LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 University of California. 
 
 GIFT OF 
 
 Mrs. SARAH P. WALSWORTH. 
 
 Received October, 1894. 
 ^Accessions No. S^fi (pq. Class No. 
 
 
 
/-';- f 
 
 PRELACY AND PARITY. 
 
 DISCUSSED 
 
 IN SEVERAL LECTURES ; 
 
 COMPRISING 
 
 A REVIEW OF REV. LLOYD WINDSOR'S ARGUMENT ON THE 
 MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 
 
 REV. WILLIAM C. WISNER, 
 II 
 
 BI3HO? OF THE FIRST? PRESBYTERIAN UHaRCH, LOCETORT, £T. T. 
 
 ^crfwl 
 
 NEW-YORK : 
 LEAVITT, TROW, & CO., 194 BROADWAY. 
 
 MDCCCXLIV. 
 

 rj*u 
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1344, 
 
 By LEAVITT, TROW, & CO., 
 
 in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Southern District of 
 
 New- York. 
 
 in F. Trow & Co., Printers 
 S3 Ann-street. 
 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Lecture 
 
 I. 
 
 Lecture 
 
 II. 
 
 Lecture 
 
 III. 
 
 Lecture 
 
 IV. 
 
 Lecture 
 
 V. 
 
 Lecture 
 
 VI. 
 
 Lecture 
 
 VII. 
 
 Lecture 
 
 VIII 
 
 ' (TURE 
 
 IX. 
 
 .APPENDIX. N( 
 
 Page 
 
 Introduction . 7 
 
 Apostleship ....... 19 
 
 Apostleship — Continued . . ... 39 
 
 The Ministerial Commission .... -63 
 
 Testimony of the Fathers .... 88 
 
 Testimony of the Fathers — continued . . 105 
 
 Corroborative Testimony of Episcopalians . 116 
 
 The Rise of Prelacy 128 
 
 The Claims to Apostolical Succession exam- 
 ined 139 
 
 Notes on certain tracts issued pending the discus- 
 sion . . 156 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 On pnge 10, fifth line from bottom, for Markrun read Markum. 
 
 Page '4:9, twelfth line from top, for professed read possessed. 
 
 Page 40, last, line, for they read this. 
 
 Pa^e 43, eighth line from top, between word and seems, insert "thcni." 
 
 Page 58, fifteenth line from rop, for divine read diverse. 
 
 Pasre 74, sixth line from bottom, insert between any and His, — That they ruled is 
 admitted by our author. < 
 
 Page 80, fifth line from top. for imperial read inspired. 
 
 Besides these, there are a few minor mistakes, two or three of which extend to 
 single letters in Greek words, but they are so obvious that the reader will at once 
 perceive and correct them for himself. 
 
TO THE READER. 
 
 In giving to the public the following Lectures, the 
 Author has yielded to the earnest solicitation of his people, 
 for whose special benefit they were prepared and delivered. 
 The circumstances which made it necessary for him to enter 
 upon the discussion are sufficiently explained in the intro- 
 ductory discourse. In the course of his argument he has 
 not scrupled to avail himself of all the aid he could gather 
 from the most prominent authors upon the same subject; 
 such as Miller, Barnes, Smyth, Powell, Duffield, &c. He 
 flatters himself that the argument is compressed into a much 
 smaller compass in the present volume, than it can elsewhere 
 be found ; while yet nothing material to a correct under- 
 standing of the whole subject is omitted. 
 
 There is one point to which he would call the special 
 attention of the reader. Writers upon the same side of 
 this subject with himself, have divided the Apostolic office 
 into two parts, viz., that which was extraordinary and tempo- 
 rary, and that which was ordinary and perpetual. The 
 former part of this office, they tell us, has long since passed 
 away ; while the latter continues in the person of every 
 gospel minister. By thus dividing the same office into parts 
 so entirely distinct and distinguished from each other, they 
 have, to many minds, darkened the whole subject, and given 
 our opponents a decided advantage. The author of the 
 subsequent Lectures has endeavored to prove that the 
 Apostleship is an office entirely distinct from the pres- 
 
 1 
 
6 
 
 TO THE READER. 
 
 byterate ; and that the two have no necessary connection 
 with each other : that the Apostles were made Presbyters 
 some time after they received the Apostleship ; and that the 
 ministerial commission had nothing to do with appointment 
 to Apostleship — but that Christ gave it to his disciples 
 simply as Presbyters. If these positions can be maintained, 
 they render the whole argument very plain and simple, and 
 bring it within the comprehension of every reflecting 
 mind. How far the author has succeeded in his argument 
 is left to the judgment of an impartial public. 
 
 Lockport, Nov. 1, 1843. 
 
LECTURE I. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 Job xxxii. 10. — " I also will show mine opinion." 
 
 Controversy, in itself considered, and especially about 
 mere externals, is a thing to be lamented in the church of 
 God. But there are times when men are unavoidably placed 
 upon the defensive ; when, to keep silence would be weak 
 not only, but culpable in the extreme. We, my brethren, 
 have arrived at such a crisis in our history ; and I am 
 reluctantly compelled- by the force of circumstances, to 
 enter upon a series of Lectures in defence of the ministry, 
 the ordinances, and the government of our church, in 
 opposition to the exclusive claims set up by a portion of the 
 Episcopal communion. I said " reluctantly compelled " — not 
 because I have any fears as to the result of such a contro- 
 versy, — but because it would be much more consonant with 
 my feelings to preach repentance towards God and faith in 
 the Lord Jesus Christ ; thus endeavouring to benefit the 
 heart, and cultivate the Christian graces, than to be contend- 
 ing about the beauty and order of that external drapery 
 which Christ has thrown over his church. I said " by a 
 portion of the Episcopal communion " — because the Episco- 
 pal church in England, and, to a greater or less extent, in 
 this country, has ever been divided into three distinct classes 
 upon this subject; of which the " exclusive right" class 
 are (or, if they are not now, have been until very lately) 
 by far the smallest. The first class are those who believe 
 that the New Testament does not prescribe any particular 
 form of government as binding upon the church ; but that it 
 
8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 was left with her members to adopt such a form as they, 
 under all the circumstances of the case, should deem most 
 expedient. They prefer Episcopacy because they believe it 
 to be the most perfect form of government ; but they deny 
 that it has been established jure divino. Among this class 
 we find the names of Archbishops Cranmer, Grindal, 
 Whitgift, and Tillctson ; Bishops Leighton, Jewel, Reynolds, 
 Burnet, and Croft ; Doctors Whittaker and Stillingfleet, 
 and a multitude of others too numerous to mention. The 
 second class are those who believe that Episcopacy was 
 sanctioned by the Apostles, and that it is necessary to the 
 perfection of the church, but deny that it is necessary to her 
 existence: and they acknowledge other evangelical denomi- 
 nations to be true churches, although deprived of the perfect 
 polity preferred and adopted by the apostles. We find 
 numbered with this class, among many other distinguished 
 names, Archbishops Usher and Wake : Bishops Hall, 
 Dounham, Bancroft, Andrews, Forbes, Chillingworth, 
 Hoadly, &,c. The third class comprises those who, follow- 
 ing the illustrious example of the papal hierarchy, unchurch 
 everybody but themselves, and thunder out their bull of 
 excommunication against the ministry and ordinances of 
 every other denomination, declaring them invalid and of no 
 effect. We are gratified to be able to state, for the honor 
 of the Episcopal church, that this third class has, from the 
 Reformation until very lately, been comparatively small. 
 How the matter stands at present, we are unable definitely 
 to say; we trust they are still in the minority, although 
 we have reason to fear that they are on the increase. 
 
 To show that this is not a mistaken statement, let a few 
 quotations from Episcopal writers suffice. The unhappy 
 Charles I., when urged to consent to a proposed act of 
 Parliament for abolishing Episcopacy, wrote upon the 
 subject to his tried Episcopal friends and counsellors — Lord 
 Jermyn, Lord Culpepper, and Mr. Ashburnham — as follows : 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 9 
 
 " Show me any precedent wherever Presbyterial government 
 and regal was together without perpetual rebellions ; which 
 was the cause that necessitated the king my father to change 
 that government in Scotland. And even in France, where 
 they are upon tolerance, (which in likelihood should cause 
 moderation,) did they ever sit still so long as they had power 
 to rebel 1 And it cannot be otherwise ; for the ground of 
 their doctrine is anti-monarchical. I will say, without 
 hyperbole, that there was not a wiser man since Solomon 
 than he who said, ' no Bishop, no King. 1 " His majesty 
 likewise stated that to consent to the proposed abolition was 
 against his " conscience." To all of which they reply — " If, 
 by conscience, your meaning is, that you are obliged to do 
 all in your power to support and maintain the functions of 
 Bishops, as that which is the most ancient, reverend, and 
 pious government of the church, we fully and heartily 
 concur with you therein. But if, by conscience is intended 
 to assert that Episcopacy is jure divino exclusive, whereby 
 no Protestant (or rather Christian) church can be acknow- 
 ledged for such without a bishop, we must, therein, crave 
 leave wholly to differ. And if we be not in error, we are in 
 good company ; there not being (as we have cause to 
 believe) six persons of the Protestant religion of the other 
 opinion. Thus much we can add, that, at the treaty of 
 Uxbridge, none of your divines then present (though much 
 provoked thereunto) would maintain that (we might say 
 uncharitable) opinion ; no, not privately among your com- 
 missioners." It is worthy of remark, that these counsellors 
 of King Charles were entirely opposed to the abolition of 
 Episcopacy, and in favor of maintaining the functions of 
 the bishops, as "the most ancient, reverend, and pious 
 government of the church f still, they did not hold, and 
 they had reason to believe that there were " not six persons 
 of~the Protestant religion," who held that Episcopacy was 
 "jure divino exclusive," in such a sense that no Protestant 
 
10 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 denomination without bishops could be called a church. 
 This uncharitable sentiment, for themselves and the whole 
 English church, they entirely repudiate. Bishop Hall, an 
 eminent English prelate who flourished about the middle of 
 the seventeenth century, and who did as much as any other 
 man of that age to advance the cause of Episcopacy, pub- 
 lished a work which he called Irenicum, (or Peacemaker,) 
 from which we extract the following passage : " Blessed be 
 God, there is no difference, in any essential point, between 
 the church of England, and her sister-reformed churches. 
 We unite in every article of Christian doctrine, without the 
 least variation, as full and absolute agreement between their 
 public confessions and ours testifies. The only difference 
 between us consists in our mode of constituting the external 
 ministry ; and even with respect to this, we are of one mind, 
 because we all prof ess to believe that it is not an essential of 
 the church, (though, in the opinion of many, it is a matter of 
 importance to her well-being ;) and we all retain a respectful 
 and friendly opinion of each other, not seeing any reason 
 why so small a disagreement should produce any alienation 
 of affection among us." 
 
 In a pamphlet recently published in this village, entitled 
 " An inquiry into the ministerial commission, by Rev. Lloyd 
 Windsor, M. A.," (to which pamphlet, as we proceed, we 
 shall now and then pay our respects,) we find a long cata- 
 logue of Popes and Bishops, through which the author pre- 
 tends to trace a regular succession of Apostles, from the 
 Apostles Peter and Paul to Apostle White of Pennsylvania ; 
 who, it would seem from the author's showing, was the first 
 Apostle to the Gentiles beyond the Great Waters : for in 
 1787, William Markrun, the arch-Apostle of York, in con- 
 nection with other Apostles of the Episcopal church, con- 
 stituted this William White apostle of Pennsylvania. Now, 
 as he was the father of the Episcopal church in the United 
 States, and the medium through which they trace their 
 
 I 
 
INTRODUCTION. 11 
 
 Apostolic succession up to the churches of the seven-hilled 
 city, his opinions should have great weight with the sons of 
 the prelacy. This same Bishop White published a pam- 
 phlet, entitled " The Case of the Episcopal Church in the 
 United States considered," from which we extract the follow- 
 ing : " Now if even those who hold Episcopacy to be of 
 divine right conceive the obligation to it not to be binding, 
 when that idea would be destructive of public worship ; 
 much more must they think so, who indeed venerate and 
 prefer that form as the most ancient and eligible, but 
 without any idea of divine right in the case. This the 
 author believes to be the sentiment of the great body of 
 Episcopalians in America; in which respect, they have in 
 their favor unquestionably the sense of the church of 
 England ; and, as he believes, the opinions of her most 
 distinguished prelates fox piety, virtue, and abilities." We 
 see from this extract, 
 
 1. That in the days of Bishop White, those who believed 
 in the divine right of Episcopacy did not consider it abso- 
 lutely necessary to the existence of a church ; they 
 
 CONCEIVED THE OBLIGATION OF IT NOT TO BE BINDING 
 WHEN THAT IDEA WOULD BE DESTRUCTIVE OF PUBLIC WOR- 
 SHIP. " 
 
 2. That, much as Bishop White venerated Episcopacy, 
 he did not believe in its divine right. 
 
 3. That the great body of Episcopalians in America 
 were of the same opinion ; and, 
 
 4. That this was the sense of the English church, sus- 
 tained by her most distinguished prelates. 
 
 With Episcopalians of this stamp we have no controver- 
 sy. We love them as brethren, and are more than willing 
 that they should enjoy the form of government which they 
 so much venerate. It is not the Episcopal church against 
 which we contend : it is not their form of government, their 
 liturgy, their creed. To be sure we think them all, in many 
 
12 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 respects, defective ; but if others prefer them, we are entire- 
 ly willing they should adopt them ; and we hail them as 
 members of the same spiritual family with us, belonging to 
 the same body of Christ, which is the church. But when 
 the sons of the Hierarchy come out with their exclusive 
 claims — their jure divino exclusive opinions — when they 
 profess to be the only true church, and to possess the only 
 valid ministry and ordinances — when they unchurch every 
 Protestant denomination but their own, calling their pastors 
 unordained, and their sacraments unauthorized — when they 
 arrogate to themselves all correct understanding of this sub- 
 ject — when they attribute the opinions of their brethren 
 who differ from them to prejudice and ignorance, and, in 
 effect, say to the world, " we are the people, and wis- 
 dom will die with us " — when, not satisfied with preach- 
 ing these doctrines week after week and month after month, 
 they give them to the community in pamphlets — and when, 
 illy at ease to have these pamphlets find their way into the 
 bosom of families from respectable bookstores, they cause 
 them to be hawked from door to door in baskets — 
 then, we think that for us to keep silence on the subject 
 would be an unpardonable omission of duty. Certainly our 
 brethren of the Episcopal church cannot blame us, if, under 
 such circumstances, we should review their exclusive claims 
 with some degree of severity — if we should defend, with 
 somewhat of a heavy hand, our own ecclesiastical exist- 
 ence. 
 
 We have just received, through the columns of the Epis- 
 copal Recorder, some remarks of the venerable Dr. Milnor, 
 Rector of St. George's Church, New-York city, against the 
 influence of the Oxford Tracts and other publications of the 
 same school, which go to show that, in his opinion, the 
 increase of the exclusive doctrines of high church Episco- 
 palians is to be attributed, in a great measure, to those pub- 
 lications. " That those tracts," says he, " have been the 
 
INTRODUCTION. 13 
 
 means of corrupting the faith of many, and of leading some, 
 for the sake of consistency, to abjure the reformed faith and 
 to unite themselves with the church of Rome, is an unques- 
 tioned fact ; and that they have led members still in com- 
 munion to promulgate opinions which, a few years ago, 
 would have identified them with the adherents of that cor- 
 rupt church, is equally true." What those opinions are 
 which are taught at Oxford and imbibed by a portion of the 
 Episcopal church, and which, in the view of Dr. Milnor at 
 least, would have identified their adherents with the Papal 
 church, had they been promulgated a few years ago, we 
 learn from the following extract. " When I can bring my 
 mind to believe that, instead of taking my Bible as the guide 
 of my path, I should dishonor the best of Heaven's gifts by 
 admitting tradition to a coequal rank — when I can be per- 
 suaded that there is a dread obscurity in Scripture, even in 
 the fundamentals of Christian faith, that renders indispensa- 
 ble the aid of such an adjunct in the discovery of truth — 
 when my charity so fails that I can consign my fellow- 
 Christians of other names, whatever the strength of their 
 faith in Christ and the holiness of their lives, to the uncovc- 
 nanted mercies of God, because of their not belonging to a 
 church governed by bishops consecrated by succession from 
 the Apostles — when I dare rssert that that order is requisite 
 not only to the perfection and completeness of a Christian 
 church, but also to its very existence — when I am convinced 
 that I must ascribe exclusively to the apostolic commission 
 the derivation of the grace of the Spirit and our mystical 
 communion with Christ, to believe, in truth, that the sacra- 
 ments of the church are the only channels whereby the gifts 
 of the Holy Spirit are conveyed to man — when I can se« 
 that there is an actual sacrament in the Eucharist, and that 
 the Redeemer is really and essentially present in his natural 
 body and blood, in that sacrament," &/C. * * # * * 
 " When I can make these admissions and subscribe to these 
 
14 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 sentiments, I may join the ranks of the men of Oxford." In 
 this extract the following things are noticeable : 
 
 1. It contains a list of those sentiments which have been 
 embraced by a portion of the Episcopal church, under the 
 influence of Oxford publications. 
 
 2. Among these sentiments we find that against which 
 we are at present contending, viz., that which consigns 
 "fellow-Christians of other names , whatever the strength of 
 their faith in Christ and the holiness of their lives, to the 
 uncovenanted mercies of God, because of their not belonging 
 to a church governed by bishops consecrated by succession 
 from the Apostles " — which " dares assert that that order is 
 
 requisite not only to the completeness and perfection of a 
 Christian church, but also to its very existence." 
 
 3. That in the opinion of the venerable Doctor Milnor, 
 (and we suspect of many other Episcopal doctors,) this is 
 one of the sentiments which, " a. few years ago, would have 
 identified its adherents with the corrupt church of Rome" 
 
 The truth is, High Church Episcopacy is fast verging 
 towards Oxford, and Oxford is more than half way on her 
 journey to the Italian capital. When we read, in one of 
 the principal and recent publications of the Oxford school, 
 such sentences as these — " We cannot stand where we are ; 
 we must either go backwards or forwards, and it will surely 
 be the latter :" — " It is absolutely necessary to the consist- 
 ency of the system which we are laboring to restore, that 
 truths should be clearly stated which as yet have been but 
 intimated, and others developed which are now but in the 
 germ ; and as we go on we must recede more and more 
 
 FROM THE PRINCIPLES, IF ANY THERE BE, OF THE ENGLISH 
 
 Reformation" — I say, when we read such sentences as 
 these in their leading and recent tracts, we cannot close our 
 eyes to the fact that that portion of the Episcopal church, 
 with the feelings of a homesick daughter, is rushing to the 
 embrace of her Papal mother. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 15 
 
 In controversy it is necessary, in order to be clearly 
 understood, that we define with precision and perspicuity 
 the things about which we contend, and the principles 
 which we shall endeavor to establish. In order to this, the 
 first inquiry which meets the mind is — What is Episcopacy ? 
 This term is derived from the Greek word Emaxonog, 
 which signifies an overseer, a bishop. It has come to desig- 
 nate those religious denominations which are governed by 
 diocesan bishops. These — omitting to notice the Greek 
 church — may be divided into the Episcopal Papal, and Epis- 
 copal Protestant. The Episcopal Protestant church is the 
 established church of Great Britain. The King or Queen 
 is the supreme head on earth of the English church. This 
 no pne will doubt who has ever read the history of the Eng- 
 lish reformation, or the statutes of Parliament upon the sub- 
 ject, or Sir William Blackstone's inimitable Commentary 
 upon English law. Queen Victoria is at present the 
 supreme head on earth of the English church. Next to this 
 royal lady we find two archbishops ; next to them comes a 
 line of bishops ; next, archdeacons ; then presbyters ; and 
 then deacons. So that, in the English Episcopal church, 
 besides her supreme earthly head, there are five orders or 
 distinctions of clergy. Episcopalians in this country have 
 concluded to dispense with a king for their supreme head — 
 it not being very convenient to find one. They have like- 
 wise taken down the lofty arches in their magnificent Epis- 
 copal temple — such as archbishops and archdeacons, and 
 have adopted the more simple form of the threefold ministry, 
 as it is sometimes called. By the canons of the Episcopal 
 church, at least three bishops are necessary to ordain a 
 bishop. Presbyters have nothing to do with the ordination 
 of bishops. Presbyters are ordained by the bishop of the 
 diocese to which they belong ; the presbyters who are pres- 
 ent placing their hands upon the candidate's head by way of 
 consent. Deacons are ordained by the bishop alone. 
 
16 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Bishops may preach, baptize, and administer the sacra- 
 ments. The duties peculiar to a bishop are confirmation, 
 ordination, and supreme ecclesiastical rule, within the 
 bounds of his own diocese. The duties of a priest, or pres- 
 byter, are to preach, baptize, administer the holy eucharist, 
 and superintend the affairs of his own particular charge, 
 subject in all things to his bishop. The duties of a deacon 
 are to preach, and, if necessary, to baptize ; to which is 
 nominally added a sort of superintendence of the charities 
 for the poor. I am thus explicit in describing these several 
 offices and their respective duties, to prevent continual 
 explanations in the progress of this discussion. 
 
 Presbytery is a term derived from the Greek word IIqeg- 
 pvreoog, which signifies an old man — an elder. Presbyter 
 is used to designate a minister, or pastor, of a church — and 
 Presbytery is the name applied to a council of such minis- 
 ters met as equals in office to transact business for the 
 churches over which they preside. Hence this term is used 
 to designate all those denominations of Christians who 
 believe in the parity, or official equality of the clergy. The 
 main points of difference between presbytery and jure divino 
 Episcopacy, are the following : 
 
 1. Episcopacy holds that the Apostolic office is a per- 
 manent office in the church, and that diocesan bishops are 
 nothing less than apostles, the succession of the college of 
 apostles who were about our Lord Jesus Christ. Presbytery 
 holds that the apostolic office was limited and extraordinary ; 
 that there never were but twelve apostles at the same time ; 
 that they never had successors ; that when they died the 
 office of apostle ceased. 
 
 2. Episcopacy holds that the commission given by Christ 
 to his disciples, just before he ascended to heaven, to preach, 
 baptize, and govern the church, was given to them as apos- 
 tles, and is to be continued in the line of apostles to the end 
 of time ; and that, if there is a single link defective or want- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 17 
 
 ing in the chain of succession, it invalidates the commission 
 and nullifies the ordinances. Presbytery holds that this 
 commission was given to the disciples as presbyters, and not 
 as apostles, and that it is handed down to the church in the 
 line of presbyters, or simple pastors, and not in that of apos- 
 tles ; it likewise holds that if, by any means, there should be 
 a flaw in the succession, it would not invalidate the commis- 
 sion ; that every one who enters the ministry should be 
 called immediately by Christ, through the Spirit, which call 
 is indicated to him by the state of his mind, and the provi- 
 dences of God concerning him. The question whether he 
 has been so called to the ministry is finally to be decided 
 by the church, through her presbyters, and the act of ordi- 
 nation is the public announcement of that decision, and the 
 consecration of the candidate, in a most solemn manner, for 
 the work to which he has been called by his Lord and 
 Master. 
 
 3. Episcopacy holds that there w r ere instituted by Christ 
 and his apostles three orders of the ministry, viz., bishops, 
 presbyters, and deacons. Presbytery holds that there never 
 was but one order of permanent ministers instituted by 
 divine authority in the church ; that that order is presbyters, 
 or, as they are frequently called, bishops. In the opinion of 
 Presbytery, there are, besides preaching presbyters, a bench 
 of ruling presbyters or elders, whose sole business is to 
 attend to the government of the church. Hence, the dis- 
 tinction made in Scripture between the elders who rule well 
 and those who labor in word and doctrine. It is not the 
 duty of deacons to preach and baptize ; they were appointed 
 solely to serve tables— to superintend the temporalities of 
 the church and attend to the wants of the poor. To give a 
 more full view of the sentiments of Presbytery on the subject 
 of church officers, we would refer to Ephesians iv. 11, "And 
 he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evan- 
 gelists, and some pastors and teachers/' in connection with 
 
18 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 1 Cor. xii. 28 — " And God hath set some in the church ; 
 first, apostles ; secondarily, prophets ; thirdly, teachers ; 
 after that, miracles ; then, gifts of healing ; -helps ; govern- 
 ments ; diversities of tongues." It would seem from these 
 passages that the officers in the early New Testament 
 church were apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and 
 teachers, governments, helps. Presbytery supposes the 
 three, viz., apostles, prophets, and evangelists, were extraor- 
 dinary officers, who have long since ceased to exist. Pas- 
 tors and teachers are nothing more than preaching pres- 
 byters, or elders who labor in word and doctrine ; govern- 
 ments are ruling elders, or those whose whole duty it is to 
 attend to the government or rule of the church ; helps are 
 deacons, or those officers who are to attend to the temporal- 
 ities of the church. Here, then, are stated, as plainly as I 
 am able to state them, the leading matters of dispute 
 between Presbytery and Episcopacy. Both appeal to the 
 Bible and to the testimony of the early fathers in support of 
 their favorite theories. In unfolding this whole "subject, I 
 intend to be as brief as is consistent. The Lord grant that 
 the undertaking may result in good to the churches, for his 
 name's sake. 
 
LECTURE II, 
 
 APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 Luke vi. 13-16. — " And when it was day, he called unto him his 
 disciples ; and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apos- 
 tles ; Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, 
 James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, 
 James the son of Alpheus, and Simon called Zelotes, and Judas the 
 brother of James, and Judas Iscariot which also was the traitor." 
 
 Mark iii. 13-15. — " And he goeth up into a mountain, and call- 
 eth unto him whom he would; and they came unto him. And he 
 ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might 
 send them forth to preach, and to have power to heal sicknesses, and 
 to cast out devils." 
 
 Our subject for this evening is the Apostleship. The 
 difference between Episcopacy and Presbytery upon this sub- 
 ject was stated in a previous lecture as follows : — Episcopacy 
 holds that the Apostolic office is a permanent office in the 
 church ; and that diocesan bishops are nothing less than 
 Apostles — the successors of the college of Apostles who 
 were about the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. Presby- 
 tery holds that the Apostolic office was limited and extraor- 
 dinary ; that there never were but twelve Apostles at the 
 same time ; that these twelve never had successors, but that, 
 when they died, the office of Apostle ceased. 
 
 In unfolding the argument upon this subject, it is neces- 
 sary, at the outset, that we understand the true meaning of 
 the term Apostle. It comes from the Greek Anovfolog, 
 which signifies one sent with a message — a messenger ; and 
 when the message is of a spiritual nature, it has very much 
 the same import with our word missionary. In this general 
 
20 APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 sense it is frequently used in the New Testament, of which 
 we have a most striking example in John xiii. 16 : " Verily 
 I say unto you, the servant is not greater than his Lord, nei- 
 ther is he that is sent (cmoGtoXog) greater than he that sent 
 him." Wherever this term, in its general signification, is 
 applied to individuals, it always has reference to some par- 
 ticular mission upon which they are about to enter, or which 
 they have already undertaken, or which has been accom- 
 plished by them. Thus, in this general sense, Paul and 
 Barnabas, in Acts xiv. 14, are called Apostles or missiona- 
 ries, with reference to the special mission they were then 
 performing — " Which when the Apostles Barnabas and Paul 
 heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the peo- 
 ple, crying out," &,c. Any impartial reader will at once 
 perceive that the term citzogzoIoi is here used in its general 
 signification, with reference to the special mission which 
 they were then performing at the command of the Holy 
 Ghost, as related in the second, third, and fourth verses of 
 chapter thirteenth. In 2 Cor. viii. 23, we find Anoaroloi 
 translated in our Bible " messengers" " Whether any in- 
 quire of Titus, he is my partner and fellow-helper concerning 
 you : or our brethren be inquired of, they are (anooroloi) 
 the messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ." 
 The correctness of this translation will not be doubted by 
 any unprejudiced mind who will take the pains to examine 
 the context ; for it is most evident that the term is here 
 used with reference to the fact, that these brethren were 
 selected by the churches to travel with the Apostle, and were 
 sent by him, in connection with Titus, with a special am- 
 bassage to the Corinthian church. The same use is made 
 of this word in Philippians ii. 25 : " Yet I supposed it ne- 
 cessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and com- 
 panion in labor and fellow-soldier, but your messenger, 
 (anoazolov,) and he that ministered to my wants." So also 
 in 1 Thessalonians ii. 6: " Nor of men sought we glory, 
 
APOSTLESHIP. 21 
 
 neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been 
 burdensome as the Apostles of Christ." Here it will be 
 seen, by reference to the first verse of this Epistle, that Paul, 
 and Sylvanus, and Timotheus, are the persons who sent this 
 epistle to the Thessalonian church ; and in the verse just 
 quoted, they denominate themselves " Apostles of Christ" 
 But any candid reader will at once perceive that this term 
 is here used in the general sense of messengers or missiona- 
 ries ; for they had, a short time previous, completed a mis- 
 sion among that church, which mission is the subject of 
 discourse in the chapter from which this passage is quoted. 
 The Thessalonians are reminded that, while they labored 
 with them, they supported themselves, working with their 
 own hands : fthis they were not bound to do; for, as the 
 Apostles (or missionaries) of Christ, who bore a message 
 from him, and labored among them in his name* they might, 
 had they thought proper, have claimed a support at their 
 hands. We might quote other passages where this term is 
 used in a similar manner, but these are sufficient for our 
 present purpose. It is so clearly impossible to deny this 
 general signification of cmoGzoJ.og, that the author of " The 
 Inquiry" concedes that it is used in the New Testament in 
 this sense. He says — " Now it is true indeed that the 
 term Apostle in its primary sense means only 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 
 understood in this primary sense, or specially of the minis- 
 terial office.'* Just so we think, and we are gratified to be 
 able to agree with our author at least once in the course of 
 the argument. But pray what is the general rule by which 
 this matter is to be determined ? Our author gives none : 
 but it will be evident to any candid mind who will examine 
 the subject, that the rule we have laid down above is the 
 correct one, viz., that wherever it is used to designate in- 
 
2*2 APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 dividuals who have been sent upon a special mission among 
 the churches, and with reference to their transactions during 
 that mission, it is always to be taken in its primary signifi- 
 cation. 
 
 The word anoarolog has likewise an exalted official sig- 
 nification. In this sense the twelve were called Apostles by 
 Christ. Whenever this term is used in the New Testament 
 to express the general office of an individual, disconnected 
 from any special mission, it always shows that the individual 
 is, in the high ministerial sense, an Apostle. In this sense 
 no one can show that it is ever used to designate any but 
 those who were appointed by the Lord Jesus Christ in per- 
 son. We challenge any person to point out a single instance 
 in the whole New Testament, where the term Apostle is used 
 to express the general office borne by an individual, unless 
 that individual was one of the college of Apostles appointed 
 personally by Christ. The Apostles may be called such in a 
 general or missionary sense, and may be coupled with those 
 who are not Apostles in the official sense, under that name : 
 thus Paul is coupled with Barnabas in Acts xiv. ; and with 
 Sylvanus and Timotheus in 1 Thess. But never do we find 
 others coupled with " the twelve," or with any one of them, 
 and called Apostles in the high ministerial sense of that 
 term. 
 
 That the Apostolic office was limited and extraordinary 
 is evident from the following considerations : 
 
 1. The Lord Jesus Christ appointed but twelve Apos- 
 tles ; and, in the article of their appointment, they received 
 no authority, direct or inferential, to perpetuate their order ; 
 and certainly none to enlarge their number. Let any one 
 take up the history of the appointment of the Apostles, as 
 recorded in the several Evangelists, and decide for himself 
 whether he can find any authority conferred on them, even 
 by inference, from the language of their Apostolic commis- 
 sion, to perpetuate their order. The fullest account of this 
 
APOSTLESHIP. 23 
 
 transaction is given by Mark and Luke in the passages stand- 
 ing at the head of this lecture. Mark says : " And he goeth 
 up into a mountain, and calleth to him whom he would : 
 and they came unto him. And he ordained twelve that they 
 should be with him, and that he might send them forth to 
 preach, and have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out 
 devils." Luke says : " And when it was day, he called unto 
 him his disciples ; and of them he chose twelve, whom he 
 also named Apostles. " Can you find any thing in this re- 
 corded act of their appointment, empowering them to per- 
 petuate their order ? 
 
 But for the argument's sake, suppose we admit that they 
 had power to perpetuate their Apostolic college, would that 
 enable them to enlarge their number ? For wise reasons, 
 no doubt, Christ saw fit to limit his Apostolic college to 
 twelve ; and, supposing the Apostles had the right to appoint 
 others to succeed them, pray where do they get their autho- 
 rity to increase their number from twelve to many thousands ? 
 Suppose a board of trust should be appointed by the legisla- 
 ture, or any competent authority, for any specified purpose, 
 and that the number of the board should be limited by the 
 appointing power to twelve persons : suppose, also, that this 
 board have power to fill vacancies, or appoint successors, 
 and thus to perpetuate themselves — would this give them 
 any authority to enlarge their number 1 Could they, under 
 such a grant, increase their board from twelve to many 
 thousands ? 
 
 The Apostles, too, understood that their number was lim- 
 ited to twelve, and that their office was to cease with them- 
 selves. This is plainly seen in the language they uttered 
 and the conduct they exhibited when they elected Matthias 
 to supply the vacancy made by the defection and death of 
 Judas. They do not pretend to appoint a successor, or to 
 enlarge their number ; they aim simply to fill a vacancy, to 
 make up the number twelve, by electing one from among 
 
24 APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 those who had been with Christ on earth, to be a witness 
 with them of his resurrection, during the time that the testi- 
 mony of eye-witnesses should be deemed necessary. 
 
 It is most evident, therefore, that the Apostles, at their 
 appointment, received no power to perpetuate their order ; 
 and that, were we to allow them to have been invested with 
 such authority, it would only prove that there is, or ought to 
 be, at the present day, in the church universal, a college of 
 twelve Apostles. Where such a college is to be found, we 
 leave for the friends of the Hierarchy to ascertain. If the 
 twelve Apostolic chairs are occupied by all the diocesan 
 bishops in connection with the Episcopal church, we must 
 conclude, to say the least, that they are considerably full, 
 and we should think that these " lit. Rev. Fathers in God " 
 could not be very comfortably seated. 
 
 2. It was necessary for an Apostle to have seen the Lord 
 Jesus on earth, and to be appointed by him in person. Men 
 had no power to appoint an Apostle. It cannot be shown 
 from a single passage in holy writ, that such power was ever 
 delegated to man. 
 
 But perhaps it will be asked, Do not the transactions of 
 the disciples, as set forth in the record of their election of 
 Matthias, prove that they had such power 1 Certainly they 
 prove no such thing, as can be easily shown. 
 
 1. This election was entirely unauthorized. It took 
 place before the Spirit was poured out from on high ; it was 
 suggested by Peter, whose feelings frequently outran his 
 judgment ; we have no account of its being ratified by the 
 Lord Jesus Christ ; and we hear nothing of Matthias as an 
 Apostle after this transaction. 
 
 2. The very record in the case shows that the Apostles 
 knew they had no right to appoint an Apostle. They do 
 not pretend to appoint one themselves ; but select two, and 
 pray their Lord to show which one of the two He had chosen 
 to take part in the Apostleship with them ; and then they 
 
APOSTLESHIP. 25 
 
 cast lots, so that it might be determined by the Lord through 
 the lot which one He would appoint. " The lot fell upon 
 Matthias, and he was numbered with the Apostles." They 
 did not feel themselves authorized to set him apart by the 
 laying on of hands, or an official ordination. That we may 
 understand this matter a little more fully, we will here intro- 
 duce the history of the transaction. It is contained in Acts 
 i. 15-26. : " And in those days Peter stood up in the midst 
 of the disciples, and said, (the number of the names together 
 were about a hundred and twenty,) Men and brethren, this 
 Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy 
 Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Ju- 
 das, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was 
 numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 
 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity ; 
 and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all 
 his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the 
 dwellers at Jerusalem ; insomuch as that field is called in 
 their proper tongue Aceldama, that is to say, The field of 
 blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habi- 
 tation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein : and, His 
 bishoprick let another take. Wherefore of these men which 
 have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus 
 w r ent 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 with us of his resur- 
 rection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, 
 who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, 
 and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, 
 show whether of these two thou hast chosen, that he may 
 take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas 
 by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. 
 And they gave forth their lots, and the lot fell upon Mat- 
 thias; and he was numbered with the eleven Apostles." 
 Now if this history furnish any argument in favor of the po- 
 
26 APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 sition that Apostles can be appointed by men, it also fur- 
 nishes a precedent as to the manner of their appointment, 
 which ought to be followed by the Apostolic church : so 
 that, when about to appoint Apostles or Bishops, they should 
 first choose from their number, by a popular election, two 
 who had been with Jesus from the baptism of John until his 
 ascension ; or, at least, who had seen him after his resur- 
 rection, so that they might be able to bear witness to the 
 same. Then, they should pray the Lord to choose between 
 the two, and this choice should be decided by their lot ; and 
 the one thus selected should be numbered with their Apos- 
 tles without even a form of an ordination from men. When 
 the friends of the Prelacy will comply with these requisites, 
 we may possibly admit that their bishops are true Apostles. 
 That it was necessary for an Apostle to have seen the 
 Lord, either after his resurrection or both before and after, 
 is evident from the fact that a principal duty of the Apostle- 
 ship was to bear testimony to the resurrection of Christ. 
 This fact is admitted by our author on page 35 of his work, 
 in regard to the twelve ; but denied in the case of the other 
 Apostles. He says, " While we grant that to have seen 
 Christ and testify as eye-witnesses to the resurrection, was 
 an indispensable mark of the Apostleship in the case of the 
 twelve chosen witnesses, we deny that it was necessary in 
 the case of any others." When our author proves that any 
 others besides the twelve were Apostles, it will be time 
 enough to attend to this denial. But pray what is the dif- 
 ference between a necessary mark and a necessary requi- 
 site ? And really we should like to know by what logic he 
 proves that that which is a necessary requisite to the Apos- 
 tleship in the case of the twelve, is not a necessary requisite 
 to the Apostleship in the case of others 1 A necessary re- 
 quisite is that without which the thing of which it is a requi- 
 site cannot exist. But if the Apostleship could not exist 
 in the case of the twelve without their having seen the Lord, 
 
APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 27 
 
 and being able to bear testimony as eye-witnesses to his 
 resurrection, how could it exist in the case of others with- 
 out this same qualification? We will leave our author to 
 answer this question at his leisure. 
 
