 shown, by the opponents of diocesan 
 episcopacy, that there was but a single 
 Congregation in the metropolis of Asia, the 
 fruit of the united toils of Paul and Tim- 
 othy, and all his presbyters and deacons? 
 Is not this supposition rather absurd in 
 itself, as well as a direct impeachment of 
 the power of the Holy Ghost, which 
 wrought mightily by Paul, who, in Ephe- 
 sus, "turned away much people"^^ from 
 their idolatry ? 
 
 Thirdly, we may try this question by 
 the case of the church at Antioch,* where 
 Ignatius was Bishop. Ignatius ruled this 
 church singly for forty years. This city 
 was the third for beauty, greatness, and 
 population, in the world. It was called 
 Tetrapolis, from having four walled towns, 
 all included within a common enclosure- 
 This circumstance gives us at once an in- 
 sight into its extent and population. It was 
 centrally situated, and, like Ephesus, was 
 
 *The church at Antioch, also, now flourishing and abound- 
 ing in members, and the greatest number of teachers coming 
 hither from Jerusalem, with whom were Barnabas and Paul, 
 and many other brethren with them, the epithet of Christians 
 first sprang up at that place, as from a grateful and productive 
 soil. Euseb. J. 2, c. b. 
 
164 DIOCESAN 
 
 highly prized by the Jews for its jus civ- 
 itatis, or right of citizenship, which afford- 
 ed to the christians (who were regarded 
 by the heathen as a sect only of the 
 Jews) a shelter from persecution. From 
 its great political importance, no less than 
 from its central position, it was chosen by 
 the Apostles as a principal field for the 
 establishment of Christianity. Upon this 
 point they bent all their energies. See 
 Acts xi. Putting these facts together, 
 what is the probability as to the growth 
 and size of the church in this city, where 
 the disciples were first called christians, 
 and where, it is admitted on all hands, 
 Ignatius was Bishop ? The presump- 
 tive argument, in this case, for the exis- 
 tence of numerous coiigregations, embra- 
 cing thousands, is as strong as it was in 
 the former case. But we are not left to 
 probabilities, however convincing, for 
 scripture here furnishes us with conclu- 
 sive testimony. Acts xi. 20-23. *'And 
 some of them were men of Cyprus and 
 Cyrene, which, when they were come to 
 Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preach- 
 ing the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the 
 Lord was with them ; and a great number 
 believed and turned unto the Lord. Then 
 tidings of these things came unto the 
 
EPISCOPACV. 165 
 
 ears of the church which was in Jerusa- 
 lem ; and they sent forth Barnabas, that 
 he should go as far as Antioch. Who, 
 when he came, and had seen the grace of 
 God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that 
 with purpose of heart they should cleave 
 unto the Lord." 
 
 Now, where ''•the hand of the Lord^'' was, 
 and "■great numbers believed and turned 
 unto the Lord," can we suppose there w^as 
 but a single congregation, which might 
 be brought together in one place, even 
 (as Moshiem says) in a private house ? 
 What ? notwithstanding the successful 
 labors which are here spoken of, and 
 which brought great joy to the church 
 at Jerusalem, of the ^'men of Cyprus and 
 Cyrene," and of St. Paul and JSarnabas, 
 who continued a whole year teaching 
 "much people," and of the subsequent 
 labors of the Apostle Peter, and his suc- 
 cessor, Evodius, and the long and faithful 
 ministry of Ignatius, for a period of forty 
 years, bringing us down to A. D. 107 — 
 that, notwithstanding ail this, there still 
 was only a single congregation under this 
 Bishop ! This is utterly incredible — and 
 intidelity herself is too honest and candid 
 to venture upon such an assertion. It is 
 nothing less than a bold denial of the 
 
166 DIOCESAN 
 
 power and efficacy of the first preachers 
 of the gospel, under the supernatural 
 guidance of the Holy Ghost. Even in 
 our own day, what would be thought of 
 the combined efforts of many ministers, 
 of only ordinary zeal and ability, in a large 
 and populous city, continued for half a cen- 
 tury, and the result a single congregation ! 
 This is too absurd to be seriously treated. 
 We cannot possibly resist the conviction, 
 that Ignatius was the Bishop of many 
 congregations, requiring the aid of a nu- 
 merous body of presbyters and deacons : 
 that is, Ignatius was a Diocesan Bishop. 
 
 Fourthly, that the church at Rome, 
 under the episcopate of Clement, A. D. 
 70, was numerous, and certainly embrac- 
 ed several individual churches or con- 
 gregations, is evident from the testimony 
 of many ancient writers. Arch-bishop 
 Wake, in his life of Clement, remarks : 
 "It is evident, both from Irenaeus and 
 Epiphanius, as also before them Caius, 
 an ancient writer, and from Dionysius, 
 Bishop of Corinth, that Peter and Paul 
 jointly laid the foundations of the church 
 of Rome, and therefore equally styled 
 bishops of it, the one as Apostle to the 
 Gentiles, taking care of the Gentile 
 christians, while the other, as the Apostle 
 
KPISCOPACV. 167 
 
 of the circumcision, applied himself to the 
 Jewish converts at Rome," This account 
 of facts is in part sustained by a reference 
 to Acts, xxviii. 28-31, where we are told 
 that Paul, being rejected by the Jews at 
 Rome, preached the gospel for two whole 
 years to the Gentiles. Tertullian ex- 
 pressly says, that St. Clement was or- 
 dained Bishop of Rome by St. Peter. 
 And the author of the apostolic constitu- 
 tions makes Linus to have been ordained 
 Bishop of Rome by St. Paul. Thus there 
 were two distinct churches at Rome, in 
 the apostolic times, one consisting of 
 Jewish, the other of Gentile converts. 
 Now Clement, surviving his cotemporary, 
 Linus, (and also his successor, Cletus,) 
 united these two churches under his epis- 
 copate, about A. D. 70, and of course, 
 must have had, at least, several distinct 
 congregations under his supervision. As 
 to the actual or proximate number, we 
 have no information to guide us. But the 
 facts here given are conclusive of the 
 point in discussion, viz : that Clement was 
 Bishop, not of "'a single church,^^ but of 
 many churches, and was, therefore, a di- 
 ocesan bishop. In these remarks, in 
 answer to the erroneous representations 
 of Mosheim, and others of the same 
 
168 DIOCESAN 
 
 school, we are adhering as closely as pos- 
 sible to the times of the Apostles, and 
 what may be called the Church of the 
 New Testament.* A wider range of in- 
 quiry, embracing the periods of the second 
 and third century, would furnish an over- 
 whelming mass of evidence in support of 
 diocesan episcopacy : as, for instance, 
 in 231, when Cornelius was Bishop of 
 Rome, he had forty-six presbyters, besides 
 deacons and other inferior officers under 
 him, and '^a vast, innumerable multitude 
 of people.'' 
 
 Lastly, we may adduce the seven 
 churches of Asia Minor, to which respec- 
 tively St. John, in the book of Revelation, 
 addresses epistles in the name of Christ, 
 as clear cases in support of diocesan epis- 
 copacy. Though we possess no very 
 definate sources of information, either 
 from holy scripture or ancient history, in 
 reference to the exact size or extent of 
 these churches— yet we do know, on 
 the most ample testimony, that they had 
 each a bishop, together with many pres- 
 byters and deacons. Ignatius, saluting 
 
 * Eusebius, describing the rapid spread of the gospel in the 
 age immediately following the apostolic, says: ''throughout 
 every city and village, like a replenished barn-floor, churches 
 were rapidly found abounding, and filled with members from 
 every people."— Euseb, Hist, Eccl. i. ii. c, 3. 
 
EPISCOPACY. 169 
 
 the church at Philadelphia, declares, that 
 he does this the more readily, ''if they are 
 at unity with the Bishop and Presbyters 
 who are with him, and the Deacons." 
 Again, he says : ''I cried whilst I was 
 among you ; I spake with a loud voice ; 
 attend to the Bishop, and to the Presbyt- 
 ery, and to the Deacons." On this, the 
 question arises, would a single congrega- 
 tion need the ministry of an officiating 
 bishop, a number of presbyters and dea- 
 cons ? Would they have any sufficient 
 object or end in being at the expense of 
 supporting so numerous a priesthood ? It 
 is admitted, on all sides, that presbyters or 
 elders could perform the ordinary functions 
 of the ministerial office — preach, baptize, 
 administer the eucharist : what, therefore, 
 would be the need of many such officers 
 besides the bishop in one congregation ? 
 They could not all labour at the same 
 time, and there surely was no necessity 
 for a constant change of pastors. Besides, 
 what could the bishop do amid so many 
 presbyters, all confined to attendance in 
 a ^'single church P" The obvious answer 
 to all this is, that the bishop needed the 
 aid of presbyters and deacons, as Paul 
 and Barnabas, on a former occasion, when 
 '*they ordained for themselves presbyters 
 15 
 
170 DIOCESAN 
 
 in every church," because there were 
 numerous congregations in the city of 
 Philadelphia, embracing, of course, the 
 suburbs and adjacent country ; for who 
 can suppose that the christians of those 
 days were animated with no missionary 
 spirit? 
 