 That to see Jesus Christ, and to be appointed by him 
 personally, was necessary to Apostleship, is also evident 
 from the fact, that when the Lord Jesus undertook himself 
 to fill the vacancy made in the Apostolic college by the de- 
 fection of Judas, he appeared unto Saul of Tarsus and ap- 
 pointed him to the Apostolic office. That this was the 
 object of Christ's showing himself to Saul in the manner he 
 did, is evident from both Luke's relation of the matter, and 
 Paul's narration of the transaction some time afterwards. 
 We must either conclude that, in order to make Paul an 
 Apostle, this appearance was necessary, or that it took place 
 without any necessity in the case. We presume no one 
 would be willing to adopt the latter conclusion, and, of 
 course, the former must be correct. But if it was necessary 
 for Christ to come down from heaven to appoint Paul to the 
 Apostleship, it shows conclusively that he had not delegated 
 to others the appointing power ; and that, if an individual 
 was to be created an Apostle, it must be done personally by 
 himself. By thus appearing to Saul, Christ qualified him 
 to bear testimony to his resurrection. True, Paul was not 
 with Christ before his crucifixion ; but his execution was a 
 universally admitted fact ; and, as he had seen and conversed 
 with him since His death, he could testify to the fact of his 
 resurrection. This testimony he bears in his first Epistle 
 to the Corinthians, while discoursing upon the subject of the 
 resurrection. " And last of all, he was seen of me also, as 
 one born out of due time." The peculiar circumstances 
 under which Paul was appointed to the Apostleship, and 
 especially the fact that he received his appointment after the 
 ascension of the Lord of Life and Glory, gave occasion to 
 his enemies to affirm that he was a man-made Apostle — that 
 
28 
 
 APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 he had been appointed an Apostle by men, and had received 
 his doctrine from men. Paul, knowing that if such a charge 
 could be substantiated, it would entirely invalidate his claim 
 to the Apostleship, and that, if the churches should be made 
 to believe that such was the fact, it would destroy their con- 
 fidence in him as an Apostle, defends himself against it with 
 all the power of his large mind. The existence of this slan- 
 der against his Apostleship accounts for the peculiar manner 
 in which he opens so many of his Epistles to the several 
 churches. In his Epistle to the Romans, he introduces him- 
 self as " Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apos- 
 tle, separated unto the Gospel of God;" and then, as though 
 this was not sufficient, he adds, in verse 5, " by whom (that 
 is, by Christ) we have received grace and Apostleship, for 
 obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name." To 
 the Corinthian, Ephesian, and Colossian churches, he intro- 
 duces himself as " Paul, an Apostle by the will of God." 
 In his Epistle to Timothy, he speaks of himself as " Paul, 
 an Apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our 
 Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ." But Galatia was the place 
 where this slander was circulated against Paul with the most 
 industry and perseverance : hence the peculiarity of a por- 
 tion of his Epistle to the Galatian church. He superscribes 
 himself " Paul, an Apostle — not of men, neither by man — 
 but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him 
 from the dead." He then shows that he could not have re- 
 ceived his office and doctrines from the other Apostles, by 
 the fact that he never went up to Jerusalem to see them, 
 until three years had elapsed ; and that, during that visit, he 
 saw none of them save Peter, and James the Lord's brother ; 
 and that it was fourteen years before he made a second visit 
 to Jerusalem. As a consequence, he could not have received 
 his Apostleship and doctrines, from the other Apostles, but 
 must have obtained them immediately from Christ. Those 
 who wish to perceive the tenor and strength of the Apos- 
 
APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 29 
 
 tie's argument, as given by himself, will please read the first 
 two chapters of his Epistle to the Galatians. Again : in 1 
 Cor. ix., he asks, " Am I not an Apostle 1 Am I not free? 
 Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord ?" — evidently evincing 
 that.he believed it necessary, in order to sustain his right to 
 the Apostleship, to have it admitted that he had seen Christ 
 the Lord. We find no such peculiarity as this running 
 through the writings of the other Apostles ; and for the very 
 good reason, that their right to the Apostleship had never 
 been disputed ; it was admitted by all that they had been 
 appointed to that office by Christ in person. 
 
 3. The Apostles, in the official sense of that term, pro- 
 fessed the power to communicate thj^miraculous gift of the 
 Spirit to other believers, by the imposition of hands ; and 
 not only to work miracles themselves, but to bestow the 
 power of working miracles on others. All this will be evident 
 from the following passages of Scripture : Acts viii. 14-17, 
 " Now when the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard 
 that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto 
 them Peter and John : who, when they were come down, 
 prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost : 
 (for, as yet he was fallen upon none of them ; only they 
 were baptized in the name of Jesus.) Then laid they their 
 hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost." Acts 
 xix. 6, " And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, 
 the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues 
 and prophesied." That the Apostles wrought miracles, and 
 communicated to others the power of working them, is 
 so entirely evident from their whole history, that we need 
 not occupy time in quoting other passages to prove it. 
 These miraculous gifts gave them great power as witnesses 
 of the resurrection. According to Acts iv. 33, " with 
 great power gave the Apostles witness of the resurrection of 
 the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all." 
 
 4. The Apostles were inspired by God to complete the 
 
 2 
 
30 APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 canon of Scripture ; and, as inspired men, they had a gene- 
 ral supervision of the infant New Testament churches. In 
 all difficult questions, their decisions were final. In this 
 sense, and in this sense alone, the church is said to be built 
 upon the Prophets and Apostles. They, as inspired men, 
 have delivered to us the revealed will of God, as contained 
 in our sacred books, which furnish the foundation principles 
 of our faith and the law of our lives. The situation of the 
 churches in the Apostolic age was peculiar. The New Testa- 
 ment Scriptures were as yet unwritten ; the Apostles stood in 
 the same relation to those churches that our Bible now does to 
 us. It is not to be wondered at, that, under such circum- 
 stances, they exercisedalmost unlimited power among Chris- 
 tians. They were the*Routh-piece of God to the people. 
 They were invested with extraordinary functions to govern 
 and regulate the affairs of the church. Their authority was 
 universal, extending wherever a church was planted. They 
 exercised it with great humility, efficiency, and wisdom ; — 
 all going to show that they were under the immediate direc- 
 tion of the Spirit of God. As Apostles, they had no succes- 
 sors but their writings; nor does the church, at present, 
 need such an order of men. She has in her possession a 
 complete Revelation, giving full directions upon all import- 
 ant points, sealed with Heaven's signet, and enforced by the 
 authority of God. 
 
 We are sustained in this view of the subject by the very 
 style and manner in which writers of every age, since the 
 period in which they lived, have spoken of the Apostles. 
 They speak of the Apostolic age, as an age already past — 
 of the Apostolic Fathers, meaning those eminent men who 
 were contemporary with the Apostles — of certain things 
 which have come down to us from the Apostles — but never 
 of the Apostles themselves descending or coming down, 
 either in person or by succession, in their Apostolic capa- 
 city. Whenever this style of writing is departed from, it 
 
 apa- 
 it is 
 
 I 
 
APOSTLESHIP. 31 
 
 always to support a favorite theory, and sounds constrained 
 and unnatural. We need not say that we are supported in 
 this view by all Protestant divines, except a few Episcopa- 
 lians. Many able Episcopal writers might be adduced 
 as witnesses to prove the limited and* extraordinary nature 
 of the Apostolic office. We have time to quote but two. 
 The first is Dr. Barrow, a very erudite Episcopal writer. In 
 his celebrated treatise on the Pope's supremacy, he says, 
 " The Apostolic office, as such, was personal and temporary ; 
 and therefore according to its nature and design, not succes- 
 sive, nor communicable to others in perpetual descendence 
 from them. It was, as such, in all respects, extraordinary , 
 conferred in a special manner, designed for special purposes, 
 discharged by special aids, endowed with special privileges, 
 as was needful for the propagation of Christianity and found- 
 ing of churches. To that office it was requisite that the 
 person should have an immediate designation and commis- 
 sion from God : that he should be endowed with miraculous 
 gifts and graces, enabling him both to assure his authority, 
 and execute his office : that he should be able, according to 
 his discretion, to impart spiritual gifts : and that he should 
 govern in an absolute manner, as being guided by infallible 
 assistance to which he might appeal. Now such an office, 
 consisting of so many extraordinary privileges and miracu- 
 lous powers, which were requisite for the foundation of the 
 church and the diffusion of Christianity, against the mani- 
 fold difficulties and disadvantages which it then needs must 
 encounter, was not designed to continue by derivation; for 
 it contained in it divers things which apparently were not 
 communicated, and which no man without gross imposture 
 and hypocrisy can challenge to himself." If diocesan 
 bishops will present us with the characteristics of Apostle- 
 ship— which in this extract their own Barrow declares to be 
 absolutely necessary — we will yield the point, and confess 
 that they are in very deed Apostles. — The next witness is 
 
32 APOSTLESIIIP. 
 
 Dr. Willet, an eminent Episcopal divine. He lived and 
 wrote in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. He published a 
 large and learned work called " Synopsis Papismi," which 
 he dedicated to the queen. In this work, he professes to 
 give not only his own opinion upon the subjects he discusses, 
 but also the opinion of the English church. He says, " Every 
 godly and faithful Bishop, is a successor of the Apostles. 
 We deny it not ; and so are all faithful and godly pastors 
 and ministers. For in respect of their extraordinary call- 
 ing, miraculous gifts, and Apostleship, the Apostles have 
 properly no successors ; as Mr. Bembridge the martyr saith, 
 that he believed not bishops to be the successors of the 
 Apostles, for that they be not called as they were, nor have 
 that grace. That therefore which the Apostles were especially 
 appointed unto, is the thing wherein the Apostles were pro- 
 perly succeeded ; but that was the preaching of the gospel : 
 as Saint Paul saith, he was sent to preach, not to baptize. 
 The promise of succession we see is in the preaching of the 
 word, which appertained! as well to other pastors and minis- 
 ters as to bishops." This is just as we believe : the Apostles, 
 as such, have no successors ; but, as presbyters, or simple 
 preachers of the gospel, they are succeeded ; and every 
 faithful minister of Christ is in this sense a successor of the 
 Apostles. Again he says — " Seeing, in the Apostles' time, 
 a bishop and a priest were neither in name nor in office dis- 
 tinguished ; it followeth then that either the Apostles assign- 
 ed no succession, while they lived, neither appointed their 
 successors; or that, indifferently, all faithful pastors and 
 preachers of the Apostolic faith are the Apostles' successors" 
 We beg to add a single remark of Richard Whately, D. D., 
 the present Archbishop of Dublin. In his work entitled, 
 " The Kingdom of Christ," first published in this country 
 in 1842, he says, " The Apostle Paul, in speaking of mira- 
 cles as ' the signs of an Apostle,' evidently implies, that 
 no one, not possessing such miraculous gifts as his, much 
 
APOSTLESHIP, OO 
 
 less without possessing any at all, could be entitled to be 
 regarded as even on a level with the Apostles. 5 ' Here we 
 have ample and positive testimony in favor of the view we 
 have taken of the Apostolic office. What a pity that High 
 Church Episcopalians cannot follow the example of the 
 Ephesians, and collect together these books of their own 
 authors, which are continually testifying against them, and 
 " burn them before all men. " We trust that before we get 
 through we shall be able to show that they would make a 
 large pile, and a brilliant conflagration. 
 
 But let us contrast with the foregoing quotations a few 
 paragraphs from our author. On p. 8 of the " Enquiry," 
 we find the following extract : "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 covenant 
 way, i. e., in his holy church, except by the Apostolic 
 ministry? He who despised or rejected them, (the Sa- 
 viour had said,) despised and rejected Him. They alone 
 were solemnly and officially commissioned by Christ to 
 mediate then and for ever between himself and the world. 
 Into their hands he placed ' the keys of the kingdom of 
 heaven ;' therefore, there was no entrance into that king- 
 dom but by them." Again: " Without the Apostles there 
 was no church ; for, as all the facts of the case do show, and 
 as St. Paul explicitly declares, the church was built upon 
 the Apostles, as they were upon Christ." " Our next inquiry 
 is whether, if the Apostles had successors in their office, 
 these successors are not as necessary now as at first ? Are 
 they not the Apostolic ministry still, perpetuating their order 
 from age to age ? And is not the church built now upon 
 them, as it was formerly? When our Lord declared to the 
 Apostles after he had invested them with their commission, 
 ' Lo ! I am with you always, even unto the end of the world/ 
 he certainly, in these words, included their successors. 
 
34 APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 Nor is it possible by any method of reasoning to show why 
 the successors of the Apostles, at the distance of eighteen 
 centuries, do not bear precisely the same relation in their 
 official capacity to Christ on the one hand, and to the 
 church on the other, as the twelve bore. Length of time 
 surely cannot change or annul the eternal purposes of the 
 divine will. If there could be no church without an Apos- 
 tolic ministry in the first age ; if it was a schism to cut 
 loose from their authority, how is the case altered? It is 
 not altered ; and the true church of Christ is found in all 
 ages in adherence to the Apostolic ministry." Here are 
 sentences which deserve to be inscribed on a golden medal 
 and presented to be worn about the neck of his Holiness 
 the Pope. Let us analyze them and see what they con- 
 tain : 
 
 We are told that the Apostles and their successors — 
 diocesan bishops — are appointed mediators between Christ 
 and the world, in the same sense as He is mediator between 
 them and God the Father : so that it is as morally impossi- 
 ble to approach Christ in his covenanted way, except through 
 diocesan bishops, as it is to approach God the Father except 
 through the mediation of his Son. And pray how can we 
 approach Christ in any other way than in " his appointed 
 covenanted way?" Is there an uncovenanted approach to 
 the Saviour? So that it amounts to this: that we cannot 
 approach Christ, except through diocesan bishops, as media- 
 tors between him and us, any more than we can approach 
 God the Father without the mediation of his Son Jesus 
 Christ. Hearer, do you believe that this is the sentiment? 
 I confess I could not trust my eyes when they first fell upon 
 the page. Let us examine it a little more closely and see 
 if we are not entirely correct — for, to make such a state- 
 ment without ample evidence would be highly culpable. He 
 states, " It will be conceded by all that it is morally impos- 
 sible to come unto God, except through the mediation of 
 
APOSTLESHIP. 35 
 
 his Son — and was it not equally impossible to come unto 
 the Son, in the appointed, covenanted way, i. e., in his holy 
 church, except by the Apostolic ministry? And, lest he 
 should be misunderstood, our author adds, " They alone" 
 (i. e., " the Apostles and their successors) were solemnly and 
 officially commissioned by Christ to mediate, then and for 
 ever, between himself and the world." And, lest we might 
 possibly still think that he meant to confine the assertion to 
 the Apostles, he adds : " Nor is it possible, by any method 
 of reasoning, to show why the successors of the Apostles, at 
 the distance of eighteen centuries, do not bear precisely the 
 same relation in their official capacity to Christ on the one 
 hand, and the church on the other, as the twelve bore." The 
 argument, then, runs thus : 
 
 1. The Apostles and their successors are appointed by 
 Christ "mediators" between himself and the world; and it 
 is as impossible to approach Jesus Christ in his covenanted 
 way, except through the mediation of the Apostles and their 
 successors, as it is to approach God except through the 
 mediation of his Son. But it is entirely impossible to ap- 
 proach God except through the mediation of his Son, and 
 as impossible to approach Christ except in his covenanted 
 way. Therefore, it is utterly impossible to approach Christ 
 at all, except through the mediation of the Apostles and 
 their successors. 
 
 2. Diocesan bishops are the successors and the only 
 successors of the Apostles ; therefore, they are appointed by 
 Christ to mediate between him and the world, and it is 
 impossible to approach Christ except through the mediation 
 of diocesan bishops. 
 
 Surely those denominations who are so unfortunate as 
 not to have diocesans, are given over to the uncovenanted 
 mercies of God ! But, my hearers, how far removed is this 
 from Popery 1 Our author will have to take but one step 
 more in order to add the Virgin Mary and the departed saints 
 
36 APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 to his list of mediators. The Apostle Paul, writing to Timothy, 
 declares there is but " one mediator between God and men, 
 the man Christ Jesus." Our author contradicts the Apostle, 
 and says that every diocesan Bishop is a mediator. Here 
 we have the result of usurping Apostolic chairs. The natu- 
 ral tendency is to lead those pretenders to claim more for 
 themselves than the Apostles ever thought of claiming. 
 
 Again : we are told in this extract that the church at the 
 present day is built upon diocesan bishops — that they are 
 the foundation of the Christian church : and that beauti- 
 ful passage in Ephesians ii. 20 is quoted to prove it — 
 " And are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and 
 prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone ; 
 in whom all the building, fitly framed together, groweth into 
 a holy temple in the Lord : in whom ye also are builded 
 together for a habitation of God through the Spirit." Any 
 careful reader of this chapter will at once perceive that it 
 contains aj description surpassingly beautiful of Christ's 
 spiritual church under the New Testament dispensation. 
 He dwells upon the fact that the partition wall between 
 Jew and Gentile is broken down, and that they are all one 
 in Christ, and compares the church to a building laid up of 
 precious stones, of which the Lord Jesus Christ is the corner 
 or foundation stone. Upon him are laid the Apostles and pro- 
 phets, upon them other members of this spiritual building, 
 until the top-stone is brought forth in triumph. This ele- 
 gant passage our author diverts from its legitimate meaning, 
 and makes it refer to external membership with the visible 
 church : — and not merely with the visible church, but with 
 the Episcopal church — a church governed by diocesan 
 bishops. That we have not misrepresented our author will 
 appear evident if we again quote a paragraph or two. 
 " Without the Apostles there was no church; for, as all the 
 facts in the case do show, and as St. Paul explicitly declares, 
 the church was built upon the Apostles, as they were upon 
 
APOSTLESHIP. 37 
 
 Christ. The next inquiry is whether, if the Apostles had 
 successors in their office, these successors are not as neces- 
 sary now as at first ? And are they not the Apostolic min- 
 istry, still perpetuating their order from age to age? And is 
 not the church built now upon them as it was formerly?" 
 Further comment is unnecessary. It must be evident to all 
 that every statement we have just made is contained within 
 the limits of this short extract. The amount of the whole 
 
 is, that DIOCESAN BISHOPS ARE THE FOUNDATION OF THE 
 
 church. We would again ask the candid hearer, How far 
 is this removed from popery? How much difference is 
 there between making the pope or diocesan bishops the rock 
 on which the church is built? We would venture to sug- 
 gest whether the foundation would not be more firm, and 
 the superstructure more secure, to have it concentrated in 
 one individual than to have it extended through several 
 thousands? The Apostle Paul says, 1 Cor. iii. 11, "For 
 other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is 
 Jesus Christ." Our author asserts that diocesan bishops 
 are the foundation of the church. We leave him to settle 
 the matter with the Apostle. Hearer, did you ever see a 
 bishop — a diocesan bishop? Tf so, you have seen a true 
 Apostle — one who is an Apostle in the same sense with Paul, 
 Peter, and John — who " bears the same relation to Christ 
 on the one hand and the church on the other which they 
 bore." And pray what is that relation? Why, he is " com- 
 missioned to mediate between Christ and the world — he is a 
 mediator. True, you have never seen Christ in the flesh, 
 but if you have seen a diocesan bishop you have seen a 
 mediator in the flesh. Besides, the church is built upon that 
 bishop ; he is one of the foundation-stones of the church of 
 God ; he belongs to that blessed company of Apostles concern- 
 ing whom it is written in the Scriptures — " built upon the 
 Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief 
 corner-stone." Certainly these bishops are worthy of the 
 
 2* 
 
38 
 
 APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 appellation given to them by the only true church, viz., 
 "Rt. Rev. Fathers in God" — and, if there be a name more 
 sacred which does not belong exclusively to the Deity him- 
 self, they are worthy of that name also. We ought to bless 
 God that the Apostles have come down to us — that the Apos- 
 tolic age still continues — that those of you who have the 
 happiness to be fathers are Apostolic fathers] i. e., fathers 
 who live in the days of the Apostles. What nonsense ! and 
 worse than nonsense ! And yet all this is as true as the 
 Bible, if the sentiments of our author are correct. 
 
 One word about the keys. Our author says, " into 
 their hands" (i. e., the Apostles and their successors, who 
 are diocesan bishops) " he placed the keys of the kingdom 
 of heaven ; therefore there was no entrance into that king- 
 dom, but by them." That there is a very important sense 
 in which Christ has committed the keys or the government 
 of his church to his ministers, we readily admit ; but it 
 seems to us that, in this extract, our author shakes the keys 
 in such a manner as to make them jingle very much like the 
 keys of St. Peter at Rome. This whole affair assumes a 
 far more serious aspect than I, at first, supposed. The 
 more I examine the pamphlet, which has been the means of 
 calling me out upon this subject, the more I am convinced 
 that it is rife with the seeds of the papacy — and if its author, 
 as is reported by him, has never read a page of " The 
 Tracts for the Times," his work has, in some mysterious 
 way, caught the infection of the Oxford School. From 
 such influences as these may " the Good Lord deliver us," 
 for his name's sake. 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 APOSTLE SHIP—CONTINUED. 
 
 Luke vi. 13-16. — " And when it was day, he called unto him 
 his disciples ; and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named 
 Apostles ; Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his 
 brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and 
 Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon called Zelotes, and 
 Judas the brother of James, and Judas lscariot, which also was the 
 traitor." 
 
 Mark iii. 13-15. — "And he goeth up into a mountain, and call- 
 eth unto him whom he would ; and they came unto him. And he 
 ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might 
 send them forth to preach, and to have power to heal sicknesses, and 
 to cast out devils." 
 
 In the last lecture, the argument in favor of the tempo- 
 rary and extraordinary nature of the Apostolic office, was 
 completed. As yet we have not answered the argument 
 presented by our opponents to sanction their side of this 
 question. This argument divides itself into two parts : 
 
 I. They contend that the ministerial commission was 
 given by Christ to the eleven disciples in [the character of 
 Apostles, and that it authorizes them to perpetuate the Apos- 
 tleship to the end of time. This part of the subject will not 
 be discussed in the present discourse, but postponed until 
 the' next, in which we intend to take up the general subject 
 of the ministerial commission. It will not be difficult to 
 show that, as this commission did not communicate the 
 Apostolic office, (for those who received it were Apostles be- 
 fore,) so neither did it authorize them to perpetuate that of- 
 
40 APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 fice ; that it was given to them as Presbyters ; and that it is 
 handed down from them in the line of Presbyters alone. 
 
 II. As a second branch of the argument, they refer us 
 to certain individuals, besides the twelve, who, they affirm, 
 were Apostles in the official sense of that term. To these 
 particular cases we will now give our attention, and in the 
 order named by our author. 
 
 1. We are told that Barnabas was an Apostle. The re- 
 marks of our author upon the case of this individual are 
 founded upon Acts xiv. 23 : " And when they (Paul and 
 Barnabas) had ordained them elders in every church, " &,c. 
 Also Acts xiv. 14, " Which when the Apostles Barnabas and 
 Paul heard of," &,c. He remarks, p. 29 of the " Enquiry" 
 — " As to Barnabas, we know not when he received his or- 
 dination to the Apostleship, but simply the fact, that he was 
 an Apostle, (now the fourteenth.) In the fourteenth verse 
 we read, ' Which when the Apostles Barnabas and Paul 
 heard of/ &c. 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 un- 
 derstood in this primary sense, or specifically of the minis- 
 terial office. In the passage just quoted, Barnabas is called 
 an Apostle in the same sense as Paul, without distinction ex- 
 pressed or implied." It is a full answer to this argument, 
 that these brethren were on a special mission, and that it is 
 with reference to them, as missionaries on this tour, that they 
 are called Apostles, or messengers. Our author admits, in 
 this extract, that the word Apostle is sometimes used in the 
 Scriptures in its primary signification for a messenger, or one 
 sent — and sometimes it is used in a high ministerial sense — 
 and he says it is easy to distinguish when this word is used 
 in one way, and when in the other. There must, then, be 
 lome simple and plain rule by which they can be decided. 
 
APOSTLESHIP. 41 
 
 The rule, as stated in a previous discourse, is this : that 
 whenever this term is used with reference to the transactions 
 of a special mission, it is to be understood in the general 
 sense of a messenger or missionary. Whenever it is used 
 to express the office of an individual, irrespective of any 
 special missionary work, it marks that individual as an Apos- 
 tle in the highest sense of the term. By this rule, Paul and 
 Barnabas are here called Apostles in the general or mission- 
 ary sense ; for they were then, at the command of the Holy 
 Ghost, performing a special mission among the churches. It 
 is rathertrue that Paul was called an Apostle in the same 
 sense with Barnabas, than that Barnabas was called an Apos- 
 tle in the same sense with Paul. Paul was an Apostle as well 
 as Barnabas in the sense of a messenger, or " one sent ;" and 
 as such they are coupled together, and called Apostles. But 
 it never can be proved that Barnabas was an Apostle in the 
 same sense with Paul, i. e., in the high ministerial sense. 
 But our author says, " Nor is there any thing in the circum- 
 stances of the case which would lead us to suppose that Bar- 
 nabas is, in any respect, inferior in the ministerial office to 
 Paul ; they act conjointly, and apparently with equal author- 
 ity." This is all true so far as this mission is concerned. 
 They were sent out as simple presbyters, to preach, baptize, 
 and ordain. They were set apart, or consecrated for the 
 work of this mission, not by Apostles, but by prophets and 
 teachers, as will instantly be perceived by reference to Acts 
 xiii. 1-3. So that the presumption is not quite as strong as 
 our author supposes, " that Barnabas had, on some previous 
 occasion, been ordained to the Apostleship ;" we are without 
 the least shadow of evidence that he ever was an Apostle. 
 The argument made use of to prove the Apostleship of Bar- 
 nabas, founded upon the passage, " And when they had or- 
 dained them elders in every church," is, as far as we know, 
 entirely original, and as learned as it is original. Says our 
 author, " The phrase c ordain them elders' is probably passed 
 
42 APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 over by most readers as a mere Anglicism, or mode of speech 
 characteristic of our language. And thus explained, the 
 word ' them' would seem to be tautological, and ^superflu- 
 ous ; inasmuch as the verb ordain had its proper nominative 
 in the preceding pronoun ' they.' But when we refer to 
 the original, we naturally inquire, How came an Anglicism 
 in the Greek Testament ? Evidently it has no place there. 
 The phrase should have been translated strictly as Greek, 
 ' XsigoTovijcrcivTEg ds avTolgnQEa^vTigovg^ Now, here is no tau- 
 tology — ctvxdlg, being in the dative case, cannot be translated 
 simply them ; but, * and having ordained, for themselves, 
 elders.' This materially changes the meaning of the whole 
 sentence. For if the Apostles 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 these offices by a commis- 
 sion and authority given to them by these two Apostles." 
 This passage from our author is so fraught with original 
 principles in the philosophy of language, that to pass it by 
 without " note or comment" would be an unpardonable omis- 
 sion. Let us analyze it somewhat, that we may more fully 
 perceive and admire its beauties. 
 
 1. We are told, " There is a peculiarity of expression in 
 this account of the transaction, which is worthy of notice : 
 * And when they had ordained them elders in every church.' " 
 Permit us to ask, Where is the peculiarity of expression to be 
 found ? We read and hear just such expressions every day of 
 our lives. They buik him a dwelling ; i. e., a dwelling for 
 him. An undutiful child causes his parents great anguish of 
 soul, and gives them much trouble; i. e., gives much trouble 
 to them. The attempt of jure divino exclusive Episcopalians 
 to prove that bishops are true Apostles, and that their church 
 is the only true cliurch, causes them much perplexity and a 
 vast deal of mortification ; i. e., causes for them much per- 
 plexity, &x. The Presbytery of Niagara met with the First 
 
 
APOSTLESHIP. 43 
 
 Presbyterian Church of Lockport, and installed them a Pastor ; 
 i; e., installed a Pastor for or over them. " Paul and Barna- 
 bas ordained them elders in every church ;" i. e., for them, 
 viz., the members of the several churches. Again : we are 
 told, " 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 seems to be tautological and superfluous, in as 
 much as the verb ordain had its proper nominative in the 
 preceding pronoun they.' ' That the phrase " ordain them 
 elders " is " passed over by most readers as a mere Angli- 
 cism, or mode of speech characteristic of our language," we 
 readily admit, and we suspect that if our author had passed 
 it over in the same way, it would have been altogether more 
 to his credit. But we are told if this phrase be explained 
 as an Anglicism, " the word ' them ' would seem to be tau- 
 tological and superfluous ;" and the way he proves it is 
 wonderfully conclusive. " Inasmuch as the verb ordain 
 had its proper nominative in the preceding pronoun they." — 
 Indeed ! and suppose the verb ordain had not its proper 
 nominative in the preceding pronoun they, would "them" 
 be nominative case to ordain ? Does the fact that a verb 
 has a pronoun preceding it in the nominative case, as its 
 proper nominative, prove that a pronoun which succeeds it 
 in the objective case is " tautological and superfluous ?" 
 " Mirabile Dictu !" Again, our author offers it as a 
 reason why this phrase should not be passed by as a " mere 
 Anglicism," that it cannot be found in the Greek Testa- 
 ment. His words are — " But when we refer to the original, 
 we naturally inquire, How came an Anglicism in the Greek 
 Testament? Evidently it has no place there." A very grave 
 and correct conclusion, to be sure. But pray, when did 
 our author find this Anglicism ? In the Greek Testament ? 
 or in the English translation of the Greek Testament ? Is 
 it a reason why a phrase found in an English translation of 
 
44 APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 a Greek book should not be passed by as a " mere Angli- 
 cism," because, " when we refer to the original Greek, we 
 find that it evidently has no place there?" Does our author 
 expect to find Anglicisms in the Greek language? Our 
 author proceeds : " This phrase should be translated strictly 
 as Greek ;" i. e., as we suppose, without any Anglicisms, — 
 " XeiQOtovriaavzsg 8s avroig TtQea^vztQovg" — Now here is 
 no tautology ; avroig, being in the dative case, cannot be 
 translated simply " them" — but " having ordained/br them- 
 selves elders." Where did our author ascertain that avroig 
 ought to be translated "for themselves ?" It is simply the 
 dative plural of the pronoun aviog, avrrj, avro, sometimes 
 avrov ; which signifies he, she, it ; and the correct transla- 
 tion of the dative plural is "for them" — not "for them- 
 selves." Thus our translators held, and have rendered it 
 " them" in the sense of "for them." If the word used was 
 the compound pronoun " eavroig" the criticism might possi- 
 bly have some little force. If our author waits until he can find 
 Anglicisms in the Greek Testament, and prove that " avroig" 
 ought not to be rendered "them" in the sense of "for 
 them" he will wait a long time before he makes Barnabas 
 an apostle. But why all this flourish at criticism ? It is to 
 prove that presbyters belong, not to the people, but to the 
 bishops; that they are ordained, not for the churches, but 
 for the prelates. It is to sustain a system which makes 
 the bishops every thing, and the churches little or nothing. 
 How very different this spirit from that of the Apostle Paul, 
 when he says — " For we preach not ourselves, but Christ 
 Jesus the Lord — and ourselves your servants for Jesus' 
 sake." 
 
 Our author next endeavors to prove that Timothy was 
 an Apostle. On page 34, he commences with the bold 
 assertion, " We know that Timothy was ordained by Paul 
 to the apostleship." This unqualified assertion will be 
 found, upon examination, to be the strongest argument in 
 
APOSTLESHIP. 45 
 
 his whole chain of reasoning, in favor of the position he 
 assumes. But pray, how do we know that Timothy was 
 ordained by Paul to the Apostleship ? Our author answers, 
 " He was to lay hands suddenly on no man." " He was to 
 ordain such as he thought suitably qualified to the office of 
 bishop or elder, (as the terms are synonymously used,) and 
 deacon." This only proves that Timothy was to ordain 
 elders ; and to be careful whom he inducted into the elder- 
 ship. It has nothing to do with the Apostleship of Timothy, 
 unless it can first be proved that none but Apostles have a 
 right to ordain, which never has been and never can be 
 proved. Again : " Against an elder he was not to receive 
 an accusation, but before two or three witnesses." This, 
 too, is nothing to the point, unless it can be proved that 
 none but Apostles have a right to exercise discipline in the 
 churches, which will be elsewhere shown to be entirely 
 opposed to the whole tenor of Scripture. " Them that 
 sinned he was to rebuke before all, that others might fear." 
 And is it true that none but Apostles are to rebuke sinners ? 
 He was to see that " supplications, prayers, intercessions, 
 and giving of thanks be made for all men ;" i. e., order the 
 public services of the church of Ephesus. And does not 
 the Rector of Grace Church order the public services of 
 that church? And is he therefore an Apostle? "Two 
 things," says our author, " we know with the utmost cer- 
 tainty, viz. : 
 
 " 1. That Timothy was ordained by St. Paul to the min- 
 istry ; what grade of office is not stated. 
 
 "2. That he exercised the ministerial functions above 
 enumerated. From these premises the presumption is as 
 strong as it well can be " — he should have added, under all 
 the circumstances — " that he was ordained to be an Apostle. 
 Now add to this the fact that he is expressly called an Apos- 
 tle (1 Thess. ii. 6, compared with 1 Thess. i. 1), and the 
 argument amounts to a demonstration." We shall see 
 
46 APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 whether the argument amounts to a demonstration. With 
 reference to Timothy being called an Apostle in 1 Thess. ii. 
 6, we have before shown that the term is there used in its 
 general and missionary sense, — with reference to a special 
 mission, which he, together with Paul and Sylvanus, had 
 just completed among that church. If this epistle had 
 opened with the announcement of Sylvanus and Timotheus 
 as apostles, the case would have been materially different. 
 Had they introduced themselves to the Thessalonian church 
 as Paul and Sylvanus, and Timotheus, Apostles of Christ, it 
 would have proved conclusively that they were all in the 
 same sense officially apostles. But this term does not occur 
 until verse sixth of the second chapter ; where they are dis- 
 coursing about certain facts connected with a special mis- 
 sion which they had accomplished among that people ; and, 
 with reference to this mission, they denominate themselves 
 apostles or messengers of Christ. The apostle Paul is very 
 careful, when, in the introduction to his epistles, he couples 
 Timothy with himself, never to call him an apostle. Thus, 
 in his Epistle to the Philippians, he writes, " Paul and Timo- 
 theus the servants of Jesus Christ, to," &c. To the Corin- 
 thians, he writes, " Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, by the 
 will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church," 
 &c. So likewise, to the Colossians — " Paul, an Apostle of 
 Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our bro- 
 ther." Can any one believe that if Timothy had been an 
 Apostle, Paul would have been so careful never to call him 
 an Apostle, and to distinguish between himself as an Apostle, 
 and Timotheus as simply a brother in Christ? Would he 
 not rather have written " Paul and Timotheus, Apostles of 
 Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the church, &,c. 1 So it 
 seems to us — and here is proof which can never be sur- 
 mounted, that Timothy was not an Apostle. 
 
 Again : Our author says, " It is certain that Timothy 
 was ordained by St. Paul to the ministry; what grade of 
 
APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 47 
 
 office is not stated." Not quite so certain as our author 
 supposes. We deny that there is any evidence of Paul's 
 ever having ordained Timothy to the ministry of any grade. 
 The argument of our author upon this point, appears upon 
 p. 30 of his pamphlet. He says, " The second case of ordi- 
 nation that presents itself, is recorded in St. Paul's Second 
 Epistle to Timothy (i. 6) : ' Wherefore I put thee in remem- 
 brance that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee by 
 the putting on of my hands.' Here is a positive declaration 
 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 espe- 
 cially the first." * * * " That the act referred to was an 
 official ordination of Timothy to the ministerial office, cannot 
 be (as I believe it is not) questioned; for St. Paul makes it 
 the ground or reason for the instructions which in his Epis- 
 tles he gives to Timothy. These instructions, based upon 
 and referred to this act, are not of a temporary or partial 
 kind, but embrace all the leading and permanent and gene- 
 ral functions of his office. The act then was an investiture 
 of Timothy with the ministerial office, by the Apostle." We 
 are not at all astonished at the " positive declarations" of 
 our author; for they occur as frequently in his book as 
 hail-stones after a hail-storm; but we must confess that it is 
 not a little surprising to hear him so stoutly affirm that the 
 passage, " Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou 
 stir up the gift of God that is in thee by the putting on of 
 myjiands," contains " a positive declaration " that Timo- 
 thy was ordained by Paul, when it says not a word about 
 his ordination. And it is still more strange how he could 
 assert that he believed it was not questioned by any, that 
 this passage refers to the " official ordination of Timothy," 
 when very superficial reading upon the subject would have 
 informed him, that it has been not only questioned, but 
 entirely denied, by many eminent divines — some of whom 
 
48 APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 are of his own denomination. But the most curious matter 
 wrapped up in this extract is yet to be unfolded. Our 
 author informs us that this sixth verse of the first chapter of ' 
 the second Epistle to Timothy, " St. Paul makes the 
 ground, or reason for the instructions which in his Epis- 
 tles he gives to Timothy." Again, he says, " These in- 
 structions are based upon and referred to this act;" viz., 
 the act mentioned in the sixth verse of his second Epistle. 
 Our author likewise informs us, that the major part of 
 Paul's instructions to Timothy with reference to the minis- 
 terial office is contained in his first Epistle to that individual. 
 His words are — " 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 in the first." 
 From all of which we learn, 
 
 1. That the most important part of Paul's instructions to 
 Timothy is contained in his first Epistle. 
 
 2. That the ground, reasons, or foundation of these in- 
 structions is found in the sixth verse of the second Epistle. It 
 follows, therefore, that the instructions of Paul to Timothy 
 are like an inverted building — having the foundation where 
 the top ought to be. Strange, that the inspired Apostle 
 should make such a blunder in delivering his instructions to 
 his son Timothy. 
 
 There are certain very important objections to any such 
 interpretation of the passage now under consideration as 
 makes it refer at all to the ordination of Timothy. 
 
 1. The very language of the text forbids it: "Where- 
 fore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of 
 God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands." Now 
 by substituting " ministerial office " for " the gift of God," 
 we make Paul exhort Timothy to " stir up" the ministerial 
 office. We confess ourselves at a loss to know how Timothy 
 would proceed in obeying the injunction of the Apostle; for 
 we have yet to learn by what process an office can be 
 
APOSTLESHIP. 49 
 
 " stirred up" We can understand how Timothy could 
 " stir up" those spiritual gifts and graces, which were be- 
 stowed upon him at the time of his miraculous reception of 
 the Holy Ghost, by the imposition of the Apostle's hands ; but 
 how he could " stir up" an office, is, to us, a perfect enigma. 
 The original verb here translated to " stir up," seems won- 
 derfully to elucidate the passage before us, and to bring out 
 to view its beauty and power. It is Ava^amvQsco ; which sig- 
 nifies, to set on Jire, to light up, to relume. This word is 
 compounded of Ava — which, in composition, signifies, among 
 other things, again ; and Zomvgov — which signifies embers 
 preserved under ashes for rekindling a fire. Zornvgov is 
 compounded of Zaog, living, and Hvg, fire — living fire. Paul 
 then exhorts Timothy to "stir up" — set on Jire, rekindle, 
 and blow into aflame — " the gift of God which is in thee ;" 
 as an individual would stir up live embers from among the 
 ashes which cover them, and rekindle them into a blaze. 
 This figure cannot, with the least propriety, be applied to 
 the ministerial office ; but it applies with great beauty and 
 force to the gifts and graces of the Christian, which are so 
 liable to wax feeble and dim, like embers covered up for the 
 night, and which so often need to be stirred up and rekindled, 
 that they may burn with that brilliancy and fervor which 
 should always characterize this holy fire as it glows upon 
 the altar of every Christian hearth. Besides, the injunction 
 contained in this passage stands connected — not with Paul's 
 instructions to Timothy on the subject of the ministerial 
 office ; these are mostly contained in the previous Epistle — 
 but with his exhortations to him on the subject of personal 
 piety, strong faith, and an abiding confidence in, and love 
 towards God. He says, " When I call to remembrance the 
 unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy 
 grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice, and I am per- 
 suaded that in thee also : wherefore I put thee in remem- 
 brance that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee by 
 
50 APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 the putting on of my hands. For God hath not given us the 
 spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." 
 It would seem that a high degree of faith, with its consequent 
 graces, is here called the gift of God, which Timothy had 
 received, together with the miraculous effusion of the Holy 
 Ghost, by the imposition of the Apostle's hands. Paul sus- 
 tained to Timothy a very interesting relation ; he was his 
 spiritual father ; he probably baptized him ; and when he had 
 imposed hands upon him, the Holy Ghost descended with 
 power, communicating to this young disciple strong faith, 
 and all the Christian graces in high exercise ; and every 
 other gift necessary to fit him for the work which was before 
 him. Young Timothy enters the ministry. Paul, ever soli- 
 citous for the ministerial usefulness and personal holiness of 
 his son in the Gospel, writes him two Epistles. The first is 
 taken up almost entirely with giving him directions how to 
 discharge his official duties : the last is principally occupied 
 with an appeal to the heart of this young disciple, exhorting 
 him to deep personal piety, strong faith, and the constant 
 exercise of all those graces which go to beautify and render 
 powerful the Christian character. He would have him re- 
 member the precious gift, which, when he was first convert- 
 ed, he received from God by the imposition of the Apostle's 
 hands, and keep it burning with brilliancy and fervor upon 
 the altar of his heart. 
 
 We are sustained in this view of the passage under con- 
 sideration, by the recent learned and popular Episcopal 
 commentator, Rev. George Townsend. His attachment to 
 the Episcopal church will not be doubted by any who will 
 take the pains to examine his work. In a brief account 
 which he gives of Timothy and the first Epistle to him, he says, 
 " Timothy had a special call of God to the work of an evan- 
 gelist" — mark, not an Apostle but an evangelist — " which 
 the elders of the church at Lystria knowing, set him solemnly 
 apart to the work by the imposition of hands." And they 
 
APOSTLESH1P. 
 
 51 
 
 were particularly led to this by several prophetic declarations 
 relative to him, by which his divine call was most clearly 
 ascertained. " After this appointment by the elders, the 
 Apostle himself laid his hands on him ; not perhaps for the 
 purpose of his evangelical designation, but that he might 
 receive those extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit, so ne- 
 cessary in those primitive times to demonstrate the truths of 
 the Gospel. " Here, you will perceive, the learned Townsend 
 agrees with us as to the object of the Apostle in imposing 
 hands upon Timothy ; it was, not to ordain him, but that he 
 might receive the gift of the Spirit. The only difference 
 between us is upon a point of no manner of importance, viz., 
 as to the time when this imposition took place. We place 
 it at an earlier period than the time supposed by this com- 
 mentator. 
 
 Again, 1 Tim. iv. 14, we are informed that Timothy 
 was ordained, or set apart to his ministerial work, by the 
 presbytery; and consequently, Paul could not have been 
 " his ordainer." " Neglect not the gift that is in thee, 
 which was given thee by prophecy with the laying on of 
 the hands of the presbytery." This passage, according to 
 Townsend, goes to show that Timothy was ordained to the 
 work of an evangelist, by the presbyters of the church at 
 Lystra, in accordance with certain prophecies concerning 
 him, which rendered it certain that he was divinely called to 
 his sacred work. And this agrees with chap. i. 18th verse : 
 " This charge commit I unto thee, son Timothy, according 
 to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by 
 them mightest war a good warfare." Dr. Willet and other 
 eminent Episcopalians admit that Timothy was ordained by 
 the presbytery, and that the gift spoken of in the passage 
 now under consideration is the ministerial office. He asks, 
 " Seeing Timothy was ordained by the authority of the elder- 
 ship, how could he be a bishop, strictly and precisely taken, 
 being ordained by presbyters ?" With this exposition of the 
 
52 APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 passage, its language and location entirely agree. We can 
 understand how the ministerial office can be " neglected" 
 much better than how it can be " stirred up" The duties 
 which the Apostle is here enforcing, are the duties of the 
 ministerial office. " These things command and teach. Let 
 no man despise thy youth ; but be thou an example to the 
 believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in 
 faith, in humility. Till I come, give attendance to reading, 
 to exhortation, to doctrine. Neglect not the gift that is in 
 thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on 
 of the hands of the presbytery. Meditate upon these things ; 
 give thyself wholly to them ; that thy profiting may appear 
 to all. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; con- 
 tinue in them : for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, 
 and them that hear thee." It is perfectly evident that the 
 Apostle is here discoursing about the public duties of the 
 ministerial office, and that the phrase, " the gift that is in 
 thee" refers to that office which Timothy had received by 
 presbyterial ordination. 
 
 We are not. ignorant of the fact that our author, fearful 
 of losing Bishop Timothy, endeavors to make both these 
 passages refer to the same transaction, and to harmonize 
 with each other. After giving his exposition, as stated 
 above, of 2 Timothy i. 6, " Wherefore I put thee in re- 
 membrance that thou stir up the gift of God which is in 
 thee by the putting on of my hands," he proceeds to 
 state, " We have now to reconcile this explanation of the 
 above passage, with what is said, in 1 Timothy iv. 14, " Neg- 
 lect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by 
 prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." 
 Now whatever this word Presbytery means, in reference to 
 which there is an irreconcilable difference of opinion 
 among the learned, it was only with their consenting action, 
 that the ordination was performed, while the ordainer in 
 the official sense was Paul. In the first passage, it is said 
 
APOSTLESHIP. 53 
 
 that the ordination was effected (dux) by the imposition of 
 the Apostle's hands; and in this, (^tw,) with the laying 
 on of the hands of the Presbytery. In each case these propo- 
 sitions are used with the genitive, and any lexicographer 
 will inform us that dux, with the genitive, denotes the instru- 
 mental cause ; while fisra, with the genitive, signifies 
 * with/ ' together with,' The ordination was therefore 
 strictly Apostolical, and the passages are reconcilable. " So 
 then Timothy is a diocesan Bishop, Episcopally ordained ; 
 and rendered so by the magical influence of the Greek pre- 
 positions dux, and (istcc. What wonderful things can some- 
 times be effected by the influence of little words ! — Espe- 
 cially where they are in Greek ! But let us examine into 
 this ordination, and see whether it be truly canonical. It 
 would be a sad thing for Timothy to obtain bishop's orders, 
 without conforming to the rules of the only true church. 
 
 1. Then we are informed that " any lexicographer will 
 tell us that dux with the genitive denotes the instrumental 
 cause." We will see what " lexicographers tell us." We 
 have access to but two Greek lexicons; but, as " any lexi- 
 cographer will tell us," two are as good as a thousand. The 
 first is alexicon by James Donnegan, M. D., which is the one 
 now in general use in our classical schools and academies. 
 This lexicon says, "dux, a preposition governing the geni- 
 tive and accusative cases : it denotes passage through, 
 transition, separation, interval of time and place," &c. 
 &,c, with a few other minor significations, such as duration, 
 interval, of, by, &c. " With a genitive it signifies through." 
 — Some of the examples given are the following : Iliad 17, 
 49, " dux avxevoQ elv&ev awnr}," — " The point went through 
 his neck." Is neck the instrumental cause? According to 
 our author it must be, for it is governed by &a in the geni- 
 tive. Once more : Iliad 3, 61, " IJeXexvg eigivdux dovpog,'" — 
 " The axe drove through the wood." Here dovgog, wood, is 
 in the genitive case, governed by dux — and is it the instru- 
 3 
 
54 AP0STLESH1P. 
 
 mental cause ? — The other is the " Scapulas Lexicon," a 
 work as valuable as it is rare. Its definitions of Greek words 
 are given in the Latin language. It says, " dia, cum geni- 
 tivo, interdum significat, per," i. e. " dia, with the genitive, 
 sometimes signifies through." Under this, we find a long 
 list of examples, which go to show that this is the case. It 
 then gives several minor significations of the word ; but 
 that just mentioned is the principal and leading one. 
 
 Let us now put this criticism of our author to the test, 
 by examples in New Testament Greek. Matt. ii. 12, " And 
 being warned of God in a dream that they should not re- 
 turn to Herod, they departed into their own country — d.a 
 ailing odov — another way." Here odov is in the genitive, 
 governed by dia. Does it signify the instrumental cause ? 
 Matt. xii. 1, " At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath day 
 — dia twv ctttoqIwv — through the corn." Is corn the in- 
 strumental cause ? Pray what did the corn do ? There is 
 an example of this kind in the very passage quoted by our 
 author: t( Neglect not the gift that is in thee — dia ngo^- 
 vuag, — by," or " in accordance with, prophecy." He r e dia 
 governs ngocprjTsiag in the genitive ; and if this preposition 
 makes Paul the ordainer, it must likewise make prophecy 
 the ordainer. So that Timothy was ordained by prophecy, 
 as well as by Paul. We readily admit that dia, with the 
 genitive, sometimes signifies the instrumental cause ; but 
 that it always, or usually does, is not correct. Lexicogra- 
 phers do not tell us so. 
 
 Our author also says that " ^£t«," with the genitive, sig- 
 nifies " with," " together with," in the sense of (C consenting 
 action" If our author means any thing by " consenting 
 action," he must mean that the person or thing governed by 
 {i£ia in the genitive simply gives consent to the work or la? 
 bor performed by some other person. This is according to 
 his own explanation of the matter. He says expressly, it 
 was only with their " (the presbytery's) consenting action 
 
APOSTLESHIP. 55 
 
 that the ordination was performed ; while the ordainer, in 
 the official sense, was Paul." Our author, in this criticism, 
 is as wide of the mark as he is in the other. That [mtv, 
 when iv governs the genitive, signifies " iffith" " together 
 with" is certainly correct ; but that it signifies " with" 
 merely in the sense of that action which only gives " con- 
 sent," is very far from being correct ; — justm, with the genitive, 
 usually signifies either entire co-operation, or instrumentality : 
 once in a great while it is used for " with," in the sense of 
 " against" We will proceed to show that this is the case 
 by examples from the Greek Testament. Matt. xii. 30, 
 " He that is not — (Ut tfiov — with me, is against me ; and 
 he thatgathereth not — ^utt tpov — with me,scattereth abroad." 
 Does this mean that Christ was to do the gathering, and his 
 people merely give their consent ? Or does it express ' ' entire 
 co-operation ?" Matt. xxvi. 55, " In that same hour said Jesus 
 to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief — ^sia 
 [Aa/aiybjv y.al |i/Aaw — with swords and staves, to take me?" 
 Permit us to ask, are the swords and staves here used by the 
 multitudes as instruments or weapons to take Jesus? Or did 
 the multitudes go to take him, the swords and staves merely 
 giving their consent ? Acts xiii. 17, " The God of this peo- 
 ple of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when 
 they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt; and [isia 
 Pqa%iovo vyjyXov — with a high arm — brought he them out 
 of it." Did God bring the Israelites out of Egypt, his high 
 arm merely giving consent ? Or was his high arm the in- 
 strument which he used to effect their escape? Matt. xii. 
 41, " The men of Nineveh shall rise up in judgment — 
 (xetu Trjs */sv sag Tocvjijg — with this generation." Are the 
 men of Nineveh to rise up in judgment, this generation 
 giving their consent ? Or is fiera, with the genitive, here used 
 for " with" in the sense of " against ?" — causing the passage 
 to read, " The men of Nineveh shall rise up in judgment 
 against this generation?" Rev. xi. 7 furnishes another ex* 
 
°6 APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 ample where fisra with the genitive is used to signify against. 
 So much for our learned author's criticisms upon diet and 
 [istcc. He would hardly have ventured upon so quixo^- u 
 criticism of Greek prepositions in any other &•***$ Dut > as 
 a true son of the only true church, he fe willing to bring his 
 literary reputation and place it upon her altar, if necessary, 
 to ordain Bishop Timothy. Alas ! it is but too evident that 
 he will have to figure in some other language than the Greek 
 to secure so desirable a result. 
 
 But suppose, for the sake of argument, we allow our 
 author all he assumes. Suppose we allow, that " din" is the 
 ordaining, and " /irra" the consenting preposition ; and that 
 Timothy was ordained by Paul, the presbyters placing their 
 hands upon the candidate's head, by way of consent. Here 
 we have an Episcopal ordination sure enough. But pray, 
 what orders would it confer 1 Would such an ordination 
 make Timothy a bishop? Is this the way the Apostolic 
 church ordain their bishops ? Is a diocesan in the Episcopal 
 church ordained by a single bishop, the presbyters imposing 
 their hands by way of consent ? Certainly not. Presbyters 
 have nothing to do with the ordination of bishops ; bishops 
 are ordained by bishops alone. But this is precisely the way 
 in which the Episcopal church ordain their presbyters : the 
 bishop ordains, and the presbyters impose their consenting 
 hands upon the candidate's head. So that, with all our au- 
 thor's trouble to make out an Episcopal ordination, he has 
 only made Timothy ^presbyter. O Timothy ! Timothy ! we 
 fear that, notwithstanding the magical power of the ordain- 
 ing preposition " dia" and the cipher-designating preposi- 
 tion " fxsTn" the mitre of a diocesan bishop will never deco- 
 rate thy brow ! We call " dia" the ordaining preposition, 
 because, according to our author, it is the preposition through 
 which the office of a bishop passed from Paul's hands to 
 Timothy's head. We call "jusia" the cipher-designating 
 preposition, because, according to the same author, it sign 
 
 * 
 
AP0STLESH1P. 
 
 57 
 
 lies that the presbyters placed their hands upon Timothy's 
 head, not to ordain him, but merely to express their consent ; 
 showing conclusively that they were mere ciphers in the 
 transaction. And, my brethren, so it is at the ordination of 
 every priest in the Episcopal church. The bishop alone 
 ordains, and the priests place their hands upon the candi- 
 date's head, by way of consent ; but suppose they were to 
 withhold their consent, what would be the effect 1 Just 
 nothing : if the bishop thought proper, the ordination would 
 proceed. At every ordination of a priest in the Episcopal 
 church, the bishop in effect says to his presbyters, " The 
 church in which I am a prelate has vested in me the sole or- 
 daining power, but you, my presbyters, my inferior clergy, 
 may make believe that you have something to do in this 
 matter, by placing your hands upon the candidate's head, by 
 way of consent" This is the exalted privilege which Epis- 
 copal priests have in the transaction of setting apart their 
 brethren to the gospel ministry. 
 
 Our author thinks Titus was an Apostle. But his case is 
 so nearly allied to Timothy's, that we shall pass it by without 
 remark. Perhaps, after all, you may feel disposed to ask, 
 Were not Timothy and Titus extraordinary ministers — pos- 
 sessing powers beyond those possessed by pastors of the 
 present day ? Certainly they were ; they were Evangelists. 
 Eusebius, whose authority will not be questioned by the 
 friends of the hierarchy, informs us, that as late as the second 
 century " very many of the disciples travelled abroad, and 
 performed the work of evangelists ; ardently ambitious of 
 preaching Christ to those who were yet wholly unacquainted 
 with the doctrine of faith, and to deliver to them the Scrip- 
 tures of the divine Gospel. These having merely laid the 
 foundations of the faith, and ordained other pastors, com- 
 mitted to them the cultivation of the churches newly planted, 
 while they themselves, supported by the grace and co-opera- 
 tion of God, proceeded to other countries and nations. For 
 
58 
 
 AP0STLESH1P. 
 
 even then many astonishing miracles of the divine Spirit 
 were wrought by them." Such evangelists were Timothy 
 snd Titus; as their passing from city to city, and from church 
 to church, to ordain elders and to " set in order the things 
 which were wanting," abundantly proves. Hence Paul 
 charges Timothy to " do the work," not of an Apostle, nor of 
 a diocesan bishop, but of an " evangelist." The evidence in 
 the cases of Timothy and Titus appears to us as clear as 
 though it was written in sunbeams. 
 
 We will close this part of our subject with the opinions 
 of the celebrated Episcopal doctors Willet and Stillingfleet. 
 Dr. Willet says, page 236 of his Synopsis Papismi, " It is 
 most likely Timothy had the place and calling of an evan- 
 gelist : and the calling of evangelists and bishops, which were 
 pastors, was divine." Dr. Stillingfleet, in his Irenicum, page 
 340, says, " Such were the evangelists who were sent, some- 
 times into this country to put the church in order there, 
 sometimes into another ; but wherever they were, they acted 
 as evangelists, and not as fixed officers. And such were 
 Timothy and Titus, notwithstanding all the opposition made 
 against it ; as will appear to any who will take an impartial 
 survey of the arguments on both sides." The opinions of 
 other eminent Episcopalians might be quoted to the same 
 effect — but these are sufficient. 
 
 Where does our author next go to find a diocesan? 
 Would you think it ! Not being able to find one among 
 men, he goes searching after one among the angels. Start 
 not, O ye Episcopalians ! You have not lost your rector ; 
 he is still on earth — he has only gone among the angels of 
 the churches ; who, he thinks, are diocesan bishops. The 
 angels of the seven churches mentioned in Revelation were, 
 in his estimation, Apostles, in the sense of diocesan bishops. 
 He says, " The Apostleship was also transmitted to the angels 
 of the seven Asiatic churches: Rev. ii. 1, ' Unto the angel 
 of the church of Ephesus write ; And thou hast tried them 
 
APOSTLESIIIP 59 
 
 which say they are Apostles, and are not, and hast found them 
 liars.' This angel was an individual who had the supreme 
 control of the Ephesian church; the same exercise of disci- 
 pline as was spoken of in the cases of Timothy and Titus, is 
 predicated of him. Was he not then the successor of Tim- 
 othy?" We would ask, was he the successor of Timothy? 
 Can our author prove that Timothy ever had a successor? 
 Every statement he here makes is sheer assumption. How 
 does he know that this angel was a single individual ? There 
 are strong reasons for supposing that the term angel, in the 
 figurative language of the Apocalypse, denoted the whole 
 body of presbyters connected with that church ; and this is 
 the opinion of some eminent Episcopalians. How does he 
 know that this angel, even if it denote an individual, had the 
 supreme control of the Ephesian church, and that the exer- 
 cise of discipline is predicated of him ? Does he gather it 
 from that passage, " And thou hast tried them which say 
 they are Apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars ?" 
 Does he not know that the word sTisigdvca, here translated 
 " hast tried," means simply to search dut, to investigate, to dis- 
 cover? — that it is translated " tried" in the sense of "proved" 
 and has no reference whatever to judicial proceedings of any 
 kind? " Thou hast proved those who say they are Apostles, 
 and are not, and hast found them liars." Any person might 
 do this without having supreme ecclesiastical authority ; and 
 even without having any authority at all. We can but hope 
 that multitudes who bear no rule in the churches, will never- 
 theless prove those at the present day, who say they are 
 Apostles, and are not ; if they will, we are sure they will find 
 them most egregiously mistaken. Our author continues : 
 " But we are asked to prove that this angel had ministers 
 under him" — " Assuming 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 : 
 
60 APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 " 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 Timothy it is positively stated that 
 there were elders and deacons in the church at Ephesus. 
 Therefore, a fortiori, there was a body of inferior clergy 
 when the epistle was addressed to this angel. This point 
 is proved, and the argument (by the objector's own confes- 
 sion) stands." Not quite so fast; we should like to ask a 
 few questions before we confess the argument to stand. 
 Suppose it should turn out that angel here stood for the 
 whole body of presbyters, what would then become of our 
 author's inferior clergy 1 Or suppose it should be ascer- 
 tained that this angel was one presbyter, who had been ap- 
 pointed by his brethren to moderate the presbytery, and 
 that, through him as president, the whole body was ad- 
 dressed. What, then, would become of his inferior clergy ? 
 Or, suppose the angel was simply the bishop or pas- 
 tor of the Ephesian church, and the elders were a bench — 
 not of preaching, but of ruling elders — what then would 
 become of his inferior clergy 1 Presbyterian churches 
 have angels in the sense of bishops or pastors, and 
 elders, and deacons; and yet they have no inferior 
 clergy. This conclusive argument may be spoiled in so 
 many ways, that we hardly think it can be of any great 
 value for the purpose for which it is framed. Do you say 
 " these are all hypothetical ?" Agreed ; and so is the the- 
 ory of our author; and our suppositions are just as conclu- 
 sive as his. We certainly can sustain any one or all of 
 them by the authority of names equally great. There has 
 been a great variety of opinions among the learned, as to 
 who these angels were. The most rational view of the sub- 
 ject appears to be, that this term was borrowed from the 
 Jews, who had in each one of their synagogues an officer — 
 the president, or superintendent — who was called the angel 
 of the synagogue. If this be true, it would go to show 
 
 % 
 
APOSTLESHIP. 61 
 
 that each particular church had its angel ; and that he was 
 a simple pastor of a church. We are sustained in this view 
 by the Rt. Rev. Archbishop Whately of Dublin, and by 
 many other eminent divines. The Archbishop says, (King- 
 dom of Christ, page 136,) " It seems plainly to have been at 
 least the general, if not the univerad, practice of the Apos- 
 tles, to appoint over each separate church a single indi- 
 vidual as a chief governor, under the title of ? Angel/ (i. e. 
 messenger, or legate from the Apostles,) or ' Bishop/ 
 superintendent, or overseer. A church and a diocese seem 
 to have been, for a considerable time, coextensive and iden- 
 tical ; and each church, or diocese, (and consequently each 
 superintendent,) though connected with the rest by ties of 
 faith, and hope, and charity, seems to have been (as has 
 been already observed) perfectly independent, so far as re- 
 gards any control." Eminent Episcopalians have differed 
 very widely (as might easily be shown by quotations if time 
 would allow) as to who are intended by these angels of the 
 seven churches — and we would beg leave to suggest, whe- 
 ther it would not be full as well for the sect to settle this 
 point among themselves, before attempting very confidently 
 to found an argument upon the office sustained by these un- 
 known personages, in favor of Diocesan Episcopacy, 
 
 One author says that Sylvanus, Andronicus, and Junius, 
 are in Scripture styled Apostles, in the official sense of that 
 term. The case of Sylvanus we have already disposed of: 
 he is called an Apostle in Thessalonians, in connection with 
 Paul and Timothy in the sense of a missionary, and with 
 reference to a special mission, which they had just com- 
 pleted among that church. The only place where our au- 
 thor can possibly suppose that Andronicus and Junius are 
 called Apostles, is Rom. xvi. 7 : " Salute Andronicus and 
 Junius, my kinsmen and fellow-prisoners, who are of note 
 among the Apostles." — And does our author believe that an 
 individual could not be of note among the Apostles without 
 
 3* 
 
62 
 
 APOSTLESHIP. 
 
 himself being an Apostle ? Our author is " of note" among^ 
 the people of his charge ; is he therefore one of that people T 
 Does the fact that a student at one of our literary institu- 
 tions is popular with the faculty, prove conclusively that he 
 is a member of that faculty ? Really, it seems to us that our 
 author must have been hard pushed to make out his twenty- 
 six Apostles, or he would not have adopted such a subterfuge 
 as this. 
 
 Here closes the argument under this head — and we think 
 it must be evident to every unprejudiced mind, from a view 
 of the whole case, that if jure divino Episcopalians wait for 
 a prelate until they find one in the Bible, they will most cer- 
 tainly lose their Apostolic Succession. 
 
I 
 
 * 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 
 
 Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. — " Go ye therefore and teach all nations, 
 baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I 
 have commanded you : and lo, T am with you always, even unto the 
 end of the world." 
 
 John xx. 21-23. — " As my Father hath sent me, even so send I 
 you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith 
 unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost : whosesoever sins ye remit, 
 they are remitted unto them ; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they 
 are retained." 
 
 In these passages we have the whole of what is called 
 the ministerial commission. " Mark and Luke/' says our 
 author, " add nothing essential to these statements." This 
 commission contains the elements of the great argument of 
 exclusive Episcopalians in favour of the continuance of the 
 Apostolic office in the New Testament church. This is, 
 after all, the instrument whose talismanic charm is to trans- 
 form every diocesan Bishop into a true Apostle, " bearing 
 the same relation to Christ on the one hand and the church 
 on the other which the twelve bore." We see interwoven 
 with every argument framed to sustain the exclusive and 
 arrogant claims of high churchmen such sentences as these, 
 taken from this commission : " As my Father hath sent me, 
 even so send I you."' " Whosesoever sins ye remit, they 
 are remitted unto them." " Lo, I am with you always, even 
 unto the end of the world." These sentences are runo* 
 
64 MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 
 
 upon the voice of the exclusive preacher, through all the 
 changes of the octave with an air of triumph, as though 
 they contained, on the one hand, the battering ram which 
 is to demolish the whole fabric of Presbyterianism ; and on 
 the other, the engine of erection, which is to build upon its 
 ruins the magnificent temple of Prelacy. No individual 
 can read the pamphlet of our author upon this subject, 
 without at once perceiving that this commission forms both 
 the web and the woof of his argument. 
 
 Perhaps some may be surprised to hear it stated as a 
 prominent object of the present discourse to prove that the 
 ministerial commission had nothing to do with the Apostle- 
 ship. This commission*was given by Christ to his disciples 
 after his resurrection and just previous to his ascension into 
 heaven. This, we are told by our author, is the only per- 
 manent ministerial commission which Christ has ever left 
 with his church. His words are, " 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." Again he says, " The Apostles were the only 
 commissioned ministry of Christ." So that it is here 
 expressly asserted that Christ left but one ministerial com- 
 mission, and that this commission was given to but one 
 order of personages, viz. the eleven. The only powers 
 which it is pretended by prelates themselves are communi- 
 cated by this commission are, 
 
 1. To disciple the nations through the instrumentality of 
 a preached gospel. 
 
 2. To administer the sacraments of Baptism and the 
 Lord's Supper. 
 
 3. To administer the ordinary government of the 
 church, in which is implied the admission and expulsion of 
 members. 
 
 4. The power of ordaining others to perform the 
 same duties, and thus to extend and perpetuate their 
 order. 
 
MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 65 
 
 The right to preach the gospel, to baptize, and to govern, 
 we are told, is a direct and positive grant of this com- 
 mission. The right to administer the Lord's Supper and to 
 ordain is inferential : the one growing out of the clause 
 " teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
 commanded you ;" the other being inferred from the two 
 clauses, " as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you," 
 and, " lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the 
 world." To show that this statement is entirely correct, 
 only a single quotation from our author will be necessary. 
 He says, " Let reference now be made to the second instru- 
 ment, (viz., the one given by Christ to his disciples just 
 before his ascension.) All there is ministerial. 
 
 " 1. They preach. What ? The gospel. 
 
 "2. They baptize. 
 
 " 3. They teach the observance of the Saviour's com- 
 mands. Of these we know one was the Lord's Supper. 
 
 " 4. They remit or retain sins ; open or close the door of 
 the church to any. 
 
 "5. They acted in all respects as Christ did and would 
 have acted in the church, being sent by him as he was sent 
 by the Father. 
 
 " We shall consider the point then as fully made out, 
 that the Saviour's last charge to the eleven is the ministerial 
 commission." Here, then, we have the sentiments of our 
 author in his own language ; and if, by this language, he 
 means that the ministerial commission conveys any other 
 powers than those which we have defined above, he wanders 
 into paths where no truly protestant Episcopalian would be 
 willing to follow him. That this commission communicates 
 the powers we have just delineated, we readily admit. We 
 have no dispute with exclusive churchmen upon this part 
 of the subject. We believe that this commission authorizes 
 an order of ministers iu the church until the end of time, 
 who have the power to preach the gospel, to administer the 
 
66 MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 
 
 sacraments, and in a very important sense to govern, and to 
 ordain others to discharge the same duties, thus extending 
 and perpetuating their order, But to affirm that these minis- 
 ters are Apostles, is a complete begging of the question. It is 
 an assumption which never can be proved, as will be abun- 
 dantly evident from the following considerations : 
 
 1. This commission did not in any sense confer the 
 Apostleship upon the eleven. 
 
 They were appointed Apostles by Christ some time be- 
 fore his crucifixion. It was under this last-named appoint- 
 ment, and not under the ministerial commission, that they 
 acted as Apostles, after the ascension of their Lord and 
 Master. This fact is most manifest, from the 17th, 24th, and 
 25th verses of the first chapter of Acts. " For he (Judas) 
 was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this minis- 
 try. And they prayed and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest 
 the hearts of all men, show whether of these twain thou hast 
 chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and apostle- 
 ship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might 
 go to his own place." From these passages it is evident that 
 the eleven disciples acted as Apostles in the New Testament 
 church, under the very appointment which they, in connexion 
 with Judas, had received from the Lord before his crucifix- 
 ion. Judas was an Apostle in the same sense in which they 
 were ; and they propose to fill a vacancy made in the Apos- 
 tolic college by the defection and death of Judas. But Judas 
 never had received the ministerial commission ; for he died 
 before that commission was delivered to the disciples. Pe- 
 ter, in his remarks upon this occasion, makes no reference 
 to the ministerial commission, but evidently refers to the 
 appointment of the twelve to the Apostleship, before the 
 crucifixion of Christ. No unprejudiced mind can examine 
 this narration without being brought irresistibly to the con- 
 clusion, that the Apostles, after the ascension of their Lord 
 acted as Apostles, under the appointment which they receivi 
 
 
MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 67 
 
 in connexion with Judas, and not under the ministerial com- 
 mission. 
 
 2. None of the powers which were peculiar to the apos- 
 tleship are contained in this commission. 
 
 In a previous lecture it was shown that an Apostle must 
 have seen the Lord, and have been appointed by him in per- 
 son, and thus be qualified to bear witness to his resurrection 
 — that he must have the ability to work miracles, and to be- 
 stow the miraculous gifts of the Spirit by the imposition of 
 hands — that he must be inspired, and thus prepared to exer- 
 cise extraordinary authority in the churches. Now none of 
 these qualifications are communicated by the ministerial 
 commission, as is evident both from the phraseology and 
 from the fact that none who act under this commission at 
 the present day pretend to possess them. The powers com- 
 municated by this commission were — to preach the gospel, 
 to administer the sacraments, to rule in the church, and to 
 ordain ; all of which, as will presently be shown, were per- 
 formed by simple Presbyters. 
 
 3. There was no ordination to the apostleship ; but, be- 
 fore individuals could lawfully perform the duties contained 
 in this commission, ordination was necessary. Perhaps it 
 may be an entirely novel idea to some that the Apostles, as 
 such, were never ordained ; but, if they only examine criti- 
 cally for themselves, they will be convinced that this was the 
 case. We read of individuals being " chosen" Apostles — 
 " appointed" Apostles — " numbered with" Apostles — but 
 never of their being ordained Apostles. Should it be ob- 
 jected to this that we read, (Mark iii. 14,) " And he ordain- 
 ed twelve, that they should be with him," &,c, we will let 
 our author answer this objection in his own language. He 
 says, p. 16, " If, in reply to what has now been said, refer- 
 ence should be made to the statement in Mark iii. 14, that 
 Christ ' ordained twelve,' as if there were a peculiar force 
 and meaning in the term used by the evangelist, it is suffi- 
 
68 MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 
 
 cient 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 eno^at} — he ' made' or 
 * constituted' — and is never used to signify the official act 
 of ministerial ordination." So likewise in Acts i. 22, where 
 Peter says, " must one be ordained to be a witness with us 
 of the resurrection," the word translated ordain is avsXr^r), 
 which signifies " to be ordained," merely in the sense of 
 " appointed." It is evident, from the bare perusal of the 
 several narratives, that the twelve were merely appointed 
 Apostles by Christ, and not ordained to the Apostleship. 
 When the disciples attempted to fill the place of Judas, 
 Matthias was not ordained an Apostle ; but the lot fell upon 
 him, and he was numbered with the Apostles without any 
 ordination. When Christ came down from heaven to ap- 
 point Paul an Apostle, he simply made the appointment with- 
 out ordaining him to the office. We read of the ordination 
 of Elders or Presbyters, but never of Apostles. We chal- 
 lenge our opponents to produce a single case of such ordi- 
 nation. The only one they have ever pretended to cite is 
 that of Timothy ; but we have abundantly shown that he 
 was ordained by the Presbytery, not to the Apostleship, but 
 to the work of an Evangelist. But when Christ gave the 
 ministerial commission to the eleven disciples, before they 
 could discharge the duties it enjoins they must be ordained 
 to the office. Hence, the Lord Jesus Christ proceeded to 
 their ordination : " He breathed on them, and saith unto 
 them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost." This our author affirms 
 to be an ordination. His words are : " Therefore no argu- 
 ment can be drawn from this mere incident against our gen- 
 eral position that the ministerial commission, in the strict 
 and highest sense of the term, is found in the last solemn 
 charge of our Lord to his Apostles, and the attending cere- 
 mony having all the solemnity and force of an official ordi- 
 nation. * And when he had said this, he breathed on them, 
 
MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 69 
 
 and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost ; whose- 
 soever sins ye remit, they are remitted : and whosesoever 
 sins ye retain, they are retained.' If this is not a formal in- 
 vestiture of office, both in the terms and in the act, then it 
 would be impossible to find such in the whole compass of 
 the Bible." Just so we think. But, pray, with what office 
 did this ordination invest them ? Not with the Apostleship ; 
 for they were Apostles before. Not with the Deaconship, 
 for that had not yet been instituted : and we believe that it 
 is not pretended by any that the Apostles were ordained to 
 the deaconship. To what office, then, were they ordained ? 
 The conclusion is inevitable, they were invested with the 
 Preshyterial office : they were ordained Presbyters ; and, as 
 such, were commissioned to preach, to baptize, to rule, and 
 to ordain other presbyters in the church of God. The Apos- 
 tleship was an extraordinary, temporary, and personal office; 
 and as such, a mere appointment to it by our Lord in person 
 was considered sufficient, without a formal ordination. The 
 presbyterate was a permanent office, which was to be handed 
 down from one class of Presbyters to another, and thus con- 
 tinue in the church to the end of time. It was therefore 
 deemed both expedient and necessary to have individuals 
 inducted into this office by a formal and solemn ordination. 
 4. The Apostles, as such, had no right to perform most 
 of the duties enjoined in the ministerial commission. The 
 only duty which Apostles were appointed to perform in com- 
 mon with presbyters, was that of preaching. We find this 
 inserted in the article of their appointment, as contained in 
 Mark iii. 14, 15 : " And he ordained (or constituted) twelve, 
 that they should be with him, and that he might send them 
 forth to preach, and to have power to heal sicknesses, and 
 cast out devils." The idea that the Apostleship contains 
 within itself the presbyterate, as the greater contains the 
 less, is a sheer assumption, not only without evidence, but 
 in the face of evidence to the contrary. It can never be 
 
70 MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 
 
 shown that the Apostles, merely as Apostles, had any right 
 to administer Christian baptism or to ordain : and the rule 
 which they exercised was extraordinary, growing out of the 
 fact that they were inspired men ; and, as such, sustained 
 personally the same relation to the church as their writings 
 do at present. Hence, Paul says, 1 Cor. i. 17 : " Christ 
 sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel ;" that is, 
 my appropriate work, as an Apostle, is not to baptize, but 
 to preach. True, he baptized a few persons ; but this was 
 after he had been constituted a presbyter by the presbytery 
 of Antioch. 
 