 To the church at Smyrna Ignatius 
 writes: ''I salute your very worthy Bish- 
 op, your venerable Presbytery, and your 
 Deacons." The same line of reasoning 
 is applicable here as in the former case. 
 Whoever heard of so numerous a priest- 
 hood in one congregation — what could be 
 their several duties ? W hat modern church 
 is constructed on such a system — not cer- 
 tainly the congregational? But Ignatius 
 further says, in his letter to Polycarp, the 
 bishop of this church: "Let your assem- 
 blies he more full." Here, then, the fact 
 is fully brought out, that there were many 
 congregations under Polycarp. Smyrna, 
 too, was the centre of a populous and ex- 
 tensive district, to which, of course, this 
 church extended their spiritual care. — 
 Here, then, was a diocese. How large 
 or small this diocese was, is not, novi^, the 
 question at issue; but, simply, whether 
 there was only one or several churches, 
 under the collective title, 'Hhe church at 
 Smyrna." 
 
EPISCOPACY. 171 
 
 On the case of the church of Ephesus 
 we have already remarked. Of the re- 
 maining four of the Asiatic churches, it is 
 merely necessary to say, that they, too, 
 had their bishops, and other dergy, and 
 were each situated in large cities, to 
 which many surrounding towns were trib- 
 utary. Of Thyatira, Carpus was the 
 Bishop; of Laodicea, Sagaris; ofSardis, 
 Melito; of Pergamos, Antipas. 
 
 Thus far we have limited our inquiry, 
 respecting diocesan episcopacy, to the 
 period of the apostoHc age, and that which 
 immediately succeeded. After this, the 
 system of dioceses is so evidently set forth 
 by ancient ecclesiastical writers, as to 
 preclude the necessity for argument or 
 debate. Even Mosheim admits it. And 
 yet no intimation is given of any change 
 having taken place in the government of 
 the Church. No general disagreement 
 or collision between presbyters and bish- 
 ops, as to their respective rights and func- 
 tions of office ; no system of independen- 
 cy, strugling against the new organiza- 
 tion; no enactments of the earliest coun- 
 cils, whether provincial or general, re- 
 specting the privileges of individual con- 
 gregations, against the diocesan system, 
 is on record. So far from it, that the 
 
172 DIOCESAN 
 
 '^Apostolic Canons," which were called 
 ^ ^ ancient .i^'^ in the early part of the third 
 century, every where recognize the dio- 
 cesan system as a settled institution of the 
 universal Church. Moreover, so radical 
 and important a change, (supposing it to 
 have taken place,) as one bishop assum- 
 ing authority and control over several 
 congregations, when by virtue of his of- 
 fice he was entitled to the supervision only 
 of one — a change affecting the entire 
 polity of the Church — could not possibly 
 have occurred, without serious and pro- 
 tracted dicussions. Nay, upon an inno- 
 vation of so great magnitude the Church 
 Catholic must inevitably have divided. 
 But for evidence of this, in vain will you 
 search the records of antiquity. 
 
 Diocesan Episcopacy, therefore, as we 
 find it universally established in the third 
 and following ceiituries^ was not a new 
 system: on the contrary, it was but the 
 continuation of the plan which the Apos- 
 tles themselves had originated. 
 
 It maybe well, in this place, to adduce 
 a portion of the evidence which attests 
 the existence of diocesan episcopacy, 
 about the third century. Of course, the 
 later we descend, in the history of the 
 Church, when writers become more nu- 
 
EPISCOPACY. 173 
 
 merous, the more abundant is the evi- 
 dence on this point. 
 
 As early, then, as A. D. 200, TertuUian, 
 a presbyter of Carthage, informs us, that 
 "the multitude of christians was so great, 
 as to form nearly the larger part of every 
 city.^^ And in his celebrated apology to 
 the Roman magistrates, he boldly declares: 
 *'VVe are of yesterday, and yet we have 
 filled all your places, cities, islands, forts, 
 corporate towns, councils, the camps 
 themselves, the army, the palace, the sen- 
 ate, the forum ; we have left to you only 
 the temples. If we should separate from 
 you, and remove into some other part of 
 the world, you would, beyond doubt, be 
 affrighted at your own solitude, at. the si- 
 lence of your affairs, and the numbness, 
 as it were, of a deceased world." Now, 
 fifty years after this, the renowned Cyprian 
 succeeded Donatus, as bishop oWartliage, 
 Was he bishop of a single congregation ? 
 TertuUian has just assured us that, even 
 in his time, nearly the greater part of ev- 
 ery city were christians. Of course, this 
 was true of Carthage, his native place. 
 Besides we know that there were many 
 presbyters there. Cyprian himself says, 
 that, when he enrolled Numidicus among 
 the clergy of Carthage, it was -'that he 
 15* 
 
174 DIOCESAN 
 
 might adorn his numerous presbytery with 
 such worthy men, it being now impaired 
 by the fall of some." (Epis. 40.) In the 
 very next century, we have the names even 
 of many of the church edifices in this city, 
 still under the supervision of a single bish- 
 op. Who can doubt that Carthage was 
 a diocese, and Cyprian a diocesan bishop ? 
 It is no less certain that Alexandria was 
 a diocese in the third century. Eusebius 
 informs us in his ecclesiastical history, 
 (Hi. c. xvi.) that "St. Mark, being the first 
 that was sent to Egypt, proclaimed the 
 gospel there which he had written, and 
 first established churches at the city of 
 Alexandria, And so great a multitude of 
 believers, both men and women, were col- 
 lected there, at the very outset, 
 
 that Philo has considered them as deserv- 
 ing a place in his descriptions." If, then, 
 Alexandria was a diocese, in the^r.v^ cen- 
 tury, much more in the third, under its 
 bishop, the celebrated Dionysius, did it 
 include a large number of clergy and 
 churches f Of the persecution of this great 
 and good bishop and his church, we have 
 ample accounts in the extracts from his 
 own writings, preserved by Eusebius. — 
 From these extracts we learn that Dionys- 
 ius, even in his place of exile at Cephro, 
 
EPISCOPACY. 175 
 
 had ^-a large congregation^ partly of the 
 brethren that accompanied him from the 
 city, partly of those that joined him from 
 Egypt." Besides, "not a few of the hea- 
 then, abandoning their idols, turned to 
 God, for the word was then first sown 
 among them, as they had never be- 
 fore heard it." Now, while this was the 
 state of things at Cephro, the christians 
 in Alexandria still assembled under the 
 direction of Dionysius, their exiled bishop. 
 He says: "but neither did we keep aloof 
 from assembling ourselves by divine assis- 
 tance ; but so much the more dilligently 
 did I gather those that were in the city, as 
 if I were in their midst — absent, indeed, 
 in the body, as I said, but present in spirit." 
 Alexandria, then, under Dionysius, was a 
 diocese : it was such, indeed, in the first 
 century. 
 
 That Rome was a diocese in the third 
 century, is abundantly evident from a let- 
 ter written by Cornelius, its bishop, to 
 Fabius, in which, alluding to a refractory 
 presbyter who made pretensions to the 
 episcopate, he remarks: "This assertor 
 of the gospel then did not know there 
 should be but one bishop in a catholic 
 church. In which, however, he knew (for 
 how could he be ignorant?) that there 
 
176 DIOCESAN 
 
 were forty-six presbyters, seven deacons, 
 seven sub-deacons, forty-two clerks, ex- 
 orcists, readers, and janitors — in all fifty- 
 two; widows, with the afflicted and needy, 
 more than fifteen hundred; all which the 
 goodness and love of God doth support 
 and nourish. But neither this great 
 number, so necessary in the church, nor 
 those that by the providence of God were 
 wealthy and opulent, together with an 
 innumerable multitude of the people, were 
 able to recall him, and turn him from such 
 a desperate and presumptuous course." 
 Now, all this immense concourse was in 
 Rome under Cornelius their one bishop. 
 Were they a single congregation; fifty- 
 two clergy and subordinate officers, fifteen 
 hundred poor communicants, the rich, 
 and an innumerable body of people of the 
 middle class — in a word, according to the 
 testimony of Tertullian, they formed near- 
 ly the greater part of the city. Now any 
 one who can deny that this is diocesan 
 episcopacy, may, for aught we know, deny 
 his own existence. 
 
 Further proofs, drawn from particular 
 cases, will be rendered superfluous by the 
 following quotations from Eseubius. He 
 is describing the happy and flourishing 
 condition of the Church, in the latter part 
 
EPISCOPACY. 177 
 
 of the third century. "Who could describe 
 these vast collections of men that flocked 
 to the religion of Christ, and those mul- 
 titudes of crowded assemblies in every 
 city, and the illustrious concourse in the 
 houses of worship? On whose account, 
 not content with the ancient buildings, 
 they erected spacious churches from the 
 foundation, in all the cities."* At the 
 same time, it will be remembered, that it 
 is not disputed but that in every city, large 
 or small, where the gospel and Church 
 were planted, there was only one bishop. 
 It is sometimes urged as an objection 
 to diocesan episcopacy, that the term 
 church in scripture, when applied to Je- 
 rusalem, Ephesus and other places, is 
 used in the singular, and consequently im- 
 plies but one congregation. It is truly a 
 matter of surprise, that any reflecting mind 
 should have dwelt for a moment, on such 
 an argument as this: nor should we here 
 deem it worthy of notice, except that it is 
 constantly resorted to by our opponents. 
 "The style of the address to 'the angeP 
 was that of the 'angel of the chiircli,^ evi- 
 dently referring to an individual congre- 
 gation, and not to such a group of church- 
 es as constitute a modern diocese."! — 
 
 Euseb. His. Eccl. 1. viii. c. 1. t Dr. Barnes. 
 
178 DIOCESAN 
 
 Now, whatever force this reasoning has, 
 must be derived from the term "the church" 
 being used in the singular, for there is no 
 other qualifying or restrictive expression 
 in the sentence. By parity of reasoning, 
 therefore, when scripture declares that 
 ^'Christ loved the C/inrch, and gave him- 
 self for it,"^ or when it speaks concerning 
 Christ and the Church, f a single congre- 
 gation is referred to, i. e. Christ loved 
 some individual congregation and gave 
 himself for it; and the Apostle speaks of 
 Christ and some particular congregation ! 
 which is a sheer absurdity. 
 
 Again, the usage in this respect is the 
 same now among us as formerly among 
 the primitive christians. Thus, we say, 
 the Church in New-York, or Pennsylvania, 
 or the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
 United vStates of America, or the Church 
 of England. A pretty consequence it 
 would be to draw from these phrases, that 
 there was but an individual congregation, 
 and not a group of churches in these dif- 
 ferent places. But should these profound 
 reasoners still urge, that the term does un- 
 doubtedly, in some passages of scripture, 
 imply only one assembly, we grant it. — 
 And so now we use the words sometimes 
 
 Eph. V. 25. t Eph. v. 3'3. 
 
EPISCOPACY. 179 
 
 in reference to one church or congrega- 
 tion. But in order to convey such a lim- 
 ited meaning, we employ some quaUfying 
 or restrictive epithet, and so do the scrip- 
 tures. When, however, no such restric- 
 tion is expressed, and the words are mere- 
 ly 'Hhe church,"^^ they may imply one or one 
 thousand individual churches. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 In order to show the real strength of the argument 
 for the succession, we here add a few obseri^ations on 
 Parker's consecration. 
 
 Let it be supposed, then, for the present, that Parker 
 was not consecrated, as alledged, at Lambeth, or else- 
 where ; but notwithstanding this, he was regarded as 
 Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, and officiated as such for 
 many years. What then 1 Was the succession in the 
 English Church thereby broken or interrupted ? This 
 would, indeed, have been the case, if it had depended 
 solely on one man; if Parker alone had been concerned 
 in the transmission of the Episcopate. An argument 
 resting on the basis of an individual or single-link 
 transmission of the succession, we acknowledge, must 
 at all times have been involved in much doubt and 
 uncertainty. But such was not the fact. The church 
 catholic, from the earliest ages, adopted, and univer- 
 sally acted upon the rule, that no bishop should be 
 consecrated by less than three. Accordingly we find 
 Parker, in the very first act that he performed of con- 
 ferring the episcopate, as well as in every subsequent 
 act of the kind, during his career, associating with 
 himself always two, generally three other bishops. — 
 This fact will be evident by a reference to the list of 
 consecrations, which is annexed to this note. Now, 
 it is obvious, that if Parker were no bishop, yet the 
 others were; and if he could not confer the episcopate, 
 because he did not possess it, the others could. If, 
 16 
 
182 APPENDIX. 
 
 again, to this it is replied, that Parker being the j^m- 
 cipal consecrator, liis authority was absolutely indis- 
 pensable — whence is this lule derived ? As metropol- 
 itan of the province of Canterbury, it is true, he took 
 the lead in the solemn rite ; but nevertheless, he was 
 no more, and could be no more, than his associates, a 
 bishop. As such, he had not a whit more authority to 
 convey the episcopal office than they had. The act 
 was performed conjointly, and by the united and co- 
 ordinate power of the three or four, as the case might 
 be. I have carefully examined the Apostolic Canons, 
 and the code of the universal Church, with reference 
 to this point, and can find no peculiar virtue or efficacy 
 ascribed to any one of the consecrators above another. 
 Nay, the very object of the Church, in making this 
 provision, seems to have been with a special view of 
 guarding the succession. Sure we are, that if Parker 
 were no Bishop, the Church was grievously imposed 
 on, and his consecrations were not in real accordance 
 with her prescribed regulations : they were irregular : 
 but it by no means follows, that they were null and 
 void. The principle, at the root of this matter, is, 
 that a bishop, any one bishop, might, by the inherent 
 virtue of his office and authority, (per se), transmit 
 the Episcopal commission. — So the first Apostles, and 
 Timothy, and Titus, and Augustine, and Paulinus. 
 It was a point of o/Y/ftr and discipline, merely, with the 
 Church, that three or more should be engaged in the 
 act. And, consequently, though the orc?er of the Church 
 was broken in upon by Parker's not being a true bish- 
 op, the validity of the succession was not involved. 
 
 Thus it is plain, that the spurious character of any 
 one of the consecrators could not aflfect the authority 
 of the others, and even if we were to waive entirely 
 the claims of Parker to the title and office of a true 
 bishop, tl e succession in the English Church would 
 not be thereby jeopardized. Further, if we suppose 
 
APPENDIX. 183 
 
 that two of the Bishops, or all save one, were impos- 
 tors, neither, for the reasons above assigned, would 
 the succession then be broken. Lastly, if we take 
 an extreme and utterly improbable hypothesis of all 
 the bishops engaged in a consecration, being mere 
 pretenders, then it would follow that the succession is 
 interrupted, only in that one instance ; for it is not 
 usual, or at all likely, that the same persons would all 
 again be associated in the next consecration. Here, 
 also, the annexed list may be referred to for proof. 
 Such is the really impregnable nature of the argument 
 for the apostolic successiono 
 
 But the truth is, Parker was validly consecrated at 
 Lambeth, as the Register affirms, on the 17th Decem- 
 ber, 1559 ; and moreover, there is testimony, in abund- 
 ance, to show that particular pains were taken to en- 
 sure his due and lawful consecration. On this point 
 we may quote the remarks of Sir James Mackintosh, 
 in his history of the reign of Elizabeth. His author- 
 ity (though not that of a professed historian of the 
 Church of England, and on that account the more im- 
 partial) will be admitted by every candid person, as 
 carrying with it all the weight of a most accurate and 
 careful writer. — " To fill the seats (says this author) 
 of the deceased and deprived Bishops, became one of 
 the most serious cares of the new government Cecil 
 and Bacon, the principal ministers, turned their im- 
 mediate attention to the vacant Primacy, at that crisis 
 the most important station in the kingdom. Their 
 choice was, even before the coronation, fixed on Mat- 
 thew Parker, a man of worth and learning, who, though 
 a married clergyman, was endeared to Elizabeth by 
 having been the chaplain of her mother, who with her 
 dying breath commended to his pious care the religious 
 nurture of her infant daughter. He was for some 
 time confined to the country by a quartan ague, a dis- 
 temper then often fatal. A great part of the next 
 
184 APPENDIX, 
 
 year was employed in conquering the repugnance of 
 this humble and disinterested man to the highest dig- 
 nity in the reformed churches.* When Cecil and 
 Bacon had finally succeeded in overcoming his scru- 
 ples, the consecration was delayed for some lime^ in order 
 to take such precautions as might best secure its validity, 
 from being impugned."^' He here adds a note — ''It i& 
 needless to discuss the rediculous story of a consecra- 
 tion of the new prelates at the Nag's Head tavern, 
 which has been judiciously abandoned by Dr. Lingard, 
 the mo5t eminent of our Romaa Catholic historians.'* 
 
 The objections that are commonly made by Roman- 
 ists against Parker's consecration may be seen stated 
 at length in a book written by Bit^hop Kenrick, on 
 ^'Anglican Ordinations." The arguments of this 
 writer, are, 1st : that there prevailed among the divines 
 of the reformed Church of England, very loose notions 
 respecting the nature, importance, and necessity of a 
 validly ordained ministry r hence he draws the infer- 
 ence o-r presumption, that the church authorities might 
 have been, or probably were negligent and reckless a» 
 to the mode and meai^is of Parker's consecration. — 
 Now, the best answer to this vague objection^, is the 
 very case under consideration. Nothing is more ob- 
 vious, than the fact, that both the Church and nation 
 (as Mackintosh has said) were peculiarly solicitous to 
 preserve the succession in the consecration of Parker. 
 