 That the Apostles, as such, were not authorized to or- 
 dain, is evident from the fact that the Apostle Paul was not 
 qualified to accompany Barnabas upon an ordaining tour 
 through the churches, until he had first been ordained a 
 presbyter — not by Apostles, but by the prophets and teach- 
 ers who constituted the presbytery of the church at Antioch. 
 The account of this transaction is contained in Acts xiii. 
 1-3 : " Now there were in the church which was at Anti- 
 och, certain prophets and teachers ; as Barnabas, and 
 Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and 
 Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the 
 tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and 
 fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul 
 for the work whereunto I have called them. And when 
 they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, 
 they sent them away." " This," says Dr. Miller, " is the 
 most ample account of an ordination to be found in Scrip- 
 ture ; and it is an account which, were there no other, would 
 be sufficient to decide the present controversy in our favor. 
 Who were the ordainers on this occasion ? They were not 
 Apostles : lest this should be supposed, their names are 
 given. They were not bishops in the modern sense of the 
 word ; for there were a number of them ministering together 
 in the same church. They were the prophets and teachers 
 
MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 71 
 
 of the church at Antioch. With respect to these teachers, 
 no higher character has ever been claimed for them than 
 that of presbyters, laboring in word and doctrine. And as 
 to the prophets, though the precise nature of their endow- 
 ments and office be not certainly known, yet there is com- 
 plete evidence that they did not sustain that ecclesiastical 
 rank with which Episcopalians contend that, in the days of 
 the Apostles, the power of ordaining was connected. Still 
 these ministers ordained ; and they did this under the imme- 
 diate direction of the Holy Ghost, who cannot be supposed 
 to sanction any departure from an essential principle of 
 church government." Dr. Hammond, one of the most able 
 and zealous advocates for Episcopacy, does not hesitate to 
 pronounce this transaction a regular ordination. This is 
 likewise the opinion of that distinguished Episcopal writer, 
 Bishop Taylor. He says, speaking of Paul, " He had the 
 special honor to be chosen in an extraordinary way, yet 
 he had something of the ordinary too : for, in an*,extraordi- 
 nary manner he was sent to be ordained in an ordinary 
 ministry. His designation was as immediate as that of the 
 eleven Apostles, though his ordination was not." The 
 learned Dr. Lightfoot was also of the same opinion. " No 
 better reason/ 5 says he, " can be given of this present ac- 
 tion, than that the Lord did hereby set down a platform of 
 ordaining ministers to the church of the Gentiles in future 
 times." Chrysostom, one of the early fathers, asserts that 
 Paul was ordained at Antioch, and quotes this same passage 
 from Acts in support of the position. We close this part of 
 our subject by adding the testimony of Archbishop Whately, 
 the present primate of Ireland. He calls this transaction 
 an ordination not only, but one by the elders of the church 
 at Antioch ; he even goes so far as to say that this " ordi- 
 nation by elders" was to the Apostle ship. This last position, 
 as we have before remarked, is entirely untenable ; but, 
 even were it admitted, it would completely overthrow the 
 
72 MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 
 
 whole fabric of exclusive Episcopacy. Jure divino exclusive 
 Episcopalians will not admit that presbyters have any right 
 to ordain ; much less that they have a right to ordain Apos- 
 tles or diocesan Bishops. The language of the Archbishop 
 upon this subject is as follows : "It is worth remarking also, 
 that as if on purpose to guard against the assumption which 
 might not unnaturally have taken place, of some supremacy, 
 such as no church was designed to enjoy, on the part of 
 Jerusalem the fountain-head of the religion, it was by the 
 special appointment of the Holy Spirit that Saul and Barna- 
 bas were ordained to the very highest office, the Apostle- 
 ship, not by the hands of other Apostles, or of any persons 
 at Jerusalem, but by the elders of Antioch. Some reason for 
 such a procedure there must have been ; and it does seem 
 probable that it was designed for the very purpose (among 
 others) of impressing on men's minds the independence and 
 equality of the several churches on earth.'' Here, then, is 
 ample testimony drawn from the most eminent sources that 
 this transaction was an ordination by the hands of presby- 
 ters, and that it was necessary to qualify Paul and Barnabas 
 to go upon an ordaining tour through the churches ; and ii 
 this be true, it is plain that Apostles, as such, had not a 
 right to ordain ; but that the Apostle Paul, before he could 
 ordain others, must himself be ordained by the presbytery t< 
 the presbyterate. 
 
 5. " Those who act under the ministerial commissioi 
 are appointed and set apart by men ; but Apostles must re 
 ceive their appointment from the Lord Jesus Christ h 
 person. That those who act under the ministerial com 
 mission are appointed and set apart by men, will not h 
 disputed by any. That the Apostles must receive their ap 
 pointment from the Lord Jesus Christ in person, has been 
 abundantly shown in a previous discourse. In answering a 
 supposed objection to this position, drawn from the appoint- 
 ment of Matthias to the Apostleship, the opinion was set 
 
MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 73 
 
 lorth that this transaction was entirely unauthorized. This 
 opinion has since been attacked, with some degree of wamth, 
 in an anonymous pamphlet, which has been extensively circu- 
 lated in this community, and great pains has been taken to 
 leave the impression, that the whole force of our argument 
 depend upon the correctness of this opinion. We should 
 never have referred, in this public manner, to the contents of 
 this pamphlet, were there not good reason for believing that 
 its author and the author of " The Enquiry" are the same 
 individual. The question whether the election of Matthias to 
 the Apostleship was an authorized transaction, is one about 
 which the ablest commentators have differed. We have 
 been led to take the negative of this question, for the follow- 
 ing reasons : 
 
 1. Our Lord, during the time he spent with his disciples 
 after his resurrection, left no directions with them to fill 
 the place of Judas. If he had done so, Peter would have 
 referred to those directions instead of quoting a prophecy, 
 which, while it showed that that place was to be supplied, 
 gave no authority to the disciples to supply it. 
 
 2. Instead of directing his disciples to make an Apostle, 
 Christ charged them to wait at Jerusalem until they should 
 be endowed with power from on high. 
 
 3. This appointment took place before the promised 
 Spirit was poured upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost. 
 
 4. There was no visible manifestation of the ratifica- 
 tion of the act by Jehovah himself, as we may naturally 
 suppose would have been the case, in that age of the church, 
 in so important and solemn a transaction, if it had been 
 authorized by God. 
 
 5. We hear nothing of Matthias, as an Apostle, after his 
 appointment. 
 
 6. In due time, the Lord Jesus himself came down 
 from heaven, and appointed Paul to the Apostleship ; as we 
 think, to fill the place of Judas. 
 
74 MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 
 
 But we do not consider this point of the least impor- 
 tance to the strength and conclusiveness of our general 
 argument. Suppose we take the ground of the Rev. Trac- 
 tarian, that Matthias was appointed to the Apostleship by 
 the Lord through the lot, and that he was ordained an Apos- 
 tle by the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost; this, of 
 itself, would go very far to show that men have no authority 
 to appoint and ordain Apostles. Again : suppose we allow 
 that Christ came from heaven to add one to his college of 
 Apostles ; this would afford a very strong presumptive 
 argument to prove that men have no right to make such 
 additions. Allowing all this to be true, we have only to 
 change the number of Apostles from twelve to thirteen, and 
 our argument remains as impregnable as ever. Our author 
 is mistaken when he supposes that, if he can prove that the 
 Lord appointed thirteen Apostles, he has passed the " Rubi- 
 con" of his difficulty. In order to do that, he must show 
 that Apostles were appointed by men, which never has been, 
 and never can be proved. The fact then that Apostles were 
 appointed by the Lord in person, while those acting under 
 the ministerial commission are appointed by men, shows 
 conclusively that the Apostleship and this commission are 
 distinct from each other. 
 
 6. All the powers conferred, and duties enjoined by the 
 ministerial commission, were possessed and exercised by 
 presbyters. We have so entirely prepared the way for this 
 position, in the previous part of this discourse, that only a 
 few remarks are necessary to make its truth evident to all. 
 That presbyters preached and administered the sacraments, 
 is not disputed by any. His words are — " That * they ruled' 
 and took the oversight of the particular flock or congrega- 
 tion where their Apostles had placed them, is, with equal 
 clearness, asserted." Again, " Much has been written to 
 prove that elders had the rule and oversight of the churches. 
 Long and labored arguments have been brought to fortify and 
 
MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 
 
 75 
 
 sustain this position. But, with us, this is needless. It is grant- 
 ed already, in the sense of ruling a particular congregation 
 or ' flock. 7 But this power was not absolute. It was held 
 subject to the control and final decision of the Apostles, in 
 every case where it was exercised." Here, then, our author 
 admits, that presbyters ruled in the churches ; but then their 
 rule was subject to the decision of the Apostles. Very 
 good. This, in a very important sense, was undoubtedly true. 
 The inspired Apostles bore the same relation to the presby- 
 ters of that early period, which their writings do to the 
 presbyters of the present day. The rule of the presbyters 
 of the present day is subject to the final decision of 
 the inspired Apostolic writings; just as the rule of the 
 presbyters, at that distant period, was subject to the final 
 decision of the Apostles themselves. We have full as 
 much evidence, that the rule of Timothy and Titus was 
 subject to the final decision of the Apostles, as we have that 
 the rule of any other presbyters was subject to their final 
 decision ; and yet we are told that Timothy and Titus were 
 diocesan bishops ! So that, if the argument of our author 
 prove any thing, it proves that there are four orders of cler- 
 gy in the church; for even the power of diocesan bishops 
 was not absolute, " their rule being subject to the final de- 
 cision of the Apostles." But let us look for a few moments 
 at the right of presbyters to rule, in the light of the Scrip- 
 tures. The first passage to which I would call your atten- 
 tion is Acts xx. 28 : " Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves 
 and to the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you 
 overseers, (or emaxonoi, bishops,) to feed the church of God, 
 which he hath purchased with his own blood." This was 
 Paul's farewell address to the elders of Ephesus. He tells 
 them, verse 25th, " And now, behold I know that ye all, 
 among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, 
 shall see my face no more." Here then we have the Apos- 
 tle's last charge to those elders, his parting advice to those 
 
76 MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 
 
 whom the Holy Ghost had made bishops of that church. 
 He charges them, " to feed the church of God." The word 
 here translated " feed," is noipaiveiv, which signifies that 
 care which a shepherd exercises over his flock, and certain- 
 ly must imply government among other things. The late 
 Dr. Mason, by a critical examination into the meaning of 
 this word, shows conclusively that, both in classical and New 
 Testament Greek, it implies rule or government. Nor was 
 this rule to be " subject to the final decision of the Apostle," 
 for he was to leave them for ever ; they were to see his face 
 no more. Nor does he say a word to them about a prelate 
 who was to exercise authority over them. Episcopalians in- 
 form us that Timothy was at this time bishop of Ephesus. It 
 is passing strange, if this was the case, that the Apostle says 
 not a word to these elders about their duties to their dio- 
 cesan, nor even intimates that they have one placed over 
 them. Any individual, upon a candid perusal of the narra- 
 tive of this transaction, would at once conclude that the 
 whole charge of this church was committed to its bench of 
 elders or presbyters, and that they were to be its supreme 
 earthly rulers. And we strongly suspect that this, after all, 
 was the case. 
 
 That presbyters governed the primitive churches, and 
 exercised the highest ordinary ecclesiastical authority in 
 those churches, is the opinion of many eminent Episco- 
 palians. Bishop Bilson, in his work against Seminarius, 
 Lib. I. p. 318, says, " The church was at first governed by 
 the common council of presbyters ; that therefore bishops 
 must understand that they are greater than presbyters, rather 
 by custom than the Lord's appointment ; and that bishops 
 came in after the Apostles." Dr. Whittaker, an eminent 
 Episcopal divine, and divinity professor in the university of 
 Cambridge, in writing against Bellarmine from 2 Tim. i. 6, 
 says, " We understand that Timothy had hands laid on him 
 by presbyters, who at that time governed the church in 
 
MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 77 
 
 common council." Other testimonies might be added, but 
 these are sufficient. 
 
 We will notice but a single passage more under this 
 head; it is 1 Tim. v. 17 : " Let the elders that rule well be 
 counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor 
 in the word and doctrine." Here it is asserted not only that 
 elders rule, but that there is a class of elders whose sole 
 business it is to rule, and another class who preach as well 
 as rule. Upon this passage that distinguished divine, Dr. 
 Owen, remarks : " This would be a text of uncontrollable 
 evidence if it had any thing but prejudice and interest to 
 contend with. On the first proposal of the text, ' That the 
 elders who rule well are worthy of double honor, especially 
 they who labor in the word and doctrine,' a rational man who 
 is unprejudiced, who never heard of the controversy about 
 ruling elders, can hardly avoid the apprehension that there 
 are two sorts of elders ; some who labor in word and dec- 
 trine, and some who do not so labor." The opinion of the 
 Episcopal Doctor and Professor Whittaker, is full as deci- 
 sive. He says, "By these words the Apostle evidently dis- 
 tinguishes between the bishops and the inspectors of the 
 church. If all who rule well be worthy of double honor, 
 especially they who labor in word and doctrine, it is plain 
 that there were some who did not thus labor : for, if all had 
 been of this description, the meaning would have been 
 absurd ; but the word especially points out a difference. If 
 I should say that all who study well at the university are 
 worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the 
 study of theology, I must either mean that all do not apply 
 themselves to the study of theology, or I should speak non- 
 sense. Wherefore, I confess that to be the most genuine 
 sense by which pastors and teachers are distinguished frcm 
 those who only govern." Dr. Whitby, in his note on this 
 passage, says, " The elders of the Jews were of two sorts : 
 
 " 1. Such as governed in the synagogue. 
 4 
 
78 MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 
 
 - " 2. Such as ministered in reading and expounding the 
 Scriptures. And these, the Apostle declares to be the most 
 honorable, and worthy the chiefest reward. Accordingly, 
 the Apostle, reckoning up the offices God had appointed in 
 the church, places teachers before governments, I Cor. xii. 
 28." — Here then it would seem, both from the language of 
 Scripture and the confession of eminent Episcopalians, 
 that, so far from elders not ruling in the primitive church, 
 there were a class of elders who did nothing but rule. And 
 we would ask, Where in the Episcopal church can you find 
 such a bench of ruling " elders f" We must be a little careful 
 or we shall prove that the Presbyterian form of government 
 is the primitive and apostolical form, and that the Presby- 
 terian church is the true apostolic church. 
 
 That presbyters ordained we have clearly proved already. 
 Paul and Barnabas and Timotheus all received presbyterial 
 ordination. We trust we have shown conclusively, that " to 
 ordain" was the peculiar and appropriate duty of presbyters, 
 and did not belong to Apostles, as such. Here then you 
 perceive that all the powers conferred and duties enjoined 
 by the ministerial commission were possessed and exercised 
 by the presbyters in the New Testament church : and this 
 goes to prove that the commission was presbyterial and not 
 apostolical. 
 
 7. There is no distinction made in the New Testament 
 between bishops and presbyters. These names are applied 
 interchangeably, and to the same order of clergy. Any one 
 may satisfy himself of the truth of this position by referring 
 to the following passages of Scripture : Acts xx. 17-28- 
 the hearer must recollect when he reads this passage, that 
 the word translated overseers is e7tkjko7ioi (bishops) — Phi- 
 lippians i. 1 ; Titus i. 5-9. There is a passage contained 
 in 1 Pet. v. 1-2, upon which we will make a single remark : 
 " The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an 
 elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a 
 
•' 
 
 MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 79 
 
 partaker of the glory which shall be revealed. Feed the 
 flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight 
 thereof, not by constraint, but willingly ; not for filthy lucre, 
 but of a ready mind." The word here translated " taking 
 the oversight," is emaxonowTtg, which signifies to exercise 
 the office and discharge the duties of a bishop ; so that 
 presbyters are not only called bishops in Scripture, but they 
 are likewise exhorted to exercise the office and discharge 
 the duties of bishops among the churches. Our author 
 admits that elders are called bishops in Scripture. He says, 
 " And it is even true that the word (bishop) in the New 
 Testament is generally applied to elders." He then goes 
 on to state that the first grade of ministers were, in the 
 early ages of the church, called Apostles : while the second 
 grade were called interchangeably Bishops and Presbyters. 
 But that, in process of time, the name of Apostle, from the 
 peculiar reverence attached to it, (the first Apostles being 
 inspired,) seems to have been dropped ; and the term Bishop, 
 taken in its place, whilst the term Presbyter was alone 
 retained by the second order of ministers. Upon this quo- 
 tation we would make the following remarks : — 
 
 1. If the Apostles are the only diocesan bishops to be 
 found in the Scriptures, then indeed was the primitive church 
 without such bishops ; for it is most evident that the Apos- 
 tles were not diocesans at ail, but special missionaries, en- 
 dowed with extraordinary powers, whose offices ceased with 
 themselves. 
 
 2. The fact that presbyters are called bishops in the 
 Scriptures, and that they are the only Scripture bishops, 
 goes very far to show that they were the only permanent 
 spiritual overseers appointed by Christ and his Apostles in 
 the churches. 
 
 3. The idea that, in the first ages, the successors of the 
 Apostles, who constitute the first order of the ministry, were 
 
 ailed Apostles ; and that, in process of time, out of rever- 
 
80 MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 
 
 ence or modesty, they dropped the term Apostle and assumed 
 one of the names used to designate the second order, is not 
 only unsustained by the imperial record, but is entirely con- 
 tradicted by that analogy which is deducible from the 
 whole history of our race. Who ever heard of a class of in- 
 dividuals having a right to an office, out of reverence or 
 modesty relinquishing its appropriate name, and assuming 
 that of a lower official grade? If there are any such instances 
 upon the page of history, we can only say they have never 
 met our eye. And especially is it passing strange that 
 those who were true Apostles should, out of reverence or mod- 
 esty, relinquish the very name which had been bestowed on 
 them by their divine Lord and Master ! We know that our 
 author quotes Theodoret to sustain his position. His words 
 are, " The same persons were anciently called Bishops and 
 Presbyters, and they whom we now call Bishops were then call- 
 ed 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 were formerly called Apostles, were styled 
 Bishops." It is worthy of remark, that, according to Theo- 
 doret, those who were anciently called Apostles, but were 
 afterwards called Bishops, were not Apostles in the " strict 
 sense" of that term. The words which he uses, and which 
 are here translated " Apostles in the strict sense," are " al- 
 Tj&cog anoaxoloi" which signify " Apostles indeed," or " true 
 Apostles ;" so that, according to the testimony of the indi- 
 vidual quoted by our author himself, those who were called 
 Apostles and afterwards Bishops were not "Apostles indeed" 
 or " true Apostles ;" and if they were not " true Apostles," 
 they were not Apostles at all. The fact was, as stated by 
 Eusebius, that in the early period of the church " many were 
 called Apostles by way of imitation" — and in the larger and 
 general acceptation of that term ; but in process of time, 
 this use of the term was abandoned, and it was confined 
 to those who were "indeed" or "truly" the inspired 
 
 i 
 
MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 81 
 
 Apostles of Christ. But suppose Theodoret had said, in 
 so many words, " Those whom we now call Bishops are in 
 the true sense Apostles, the only successors of the Apostles 
 of Christ ; and in the early ages of the church they were 
 called Apostles, but in process of time that name was dropped, 
 and they are now called Bishops," pray what could it prove? 
 Simply that this was the opinion of Theodoret. And who 
 was Theodoret ? He was a writer of the fifth century, when 
 diocesan Episcopacy had become firmly established in the 
 church, and was first verging towards its legitimate result — 
 the papacy. Those who live hundreds of years hence might, 
 with the same propriety, quote the pamphlet of our author in 
 favor of diocesan episcopacy, as he can quote Theodoret. 
 The more clearly to illustrate this point, let us suppose 
 Lockport to become an immense city, having its splendid 
 palaces and magnificent public edifices. In process of time, 
 it is visited with an earthquake, and entombed beneath the 
 surface of the earth*. Ages roll on, and the place where this 
 city stood is unknown. An antiquarian, eccentric and per- 
 severing in his researches, visits this spot, and thinks he has 
 discovered some indications that here lies a buried city. 
 Being a gentleman of large fortune, and able to command 
 aid to any extent, he employs a multitude of hands, and com- 
 mences excavating the earth. They succeed in uncovering 
 a portion of its splendid ruins, and find, among other things, 
 a well selected library. It is the library of our author. 
 They hand up volume after volume, until they come to a 
 stack of pamphlets. They all appear alike, and there is a great 
 probability that they are so many copies of the same produc- 
 tion. They are somewhat surprised that any gentleman 
 should have in his library so many copies of the same work. 
 This circumstance excites the curiosity of the antiquarian, 
 and he attempts to ascertain its character. Our language 
 has undergone so many changes that it is with the utmost 
 difficulty he can read it ; but he finally succeeds. It is en- 
 
82 MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 
 
 titled " An inquiry into the ministerial commission, by Rev. 
 Lloyd Windsor, M. A." He peruses its pages, and ascer- 
 tains that it professes to be an argument in favor of dioce- 
 san Episcopacy. Being an Episcopalian himself, he presses 
 it to his bosom as a precious relic of antiquity, as a produc- 
 tion of one of the ancient fathers — going to show that dio- 
 cesan bishops are the true successors of the Apostles, and 
 that the Episcopal church is the only true church — its 
 pages being full of bold assertions upon these points. The 
 work is handed over to High Church Episcopal divines, and 
 quoted largely to support their exclusive views of the minis- 
 try and the ordinances of the church. I would ask those of 
 the present generation — those who hear me this evening — 
 what would all this prove in favor of jure divino Episcopa- 
 cy ? and yet it would be just as conclusive as the supposed 
 quotation from Theodoret, could it be found in his writings. 
 The truth is, my hearers, as we have before proved, the 
 Apostles, as such, had no successors. The only bishops 
 which the New Testament knows any thing about, are pres- 
 byter bishops. Christ and his Apostles never made a dio- 
 cesan bishop. The institution, the history, or the denned 
 rights and duties of such a bishop cannot be found upon the 
 sacred page. This order of the clergy is MAN-MADE ; 
 it never originated by divine appointment. 
 
 These views are sustained by eminent Episcopalians, as 
 will be shown when we come to exhibit the testimony of 
 Episcopalians in our favor. We will here cite the opinion of 
 two eminent Episcopal divines. Doct. Willet says : " Seeing, 
 in the Apostles' times, Episcopus and Presbyter — a bishop 
 and a priest — were neither in name nor office distinguished, 
 it followeth, then, that either the Apostles assigned no suc- 
 cession while they lived, neither appointed successors, or that, 
 indifferently, all faithful pastors and preachers of the Apos- 
 tolic faith are the Apostles' successors." Dr. Holland, the 
 king's divinity professor at Oxford, at a public academical 
 
 
MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 83 
 
 exercise was asked, " Whether the office of Bishop be differ- 
 ent from that of Presbyter and superior to it by divine right t* 
 To which he replied : " To affirm that there is such a differ- 
 ence and superiority by divine right, is most false ; contrary 
 to the Scripture, to the fathers, to the doctrine of the church 
 of England, yea, to the schoolmen themselves." 
 
 Lastly : our author admits that there is but one ministe- 
 rial commission given by Christ, and that that commission 
 was given to but one order, viz., " the Eleven." Now, it 
 will be evident to any one who will give it a candid perusal, 
 that this commission grants no authority to constitute three 
 orders in the ministry. How comes it to pass, then, that, 
 in the Episcopal church, under one ministerial commission, 
 given to one order, there are three orders of clergy ? Our 
 author attempts to get rid of this difficulty by stating that 
 Presbyters or Elders were not appointed by Christ himself, 
 but by the Apostles ; that they do not act under the ministe- 
 rial commission, as emanating directly from Christ; but 
 that they are commissioned by the Apostles and their suc- 
 cessors — diocesan Bishops. His idea appears to be, that 
 Christ appoints and commissions the bishops, and the bish- 
 ops appoint and commission the inferior clergy. Accord- 
 ing to our author's own showing, he, as a presbyter, does 
 not act under the ministerial commission, as emanating from 
 Christ ; but he received his appointment and commission 
 from the bishop who ordained him. If this be the state of 
 the case, we do not envy him the authority under which he 
 acts. How much more rational and scriptural the view, 
 that this one commission created but one order of ministers, 
 viz., Presbyters; which order has been perpetuated and 
 multiplied in the church until the present day ; that all faith- 
 ful pastors act under the ministerial commission as it came 
 from the Lord Jesus Christ, and that all may plead that pre- 
 cious promise which it contains, — " Lo ! I am with you al- 
 ways, even unto the end of the world." 
 
84 MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 
 
 But perhaps it will be asked, Did not the Apostles ordain 
 Deacons ? And are they not an inferior order of clergy ? 
 That the Apostles ordained deacons, is perfectly evident : but 
 thit they were ordained to the ministry of any order, we 
 utterly deny. They were ordained, not to preach, in the 
 official sense of that term ; but to superintend the temporal- 
 ities of the church, and especially to the distribution of alms 
 among the poor widows and other indigent members who 
 were depending upon the church's charity for a subsistence. 
 They were appointed to " serve tables," that the Apostles 
 might give themselves more entirely to preaching the word. 
 T iis will be evident to any unprejudiced individual, who 
 will take pains to read the narrative of their appointment. 
 It is contained in Acts vi. 1-6 : " And in those days, when 
 the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a mur- 
 muring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their 
 widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the 
 twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and 
 said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God 
 and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among 
 you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and 
 wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we 
 will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry 
 of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude : 
 and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy 
 Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, 
 and Parmenas, and Nicholas a proselyte of Antioch: whom 
 they set before the Apostles : and when they had prayed, they 
 laid their hands on them." Here certainly there is nothing 
 said about their being appointed to preach or exercise any of 
 the functions of a gospel minister. The circumstance which 
 led to their appointment, was, the murmuring of the Gre- 
 cians against the Hebrews, because the widows of the former 
 were neglected in the daily ministrations, and the argument 
 which the twelve urge for their appointment is — " It is not 
 
 ! 
 
MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 85 
 
 reason that we should leave the word of God and serve 
 tables." They were appointed to attend to the daily minis- 
 tration of alms among the poor of the church, that the Apos- 
 tles might give themselves continually to prayer and to the 
 ministry of the word. How exactly this narrative agrees 
 with the situation and duties of Presbyterian deacons at the 
 present time ! But perhaps you will ask, Did not Stephen 
 exercise the functions of a minister ? do we not read that he 
 preached 1 By no means. Nowhere is this recorded of him. 
 It is said that when his views of Christianity were attack- 
 ed, he disputed with his opponents ; and that when he 
 was brought before the council for trial he defended himself 
 mightily ; but these things he had a perfect right to do with- 
 out being an ordained minister. Again, you may ask, 
 Did not Philip preach and baptize? Certainly he did; but 
 not until he had been ordained an evangelist. Hence he is 
 expressly called an evangelist in Acts xxi. 8 : " And the next 
 day, we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto 
 Cesarea. And we entered into the house of Philip the 
 Evangelist, which was one of the seven, and abode with 
 
 i him." Here Philip is expressly called an Evangelist; and 
 lest he should bethought to be some other Philip, it is stated 
 that he was one of the seven who were elected deacons of 
 the church at Jerusalem. " The truth is," says Dr. Miller, 
 " Philip, a short time after being set apart a deacon, was 
 driven from Jerusalem by persecution ; and being no longer 
 
 -able to fulfil the duties of this office, it is probable that some 
 person in that city was chosen his successor, and that he was 
 advanced to the higher office of Evangelist, and sent abroad 
 to preach the gospel." Upon the subject of the deaconship, 
 Bishop Croft, in his " Naked Truth," holds the following 
 language : " Having thus stated and united the two pre- 
 tended and distinct orders of Episcopacy and Presbytery, I 
 now proceed to the third pretended spiritual order ; that of 
 
 4* 
 
8G MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 
 
 the Deaconship. Whether this of deaconship be properly 
 called an order or an office, I will not dispute, but certainly 
 no spiritual order ; for their office was to serve tables, as the 
 Scripture phrases it, which, in plain English, is nothing else 
 but overseers of the poor, to distribute justly and discreetly 
 the alms of the faithful, which the Apostles would not trouble 
 themselves withal, lest it should hinder them in the adminis- 
 tration of the word and prayer. But, as most matters of this 
 world in process of time deflect much from the original con- 
 stitution, so it fell out in this business; for the bishops, who 
 pretended to be the successors of the Apostles, by little and 
 little took to themselves the dispensation of alms, first by way 
 of inspection over the deacons; but at length the total man- 
 agement. And the deacons, who were mere lay officers, by 
 degrees crept into the church ministration, and became 
 reputed spiritual order, and a necessary degree and step to 
 the priesthood, of which I can find nothing in Scripture and 
 the original institution ; not a word relating to any thing but 
 the ordering of alms for the poor. And the first I find of 
 their officiating in spiritual matters, is in Justin Martyr's 
 time, who lived in the second century." Here you have the 
 ample testimony of an Episcopal Bishop upon the subject of 
 the deaconship. Bishop White, of Pennsylvania, writing 
 to Bishop Hobart upon the same subject, thus delivers his 
 opinion : " But can it be imagined that an order instituted 
 for the purpose of ' serving tables,' should, in the very in- 
 fancy of its existence, have the office of the higher order 
 of the ministry committed to them ? I do not deny either the 
 right or the prudence of allowing what has been subsequently 
 allowed to this lowest order of the clergy. All I contend 
 for is, that at the first institution of the order there could 
 have been no difference between them and laymen in regard 
 to the preaching of the word and the administering the sa- 
 craments." This is the same Bishop W T hite who, our author 
 
MINISTERIAL COMMISSION. 87 
 
 contends, believes in the divine right of Episcopacy. The 
 testimony of this bishop may give him considerable trouble 
 before these discourses are finished. 
 
 Here, then, we close our Bible argument. And who 
 does not perceive that there are found in the Bible but three 
 ordinary and permanent classes of church officers? 
 
 1. Presbyter Bishops or the pastors of the churches, who 
 act under the ministerial commission and claim the precious 
 promises which it contains : " Lo, I am with you always, 
 even unto the end of the world." 
 
 2. A bench of ruling Elders, whose business it is to gov- 
 ern, and not to preach. 
 
 3. Deacons, who are to oversee the temporalities of the 
 church, and distribute her alms to her indigent members. 
 And we are willing to leave it to the decision of any candid 
 hearer, whether here are not found all the essential features 
 of Presbyterianism. We do not believe in the divine 
 right of any form of church government ; but we are firmly 
 persuaded that the form adopted by our particular branch of 
 the churchy comes nearer to the Apostolic model than any 
 other extant. This, it is believed, has been made abundantly 
 evident in the foregoing lecture. 
 
LECTURE V. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 
 
 Matt. xv. 9. — u But in vain do they worship me, teaching for 
 doctrine the commandments of men." 
 
 Men are ever prone to give an authority to the ancient 
 expounders of divine law, which they ought never to possess. 
 And especially is this the case when an importance is at- 
 tached to forms and ceremonies, and the externals of reli- 
 gion, which cannot be sustained by a direct appeal to Scrip- 
 ture. Hence recourse is had to the writings of the ancients. 
 This is the course taken by High Church Episcopalians. 
 Failing entirely to sustain their system of exclusive doctrines 
 by the Scriptures, they appeal with seeming confidence and 
 triumph to the Fathers, or early -Christi an writers. In regard 
 to this appeal we would remark : 
 
 1. Were the fathers ever so much in favor of diocesan 
 Episcopacy, it would argue nothing against us, so long as 
 we cannot find it in the Bible. We do not profess to take 
 the very uncertain writings of the Fathers as any part of our 
 rule of faith and practice. According to our belief, the Old 
 and New Testaments are the " only unerring rule." If, 
 therefore, the Fathers decide against the Scriptures, we are 
 bound to decide against them. We use the same language 
 in regard to the authority of the Fathers, which the venerable 
 Augustine used in regard to the authority of Cyprian : 
 " His writings I hold not to be canonical, but examine them 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 89 
 
 by the canonical writings : and in them what agreeth with 
 the authority of Divine Scripture, I accept with his praise. 
 What agreeth not, I reject with his leave." This is pre- 
 cisely the course we must take with all the writings of the 
 Fathers ; they must be tried by the Scripture, instead of 
 the Scriptures being tried by them. 
 
 2. In an appeal to the Fathers, it should be recollected 
 that Episcopacy took its rise in the church in the third cen- 
 tury ; and this fact, while it detracts materially from the 
 weight of testimony brought after that period, in favor of 
 Episcopacy, adds greatly to the weight of testimony adduced 
 against it — upon the well-known legal and common-sense 
 principle, that the testimony of an individual in his favor is 
 considered of little value ; but his evidence against himself, 
 is held to be the most convincing kind of testimony. 
 
 3. We do not shrink from an appeal to the Fathers : 
 and, were it proper, we should be perfectly willing to leave 
 it to them, as arbitrators in the matters of difference between 
 high churchmen and ourselves ; we should not be the least 
 fearful of their rendering a verdict against us. 
 
 But we will examine somewhat at length the testimony 
 of the Fathers, and see what they say upon the subject. 
 We will divide this testimony into two periods of time ; the 
 first running to the middle of the third century, or the 
 period before which Episcopacy had made any very marked 
 progress in the church ; the second, after that time — for we 
 believe it is admitted by all, that Episcopacy became some- 
 what rife in the church during the last half of the third 
 century. 
 
 The earliest witness who lived and wrote during the first 
 two hundred and fifty years of the Christian era, is Clemens 
 Romanus. This is the first witness presented by our author 
 in favor of Diocesan Episcopacy. He says of him, " A. D. 
 (54-70, Clement, first Bishop of Rome, mentioned by St. 
 Paul in Philip, iv. 3." That the person here spoken of, and 
 
90 TESTIMONY OP THE FATHERS. 
 
 Clement of Rome, are the same, is affirmed by Eusebius 
 Epiphanius, and St. Hierone. In his first epistle to the 
 Corinthians now extant, Clement thus 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 knowledge of this, they (the 
 Apostles) appointed persons, as we have before said, and 
 gave directions how, when they should die, other chosen and 
 approved men should succeed in their ministry." " We 
 have here" — continues our author — " the testimony of one 
 who was the personal companion of St. Paul, affirming that 
 the succession of the Bishops was commanded by the Apos- 
 tles." If this is the strongest passage our author can find 
 in Clement, his case must be a desperate one, so far as this 
 Father is concerned ; for he does not even mention the term 
 Bishop at all ; he merely says, that to prevent all disputes 
 about the ministry, the Apostles appointed ministers in the 
 churches, and gave directions how, when they should die, 
 successors should be appointed to their ministry. Now we 
 would ask, Who, among all the non-Episcopal ranks, disputes 
 this fact ? Not one that we ever heard of in any age or 
 country. And yet, this is introduced with wonderful cere- 
 mony, as though it went to prove that the Apostles establish- 
 ed an order of diocesan Bishops in the church of God ! But, 
 although our author is satisfied with so short a quotation 
 from Clement, it is by no means all that that Father has 
 written upon the subject. Other extracts will throw light 
 upon the one quoted by our author. In this same epistle of 
 Clement to the Corinthians, he says : " The Apostles, going 
 abroad preaching through countries and cities, appointed 
 the first fruits of their ministry to be Bishops and Deacons : 
 nor was this any thing new, seeing, long before, it was writ- 
 ten concerning bishops and deacons, ' For thus saith the 
 Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops 
 in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.' " Here you per- 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 91 
 
 ceive Clement speaks after the manner of St. Paul of bishops 
 and deacons, as the only distinct offices in the church ; he 
 does not here, he nowhere speaks of presbyters and bishops 
 as being different orders of the ministry. This would have 
 appeared most evident, if our author had continued his own 
 quotation a little further on ; but, as he has not seen fit to do 
 it, we will do it for him. Clement says : " The Apostles knew 
 by our Lord Jesus Christ that contentions would arise about 
 the name of Episcopacy ; and therefore, having a perfect 
 knowledge of this, they appointed persons, as we have before 
 said, and gave directions how, when they should die, other 
 chosen and approved men should succeed in their ministry. 
 Wherefore we cannot think that those may be justly thrown 
 out of their ministry, who were either appointed by them, or 
 afterwards chosen by other eminent men with the consent of 
 the whole church. For it would be no small sin in us, should 
 we cast off those from their Episcopate, (i. e. Bishoprick,) 
 who nobly and without blame fulfil the duties of it. Blessed 
 are those Presbyters who, having finished their course before 
 these times, obtained a perfect and fruitful dissolution. For 
 they have no fear lest any one should turn them out of the 
 place which is now appointed for them." Again : " It is a 
 shame, my beloved, yea, a very great shame, and unworthy 
 of your Christian profession, to hear that the most firm and 
 ancient church of the Corinthians should, by one or two 
 persons, be led into a sedition against its Presbyters. Only 
 let the flock of Christ be at peace with the presbyters which 
 are set over it. He that shall do this, shall get to himself 
 very great honor in the Lord. Do ye, therefore, who first laid 
 the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to your 
 presbyters, and be instructed into repentance, bending the 
 knee of your hearts." It is evident from these quotations, 
 
 1. That this epistle originated in the fact that a sedition 
 had arisen in the Corinthian church against their bishops or 
 
92 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 
 
 presbyters, and that the object of Clement, in this epistle, 
 was to quell this sedition. 
 
 2. Clement makes no distinction between the terms 
 Bishop and Presbyter : he applies them both to the same 
 class of individuals. It therefore follows, 
 
 3. That whatever he says about the succession of 
 Bishops, he says also about the succession of Presbyters. 
 With him, they are not two distinct orders, but the same 
 order in the ministry. So much for the testimony of Cle- 
 ment. Instead of favoring our author's positions, it is 
 altogether against them. 
 
 The next Father whom we shall introduce, is the vene- 
 rable Polycarp. He is represented to have been a disciple 
 of the Apostle John, and to have suffered martyrdom for 
 the faith as it is in Jesus. His epistle to the Philippians 
 was written early in the second century. In it we find the 
 following statements : " It behooves you to abstain from 
 these things, being subject to the Presbyters and Deacons 
 as to God and Christ." Again ; " Let the Presbyters be 
 compassionate and merciful towards all, turning them from 
 their errors ; searching out those that are weak ; not for- 
 getting the widows, the fatherless, and the poor ; abstaining 
 from all wrath, respect of persons and unrighteous judg- 
 ment ; not easy to believe any thing against any, nor severe 
 in judgment ; knowing that we are all debtors in point of 
 law." This Father does not, in his whole epistle, mention 
 the word Bishop, and the whole tenor of his epistle goes to 
 show that, in the Philippian church, there were only two 
 classes of officers, viz., Presbyters and Deacons. 
 
 The next Father is Ignatius. Concerning this Father 
 our author says : " 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 the year of our Lord 107. In his 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 93 
 
 epistle to the church of Philadelphia in Asia, he writes : 
 1 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, with all 
 firmness by his Holy Spirit.' Which Bishop T know ob- 
 tained that great ministry among you, not of himself, neither 
 by men, nor out of vainglory, but by the love of God the 
 Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Be not deceived, 
 brethren : If any one follow him that makes a schism in 
 the church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If 
 any one walk 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 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 fellow-servants ; that so, whatever ye do, ye may do it 
 according to the will of God." To confute our author, we 
 need no other quotation from Ignatius than the one which he 
 has himself here introduced. It is true that Ignatius in this 
 extract speaks of the bishop, presbyters, and deacons of the 
 church at Philadelphia ; but he speaks of them just as we, 
 Presbyterians, would speak of the pastor, elders and deacons 
 of any particular church. This epistle was addressed, not to 
 a plurality of churches, such as exist in a diocese, but to the 
 single individual church organization at Philadelphia, which 
 is evident from the two following facts : 
 
 1. The presbyters and deacons were with the bishop: 
 that is, they were administering together with him, in the 
 
 ^same church. Ignatius says expressly, " Especially if they 
 Mkare at unity with the bishop and presbyters who are ivith 
 him, and the deacons," &,c. 
 
 2. This church, according to Ignatius, had but one altar 
 
94 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 
 
 as well as one bishop, which shows conclusively that it was 
 an individual church, having its bishop or pastor, and bench 
 of elders, [which bench of presbyters — in a church so large 
 that its bishop required aids in the work of preaching the 
 gospel — was divided into preaching and ruling presbyters,] 
 and deacons; having but one altar, at which the holy 
 eucharist was administered by the bishop or pastor to 
 the assembled church, and not a diocese, consisting of 
 a plurality of churches. It is a notorious fact, that every 
 church in a diocese has its own altar, and that all the churches 
 in a diocese never congregate at one altar. This extract 
 then goes very far to sustain Presbyterianism ; it proves 
 nothing in favor of diocesan Episcopacy. If our author had 
 attended to the evident meaning of Ignatius, instead of being 
 captivated by the mere sound of the word when he mentions 
 the bishop or pastor in distinction from those whom he calls 
 " his presbytery/' who were his aids in preaching and ruling 
 in the same church, he never would have cited this passage 
 as evidence in his favor. 
 
 Concerning the testimony of Ignatius, we have two or 
 three general remarks to make. 
 
 1. Great doubts are entertained by the learned of the 
 genuineness of any of the epistles attributed to him. There 
 are two collections of epistles, one is called his large, and 
 the other his smaller epistles. Concerning the first it is 
 universally agreed that they are spurious; and as to the last, 
 it is very generally admitted that they abound with interpo- 
 lations by subsequent writers. Dr. Campbell has a very able 
 and convincing argument to prove that the whole of these 
 epistles are forgeries. Their style and language belong to 
 the fifth century, rather than the first or second. 
 
 2. Whatever is said in these epistles about bishops, it 
 cannot be proved to have been said of diocesan bishops, bu 
 only of parochial bishops or presbyters. 
 
 3. Whatever authority they may ascribe to bishops, they 
 
 
TESTIMONY OP THE FATHERS. 95 
 
 make presbyters the successors of the Apostles. This is all 
 we need in the present discussion. They use the following 
 very explicit language : " The Presbyters preside in the 
 place of the council of the Apostles." " Be ye sub- 
 ject to your Presbyters, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ 
 our hope." " Let all reverence the Presbyters as the 
 SANHEDRIM OF GOD AND THE COLLEGE OF 
 APOSTLES." " See that ye follow the Presbyters as the 
 Apostles" If high churchmen could find in Ignatius such 
 
 • language as this in regard to bishops, with what an air of 
 triumph they would quote it as conclusive evidence that 
 diocesan bishops are the true successors of the Apostles. 
 But, alas ! they cannot press into their service these spurious 
 epistles, and make them testify in favor of diocesan Episco- 
 pacy. The learned (Episcopal) Dr. Stillingfleet remarks, 
 concerning the testimony of these epistles ; " In all those 
 thirty-five testimonies produced out of Ignatius's epistles, for 
 Episcopacy, I can meet with but one which is brought to 
 prove the least semblance of an institution of Christ for 
 Episcopacy, and if I be not much deceived, the sense of that 
 place is clearly mistaken too." 
 
 The next Father mentioned by our author is Irenaeus. 
 He introduces his testimony in the following manner : 
 "A. D. 170, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, and disciple of Poly- 
 carp, writes — (Lib. III. chap. 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," continues our 
 author, " how entirely this statement agrees with that made 
 by Clement, that the Apostles committed the churches in 
 different places to faithful men as their successors." We 
 
 % would ask our author what writer in non-Episcopal ranks 
 ever denied that the Apostles committed the churches in 
 different places to faithful men, as their successors? To 
 
96 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 
 
 attempt to prove this is labor lost; for it is admitted on all 
 hands. But the question in dispute is, whether these suc- 
 cessors were diocesan bishops, or presbyter bishops ? And 
 whether they succeeded to the apostleship or the presbyter- 
 ate ? We are entirely willing to submit the question to Ire- 
 naeus for a decision. If our author knows any thing about 
 the writings of this Father beyond the quotation he has made, 
 he must, know he uses the titles bishop and presbyter as in- 
 terchangeable terms, applicable to the same individuals, and 
 designating the same office. This will be evident from the 
 following quotations : " When we challenge them (the here- 
 tics) to that Apostolical tradition which is preserved in the 
 church, through the succession of the presbyters, they oppose 
 the tradition, pretending that they are wiser not only than 
 the presbyters, but also than the Apostles." — Book against 
 Heresies, Lib. III. chap. 2. " The Apostolic tradition is 
 present in every church. We can enumerate those who were 
 constituted bishops by the Apostles in the churches, and 
 their successors even to us, who taught no such things. By 
 showing the tradition and declared faith of the greatest and 
 most ancient church of Rome, which she received from the 
 Apostles, and which has come to us through the succession 
 of the bishops, we confound all who conclude otherwise than 
 they ought." — Lib. III. chap. 3. " Obey those presbyters in 
 the church, who have the succession, as we have shown, from 
 the Apostles ; who. with the succession of the Episcopate, re- 
 ceived the gift of truth according to the good pleasure of the 
 Father." — Lib. IV. chap. 43. " We ought therefore to ad- 
 here to those presbyters who keep the Apostles' doctrine, 
 and, together with the presbyterial succession, do show forth 
 sound speech. Such presbyters the church nourishes : and 
 of such the prophet says, ' I will give them princes in peace, 
 and bishops in righteousness.' " — Lib. IV. chap. 44. " True" 
 knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles according to the 
 succession of Bishops, to whom they delivered the church in 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 97 
 
 every place; which doctrine hath reached us, preserved in 
 its most full delivery." — Lib. IV. chap. 53. From these quo- 
 tations it is perfectly clear, that Irenaeus speaks of the same 
 succession as coming down in the line of bishops and pres- 
 byters, that he applies these terms to the same individuals, 
 and uses them to designate precisely the same office. 
 
 If doubts should still remain upon any mind in reference 
 to this point, the following quotations cannot fail entirely to 
 dispel them. In Lib. III. chap 3, of his book against Here- 
 sies, Irenaeus calls Polycarp " Bishop" of the church of 
 Smyrna. His language is : " Polycarp also, who was not 
 only taught by the Apostles, and conversed with many of 
 those who had seen our Lord, but was also appointed by the 
 Apostles Bishop of the church of Smyrna in Asia," SoC In 
 his epistle to Florinus, Irenaeus calls this same Polycarp a 
 " Presbyter" His words are, "I am able to testify before 
 God, that if that holy and Apostolical Presbyter (Polycarp) 
 had heard any such thing, he would have at once exclaimed, 
 as his manner was, ' Good God ! into what times hast thou 
 reserved me !' " Thus you perceive, that this Father at one 
 time calls Polycarp a Bishop; and, at another, a Presbyter ; 
 showing conclusively that he used these titles to designate 
 the same office. Again, what will our author say to the fol- 
 owing quotation from Irenaeus : " The Apostles, founding 
 and instructing that church, (the church of Rome,) delivered 
 to Linus the Episcopate ; Anacletus succeeded him ; after 
 him, Clement obtained the Episcopate from the Apostles ; 
 to Clement succeeded Evaristus ; to him. Alexander ; then, 
 Sixtus ; and after him, Telesphorus ; then, Hygynus ; after 
 him, Pius ; then, Anicetus ; and when Soter had succeeded 
 Anicetus, then Eleutherius had the Episcopate, in the twelfth 
 place. By this appointment and instruction, that tradition 
 in the church and publication of the truth which is from the 
 Apostles, came to us." — Lib, III. c. 3, against Heresies. 
 In his letter to Victor, then Bishop of Rome, in reference to 
 
98 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 
 
 the day upon which Easter should be celebrated, he says : 
 " Those Presbyters before Soter, who governed the church 
 which thou, Victor, now governest — I mean Anicetus, Pius, 
 Hygynus, Telesphorus, and Sixtus — they did not observe 
 it ; and those Presbyters who preceded you, though they 
 did not observe it themselves, yet sent the Eucharist to those 
 of other churches who did observe it. And when blessed 
 Polycarp in the days of Anicetus came to Rome, he did 
 not much persuade Anicetus to observe it, as he (Anicetus) 
 declared that the custom of the presbyters who were his 
 predecessors should be retained." Now, if we turn to the 
 succession of bishops, given by our author in the Appendix 
 to his work upon the ministerial commission, we find the 
 names of Soter, Anicetus, Pius, Hygynus, Telesphorus, and 
 Sixtus ? But all these are called by Irenseus, Presbyters ; 
 and that too after our author declares they had received 
 " the Episcopate" in the church at Rome. Here, then, is 
 evidence incontrovertible that Irenseus used the titles Bishop 
 and Presbyter as convertible terms, applicable to the same 
 individuals and office. The Bishops of Irenceus were the 
 Bishops of Scripture, viz., Presbyter-Bishops. 
 
 The next Father we shall mention is Tertuliian. Of 
 him our author says : " A. D. 200, Tertuliian, a Presbyter of 
 Carthage, writes : ' Let them produce the originals of their 
 church, and show the order of their Bishops, so running 
 down successively from the beginning as that every first 
 bishop among them shall have had for his author and prede- 
 cessor, some one of the Apostles, or Apostolic men, who 
 continued with the Apostles. For, in this manner, 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 constituted their bishops by the Apostles.' " Here, 
 again, we would ask, Who has denied that the Apostles con- 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 99 
 
 stituted bishops in the churches ? Yet, this is all the testi- 
 mony of Tertullian proves. Certainly it does not prove that 
 they were diocesan bishops. It is true, Tertullian speaks of 
 bishops as if they were the chief priests, or presbyters 
 among the other presbyters, who were to preside in their 
 councils and take the pastoral oversight of the churches, 
 aided by the other presbyters and deacons ; but never in 
 such a manner as to lead the candid mind to suspect that 
 they were diocesan bishops ; for, most evidently, every sepa- 
 rate church had its bishop. Tertullian, in his writings, 
 contends most earnestly against the heretics of his time, and 
 one way which he takes to prove them heretics is, to show 
 that they have not the succession of faith, which had been 
 handed down from the Apostles through the bishops or pas- 
 tors of the several churches, who had been appointed by 
 them. It is the succession of faith which he deems so vastly 
 important ; and he only mentions a succession of persons 
 as a means to substantiate the succession of faith. This 
 would have appeared from the quotation of our author, if he 
 had taken in the whole paragraph. It is as follows : " But 
 if any of the heretics dare to connect themselves with the 
 Apostolic age, that they may seem to be derived from the 
 Apostles as existing under them, we may say, let them 
 therefore declare the .origin of their churches. Let them 
 exhibit the series of their bishops, so coming down by a con- 
 tinued succession from the beginning, as to show their first 
 bishop to have had some Apostle, or Apostolical man, for 
 his predecessor or ordainer, and who continued in the 
 same faith with the Apostles," &c. Our author, in order 
 to carry the idea that Tertullian here refers merely to a dry 
 personal succession from the Apostles, omits entirely the 
 first clause, in which allusion is made to the heretics ; and 
 not only so, but he also leaves out of the very midst of what 
 he has quoted, the words — " in the same faith," and 
 connects " continued" to " with ;" making the sentence to 
 
100 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 
 
 read — " who continued with the Apostles" — instead of, as it 
 is in the original, " who continued in the same faith with 
 the Apostles." So opposed are high churchmen to faith 
 having any thing to do with their true Apostolic succession. 
 But the views of Tertullian upon this subject will appear 
 more evident from the following quotation :" But if the here- 
 tics feign to fabricate such a succession, this will not help 
 them. For their doctrine itself, compared with the doctrine 
 of the Apostles, will, by its own diversity and contrariety, 
 pronounce against them, that it had not, as its author, either 
 any Apostle or Apostolic men ; for, as there was no differ- 
 ence among the Apostles in their doctrine, so neither did 
 any Apostolical men teach any thing contrary to them, ex- 
 cept those who divided from the Apostles, and preached dif- 
 ferently. To this form of trial will appeal be made by those 
 churches henceforward daily established ; which, though 
 they have neither any of the Apostles nor any Apostolical 
 men for their founders, yet all agreeing in the same faith, 
 and from this consanguinity of doctrine to be esteemed 
 not less Apostolical than the former. Therefore, our 
 churches having appealed to both forms of proving them- 
 selves Apostolical, let the heretics show some form by which 
 they can prove the same. But they cannot show this, for it 
 does not exist ; therefore, they are not received into com- 
 munion with those churches which are every way Apostoli- 
 cal ; for this reason — because of the difference of their 
 faith, which is, in no sense, Apostolical." Again, 
 " what, if a bishop, or a deacon, or a widow, or a virgin, 
 or a doctor in the church, or a confessor, shall have fallen 
 from the faith ; shall heresy by them obtain the authority of 
 truth 1 What ! do we prove faith by persons, and not rather 
 persons by faith ?" " Who are false prophets, but false 
 teachers ? Who are false Apostles, except those who preach 
 an adulterated gospel V * Again, " churches were estab-* 
 lished in every city by the Apostles, from which the sue- 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 101 
 
 cession of faith and the seeds of doctrine were derived 
 to other churches ; and daily continue to be derived, to give 
 them existence as churches. And, by this process, these 
 succeeding churches will be esteemed Apostolical, as the off- 
 spring of Apostolical churches/' Once more : " I am an 
 heir of the Apostles. As they have provided for me by will, 
 committing the same to the faith, and establishing it as by 
 oath, so I hold it. But they have disinherited you, here- 
 tics, and cast you out as aliens and enemies. But whence 
 are heretics aliens and enemies to the Apostles ? It is by 
 opposition of doctrine.' 5 No individual can read or hear 
 these quotations from Tertullian, without perceiving at once 
 that, with him, the great desideratum, in order to the exist- 
 ence of a true church, was orthodoxy of faith ; or the em- 
 bracing those distinguishing and evangelical doctrines which 
 were preached by the Apostles. He says, expressly, that 
 those churches which are not founded by Apostles or Apos- 
 tolical men, but yet agree with them " in the same faith/' 
 " are, from this consanguinity of doctrine, to be esteemed 
 not less Apostolical than those churches which were founded 
 by the Apostles." He says, likewise, it is " the succession 
 of faith" and " the seeds of doctrine" which are neces- 
 sary to give existence to churches. So likewise it was not 
 any want of personal succession, although he affirms they did 
 not possess even this, but "opposition of doctrine," which 
 proved heretics to be " aliens and enemies to the Apostles" 
 How very different these views of Tertullian from those of 
 exclusive personal succession divines, who hold that it is no 
 matter how sound in the faith other churches may be, yet, 
 if they have not the personal succession, they are not to be 
 fellowshipped as churches of Jesus Christ. ! 
 
 That Tertullian was not a jure divino Episcopalian is 
 evident from the following quotation: "The highest priest, 
 who is the bishop, has the right of administering baptism. 
 Then, the presbyters and deacons; yet not without the au- 
 
 5 
 
102 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 
 
 thority of the bishop, because of the honor of the 
 church. This being preserved, peace is preserved : 
 otherwise, the right belongs to laymen. However, the 
 laity ought especially to submit humbly and modestly to the 
 discipline or ecclesiastical regulations of the church in these 
 matters, and not assume the office of a bishop, seeing their 
 superiors, the presbyters and deacons, submit to the same. 
 Emulation is the mother of divisions. AH things are lawful 
 to me, said the most holy Paul, but all things are not ex- 
 pedient. Let it suffice that you use your liberty in cases of 
 necessity, where the condition of the person, and the circum- 
 stances of time and place compel you to it." Who Tertul- 
 lian means by the " highest priest or bishop," he informs us 
 in his celebrated Apology: he says, " Approved elders or 
 presbyters preside among us, having received that honor, not 
 by money, but by the suffrages of their brethren." From all 
 of which it would appear, that at the commencement of the 
 third century, the period when Tertullian lived and wrote, 
 the elders or presbyters of each church, not at all by divine 
 appointment, but for the sake of the order and peace of the 
 church, chose one of their number to preside among them, 
 whom they called their bishop ; and upon ordinary occasions, 
 they yielded up to him the administration of ordinances, 
 such as baptism, &c. It would likewise seem to be the 
 opinion at least of Tertullian, that by divine right, even lay- 
 men might administer these ordinances; but that they should, 
 except on very special occasions, for the sake of peace and 
 order, follow the example of the presbyters and deacons, and 
 leave them to be performed by the president or bishop. The 
 idea of this father that laymen or even deacons may adminis- 
 ter ordinances, under any circumstances, is, of course, un- 
 scriptural ; but it goes to show how very far removed his 
 sentiments were from the lofty and exclusive notions of high 
 churchmen. It will likewise be perceived by all, that the 
 form of government here described bears no analogy to dio- 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS, 103 
 
 cesan Episcopacy . High churchmen are welcome to all they 
 can get out of this witness. The more closely they question 
 him, the more will they be dissatisfied with his testimony. 
 
 The last father whose testimony we shall introduce into 
 this discourse, is Clemens Alexandrinus, who flourished at 
 the close of the second century. He was presbyter in Alex- 
 andria, and a prodigy of learning in his day. He says 
 (Paedagog. Lib. I.), " We, who have rule over the churches, 
 are shepherds or pastors after the image of the good Shep- 
 herd." In Lib. III., speaking of the impropriety of women 
 wearing foreign hair, he says, " On whom or what will the 
 presbyter impose his hand? To whom or what will he give 
 his blessing ? Not to the woman who is adorned, but to the 
 strange locks of hair, and through them to another's head." 
 Stromat, Lib. I., "Just so in the church, the presbyters are 
 intrusted with the dignified ministry, the deacons with the 
 subordinate." It is readily admitted, that this Father once 
 speaks of bishops, presbyters, and deacons ; and once he 
 inverts the order, and speaks of presbyters, bishops, and 
 deacons. But the bishops of Clement were like the bishops 
 of Tertullian, " approved elders or presbyters," elected by 
 the brethren to preside among them. That he considered 
 bishop and presbyter the same order, is made to appear be- 
 yond the semblance of a doubt, from the following singular 
 passage, taken from his work entitled Quis dives Salvandus 
 sit : " Hear a fable, and yet not a fable, but a true story 
 reported of John the Apostle, delivered to us, and kept in 
 memory. After the death of the tyrant, when he (John) had 
 returned to Ephesus out of the isle of Patmos, being desired, 
 he went to the neighboring nations, where he appointed 
 bishops, where he set in order whole cities, and where he 
 chose, by lot, into the ecclesiastical function, of those who 
 had been pointed out by the Spirit as by name. When he 
 was come to a certain city, not far distant, the name of 
 which some mention, and among other things had refreshed 
 
104 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 
 
 the brethren, beholding a young man of a portly body, a 
 gracious countenance, and fervent mind, he looked upon the 
 bishop, who was set over all, and said : ' I commit this young 
 man to thy custody, in presence of this church, and Christ 
 bearing me witness. 5 When he had received the charge, and 
 promised the performance of all things relative to it, John 
 again urged and made protestation of the same thing, and 
 afterward departed to Ephesus. And the presbyter, taking 
 the young man, brought him to his own house, nourished, 
 comforted, and cherished him, and at length baptized him." 
 Here it is most evident that Clement applies the terms bishop 
 and presbyter interchangeably to the same individual and 
 office. 
 
 Here closes the testimony of the Fathers for the first two 
 hundred aud fifty years of the history of the New Testament 
 church. We have presented the testimony of all the impor- 
 tant witnesses who lived and wrote during this early period, 
 and to whom an appeal is made by both sides of this con- 
 troversy. It has been our intention and aim to keep nothing 
 of importance back upon either side of the question. We 
 have labored to give a fair and impartial view of what they 
 say upon this subject. And we are entirely willing to leave 
 it to the hearer to judge, whether, during the whole of this 
 period, he can find any thing in the church that bears the 
 least resemblance to diocesan Episcopacy. 
 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS— CONTINUED. 
 
 Matt. xv. 9. — "But in vain do they worship me, teaching for 
 doctrines the commandments of men." 
 
 In the last lecture we entered upon the testimony of the 
 Fathers, and brought it down in the history of the church for 
 two hundred and fifty years. During that period, we have 
 no evidence of the existence of such a thing as prelacy. It 
 took its rise about the middle of the third century ; and the 
 power of the prelates over the people continued to increase 
 until it terminated in the usurped supreme authority of the 
 papal chair. It is proposed in the present discourse to attend 
 to the testimony of the later fathers, or of those who lived 
 and wrote after the first half of the third century. 
 
 The first of these fathers is Cyprian, bishop of Carthage. 
 He flourished about the year 250. The quotation made by 
 our author from this father is as follows : " From thence, 
 through these changes of times and successions, the ordina- 
 tion of bishops and the government of the church have de- 
 scended, so that the church is built upon the bishops." This 
 testimony of Cyprian proves nothing in favor of prelacy, 
 unless it can first be shown that the bishops of Cyprian were 
 of a distinct order from presbyters, and not simply presbyter 
 bishops, who were chosen by the college of presbyters to 
 preside over their councils and discharge the duties of presi- 
 dent as the first among equals. It is readily admitted that 
 Cyprian is the most lofty in his views upon the authority of 
 
106 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 
 
 the bishops of any of the fathers ; and yet all that can be 
 fairly inferred from his writings is, that a bishop in his day 
 was a presiding presbyter, and by no means another and 
 superior order of the ministry. The following facts will be 
 sufficient to show that, with Cyprian, bishop and presbyter 
 were of the same order. 
 
 1. He asserts, in so many words, that the presidents or 
 bishops of the church alone had the right to baptize. His 
 language is, Epist. 73, "Whence we understand that it is 
 lawful for none but presidents of the church to baptize." But 
 no one doubts but that presbyters were allowed to administer 
 baptism. 
 
 2. He uses the terms bishop and priest interchangeably, 
 as though they referred to the same order. He says, Epist. 
 67, " The people should not flatter themselves that they are 
 free from fault when they communicate with a sinful priest, 
 and give their consent to the presidency of a wicked bishop. 
 Wherefore a flock that is obedient to God's commands, and 
 fears him, ought to separate from a wicked bishop, and not 
 to join in the sacrifices of a sacrilegious priest ; since the 
 flock or people have the chief power of choosing worthy 
 priests, and refusing unworthy ones, — which, we see, comes 
 down to us from divine authority, that the priest should be 
 chosen in the presence of the flock, and in the sight of all ; 
 that he may be approved as worthy and tit by the judgment 
 and testimony of all." Here it is most evident that bishop 
 and priest are used as interchangeable terms, referring to the 
 same order of clergy. 
 
 3. During his exile from his flock on account of perse- 
 cution, he exhorts his presbyters to perform his duties for 
 him in his absence. His words are, " I beseech you accord- 
 ing to your faith and religion, that you perform your own 
 duties, and also those belonging to me, so that nothing may 
 be wanting either in discipline or diligence." Again : "I 
 rely upon your love and your religion, which I well know, 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 107 
 
 and by these letters I exhort and commit the charge to you, that 
 you, whose presence does not expose you to such peril, would 
 discharge my duty, act in my place, and perform all those 
 things which the administration of the church requires." If, 
 in the opinion of Cyprian, bishops and presbyters were not 
 of the same order, so that presbyters had no right to perform 
 the duties of a bishop, he never would have exhorted them 
 to discharge his duties in his absence. Pray, what would 
 be thought of Bisnop Delancy, if, during an absence from 
 his diocese, he was to write to his presbyters to discharge his 
 duties for him ! 
 
 4. Cyprian speaks of the ordination of a bishop, as 
 though he was the pastor of a single flock. He says, " This, 
 therefore, is to be observed and held as founded on divine 
 tradition and Apostolic practice, which is also kept up with 
 us, and almost in all provinces, that, in order to the right 
 performance of ordination, the neighboring bishops of the 
 same province meet with that flock to which the bishop is 
 ordained, and that the bishop be cho|en in presence of the 
 people, who know every one's life, and are acquainted with 
 their whole conversation." This, certainly, makes out a 
 very fair presbyterial ordination. The bishop is ordained 
 pastor of a single flock, who make choice of him as their 
 pastor, and he is ordained by a presbytery made up of the 
 neighboring bishops. Upon the very passage of the testi- 
 mony of Cyprian quoted by our author, Dr. Miller remarks : 
 " When Cyprian speaks of the church as ' being built on 
 the bishops,' and of all the acts of the church as being 
 managed by them, Episcopalians hastily triumph, as if this 
 were decided testimony in their favor. But their triumph is 
 premature. Does Cyprian in these passages refer to dioce- 
 san or parochial bishops? — to prelates who have the govern- 
 ment of a diocese containing a number of congregations 
 and their ministers? — or to pastors of single flocks? The 
 latter, from the whole strain of his epistles, is evidently his 
 
108 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 
 
 meaning. He nowhere gives the least hint of having more 
 than one congregation under his own care. He represents 
 his whole church as ordinarily joining together in the cele- 
 bration of the eucharist. He declares his resolution to do 
 nothing without the council of his elders and the consent of 
 his flock. He affirms that every church, when properly or- 
 ganized, consists of a bishop, clergy, and the brotherhood. 
 All these representations apply only to parochial, and by no 
 means to diocesan Episcopacy. For, if such officers belong 
 to every church or organized religious society, then we 
 must conclude that, by the clergy of each church, as distin- 
 guished from the bishop, is meant those elders who assisted 
 the pastor in the discharge of parochial duty. It is well 
 known that Cyprian applies the term clergy to all sorts of 
 church officers. In his epistles, not only the presbyters or 
 elders, but the deacons, subdeacons, readers, and acalyths, 
 are all spoken of as belonging to the clergy. The ordina- 
 tion of such persons, (for it seems in his time they were all 
 formally ordained,) h% calls ' ordinationes clericce,' and 
 the letters he transmitted by them he styles i literce clerical 
 Here, then, you may at once perceive upon which side of 
 this question the testimony of Cyprian bears. It goes to 
 show that the bishops of his day w T ere parochial, and not 
 diocesan bishops." 
 
 The next Father cited by our author is Firmilian, bishop 
 of Ceesarea. From his letter to Cyprian our author quotes 
 the following part of a sentence : " The bishops who suc- 
 ceeded the Apostles, by a vicarious ordination. " Who ever 
 denied that bishops succeeded the Apostles? And why 
 produce a witness to prove what nobody disputes? The 
 question is, Were they diocesan or presbyter bishops ? Fir- 
 milian himself declares that the power of baptizing, confirm- 
 ing, and ordaining, is vested with the presbyters. He uses 
 the following language : " But the other heretics also, if 
 they separate from the church, can have no power or grace ; 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 109 
 
 since all power and grace are placed in the church where 
 presbyters preside, in whom is vested the power of baptizing 
 and imposition of hands and ordination." (Epis. to Cyprian, 
 75.) Now, if presbyters, in the days of Firmilian, confirmed 
 and ordained, certainly his bishops could have been nothing 
 more than presbyter bishops. Next our author cites the tes- 
 timony of Clarus, a bishop in the council of Carthage, who 
 says, " 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 have sue- 
 ceeded, governing the church of the Lord with the same 
 power." Any candid hearer will perceive at once that this 
 testimony proves nothing upon the subject of the present 
 controversy. We all admit that the bishops of the churches 
 have succeeded the Apostles ; but the question returns, 
 Have they succeeded them as Apostles, or as presbyter 
 bishops ? Upon this question, " this deponent saith not" 
 His testimony does not bear upon it in the least. Our au- 
 thor closes his array of testimony with the following quota- 
 tion from Eusebius : " And in the sequel of this history, the 
 succession of bishops from the Apostles shall be set down 
 in order." And, pray, does this prove any thing to his pur- 
 pose ? We shall show, in another place, that this history, 
 by Eusebius, of the succession of bishops from the Apostles, 
 is, by his own confession, very dark and doubtful. But, 
 suppose it was clear as sunlight, it would only prove that 
 there was a succession of bishops from the Apostles ; it 
 would by no means prove that they were diocesans. 
 
 Thus we have gone through with the witnesses intro- 
 duced by our author ; and whenever they have borne testi- 
 mony upon the point at issue, that testimony has been in 
 our favor. But we have testimony by some of the most 
 eminent fathers, which has been entirely omitted by 
 our author, and which will probably somewhat surprise 
 you, on account of its clear and convincing nature. 
 
 5* 
 
110 TESTIMONY OP THE FATHERS. 
 
 The first witness we shall introduce is Jerome, who lived 
 and wrote about the year 380, and who is admitted by all 
 parties to have been one of the most learned and eminent of 
 the fathers. In his commentary on Titus, he has the follow- 
 ing remarkable passage : " Let us diligently attend to the 
 words of the Apostle, saying, * that thou mayest ordain elders 
 in every city as I have appointed thee ;' who, discoursing 
 in what follows, what sort of presbyter is to be ordained, 
 saith, ' if any one be blameless, the husband of one wife/ 
 &c.,' afterwards adds, ' for a bishop must be blameless, as 
 the steward of God,' &x. A presbyter, therefore, is the 
 same as a bishop ; and before there were, by the devil's in- 
 stinct, parties in religion, and it was said among the people, 
 I am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the churches 
 were governed by the common council of presbyters. But 
 afterwards, when every one thought that those whom he 
 baptized were rather his than Christ's, it was determined, 
 through the whole world, that one of the presbyters should 
 be set above the rest, to whom all care of the church should 
 belong, that the seeds of schism might be taken away. If 
 any suppose that it is merely our opinion and not of the 
 Scriptures, that bishop and presbyter are the same, and that 
 one is the name of age, the other of office, let him read the 
 words of the Apostle to the Philippians, saying, * Paul and 
 Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in 
 Christ Jesus that are at Philippi, with the bishops and dea- 
 cons.' Philippi is a city of Macedonia, and certainly in one 
 city there could not be more than one bishop, as they are 
 now styled ; but, at that time, they called the same men bish- 
 ops, whom they called presbyters. Therefore he speaks in- 
 differently of bishops as of presbyters. This may seem even 
 yet doubtful to some, till it be proved by another testimony. 
 It is written in the Acts of the Apostles, that when the 
 Apostle came to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus and called the 
 presbyters of that church, to whom, among other things, he 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS, 111 
 
 said, ' Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock over 
 whom the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed the 
 church of God, which he hath purchased with his own 
 blood.' Here observe, diligently, that calling together the 
 presbyters of one city, Ephesus, he afterwards styles the 
 same persons bishops. If any will receive that epistle which 
 is written in the name of Paul to the Hebrews, there also 
 the care of the church is equally divided among many ; since 
 he writes to the people, ' Obey them that have the rule over 
 you, and submit yourselves ; for they watch for your souls as 
 those that must give an account, that they may do it with joy 
 and not with grief, for that is unprofitable for you.' And Peter, 
 so called from the firmness of his faith, in his epistle, saith, 
 ' The presbyters, which are among you I exhort, who am also a 
 presbyter, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a 
 partaker of the glory that shall be revealed ; feed the flock 
 of God which is among you, not by constraint, but willingly.' 
 These things I have written to show that, among the an- 
 cients, presbyters and bishops were the same ; but, by lit- 
 tle and little, that all the seeds of dissension might be pluck- 
 ed up, the whole care was devolved on one. As, therefore, 
 the presbyters know that by the custom of the church they 
 are subject to him who is their president, so let bishops 
 know that they are above presbyters more by the custom of 
 the church, than by the true dispensation of Christ ; and that 
 they ought to rule the church in common ; imitating Moses, 
 who, when he might alone rule the people of Israel, chose 
 seventy with whom he might judge the people." Again : 
 in his epistle to Evagrius, he uses the following unequivocal 
 language : " I hear that a certain person has broken out 
 into such folly that he prefers deacons before presbyters, i. e. 
 before bishops ; for, when the Apostle 'clearly teaches that 
 presbyters and bishops were the same, who can endure it 
 that a minister of tables and widows should proudly exalt 
 himself above those, at whose prayers the body and blood 
 
112 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 
 
 of Christ is made ! Do you seek for authority 1 Hear 
 that testimony : ' Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus 
 Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, 
 with the bishops and deacons.' Would you have another 
 example ? In the Acts of the Apostles, Paul speaks thus to 
 the priests of one church : ' Take heed to yourselves, and to 
 all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you bish- 
 ops ; that you govern the church which he hath purchased 
 with his blood.' And, lest any should contend about there 
 being a plurality of bishops in one church, hear also another 
 testimony, by which it may most manifestly be proved that 
 a bishop and a presbyter are the same : ' For this cause left 
 I thee in Crete ; that thou shouldest set in order the things 
 that are wanting, and ordain presbyters in every city, as I 
 have appointed thee, if any be blameless. For a bishop must 
 be blameless as the steward of God;' and to Timothy, 'Ne- 
 glect not the gift that is in thee, which was given there by 
 prophecy, by the laying on of hands of the presbytery.' And 
 Peter also, in his first epistle, saith, ' The presbyters which 
 are among you I exhort, who am also a presbyter, and a 
 witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the 
 glory that shall be revealed, to rule the flock of Christ, and 
 to inspect it, not of constraint, but willingly, according to 
 God ;' which is more significantly expressed in the Greek 
 emaxoTTovvTsg, i. e., superintending it; whence the name of 
 bishop is drawn. Does the testimony of such men appear small 
 to thee ? Let the evangelical trumpet sound ; the son of 
 thunder, whom Jesus Christ loved much, who drank the 
 streams of doctrine from our Saviour's breast : ' The Pres- 
 byter to the elect Lady and her children, whom I love in the 
 truth.' And in another epistle, ' The Presbyter to the be- 
 loved Gaius, whom I love in the truth.' But that one was 
 afterwards chosen who should be set above the rest, was 
 done as a remedy against schism ; lest every one, drawing 
 the church of Christ to himself, should break it in pieces. 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS, 113 
 
 For at Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist to Heracles 
 and Dionysius the bishops thereof, the presbyters always 
 named one, chosen from among them and placed in a higher 
 degree — Bishop : as if an army should choose an empe- 
 ror, or the deacons should choose one of themselves, whom 
 they knew to be most diligent, and call him Arch-Deacon." 
 Once more, in this epistle he says, " Presbyter and Bishop — 
 the one is the name of age, the other of dignity. Whence, 
 in the epistles to Timothy and Titus, there is mention made 
 of the ordination of bishops and deacons, but not of pres- 
 byters, because the presbyter is included in the bishop." 
 This testimony of Jerome is so plain as to need no com- 
 ment. He expressly affirms and proves, by a labored argu- 
 ment, that in the days of the Apostles presbyter and bishop 
 were the same — that the appointment of one presbyter to 
 preside over the rest, grew out of the circumstances of the 
 church ; and that the authority of bishops, as distinguished 
 from that of presbyters, came in " little by little," or by 
 degrees. Augustine, bishop of Hippo, in an epistle to Jerome, 
 holds the following language upon this subject: "I entreat 
 you to correct me faithfully when you see I need it ; for al- 
 though, according to the names of honor which the cus- 
 tom of the church has now brought into use, the office of bish- 
 op is greater than that of presbyter, nevertheless, in many 
 respects Augustine is inferior to Jerome." Bishop Jewell, 
 in his " Defence of his Apology for the Church of England," 
 quotes this passage from Augustine to prove the original 
 identity of presbyter and bishop, and translates it as follows : 
 " The office of bishop is above the office of priest, not by 
 authority of the Scriptures, but after the names of honor which 
 the custom of the church hath now attained." Hilary, or 
 Ambrose, as he is sometimes called, who wrote in 376, in 
 his commentary upon Ephesians, iv. 2, says : " After that 
 churches were planted in all places and officers ordained, 
 matters xoere settled otherwise than they were in the begin- 
 
114 TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS 
 
 ning. And hence it is that the Apostles' writings do not 
 in all things agree to the present constitution of the church: 
 because they were written under the first rise of the church, 
 he calls Timothy, who was created a presbyter by him, a 
 bishop ; for so at first the presbyters were called. Among 
 whom this was the course of governing churches ; that, as 
 one withdrew, another took his place ; and in Egypt, even 
 at this day, presbyters ordain in the bishop's absence ; but 
 because the following presbyters began to be found un- 
 worthy to hold the first place, the method was changed — the 
 council providing that not order, but merit, should create a 
 bishop." From this remarkable passage we learn, 
 
 1. That in the Apostles' days there was no difference be- 
 tween bishop and presbyter. 
 
 2. That, in the days of Ambrose, this difference did not 
 consist in any distinction of order, but the presbyter who 
 was considered the most meritorious was appointed to pre- 
 side over the rest. 
 
 3. That this was done, not by divine authority, but by 
 an ordinance or appointment of the council. This father 
 says expressly, "Because the following presbyters began to 
 be found unworthy to hold the first place, the method, was 
 changed — the council providing that not order, but merit, 
 should create a bishop" Chrysostom, who wrote about the 
 year 393, says : " The Apostles having discoursed concern- 
 ing bishops and described them, declaring what they ought 
 to be, and from what they ought to abstain, omitting the 
 order of presbyters, descends to the deacons. And why so, 
 but because between bishop and presbyter there is scarcely 
 any difference ; and to them is committed both the instruc- 
 tions and presidency of the church ; and whatever he said 
 of bishops, agrees also to presbyters. In ordination alone, 
 they have gone beyond presbyters ; and of this they seem to 
 
 have DEFRAUDED THEM." 
 
TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 115 
 
 Were it necessary, we might add testimony of the same 
 kind to any extent ; but enough has been already produced 
 to show conclusively that the testimony of the Fathers is 
 very far from aiding the cause of prelacy. The great won- 
 der is, that churchmen should appeal with so much confi- 
 dence and triumph to the fathers, when they can find so 
 little in their writings in their favor, and so much positively 
 against them. No individual can give the writings of the 
 Fathers an impartial perusal without being convinced that 
 clerical parity was the doctrine taught by Christ and his 
 Apostles, and that this parity existed for many years in the 
 New Testament church. When we come to lecture upon 
 the rise of Episcopacy in the church, we shall have occasion 
 to mention certain facts which will go very much to 
 strengthen this position. We here close the testimony of 
 the Fathers, and therewith our present discourse. 
 
LECTURE VII, 
 
 TESTIMONY OF EPISCOPALIANS IN OUR FAVOR. 
 
 Luke xix. 22. — " Out of thine own mouth will I condemn thee." 
 