 "The Queen, from the beginning of her reign, had 
 designed Parker for the Arch-bishopric. After a long- 
 resistance, he gave his consent, and a conge d''eUre was 
 issued to the dean and chapter, July 18th, 1559. He 
 was chosen August 1st. On Sept. 9th, the queen sent 
 her mandate to Tunstal, Bishop ot Durham, Bourne, 
 
 *This, surely, is not the character of one who would be ac- 
 cessory tOj and himself the subject of a gross imposition^ 
 
APPENDIX. 185 
 
 oFBath and Wells, Pool, of Peterborough, Kitchin, of 
 Landaff, Barlow, the deprived Bishop of Bath under 
 Mary, and Scorey, of Chichester, also deprived under 
 Mary, to confirm and consecrate the Arch-bishop elect. 
 (Rym. XV. 541.) Kitchin had conformed, and it was 
 hoped that the other three, who had not been present 
 in Parliament, might be induced to imitate his exam- 
 ple. All three, however, refused to officiate, and in 
 consequence, the oath of supremacy was tendered to 
 them, (Rym. xv. 545,) and their refusal to take it was 
 followed by deprivation. In these circumstances, no 
 consecration took place : but three months later, (Dec. 
 6,) the queen sent a second mandate, directed to Kitch- 
 in, Barlow, Scorey, Coverdale, (the deprived Bishop 
 of Exeter under Mary,) John, Suffragan of Bedford, 
 John, Suffragan of Thetford, and Bale, Bishop of Os- 
 sory, ordering them, or any four of them, to confirm or 
 consecrate the Archbishop elect. Kitchin appears 
 again to have declined the office : but Barlow, Scorey, 
 Coverdale and Hodgkins, Suffragan of Bedford, con- 
 firmed the election on the 9th, and consecrated Parker 
 on the 17th. The ceremony was performed, though 
 with a little variation, according to the ordinal of Ed- 
 ward VI. Two of the consecrators. Barlow and Hodg- 
 kins, had been ordained bishops, according to the Ro- 
 man pontifical ; the'other two, according to the Reform- 
 ed ordinal. (Wilk. Cone. iv. 198.) Of this consecra- 
 tion on the 1 7th of December, there can be no doubt. 
 Perhaps, in the interval between the refusal of the 
 Catholic prelates, and the performance of the cere- 
 mony, some m.eeting may have taken place at the Nag's 
 Head, which gave rise to the story."* 
 
 From this impartial account of the case — impartial 
 it must be considered, coming, as it does, from a Ro- 
 manist — the reader may readily perceive how utterly 
 
 Lingard's Note H to his English History. 
 16* 
 
186 APPENDIX. 
 
 unfounded is the assertion of Bishop Kenrick, when he 
 says that the reformed church was indifferent and reck- 
 less in regard to the preservation of the succession. 
 Just the reverse appears to be the fact — at least, judg- 
 ing from the particular instance under consideration. 
 And, for what purpose is this charge made at all, un- 
 less it be to bear upon the case in hand — Parker's 
 consecration? 
 
 Again, that especial pains were taken to secure the 
 validity of this consecration, is further evident from the 
 statute of 8th of Elizabeth, c. i.§ 2 : *'// is and may 
 be very evident and apparent, that no cause of scruple^ 
 antiquity, or doubt, can or may justly be objected against 
 the said Elections, Confirmations, or Consecrations, or 
 any other material thing meet to be used or had in or about 
 the same ; but that every thing requisite and material for 
 that purpose hath been made and done, as precisely, and 
 with as great care and diligence, or rather more, as 
 ever the like was done before her Majesly'^s time, as 
 THE RECORDS ofhcr Majesty''s said Father and Brother'' s 
 time, and also o/her own time, will more plainly tes^ 
 tifie and declare.'" 
 
 Our author proceeds, by a variety of other argu- 
 ments, such as the above, (negative and general on]y ,) 
 to invalidate the J'act of Parker's consecration. The 
 authenticity of the Lambeth Register, (which we have 
 just seen is referred to in the above act of Parliament,) 
 is assailed. It is thought that there are certain sus- 
 picious things in the record, that indicate its fraudu- 
 lent and spurious character. And the Nag's Head 
 story is deemed not wholly improbable ! Is such rea- 
 soning as this, spread over many pages, as though the 
 multiplication of words would add tbrce to argument, 
 to be set off against positive and legally attested evi- 
 dence, under hand and seal ? Will quibbles and shrewd 
 ;siirmises overthrow the direct and unqualified^ and 
 
APPENDIX. 187 
 
 (at the time) unimpeached and unquestioned testimo- 
 ny of many witnesses ? If this principle were admitted, 
 then, indeed, we may bid farewell to confidence and 
 good faith between man and man, and welcome univer- 
 sal skepticism. The fact of Parker's consecration is 
 attested, in the above extract of the act of 8th of Eliz- 
 abeth, by the whole nation ; and reference is made to 
 the Lambeth Register, where the consecration is duly 
 recorded according to law. Thus is that Register en- 
 dorsed by the Parliament itself. True it is, our au- 
 thor flatly denies that this act refers to said Register; 
 but, on this point the reader may readily decide for 
 himself The act obviously is treating of the conse- 
 cration of the new bishops of the Reformed Church ; 
 and for proof of their entire validity, (which itself also 
 affirms,) it appeals to the records of Elizabeth's 
 TIME. What records ? if not those of the Lambeth 
 Register? Our author says, nay — but the records of 
 Parliament itself. This is absurd, for who would think 
 of searching the proceedings of Parliament for all the 
 details of Parker's consecration — showing the exact 
 hour, place, persons, circumstances, and form observed 
 in the act? The records of Parliament to unfold all 
 the minutiae of an ecclesiastical rite ! This we call a 
 weak evasion of an unanswerable argument. The 
 act, therefore, does endorse, in the completest man- 
 ner, the Lambeth Register. Now, it would be a great 
 stretch of credulity to suppose that the whole nation 
 was imposed upon, and accessory to a base fraud. 
 
 But again, even admitting the fact of the consecra- 
 tion, the form used on the occasion, being that of Ed- 
 ward VL,our author contends, was insufficient to con- 
 vey the episcopal office. Here he quotes merely the 
 words which were pronounced at the time of the im- 
 position of hands — "take the Holy Ghost, and remem- 
 ber that thou stir up the Grace of God which is in 
 thee, by the imposition of hands ; for God hath not 
 
188 APPENDIX. 
 
 given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love and 
 of soberness." The general reader of his book seeing 
 only this, might be deceived into the belief that not 
 one syllable was said as to the office to which Parker 
 was consecrated. But on referring to the whole form, 
 we find that the office with which the candidate was 
 invested, is specified no fewer than six times to be that of 
 "Bishop." 1. He is presented '*to be consecrated Bish- 
 op." 2. In the oath of allegiance, he declares, "I, N., 
 chosen Bishop of the Church and See of N., do prom- 
 ise," &c. 3. A prayer is offered up by the officiating 
 Prelates, that the Brother elected may have "Grace 
 duly to execute the office whereunlo he is called." 
 4. After the Litany, God is again invoked in behalf 
 of "his servant now called to the work and ministry 
 of a Bishop." The reader may consult the other 
 equally explicit statements in the form, as to the spe- 
 cific grade of office to which Parker was consecrated. 
 Is it argued that the office should have been specified 
 in the formula used at the instant of the imposition of 
 hands ? Where, we ask, is the law or precedent for this ? 
 Is it found in the ancient ordinals of the primitive 
 churches? It is not. Is it divine, or enjoined by 
 apostolic authority ? It is not. No — it is a matter 
 of conventional regulation, which any particular 
 church may determine for itself The English 
 Reformed Church was independent of Rome. — 
 The form of Edward VI. was at that time the 
 legally established form of the English Church, 
 and was therefore valid. She afterwards, it is true, 
 amended it, so as to introduce the name of the office 
 in that part which accompanies the act of imposi- 
 tion of hands. Of this alteration, Bishop Burnet gives 
 the following account. Speaking of the two forms of 
 ordination for Bishops and Priests, as they were in 
 force in the reign of Edward VI., he says: "There 
 was then no express mention made in the words of 
 ordaining them, that it was for the one or the other ; 
 