 We propose this evening to deliver a brief lecture upon 
 the testimony of Episcopalians in our favor. It will be 
 easy to show that many of the most learned and eminent 
 Episcopal divines have been entirely opposed to those exclu- 
 sive doctrines, against which we are at present contending. 
 We will commence with what Dr. Willet, an eminent divine 
 of the church of England, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, 
 says of the three opinions which existed in his day, upon the 
 subject of the present controversy. He says, " Of the dif- 
 ference between bishops and priests, there are three opin- 
 ions : the first, of Aerius, who did hold that all ministers 
 should be equal, and that a bishop was not, neither ought 
 to be, superior to a priest. The second opinion is the other 
 extreme of the Papists, who would have not only a differ- 
 ence, but a princely pre-eminence of their bishops over the 
 clergy, and that by the word of God. And they urge it to 
 be so necessary, that they are no true churches which receive 
 not their pontifical hierarchy. The third opinion is be- 
 tween both ; that, although the distinction of bishops and 
 priests, as it is now received, cannot be proved out of Scrip- 
 ture, yet it is very necessary for the policy of the church, to 
 avoid schisms and to preserve it in unity. Of this judg- 
 ment Bishop Jewell against Harding showeth both Chrysos- 
 tom, Ambrose, and Jerome, to have been. Jerome thus 
 writeth : ' The Apostle teacheth evidently that bishop and 
 
 
TESTIMONY OF EPISCOPALIANS Ix\ OUK FAVOR. 117 
 
 priest were the same ; but that one was afterwards chosen 
 to be set over the rest, as a remedy against schism.' To 
 this opinion of Jerome subscribeth Bishop Jewell and 
 another most reverend prelate of our church, Archbishop 
 Whitgift." The opinion of Bishop Jewell, in his work 
 against Harding, which is referred to in the foregoing quo- 
 tation, is given by that learned prelate in the following une- 
 quivocal language (Defence, &c, against Harding, page 
 248) : " But what meant Mr. Harding, to come here with 
 the difference between priests and bishops? Thinketh he 
 that priests and bishops hold only by tradition ? or is it so 
 horrible a heresy as he maketh it, to say that, by the Scrip- 
 tures of God, a bishop and a priest are all one ? or knoweth 
 he how far, and to whom, he reacheth the name of an here- 
 tic ? Verily, Chrysostom saith, ' Inter Episcopum et Pres- 
 byterum interest fere nihil ;' i. e., ' between a bishop and a 
 priest there is in a manner no difference. ' St. Jerome saith 
 somewhat in a rougher sort, c Audio quendam in tantam 
 eripuisse recordium, ut diaconos Presbyteris id est, Episco- 
 pis ante ferrit cum Apostolus perspicue doceat eosdem esse 
 Presbyteros quos Episcopos ;' i. e., ' I hear say there is one be- 
 come so peevish, that he setteth deacons before priests ; 
 that is to say, bishops; whereas the Apostle plainly teacheth 
 us that priests and bishops be all one.' St. Augustine also 
 saith, ' Quid est Episcopus, nisi primus presbyter, hoc est 
 summus sacerdos !' ' What is a bishop but the first priest ; 
 that is to say, the highest priest V So saith St. Ambrose : 
 1 Episcopi et Presbyteri una ordinatio est — uterque, enim, 
 sacerdos est — sed Episcopus primus est ;' i. e , ' there is but 
 one consecration of priest and bishop; for, both of them are 
 priests, but the bishop is the first.' All these and other 
 more holy Fathers, together with St. Paul the Apostle, for 
 thus saying, by Mr. Harding's advice, must be holden for 
 heretics." It is worthy of remark, that this work of Bishop 
 Jewell was published to the world as containing the doc- 
 
118 TESTIMONY OF EPISCOPALIANS IN OUR FAVOR. 
 
 trine of the church of England. It was ordered to be sus- 
 pended, by a chain, in all the churches in the kingdom, and 
 to be publicly read as a theological standard. 
 
 Bishop Burnet, in his History of the Reformation, has pub- 
 lished a very interesting document of those times, called, * a 
 declaration made of the functions and divine institutions of 
 bishops and priests.' from which we make the following ex- 
 tracts : " That this office, this power, this authority, was 
 committed and given by Christ and his Apostles unto cer- 
 tain persons only — that is to say, unto priests or bishops, 
 whom they did elect, call, and admit thereunto, by their 
 prayer and imposition of their hands." Again : " And 
 surely this is the whole virtue and efficacy, and the cause 
 also of the institution of this sacrament, as it is found in the 
 New Testament ; for, albeit, the holy fathers of the church 
 which succeeded the Apostles, minding to beautify and or- 
 nate the church of Christ with all those things which were 
 commendable in the temple of the Jews, did devise, not only 
 certain other ceremonies than before rehearsed, as tonsures, 
 rasures, unctions, and such other observances to be used in 
 the administration of the said sacraments, but did also insti- 
 tute certain inferior orders or degrees — janitors, lictors, ex- 
 orcists, acolits, and sub-deacons, and deputed to every one 
 of those certain offices to execute in the church : wherein 
 they followed undoubtedly the example and rites used in the 
 Old Testament. Yet the truth is, that in the New Tes- 
 tament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinc- 
 tions in orders, but only of deacons or ministers and of 
 priests or bishops ; nor is there any word spoken of any 
 other ceremony used in the confirming of this sacrament, 
 but only of prayer and the imposition of the bishop's hands." 
 This document is signed by Thomas Cromwell, the king's 
 vicar-general ; T. Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury ; 
 Edward, archbishop of York; John, bishop of London; 
 Cuthbert, bishop of Durham ; John, bishop of Lincoln ; 
 
TESTIMONY OP EPISCOPALIANS IN OUR FAVOR. 119 
 
 John, bishop of Bath ; Thomas, bishop of Ely ; John, bishop 
 of Bangor ; Nicholas, bishop of Salisbury ; Edward, bishop 
 of Hereford ; Hugo, bishop of Worcester ; John, bishop of 
 Rochester ; Richard, bishop of Chichester ; and others too 
 numerous to mention. Bishop Burnet, speaking of this 
 document, among others, says : " In this writing, bishops 
 and priests are spoken of as one and the same office. It had 
 been the common style of that age to reckon bishops and 
 priests as the same office." To this testimony Bishop Bur- 
 net adds his own. He says expressly : " I acknowledge 
 bishop and presbyter to be one and the same office, and so 
 plead for no new office-bearer in the church.'' The learned 
 Episcopal historian, Dr. Warner, asserts that " Archbishop 
 Bancroft was the first man in the church of England who 
 preached up the divine right of Episcopacy." This state- 
 ment has been corroborated by many other Episcopal wri- 
 ters. Even Bishop White of Pennsylvania quotes this pas- 
 sage from Warner, to show that the doctrine of divine right 
 was never embraced by the great body of the most eminent 
 divines of the church of England. This Archbishop Ban- 
 croft, in a sermon which he preached on a public occasion 
 in 1588, endeavored to maintain " that the bishops of Eng- 
 land were a distinct order from priests, and had superiority 
 over them by divine right, and directly from God, and that 
 the denial of it was heresy." This sermon occasioned much 
 excitement, and gave great offence. Dr. Raignolds, who 
 was then professor of divinity in the University of Oxford, 
 being written to by a friend for his opinion on the subject, 
 returned the following reply : " Of the two opinions which 
 your honor mentions in the sermon of Dr. Bancroft, the 
 first is that which asserts the superiority which the prelates 
 among us have over the clergy to be a divine institution. 
 He does not, indeed, assert this in express terms ; but he 
 does by necessary consequence ; in which he affirms the 
 opinion of those who oppose that superiority to be a heresy ; 
 
120 TESTIMONY OF EPISCOPALIANS IN OUR FAVOR. 
 
 in which, in my judgment, he has committed an oversight ; 
 and I believe he himself will acknowledge it, if duly admon- 
 ished concerning it. All that have labored in reforming 
 the church for five hundred years past, have taught that all 
 pastors, be they entitled bishops or priests, have equal au- 
 thority and power by God's word : as, first, the Waldenses ; 
 next, Marsilius Petavius; then WicklifF and his disciples; 
 afterwards, Huss and the Hussites ; and, last of all, Luther, 
 Calvin, Brentius, Bullinger, and Musculus. Among our- 
 selves, we have bishops, the queen's professors of divinity 
 in our universities, and other learned men, as Bradford, 
 Lambert, Jewell, Pilkington, Humphrey, Fulke; who all 
 agree in this matter, and so do all divines beyond sea that 
 I ever read, and doubtless many more whom I never read. 
 But why do I speak of particular persons? It is the com- 
 mon judgment of the reformed churches of Helvetia, Savoy, 
 France, Scotland, Germany, Hungary, the low countries, and 
 our own — (the Church of England.) Wherefore, sure Dr. 
 Bancroft will certainly never pretend that an heresy, con- 
 demned by the consent of the whole church in its most 
 flourishing times, was yet accounted a sound and Christian 
 doctrine by all these I have mentioned. I hope that he 
 will acknowledge that he was mistaken, when he asserted 
 the superiority which bishops have among us over the 
 clergy, to be God's own ordinance." " Professor Raig- 
 nolds," says Dr. Miller, " was acknowledged by all his con- 
 temporaries to be a prodigy of learning. Bishop Hall used 
 to say that ' his memory and reading were nearly a miracle.' 
 He was particularly conversant with the fathers and early 
 historians ; was a critic in the languages ; was celebrated 
 for his wit ; and so eminent for piety and sanctity of life 
 that Crackenthorp said of him that, to name Raignolds 
 was to commend virtue itself." 
 
 The learned Dr. Whitaker, who was professor of divinity 
 in the University of Cambridge, in writing against Campion 
 
TESTIMONY OF EPISCOPALIANS IN OUR FAVOR. 121 
 
 the Jesuit, uses the following language : " Whereas you 
 assert, with many words, that bishop and presbyter are 
 diverse; if you will retain the character of a modest divine, 
 you must not so confidently affirm that which all men see to 
 be so evidently false. For what is so well known as this 
 which you acknowledge not? Jerome plainly writeth, that 
 elders and bishops are the same, and confirmeth it by many 
 places of Scripture." This same eminent Episcopalian in 
 writing against Bellarmine says, " From 2 Timothy i. 6, 
 we understand that Timothy had hands laid on him by pres- 
 byters, who at that time governed the church in common 
 council" Bishop Croft, in his work entitled " Naked 
 Truth/' has the following passage : " The Scripture no- 
 where expresses any distinction of order among the elders ; 
 we find there but two orders mentioned, bishops and deacons. 
 The Scripture distinguished not the order of bishops and 
 priests ; for them we find but one kind of ordination, then 
 certainly but one order ; for two distinct orders cannot be 
 conferred in the instant by the same words, by the same 
 actions." The Rev. Mr. Gisborne, who was a distinguish- 
 ed and popular writer of the church of England, in a work of 
 his entitled, " Survey of the Christian Religion," expresses 
 himself upon this subject in the following manner: "If 
 Christ and his Apostles enjoined the uniform adoption of 
 Episcopacy, the question is decided. Did Christ then, or 
 his disciples, deliver or indirectly convey such an injunc- 
 tion? This topic has been greatly controverted. The fact 
 appears to be this : that the Saviour did not pronounce upon 
 the subject ; that the Apostles uniformly established a 
 bishop in every district, as soon as the church in that dis- 
 trict became numerous ; and this clearly evinced their 
 judgment as to the form of ecclesiastical government most 
 advantageous, at least in those days, to Christianity ; but 
 that they left no command which rendered Episcopacy uni- 
 versally indispensable in future times, if other forms should 
 
122 TESTIMONY OF EPISCOPALIANS IN OUR FAVOR. 
 
 evidently promise, through local opinions and circumstances, 
 greater benefit to religion. Such is the general sentiment of 
 the present church of England on this subject" Hear what 
 Lord George Digby, a distinguished English nobleman, in 
 a letter to a friend, says : " He who would reduce the church 
 now, to the form of government in the most primitive times , 
 would not take, in my opinion, the best or wisest course ; I 
 am sure not the safest ; for he would be found pecking to- 
 wards the presbytery of Scotland, which, for my part, I be- 
 lieve, in point of government, hath a greater resemblance 
 than either yours or ours to the first age." Sir Peter King, 
 Lord Chancellor of England, in a very labored work, enti- 
 tled "An inquiry into the constitution, discipline, unity, 
 and worship of the primitive church, that flourished within 
 the first 300 years after Christ," undertakes to show, " That 
 a presbyter in the primitive church meant a person in holy 
 orders, having thereby an inherent right to perform the 
 whole office of a bishop, and differing from a bishop in 
 nothing but in having no parish or pastoral charge : that 
 presbyters, in those times of primitive purity, were called by 
 the same titles, and were of the same specific order with 
 bishops; that they ruled in those churches to which they be- 
 longed ; that they presided in church consistories with the 
 bishops ; that they had the power of excommunication and of 
 restoring penitents; that they confirmed; that there are 
 clearer proofs of presbyters ordaining, than of their adminis- 
 tering the Lord's supper." He likewise maintains that 
 Christ and his Apostles instituted but two orders of church 
 officers — bishops and deacons: "And," says he, " if they 
 ordained but two, I think no one had ever a commission to 
 add a third, or to split one into two, as must be done if we 
 separate the order of presbyters from the order of bishops" 
 The opinion of Archbishop Whately, the present primate 
 of Ireland, has been given in a previous lecture. Those who 
 heard it will recollect that it is entirely in our favor. Be- 
 
TESTIMONY OF EPISCOPALIANS IN OUR FAVOR. 123 
 
 sides these testimonies of eminent Episcopalians, (which 
 might be extended to any length,) we have with us the opin- 
 ions of some eminent Papists. Cassander, a distinguished 
 Catholic divine, in his book of Consultations, has the fol- 
 lowing passage : " Whether Episcopacy is to be accounted 
 an ecclesiastical order distinct from presbytery, is a question 
 much debated between theologues and canonists; but in 
 this one particular all parties agree : That, in the Apostles' 
 days, there teas no difference between a bishop and a pres- 
 byter : but afterwards, for the avoiding of schism, the 
 bishop was placed before the presbyter, to whom the power 
 of ordination was granted, that so peace might be continued 
 in the church" In the canon law we find the following con- 
 clusive passage : " Bishop and presbyter were the same in 
 the primitive church ; presbyter being the name of the per- 
 son's age, and bishop of his office. But, there being many 
 of those in every church, they determined among them- 
 selves, for the preventing of schism, that one should be 
 elected by themselves to be set over the rest, and the person 
 so elected they called bishop, for distinction's sake ; the 
 rest were called presbyters ; and, in process of time, their 
 reverence for these titular bishops so increased, that they 
 began to obey them, as children do a father." 
 
 We come now, in the last place, to the testimony of 
 Bishop White, concerning the import of which we have 
 been so positively contradicted by our author. In a previous 
 discourse, we asserted that Bishop White was not a jure 
 divino Episcopalian ; or, that he did not hold that Christ and 
 his Apostles enjoined upon their followers the Episcopal form 
 of government, so as to make it binding upon all men in 
 all ages, in such a sense, that without this form of govern- 
 ment, there can be no true church. In this our author de- 
 clares us mistaken, and attempts to sustain his declaration 
 by quotations from the writings of Bishop White. In set- 
 tling this question, we will first give quotations from the 
 
124 TESTIMONY OF EPISCOPALIANS IN OUR FAVOR. 
 
 writings of Bishop White, which we think fully sustain us 
 in our opinion of his views, and then notice the quotations 
 of our author. 
 
 From a pamphlet published by Bishop White in 
 Philadelphia in 1782, entitled, " The case of the Episcopal 
 Church in the United States considered," we take the fol- 
 lowing extracts : " In the early ages of the church, it was 
 customary to debate and determine in a general concourse 
 of all Christians in the same city : among whom the bishop 
 was no more than president" Again : " This is founded 
 upon the presumption, that the worship of God and the 
 reformation of the people are the principal objects of ec- 
 clesiastical discipline; if so, to relinquish them from a 
 scrupulous adherence to Episcopacy , is sacrificing the sub- 
 stance to the ceremony " Again : " Are the acknowledged 
 ordinances of Christ's holy religion to be suspended for 
 years, out of delicacy to a disputed point, and that relating 
 only to externals ?" After laying down, as he says " con- 
 cisely, but as is believed impartially," the doctrine of 
 Apostolic succession, he asks : " Can any reasonable rule 
 of construction make this amount to more than ancient 
 Apostolic practice ? That the Apostles employed any par- 
 ticular form, affords a presumption of its being the best, all 
 circumstances at that time considered ; but to make it 
 unalterably binding, it must be shown enjoined in positive 
 precept" He quotes with approbation Bishop Hoadley, 
 who denies "the divine appointment of three orders." 
 Now add to these the quotation made from this paper in a 
 previous lecture, and not a doubt can remain in any un- 
 prejudiced mind as to what were the opinions of Bishop 
 White upon this subject. This quotation runs as follows : 
 "Now, if even those who hold Episcopacy to be of divine 
 right conceive the obligation of it not to be binding when 
 that idea would be destructive of public worship ; much 
 more must they think so, who indeed venerate and prefer 
 
TESTIMONY OP EPISCOPALIANS IN OUR FAVOR. 125 
 
 that form as the most ancient and eligible, but without any 
 idea of divine right in the case. This the author believes 
 to be the sentiment of the great body of Episcopalians in 
 America ; in which respect they have in their favor, un- 
 questionably, the sense of the church of England ; and, as 
 he believes, the opinions of her most distinguished prelates 
 for piety, learning, and abilities." What could be more 
 conclusive than these quotations, to show, not only what 
 was the generally received opinion of the Episcopal church 
 at that time, but also that Bishop White did not believe 
 in the divine right of Episcopacy ? In an Episcopal charge 
 of Bishop White's, delivered in 1834, he says : " There is 
 not perceived the necessity of carrying it (the Episcopal 
 system) to the extreme of denouncing all communions 
 destitute of Episcopacy, as departing from the essentials of 
 the Christian faith, and as aliens from the covenants of 
 promise." In a letter to Bishop Hobart, dated Dec. 1830, 
 he says: " In regard to Episcopacy, I think that it should be 
 sustained as the government of the church from the time 
 of the Apostles ; but without criminating the ministry of 
 other churches, as is the case with the church of England." 
 To this array of testimony, gathered from the writings of 
 Bishop White, our author, in his second anonymous pam- 
 phlet, opposes two extracts from Bishop White on the cate- 
 chism. The first is taken from his seventh Lecture ; " in 
 which, " says our author, " after a few preliminary remarks, 
 he says he designs 'to establish the three following positions 
 concerning the ministry of the Christian church : 
 
 " ' 1. It is of divine institution. 
 
 " ' 2. In every local church, it is, of right, independent 
 of all foreign authority and jurisdiction. 
 
 " c 3. As instituted by Jesus Christ and his Apostles, it 
 includes the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons/ " 
 Every individual must perceive that the two first propo- 
 sitions have nothing to do with the present subject. We 
 
 6 
 
126 TESTIMONY OF EPISCOPALIANS IN OUR FAVOR. 
 
 believe as firmly as does Bishop White, or any other dio- 
 cesan bishop, that the gospel ministry is of divine institution. 
 So, likewise, do we believe that, in every local church, it is, of 
 right, independent of all foreign authority and jurisdiction. 
 In regard to the third proposition, we would say that we 
 never denied but that Bishop White believed the three 
 orders of the ministry to be of Apostolic institution. But 
 he makes a distinction between ' Apostolic institution ' and 
 an 'Apostolic appointment J in such a sense as to make 
 these separate orders binding upon the church in all times 
 and under all circumstances, so that without them all it 
 becomes no church. In the pamphlet above referred to, 
 after unfolding what he considered the true doctrine of 
 Apostolic succession, he asks, as stated above, " Can any 
 reasonable rule of construction make this amount to more 
 than ancient and Apostolic practice? That the Apostles 
 employed any particular form, affords a presumption of its 
 being the best, all circumstances at that time considered : 
 but, to make it unalterably binding, it must be shown to be 
 enjoined in positive precept" So that our author, if he 
 would prove that Bishop White held that the three orders of 
 the ministry were jure divino, in such a sense as to be unal- 
 terably binding, must show, not only^that he held them to 
 have been " instituted by Christ and his Apostles," but 
 also to have been enjoined, in " positive precept," upon 
 the church. This we believe he cannot do. And these 
 remarks entirely do away the force of his second quotation, 
 which consists of a part of a sentence, as follows : " While 
 we contend for this order, on the ground of divine institu- 
 tion," &<c. Bishop White did contend for the order of 
 bishops on the ground of divine institution, but he never 
 pretended that this order was " enjoined" in positive precept, 
 and therefore " unalterably binding" Concerning deacons, 
 we know Bishop White held that they were not appointed 
 fay the Apostles to preach : for, in a letter to Bishop Hobart, 
 
TESTIMONY OF EPISCOPALIANS IN OUR FAVOR. 127 
 
 to which reference has already been made, he thus expresses 
 himself: " But can it be imagined that an order instituted 
 for the purpose of serving tables should, in the very infancy 
 of its existence, have the office of the higher order of the 
 ministry committed to them ? I do not deny, either the 
 right or the prudence of allowing, what has been subse- 
 quently allowed, to this lowest order of the clergy. All I 
 contend for is, that, at the first institution of the order, 
 there could have been no difference between them and lay- 
 men in regard to the preaching of the word and the admin- 
 istering of the sacraments." Here we find Bishop White, 
 in a letter to Bishop Hobart, giving it as his opinion that 
 deacons, under the Apostolic appointment, had no more 
 power to preach and baptize than laymen. After this full 
 expose of Bishop White's opinions upon the subject under 
 discussion, as drawn from his published writings, if any 
 individual is still of the belief that he was a jure divino ex- 
 elusive Episcopalian, he is welcome to all the consolation he 
 can derive from such an opinion. 
 
 In conclusion, we remark that, whether we appeal to the 
 fathers, or to bishops, and doctors, and divinity professors 
 in the Episcopal church, we find an overwhelming amount 
 of testimony in our favor. We are entirely willing to form 
 our opinion of Episcopacy from the concessions of eminent 
 Episcopalians. We will judge them out of their own mouths, 
 and are sure that the judgment will be in favor of clerical 
 parity. 
 
LECTURE VIII. 
 
 THE RISE OF PRELACY. 
 
 2 Thess. ii. 7, 8. — " For the mystery of iniquity doth already 
 work : only, he who now letteth, will let, until he be taken out of 
 the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord 
 shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with 
 the brightness of his coming." 
 
 It would seem, from this passage and the preceding con- 
 text, that some of the members of the Thessalonian church 
 were in danger of imbibing the false and injurious senti- 
 ment that the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ was 
 at hand. Against such an opinion the Apostle warns them, 
 and foretells that, before Christ should come, there would 
 be a general defection in the church, and that man of 
 sin and son of perdition would be revealed. He declares 
 that, even at that early period, he perceived a spirit at work 
 in the church which he terms, " the mystery of iniquity ;" 
 and which would immediately result in the introduction of 
 " that wicked one," were it not for a certain great and pro- 
 minent obstacle which prevented ; but that, when that ob- 
 stacle should be removed, he should be revealed. It is 
 agreed by our best commentators that the man of sin here 
 spoken of is the Papal power ; that the mystery of iniquity , 
 spoken of by the Apostle as tending to a priestly domination 
 which would finally result in the unlimited power of the 
 universal bishop, was that lofty ambition and thirst for 
 power which had already made its appearance among the 
 members of the infant New Testament church. This was 
 
THE RISE OF PRELACY. 129 
 
 the very spirit which led the Apostles to contend among 
 themselves which should be the greatest, and it was this 
 spirit which divided the churches into different parties, 
 claiming adherence to differen teminent Christian teachers. 
 Some said, I am of Paul; others, I am of Apollos ; others 
 still, I am of Christ. This spirit the Apostle had occasion 
 to rebuke most severely ; but, with all his efforts, he found 
 it impossible to eradicate it from the churches, and he had 
 sufficient foresight to perceive, that, whenever the impedi- 
 ment interposed by the Roman empire was removed ; 
 whenever the church should cease to be persecuted and 
 downtrodden by a pagan secular despotism, this ambitious, 
 grasping spirit would unfold itself to such an extent that the 
 clergy would become spiritual and temporal princes ; and 
 finally, that there would be established a universal and 
 absolute church and state despotism, which should lodge 
 all power with one individual. The correctness of this pre- 
 diction was most fully sustained by the after history of the 
 Church. 
 
 The early churches, as they were instituted by the Apos- 
 tles, were exceedingly simple and unostentatious in their 
 form of government. There were ordained in every church 
 bishops and deacons. These primitive bishops were simple 
 elders or presbyters, who had the instruction and govern- 
 ment of the church committed to them. The deacons were 
 mere servants of tables ; they were appointed for no other 
 purpose than to care for the poor and attend to the temporals 
 of the church. The bench of elders was divided into two 
 classes ; those who preached as well as ruled, and those 
 who gave themselves entirely to ruling. These elders were 
 of the same order, vested with the same authority, and acted 
 as co-presbyters or bishops in the same church. They 
 were sometimes called elders or presbyters, and sometimes 
 bishops. Those terms were, at that early period, applied 
 to the same persons, and used to designate the same office. 
 
130 
 
 THE RISE OF PRELACY. 
 
 The one referring to their age or influence, and the other 
 to their duties as overseers in the church. The church at 
 this period, as Jerome and other fathers declare, " was 
 governed by the common council of presbyters." When 
 these presbyters came together for the transaction of busi- 
 ness, it became necessary that they should have a moderator 
 or president ; and they probably appointed one of the oldest 
 and most influential of their number to act in that capacity. 
 This appointment was undoubtedly first made as often as 
 they convened, the presbytery selecting different persons at 
 different times to act as their president. But it was soon 
 found more convenient to elect their presiding officer for a 
 longer period ; and they finally concluded to make their 
 most venerated presbyter moderator for life. But this pri- 
 ority or presidentship only existed during the continuance 
 of the meeting. When they adjourned or dissolved the 
 president was, in no sense, above his co-presbyters. Thus 
 the churches were governed for many years ; but, in pro- 
 cess of time, emulation and strife arose among the presby- 
 ters — each one endeavoring to gain an ascendency over 
 the rest, and attempting to draw off those members of the 
 church who, owing to circumstances, were particularly 
 attached to them, into separate parties. To allay this diffi- 
 culty and heal these divisions, it was concluded to take the 
 most influential and tried presbyter, and make him the sole 
 pastor of the church, with the title of bishop or overseer, 
 who was to administer the ordinances, and, in connection 
 with his presbytery, the government of the church. This 
 is exactly the history, as given by Jerome, of the origin of 
 parochial bishops : and these are the only bishops known in 
 the church for the first 250 or 300 years. Jerome says : 
 " Before there were, by the devil's instinct, parties in reli- 
 gion, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, I of 
 Apollos, and I of Cephas, the churches were governed by 
 the common council of presbyters. But afterwards, when 
 
THE RISE OF PRELACY. 131 
 
 every one thought that those whom he baptized were rather 
 his than Christ's, it was determined through the whole world, 
 that one of the presbyters should be set above the rest, to 
 whom all care of the churches should belong, that the seeds 
 of schism might be taken away." These bishops or pas- 
 tors were appointed over every particular church ; so that 
 they were parish ministers instead of diocesans. This has 
 been abundantly shown in previous lectures ; but perhaps it 
 may be well, in this place, to add a few facts which go far- 
 ther to illustrate this point. 
 
 The first that we mention is, that, as late as the fourth 
 century, the charge of a bishop, was called a parish, and 
 not a diocese.* Bishop Hobart, in his " Apology for Aposto- 
 lic orders and its advocates," admits (page 121) that, " in 
 
 * It is a fact worthy of notice, that the word Diocese was first used 
 by Constantine, to designate the larger civil divisions of the Roman 
 Empire : it was borrowed by the church from the state, as late as 
 the fourth century: 
 
 Lawrence Echard, Archdeacon of Lincoln, an Episcopalian u dyed 
 in the wool," in his Roman History, (Vol. II. b. 2, c. 7,) speaking of 
 Constantine, says : " He also new-modelled the empire, dividing it 
 into four quarters, over which were four principal governors, called 
 Prastorian Praefects. These contained fourteen dioceses, each gov- 
 erned by a Vicarius, or Lieutenant, under the Prsefects, residing at 
 the metropolis of the diocese ; and the dioceses were divided into 
 120 provinces, each ruled by a president residing at the chief city of 
 the province." Gibbon, in his "Decline and Fall of the Roman 
 Empire" (i.345), informs us that " the civil government of the empire 
 was distributed into thirteen great Dioceses, each of which equalled 
 the just measure of a powerful kingdom." The Episcopal Bingham 
 in his " Christian Antiquities," (B. IX. c. 1, sec. 3,) says, that "a 
 province was the cities of a whole region subjected to the authority 
 of one chief magistrate ;" a diocese was still a larger district, con- 
 taining several provinces within the compass of it. The division 
 into dioceses began only about the time of Constantine. In sec. 4, 
 he adds : " The church took her model, in setting up metropolitical 
 and patriarchal power, from this plan of the state." 
 
132 THE RISE OF PRELACY. 
 
 the early ages of Christianity, a bishop may have been 
 sometimes placed in a city or village where there was but 
 one congregation of Christians." Again (page 122) : " The 
 charge of a bishop is now called a diocese and that of a pres- 
 byter a parish; but, to the fourth century, the common name 
 of an Episcopal diocese was naooiMcx. — answering nearly to 
 the English word " parish " This fact is so clearly sustained 
 by the early history of the church, that even high church 
 Episcopalians cannot dispute it. And, pray, how shall we ac- 
 count for this change in the name of a bishop's charge, if 
 there was not a corresponding change in the thing itself? 
 The plain matter of fact is, that, previous to the fourth cen- 
 tury, a bishop's charge was called a parish because bishops 
 themselves were nothing more than parish pastors. After 
 that period, diocesan Episcopacy became rife in the churches, 
 and the name was changed from a parish to a diocese. 
 
 The second fact we shall mention, as going to prove 
 that the primitive bishops were parish pastors, having usually 
 but one church under their spiritual supervision, is, the custom 
 which then prevailed for the flock over which the bishop was 
 to be placed, to meet together for the purpose of chosoing him, 
 and the ordination of the individual thus elected always tak- 
 ing place in their presence. Not only does Cyprian and 
 other ancient fathers bear testimony to this practice, but 
 the historian Eusebius, in giving an account of the election 
 of Fabianus as bishop in Rome upon the death of Anterus, 
 says : " All the people met together in the church to choose 
 a successor, proposing several illustrious and eminent per- 
 sonages as fit for that office, whilst no one so much as thought 
 of Fabianus, then present, till a dove miraculously came 
 and set upon his head, in the same manner as the Holy 
 Ghost formerly descended on our Saviour. And then all 
 the people, guided as it were by one divine spirit, cried out 
 with one mind and soul, that Fabianus was worthy of the 
 bishoprick: and so, straightway taking him, they placed him on 
 
THE RISE OF PRELACV. 133 
 
 the Episcopal throne. " The very existence of such rules to 
 govern the election of their bishops, proves conclusively 
 that they were only parish pastors. Their adoption would 
 be impracticable in a diocese. Hence, they were entirely 
 laid aside when diocesan Episcopacy intruded itself into the 
 church. 
 
 A third fact, going to the same point, is this : we are 
 informed by early writers that the presbyters connected with 
 a bishop belonged to the same congregation, and took their 
 seat iciththe bishop, when the church ivas convened for public 
 worship. They even go so far as to tell us how they were 
 arranged : that the bishop sat in the middle of a semicircu- 
 lar bench, that the elders were seated on either side of him, 
 and that the deacons stood a little in advance, and in a place 
 somewhat lower, ready to discharge their appropriate duties. 
 In the Apostolic Constitution, Lib. II. c. 57, we find the 
 following direction given with reference to the ordinary ser- 
 vices of the sanctuary. " When thou, O Bishop, hast called 
 together the church of God, like the master of a ship require 
 them to assemble often with all prudence and regularity of 
 discipline. Command the deacons, as so many mariners, 
 that they appoint convenient places for all the brethren, as 
 for so many passengers, with all care and decency. And 
 first, let the house of worship be oblong, turned toward 
 the east, and like a ship. In the middle place let the bish- 
 op's seat be, and on both sides of him let the presbyters sit; 
 but let the deacons stand ready for service, lightly clothed, 
 for they are like the mariners, and those that order the sides 
 of the ship. By their care let the laymen sit quietly and or- 
 derly in one part of the church, and the women also by 
 themselves, abstaining from talking. Let the reader, stand- 
 ing in the middle of the same high place, read the books of 
 Moses, &/C. The reading being finished, let another sing 
 the hymns of David. Then let our acts and epistles be re- 
 cited. After these things, let the presbyters exhort the 
 
134 THE RISE OF PRELACY. 
 
 people ; and last of all the bishop, who is like the master of 
 a ship. Let the door-keepers stand at the church doors, 
 where the men enter, and the deaconesses where the women 
 enter. If any be found sitting out of his own place, let the 
 deacons reprove him, and let him be conducted to a proper 
 place. Let the deacons take care that none whisper, sleep, 
 laugh, nod, &/C After the catechumens and penitent have 
 retired, let the deacons prepare for the celebration of the 
 Eucharist," &c. "No one," says Dr. Miller, "can read 
 these rules without perceiving that they relate to the ordi- 
 nary worship of Christian assemblies, when convened on the 
 Sabbath. To doubt this, is to fly in the face of common 
 sense. Yet we find the presence of the bishop in every public 
 service sp«ken of as indispensable. Is it not manifest that 
 this bishop could only have been pastor of a single flock V 
 
 The last fact we shall mention, going to show that the 
 bishops of the early church were only parish bishops, is the 
 great number of such bishops found in small districts of 
 country. Eusebius informs us that, at the council of Anti- 
 och, held in the year 260 concerning Paul, Bishop of 
 Antioch, there were present more than 600 bishops. In 
 the year 410, Augustine and the bishops of his pro- 
 vince in Africa held a conference with the Donatists, at 
 which conference there were present between 500 and 600 
 bishops. Here then, in districts of country not larger than 
 some of our states, we find 500 or 600 bishops. Could they 
 have been any thing more than parish bishops ? We are in- 
 formed by Victor Uticensis in his book, " De Persecutione 
 Vandalica," that, from the part of Africa in which the per- 
 secution took place, 660 bishops fled, besides a great num- 
 ber that were murdered or imprisoned, and many more who 
 were tolerated. Upon this fact, Dr. Miller remarks as fol- 
 lows : " Now, when it is recollected that this persecution 
 extended only to a small portion of Africa, and that it was 
 carried on by one denomination of professing Christians 
 
THE RISE OF PRELACY. 135 
 
 against another, we are necessarily led to conclude that there 
 must have been, in that section of Africa alone, at least two 
 thousand bishops. Could these have been prelates, each 
 with a number of congregations and pastors under his care ? 
 It is incredible. They could not have been more than or- 
 dinary pastors of single congregations." Bishop White, in 
 his " Case of the Episcopal Churches, &,c," makes the follow- 
 ing statement: ." There having been an Episcopal power 
 lodged by Jesus Christ with his Apostles, and by them ex- 
 ercised generally in person, but sometimes by delegation, as 
 in the cases of Timothy and Titus, the same was conveyed 
 by them, before their decease, to one pastor in each church, 
 which generally comprehended all the Christians in a city 
 and a convenient surrounding district." The learned Field, 
 in his celebrated work of the church, says : " The Apostles 
 of Christ and their successors so divided the people of God 
 converted by their ministry into particular churches, that 
 each city and the places near adjoining did make but one 
 church." He then adds : " Though there be many presbyters, 
 i. e., many fatherly guides of our church, yet there is one 
 among the rest that is specially pastor of the place ; who, for 
 distinction's sake, is named a bishop." We have some rare 
 testimony upon this point from the " Tracts for the Times," 
 which, as our author never has read, he cannot be supposed 
 to know any thing about. In Tract No. 15, we find the 
 following paragraph : "In early times, as is well known, all 
 Christians thought substantially alike, and found one great 
 body all over the world, called the church catholic or univer- 
 sal. This great body, consisting of a vast number of sepa- 
 rate churches with each of them its own bishop at its head," 
 &c. In Tract 33, we find the following statement : " Few 
 persons, who have not expressly examined the subject, are 
 aware of the minuteness of the dioceses into which many 
 parts of Christendom were divided in the first ages. Some 
 churches in Italy were more like our rural deaneries than 
 
136 
 
 THE RISE OF PRELACY. 
 
 what we now consider dioceses, being not above ten or 
 twelve miles in extent , and their sees not above ten or twelve 
 miles from each other. Even now (or at least in Bingham's 
 time) the kingdom of Naples contains 147 sees, of which 
 twenty are archbishopricks ." It should be recollected that the 
 kingdom of Naples is scarcely as large as the state of 
 Maine ; and yet it contains 147 sees ! Surely this looks very 
 much like parochial bishopricks. We suspect that if the 
 state of Maine were divided among 147 Episcopal bishops, 
 the difference between her dioceses and parishes would be 
 considered of little consequence. We are inclined to be- 
 lieve that her dioceses would then far outnumber her present 
 number of parishes. 
 
 The existence of the above named facts are so notori- 
 ous thatt hey will not be denied by any intelligent Episcopa- 
 lian ; and they certainly go to establish the position that, for 
 full 300 years, nothing more than parochial episcopacy was 
 known in the church. Diocesan Episcopacy took its rise 
 mainly from the influence of metropolitan or city bishops 
 over the bishops of the surrounding villages and country par- 
 ishes. The influence of those numerous councils which 
 were held upon various subjects, by the early church, was 
 greatly to increase the authority of the metropolitan bish- 
 ops over their brethren. We find that, in the year 347, a 
 law was passed by the council of Sardis, against placing 
 bishops in small cities or villages. The object and effect of 
 this law was undoubtedly to increase the influence and au- 
 thority of those bishops who resided in large cities. It was 
 not very strictly adhered to for some time ; but villiage bish- 
 ops went into disuse by degrees, and their parishes were 
 added to the charges of the several metropolitans. Thus it 
 was that diocesan episcopacy originated in the church of 
 God. It was not Apostolical in its origin, but grew out of 
 the pride and ambition of an unsanctified priesthood. Even in 
 the last half of the third century, the bishops began to usurp 
 
THE RISE OF PRELACY. 
 
 137 
 
 to themselves great authority, and to trample upon the 
 rights of the presbyters and churches. Constantine, who 
 came to the imperial throne in the fourth century, greatly 
 aided these usurpations, and conferred upon the whole eccle- 
 siastical system a degree of splendor, to which until then 
 it had been an entire stranger. " He assumed unto himself 
 the right of calling general councils, of presiding in them, 
 of determining controversies, and of fixing the bounds of ec- 
 clesiastical provinces. He formed the prelatical govern- 
 ment, after the imperial model, into great prefectures ; in 
 which arrangement, a certain pre-eminence was conferred on 
 the bishops of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantino- 
 ple; the first rank being always reserved for the bishop of 
 Rome, who succeeded in gradually extending his usurpa- 
 tions, until he was finally confirmed in it by an imperial de- 
 cree." We are sustained in this brief outline of the rise of 
 Episcopacy and its papal result by Mosheim, Gibbon, the Epis- 
 copal Haweis, and other eminent historians. In view of these 
 indisputable facts, that eminent Episcopal divine, professor 
 Whittaker, remarks, upon the subject of the introduction of 
 prelacy into the church, as a remedy against schism, that 
 " the remedy was almost worse than the disease ; for, as at 
 first, one presbyter was set over the rest and made bishop, 
 so, afterwards, one bishop was set over the other bishops. 
 Thus that custom begot the pope and his monarchy, and 
 brought them, by little and little, into the church.' ' How 
 exactly the history of the church, in the rise and progress of 
 prelacy, unfolds the fulfilment of the prediction of St. Paul 
 which is contained in our text : " For the mystery of iniquity 
 doth already work : only he who now letteth, will let, until he 
 be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be 
 revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his 
 mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." 
 When Constantine came to the throne, the Roman govern- 
 ment, instead of impeding the progress of prelatical power, 
 
138 THE RISE OF PRELACY. 
 
 became its most powerful auxiliary ; and very soon " the 
 man of sin, the son of perdition, was revealed," who opposeth 
 and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is 
 worshipped ; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, 
 showing himself that he is God." We perceive, from these 
 statements, that the prelacy has once produced the papacy. 
 And we should ever recollect that human nature is the same 
 in every age, and in every clime ; that, " as face answereth 
 to face in water, so the heart of man to man ;" that like 
 causes, under like circumstances, produce like effects What 
 Christian or patriot, with his mind enlightened as to the past, 
 would be willing to nourish such a system in the heart of 
 Republicanism and of the American church? " Who is 
 wise? he shall understand these things; prudent? and he 
 shall know them." 
 
LECTURE IX. 
 
 THE CLAIMS TO APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION EXAMINED. 
 
 John viii. 41. — " They answered and said unto him, Abraham is 
 our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, 
 ye would do the works of Abraham." 
 
 The Jews in the time of Christ had lost the spirit and 
 power of their religion, the form only remained. The 
 Saviour endeavored to convince them that their confidence in 
 ceremonial observances, without piety of heart and life, 
 would prove a fatal delusion. But they effectually repelled 
 his benevolent instructions and faithful reproofs, by answer- 
 ing, with characteristic complacency, " Abraham is our 
 father;" i. e., "We belong to the only true church, are 
 descendants in a direct line from father Abraham ; and this 
 fact is alone sufficient to entitle us to the sole benefit of 
 those ' covenanted mercies ' which God has made over to 
 that patriarch." 
 
 There is such a marked resemblance between this method 
 of reasoning and that adopted by high churchmen, in regard 
 to their " true succession," as they term it, that we are al- 
 most inclined to believe it is borrowed from the ancient 
 Jews. 
 
 The subject which claims our attention in the present 
 lecture is this so called " Apostolical succession ;" that is, 
 the pretended succession of bishops in a direct and unbroken 
 line from the college of Apostles. This the Episcopal 
 church profess to possess ; and to possess it to the exclusion 
 of all other Protestant denominations. They pretend to give 
 
140 THE CLAIMS TO APOSTOLICAL 
 
 us a list of bishops which run directly through that church 
 which is called " the mother of harlots/' up to the Apostles 
 Peter and Paul. We intend at the present time to examine 
 somewhat this wonderful line of succession, so entire and 
 unbroken in all its parts, and see upon what " indisputable 
 evidence it is founded." In entering upon this examination, 
 the hearer must keep in mind the importance which the 
 " only true church " attaches to this part of the subject. 
 Unless a clergyman can trace his ordination through a line 
 of prelates directly to the Apostles, he has no right to preach, 
 and the ordinances he administers are null and void. Those 
 who call themselves churches, yet are without such a line 
 of prelates, are, in fact, no churches ; and even to call their 
 places of public worship churches is a misnomer. They 
 are nothing but " houses." It is worthy of remark, that 
 Bishop Delancy, the present bishop of the diocese of 
 Western New York, in his report to the recent Episcopal 
 convention held at Auburn, of his yearly tour through the 
 diocese, invariably calls Episcopal meeting-houses " church- 
 es ;" and those of other denominations, where, out of polite- 
 ness, he was admitted to preach, simply " houses." Thus 
 he preached in the Episcopal churches of Lockport, but at 
 Niagara Falls he preached in the Presbyterian house. And 
 why all this arrogance ? Simply because Episcopacy pre- 
 tends to possess the ministerial succession, to the exclusion 
 of other denominations: Prelatical succession is considered 
 by them of such overshadowing importance, that, to be 
 without it, unchurches even the brick and mortar and 
 timber of a meeting-house. The very beams from the walls 
 of our sanctuaries must cry out for a prelate, and be conse- 
 crated by an Episcopal bishop, or they have no right to be 
 called churches. Certainly, then, a succession which is of 
 such importance as to reach to the very materials of a 
 church edifice, should be founded upon very clear and 
 indisputable historic testimony. It should likewise be 
 
SUCCESSION EXAMINED. 141 
 
 borne in mind, that the strength of this successive chain is 
 only as the strength of its weakest link ; for, if there be a 
 single link deficient or wanting, it vitiates the whole suc- 
 ceeding part of this chain. By examining the appendix to 
 the " Enquiry into the Ministerial Commission/' the hearer 
 will find a catalogue of successive bishops from Peter and 
 Paul to Bishop White. In this catalogue, Peter is put down 
 as the head of the Jewish, and Paul as the head of the 
 Gentile Christian church at Rome. Linus and Cletus are 
 said to be Paul's successors, and Clement the successor of 
 Peter. We are likewise told that Clement survived Cletus, 
 and united both churches in one. Where our author 
 obtained so much information we are entirely uninformed ; 
 certain we are that there is no sufficient testimony from 
 Scripture, or any other source, that Paul was ever bishop of 
 the Gentile church at Rome. We are informed in the Acts 
 of the Apostles that Paul was carried a prisoner to Rome, 
 and that, after his arrival, he was suffered to preach to the 
 inhabitants of that city in his own hired house, for the space 
 of two years; but certainly there is no evidence that he was 
 the settled bishop of that church ; on the contrary, there is 
 every thing to contradict it. All the testimony which is at 
 all relied upon by the learned, goes to make Linus and 
 Cletus Peter's successors in the same sense with Clement. 
 I know that we are told by our author, that " the author of 
 the Apostolic Constitutions makes Linus to have been 
 ordained bishop of Rome by St. Paul." Will our author be 
 kind enough to inform us who was the author of the 
 Apostolic Constitutions, and when they were written ? They 
 are admitted to have been a forgery ; and while, like any 
 other work of fiction, they may be evidence of the customs 
 of the times in which they were written, it would be the 
 height of absurdity to rely upon them as authentic testi- 
 mony of a historical fact. The opinion that Linus and 
 Cletus succeeded Paul to the exclusion of Peter in the 
 
142 THE CLAIMS TO APOSTOLICAL 
 
 bishoprick of Rome, is comparatively of recent date, and 
 was invented to reconcile, if possible, the conflicting testi- 
 mony of the early fathers upon this subject. We shall treat 
 it as it deserves to be treated, as a mere dream of the imagi- 
 nation, and dismiss it without further remark. 
 
 The first question then to be settled in our present in- 
 quiry is, Was Peter ever bishop of Rome? We have no 
 testimony from Scripture that Peter ever saw Rome ; and 
 all the testimony we have upon the subject in history, is 
 founded upon the most vague and uncertain tradition. But, 
 supposing him to have visited Rome, and to have resided 
 there for a season, we have not the least shadow of evidence 
 that he ever was the fixed bishop of that church. Bishop 
 White, in a dissertation upon this subject, says : " It is pro- 
 posed to prove, in this section, that St. Peter was never pro- 
 perly bishop of the church of Rome ; that some occasional 
 expressions of the early fathers, which seem to favor the 
 opinion here denied, admit of a different interpretation," &c. 
 But suppose, for the sake of argument, we admit Peter to 
 have been the true and proper bishop of Rome ; pray, who 
 was his successor ? In answering this question, the early 
 fathers contradict each other, and make perfect confusion, 
 showing that they knew nothing with certainty about it. 
 Irenseus is the earliest father produced by our opponents to 
 testify upon this subject. He says Linus was the first bishop 
 of Rome, without saying a word as to when or by whom 
 he was constituted such a bishop. When asked how he 
 knows this to be a fact? he answers, " it is held as a tradi- 
 tion from the Apostles;" so that all the knowledge he has on 
 the subject, is that which he has received from tradition. 
 Eusebius agrees with Irenseus in testifying that Linus was 
 first bishop of Rome next to the Apostles. He says, " after the 
 martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was the first who received 
 the episcopate at Rome." Here mark — Eusebius, the favorite 
 historian of high church Episcopalians, declares that Linus 
 
SUCCESSION EXAMINED. 143 
 
 did not receive the episcopate until after the martyrdom of 
 Paul and Peter. Certainly, then, he could not have received 
 it from either of these Apostles ; for surely this livin genergy 
 could not proceed from dead hands. From whom then did 
 Linus receive the episcopate 1 Will high churchmen answer 
 this question 1 But, pray, how and what does Eusebius 
 know about these early bishops? He shall answer for him- 
 self: he says, " But how many and which of these, actuated 
 by a genuine zeal, were judged suitable to feed the churches 
 established by these Apostles, it is not easy to show further 
 than may be gathered from the writings of Paul. ,J Just so 
 we think. All on this subject that Eusebius could rely 
 upon as correct, were such facts as he could derive from the 
 sacred writings. The rest was dark and ambiguous tradi- 
 tion. He says expressly, that, in collecting the materials of 
 his history, " he was obliged to rely much on tradition, and 
 that he could trace no footsteps of those going before him, 
 only a few narratives." A very safe testimony this, upon 
 which to rest the certainty of a succession which is necessary 
 to the very existence of the church of God ! We have seen 
 that Irenseus and Eusebius inform us that Linus was the 
 first bishop of Rome next to the Apostles. Jerome and Au- 
 gustine are of the same opinion ; but Tertullian, Rufinus, 
 and Epiphanius, say Clement succeeded Peter. Jerome says, 
 " Most of the Latin authors supposed the order to be Clem- 
 ent the successor of Peter." Here, then, at the first link in 
 this wonderful chain, so lucidly defined by high churchmen, 
 there is zgross confusion and contradiction, without so much 
 as the shadow of certainty. Bishop Taylor says, " The fathers 
 were infinitely deceived in their account and enumeration of 
 traditions." Cabassute, the distinguished papal historian of 
 the councils, says, " It is a very doubtful question concern- 
 ing Linus, Cletus, and Clemens, which of them succeeded 
 Peter." Dr. Comber says, " Upon the whole matter there 
 is no certainty who was bishop of Rome next to the Apostles, 
 
144 THE CLAIMS TO APOSTOLICAL 
 
 and therefore Romanists build upon an ill bottom when they 
 lay so great weight upon their personal succession." Not 
 being able to ascertain with the least degree of certainty who 
 was the second bishop of Rome, let us see whether we can 
 meet with any better success in inquiring after the third. 
 We find, in the catalogues of papists, and high churchmen, 
 the name of Cletus put down as filling this place. But, pray, 
 who was Cletus? Hear again the Episcopal Dr. Comber: 
 " The like blunder there is about the next Pope — the fabu- 
 lous pontifical makes Cletus succeed Linus, and gives us sev- 
 eral lives of Cletus and Anacletus, making them of several 
 nations, and to have been popes at different times, putting 
 Clement between them. Yet the aforesaid learned Bishop 
 of Chester (Pearson) proves that these were only two names 
 for the same person ; but the notes attempt to justify the 
 forged pontifical by impudently affirming that Ignatius (An- 
 acletus's cotemporary), Irengeus,Eusebius, St. Augustine, and 
 Optatus, were all mistaken or all wronged by their transcrib- 
 ers, who leave out Cletus. But every candid reader will 
 rather believe the mistake to be in the pontifical, (which is a 
 mere heap of errors,) and in the Roman Martyrology and 
 Missal, which blindly followed it, than in those ancient 
 and eminent Fathers. And every one may see the folly 
 of the Romish church, which venerates two several saints on 
 two several days, one of which never had a real being ; for 
 Cletus is but the abbreviation for Anacletus' s name." The 
 hearer may judge from this extract how very certain it is 
 who was the third bishop of Rome. The papists and high- 
 churchmen make Clement the fourth bishop of Rome. But 
 Tertullian, Rufinus, Epiphanius, and " most of the Latin au- 
 thors," inform us that Clement was the second bishop, and the 
 immediate successor of St. Peter. Thus we might, my hear- 
 ers, if we had time, trace this wonderful succession link after 
 link, and show you that it is enveloped in the most glorious 
 uncertainty. And yet we are told that, in order to have a 
 
SUCCESSION EXAMINED. 145 
 
 right to preach and administer ordinances, we must be able 
 to trace our ordination, through a line of prelates up to the 
 Apostles. We suspect, if this is to be the test, our lawn- 
 sleeved Diocesans will be compelled to lay aside their pon- 
 tifical robes, and confess that they have no authority to offi- 
 ciate in the sacred office. 
 
 There are certain well authenticated facts, which go to 
 show still further the entire uncertainty of Apostolic suc- 
 cession, as it is called, in the church of Rome, which we 
 will briefly state in this place. 
 
 1st. For several centuries the popes were in fact created 
 by the emperors, or, as Bishop Burnet says, " were made 
 upon the emperors' mandates;" and their appointment gave 
 occasions for such scenes of intrigue, debauchery, violence, 
 and bloodshed, as the world has scarcely witnessed before 
 or since. " Nor," says Bishop Burnet, " did the emperors 
 part easily with this right ; but, after that, the Othos and 
 Henrys kept up their pretensions, and came oft to Rome and 
 made many popes ; and though most of the popes so made were 
 generally antipopes and schismatics, yet someof them, as Cle- 
 ment the second, are put in the catalogues by Baronius, and 
 Binnius,andbythe late publishers of the councils, Labberand 
 Cossartius. There was, indeed, great opposition made to 
 this at Rome ; but, let even their own historians be appealed 
 to, what a series of monsters, and not men, those popes were ; 
 how infamously they were elected — often by the harlots of 
 Rome ; and how flagitious they were, we refer it to Baro- 
 nius himself, who could not deny this, for all his partiality, 
 in his great work." But let us hear the testimony of this 
 Cardinal Baronius himself, who was one of the most power- 
 ful champions of the papacy. Speaking of the commence- 
 ment of the tenth century, he exclaims, " O ! what was 
 then the face of the holy Roman church ! how filthy, when 
 the vilest and most powerful harlots ruled in the court of 
 Rome ! by whose arbitrary sway dioceses were made and 
 
146 THE CLAIMS TO APOSTOLICAL 
 
 unmade ; bishops were consecrated ; and, which is inex- 
 pressibly horrible to be mentioned, FALSE POPES— 
 THEIR PARAMOURS— were thrust into the chair of 
 Peter, who, in being numbered as popes, serve no purpose, ex- 
 cept to fill up the catalogue of the popes of Rome. For who 
 can say that persons thrust into the popedom without any 
 law, by harlots of this sort, were legitimate popes of Rome? 
 In these elections, no mention is made of the acts of the 
 clergy, either of their choosing the pope at the time of his 
 election, or of their consent afterward. All the canons were 
 suppressed into silence ; the voice of the decrees of former 
 pontiffs was not allowed to be heard. Ancient traditions 
 were proscribed ; the customs formerly practised in electing 
 the pope, with the sacred rights and pristine usages, were all 
 extinguished. In this manner, LUST, supported by secular 
 power, excited to frenzy in the rage for dominion, ruled in 
 all things" Here we perceive that harlots ruled at the 
 Court of St. Peter ; harlots made and unmade dio- 
 ceses ; harlots thrust false popes, their paramours, 
 
 INTO THE VERY CHAIR OF St. PeTER. And THESE FALSE 
 
 popes, thus created, go to fill up the catalogues of 
 the popes of Rome. Truly, this is Apostolical, with 
 a vengeance ! Through such a source Episcopal prelates 
 must have received the " virus of ordination" entirely un- 
 tainted, possessing all its living energies. 
 
 2d. The schisms which so frequently obtained concern- 
 ing the popedom, is another evidence of the very great un- 
 certainty attending the succession. There were frequently 
 two, three, and sometimes four claimants to the popedom, at 
 the same time. When this was the case, the church be- 
 came divided into parties, which were arrayed against each 
 other ; and the one which was most cunning and powerful, by 
 intrigue, bribery, and bloodshed, succeeded against the 
 others. Onuphirus Pauvinius, and other papal historians, 
 admit that there were more than twenty such schisms pre- 
 
SUCCESSION EXAMINED. 
 
 147 
 
 vious to the fourteenth century. Some of them continued 
 for forty years. Says our author upon this point, " We 
 sometimes, indeed, hear it urged as an objection to tracing 
 the succession through Rome, that there were, at one time, 
 two or more claimants to the papacy; each of whom de- 
 nounced the other as a usurper. Now, this objection, at 
 first sight, is plausible ; but a moment's reflection is suffi- 
 cient 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 they were not all bishops ? It proves 
 nothing on this point. For, in the first place, they may 
 have been bishops prior to their election to the papacy. If 
 so, the matter is at once put to rest; and if they were pres- 
 byters, they must have been made bishops when they were 
 consecrated to the papacy." Our author has a wonderful 
 short-metre way of putting things -• to rest." We think the 
 following facts will somewhat disturb the " rest" of this 
 point, which he has so easily disposed of. 
 
 1. The councils of Nice, of Antioch, of Chalcedon, and 
 other councils, prohibited the transfer of bishops from one 
 bishoprick to another, and these canons would be likely to 
 prevent those who were before bishops from being elected 
 to the bishoprick of Rome. 
 
 2. For about one thousand years we have no evidence 
 that any individual, already a bishop, was elected to the 
 bishoprick of Rome. During that period there had been a 
 hundred bishops of Rome, and thirteen schisms in the pope- 
 dom. 
 
 3. Will our author maintain that a pretender to a 
 bishoprick, who should be sustained in his pretensions, and 
 consecrated to that bishoprick by a party, but who after- 
 wards should be put down as a usurper, is, nevertheless, by 
 virtue of his disorderly consecration, a bishop, and his acts 
 as such valid ? Certainly, our author is not prepared to take 
 such ground ; and vet he must assume it before he can 
 
148 THE CLAIMS TO APOSTOLICAL 
 
 prove that these pretenders were consecrated bishops, and 
 that their official acts are valid. 
 
 4. It is according to the principles of the church of 
 Rome, and, we believe, of the American Episcopal church, 
 that, to qualify a man for the bishoprick, he must previously 
 have been ordained priest ; but several of the bishops of 
 Rome were previously nothing but laymen ; they never were 
 ordained to the priesthood. Now it is a question which we 
 should like to see answered — Could one of these lay bishops, 
 who never was ordained to the priestly office, lawfully or- 
 dain others to that office ? 
 
 5. Several of those who, for a time, filled the papal chair 
 were afterward deposed as usurpers. Yet, these usurpers 
 consecrated many archbishops and bishops, some of whom 
 (as we shall presently see) belonged to the English church. 
 With these facts staring them in the face, how can high 
 churchmen affirm that their apostolic succession is every way 
 invulnerable ; and how dare our author make the bold as- 
 sertion — " that the succession in the church of Rome has 
 never, in a single instance, been contested?" There is no 
 truth in such assertions. So far from it, that eminent Epis- 
 copalians have given it up as untenable and absurd. Pri- 
 deaux, an eminent Episcopalian, declares, that upon " this 
 subject no certainty is to be had." Howell, a very learned 
 churchman, says, " Here it is evident how very doubtful and 
 uncertain is the personal succession of the Roman bishops." 
 The before cited Episcopal Dr. Comber, declares, " There is 
 neither truth nor certainty in the pretended personal 
 succession of the first popes." Other testimony might be 
 added, but these are abundantly sufficient. 
 
 We come now to the English succession, and propose to 
 notice a few facts which go to show the very great uncer- 
 tainty that attaches to the question of its validity. 
 
 1. Plegmund, archbishop of Canterbury, A. D. 891, 
 was ordained to his bishoprick by Pope Formosus. Pope 
 
SUCCESSION EXAMINED. 149 
 
 / 
 
 Stephen VI. at the head of his council, and afterwards Pope 
 Sergius III., declared the ordinations which Formosus had 
 administered to be void, and ordered those who had re- 
 ceived them to be reordainsd. Plegmund never was reor- 
 dained ; and yet he ordained most of the bishops of England 
 for twenty-six years. Will high churchmen inform us what 
 becomes of the succession in this instance? 
 
 2. Henry Chickley, archbishop of Canterbury, A. D. 1414, 
 was ordained by Pope Gregory XII. This Gregory XII. was 
 only a pretender to the popedom. He was declared by a church 
 council, held at Constance A. D. 1415, to be "no pope of 
 Rome" — "No bishop at all." He was displaced from the 
 papal chair, and John XXIII. or XXIV. declared to be the 
 lawful pope. Yet this usurper ordained Chickley, and he con- 
 tinued to ordain English bishops and archbishops for twenty- 
 nine years. " What an unbroken line of valid ordinations 1" 
 
 3. The see of Armagh was, for eight generations, occu- 
 pied by individuals who had never received any ordination 
 whatever. It is admitted by Hooker, who is a standard 
 author among Episcopalians, that ordination had frequently 
 been effected icithout a bishop to ordain ; therefore, says he, 
 " we are not simply without exception to urge a lineal 
 descent of power from the Apostles by continued succes- 
 sions of bishops, in every effectual ordination." 
 
 4. There is no record which can be relied upon, of the 
 succession in the English church either in Britain or at 
 Rome, for nearly ?ix hundred years, — up to the time when 
 Augustine was sent to establish Christianity in Britain. The 
 Episcopal Stillingfleet affirms, "that by the loss of records 
 of the British churches, we cannot draw down the succes- 
 sion of bishops from the Apostles' time;" and adds, " if we 
 come to Rome, here the succession is as muddy as the Ti- 
 ber itself." " What shall we say," he asks, " to extricate our- 
 selves out of this labyrinth ?" 
 
 5 At the Reformation the English churches were not 
 7 
 
150 THE CLAIMS TO APOSTOLIC 
 
 only excommunicated and anathematized by the pope, but 
 they entirely repudiated his authority, and placed their 
 king in his stead. They acknowledged their king to 
 be the fountain of ecclesiastical power ; the Supreme Head 
 in earth of the English church. Bishops took out their 
 commissions from him, and submitted to be deprived of their 
 orders by him. How is it possible, after this excommuni- 
 cation, repudiation, and substitution, for the English 
 church, with any confidence or propriety, to go back to 
 Rome for their Apostolic succession? 
 
 6. The validity of the ordination of Archbishcp Parker, 
 upcn which Episcopalians admit the validity of their succes- 
 sion very much depends, has ever been considered exceeding- 
 ly doubtful, both as to the form of ordination used at the time, 
 and the persons who ordained him. We have not time to 
 go at length into this matter. It will be sufficient for our 
 present purpose to state, that the validity of this ordination 
 became an affair of so much dispute, that Parliament deem- 
 ed it necessary to pass an act declaring it valid. Perhaps 
 the British Parliament had the power, by declaring it to be 
 so, to render this ordination truly Apostolical I The very 
 lame defence of Parker's ordination by our author shows 
 that its validity is extremely doubtful. " But," says he, 
 " even upon the supposition that Parker's consecration was 
 not valid, it would not vitiate the ordinations performed by 
 him, for he was always assisted by other bishops whose con- 
 secration was undisputed, and the succt^ R m would descend 
 through them." We will reply to this remark in the lan- 
 guage of the learned Powell. He says, " In the ordination 
 of a bishop, there is always one bishop who alone consecrates. 
 This is the universal language of the rituals on the subject. 
 The other bishops who take part in the ceremony are rather 
 there as icitnesses, than as consecrators. The ancient rituals 
 never speak of more than one ccnsecrator. In all the 
 ancient Greek forms of ordination, as exhibited by Morinus, 
 
SUCCESSION EXAMINED. 151 
 
 one bishop only lays his hand upon the head of the person to 
 be ordained ; the other bishops touching the Gospels placed 
 upon the head of the person to be ordained. In the Roman 
 church the other bishops touched his head, but did not lay 
 their hands on his head. One bishop only pronounced the 
 consecration prayer. This was, in ninety-nine cases cf a 
 hundred, either the pope or the archbishop. See Morinus, 
 Part II., pages 234 and 253. The consecration of bishops, 
 therefore, always depended upon the capability of the one 
 bishop ivho consecrated ; and whenever he was found to be 
 really incompetent, the general rule was to quash all his or- 
 dinations." " The rule just stated," continues this author, 
 "makes it difficult to prove the validity of Archbishop Parker's 
 consecration, upon which all the present ordinations and 
 consecrations of the English church, since their formation, 
 depends. Barlow was his only consecrator ; but there is 
 not full proof that Barlow himself was consecrated. The 
 acts of the consecration of bishops are generally registered 
 in the archives of the archbishop ; but no registration of 
 Barlow's consecration can be found." So much for Arch- 
 bishop Parker's consecration. But we are told, by our au- 
 thor, that the English church have no need to trace their 
 succession through the church of Rome ; and he more than 
 intimates that they are able to trace it through the ancient 
 Briton bishops up to the Apostle Paul. If this is the case, 
 we are surprised that our author, in his ample appendix, did 
 not give us another catalogue of Apostolic succession, run- 
 ning in that direction. It is passing strange that he should 
 content himself with giving the line of succession which 
 runs up through the " mother of harlots" when he had at 
 hand a much purer line, by taking the direction of the an- 
 cient Briton bishops. Two remarks will be sufficient to 
 spoil the face of the newly discovered road to the Apostles. 
 1. If we can gather any thing definite upon the subject 
 from history, these bishops were nothing more than presbyter 
 
152 THE CLAIMS TO APOSTOLIC 
 
 bishops. It is very certain that the papal church consider- 
 ed their consecration entirely invalid; for Theodore, arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury, finding that Wini had suffered two of 
 these Briton bishops to assist him in consecrating a bishop, 
 by the name of Chadda, declared Chadda's consecration to 
 be illegal and void, and himself reordained him. Now, the 
 archbishop would never have taken this course, if there had 
 not been, in his opinion, some fatal defect in the consecration 
 of these bishops. 
 
 2. It is a fact, not disputed by any, that, along time pre- 
 vious to the English reformation, the Briton bishops em- 
 braced the papal religion, and became incorporated into the 
 papal church; so that it is impossible that the English 
 church should claim any succession through them, separate 
 from the papacy. Besides, it is notorious that the present 
 English race are not descended from the ancient Britons, 
 nor have they ever had any intimate connexion with them. 
 They came down from the Saxons, who conquered the Bri- 
 tons, and drove their bishops into Wales. The truth is, that 
 the English church have never attempted to trace their pre- 
 latical succession up to the Apostles, in any other line than 
 that which runs directly through the church of Rome ; and 
 we flatter ourselves that we have succeeded in proving that 
 to be defective enough. 
 
 We come now to consider the A mcrican succession. This 
 has been held by some Episcopalians as defective in several 
 points. By this we mean that sad defects have been said to 
 inhere in their prelatical succession since its introduction 
 into America. 
 
 1. Bishop Seabury received his consecration from the 
 non-juring bishops of Scotland. Now it is well known to 
 all who are at all informed upon this subject, that many emi- 
 nent Episcopalians, both of this and the mother country, 
 have considered the prelatical character of those Scottish 
 bishops as exceedingly doubtful. Bishop White affirms that 
 
PI 
 0( 
 
 SUCCESSION EXAMINED. 153 
 
 it was the doubts which existed, as to the validity of Bishop 
 eabury's Episcopacy, which actuated some in directing the 
 convention to England rather than to Scotland as the source 
 of the American Episcopate. 
 
 2. Many Episcopalians have thought that the consecration 
 of Bishops Hobart and Griswold was entirely defective and 
 void, owing to the omission of an essential part of the form 
 of consecration. There was. at the time, a warm contro- 
 versy carried on in the Episcopal church upon that subject. 
 From a pamphlet then published, entitled, " Serious thoughts 
 on a late administration of Episcopal orders, submitted to 
 the calm reflection of the bishops of the Protestant Episco- 
 pal church, with a postcript in answer to Dr. Bowden's es- 
 sentials of ordination stated," we take the following extracts : 
 " From the considerations which have been offered, serious 
 doubts at least are entertained, by many of its pious and in- 
 telligent members, of the validity of the consecration sup- 
 posed to be administered," &x. " Suppose these doubts to 
 be well founded ; suppose that, at some future period, when 
 the heat of passion is allayed, when, calm reflection is suf- 
 fered to be called into exercise, that then it shall be found 
 and acknowledged that the considerations here advanced 
 have weight, and that the consecration is attended with one 
 essential defect. What will then be the state of our church ? 
 Our priesthood invalid, our succession lost, numbers, under 
 a show of ordination, administering without authority; the 
 evil so extended as to be beyond the power of correction." 
 " For myself I am seriously and conscientiously persuaded 
 that the omission of the solemn words is material, that it is 
 essential, that it renders the whole form, besides, an utter 
 nullity." Thus you perceive that even the American suc- 
 cession has not existed without serious doubts and warm 
 controversies concerning its validity. And yet we are told 
 that unless we are prepared to admit this whole chain of suc- 
 cession, papacy and all, we are excluded the "covenanted 
 
154 THE CLAIMS TO APOSTOLIC 
 
 mercies of God" and have no right to the name and the or- 
 dinances of a Christian church. We, my brethren, should 
 be exceedingly thankful that high churchmen are not our 
 judges ; and that we have the blessed assurance that, upon 
 this subject, God's ways are not as their ways, nor his thoughts 
 as their thoughts. In the language of another, " We cannot 
 see how any man can attempt to sustain the validity and cer- 
 tainty of this personal succession during all previous ages. 
 Who shall lift this ponderous chain, even at its connection 
 with the Reformation, and carry it backwards until it is ap- 
 pended to Christ Jesus the rock of ages, the cause of causes — 
 so that from him may proceed the influence which may 
 propagate downwards to the very last point in the lengthen- 
 ing series? We again challenge the proof which has been 
 so boldly offered. And in default of this — and assuredly it 
 is wanting at every stage — we fearlessly scout the whole 
 hypothesis as wild, chimerical, fictitious, and unsupported, 
 either by history or Scripture" How mi>ch more rational, 
 my hearers, is the view of this subject taken by Presbytery, 
 as stated in a previous discourse, viz., that the ministerial 
 commission was given to the disciples as Presbyters and not 
 as Apostles ; that it is handed down to the church in the 
 line of presbyters or simple pastors, and not of diocesan 
 bishops : that if, by any means, there should be a flaw in the 
 succession, it would not invalidate the commission ; and 
 that every one who enters the ministry should be called im- 
 mediately by Christ through the Spirit, which call is indi- 
 cated to him by the state of his mind and the providences 
 of God towards him. The question whether he has been so 
 called to the ministry, is finally to be decided by the church 
 through hex presbyters ; and the act of ordination is the pub- 
 lic announcement of that decision, and the consecration of 
 the candidate, in the most solemn manner, to the work to 
 which he has been called by his Lord and Master. 
 
 We leave it for the hearer to judge whether, in these 
 
SUCCESSION EXAMINED. 155 
 
 discussions, we have succeeded in showing this to be the 
 Scripture view of the subject, sustained by the after history 
 of the church. We have now finished the arduous labc'r 
 which circumstances compelled us to undertake. It was 
 commenced with great reluctance, and has been carried ca 
 in the midst of great excitement and opposition ; and we 
 conclude it, with joy and thanksgiving to Almighty Gcd fcr 
 his sustaining arace unto the end. We have never, fi r one 
 moment, regretted the taking up of the subject, ncr the man- 
 ner in which we have discussed it; but we did seriously re- 
 gret the course of another, which made it necessary f r us 
 to turn aside from the more pleasant duties cf the ministry, 
 and enter the arena of controversy with a denomination with 
 whom we have lived for years in peace and amity. We are 
 perfectly willing that others should build their castles as they 
 please; but when they attack curs, and attempt to pull it 
 down about our ears, the law of self-defence must be obeyed. 
 The tendency cf high church principles is fast deveh ping 
 itself in the rapid strides which Puseyism is making in the 
 Episcopal church, both in the old world and in the new. 
 They lead to popery ; and if they do net bring those who 
 embrace them to such a result, it is owing to the goodness 
 of God in causing them to stop short cf the goal to which 
 they naturally conduct. We most sincerely wish that the 
 Episcopal church may purge herself of that dreadful heresy, 
 and adopt a form of government that will comport with the 
 simplicity and beauty cf that drapery which Christ has 
 thrown over his church, and the continued wearing cf which 
 the gospel so distinctly recommends. 
 

 APPENDIX. 
 
 There are a few things contained in the original " En- 
 quiry," and in certain anonymous pamphlets by the same 
 author, which seem to call for a miscellaneous notice. That 
 which first invites our attention is, an assertion made by 
 our author, upon the first page of the pamphlet entitled, 
 " Remarks on Mr. Wisner's first Lecture upon the subject 
 of Episcopacy and Presbytery." It is as follows: "Again, 
 it was stated that the * Queen was the head of the church 
 of England/ This is true only in part. The Queen, 
 together with the government, is the head of the political 
 and temporal affairs only of the church ; just so far as its 
 connection with the state makes it necessary, and no far- 
 ther. Neither the Queen or the Parliament have any 
 authority in spiritual matters, no control over the doctrines, 
 the discipline, or the ivorship of the church." It is a matter 
 of great surprise that the Rev. Author, in the face of an 
 intelligent community like ours, should make such asser- 
 tions as these. No wonder that he refused to append his 
 name to the pamphlet in which they are contained. Can 
 any one, at all acquainted with English law and English 
 history, pretend, with our author, that " neither the Queen 
 or the Parliament have any authority in spiritual matters — 
 no control over the doctrines, the discipline, or the worship 
 of the church V r Let us see what Sir Wm. Blackstone, in 
 his commentary upon English law, says upon this subject : 
 "The King," says he, Book I., chap, vii., "is lastly con- 
 sidered by the laws of England as the head and supreme 
 
APPENDIX. 157 
 
 governor of the national church. To enter into the reasons 
 upon which this prerogative is founded, is matter rather of 
 divinity than of law. I shall therefore only observe, that 
 by statute 26 Henry VIII. , chap. i. — reciting that the 
 King's majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the 
 supreme head of the church of England, and so had been 
 recognized by the clergy of the kingdom, (in their convoca- 
 tion) — it is enacted that the King shall be reputed the only 
 supreme head in earth of the church of England, and shall 
 have annexed to the imperial crown of this realm, as well 
 the title thereof, as all jurisdictions, authorities, commodities, 
 to the said dignity of the supreme head of the church ap- 
 pertaining. And another statute to the same purport, made 
 1 Elizabeth, c. i. : ' In virtue of this authority, the King 
 convenes, prorogues, restrains, regulates, and dissolves all 
 ecclesiastical synods or convocations. 5 " Again : " So that 
 the statute 25 Henry VIII., c. xix., which restrains the 
 convocation from making or putting in execution any 
 canons repugnant to the King's prerogative, or the laws, 
 customs, and statutes of the realm, was merely declaratory 
 of the old common law ; that part of it only being new 
 which makes the King's royal assent actually necessary to 
 the validity of every canon. ,} Once more : " From this 
 prerogative also of being the head of the church, arises the 
 King's right of nomination to vacant bishopricks, and 
 certain other ecclesiastical preferments, which will mere 
 properly be considered when we come to treat of the clergy. 
 I shall only here observe that this is now done in conse- 
 quence of the statute 25 Henry VIII., c. xx. As head of 
 the church, the King is likewise the dernier resort in all 
 ecclesiastical causes ; an appeal lying ultimately to him, in 
 chancery, from the sentence of every ecclesiastical judge ; 
 which right was restored to the crown by statute 25 Henry 
 VIII., c. xix., — as will be more fully shown hereafter. " 
 From all of which we learn that the King, as supreme 
 
 7* 
 
158 APPENDIX, 
 
 head of the English church, possesses the following preroga- 
 tives : 
 
 1. He convenes, prorogues, restrains, regulates, and 
 dissolves all ecclesiastical synods or convocations. 
 
 2. No ecclesiastical or canon law can be enacted by the 
 constituted authorities of the church, without his royal as- 
 sent. 
 
 3. He has a right to nominate to vacant bishopricks. 
 
 4. He is likewise the dernier resort in all ecclesiastical 
 causes — an appeal lying ultimately to him, in chancery, 
 
 from the sentence of every ecclesiastical judge. And yet 
 our author is bold to assert, that " neither the Queen or 
 Parliament have any authority in spiritual matters ; no con- 
 trol over the doctrines, the discipline, or the worship of the 
 church." Has he forgotten the " act of conformity," which 
 drenched England with the blood of her very best 
 citizens, and exiled our Puritan fathers to the wilds of 
 America? 
 
 We leave our author to settle this matter with Judge 
 Blackstone, and with every English historian who has ever 
 written upon the subject. There are two other prerogatives 
 to which we would refer the reader, in order that he may 
 judge how entirely the Kin^ ( r Queen) is the supreme ec- 
 clesiastical head of the church. 
 