APFENDIX. 189 
 
 in both it was said, 'receive the Holy Ghost. In the 
 name of the Father,' &c. But that, having been since 
 made use of to prove both functions the same, it was 
 of late years altered, as it is now. Nor were these 
 words, being the same in giving both orders, any ground 
 to infer that the Church esteemed them one order, the 
 rest of the office showing the contrary very plainly. '' 
 
 The final objection of this assailant of Anglican 
 ordinations, is grounded o» the want of decisive evi- 
 dence that Barlow (one of Parker's consecrators) was 
 himself consecrated. Here we have another instance 
 of negative reasoning, against a generally received and 
 well established fact. Dr. Lingard has expressly ad- 
 mitted that Barlow had been- ordained according to the 
 Roman Pontifical. This point, however, need not be 
 pressed, for we have already shown, that the failure of 
 one of the officiating bishops did not vitiate the author- 
 ity of the rest. And for this reason the Queen's com- 
 mission required that not less than Jour should unite 
 in the act. 
 
 *'the plea of necessity" for dissenting from 
 the church, examined. 
 
 1. By some persons dissent is, under certain cir- 
 cumstances, justified on the ground of absolute neces- 
 sity. To this, as a matter of theory, there can be no 
 good objection. For supposing the whole church to 
 have become so corrupt — to have so thoroughly per- 
 verted "the faith once delivered to the saints" — that 
 to commune with it is no longer possible, and at the 
 same time maintain a pure conscience ; and supposing 
 further, that it is impossible to reform the whole, or 
 
190 APPENDIX. 
 
 any part thereof, or induce a single bishop to forsake 
 it, taking us with him into purer doctrines and wor- 
 ship; then it cannot be doubted we may and ought to 
 leave it. When we say ought, we refer to the primary 
 principle of all morals and religion, viz : " We ought 
 to obey God rather than man," and God cannot re- 
 quire, under any circumstances, his creatures to sin. 
 
 But it has been well observed that such a case is 
 purely hypothetical — never did and never can exist. 
 The divine promise of protection is our safeguard in 
 this matter: "The gates of hell [wickedness] shall 
 never prevail against it" —[the Church.] ''Lo I am 
 with you alway." The question, then, of absolute 
 necessity for separation, as thus raised, is purely spec- 
 ulative ;. having no practical bearing or value. But 
 let us suppose it to have existed ; let us say with the 
 charitable Hooker — ''This their defect and imperfec- 
 tion I had rather lament in such a case than exagge- 
 rate ; considering that men, often times, without any 
 fault of their own, may be driven to want that kind of 
 polity or regimen which is best ; and to content them- 
 selves with that which either the inevitable error of 
 former times, or the necessity of the present, hath cast 
 upon them." Now, we might in reply to this urge, 
 that polity or regimen, i. e., form of government, is one 
 thing, but the divine ministry, the adherence to the 
 bishop, is quite another. The union of bishops, in 
 some convential form of government, or the particular 
 polity of any one bishop, may vary indeed with the 
 necessity of the times — may be more or less agreeable 
 to primitive usage and Apostolic practice — but the 
 having of a Bishop as the representative of the Apos- 
 tles, as they were of Christ, and as he was of the Fa- 
 ther, in every unit or branch of the Church Catholic, 
 is surely always possible. It is not thiSy "that men 
 often times, v/ithout any fault of their own, may be 
 driven to want." For, to want this, is to want the 
 
APPENDIX. 191 
 
 visible Church. But again, I say, suppose even this 
 dire necessity to exist, and christian men have been 
 compelled to leave their bishop, it is contrary to reason 
 to say they are still in the Church; for, that is affirming 
 that there may be a church without a divinely com- 
 missioned ministry — a church not at unity with Christ 
 through the apostolic succession. It is bringing down 
 *'the institution" of God to the level of man's infirmi- 
 ties and errors, instead of raising the latter to the 
 former. It is making the exception to the rule, the 
 rule itself. It is like reasoning upon the laws of na- 
 ture from a miracle. Would it not be much more 
 agreeable to truth to preserve the idea of the divine 
 Church, and allow of the existence of exceptions — 
 necessary exceptions — (for this is the supposed case) 
 — and therefore in a hopeful state of salvation? Is it 
 right, is it the part of humble, confiding religion, to 
 distort God's blessed and immutable institutions, to 
 suit our predjudices, or our misfortunes, instead of 
 upholding them, at any sacrifice or any cost 1 Is there 
 no irreverence in attempting to remodel and recon- 
 struct the work of God — the most glorious of all his 
 works — The Holy Church, of which, we are told, for 
 our comfortable assurance, Jesus Christ himself is the 
 chief corner-stone ; especially when there is no per- 
 mission, expressed or implied, given us in scripture to 
 do this ? But if reason and religion do not allow us 
 to regard those who have left the bishops as being in 
 the Church, so neither does charity require this at our 
 hands. What is there uncharitable in the belief that 
 they are out of the pale of the Church, since sheer ne- 
 cessity has driven them into that position ; since, in 
 the language of Hooker, it is "without any fault of 
 their own" — '^ a defect and imperfection to be lament- 
 ed rather than exaggerated?" This, then, is their 
 sufficient apology, to their own consciences and to their 
 God, why they are not in the Church, but surely no 
 argument to prove that they are still in it. What 
 
192 APPENDIX. 
 
 charity is it, on our part, to represent them as being 
 in the communion of the Church, when they are forti- 
 fied with so ample and cogent a reason for having left 
 it 1 Is there any charity in misrepresenting a fact, 
 and that, too, without any motive of benefit to the par- 
 ty concerned ? Is it not as charitable, and more con- 
 sonant with the facts of the supposed case, to regard 
 them in the light of individual christians, deprived, 
 for a time (only), of church communion, and earnestly 
 looking forward to the period when, in the course of 
 Divine Providence, they will again be permitted to 
 return within her fold ; and meanwhile associating 
 themselves together for mutual edification, not as 
 a church, but as an irresponsible society ? When 
 David, by the rebellion of his ungrateful son Absalom, 
 was driven from Jerusalem to the country beyond 
 Jordan, he lamented, in humble and pathetic strains, 
 his absence from the temple and the priesthood of 
 God ; but he did not create others for himself. He 
 could not execute God's part of the covenant, and, 
 setting up a human temple and a human priesthood, 
 regard them as divine and possessing God's authori- 
 tative sanction. And if any number of laymen in the 
 christian church, by persecution and sword, were 
 compelled to flee to some desert and distant shore, 
 should they not, like the pious Psalmist, wait in patient 
 faith for the joyful day of their return ; or would it be 
 lawful for them to create a ministry and sacraments, 
 and call them the ministry and sacraments of Christ? 
 Is not the Church a divine institution, and, if so, how 
 can man originate if? Not only is this impossible, 
 but it is a grevious schism, an awful sacrilege, and a 
 dividing of the one body of Christ. Would it be char- 
 ity in us to call these exiled christians a church ? 
 Pray, what benefit would result to them from the name^ 
 when the thing is wanting 1 How could this alter 
 their actual condition ? It could not. 
 
APPENDIX. 193 
 
 But to all that has now been said it will be replied : 
 to be in the Church, and partake of the sacraments, is 
 necessary to salvation. True. But let it be remem- 
 bered we are now considering a supposed case of ab- 
 solute necessity for separation. And necessity knows 
 no law, either in nature or grace. If God's Provi- 
 dence, " without any fault of ours," hath driven us, 
 for a time, from the sacraments, are they, then, ne- 
 cessary to salvation ; are they necessary, under all 
 circumstances, even when they cannot be had ; so 
 necessary, that, if they are not given to us, we must 
 make them and apply them ? Did David believe it 
 necessary or proper for him to build a temple and cre- 
 ate a priesthood, in his exile beyond Jordon? Nothing 
 like it. They are, says the catechism, " only general- 
 ly necessary to salvation," i. e,, where they may be 
 had. Here is the point that has been overlooked in 
 this great subject. The enjoyment of the Divine fa- 
 vor, by those who are separated, by necessity, from the 
 Church, cannot be made to depend (much less their 
 salvation) on the fact of their being in the Church, or 
 partaking of the sacraments. For, was not David 
 equally an object of Divine favor, and in a state of 
 salvation, when in exile beyond Jordan, as when in 
 Jerusalem and in the tem.ple ? When he exclaimed— 
 " As the hart panteth after the water-brooks, sopant- 
 eth my soul after thee, O God. My soul is athirst for 
 God, the living God; ivhen shall I come and appear 
 before God ?" — was not this will of his taken for the 
 deed ? How then, I ask, is the salvation of thofe who 
 are necessarily out of the Church, and necessarily de- 
 prived of the sacraments, in any degree doubtful or 
 jeopardized? And how, then, does charity require 
 us to speak of them as being in the Church 1 It cer- 
 tainly does not. 
 
 II. But, as to the case of those who plead no ne- 
 cessity for separation, but claim entire liberty in this 
 IT 
 
194 APPENDIX. 
 
 respect, and regard all communions as equally obliga- 
 tory, and all ministers, whether of divine or human 
 appointment, as possessing the same claim to their 
 attention ; for them there remains only the plea of 
 involuntary or unconscious error. It may be that tens 
 of thousands are in this case. For, the subject of the 
 Church has been studiously avoided — considered and 
 treated as an external — subordinate to every other 
 truth, possessing little or no importance. Concessions 
 have been made, for the sake of peace — but peace has 
 not been thereby gained. And if it had been, it would 
 have been an ignominious and sinful peace. From 
 this cause have multitudes wandered, unknowingly, in 
 the uncertain paths of schism — who, if the truth had 
 been constantly kept before them, and urged upon 
 them, might have been now walking in its sate ways. 
 
 The principles of the preceding *' Inquiry," on the 
 Christian Ministry and Church, are in strict agreement 
 with the teachings of the " Thirty-nine Articles.''^ 
 
 ART. XIX. 
 
 OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 "The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of 
 men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, 
 and the Sacraments be duly administered, according 
 to Christ's Ordinance, in all those things that of ne- 
 cessity are requisite to the same." 
 
 Here we are told, that the preaching of the pure 
 word of God, and the due administration of the Sacra- 
 ments, are essential to the being of Christ's visible 
 
APPENDIX. 195 
 
 Church ; but we are not told who are to perform these 
 sacred duties. Nor is this point cleared up by what 
 follows — '• According to Christ's Ordinance, in all 
 those things that of necessity are requisite to the same." 
 For, it is not said whether any particular ministry is 
 or is not essential. The article is silent, nor does it 
 give the slightest intimation on this point, upon which, 
 obviously, its whole meaning turns and depends. We 
 naturally ask — what does Christ's Ordinance necessa* 
 rily require in this matter? An apostolic ministry, or 
 not ? An ordained ministry of any kind or not '? The 
 nineteenth article ii silent. Its definition of the 
 Church, therefore, we conclude, is partial or genera/, 
 and must be interpreted by other articles which bear up- 
 on this subject. We proceed, then, to the twenty-third. 
 
 ART. XXIIl. 
 
 OF MINISTERING IN THE CONGREGATION. 
 
 [Lat. Ecclesia.} 
 
 *' It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the 
 Office of public preaching, or ministering the Sacra- 
 ments in the congregation, [ecclesia.] before he be 
 LAWFULLY Called and sent to execute the same. And 
 those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which 
 be chosen and called to this work by men who have 
 public authority given unto them in the congregation, 
 [ecclesia,] to call and send ministers into the Lord^s 
 Vineyard." 
 
 But who are they? Manifestly Bishops — at least in 
 the view of this church which drew up these Articles. 
 Her *' Ordinal" prescribes Episcopal ordination, and 
 her Thirty-Sixth Article enjoins the '* Ordinal" ; de- 
 claring, moreover, that *' whosoever are consecrated 
 or ordered, according to said form, are rightly, orderly, 
 and lawfully consecrated and ordained." 
 
196 APPENDIX. 
 
 And let it be carefully observed, that in the T\vent5'- 
 Third Article, she is not speaking of those who have 
 public authority in this church, but " in ecclesia" — the 
 Church Catholic. Now, if Bishops only have this 
 "public authority" in her branch of the universal 
 Church, they, of course, have in other branches. For 
 the Church is one: what is "■lawJuV^ or ^'public author- 
 ity'' in one part, is, of necessity, such in any other part. 
 True, indeed, this church does not expressly say all 
 this ; yet these are the unavoidable inferences. And 
 these Articles teach, by necessary implication, at least, 
 that an episcopally ordained ministry is the only lawful 
 ministry of the Catholic Church, as well as of the 
 Church of England, or of the United States. 
 
 Again, in the preface to the '' Ordinal," she clearly 
 affirms the three orders of the Apostolic ministry — 
 Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ; and says that these 
 ^'offices were evermore had in such reverential estima- 
 tion, that no man might presume to execute any of 
 them, except he were admitted thereto by lawful 
 AUTHORITY." Here she evidently does not refer us to 
 her own particular authority in this matter, but to that 
 which had been always, and then was such, in the 
 Church general or Catholic. And this, it is indisput- 
 able, was resident only in the Bishops. What the 
 English Reformers, therefore, who framed the Liturgy 
 and Articles, meant, when they spoke of lawful author- 
 ity in "ecclesia," cannot possibly be misconceived. 
 
 The argum9nt may be briefly summed up in the 
 following queries and answers : 
 
 1.) Can there be a church without the sacra- 
 ments ? No. — Art. 19th. 
 
 2.) Can there be sacraments without a laivful' 
 ly called and sent ministry ? No. — Art. 23d. 
 
APPENDIX. 197 
 
 3.) Can any but Bishops of Apostolic succession 
 ordain the christian ministry 7 No. — Art. 36, and 
 Preface to Ordinal. 
 
 4.) The visible Church of Christ is that con- 
 gregation of faithful men in which the pure word 
 of God is preached, and the sacraments are duly 
 administered by a lawfully appointed ministry. 
 i. e., a m.inistry called and sent by the Bishops — 
 they only, according to the divine law and the 
 practice of the universal Church, possessing such 
 authority. 
 
 The opinions of Hooker, Chillingworth, and Burnet, 
 are sometimes cited in opposition to the views which 
 we have expressed above, on the sense of the Articles. 
 In forming an estimate of the weight of authority to 
 which the opinions of these eminent men are entitled, 
 we are to remember, ^rs/, that others in the same age, 
 names of no less honor, held sentiments of an opposite 
 character to theirs ; secondly, that the times in which 
 they lived were well calculated to influence their 
 judgments on this subject. At the best they were all 
 interested parties — their personal sympathies enlisted 
 either for or against the continental reformers. Cath- 
 olic Protestants in England, who had carried on the 
 reformation under the guidance of their Bishops, saw 
 the erroneous and unsafe position of their brethren on 
 the Continent, who, reforming the Church without the 
 Bishops of the Church, had reformed themselves out of 
 the Church. And in the words of Hooker, they would 
 *'rather lament than exaggerate this their defect." — 
 There was a natural sympathy between them, arising 
 from the similarity of their relations to Rome — both 
 protesting and struggling against their common enemy. 
 They were both emerging, as it were, from under the 
 dark shadows of the same cloud of spiritual death. — 
 In one sense thev were brothers armed against a com- 
 17* 
 
198 APPENDIX. 
 
 mon foe. They fought side by side, and rendered 
 each other mutual aid. If, then, we know any thing 
 of human nature, we will not wonder that the more 
 fortunate Church of England looked with a lenient and 
 too charitable eye on the radical error of the churches 
 on the Continent. Nor had they then seen the prac- 
 tical and full developements of that error. They could 
 scarcely have formed an estimate of the wide-spread 
 evil that has since resulted from it, in the dismember- 
 ment of the visible body of Christ, and the rapid 
 growth of heresy. 
 
 Considering the age in which they lived, therefore, 
 and their peculiarly interesting connection with the 
 churches of the Continent, our estimate of their opinions 
 on this subject, at least, will be modified accordingly. 
 
 But as to the opinion of Chillingworth on the point in 
 question, which opinion is often cited to favor loose no- 
 tions on the subject of the visible Church and the minis- 
 try, it is manifestly unsustained by the fuels of the case. 
 He remarks — "Protestants do not make the true 
 preaching of the word, and the due administration of 
 tlie sacraments, the notes of //ie visible Church, but 
 only of a visible church; now these you know% are 
 very different things; the former signifying the Church 
 Catholic, or the whole Church, the latter a particular 
 church, or a part of the Catholic." Here, it is to be 
 observed, he uses almost the very words of the 19th 
 article; and this passage of his is quoted* as a comment 
 on that article. But what saith the article itself; does 
 it say a visible church is known by these marks to 
 which he alludes, or the visible church ? The latter — 
 "The visible Church of Christ" — '•^Ecclesia Christi 
 visibUis.'^'' 
 
 ■' Vide Bishop Hopkins on the Primitive Church, «^c. 
 
APPENDIX. 199 
 
 If it be said in reply, that the 19th article, in its 
 second part, specifies individual churches, as those of 
 Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome, and 
 therefore it is designed only to define some particular 
 church, and not the whole ; let it be remarked, that 
 the object in specifying these was to affirm that they 
 had erred, as well in matters of faith as in their manner 
 of living and ceremonies. This is an entirely distinct 
 proposition from that in the first clause of the article. 
 The first clause affirms a universal proposition of "The 
 visible Church of Christ," without restriction or quali- 
 fication — and, of course, embraces all particular 
 churches. 
 
 Therefore, when Chillingworth declares, as he does 
 in the above passage, that Protestants do not make 
 the true preaching of the word, and the due administra- 
 tion of the sacraments, the notes of the visible Church, 
 but only of a visible church, he asserts what is not a 
 fact, at least in reference to English Protestants. — 
 They did ever most strenuously insist on these funda- 
 mental truths for the whole Church, and their own, as 
 a part of it. Moreover, as we have shown, they in- 
 sisted on an Episcopally ordained ministry, as the only 
 lawful ministry who alone could preach the word and 
 administer the sacraments ; and that not only in their 
 particular branch of the Church, but generally in the 
 Church Catholic : and how manifestly absurd the con- 
 tary supposition, that they should declare certain 
 things (as this ministry) not merely expedient, but 
 absolutely necessary y as Christ^ s ordinance to themselves, 
 which was not equally necessary for others. How 
 could that which was not necessary to the whole 
 Church be necessary to any part of it ? 
 
 Had they declared that it was only expedient, and 
 that they for their part did therefore adopt it, this 
 were one thing ; but when they say "it is not lawful 
 
200 APPENDIX. 
 
 for man in ecclesia, i. e. the Catholic Church, why, 
 this is an entirely different thing. This makes it im- 
 perative under all circumstances, and in all particular 
 churches, that the Bishops (they being the persons 
 who have this authority in the Church Catholic) 
 choose and send ministers. 
 
 *' It is very remarkable," says Dr. Jablonsky, '*that 
 there is no doctrine or tenet of the christian religion 
 in which all christians, in general, have for the space 
 of fifteen hundred years, so unanimously agreed, as in 
 this of Episcopacy. In all ages and times down from 
 the Apostles, and in all places, through Europe, Asia 
 and Africa, wheresoever there were christians, there 
 were also Bishops, and even where chrsitians differed 
 in other points of doctrine or custom, and made schisms 
 and divisions [rather heresies] in the Church, yet did 
 they all remain unanimous in this, in retaining their 
 Bishops." — Reflections in Sharp's Life, vol. II. p. 187. 
 
202 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Q I 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 ?^ad 
 
 S -G -a :. 
 
 6611 
 
 3 1-1 
 ff 
 
 3 
 
 -£ 
 a 
 
 5 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 3 
 
 ^ 
 
 s 
 
 
 pq 
 
 3 
 
 V 
 
 o 
 
 
 6 
 
 'o 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 Salisbury 
 St. David 
 St. Asaph 
 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 § 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 m 
 
 1— 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -a 
 
 
 »- 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 CO n3 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 IS 
 
 
 
 l>^co 
 
 
 
 
 
 Jed 
 
 
 . • a 
 
 
 sfi^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 3i5 
 
 
 2 
 
 ^S-gga 
 
 
 -a -^ c 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 1.^ 
 
 ^ o 
 
 2£ 
 
 ll 
 II 
 
 "*: c 0.22 3 
 
 -S^ = 
 
 §2*^0 
 
 sa 
 
 id 
 
 n 
 
 c 
 
 g?R 
 
 m 
 
 §8-1111 
 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 (m 
 
 
 c.-i2 
 
 o 
 
 ^-•1 
 
 
 t>. 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 fM 
 
 
 K:s ^? 
 
 Tf 
 
 Tf 
 
 r)* 
 
 iO 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 UO 
 
 
APPENDIX. 203 
 
 
 
 t^ 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 , g .S 
 
 n3 
 
 s . ... 
 
 1> 
 
 ^ „-ii a"^ t- . 
 
 -C^» ^ . !>. . >^ 
 
 
 
 Cante 
 Lincol 
 isbury, 
 
 ew Cante 
 nd Londo 
 rt Bath an 
 ew Cante 
 rt Bath an 
 m Exeter 
 ew Cante 
 as St. Da 
 nd Londo 
 
 
 
 r% ^T-i'H ^"^"^ ^-a-o ^ =g-c> 
 
 .a 3^^ 
 
 ^35J35;.2J=P3 
 
 .^«33-C3S.x:Sp^03 
 
 ^"^^ 
 
 S S Jt^-S=i^ o S 
 
 §^-= st?sst?ss:?-=s 
 
 ^^:i 
 
 ^^3--^ '^.-.^ ^j5'^_C ^.iiTS 'OnS'^ ".^-g ra S^j 
 
 v>«-v-s-' 
 
 V-^-v-V^ *>^-V-W/v^-^-V-* 
 
 fc-/V,<*-srS-'V.^"V-»k^'».*"s^WV.*i^/-^/ 
 
 i 
 
 uly 14. 
 1560. 
 
 tember 1, 
 1560. 
 
 ruary 16, 
 1560. 
 
 1501. 
 1502. 
 566. 
 1566. 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ - 5- ^'^ 
 
 § 
 
 ^ Q. ^ 
 
 May 
 April 
 May 
 Oct. 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 »; bD 
 
 
 
 
 
 ester, 
 field. 
 & W 
 
 £ 
 
 2 
 
 .2 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 3 
 
 ^ 
 
 »H 
 
 -Z-^-B 
 
 J- 
 
 
 an 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 13 
 
 c* 
 
 ^3c§ 
 
 « 
 
 » 
 
 
 &<£ 
 
 w 
 
 O 
 
 s 
 
 cq 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 «» 
 
 
 
 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 .2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 mund Gheast, f. 63. 
 ranslated to Salisbury 
 omas Bentharn, f. 59 
 bert Berkeley, f. 74. 
 
 s 
 
 
 38 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 1-H 
 
 t.4 
 
 < 
 
 § 
 
 s 
 
 i 
 1 
 1 
 
 ward Scamble 
 91. translate 
 584. 
 
 •> 
 Q 
 
 .5 
 
 
 i 
 
 •o ♦'J^^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 *-» 
 
 -g-o'^'- 
 
 ^ 
 
 .2 
 
 s 
 
 .2 
 
 « HO 
 
 tf M 
 
 H 
 
 ai 
 
 S 
 
 ^ 
 
 g ^S 
 
 g 
 
 8 
 
 3S 
 
 S 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 S 
 
204 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 03 2 
 
 Q S 
 
 -O OJ 
 
 J" S "m 
 
 h4^ 
 
 ^- a 
 
 V 
 
 o -a 
 
 
 
 . ^ -e "s -P r^" *:? 
 
 CO -« 
 
 ?^ (L 0- 
 
 o 13 S 
 
 ill 
 
 dj o oj 
 
 •.-J T3 ^ - 
 
 ^ ^ § O ^ 
 
 ^ oj S C 
 O ^ S 13 
 -^ ::^ S S 
 
 ■^ • • "^ _H Ci 
 
 "S -° s^i t5 -^ ^ 
 « O TS J2 ° -^ 
 
 ^ CO 
 
 03 fl (U 
 
 — o ^ 
 
 <D fi a 
 
 •5 ^2 
 
 cT 
 
 S 
 
 i 
 
 
 I— 1 
 
 1 
 
 cxT 
 
 J— 1 
 
 I— 1 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 (TJ 
 
 ^ 
 
 .xj 
 
 
 M 
 
 "^ 
 
 I-'c: 
 
 y 
 
 
 >. 
 
 ^ 
 
 £ 
 
 2 
 
 ^ 
 
 Sd 
 
 6 
 
 •no 
 
 «j 
 
 
 cS 
 
 
 
 c3 
 
 
 &rZ^ 
 
 S 
 
 
 § 
 
 s 
 
 S 
 
 § 
 
 Q 
 
 < CJ 
 
 a 
 1- 
 
 
 
 .^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 o> 
 
 T,:^ 
 
 %-? 
 
 . CU 
 
 
 
 
 r-( 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 03 
 
 ■r 
 
 ««-.■ 
 
 
 .J 
 
 «-a 
 
 
 
 
 03 
 
 
 
 
 II 
 
 
 1 
 
 Freak 
 wich, 
 
 84. 
 
 
 P 
 
 W is 
 
 
 -It 
 
 .2 
 
 13 
 
 Edmund 
 to Nor 
 ter, 15 
 
 ff3 
 
 si 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 c* 
 
 CO 
 
 •^ 
 
 «^ 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 i^ 
 
 i^ 
 
 t^ 
 
 i^ 
 
APPENDIX. 205 
 
 Si ^ I ? 
 
 §1 I -§ I 
 
 g . ^ ^ , , ^-> 
 
 OS <y .: ^ b^ 
 
 rt-S c5 ^ I ^1^ 1 
 
 Q©^ .S 'g'g-g 'o 
 
 Id s ¥ ^ 
 
 S CQ !> § 
 <1 >, > .J 
 
 o 
 
 
 -d 
 
 
 R 
 
 
 
 OJ 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 fl 
 
 1^. 
 
 i 
 
 
 a 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 "o 
 
 >> 
 C 
 
 K 
 
 1 
 o 
 
 Thomas Che 
 John Stokes 
 John Hilsey 
 
 1 
 
 II 
 ^4 
 
 2 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 rv«N^> /'^^^.*^ /"XAi^N 
 
 
 ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ g^^ ffi^o ^o 
 
 18 
 
SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS. 
 
 The Roman episcopate was founded 
 by St. Peter among the Jewish converts ; 
 and by St. Paul, among the Gentile con- 
 verts.* 
 
 The writer of the Acts of the Apostles, 
 (Acts xxviii, 28-31,) informs us, that Paul, 
 being rejected by the Jews, preached the 
 gospel for two whole years at Rome to the 
 Gentiles. "Be it known, therefore, unto 
 you, that the salvation of God is sent unto 
 the Gentiles, and that they will hear it. 
 And when he had said these words, the 
 Jews departed, and had great reasonings 
 among themselves, and Paul dwelt two 
 whole years in his own hired house, and 
 received all that came in unto him, preach- 
 
 * See pages 166, 167 and 168. 
 
208 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 ing the kingdom of God, and teaching 
 those things which concern the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, with all confidence, no man for- 
 bidding him." 
 
 ROME. 
 
 
 Jetcs, Gentiles. 
 
 
 Peter, Paul, 
 
 
 Clement, Linus, 
 
 
 Cletus, 
 
 
 '0-100 Clement, who, sur- 
 
 259 Dionysius. 
 
 viving Cletus, united 
 
 269 Felix I. 
 
 the churches. 
 
 269 Felix IL 
 
 100 Evarestus, 
 
 275 Eutychianus, 
 
 108 Alexander, 
 
 283 Caius, 
 
 108 ^ixtus, 
 
 296 Marcellinus, 
 
 127 Telesphorus, 
 
 308 Marcellus I. 
 
 138 Hyginus, 
 
 310 Ensebius, 
 
 141 Pius, 
 
 310 Melchiades, 
 
 155 Anicetus, 
 
 314 Silvester I. 
 
 166 Soter, 
 
 336 Mark, 
 
 174 Eleutherius, 
 
 337 Julius I, 
 
 187 Victor, 
 
 352 Liberius, 
 
 198 Zephyrinus, 
 
 366 Damasus L 
 
 216 Calixtus, 
 
 385 Siricius, 
 
 221 Urban, 
 
 398 Anastasius L 
 
 229 Pontianus, 
 
 402 Innocent I. 
 
 235 Anteros, 
 
 417 Zosimus, 
 
 236 Fabianus, 
 
 418 Boniface L 
 
 251 Cornelius, 
 
 422 Celestine L 
 
 253 Lucius, 
 
 432 Sixtus IIL 
 
 255 Stephanus, 
 
 440 Leo I. or, ihe great^ 
 
 257 Sixtus IK 
 
 461 IHlarius, 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 468 Simplicius, 
 
 624 Justus, 
 
 483 Felix IIL 
 
 634 Honorius, 
 
 492 Gelasius I. 
 
 654 Adeodatus, 
 
 496 Anastasius IT. 
 
 668 Theodore, 
 
 498 Symmachus, 
 
 693 Berthwald, 
 
 614 Hormisdas, 
 
 731 Tat win, 
 
 523 John I. 
 
 735 Nothelm, 
 
 626 Felix IV. 
 
 742 Cuthbert, 
 
 530 Boniface IL 
 
 759 Bregwin, 
 
 532 John II. 
 
 763 Lambert, 
 
 535 Agapetus L 
 
 793 Athelard, 
 
 536 Sylverius, 
 
 803 Wulfred, 
 
 640 Vigilius, 
 
 830 Feologild, 
 
 555 Pelagius I. 
 
 830 Ceolnoth, 
 
 660 John III. 
 
 871 Athelred 
 
 674 Benedict I. 
 
 891 Plegmundj 
 
 578 Pelagius II. 
 
 923 Athelm, 
 
 590 Gregory I. the great ^ 
 
 928 Ulfhelm, 
 
 who sent Augustine, 
 
 941 Odo, 
 
 a monk, missionary 
 
 959 Dunstan, 
 
 to England, and with 
 
 988 Ethelgar, 
 
 the consent of Eth- 
 
 989 Siric, 
 
 elbert, king of Kent, 
 
 996 Alfric, 
 
 consecrated* him first 
 
 1005 Elphege, 
 
 Archbishop of Can- 
 
 1013 Lifing, 
 
 terbury in 
 
 1020 Athelnoth, 
 
 696 He was succeeded in 
 
 1038 Eadsy, 
 
 605 by Laurence, 
 
 1050 Robert, 
 
 619 Melitus, 
 
 1052 Stigand, 
 
 209 
 
 * Augustine, by Gregory's command, was consecrated by 
 Virgilius, 24th bishop of Aries, and iEtherius 31st bishop of 
 Lyons. A list of the bishops of Lyons micrht be given, tracing 
 the succession to St. John, but as such list would give only 
 the names of the successors in office, in that pnrticular branch 
 of the church, and not the names of the successive consecrators, 
 it is of little moment whether we trace through Rome or Lyons. 
 The object being to exhibit an unbroken succession of Bishops 
 from the Apostles — proving the origin and constant existence 
 of episcopacy — is as well attained throno-h Rome. 
 18* 
 
210 APPENDIX. 
 
 1070 Lanfranc, 1501 Henry Dean, 
 
 1093 Anselra, 1503 William Warham, 
 
 1114 Rodolphus, 1533 Thomas Cranmer, 
 
 1122 William Corbeil, 1555 Reginald Pole, 
 113S Theobald, 1559 Matthew Parker, 
 
 1162 Thomas a Becket, 1573 Edmund Grindal, 
 1174 Richard, 1583 John Whitgift, 
 
 1184 Baldwin, 1604 Richard Bancroft, 
 
 1191 Reginald Fitzjocelinl611 George Abbot, 
 1193 Hubert Walter, 1633 William Laud, 
 
 1207 Stephen Langton, 1660 William Juxon, 
 1229 Richard, 1663 Gilbert Sheldon, 
 
 1234 Edmund, l677 William Sancroft, 
 
 1245 Boniface, 1693 John Tillotson, 
 
 1272 Robert Kilwardby, 1694 Thomas Tennison, 
 1278 John Peckham, 1715 William Wake, 
 1294 Robert Winchelsey,1737 John Potter, 
 1313 Walter Reynolds, ' 1738 Thomas Seeker, 
 1328 Simeon Mepham, 1747 Thomas Herring, 
 1333 John Stratford, 1757 Matthew Hutton, 
 
 1348 Thos, Bradwardin, 1758 Thomas Seeker, 
 
 1349 Simon Islip, 3 768 Cornwallrs, 
 
 1366 Simon Langbam, John Moore, who, with 
 
 1368 William Whittlesey, William Markhara, Arch- 
 1374 Simon Sudbury, bishop ofYork,Chas. Moss 
 1381 William Courtney, Bishop of Bath and Wells, 
 1396 Thomas Arundel, and John Hinchliff, Bishop 
 1414 Henry Chicheley, of Peterborough, in 1787 
 1443 John Stafford, consecrated Wm. White, 
 
 1452 John Kemp, Bishop of Pennsylvania, 
 
 1454 Thomas Bourchier, and Samuel Provoost^ 
 1486 John Morton^ Bishop of New-York. 
 
6765