 1. The King receives all resignations of archbisheps ; 
 they are made to him alone. Blackstone says, Book I., c. 
 xi., " All resignations must be made to some superior. 
 Therefore a bishop must resign to his metropolitan ; but the 
 archbishop can resign to none but the King himself" 
 
 2. English bishops cannot be appointed and consecrated 
 without a license from the King. Blackstone says, Book I., 
 c. xi , " But, by statute 25 Henry VIII., c. xx., the ancient 
 right of nomination was, in effect, restored to the crown ; 
 it being enacted, that, at every avoidance of a bisheprick, 
 the King may send the dean and chapter his usual license 
 
AFPENDIX. 159 
 
 to proceed to an election ; which is always to be accompa- 
 nied with a letter missive from the King, containing the 
 name of the person he would have them elect; and if the 
 dean and chapter delay their election above twelve days, the 
 nomination shall devolve to the King, who may, by letters 
 patent, appoint such persons as he pleases. This election, 
 or nomination, if it be of a bishop, must be signified by the 
 King's letters patent to the archbishop of the province ; if 
 it be an archbishop, the other archbishop and two bishops, 
 .or to four bishops; requiring them to confirm, invest, and 
 consecrate the person so elected, which they are bound to 
 perform immediately, without any application to the see of 
 Rome." That the King appoints the bishops is also evident 
 from the following quotation taken from an English work, 
 entitled, " Book of Denominations," page 395 : *' In the 
 church of England we have two archbishops. The name is 
 as antichristian as the thing. What aiethe duties cf the 
 office it is difficult to ascert lin. Those sustaining it hive 
 no functions distinct from the bishops, nor does it appear 
 that they hive any jurisdiction over them. They do not 
 appoint them ; the King does : and they cannot remove 
 them. They cannot, without the King's concurrence, cili 
 them together in convocation. Their sob use, theref re, 
 seems to be to rear their mitred fronts in caarts and pirli > 
 meats, to vote in the train of ministers, to rule their wide 
 an:l opulent dominions, count their enormous revenues, and 
 dispose of good livings to sans, brothers, nephews, cousins, 
 relations, and dependents without end, as lhair own interest 
 or the interest of ministers, reserved by special agreement, 
 may dictate." Daes our author know thit, after these 
 provinces were separated from the British crown and had 
 become a republic, Bishops White, Provost, and Madison, 
 were consecrated by English bishops, u ider a royal license, 
 in accord mce with an act of parliament especially enacted 
 to meet such cases? It is entitled, "An act to empower the 
 
160 APPENDIX. 
 
 archbishop of Canterbury or the archbishop of York, for 
 the time being, to consecrate to the office of bishcp, persons 
 being subjects or citizens of countries out of his majesty's 
 dominions." 
 
 THE ACT. 
 
 "Whereas, by the laws of this realm, no person can be 
 consecrated to the office of a Bishop without the King's 
 license for his election to that office, and the royal mandate 
 under the great seal for his confirmation and consecration ; 
 and whereas, every person who shall be consecrated to the 
 said office is required to take the oaths of allegiance and 
 supremacy, and also the oath of due obedience to the Arch- 
 bishop ; and whereas, there are divers persons, subjects or 
 citizens of countries out of his majesty's dominions, inhabit- 
 ing and residing within the said countries, who profess the 
 public worship of Almighty God according to the principles 
 of the Church of England, and who, in order to provide a 
 regular succession of ministers for the service of their 
 Church, are desirous of having certain of the subjects or 
 citizens of those countries consecrated Bishops according 
 to the form of consecration in the Church of England ; 
 Be it enacted, by the King's most excellent majesty, and by 
 and with the consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, 
 and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by 
 the authority of the same, that from and after the passing of 
 this act, it shall and may be lawful to and for the Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury or the Archbishop of York, for the 
 time being, together with such other Bishops as they shall 
 call to their assistance, to consecrate persons being subjects 
 or citizens of countries out of his majesty's dominions, 
 Bishops, for the purpose aforesaid, without the King's 
 license for their election, or the royal mandate under the 
 great seal for their confirmation and consecration, and with- 
 
APPENDIX. 161 
 
 out requiring them to take the oath of allegiance and 
 supremacy, and the oath of due obedience to the Archbishop 
 for the time being : Provided always, that no person shall be 
 consecrated Bishop in the manner herein provided, until 
 the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Archbishop of York, 
 for the time being, shall have first applied for and obtained 
 his majesty's license, by warrant under his royal signet and 
 sign manual, authorizing and empowering him to perform 
 such consecration ; and expressing the riame or names of the 
 persons so to be consecrated ; nor until the said Archbishop 
 has been fully ascertained of their sufficiency in good learn- 
 ing, of the soundness of their faith, and of the purity of their 
 manners : Provided also, and it is hereby declared, that no 
 person or persons consecrated to the office of a Bishop in 
 the manner aforesaid, nor any person or persons deriving 
 their consecration from or under any Bishops so consecrated, 
 or by the successor or successors of any Bishop so conse- 
 crated, shall be, hereby, enabled to exercise his or their 
 respective office or offices within his majesty's dominions," 
 &.c. Here then the reader may perceive the manner in 
 which the " true succession," as it is termed, was introduced 
 from England into the American Episcopal church, — 
 UNDER A ROYAL LICENSE IN ACCORDANCE 
 WITH A SPECIAL PARLIAMENTARY ENACT- 
 MENT FOR THE PURPOSE. In order to obtain it, 
 her Bishops must submit to the humiliating condition of 
 receiving consecration from an English Archbishop in such 
 a manner as to disqualify them from exercising their offices 
 in his majesty's dominions; and this disqualification must 
 descend in the line of the succession to the latest genera- 
 tion. Under this law, the clergy of the American Episcopal 
 church could not even pass the lines into Canada and exer- 
 cise their offices as bishops, priests, or deacons. If this 
 is not kissing the dust upon which treads the foot of Eng- 
 land's proud monarch, for the sake of " worthless succes- 
 
162 APPENDIX. 
 
 sion," we know not how it can be done. We trust that, by 
 this time, it will be perfectly evident to all how entirely 
 groundless is the assertion of our author, that " neither the 
 Queen nor the Parliament have any authority in spiritual 
 matters; no control over the doctrines, the discipline, or the 
 worship of the church." The Queen, as " supreme head 
 in earth of the English Church," possesses supreme ecclesi- 
 astical authority. 
 
 II. The next subject claiming our attention is involved 
 in certain interrogations put, by our author, to the writer. 
 They are as follows : " But the Rev. Lecturer went on to 
 say that the Episcopal church in this country had no head 
 because there was no king ; evidently implying that if there 
 were, American Episcopalians would make him their head, 
 and turn tories and monarchists. Was this assault on the 
 political sentiments of a religious body warranted by the oc- 
 casion? Is the gentleman willing to stand by it and sustain 
 it with proofs ? Will he undertake to show that Episcopacy 
 has a necessary or even accidental tendency to a despotic 
 form of government V Our answer to these interrogatories is, 
 
 1. We never asserted that the Episcopal church in this 
 country was without a head. We said that " the Episcopal 
 church in this country have concluded to dispense with a 
 king as their supreme earthly head, it not being very con- 
 venient to find one." 
 
 2. We never asserted that Episcopacy tends to mon- 
 archy ; no opinion whatever was expressed upon the subject. 
 The letter of Charles the First was quoted, in which he in- 
 troduces the words of another — " No Bishop, no King ;" but 
 the quotation was made without note or comment, in order 
 to introduce the reply of his tried friends and counsellors to 
 whom it was addressed, so as to make use of that reply to 
 show their sentiments upon the subject of diocesan bishops 
 being necessary to constitute a " true church." But we 
 are perfectly willing to express our opinions fully and fairly 
 
APPENDIX. 163 
 
 upon this subject, and high churchmen are welcome to 
 make all the capital out of it they are able. They shall be 
 expressed in the language of the late learned Dr. Rice of 
 Virginia. He says : " I am represented as injurious for say- 
 ing that high church principles are opposed to the genius of 
 our institutions. It is useless to disclaim, in presence of 
 heated partisans, all intention of doing injury. But if I can 
 fairly prove the soundness of my opinions, the impartial will 
 acquit me of evil intention in giving them utterance. I show 
 no enmity when I tell the truth. Hear then my reasons. 
 The laws of our country secure perfect religious liberty to 
 every citizen ; and all have equal rights. Methodists, Bap- 
 tists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, &,c, all stand 
 on the same level. And the ministers of any one religious de- 
 nomination have, according to the law of the land, the same 
 authority to teach and administer ordinances as those of any 
 other denomination. Marriage celebrated by a dissenter is 
 as valid and as sacred as though the service were performed 
 by an Archbishop. But the high churchmen, to a man, 
 maintain that none have a right to teach or administer ordi- 
 nances save only ministers of their church. Indeed there is 
 no church, there are no true sacraments, no valid adminis- 
 trations but theirs. Now here is a direct opposition. The 
 law of the land says one thing, high churchmen affirm direct- 
 ly the contrary. There is, indeed, a just distinction between 
 civil and ecclesiastical rights ; and the churchman is by no 
 means charged with confounding them. He doubtless knows 
 and admits that, in this country, the men whom he persists 
 in calling dissenters, have a civil right to do what he denies 
 that they are authorized to do by the laws of Christ's 
 church. But this does not destroy the force of the 
 allegation ; because the religious principle, when excited, is 
 the most powerful in human nature ; the interest created by 
 religion is all-absorbing in its influence ; it reaches to all 
 man's relations and concerns ; more than any thing else it 
 
164 APPENDIX. 
 
 comes home to his ' business and bosom.' It is like leaven 
 which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, un- 
 til the whole was leavened. One must be quite ignorant of 
 the history of religion, to deny that it is comparatively easy 
 to persuade a man that any thing is totally and absolutely 
 wrong, which he believes to be opposed to the fundamental 
 principles of his religion. But the quotations made above 
 show that high churchmen regard the particular form of the 
 church as essential to the being of the church. It is in 
 
 FACT A QUESTION OF CHURCH OR No CHURCH ; AND ALL 
 WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH ARE 
 
 under great guilt. The whole body of American Chris- 
 tians belonging to non-episcopal churches are schismatics, 
 and, without any assurance of salvation, are left to uncove- 
 nanted mercies. It is the church ministry and sacraments 
 which render the Scripture sufficient, &c. I ask, then, is 
 not a religious man who has adopted high church principles 
 under the influence of a cause which operates against the 
 American principles of perfect religious liberty ? Let intel- 
 ligent and impartial men judge. It would require more room, 
 I fear, than you could afford, to adduce historical evidence in 
 support of these * reasonings;' for so, with Mr. G.'s leave, 
 pace tanti viri, 1 must call them. Let me only ask, Who 
 supported the courts of high commission and the star cham- 
 ber? Who were the stanch advocates of all the arbitrary 
 measures of the house of Stuart ? Who opposed the glori- 
 ous revolution — but high churchmen ? On the other hand, 
 in all these instances, did not low churchmen and dissenters, 
 as far as politics were concerned, unite heartily and co-op- 
 erate vigorously ? The faithful records of history afford, on 
 this subject, a series of most instructive facts, and warrant 
 the strongest conclusions as to the tendency of high church 
 principles. But while impartial men easily see the truth of 
 these statements, it may not be so obvious to the most re- 
 spectable and intelligent, whose minds are filled with the 
 
APPENDIX 165 
 
 prejudices of education, and excited by the heats of contro- 
 versy ; and unhappily this has long been a subject of contro- 
 versy. How can it be otherwise when high churchmen pro- 
 claim that all the authority of the church is in their hands? 
 But as for us — our ministers, they say, are intruders into the 
 sacred office ; our sacraments invalid ; our hopes unwar- 
 ranted ; and cur meetings schismatical assemblages. In 
 this state of things there will, and there ought to be, con- 
 troversy. The high churchmen will endeavor to support 
 their dignity, and dissenters ought to maintain their rights, 
 and l to stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ has 
 made us free.' Yes, there must be controversy while extra- 
 vagant claims are put in on one side, and the spirit of reli- 
 gious freedom exists on the other. But it may be asked, do 
 not high churchmen declare that the effect of which I speak 
 has not been produced on their minds; and do they not in- 
 dignantly repel the charge made against their principles 1 
 Undoubtedly they do, and, I admit, with the utmost sincerity. 
 The reason is, without any very strong religious feeling, 
 they are, in this country, under the influence of powerful 
 counteracting causes. A man's opinions are the results of 
 all the intellectual forces which bear on his mind. And, in 
 a given case, to form any thing like a correct judgment re- 
 specting the tendency of a particular sentiment, we must 
 know all the circumstances which operate on the under- 
 standing. In the present age, a very great majority of our 
 fellow-citizens are opposed to high church principles. And 
 the current of public opinion in favor of liberty, civil and 
 religious, is irresistible. The balance of the forces which 
 press the mind is, therefore, in favor of the institutions of 
 the country. But who can say that this would be the case, 
 if a majority of the church held high church principles ? In 
 England, notwithstanding many a hard struggle, the act of 
 uniformity was not repealed until England had a Presbyte- 
 rian king, and low churchmen got into power. The ccrpo- 
 
166 APPENDIX. 
 
 ration and test acts could not be abolished until it was done 
 by dissenters and low churchmen. Who would net be 
 sorely unwilling to trust their religious liberty with those 
 who have power, and who sincerely believe that none but 
 themselves are of the true church, or have ecclesiastical au- 
 thority ? I have never said or thought that any of my fel- 
 low-Christians, of any denomination, are, in this age, un- 
 friendly to the institutions of our country ; but I have said, 
 and I do still believe, that high church principles are opposed 
 to the genius of American institutions. And how far the 
 leaven may work, who can pretend to say? The silent, 
 steady, powerful operation of a moral cause, such as that of 
 religion, may, in this modification of it, produce results en- 
 tirely unexpected, and undesired too, by any Christian now 
 living in the United States. If the records of past time af- 
 ford any ground for reasoning as to the future, I feel that I 
 am justified in all that I have written on the subject. And 
 feeling thus, I protest against the inference that I intended 
 to excite odium against any denomination of Christians. I 
 meant to show that particular sentiments, not necessary to 
 constitute a man a genuine Episcopalian, ought to be re- 
 nounced. I meant to do all in my power to insure their re- 
 nunciation; and this, in the full persuasion that the church 
 would flourish more and be better able to do her part in the 
 great work which must be done by American Christians, 
 without these principles, than with them. Believe me, gen- 
 tlemen, all persons of truly liberal minds can believe, that 
 my chief concern as a minister of the gospel is, that the 
 power of Christian truth may be felt, and the blessings of 
 genuine religion may be enjoyed, by all in our own country. 
 But this, I am persuaded, can never be the case while the 
 form and manner in which the truth is communicated is re- 
 garded as equally essential with the truth itself. * In Christ 
 Jesus, neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncir- 
 cumcision, but anew creature.' " The correctness and judi- 
 
APPENDIX, 167 
 
 ciousness of these remarks must be perfectly evident to every 
 unprejudiced and truly republican mind : and here you have, 
 expressed in language at once clear and forcible, the senti- 
 ments of the writer upon this subject. 
 
 III. The third particular which calls for our special no- 
 tice at the present time is, the assertion of our author that 
 the ministerial commission is the principle of unity in the 
 church of God. On page 11 of " Enquiry," &,c, he says, 
 " Now, if these things are so, the inquiry is one of vast im- 
 portance and the deepest interest. Wherein dees unity 
 consist ? What is the principle of unity in the one catholic 
 and Apostolic church? We answer, the ministerial com- 
 mission." Again, page 12 : " The result of the whole, then, 
 is, that the ground cf unity in the church is the ministerial 
 commission, and by necessary consequence, all who violate 
 this create a schism in the vi. ible kingdom of Christ." 
 This is placing the principle of unity where it is most evi- 
 dent the Bible never placed it. It is wonderful how much 
 wiser some divines have become than even the Apostles 
 themselves! The Apostle Paul, writing to the Corin- 
 thians, and wishing to heal those divisions which had ob- 
 tained among them concerning certain ministers, never 
 thought so far as to extol the ministerial commission; but 
 he sank the minister, and magnified the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 1 Cor. i. 10-13 : " Now I beseech you, brethren, by the 
 name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same 
 things, and that there be no divisions among you ; but that 
 ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the 
 same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, 
 my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chlce, 
 that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, 
 every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and 
 I of Cephas, and I of Christ : Is Christ divided ? Was Paul 
 crucified for you \ or were ye baptized in the name of Paul ?" 
 Again, chap. iii. 3-7 : " For ye are carnal ; for, whereas 
 
168 APPENDIX. 
 
 there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye 
 not carnal, and walk as men ? For, while one saith, I am of 
 Paul, and another, I am of Apollos, are ye not carnal ? Who 
 then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye 
 believed, even as the Lord gave to every man ? I have plant- 
 ed, and Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So 
 then, neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that 
 watereth, but God that giveth the increase." How very dif- 
 ferent the Apostle's plan for uniting this church, from what 
 any man of common sense, not to say an inspired individual, 
 would have adopted, provided the ministerial commission is 
 the principle of unity in the church of God. He does not 
 mention the ministerial commission. He sinks the minister, 
 and exalts Christ the Lord. This course he thought the best 
 calculated to heal the differences and difficulties which ex- 
 isted in that church, and to produce unity of feeling and 
 effort. 
 
 There are at least two very serious objections to account- 
 ing the ministerial commission the principle of unity in the 
 church. . 
 
 1. This commission is given to a comparatively small 
 portion of the church. It is given, not to laymen, but to 
 ministers; and can it be possible that the principle of unity 
 in the church is contained in that which belongs — not to the 
 whole church — but to a very small portion of her members ? 
 Such an idea should not for a moment be entertained. 
 
 2. The ministerial commission fails to unite, while that 
 which God has made the principle of unity in his church 
 must, when possessed, bind that church together. Hence 
 the true method of ascertaining in w T hat consists the princi- 
 ple of unity in the church, is, to find what are the graces 
 which unite Christians to each ether, and to Christ their 
 living Head. It was by this method that the old divines 
 came to the conclusion that love to God and the brethren, 
 and a similarity of faith upon all the essentials of Chris- 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 169 
 
 tianity, are the graces which, more than any other, contain 
 the principle of unity in the church of God ; and we strongly 
 suspect that the inspired Apostles were of the same opinion. 
 They never so much as mention the ministerial commission 
 as containing the least uniting power ; but they are continu- 
 ally dwelling upon faith and love, as those graces which 
 possess a uniting, binding force : so that, where they exist, 
 the church is one with Christ, as the branch is united to the 
 vine, or its members to the human body. But this is not 
 the case with the ministerial commission ; where it exists it 
 does not insure union. High churchmen hold that the pa- 
 pists, as well as themselves, possess the ministerial commis- 
 sion. Are they therefore one united church ? Besides, not- 
 withstanding their high pretensions in regard to this com- 
 mission, there are sad divisions in the Episcopal church, 
 both in England and in this country. We know that our 
 author affects surprise that we should have asserted even 
 that there are any differences of opinion in the Episcopal 
 church, upon the divine right of Episcopacy. In his pam- 
 phlet, entitled, " RemarksonMr.Wisner'sfirstLecture," &,c, 
 he says : " He," Mr. Wisner, " stated that there were three 
 parties in the Episcopal church, holding different opinions 
 on the subject of Episcopacy. The first believing it to be 
 a mere point of expediency ; — the second believing it to have 
 divine sanction, but not exclusive ; — the third believing it 
 to be both divine and exclusive of any other form of minis- 
 try. His statement is erroneous in two respects. There 
 are no parties in the Episcopal church on this subject, or on 
 any other. The church is one, from Maine to Georgia ; not 
 a bishop, clergyman, or congregation, that is not in full har- 
 monious union with the whole." In his second pamphlet, 
 entitled, " Remarks on Mr. Wisner's second Lecture," &c, 
 he says : " He," Mr. Wisner, " insisted that there were three 
 parties in the Episcopal church. Can he tell us where, and 
 who they are, and give any definite and tangible description 
 
170 APPENDIX. 
 
 of them ? On what occasion do they manifest themselves — 
 in our general or diocesan conventions, in our congrega- 
 tions, in our Missionary and Bible societies? Has he ever 
 witnessed or heard of a drawn contest on any question be- 
 tween them ? If parties exist, it is easy to say where, and 
 how. Assertions and names will not create them, if they 
 have no actual being. The Rev. gentleman cannot fasten 
 his stigma upon us." What we said upon the subject of 
 different classes in the Episcopal church was, that "the 
 Episcopal church in England, and to a greater or less ex- 
 tent in this country, have ever been divided into three dis- 
 tinct classes upon this subject ; of which, the exclusive-right 
 class are, or if they are not now, have been, until very lately, 
 by far the smallest. The first class are these who believe 
 that the New Testament does not prescribe any particular 
 form of government as binding upon the church, but it was 
 left with her members to adopt such a form as they, under 
 all the circumstances of the case, should deem most expe- 
 dient." We mentioned as belonging to this class, "Arch- 
 bishops Cranmer, Grindal, Whitgift, and Tillotson." To 
 these we added a list of bishops and doctors. To show that 
 we are entirely correct in our statement, we will here quote 
 the opinion of Archbishop Whitgift. In his book against 
 Cartwright, he says : " I confess that, in a church collected 
 together in one place and at liberty, government is neces- 
 sary with the second kind of necessity ; but that any kind 
 of government is so necessary that, without it, the church can- 
 not be saved, or that it may not be altered into some other 
 kind thought to be more expedient, I utterly deny. And the 
 reasons that move me to do so be these : The first is, be- 
 cause T find no one certain and perfect kind of government 
 prescribed or commanded in the Scriptures, to the church 
 of Christ ; which, no doubt, should have been done, if it had 
 been a matter necessary to the salvation of the church. 
 There is no certain kind of government or discipline pre- 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 m 
 
 scribed to the church ; but the same may be altered, as the 
 profit of the churches requires. I do deny that the Scrip- 
 tures do set down anyone certain kind of government in the 
 churches, to be perpetual for all times, places, and persons, 
 without alteration. It is well known that the manner and 
 form of government, used in the Apostolic time, and ex- 
 pressed in the Scripture, neither is now, nor can, nor ought 
 to be, observed ; either touching the persons or the functions. 
 We see manifestly that, in sundry points, the government of 
 the church used in the Apostles' time, is, and hath been of 
 necessity, altered ; and that it neither may, nor can be re- 
 voked. Whereby, it is plain that any one kind of external 
 government, perpetually to be observed, is nowhere in the 
 Scripture prescribed to the church, but the charge thereof is 
 left to the magistrate, so that nothing be done contrary to the 
 word of God. This is the opinion of the best writers; nei- 
 ther do I know any learned man of contrary judgment." 
 This quotation is so plain as to need no comment. The 
 second class, as we stated, " comprises those who believe 
 that Episcopacy was sanctioned by the Apostles, and that 
 it is necessary to the perfection of the church ; but who deny 
 that it is necessary to her existence. These acknowledge 
 other evangelical denominations to be true churches, al- 
 though deprived of the perfect ecclesiastical polity preferred 
 and adopted by the Apostles." We find numbered with this 
 class, among many other distinguished names, Archbishops 
 Usher and Wake; Bishops Hall, Downham, Bancroft, An- 
 drews, Forbes, Chillingworth, Hoadly, &c. To prove the 
 existence of this class we will quote the opinion of Archbish- 
 op Wake. In a letter to Le Clerc of the German school, he 
 says : " I freely embrace the reformed churches, notwith- 
 standing they differ in some respects from that of England. I 
 could wish, indeed, that they had retained the moderate 
 Episcopacy, freed from all unjust domination which obtains 
 among us ; and which, if I have any skill in judging upon this 
 
172 APPENDIX. 
 
 subject, was received in the church from the Apostolic aore. 
 Nor do I despair of its being restored. If I should not see it 
 myself, posterity will. In the mean time, I am far from being 
 so uncharitable as to believe that any of those churches, on 
 account of this defect — for so I must be allowed without in- 
 vidiousness to call it — ought to be cut of from our commu- 
 nion : nor can I by any means join with certain mad writers 
 among us in denying the validity of their sacraments, and in 
 calling in question their right to the name of Christian church- 
 es."' Three things are noticeable, as being perfectly evident 
 from this quotation. 
 
 1. That while Archbishop Whitgift held that " the form 
 of government used in the Apostles' time, and expressed in 
 the Scripture, neither is now, nor can, nor ought to be, 
 observed," Archbishop Wake held, that " moderate episco- 
 pacy," which, he judged, was received in the church from 
 the Apostolic age, should, and would become universal in 
 the churches. He says expressly, " If I should not see it 
 myself, posterity will." 
 
 2. They both agree that the Episcopate is not necessary 
 to the existence of a church, or the validity of sacraments. 
 
 3. There is a class in the English church, whom Arch- 
 bishop Wake calls " mad writers" who deny the validity of 
 the sacraments of other denominations, and question their 
 right to the name of Christian churches. If this dees not 
 prove the existence of three classes in the English church, 
 language can prove nothing. 
 
 To show the existence of three classes in the American 
 church, we quoted Bishop White, of Pennsylvania. He 
 says : " Now if even those who hold Episcopacy to be of 
 divine right, conceive the obligation to it not to be binding, 
 when that idea would be destructive of public worship, 
 much more must they think so who indeed venerate and 
 prefer that form as the most ancient and eligible, but with- 
 out any idea of divine right in the case. This the author 
 
APPENDIX. 173 
 
 believes to be the opinion of the great body of Episcopalians 
 in America," &c. We find mentioned in this extract two 
 classes of Episcopalians. The one, and they by far the 
 largest, denying the divine right of episcopacy, the other 
 holding to its divine right, but admitting that under certain 
 circumstances the obligation to it would cease. Now, if our 
 author will allow, and with his own book before him he can- 
 not deny it, that there are those who hold that episcopacy 
 should not be dispensed with under any circumstances ; that 
 without it there can be no true church, no valid ordinances, 
 no authorized ministry, then we have proved conclusively 
 the existence of these three classes in the American Episco- 
 pal church ; and the reader may perceive the entire ground- 
 lessness of our author's denial of the correctness of our 
 statement upon this subject. 
 
 Our author is not satisfied with denying the existence of 
 tjiese three classes, but he goes farther and asserts, " There 
 are no parties in the Episcopal church on this subject, or 
 any other. The church is one from Maine to Georgia ; not 
 a bishop, clergyman, or congregation that is not in full, 
 harmonious union with the whole." Again : " If parties 
 exist, it is easy to say where and how. Assertions and names 
 will not create them if they have no actual being. The 
 reverend gentleman cannot fasten this stigma upon us,"' 
 And does not our author know that his church is divided 
 into high and low church, into Puseyites and anti-Puseyites? 
 Has he never read some of the writings of his " bishops and 
 other clergy " against the Oxford heresies ? Does he not know 
 that the different parties in the Episcopal church are mar- 
 shalled, and have a warm contest at the election of almost 
 every bishop, and that these divisions frequently manifest 
 themselves in single congregations when they come to choose 
 a rector? Is he ignorant of the fact that the election of 
 Bishop Hobart to the bishoprick in this state gave ri^e to 
 heated controversy? Does he know that, when Bishop On- 
 
 8 
 
174 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 derdonk was elected assistant bishop to Bishop White of 
 Pennsylvania, party lines were drawn, and controversial 
 pamphlets and letters were published by Episcopalians upon 
 the subject? Does our author know that Bishop Mcllvaine 
 has had a " drawn contest" with both the Bishop Onder- 
 donks ? 
 
 To illustrate the wonderful harmony which has always 
 existed in the Episcopal church, we will here introduce a 
 few extracts from various controversial writings. In 1827, 
 the Rev. Benjamin Allen, Rector of St. Paul's Church, 
 Philadelphia, wrote to Bishop Hobart as follows : " In the 
 year 1807 you were desirous of preventing the settlement of 
 a particular clergyman in St. Ann's Church, Brooklyn. 
 That clergyman had dared to differ with you. In the year 
 1811 the Rev. Mr. Jones published a pamphlet, detailing a 
 series of oppositions and persecutions experienced at your 
 hands, because, as he states, ' he would not be subservient 
 to your wishes.' The Rev. Dr. Du Cachet was so opposed 
 by you, when seeking holy orders, that he was obliged to 
 obtain those orders through the medium of another bishop ; 
 and the Rev. Bishop Griswold, for daring to ordain him, 
 was subjected to your serious animadversions." The fact 
 that this letter was occasioned by the controversy concern- 
 ing the election of Bishop Onderdonk, assistant bishep of 
 Pennsylvania, and that the party opposed charged Bishop 
 Hobart with interfering to secure the election of Bishep 
 Onderdonk, will sufficiently explain the following extracts. 
 " In my inmost soul I do honestly believe you (Bishop Ho- 
 bart) to be the worst enemy of the liturgy, the greatest 
 opponent to the spread of Episcopacy, and the certain 
 author of entire ruin to our church, if your policy pre- 
 vail. In every portion of the United States I have seen 
 and heard discontent and dissatisfaction concerning you. 
 You are entitled * the Talleyrand,' ' the would-be arch- 
 bishop,' and every other name which can indicate the ex- 
 

 APPENDIX. 175 
 
 istence of a feeling which regards you as ambitious, inter- 
 meddling, and determined to obtain power. Hardly a dio- 
 cese is there, which does not expect it must ask your per- 
 mission, as to who shall be bishop. Scarce a religious in- 
 stitution but beholds you with dread. Again I repeat, you 
 are unarmed with the civil power. Are not your notions, 
 however, dangerous? Because our ears are safe, and you 
 cannot touch any thing more than our characters, are we 
 therefore to be content V* Once more : " Are not your 
 sentiments concerning other denominations, giving them 
 over to the nncovenanted mercies of God, altogether con- 
 trary to those of Bishop White, declared by him to be coun- 
 ter to the formularies of the church of England, and con- 
 trary to those of the reformers ? Were they not condemned 
 by the House of Bishops in the reign of Queen Ann, as 
 'strange conceits?' Are they not precisely those, as to 
 matters of church, held by the Jacobites or friends of the 
 pretender, and again by the tories? Are they not senti- 
 ments opposed to the whole of the policy, of the whole of 
 the life, of the presiding bishop ? You (Bishop Hobart) are 
 opposed, in your doctrines and views of polity, to the views 
 of the church of England, of the Protestant Episcopal church 
 in America, of the senior bishop of that church, of the re- 
 formers, of the noble army of martyrs, of the primitive 
 church, of the glorious company of Apostles, of the word of 
 the most high God ; and this I mean to prove by a fair re- 
 ference to your writings and doings, during the whole of 
 your ecclesiastical career." In a pamphlet published in 
 Philadelphia in 1827, upon the same controversy, entitled, 
 " Review of the answer to the remonstrance sent to the 
 bishop of the Protestant Episcopal church," we find the fol- 
 lowing : " Where is the concord in sentiment between these 
 gentlemen? (Bishop White and Dr. Onderdonk.) The 
 former, during a life which has been fruitful in incident, 
 which has witnessed every form of popular prejudice, which 
 
176 APPENDIX. 
 
 has passed through scenes of civil revolution, has not, dur- 
 ing the whole lapse of his fourscore years, outraged the 
 feelings of other denominations to so great an extent, as the 
 latter has done by a solitary act — an act, the index of his 
 career. Let any one read the expression of sentiments by 
 Bishop White, whether in the pamphlets of '83, or the 
 Chronicle of the Episcopal church, published in 1820, and 
 compare them with the ultra opinions of the doctor. Be- 
 hold the former, surrounded in his study by the representa- 
 tives of every Christian communion, guiding the sacramental 
 host to the Godlike work of dispensing the Bible to every 
 cottage in the land. Then read what the latter says 
 about such a union. Is the former to descend from this 
 moral elevation ? Are these bonds to be riven by views not 
 recognized by the church of England, the Protestant Epis- 
 copal church of America, or the inspired Volume 1 Is the 
 bishop to say to those with whom he walked in brotherly 
 agreement fourscore years — over whose general institutions 
 he has presided in harmony, &>c, — ' I have learned that you 
 have no part in the gospel covenant V While just on the 
 verge of the Jordan of death, is he to shake hands and part 
 with those with whom he has reached that verge in concord ? 
 Is he to tell them you are no portion of the flock of the 
 Lord ? You will find mercy, doubtless ; but there is no 
 covenanted mercy for you ! Will Bishop White do this ? 
 NevePv ! " From these extracts, the hearer may judge to 
 what a height party feeling and effort ran on the subject of 
 the election of Bishop Onderdonk, as assistant bishop of 
 Pennsylvania; and yet our author asserts, " There are no 
 parties in the Episcopal church, on this subject or any other. 
 The church is one from Maine to Georgia; not a bishop, 
 clergyman, or congregation, that is not in full, harmonious 
 union with the whole." 
 
 In conclusion, we will quote a few extracts from a letter 
 of Bishop Mcllvaine of Ohio, dated Gambier, March 6, 1841 : 
 
APPENDIX, ITT 
 
 and directed to Dr. Seabury, the editor of the Churchman. It 
 was published in the Episcopal Recorder, and introduced by 
 the editor of that paper, with the following remarks: " Our 
 readers may be grieved with ourselves, to see and know the 
 necessity for such a communication as the following from 
 Bishop Mcllvaine. We are sorry to have our paper occupied 
 with evidences of such a state of things in the church, as are 
 given in these letters. The unholy and violent course which 
 has been pursued by the Churchman, and we are bound to 
 say sanctioned, because unrestrained and uncontradicted by 
 Bishop Onderdonk, has given pain and distress to many 
 minds who are deeply concerned for the peace and welfare 
 of the Episcopal church. We do not feel at liberty to re- 
 fuse Bishop Mcllvaine the opportunity of self-defence in our 
 columns, as he has been so unjustly assailed. But we feel 
 called upon to do no more, in connection with these discus- 
 sions, than to express our solemn conviction of the destruc- 
 tive and guilty character and tendency of the course which 
 has called for such a defence. The church will see, when 
 ruptured and riven by the violence of this party, her peace 
 destroyed, her truth overshadowed, her integrity broken, 
 what has been the purpose of these movements on their part. 
 To us it will be, then, as it is now, an abiding comfort that 
 we labored for peace and truth ; and the responsibility of 
 the result may rest where it belongs, on an ultra party ; 
 who, by a bold and arbitrary course of denunciation of the 
 men and of the truth of God, have thrown a peaceful body 
 into convulsions and schisms. " 
 
 " Bishop Mcllvaine to the Editor of the Churchman. — I 
 ask no other answer to your charge of ' almost heresy/ than 
 that those who read what you have written will also read 
 what I have written. But why, then, am I so pained and 
 mortified ? Is it because such treatment and such opposi- 
 tion from you, were unexpected 1 Alas, Dr. Seabury, I 
 have known you too long and too well, not to know just how 
 
178 APPENDIX. 
 
 such truth — even what, in my view, is no other than ' the 
 glorious gospel of the blessed God' — would be relished by 
 you. I knew you would utterly despise, detest, and ridicule 
 it, just as you have done ; and I have no idea that you have 
 expressed all you feel with regard to it. Your hatred of 
 such truth is, I have no doubt, even much greater than you 
 have expressed. I say it feelingly, and solemnly; for I know 
 the awfulness of such a state of mind ; and if I supposed you 
 would deny it, were it not that I suppose you wish to be 
 considered as in that state of mind, I would not thus lay it to 
 your charge. But, as long as I thus understand the views 
 and tastes which you avow, let me tell you seriously (not in 
 the spirit of severity) that until there shall be reason to sup- 
 pose that God has wrought a great, and what I should call a 
 very blessed, change in your views, and tastes, and sympa- 
 thies, when I shall publish any thing distinctive concerning 
 the great matters of the gospel, especially, as to what a poor 
 sinner must do to be saved, I shall feel much more confident 
 that ' I speak the truth as it is in Jesus,' if I find you loath- 
 ing it, as you do my Charge, than if I find you praising it. 
 But let us ask, again, why does your treatment so pain and 
 mortify me ? I answer, because of the painful consideration 
 that the Churchman is so widely regarded as representing 
 the clergy of the diocese of New York, and especially be- 
 cause it is ' the official organ of the Bishop of New York, 
 and is under his avowed general direction and supervision,' 
 and therefore where it calls my charge ' almost heretical,' 
 it is the bishop of New York whom the bishop of Ohio must 
 consider as thus speaking ; and where it ridicules the writ- 
 ing of the bishop of Ohio as ' mere romance,' ' not even 
 founded on fact,' and as the work of a writer ' incompe- 
 tent/ and as containing ' a perversion of historical truth/ 
 it is not merely Dr. Seabury who is responsible, but his en- 
 dorser and patron, and director and superior, his protector 
 in these things. It is the bishop of New York, who is just 
 
APPENDIX. 179 
 
 so much the more responsible for these expressions and 
 charges, as his influence in giving them weight was greater, 
 and so will he be held by the church, as well as by myself. 
 However you may have meant it, when you place me in the 
 company of Whitfield, Wesley, Newton, Scott, and Simeon, 
 I by no means decline the honor. However I may differ 
 from them in some things, I love and honor the whole group, 
 and especially Newton, Scott, and Simeon, as noble soldiers 
 of Jesus Christ; and God forbid that I should not feel hon- 
 ored by such ridicule as places me by their side. Your 
 charge against me of perverting historical truth, and of hav- 
 ing made the ' marvellous assertion ' that Bishop Bull in- 
 oculated so many of the best divines of the English and 
 American churches, down to Dehon and Hobart, with the 
 views of Socinianism, will be noticed in another letter. 
 Meanwhile, I am yours truly, 
 
 " C. P. McIlvaine." 
 
 This looks very much like there being " no parties in 
 the Episcopal Church on this subject or any other " — like 
 " the church being one from Maine to Georgia ; not a Bishop, 
 Clergyman, or Congregation, that is not in full, harmonious 
 union with the whole." Besides these testimonies, is our 
 author uninformed of the fact, that the friends of Oxford, 
 and those who are opposed to the papal dogmas of that 
 school, are marshalling their forces for a great and decisive 
 battle, both in the old world and the new ?* Can it be pos- 
 sible that our author is entirely ignorant of these matters, or 
 does he suppose that he has to deal with an infant or an 
 idiot, and may make bold assertions which have no founda- 
 tion in fact, without having them exposed and corrected ? 
 
 * The reader will bear in mind that this paper was prepared be- 
 fore the ordination of Mr. Arthur Carey by Bishop Onderdonk, and 
 of course before the occurrence of the dissensions growing out of 
 that event. 
 
180 APPENDIX. 
 
 In conclusion we would ask, Is it not abundantly evident 
 that the ministerial commission cannot contain the principle 
 of Unity in the church of God, when the very denomination 
 who make such high pretensions, in regard to this commis- 
 sion, are so far from being a united body? The truth is, 
 those graces which unite the church, are similarity of faith 
 in all the essentials of Christianity , and love to God and the 
 brethren. Where these exist, there will be, there must be, 
 union. The Lord grant that these graces may become uni- 
 versal, for his name's sake ! 
 
Yd 29207 
 
 
 B 1/ 
 
 fid 6? q, 1 o 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY